si'.':; '■')■
W:
■JUV;
J
ijiHiijl^LL
< ^.
rE"
t
.A?<\^'?.^.v\«*'\v\o
"Hn
Given By
TT. <^, 5^T7PT OFDOrTTT^/nRNTf;
3^
^ , -stents Department
^flnlostisation'- is ^
lKm*"
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
HEARINGS T^^-T?-
BEFORE A *** •MatmmAay
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-FIRST CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
PUKSUANT TO
S. Res. 231
A RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THERE ARE
EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT
DISLOYAL TO THE UNITED STATES
PART 1
MARCH 8, 9, 13, 14, 20, 21, 27, 28, APRIL 5, 6, 20, 25, 27, 28,
MAY 1, 2, 3, 4, 26, 31, JUNE 5, 6. 7, 8, 9, 12, 21, 22, 23, 26, 28, 1950
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OE THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
^ UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-FIRST CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
PURSUANT TO
S. Res. 231
A RESOLUTION TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THERE ARE
EMPLOYEES IN THE STATE DEPARTMENT
DISLOYAL^TO THE UNITED STATES
PART 1
MARCH 8, 9, 13, 14, 20, 21, 27, 28, APRIL 5, 6. 20, 25, 27, 28,
MAY 1, 2, 3. 4, 26, 31, JUNE 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 21, 22, 23, 26, 28, 1950
Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68970 WASHINGTON : 1950
fff^&h
U. S. SUPER1NT€NDENT OF DOCUMENTS
JUL 251950
■A¥-
I
Hi-. 4-/1 1 ■fC
fit. I
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS
TOM CONNALLY, Texas, Chairman
WALTER F. GEORGE, Georgia ARTHUR H. VANDENBERG, Michigan
ELBERT D. THOMAS, Utali ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin
MILLARD E. TYDINGS, Maryland H. ALEXANDER SMITH, New Jersey
CLAUDE PEPPER, Florida BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER, Iowa
THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN, Rhode Island HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR., Massachusetts
BRIEN McMAHON, Couuocticut
J. W. FULBRIGHT, Arkansas
FRANCIS O. WILCOX, Chief of Staff
C. C. O'DAY, Clerk
Subcommittee on Senate Resolution 231
MILLARD E. TYDINGS, Maryland, Chairman
THEODORE FRANCIS GREEN, Rhode Island BOURKE B. HICKENLOOPER, Iowa
BRIEN McMAHON, Connecticut HENRY CABOT LODGE, JR., Massachusetts
Edward P. jMougan', Chief Counsel
ROBERT L. Heald, Assistant Counsel Robert Morris, Assistant Counsel
William J. Klima, Assistant Counsel Lyon l. Tyler, Jr, Assistant Counsel
MARGARET B. BuCHHOLz, Subcommittee Clerk
11
CONTENTS
Testimony of — I'as®
Bielaski, Frank Brooks, president of the Research and Security
Corporation, New York City 923-967
Bess, Demaree, associate editor of the Saturday Evening Post 796-797
Browder, Earl Russell 669-707
Brunauer, Esther Caukin, Assistant Director for Policv Liaison,
UNESCO Relations Staff, State Department ' 293-314
Budenz, Louis Francis, assistant professor of economics at Fordham
University 487-558
Dodd, Dr. Bella V., attorney, New York City 631-659
Field, Frederick Vanderbilt 709-735
Ford, Peyton, assistant to the Attorney General 1054
Hanson, Haldore, chief of technical cooperation projects staff. State
Department 341-371, 1179-1180
Heald, Robert L., assistant counsel, Foreign Relations Subcommittee. 1206-
1207
Hitchcock, Robert M., attorney, Buffalo, N. Y 1001-1051
Holmes, Gen. Julius C, Foreign Service officer, assigned as Minister, in
London 1 165-1 1 78
Hoover, J. Edgar, Director, Federal Bureau of Livestigation 326-339
Jaffe, Philip J., former editor of Amerasia magazine 1213-1227
Jessup, Philip C, Ambassador at Large, State Department 215-275
Kenyon, Dorothy, attorney. New York City 176-214
Kerley, Larry E., reporter, New York Journal American 660-667
Ladd, D. Milton, assistant to the Director, Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation 1053- 1 074
Larsen, Emmanuel S., former employee of State Department 1075-
1123, 1125-1164
Lattimore, Owen, director of the Walter Hines Page School of Inter-
national Relations at Johns Hopkins Universitv 417-
486, 799-871, 873-921
McCarthy, Senator Joseph R 1-32, 33-72, 73-108, 109-175, 277-292
McGrath, J. Howard, the Attorney General 315-326
Mclnernev, James AI., Assistant Attorney General in Charge of the
Criminal Division, Department of Justice- 971-999, 1001-1051, 1053-1074
Morris, Robert, assistant counsel. Foreign Relations Subcommittee _ 967-970
Nichols, L. B., Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation. _ 1053-
1074
Nicholson, Donald L., Chief of the Division of Security, State Depart-
ment 373-390
Peurifov, John E., Deputy Under Secretary of State, in Charge of
Administration " 1229-1256
Richardson, Seth W., Chairman, Civil Service Loyalty Review Board. 405-
416
Service, John S., Foreign Service officer. State Department 1257-
1349, 1351-1390, 1391-1453
Snow, Gen. Conrad E., Chairman, Loyalty and Security Board, State
Department 391-404
Thorpe, Brig. Gen. Elliott R., United States Army, retired 558-568
Tvler, Lvon L., Jr., assistant counsel. Foreign Relations Subcom-
"mitteel 1206-1210
Utley, Freda, author 737-796
Van Beuren, Archbold, former Director of Security, OSS 1185-1206
Vardaman, James K., member of Federal Reserve Board 1181-1184
III
IV
CONTENTS
SCHEDULE OF EXHIBITS
Number and summary of exhibits
Intro-
duced at
page-
Appears
on
page—
1. Protest in Daily Worker, Veterans of Abraham Lincoln Brigade
2. Letterhead, National Council of American-Soviet Friendship,
Inc
3. This exhibit was not received by reporter but was described by
Senator McCarthy as "a cordial invitation to attend a dinner
and presentation of the first annual award of the American-
Russian Institute to President Franklin Roosevelt for
'Furthering American-Soviet Relations' " (transcript, p. 26).
4. Letterhead, Conference on Pan-American Democracy
5. Letterhead, Political Prisoners Bail Fund Committee
6. Open letter to the New York Times, Schappes Defense Com-
mittee
7. Daily Worker, February 10, 1938, Isaac's Stand on Gerson
8. Letterhead, League of Women Shoppers
9. Letterhead, American Committee for Anti-Nazi Literature
10. Letterhead and Attachment, American Committee for Democ-
racy and Intellectual Freedom
11. Letterhead, Citizens Committee to Aid Striking Seamen
12. Letterhead, Film Audiences for Democracy
13. List of officers and advertising board of Films for Democracy, _
14. Program, Greater New York Emergency Conference on Inali-
enable Rights
15. Open letter to the New York Times supporting Communist
cause in Spain
16. Letterhead, Lawyers Committee on American Relations with
Spain
17. Letterhead, Milk-Consumers Protective Committee
18. Statement of Senator McCarthy on Haldore Hanson
19. State Department departmental announcement No. 41
20. McCarthy's statement on Esther Caukin Brunauer
21. Program of Washington meeting of the American Friends of
the Soviet Union
22. Call of the American Youth Congress in 1938
23. The American Union for Concerted Peace Efforts
24. The New York Times' release on The American Union for
Concerted Peace Efforts
25. Proceedings Congress of Youth
26. Senator McCarthy's statement on Owen Lattimore
27. Letterhead of Amerasia magazine
28. Times Herald of June 6, 1946, How Come by Frank C. Wal-
drop
29. Invitation for Membership, Institute of Pacific Relations
30. Program, National Emergency Conference for Democratic
Rights.
31. Writers Congress, 1943 program and list
32. Senator McCarthy's statement on Gustavo Duran
33. Spruille Braden's letter, dated Habana, December 21, 1943-
34. Intelligence report by Edward J. Ruff
35. Senator McCarthy's statement on John S. Service
36. Letterhead, Testimonial to Ellis Island Hunger Strikers
37. Letterhead, China Aid Counsel of American League for Peace
and Democracy
38. Letterhead, African Aid Committee
39. Call to a national conference on American policy in China
and the Far East
40. Summons to a congress on Civil Rights
41. Statement of American educators
42. Invitation to a dinner for Henrv A. Wallace in New York,
Sept. 12, 1949 1
43. Statement callinLf for reinstatement of L^niversity of Wash-
ington professors
18
20
71
71
72
72
75
75
83
83
86
91
91
91
92
92
93
100
103
104
110
120
122
1.30
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
144
1485
1486
26
1487
31
1487
66
1488
67
1488
69
1493
70
1494
71
1495
71
1495
71
1498
71
1499
71
1499
1500
1504
1506
1507
1508
1512
1514
1514
1515
1518
1519
1520
1523
1532
1532
1534
1535
1536
1542
1548
1548
1549
144
145
145
147
1.50
154
157
159
CONTENTS
SCHEDULE OF EXHIBITS— Continued
Number and summary of exhibits
Intro-
duced at
page-
Appears
on
page —
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.,
75.
76.
77.
78.
Advertisement for Culture and the Crisis, League of Profes-
sional Groups for Foster and Ford
List of oflk'crs and members of the National Citizens Political
.\etion Committee -.^
Daily Worker, Apr. 16, 1947, Notables Defend Communists'
Rights
Press release of National Wallace-for- President Committee _-
The text of an open letter calling for greater unity of the
ant i-Fascist forces
Clipping from Daily News, Feb. 14, 1940, Plot To Wreck
Labor Party Exposed
Dorothy Kenvon's letter to Alex Rose, State secretary, Ameri-
can Labor Party, dated Oct. 10, 1939 1
New York Times, May 26, 1941, open letter to President
Committee To Defend America by Aiding the Allies
Voice of America radio monitor of Russian broadcasting,
Russia Has Freest Women On Earth
Letter in New York Times, Feb. 16, 1946, Columbia Professors
Ask Declaration To Aid UNO Commission
Dr. Jessup's letter, ]Mar. 24, 1950, with attached list of in-
diyiduals at round table discussion in Department of State,
Oct. 6, 7, and 8, 1949
List of Esther Caukin Brunauer's publications
E.sther Caukin Brunauer presents testimonial letters
Letter from American Association of University Women to
Senator Tydings
Statenient of duties of Haldore Hanson with the Department
of State 1942 to date
Text of Hanson letter to Senator Tydings, Mar. 24, 1950
Chart, Chain of command for personnel security
Chart, enforcing the President's loyalty program
Chart, screening civil-service applicants (since October 1947).
Chart, screening non-civil-service and Foreign Service appli-
cants
Chart, eliminating security risks
Chart, composition of Loyalty and Security Board, Depart-
ment of State
Chart, State Department Loyalty and Security Board, pro-
cedures for handling cases
Biographical notes on members of State Department Loj^alty
Board
Letter to President Roosevelt from Chiang Kai-shek, Jan. 12,
1942, re: Owen Lattimore
Minutes of fourth meeting of Arctic Research Laboratory
Advisory Board, May 17, 18, 19, 1949 1_
An analysis of ;\Ir. Alfred E. Kohlberg's charges against the
Institute of Pacific Relations
Comparison of McCarthy's and Kohlberg's charges
Program, a Conference on Democratic Rights, June 14, 15,
^ 1940, at Bahimore, Md
Excerpts from letters and telegrams from scholars with a pro-
fessional knowledge of Owen Lattimore 's work
.Disaster in China by James F. Kearney, Columbia, Septem-
ber 1949
China's Communists Told Me by Philip J. Jaffe, October 12,
1937
China's Part in the Coalition War by T. A. Bisson, June 7,
1944
Draft of Louis F. Budenz' article for Collier's magazine
Daily Worker, April 29, 1949, Situation in Asia, by Owen
Lattimore
144
144
144
144
144
177
183
184
187
268
293
297
299
311
371
371
375
370
378
381
382
383
383
392
422
423
425
425
432
437
499
499
499
508
521
160
160
165
166
167
1555
1557
1558
1560
1561
1561
1562
1563
1582
1584
1587
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
1594
1595
1596
1602
1603
1612
1641
1646
1648
1660
1665
1670
1677
1683
VI
CONTENTS
SCHEDULE OP EXHIBITS— Continued
Number and summary of exhibits
Intro-
duced at
page-
Appears
on
page—
79. Group of testimonial letters re Dr. Dodd
80. New York Herald Tribune, Double Trouble in Asia
81. Letter to Senator Tydings from Demaree Bess, April 7, 1950_
82. Telegram from Edith Chamberlain Field to Mr. Abe Fortas,
April 26, 1950
83. Transcript of hearing re John Santo
84. List of contributors to Pacific Affairs March 1934 to June 1941 _
85. Signers of letters from people who know Owen Lattimore's
work
86. Minutes of meeting of Fighting Funds for Finland, Inc. Feb-
ruary 20, 1940
87. Quotations from Owen Lattimore's writings
88. Attack on Owen Lattimore in Communist Press, April 1949- -
89. Emmanuel S. Larsen's draft of Plain Talk Article
90. Brooks Atkinson's article in New York Times, October 31,
1944
636
763
797
803
812
817
825
832
880
881
1118
1290
1685
1689
1689
1691
1691
1725
1730
1733
1734
1735
1739
1753
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
Page
Letter to Hon. Millard E. Tydings from Austin W. Wood, vice president
and general manager of the News Publishing Co., Wheeling, W. Va.,
dated March 25, 1950, relative to newspaper account of Wheeling speech
of Senator McCarthy 1756
Clippings from the Wheeling (W. Va.) Intelligencer, Friday, February 10,
1950, concerning McCarthy's charges that Reds Hold United States
Jobs ■ 1756
Clipping from the Nevada State Journal (Reno, Nev.) February 12, 1950,
McCarthy Blasts State Department 1757
Affidavit of Paul A. Myers, as program director of radio station WWVA
dated April 25, 1950, relative to tape recording of Wheeling speech of
Senator McCarthy 1 758
Tape recording of Senator Joseph McCarthy's speech given on February 9,
1950, at Wheeling, W. Va 1759
Affidavit of James K. Whitaker, as news editor of radio station WWVA
dated April 25, 1950, relative to tape recording of Wheeling speech of
Senator McCarthy 1763
Tape recording of Senator McCarthy's speech given on February 9, 1950, at
Wlieehng, W. Va 1763
Subpena to Dean H. Acheson, Secretary of State, Department of State, to
appear before the subcommittee established by the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the United States on April 4, 1950, at 10:30 a. m__ 1767
Subpena to J. Howard McGrath, Attorney General, to appear before the
subcommittee established bv the Committee on Foreign Relations of the
United States on April 4, 1950, ab 10:30 a. m 1768
Subpena to Harry B. Mitchell, Chairman, Civil Service Commission, to
appear before the subcommittee established by the Committee on
Foreign Relations of the United States on April 4, 1950, at 10:30 a. m__ 1769
Letter to Hon. Millard E. Tydings from Peyton Ford, Deputy Attorney
General, dated June 16, 1950, contained list of State Department files
made available to the subcommittee 1770
Memoranda concerning data extracted from the State Department loyalty
files relative to 108 individuals. These memoranda were prepared in
1947 by investigators for a subcommittee of the House Committee on
Appropriations of the Eightieth Congress. These individuals are
identified only by numbers 1771
Employment data on persons mentioned by Senator McCarthy during
appearances before the subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee and on the floor of the Senate 1813
CONTENTS VII
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA— Continued
Page
Letter to Hon. Millard Tydings from John E. Peurifoy, Deputy Under
Secretary, dated June 19, 1950, enclosing the following State Depart-
ment press releases, which are set out in full thereafter 1818
Press release No. 491, May 12, 1950, State Department analysis of
Senator McCarthy's speech to the American Society of Newspaper
Editors " 1818
Press release No. 501, May 15, 1950. State. Department's analysis of
Senator McCarthy's speech at Atlantic City 1825
Press release No. 529, May 20, 1950. State Department's analysis of
Senator McCarthy's speech at Chicago 1826
Press release No. 549, May 25, 1950. State Department's analysis of some
of the factual inaccuracies in the speech delivered by Senator Joseph R.
McCarthy at Atlantic City, May 15, 1950, to the Sons of the American
Revolution 1834
Press release No. 553, INIay 2G, 1950. State Department's comment on
Senator McCarthy's speech at Rochester, N. Y 1840
Press release No. 558, May 27, 1950. Department of State's analysis of
some of the factual inaccuracies in the speech delivered by Senator
Joseph R. McCarthy at Rochester, N. Y., on May 25, 1950, to the
National Convention of the Catholic Press Association of the United
States 1841
Press release No. 614, June 9, 1950. Department of State's comment on
Senator ^McCarthy's statement that a i^hotostat he produced on the
Senate floor June 6, constituted proof that three men individually listed
by the FBI as Communist agents in 1946 are still working in the De-
partment 1845
Memorandum No. 19, September 21, 1948 — to all executive departments and
agencies from Seth W. Richardson, Chairman, Loyalty Review Board.
Subject: Classification according to section 3, part III, of E. O. 9835 of
organizations previously designated by the Attorney General as within
the purview of the Executive order 1848
Memorandum No. 43, April 25, 1949 — to all executive departments and
agencies from Seth W. Richardson, Chairman, Loyalty Review Board.
Subject: Attorney General's letter of April 21, 1949, listing additional
organizations designated under and classified in accordance with section 3,
part III of Executive Order 9835 1851
Memorandum No. 44, July 21, 1949 — to all executive departments and
agencies from Seth W. Richardson, Chairman, Loyalty Review Board.
Subject: Certain organizations and groups connected with organizations
previouslv designated and classified by the Attorney General under sec-
tion 3, part III of Executive Order 9835 1853
Memorandum No. 49, September 27, 1949— to all executive departments
and agencies from Seth W. Richardson, Chairman, Loyalty Review
Board. Subject: Attorney General's letter of September 26, 1949, con-
cerning change in name of an organization designated and classified
under section 3, part III of Executive Order 9835 1853
Letter to Robert L. Heald, assistant counsel, Foreign Relations Subcom-
mittee, from Conrad E. Snow, Chairman, Loyalty Security Board, dated
June 23, 1950, setting out current statistics on loyalty program 1854
Letter to Hon. Millard E. Tydings from Stephen Brunauer, dated May 8,
1950. Enclosed was (1) a statement which Brunauer wrote about him-
self; and (2) a file of testimonial letters— with a copy of his request for
the letters; and (3) a copy of the statement about Brunauer w^hich was
released by the Navv Department on March 13, 1950 1855
Letter to Hon. Millard Tydings from John E. Peurifoy, Deputy Under
Secretary, dated July 6, 1950, relative to appointment of Dr. Harlow
Shapley' 1864
Letter to Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel. Senate Foreign Relations Sub-
committee, from Gustavo Duran, enclosing an affidavit dated May 10,
1950 1865
Letter to Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel, Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee, from Harlow Shapley, dated May 9, 1950, enclosing copies
of two statements issued publicly by him, dated April 7 and 22, 1950 — 1870
Letter to Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel, Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee, from Frederick L. Schuman dated May 9, 1950 1873
VIII CONTENTS
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA— Continued
Page
Letter to Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel, Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee, from Mary Jane Keeney, dated May 15, 1950 1874
Two letters to Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel, Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Subcommittee, from Loviis Francis Budenz dated May 3 and 5,
1950 1874
Letter to Hon. Millard E. Tydings from Peyton Ford, Deputy Attorney
General dated June 22, 1950, relative to Father Kearney 1876
Letter to Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel. Senate Foreign Relations Sub-
committee, from James M. Mclnerney, Assistant Attorney General,
dated May 26, 1950, relative to testimony of Mr. Budenz 1876
Letter to Hon. Millard E. Tydings from CarHsle H. Humelsine, Acting
Deputy Under Secretary, dated July 3, 1950, relative to Mr. Haldore
Hanson 1877
Letter to Hon. Millard E. Tydings from W. L. Holland dated April 15,
1950, enclosing alphabetical list of names of the people that signed a
statement concerning Owen Lattimore's character, loyalty, etc 1877
Letter to Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel, Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee, from Paul A. Porter, dated May 11, 1950, enclosing
copies of Owen Lattimore's correspondence to the Soviet Ambassador
and the Chief of State of the Mongolian People's Republic in 1947, as
well as copies of correspondence with Dr. Walther Heissig 1879
Letter to Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel, Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee, from Adrian S. Fisher, the legal adviser of the Depart-
ment of State dated June 22, 1950, concerning the part of the State
Department had in financing three Mongolian scholars at Johns Hopkins
University, enclosing copy of the contract of agreement between United
States and Johns Hopkins University 1892
Letter from Department of Justice to Senator Tydings concerning affidavits
turned over to the FBI by Senator McCarthy 1895
Material inserted in the record at the request of Mrs. Freda Utley 1897
Chronology of events furnished the Senate Foreign Relations Subcom-
mittee by Mr. Charles Edward Rhetts, attorney for John S. Service 1902
Two letters to Hon. Millard E. Tydings from C. E. Rhetts, attorney for
John S. Service, dated June 27, 1950, concerning press item on Admiral
Nimitz and information relative to statements of General Hurley 1905
A carbon copy of the memorandum, The Stilwell Affair and Hurley's
Appointment, recovered in the offices of Amerasia 1912
Letter to Hon. Millard E. Tydings from Peyton Ford, Deputy Attorney
General, dated June 19, 1950, stating that the document referred to by
Senator McCarthy on June 7, 1950, was not prepared by the FBI 1913
Letter to Hon. Millard E. Tydings from John E. Peurifoy, Deputy Under
Secretary dated June 28, 1950, enclosing copies of the Department's
press releases of June 6 and June 9, 1950 1914
Letter to Hon. James E. Webb, Under Secretary of State, from John Edgar
Hoover, Director, FBI, dated June 14, 1950, wherein Mr. Hoover stated
that the comments made by Mr. Samuel Klaus, of Mr. Webb's Depart-
ment, in his report concerning the alleged FBI chart as appeared in the
newspapers, were completely erroneous 1915
Letter to Hon. Millard E. Tydings from Peyton Ford, Deputy Attorney
General dated June 13, 1950, giving information as to the dates of
various searches made by the agents of FBI of the offices of Amerasia
and the residences of the subjects in the case 1915
Office memorandum to Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, from
D. M. Ladd, dated April 18, 1945, relative to FBI conferences with the
State and Navy Departments on the Amerasia Case 1916
Letter to Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel, Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee, from Mathias F. Correa dated June 13, 1950, on behalf
of the executors of the estate, submitting a photographic copy of a
portion of Mr. Forrestal's personal papers together with an affidavit
of Eugene S. Duffield who has custody of various of Mr. Forrestal's
personal papers at the present time 1916
The staff of the subcommittee submitted memoranda on interviews with
the following persons: Joseph W. Ballentine (May 19, 1950), Robert
Bannerman (May 22, 1950), William J. Donovan (May 25, 1950),
Frederick B. Lyon (May 17, 1950) and Judge Proctor (May 10, 1950) __ 1917
Information developed by the staff of the subcommittee on persons
believed to be Washington contacts of Philip Jacob Jaffe 1920
CONTENTS rX
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA— Continued
Page
Letter to lion. Millard E. Tydings from Francis P. Matthews, Department
of Navy, dated June 26, i95(), relative to Lt. Andrew Roth 1923
Letter to Hon. Millard E. Tydings from Peyton Ford, the assistant to the
Attorney General, dated May 16, 1950, stating that a copy of the
transcript of grand jury proceedings in the case United States v. Philip J.
Jaffe would be available to the Subcommittee at the Department of
Justice 1 924
Letter to Millard E. Tydings from James M. Mclnerney, Department of
Justice, dated May 10, 1950, enclosing a photostatic copy of the De-
murrer, motion to quash, and motion to suppre.ss evidence also a news-
))apor article which appeared in the September 28, 1945 issue of the
Evening Star entitled ''Larsen Charges FBI Made Illegal Search of
Home for United States Files" 1924
A certified record of official court reporter of proceedings before Justice
Proctor on September 29, 1945, Case of Lnited States v. Philip Jacob
Jaffe 1933
A certified record of official court reporter of proceedings before Justice
Proctor on November 2, 1945, Case of United States v. Emtnanuel S.
Larsen 1937
Letter to Hon. Millard E. Tydings from Peyton Ford, Deputy Attorney
General, dated June 19, 1950, relative to corporate status of Amerasia.. 1939
Letter to ]\Ir. James J. Mclnerney, Assistant Attorney General, from Rev.
Robert C. Hartnett, S. J., Editor of America, dated June 26, 1950,
enclosing a clipping of Mr. Mclnerney's letter as it appeared in America
for July 1, in regard to documents in the Amerasia case 1940
Letter to Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel. Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee from James M. Mclnerney, Assistant Attorney General,
dated June 29, 1950, enclosing a mimeographed copy of the presentment
returned and filed by the special grand jury in the southern district of
New York on June 15, 1950 1 1941
Medical certificate from Luke Berardi, M. D., of Mount Vernon, N. Y.,
dated May 12, 1950, relative to John Huber 1945
Letter to Hon. Millard E. Tydings from William Foster, Acting Adminis-
trator, ECA, concerning Theodore Geiger's loyalty, dated July 5, 1950_ 1945
Incorporation by reference of a portion of the record of the hearings before
the subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate
held March 23, 1948 1945
Incorporation bj^ reference of the record of hearings before a subcommittee
of the House Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments,
Eightieth Congress, second session, held March 10 and 12, 1948 1945
Incorporation by reference of a portion, being pages 169 through 210 and
206 through 210, of the record of the hearings before the subcommittee
of the House Committee on Appropriations, Eightieth Congress, second
session, held January 28, 1948 1945
Incorporation by reference of the speech made on the floor of the House,
August 2,' 1948 by Congressman Jonkman, entitled "Department of
State" which appears in the Congressional Record for that date at
page 9793 1945
Letter to Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel, Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee, from Adrian S. Fisher, the legal advi.ser from the Depart-
ment of State dated July 10, 1950; enclosing a copy of Public Law 535
and a departmental announcement No. 41 1946
Transcript of proceedings of the Loyalty Security Board meeting in the
case of John S. Service 1958
STATE DEPAKTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington^ D. C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 : 30 a. m. in room
318, Senate Office Building, Senator Millard E. Tydings (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) , Green,
McMahon, Hickenlooper, and Lodge.
Also present: Senators Connally (chairman of the full committee)
and McCarthy.
Senator Tydings. The committee will come to order.
I think it appropriate first that the record show why this committee
is meeting and what its scope and purpose is to be in these proceedings.
Senate Resolution 231, introduced by Mr. Lucas, was considered,
amended, and agreed to on February 22, 1950. The resolution reads
as follows :
Resolved, That the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, or any duly author-
ized subcommittee thereof, is authorized and directed to conduct a full and
complete study and investigation as to whether persons who are disloyal to the
United States are, or have been, employed by the Department of State. The
committee shall report to the Senate at the earliest practicable date the result
of its investigation, together with sucli recommendations as it may deem desirable,
and if said recommendations are to include formal charges of disloyalty against
any individual, then the committee, before malviiig said recommendation, shall
give said individual open hearing for the purpose of taking evidence or testimony
on said charges.
In the conduct of this study and investigation, the committee is directed to
procure by subpena and examine the complete loyalty and employment files and
records of all the Government employees in the Department of State, and such
other agencies against wliom charges have been heard.
The resolution was adopted by the Senate because of certain state-
ments made on the floor of the Senate, on Monday, February 20, 1950,
and Wednesday, February 22, 1950.
In order that the committee maj'^ have all of the evidence that it
should properly consider available in the record, the chairman has
had the pages dealing witli the information and charges and debate
on these 2 days culled from the Congressional Record and, without
objection, at this point the proceedings of the Senate dealing with this
matter will be incori)orated by reference in the record. Is there any
objection? (None.) They will be incorporated bj^ reference in the
record.
1
2 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
(The material from the Congressional Record incorporated by ref-
erence is as follows :)
Pages 2043-2071, February 20, 1950.
Pages 2104-2110, February 21, 1950.
Pages 2168-2169, 2173-2195, February 22, 1950.
Daily Digest, February 27, 1950.
Pages 2485-2486, 2523-2524, February 28, 1950.
Page 2678, March 2, 1950.
Senator Tydings. In the course of these congressional deliberations,
Senator McCarthy, of Wisconsin, made certain statements in, I be-
lieve 81 different cases, and gave a short account of why he thought
each of the cases questioned the loyalty of the individual in each case.
Senator McCarthy has been invited by the committee to come before
us today as our first witness.
I am sure, Senator, that you yourself realize that the individuals
who are charged with disloyalty to our Government are confronted
with one of the most serious charges that can be leveled at a patriotic
or other individual.
Senator McCarthy. Especially the "or other."
Senator Tydings. If these men are guilty of these charges, the com-
mittee would want to find it out. If they are not guilty, we will want
to inform the public accordingly.
Unless the chairman is overruled, all witnesses coming before this
committee will be sworn. In your own case, as a Member of the
Senate, the chairman is not going to compel you against your will to
submit to be sworn, but I Avould like to ask you now if you would
consent to be sworn.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I think it is an excellent idea
to SAvear all witnesses. I do not think we should have anyone take
advantage of any immunity, whether it is a Senator, Secretary of
State, or wliat, so I would like to be sworn.
Senator Tydings. I am glad you said that. Senator. That is the
way I feel about it. I think we all ought to feel that way. If you
will hold up your hand, I will proceed to swear you.
Do you promise that the evidence you shall give in the pending
matter before this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Senator McCarthy. I do.
Senator Tydings. Now, Senator McCarthy, the information you
presented to the Senate has been read by all of us, I am sure. You
will want to supplement that, no doubt, and comment further on it.
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. But, before you do, there is one matter that, to
make the record complete as of the congressional debate, I would like
to ask you about for just a minute.
If you will turn to case 14, that you mentioned in the Eecord
Senator McCarthy. Do you know what page that is on, Mr. Chair-
man?
Senator Tydings. I will try to find it in a minute.
Case 14 is in the Congressional Eecord of February 20, 1950, page
2051, column 3, and page 2052, column 1. I would like to read this
particular case to ask you a question dealing with the other 81 cases.
Senator McCarthy. Certainly.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 6
Senator Tydings. I am quoting your remarks :
Case 14 : This is a case of pressure from a high State Department official to
obtain security clearance for an individual with a bad background from the
standpoint of security. He was appointed in December 1945 as a translator in
the State Department. This is an interesting case, showing the extent to which
some of their superior officers will go when they find that some of these very
unusual individuals are going to lose their jobs. He was appointed in December
194;j as a translator in the State Department. A report from another Govern-
ment investigating agency, under date of January 9, 1946, advised that the
subject should be dismissed as a bad security risk because he was flagrantly
homosexual. He had extremely close connections with other individuals with
the same tendencies and wlio were active members of Communist front organiza-
tions, including the Young Communist League.
I think this is interesting, Mr. President. I asked one of our top intelligence
men in Washington one day, "Why do you find men who are so fanatically Com-
munist? Is there something about the Communist philosophy that attracts
them?"
He said, "Senator McCarthy, if you had been in this work as long as we have
been, you would realize that there is something wrong with each one of these
individuals. You will find that practically every active Communist is twisted
mentally or physically in some way."
Senator McCarthy. Let me interrupt you there, Mr. Cliairman.
The "or physically" should not be in there. I was quoting accurately.
I do not agree with the "or pliysically." I think a vast number of
people have physical defects. I have some myself. I do not think that
makes a Communist. Let's make that clear. I wanted to make that
clear as we go through it.
Senator Tydings. It is reported in the Record. I have read the
Record as it is reported.
The State Department's own security agency recommended the discharge of
this employee on January 22, 1946.
Now this is the part to which I would like to draw your attention.
I will repeat that.
The State Department's own security agency recommended the discharge of
this employee on January 22, 1946. On February 19, 1946, this individual's
services were terminated with the State Department. Subsequently, on April 1,
1946, the action discharging this individual was rescinded and he was rein-
stated in his job in tlie State Department. In this case a CSA report of Sep-
tember 2, 1947, is replete with information covering —
and this is the point —
the attempt, of a high State Department official to induce several individuals
who had signed affidavits reflecting adversely upon the employee to repudiate
their affidavits. The file shows that that high State Department employee even
went out and personally contacted the individuals who signed the affidavits
and asked them, "Won't you repudiate them?"
This individual, according to the security files of the State Department was
a very close associate of active Soviet agents. As to whether he is in the State
Department at this time or not I frankly do not know, but in view of the fact
that he was reinstated, I assume that he is.
Now, the purpose of reading that is this. Is this man who was in
the State Department, this high State Department official whom j^ou
allege tried to doctor the records, one of the cases of the 81 that you
brought before the Senate, or have you referred to him here only to
substantiate the facts in case 14 ?
Senator McCarthy. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that you will have
to let me go through these cases as I have them documented, and we
will get to that case. I think we will have to wait until we get
4 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
to that case, and I can assure you we will get to it. I have other
cases documented for your information this morning. I am going
to ask the committee to do this, if I may. As I discuss one case, let's
try and stick to that case, and I assure you we will get to all of them
without any trouble at all. I will be unable to jump, say, from case 1
to case 72 back to case 58. As of this time I can assure the Chairman
that all the information which he wants on case No. 57 will be gotten to
him, but I frankly cannot give him that information now, because I
haven't arrived at that case this morning. I am sure we won't get
to that case this morning.
Senator Tydixgs. Just a minute. Just a minute. Just a minute!
All I am askino- you is this. This is a very serious charge
Senator McCarthy. Very serious.
Senator Tydings. That a high official in the State Department is
tampering with the records to protect people who are charged with
disloyal activities.
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Senator Tydings. What I would like to know is this : Is he one of
the cases that you are going to bring before this committee, or is he
just incidental in this case^ You can certainly tell me that.
Senator McCarthy. I will bring his name before the committee and
give the committee all the information.
Senator Lodge. I would like to express the hope that Senator Mc-
Carthy will get the courtesy everyone gets, of being able to make his
own statement in his own way, and then be subject to questioning.
Senator Tydings. The only reason I am bringing this out now is,
we want to hear Senator McCarthy. We have put this all in the
record. I have read over all of these cases three or four times, and
studied the possible ramifications of them. I would like to know
whether we are to hear this as a collateral matter of pi'oving case 14,
or whether this man himself is to be charged with disloyal conduct
as a separate case. You can certainly answer that, and then we can
leave it.
Senator McCarthy. I will answer that. I will give the committee
all of the information which I have. If the committee decides this
man is disloyal, all right. If they decide not, it is up to the com-
mittee. There will be no information held back from the committee,
and I want to thank the Senator from Massachusetts very much. I
would like to be allowed to proceed and present the information in an
orderly fashion, and the committee can be sure that any questions
they have to ask will certainly be answered. I will answer that ques-
tion. Senator, that you will be given all the information on the case.
Senator Tydings. Let me ask the questions, Senator McCarthy. I
am at least charged with the responsibility of conducting this hearing,
and I prefer to conduct it as I want it conducted and as the conmiittee
wants it conducted, rather than to have you tell me how to conduct it.
I will be glad, and we will give you full and free opportunity to
present anything you want to present.
All I am asking you now is, do you know the name — I do not want
you to tell it — but do you know the name of this particular high State
Department official who is allegedly aiding disloyal persons in the
State Department ? Do you know the name ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, when we get to case No. 57 I
will give you all of the names in that case. No names will be held back.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 5
There are any number of names. I frankly cannot remember the vast
number of names.
Senator Tydings. Yon know whether you know the name or not,
and you can answer "Yes" or "No" and we can end this right here.
Senator Lodge. I do not think we ought to put the witness in the
position of answering "Yes" or "No." I think he has a right to
develop his own statement in his own way, and then be subject to
questioning, which is a normal procedure here.
Senator Tydings. I would like to ask him now, Do you or do you
not know the name of this high official in the State Department who
allegedly committed the very thing that I have read ?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, I can go back to my office and dig up
the name. I am not prepared to testify in case No. 57 this morning.
I was sure we would not get to case No. 57. When we get to it, the Sen-
ator will have all of the information which I have. I assure him of
that. And I hope that then he takes advantage of that and completes
the investigation.
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, if you will listen to me a
moment, I think you and I probably can arrive at an understanding.
Senator McCarthy. I am sure we can.
Senator Tydings. You have made on the floor of the Senate state-
ments concerning 81 individuals. That is all right. The reason I
am interested in this case particularly is that in no other case that I
recall, and I read them all several times, is there any allegation that
any high official in the State Department is covering up disloyal activi-
ties or disloyal persons. This was the only case where that happened.
Now if we have such an individual in the State Department, and
we may have — I don't know whether we have or not — the most im-
portant thing this committee could do right away to clean out any
subversive elements in the State Department is to find out who this
man is, and we don't want you to give his name in public, but find out
who he is and get him out of there. We don't want to wait until case
57 or 86 or next week. We certainly don't want somebody high up
in the State Department who is shielding disloyal persons, fixing their
records and asking people to withdraw their comments.
Now if this were just an ordinary matter of one individual, that
would be one thing. But I cannot think of anything more important
in this whole hearing. ^Nlaybe this is true or false, I don't know.
But I would like to know if you know the name of this man. Then
we will go on and let you testify.
Senator McCarthy. A very good question, Mr. Chairman, and I
tried to explain to you that 1 cannot give you information now on
case No. 57.
Senator Tydings. I said case 14.
Senator ^IcCarthy. Let me answer when you ask a question, please.
Let me add tliis, too. If you are eager fo get to that case today,
when the testimony ends this morning if you will come to my office I
will dig that case out and give you all the names in the file, all the
information you want. I cannot give you testimony on case No. 57
because I have prepared cases which I think are more important. I
hope the connnittee will try and take the information which I have.
I have it available for you. As I say, if the chairman feels that case
No. 57 is urgent, he can come right over to m}' office as soon as we get
6 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
through and he and the reporter can take all of the information on
case No. 57, but that is all I can tell 3^ ou on that now.
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, we do not want to go to your
office. We are conducting a hearing.
Senator McCarthy. You will have to wait, then, until I get the
information over here, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. You are in the position of being the man who oc-
casioned this hearing, and so far as I am concerned in this committee
you are going to get one of the most complete investigations ever
given in the history of this Republic, so far as my abilities will permit.
Now what I am asking you now is, Do you or do you not now know
the name of this man? Don't tell me. Do you now know it?
Senator McCarthy. At this particular moment, Mr. Chairman, I
could not give you the names of half of these.
Senator Tydings. I did not ask you if you could give me the names.
I asked you if you knew this name.
Senator McCarthy. ]Mr. Chairman, I cannot give you any informa-
tion on case 57. Have I made that clear ? Case No. 57 will be devel-
oped and you will get all the information, every name that is in this
file, when I get to that case.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, this is the most unusual procedure
I have seen in all the years I have been here. Why cannot the Sena-
tor from Wisconsin get the normal treatment and be allowed to make
his statement in his own w^ay, aiid not be cross questioned like this be-
fore he has had a chance to present what he has ?
Senator Tydings. If the Senator from Massachusetts will listen to
me, what I have already put in the record are the 81 cases that the
Senator from Wisconsin brought to the attention of the Senate and
the country on the Senate floor. Now I asked him first whether this
particular individual was one of tlie 81 cases. He did not seem able
to tell me that, although I thought it was the most important allega-
tion of disloyalty in the whole 81 cases.
I then, in order to bring it down into focus, asked him if he could
tell me the name of this man. I did not want him to tell me here in
the open, but I wanted to know if he knew it, because it seemed to
me to be a rather odd situation that here, out of all these cases, was a
high official of the State Department who was attempting to falsify
records, suppress evidence, and pi'otect disloyal persons, and no charge
of a separate case, so far as I could find, was made out against him
as one of the things we should investigate. So before leaving these
81 cases which I have put in the record this thing attracted my atten-
tion, and sim])ly before we closed the Senate part of these hearings
I am asking the Senator, Is this man known to him so that he can
give us his name ?
If tliat is not a reasonable request, he can sfiy "Yes" or "No" or "I
will go get it for you and in executive session I will give it to you."
Senator Lodge. I think it is a perfectly reasonable request, Mr.
Cliairman, at the proper time.
I think it is the uiost important request that will be made on this
question, but I tliink this is the wrong time to make it. I think the
Senator from Wisconsin ought to have the courtesy that every Sena-
tor and every Avitness has, of making his own presentation in his own
way aud not to be pulled to ]:)iecos before he lias had a chance to utter
one siugle consecutive sentence.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 7
Senator Green. It seems to me that it is important to proceed in
this unusual manner, not only for the reason stated by the chairman
but for tliis reason : We may be asked to call upon the State Depart-
ment to ))roduce papers or evidence. It may be this very man to whom
that might be left. If there is such an individual in the State Depart-
ment suppressino- information, distorting- facts, we ought. to tend to
that before we ask the State Department for an}' papers.
Senator Lodge. Of course we ought to know it, Senator Green.
Senator Green. The question is whether the witness knows the
name or whether it was imaginary.
Senator Lodge. We ought to know that man's name; we ought to
know the names of all these people in here. All I say is that every
witness, whether he is a Senator or whether he is not a Senator, is
entitled to make his statement in his own words, and not, the minute
he sits down, be subjected to a whole lot of piece-meal questioning,
thereby making it impossible for him to make his presentation. I
think it is just common courtesy and fairness to let a man make his
presentation.
Senator Tydings. We will give him all the chance in the world to
make his statement, if he will simply say he doesn't know the name of
the man or he does know the name of the man. Certainly he can tell
us whether he knows the name or does not know it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, why is it so vital at tliis
original jump-otf meeting of this committee to know the name of an
individual man, when the witness says in due course and in the course
of his i3resentation he will give and disclose to this committee those
names ? It would seem to me that Senator McCarthy ought to be per-
mitted to present his charges, his allegations, his information, and then
this committee can look into them and evaluate which is the most im-
portant to first go into.
Senator Green. Mr. Chairman, if I may answer my distinguished
colleague's argument, it is this, that if we are going into the files of
the State Department, we ought to have confidence that they are not
furnished or handled by an individual against whom such a charge is
made as that he is a high officer in the State Department using his
power improperly, because the testimony which we may need may
come through him, and therefore we ought to clear the decks before
we proceed. Not only that, but if these charges are true, that man still
has access to the files in the meantime. That is my point.
Senator Lodge. If it were essential to do this so soon, why wasn't it
done the minute Senator McCarthy made his speech on the Senate
floor? AVhy did we wait until this "particular moment ?
Senator Ttdings. Let me say this : I have no desire to delay Senator
McCarthy. I am anxious for him to get on. My first question was, Is
this individual who is accused of fraudulent conduct in the State De-
partment to be made a case number '.
Now, it seems to me that we can find out if he is, and then that's
that. And the second question is. Does the Senator know the name
of this man ? He can say "Yes'' or "No" and that would be that and
we could get on with this thing.
Senator Lodge. I hope Senator McCarthv will be allowed to pro-
ceed in the normal way.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 2
S STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. I still leave my two questions to be answered.
I think that the most important thing before this committee is to
clear out men in high places if they are guilty of fraudulent conduct,
suppressing evidences of disloyalty in the State Department. There
is nothing we are going to do that is more important than that.
Senator Lodge. Of course I favor doing that too. We all want
to get rid of all the rotten apples in the State Department. That is
the purpose of this investigation, and simply because I object to Sena-
tor McCarthy being torn apart this way does not mean I am not in-
terested in getting these men cleared out. But this is a most extraor-
dinary and unusual procedure, to start off in this confused way.
It is not the way things are done around here.
Senator Tydings. All he has to do is answer two very simple ques-
tions : ''I don't know the name of this man, Senator," or "I do know
the name of this man. Senator. He won't be made a case subject."
Senator Hickenlooper. How will that help the investigation at
this point, if he answers ?
Senator Lodge. If he says it at 3 o'clock this afternoon, why isn't
that just as good? You have waited all this time before you brought
it up.
Senator Tydings- This is a public hearing and I do not want too
much of this in star chamber.
Senator Lodge. Let's have it in public in Senator McCarthy's own
time and own way. Give him the courtesy of letting him make the
charges to the best advantage from his viewpoint.
Senator McMahon. As I understand it, what you want is to know
the name of this man as quickly as possible, because it is conceivable,
because of what Senator McCarthy said about him, that he could
frustrate this investigation. As I understand it, that is the purpose
of the question. It is obvious that he hasn't got it with him at the
moment. It is too bad that he hasn't, because I, too, would like to
know if this rascal is in the State Department, and if that is what he
is up to, and I hope that before the end of the day we can have
the name of this person, because I think it is pertinent. Senator, at
the beginning of this investigation, to drag out this key figure, who
is apparently, if your charge is true, right down there with his hand
on the throttle, and we ought to know that as quickly as possible.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, this man has been in the
State Department, apparently, according to the statement of Senator
McCarthy, I think, on the floor, since, let us say, 1947.
Senator Tydings. And is still there.
Senator Hickenlooper. All right. He has been in the State
Department, perhaps — I do not know who he is — since Senator
McCarthy made his charges on the floor of the Senate. If he is going
to do an}^ dirty work, he has had all the time since 1947, and especially
since Senator McCarthy made his formal statement on the floor of
the Senate; he has had all that time to do whatever dirty work he
might potentially do, and I do not see that another day will add
to his potential danger very much over what he may have done in
the past, if he is guilty.
Therefore, I think Senator McCarthy ought to be able to proceed
in his own way.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 9
Senator Tydings. Just a minute. I was very hopeful that we
"Could ^et answers to these two questions. You could say "I don't
know the name of the man" or "I do know the name of the man,"
because you have said that you had photostatic copies of the files,
as I recall your testimony. And if you said you knew the man, we
weren't goin*^ to ask you to give us that name this morning. But
we just wanted to get at that the very first thing and have that man,
if he is in the State Department now, relieved of his duties pending
this investigation. We don't want to be charged with having let
him roam around the State Department where he can keep on with
doctoring the records, if he has access to them.
The first thing I asked you — the other proposition was the second —
was, Was he to be made one of the case numbers? That is, was he
to be a man against whom you were going to bring charges?
Now certainly it is very hard for the chairman to believe that a
charge of this kind would not be a case number and if it is to be a
case number, all right; say so. We will forget it. If it is not to
be a case number, then we had better look into it right away.
Senator McCarthy. May I have the chairman's copy of the reso-
lution ?
Senator Lodge. It seems to me that the time to try to get this par-
ticular individual was after Senator McCarthy mentioned him on
the floor of the Senate, rather than to wait for two whole weeks and
bring it up now this morning.
Senator Tydings. How could I get him when I don't know his name ?
Senator Lodge. At this Roman holiday we are having here this
morning it looks to me as though all of a sudden we have gotten
interested in this man, when 14 days have gone by within which
Senator McCarthy could have been asked the same question, if there
was such a terrible urgency about it. I just don't see why we can't
have procedings go along in a normal way. If Senator McCarthy
is allowed to make a statement without interruption he will probably
reach this case today sometime.
Senator Tydings. I am not so certain. He said it was No. 57. He
also said he could take up only a certain number of cases today, and
we do not know when we are going to meet again. But the point is
this : I have asked two simple questions ; one, Is this man to be made
a case number ? Do you know the name of the man ? If there is any-
thing of an inquisitorial nature about getting an answer to those two
(juestions before we proceed, I do not Know what it is. The answer
is very simple, and it seems to me that we could get the answers and
dispose of it and go on with something else.
Senator McCarthy. ]N[ay I answer the chairman, and that is, that
I will be unable to give him detailed information on case No. 57 this
morning. In order to get the complete picture of that case, he will
need the files.
Senator Tydings. You have the files.
Senator McCarthy. Just a minute. I say in order to get the de-
tailed information necessary for the committee to act it will be neces-
sary that you subpena the files. Let's make this clear when we speak
of files. If the committee wants to be sure they have the complete
files, it will be necessary to subpena a number of things.
No. 1, you will have to subpena the loyalty files, both categories, the
part that vou will normally be handed plus the sub rosa section.
10 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
No. 2, you will have to subpena the personnel files, and by that I
don't mean merely the subsection of the personnel files.
No. 3, in order to check that, it will be necessary for you gentlemen
to subpena the Civil Service Commission files. I understand that the
State Department has a loose-leaf file. The Civil Service Commission
has a cop3^ of those files, a little more intricate filing system. The
FBI also has a copy of that section of the files, which was compiled by
the FBI.
Let me say this : Every case that I am giving you gentlemen today,
every case that you will hear about, will have in the files derogatory
information developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Merely the top half of the State Department's loyalty file will be
meaningless. I assure you of that.
Now this case No. 57, as I have told you three times, Senator, 1
cannot give j'ou information on that now. If you had called me
and told me you wanted that case developed this morning, it would
have been developed. The only contact that I have had with the com-
mittee was the day the chairman met me on the floor and said, "Come
over to the committee at 10 :30 Wednesday morning and present what-
ever you have to us."
I am here ready to do that, Mr. Chairman. As I say, I am not pre-
pared this morning in case No. 57. I am not prepared because the
Chair did not indicate he wanted me prepared. I am not prepared,
No. 2, because I do not think that is the all-important case. I do think
that is a very important case. All of the names — all of the names —
will be found in those files that I have suggested you subpena, so
yon can get to that very easily.
Now, if the chairman wants case No. 57, I assume he is meeting
tomorrow. If he meets tomorrow, if he wants that case developed, it
will be developed before the committee. If the committee wants to
meet this afternoon, if he wants to come to my office I will try and get
him all the information he desires on that case. But this morning I
cannot give the chairman the information on case No. 57 ; period !
Senator Tydings. Now let me ask you this : If we were to take a
recess for 10 minutes so the Senator could go to his office and refresh
his memory on file 57, if that is the file, could he not then come back
here and answer the question, to wit, (1), Is this individual against
whoni these grave charges are made to be the subject of a particular
case for investigation, or is he left out of the matter? (2), Does the
Senator know his name ?
If the Senator will come back and answer those two simple ques-
tions, we can go ahead with the procedures. It would only take him
5 or 10 minutes to do it.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, let me say the Chair asks
whether I will make him the subject for investigation. I didn't know
that I was running this committee. I don't think I am by a long
stretch. I intend to submit to the committee information bearing upon
the disloyalty, the bad security risks, in the State Department. Then
it is up to the committee to investigate those particular cases. The
committee has been allowed, I believe, $25,000 or $50,000 to do that.
I do not have the investigative staff, I do not have access to the files, to
make any complete investigation and make any formal charges. All
I intend to do, Mr. Chairman, is to submit to the committee the evi-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION H
dence Avliich I have gathered over painstaking months of work, and I
hope tliat the Chair will allow me to give that tomorrow, and I assure
that chairman that there ^yill be no names, nothing kept secret from
this committee. He can be sure of that.
I say, if the Chair had informed me that he was particularly inter-
ested in case No. 57, that case would have been developed this morning.
As it is, it will not be developed this morning because I am not pre-
pared to do so, and after a 10-minute recess f would not be prepared
to do so. I have some facts which I hope the committee will allow
me to present to them this morning.
Senator Tydixgs. If the Senator will allow me to read just one sen-
tence from case 1-4, he says, "In his case a CSA" — what is a "CSA" ?
Senator McCarthy. That is the investigative agency, as I under-
stand it.
Senator Ttdings. I don't know.
Senator ^McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, when you ask a question, let
me finish, please.
I don't understand this lettering system too well. "CSA" I believe
is — they change the names of the organizations over there so much
I can't keep track of them. It is the investigative agency, or some-
thing along that line.
Senator Tydings (reading) :
In this case a CSA report of September 22, 1947, is replete with information
covering the a tempt of a hiiih State Department official to induce several indi-
viduals who had signed affidavits reflecting adversely upon the employee to
repudiate their affidavits. The file shows that that high State Department em-
ployee went out and personally contacted the individuals who signed the affida-
vits and asked them "Won't you repudiate them?"
Senator INIcCarthy. Mr. Chairman, let me say this. I have quoted
from the files in 81 cases. The President of the United States has
answered merely by saying that McCarthy is lying; it is not true.
This committee can very easily determine where the truth lies by
saying "We shall get those files.'' 'V^^len you get those files, then you
will know whether or not every word I have spoken here is true.
Now, when I get to case No. 57 I will give you all of the informa-
tion which I can on it. That will not be complete. You will have to
get four separate files to make sure you have the complete case.
Senator XiUDGe. Mr. Chairman, so far as one member of this com-
mittee is concerned, speaking for myself, I do not understand what
kind of a game is being played here, and I cannot do my work as a
member of this committee if we are going to do this picking and
choosing and jumping around all over the place. If we are going to
depart from the usual procedure of having him make his charges,
then he makes his charges and we investigate the charges, I want to
know that. But I do not understand at all what is sought to be
achieved by this business of picking first one case and then another
case and asking the witness about that before he has even had a chance
to make a single connected statement.
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge, as I will try to tell you once
more — 1 thought I had made it plain — I have no disposition to inter-
fere with the witness going ahead with any statement he has before
him. I put in the record all of the proceedings, and one of the pro-
ceedings put in the record was the one to which I have just drawn
attention, and in that particular case I found this statement. I simply
12 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOIM
asked the witness, to make the record complete, whether or not this
was one of the 81 cases which he wanted investigated, to wit, that a
high State Department official had tried to cook or alter or doctor the
evidence, and if he had said "Yes'' or "No," that would liave been
one thing.
Then I asked him if he knew the name of this man, thinking it
would be very desirous for the committee to get that man out of this
investigation and all contact with the papers at the earliest possible
moment.
It seems to me that if those two questions had been answered, and
I can see no reason why they could not be answered, either that they
are going to be made a case or they are not going to be made a case,
and that "I do know the name and will give it to the conunittee in
due time" or "I don't know the name and cannot give it to the com-
mittee"— if there is anything captious or inquisitorial or bad about,
just asking those two questions, to me they are tlie simplest kind of
thing, and they make the record which we have already made com-
plete as to whether this man is one of the 81 cases or whether he is
not, and that "I know his ]uime and in due time I will give it to the
committee" or "I don't know the name and I can't give it to the
committee."
Senator Lodge. If there was such an awful hurry about getting
this man, it seems to me the time to have done it would have been
immediately after Senator McCarthy raised the point on the floor of
the Senate. It is just a question here of orderly procedure.
Senator Ttdings. You do not see things on the floor of the Senate
you see when you read them over. Senator Lodge.
Senator LodCxE. AVe can all rend the Congressional Record, and, if
the thing is there, it is perfectly possible to go to work on it then,
instead of waiting for two whole weeks until we have this hearing.
It seems to me this is a perfectly extraordinary procedure. I have
never seen anything like it, and I have been here since 1937. You
have been here longer than I have. But I have been here since 10?>7,
and it is a perfectly amazing procedure to pick No. 57 and then to
pick No. 14, and I suppose after you are through playing wnth that
you will pick 23. In the meantime the witness sits here. He has a
prepared statement and he isn't given the common, ordinary courtesy
of telling his story in his own words. I think it is perfectly amazing.
I don't know what the purpose of it is, because I haven't been told.
Senator Tydimgs. There is nobody knows what the purpose is ex-
cept myself, because on my word of honor I have never discussed it
with any of my Democratic colleagues or Re]>ub]ican Colleagues. It
simply occurred to me that this was about the most serious thing I
had run across and I wanted simply to know whether a special case
was to be made out against this individual and whether the Senator
had his name, and if he had answered those questions "Yes" or "No"
lie would have been probably a third through with his written state-
ment. If there is any reason why they should not be answered I do
not know why the Senator does not say it, or say "Yes, they will be a
special case. They ought to be a special case, and in due time I will
give the committee his name." I can see no reason why that could
not be done. If there is a reason, I have not heard it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in read-
ing over the Congressional Record when these cases and charges were
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 13
made by Senator McCarthy that there are quite a number of charges
of very serious importance in this whole set-up. I would not neces-
sarily pick this case as the most serious, just from reading the record.
1 tliink there are others that probably will come in for just as serious
consideration. Therefore I see no justification in picking out this
particular case for special interrogation at the moment.
And then, another thing, it seems to me that this committee will
make the cases, not necessarily Senator McCarthy. Senator Mc-
Carthy gives his evidence and gives his conclusions, and furnishes
this committee with what he believes to be facts or the sources of
the facts for investigation, and then it is up to this committee to dif-
ferentiate and to examine and to make the cases.
I strongly urge that a perfectly normal, sound procedure is to let
Senator ISIcCarthy, mIio has originated these charges, go ahead and
make his charges and canvass his situation, and then let's question
him about the individual cases if we want to.
Senator Tydings. The Chair will try to comply with the requests
of the two Republican members of the committee and he will simply
iinish this phase of the matter by asking Senator McCarthy, the next
time he comes before the committee, to be in a position to answer two
questions : First, is the "high State Department official'' Avho allegedly
attempted to doctor the loyalty records in the State Department to be
made the subject of a special case in the information and charges that
he will bring before us? Secondly, does he know the name of this
individual, and will he give it to the committee in executive session?
So, with those two things in the Senator's mind, if he will furnish
them at the next meeting, I will be glad to have him go ahead with his
statement. I am sorry we could not get them this morning.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have a question that I would like to sug-
gest to Senator McCarthy -at this time which I may ask him later — ^I
clon't know — along this same line . I may see fit to ask Senator Mc-
Carthy if he believes, based upon what knowledge and investigation
he has had, that the high State Department official which has been
referred to here might well be, upon the evidence developed, the
subject for investigation and further inquiry by this committee. I
say I may ask the Senator that question at a later date, when he is
prepared to canvass the particular case that involves this allegedly
high State Department official.
Senator Tydings. I will ask the Senator if he will be good enough to
try to bring the answers to those two questions of the committee at the
next meeting of the committee. I think I have conformed to his wish
to postpone and give him time. I would rather have had them this
morning. I think they are very important. I think it is the most
important thing in the whole investigation, and I am sorry that, it
being so important, he hasn't that evidence available.
Now, Senator, we will be glad to hear your statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. McCAETHY, UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator McCarthy. I thank the chairman, and so there is no doubt
in the committee's mind let me say this : I think this is so important
that I do want to stick to the cases as I document them and develop
14 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
tliem SO there can be no question about the absolute truth of every-
thing presented.
Let me say this also : I hope that every witness' testimony, includ-
ing mine, is gone through with a fine-tooth comb. There are some
very important witnesses down here, and I am very happy the chair-
man swore them all. We have found, you recall, back in the case
of the famous racketeers of Capone that the Government could not get
them for their crimes, but they finally discovered a way of getting
them. They got them for income tax evasion.
We find where Communists are concerned they are too clever. They
work underground too much. It is hard to get them for their criminal
activities in connection with espionage, but a way has been found.
We are getting them for perjury and putting some of the worst of
them away. For that reason I hope every witness who comes here
is put under oath and his testimony is gone over with a fine-tooth
comb, and if we cannot convict some of them for their disloyal activi-
ties, perhaps we can convict them for perjury.
Senator Tydings. Are you going to relate to cases in the same order
before the Senate, so I can follow them here?
Senator McCarthy. I intend to give the committee additional
cases.
Senator Tydings. If you refer to case 1 or case 2, that will be case 1
or case 2 as you referred to it in the Senate?
Senator McCarthy. When I refer to a case, I will also identify it by
the case number if it was referred to in the Senate.
Now, the chairman made a statement that I think he would like to
retract, because he said: "McCarthy will be subject to the most thor-
ough investigation in the history of this Republic." I think he meant
that the disloyal people in the State Department will be subject to
such investigation.
Senator Tydings. I did not say "McCarthy," I said this. I said:
"This, Senator McCarthy, will be one of the most thorough investiga-
tions * * *." I did not make it personal.
Senator McCarthy. Some people in the room got the impression
he said that.
Senator Tydings. If they got that impression they got something I
did not intend.
Senator McCarthy. I did not think he did.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the committee for its invitation to
appear here today, and make available information which has come
to me from a variety of sources bearing on the security of our Nation.
Certainly we are all in accord on the premise that every possible
precaution should be taken to protect the national welfare and time
and experience has shown us that subversive and un-American actions
cannot stand the light of day.
To that end, I shall make available to this committee the names and
background of persons wlio are, or have been, in the service of the
Government who, by virtue of their background and activities, do not
deserve the confidence and trust placed in them.
The fair security risk does not exist. Every man or woman in the
employ of the United States Government is a bad or good security
risk.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 15
AVe have had, through our courts, our oovernmeiital investigatiEg
bodies, our public press and radio, a shocking and frightening serios
of reports on men and women in liigh and low places in our Govern-
ment who transferred their allegiance to a foreign and dangerous
ideology.
It is obviously impossible for me, without investigative personnel,
funds, and authority and without full and free access to the volumi-
nous and comprehensive files of numerous Government agencies, to
givt^. you gentlemen an adequate picture of this distressing situation,
I hope that this distinguished committee, charged by its colleagues
in the Senate with a diflicult and exhaustive duty, will be able to
find a solution to a hitherto insoluble j)roblem.
After the information I have received is collated and examined, it
Avill be turned over to this committee. I shall withhold nothing and
shall make available to the committee the information which has been
made available to me.
I have carefully studied the standards of loyalty, as set forth by
Secretary of State Acheson.
I agree with them wholeheartedly.
I have come to the conclusion, however, that these standards of loy-
alty are meaningless unless they are applied to all Government em-
ployees without exception.
It is the exception that I wish to bring to the attention of the com-
mittee.
I am convinced that in a sizable number of cases these standards
have not been applied properly.
JNIr. Chairman, one bad risk is too many, and a very few of these
bad risks might well be disastrous to our national security.
At the outset I think it is important that the committee know that
the statement I shall make here today regarding various persons in the
employ of the United States Government is based on documented evi-
dence and these documents I will submit to the connnittee as I go
along.
Senator McMahon. Senator, is it your intention to name individ-
uals against whom you are making charges?
Senator McCarthy. I intend to name names of those that are thor-
oughly documented and important, yes. The ones that are not thor-
oughly documented I intend to give to the committee and have the
committee, with its own investigative staff, do the documenting.
Senator McIVIahon. Senator, as I understand it, this is the first
of a series of cases in which you are going to name names.
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Senator McMahon. And you are going to give to the public and
to us the digests of the files as you have had them given to you ?
Senator McCarthy. In this first case I am going to give nothing
from any files. I am going to present documents.
Senator McIMahon. What documents ?
Senator McCarthy. I am going to give them to you as I go along.
Senator McMahon. I mean, are they abstracts of the State Depart-
ment files?
Senator McCarthy. I will give you the documents. Senator, as I
go along. They are photostats, and I can't give you a preview. I
have to go through them.
16 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, I don't like to be tedious about this,
but I do hope
Senator McMAHOisr. Senator, if you do not mind, I have not yielded.
There is a very important point involved here, Senator, whether
you realize it or not, and this is the point where this committee is going;
to have to consider it, as to whether or not we are going to adopt a
procedure whereby charges are made about citizens for all the world
to see, based upon material that has been taken from files without an
opportunity for the connnittee to have a full preview of that file.
Now, what I have in mind is the Coplon case and what took place
down in the district court. I have no fixed opinion on this at the
moment. Senator, but I just want the committee to understand that
apparently we are going to open up the files for public inspection.
Is that the Senator's idea ?
Senator McCarthy. No, no. I have no intention — even if I had the
files I would have no intention — of presenting any of the State De-
partment files. I say "even if I had them." It is not my decision to
conduct the hearing in this fashion. The committee has asked for
information. I have the documents. The names appear on the docu-
ments very clearly. If the committee wants to go into executive
session and take this testimony, that is entirely up to the committee.
Otherwise I shall have to proceed, and it is impossible to develop this
and say "Mr. X," "Mr. Y," "Mr. Z." Do you follow me. Senator?
If the committee wants to go into executive session and hear these
cases, let me tell you without mentioning her name that the first case
will involve a person in a high State Department position getting
about $12,000 a year who belongs to 28 organizations that have been
listed by the Attorney General and by various senatorial and House
committees as subversive or disloyal — 28 different organizations. I
have the documents to show that she has belonged to those 28 subver-
sive organizations — not organizations that I say are subversive, but
organizations that the Attorney General has said are subversive, plus
senatorial and House committees.
In presenting these documents, I think it is impossible to dismiss
or hide this individual's name. I think this is very important. We
will want to ask, for example, Mr. Acheson wh}^ he keeps in a high
position, a $12,000-a-year position, someone who belongs to 28 sub-
versive organizations. She may, you understand, belong to 10 or 12
others. I have the documents to show the membership in 28.
I have no desire whatsoever to make this name public, but the com-
mittee has called me here. They say, "Give us information," and I
can't give this information by referring to X, Y, and Z.
Senator TydinCxS. I think. Senator McMahon, your question is a
proper one, but I believe the better way to handle it would be when
we get to a document to ask for a description of it, et cetera, rather
than to try to make a blanket ruling here where we might have to
amend it over and over again. Do you agree with that, Senator? In
other words, postponing the time until the Senator gets to the docu-
ment, and then we can ascertain whether or not it is a State Depart-
ment matter or loyalty file or FBI file, or what the matter may be.
I don't think we want to get in the position of denying the witness
.any proper testimony that he might deliver.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 17
Senator McMahon. It is a very difficult question, and I would
•defer to you as chairman of this committee on this matter of proce-
dure. The only thing that disturbs me is this: Let us assmne that
the Senator charges this specific person what is true and is determined
tjo be true. Then there is certainly no reason why the public should
not be advised of the fact that she is what he says she is.
Contrariwise, let us assume, hypothetically, that it turns out on an
investigation that she is completely innocent of the charges that are
made. Senator, you and I know that that verdict will be on page 27 or
47, if there are 47 pages, but the charges will be on page 1.
Senator McCarthy. I must say I heartily agree with you.
Senator McMahon. And we must be careful, it seems to me, that in
our desire to do a thorough job of investigation here and bring to
book — and they should be brought to book — any persons who do not
belong in the Government of the United States, not, in the process
of doing that, to do a great injustice to decent American citizens.
Senator ^McCarthy. May I say that I heartily agree with the Sena-
tor. Oil the Senate floor I said that I would not divulge any names.
I said I hoped any names that were divulged would be developed in
executive session. Mr. Lucas, who is the leader of the majority party,
demanded time after time on the Senate floor and publicly that I
divulge names. I am now before the committee. In order to present
the case I must give the names, otherwise I cannot intelligibly present
it. If the committee desires to go into executive session, that is a
decision that the committee and not I can make, but if I am to testify,
I say it is impossible to do it without divulging names.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, may I get recognized now? This
committee unanimously voted to hold public hearings. That was our
decision. Senator McCarthy now has the opportunity to name names.
That is his decision. If he wants to give this information in private,
then we have to decide whether we will hear them or not. Those is-
sues were all settled when we had our meeting last week. I do not
understand why Senator McCarthy cannot have the opportunity to
present his statement and not be compelled to act as though he were
in some sort of a kangaroo court — '"Answer 'Yes' or 'No' " and that
sort of thing. It almost looks as though there was an attempt to
rattle him. , We ought to let him make his statement, and then, if he
has facts with him, we will investigate the facts. It seems to me just
as simple as that.
Senator Tydixgs. Gentlemen of the committee, so far as the Chair
is concerned about this, I think we ought to leave pretty well the man-
ner of presenting the evidence up to Senator McCarthy. Senator, at
any time that you feel you want to go into executive session with part
of this testimony, if you will indicate that I will call the committee
right here together and we will see what the situation is. If any mem-
ber of the committee at any time thinks that the matter that is being
made public should be heard iii executive session, he will indicate that
to me. We will go into a huddle and come out with a decision on that.
In the meantime, proceed.
Senator McCarthy. Let me make my position clear. I personally
do not favor presenting names, no matter how conclusive the evidence
is. The committee has called me this morning, and in order to intelli-
gibly present this information I must give the names. I think this
18 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
should be in executive session, I think it would be better. However,,
I am. here. The committee has voted to hold open sessions, so I
shall proceed.
Let us take the case of Dor
Senator Ttdings. I told you when I invited you to testify that you
could testify in any manner you saw fit. If it is your preference to
give these names in executive session we will be very glad to have your
wishes acceded to. If it is your desire to give them in open session,
that is your responsibility. Now, if you will indicate how you want
to proceed, the committee will take it under advisement and give you
an answer in 2 minutes.
Senator McCarthy. Let me say this first case has been handed to the
press already, I think we will have to proceed with this one in open
session. When we get to the next case, let us consider it.
Let us take the case of Dorothy Kenyon.
Senator Tydings. Is that one of the cases your brought up on the
Senate floor ?
Senator McCarthy. This is not.
Senator Tydings. I see. Go ahead.
Senator McCarthy. This lady, according to the latest issue of the
official registry of the United States Government, is on the Commis-
sion on the Status of Women, LTnited States Member on the Commis-
sions of the Economic and Social Council, United States Mission to
the United Nations, Department of State. Her salary is $12,000
per year.
And I now present to the chairman of the committee the documen-
tation of that ]);\rt of my testimony.
Senator Tydixgs. Will you hold that a minute until I find whether
it is listed here in the Eegister or not.
Senator McCarthy. This lady has been affiliated with at least 28
Communist-front organizations, all of which have been declared sub-
versive by an official Government agency. Nine of the 28 have been
cited as subversive by the Attorney General of the United States, and
I might say that her record of belonging to these subversive organi-
zations dates back 10 or 15 years. It is not something new.
On February 21, 1940, Miss Kenyon signed a protest under the
auspices of the Veterans of Abraham Lincoln Brigade condemning
the war hysteria "being whipped up by the Roosevelt administration."
Exhibit marked "1" I now hand the committee. This organization
has been cited as subversive by the congressional House Committee
on Un-American Activities, the California Un-American Activities
Committee, and the Attorney General of the United States.
Senator Tydings. Will you let us read that a minute. Is her name
marked ?
Senator McCarthy. I think you will find her name marked.
Senator Tydings. I have it. It isn't marked. We will mark it.
Let me read, Senator, for the record, the caption :
The following outstanrlins: Americans, writers, poets, playwrishts, educators,
judges, critics, and public officials signed the letter to President Roosevelt and
Attorney General Jackson protesting the attacks upon the Veterans of the Abra-
ham Lincoln Brigade and condemning the war hysteria now being whipped up
by tlie Roosevelt administration.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I might say that this is the only
photostat that I have, and I do not like to have it out of my possession.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 19
If the committee ^vants these documents, I wish they would arrange
with me to have them photostated so they may have a photostatic copy
of the document.
Senator Tvotngs. Senator McCarthy, we will have to file all of the
exhibits in the record that you <iive publicly, and I will instruct the
stenojirapher to o^uard these exhibits, and when the committee finishes
its deliberations to return them to you. Is that all riiiht ?
Senator jMcCakthy. May I ask one other thino;, Mr. Chairman.
This is my only copy. I wonder if the Chairman Avould not instruct
the clerk to have photostats made so that my file may be complete.
Senator McMahon. Could I ask a question on that ?
Senator Tydings. Yes.
Senator jNIcMahon. Senator, this is a clip from the Daily Worker,
February 21, 1940, and it is entitled "Signers of Protest."
Senator McCarthy. That's right.
Senator Mc^Maiion. Of course, the list is a very lengthy one. As to
some of the people on this list, I see one or two that I know casually
myself. The description of the petition that was signed is the Daily
Worker's description, and it does not appear to be a copy of the peti-
tion that these people signed. Is the Senator aware of that?
Senator McCarthy. I think the Senator has stated it correctly.
Senator McMahon. Yes.
Well, knowing the Daily Worker and its genius, from the copies that
I have seen, for misrepresentation, I am curious as to just wdiat the
petition said. You haven't got that with you, have you ?
Senator McCarthy. I am sure when the Senator sees the 28 docu-
ments he will no longer be skeptical.
Senator McIMahon. It is not a question of that. I am curious as to
what they did sign. It may be that in this instance the Daily Worker
is telling the truth as to what they signed, do you see ? But the Senator
has not got the actual petition that they signed ?
Senator INIcCarthy. That is correct. That is a copy of the petition
run in the Daily Worker as a paid ad, and advertised as having been
run by these people.
Senator Tydixgs. Does the Senator know where we could get the
original, so we could see wdiat the petition pur})orted to advocate?
Senator McCarthy. I think the committee must hire a competent
staff to run -anything down they care to run down.
Senator Tydings. I say, does the Senator have any idea of where we
might search for this particular item, so we can save time in finding it ?
Senator IMcCarthy. There are many places the Senator could
search. I do not know where he could find it.
Senator Tydixgs. The question that the Senator does not answer,
apparently, is that the Senator has no information. I am simply
trying to find out where we could get it in the quickest possible time.
Senator McCarthy. I do not have the original petition. I do not
know where it is.
Senator McMahon. I think, I\Ir. Chairman, that we should, as
quickly as possible, get this petition, for this reason, that there are
in this list about 100 names, and some of them bear good reputations.
Xow, to characterize them in a i-ecord of the Senale of the United
States just on the basis of a clip from the Daily Worker is something
that perhaps they are not entitled to either, so I do hope that we can
get -"-hat they reall}'^ signed.
20 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. I hope I have made it clear that I also hope that
the committee proceeds to develo]) the situation.
Senator Tydings. Before the Senator proceeds, without any reflec-
tion on the press, newspaper accounts are not always the best evidence.
The petition itself, as the Senator, who has been an eminent judge,
would know, would be the best evidence, but we have a pretty wide
latitude in these committees and we can look that phase of the matter
over afterward.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you.
In signing this statement Miss Kenyon collaborated with such well-
known Communists as Paul Robeson, Bernard J. Stern, Albert Maltz,
Anna Louise Strong, William Gropper, Langston Hughes, and Harry
F. Ward.
Miss Kenyon is presently the sponsor of the National Council of
American Soviet Friendship. This organization has been declared
subversive by the House Un-American Activities Committee, the
California Un-American Activities Committee, and the Attorney
General.
Understand, when I say "presently," some of this information may
be 6 months old. It is the best information, and I have no informa-
tion that it has been withdrawn.
On November 16, 1948, Miss Kenyon as a member of the board
of sponsors of this officially declared subversive organization welcomed
the Red Dean of Canterbury, Hewlett Johnson, at a rally in Madison
Square Garden in the city of New York. Only a few days ago the
State Department refused to permit the Dean of Canterbury to enter
the United States because of his Communist record.
For the guidance of the connnittee I hand you herewith exhibit 2,
which fully documents Miss Kenyon's affiliation with the National
Council of American Soviet Friendship.
Senator McMahon. Senator, that National Council of American
Soviet Friendship had quite a vogue when we were cobelligerents
back during the war days. I may be in error, but I think that there
were a couple of Senators of the United States who are still members
of this body who were members of that organization at the time. Are
you aware of that ?
Senator McCarthy. The Senator is talking about war days. This
document is dated late 19-18, November 16, 19-18. And, Senator, I
may say this, that I have not declared these organizations subversive.
I tell you in each instance which official bodies have. In this case it
was declared subversive by the House Un-American Activities Com-
mittee, the California Un-American Activities Committee, and the
Attorney General.
I assume when they declared this organization subversive they did
it upon very excellent and competent proof, so when I refer to these
subversive organizations I am not saying that I myself have deter-
mined whether or not they are subversive.
Senator McMahon. I did not assert that you did. I just asked
you whether or not it is not a fact that a couple of the Senators had
been members of the National Council of American Soviet Friend-
ship. I would doubt, of course, that it was as late, though, as Novem-
ber 16, 1948, and you do point out that she was a member of the Board
on that date.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 21
Senator Tydings. Seniitor McCarthy, going back to the first exhibit
that you introduced, I see some names on here that 1 think it only
fair ouiilit to be associated with the evidence you have given. I see
such names as Ernest Hemingway, Dr. Harold Urey, the man who was
in the forefront of development of the atomic bomb for the United
States, and several others I recognize by reputation, some of them
holding ])ul)lic oflice. I believe here is one man, the Honorable Stanley
Isaacs; my recollection is that he holds an office in Xew York State
of some kind. So that there is rather a large mixture of names that
are pretty prominent.
Senator McCarthy. This is exhibit 2, Mr. Chairman. It is a letter
on the letterhead of the National Council of American-Soviet Friend-
ship, and has a list of the sponsors, Kenyon's name being one of the
list of sponsors. The letter reads as follows — or would the chairman
rather see it before I read it?
Senator Tydings. This is 2?
Senator McCarthy (reading) :
On Monday evening. December 18, the Very Reverend Hewlett Johnson, Dean
of Canterbury, and foremost leader in the democratic movement for world
peace, siieaks at IMadison Square Garden. This eminent churchman, who will
climax a month's tour of the United States with this rally, will present his
impressions of the American peace movement as it relates to the peace forces
of England and the continent. He will also report on his recent observations
of conditions in eastern Europe and his personal conversations with the leaders
of the new democracies.
We feel it is a rare privilege, indeed, for us to be able to present the dean in
the first significant rally to follow the elections. We know you will appreciate
the importance of forcefully demonstrating, particularly before the new congres-
sional .session, the people's will for peace through cooperation and friendship
with the Soviet I nion.
The Ambassador from the Soviet Union, His Excellency Mr. Alexander S.
Panyushkin. will address the meeting. The mreting will also feature Paul
Robeson, other well-known speakers, and a program of entertainment.
As you may recollect, thousands were turned away from the Garden on the
occasion of the dean's last visit here in 1945. Thus, to insure you proper ac-
commodations, we are enclosing an advance ticket order blank.
Senator Tydings. What was the date of that?
Senator McCarthy. Tliis is November l(i, 1948.
Won't you plan to attend this rally for peace and reserve seats for yourself
and your friends?
I point out that Miss Kenyon was not merely a member of this
organization Init one of the sponsors, and I hand the Chair the exhibit
labeled ^'2."
Senator Tydings. "Will you pause a moment there, Senator, until
we look at the document '^.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, while the balance of the com-
mittee are looking at the docuunent, may I inquire as to how long
the committee intends to remain in session today ?
Senator Tydings. How long w^ould you like us to remain?
Senator McCarthy^. I frankly had hoped to develop three or four
cases. HoAvever, I do want to be on the floor today, and my thought is
that we should certainly develop more than we have now, but I would
not like to stay away more than an hour.
Senator Tydings. I have conferred with the members of the com-
mittee, and most of them seem to be of the opinion that we could con-
tinue for another half hour. Their engagements are such that at that
time thev won't be able to remain.
22 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. I might suggest that Senator McCarthy
probably can get through with his presentation and the presentation
of his exhibits which he alleges support his position if we just let
him go.
Senator Tydings. Yes; but Senator, we want to get all the evidence
that is pertinent as we go along. We do not want to get it lopsided.
We want to make sure that everything is weighed properly and proper
connotations are put on it.
Senator McCarthy. May I ask the Chair, so I may make prepara-
tions, is it planned that we will have daily hearings?
Senator Tydings. We will meet tomorrow morning at 10 : 30, and
the only possible change I can see to that would be that the Senate
would agree to some unanimous-consent agreement during the day
to vote prior to 12 o'clock. We will certainly run from 10 : 30 to 12,
and maybe longer, if we ai-e not confronted with a vote in the Senate.
Tomorrow I hope you will have the answei-s to those two questions,
Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. I am sure the Chair will be satisfied with the
information lie gets.
Senator Green. With regard to this exhibit that has been put in
as evidence, I would like to draw attention to some of the names on
these sponsors of the National Council of American-Soviet Friend-
ship, Inc., which is considered such a Communist group. Here are the
Honorable Arthur Capper
Senator Tydings. Senator Capper?
Senator Green. Yes. The Honorable Claude Pepper; the Honor-
able Elbert D. Thomas ; the Honorable Joseph E. Davies, and a great
many other similar names.
Senator Hickenlooper. There are a great many others that the
Senator could read too, off that list.
Senator Green. If there are, I would like for you to read them.
Senator Hickenlooper. I do not want to take the time. That is an
exhibit the Senator has put in to substantiate the fact that the person
he alleges was a sponsor of an organization, and it seems to me we are
wasting time.
Senator Green. And the names on it are significant.
Senator Tydings. No exhibit can be given in part under any rules
of evidence that I have ever heard of, either before a Senate commit-
tee or anything else. You have to put it all in or keep it all out.
Senator Hickenlooper. That is what he has offered.
Senator Tydings. The Senator has read a letter and he has read
one name. I am going to take the liberty of reading all the names :
Louis Adamic, a candidate for the Senate in Illinois; George F.
Addes; Maxwell Anderson, playwright; John Taylor Arms; Max
Bedecht; Mrs. Alice S. Belester; Dr. Henry Lambert Bibby; Mrs.
Louis Bldch; Mrs. Anita Block; Simon Breines; Prof. E. W. Burgess;
Hon. Arthur Capper. Was he a United States Senator at the time this
was held? Charles Cha]^lin; Hon. John M. Coffee; Dr. Henry S.
Coffin ; Aaron Copland ; Norman Corwin ; Jo Davidson ; Hon. Joseph
E. Davies; Dr. Herbert John Davis; Hon. Hugh DeLacy, Member of
Congress; Dr. Stephen Duggan; Prof. Albert Einstein; Max Ep-
stein; Dr. Mildred Fairchild: Dr. Robert D. Feild; Lion Feucht-
wanger; the Reverend Joseph F. Fletcher; Homer Folks; Dr. W.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 23
Horsley Gantt : Dr. Caleb F. Gates, Jr.; Dean Christian Gauss; Ben
Gold; Dr. Mortimer Graves; Dr. Plarry Grundfest.
Also Dr. Alice Hamilton; Lillian Hellman; Mrs. Tliomas N.
Hepburn; Dr. Leslie Pinckney Hill; Prof. William Ernest Hocking;
Dr. Walter M. Horton; Langston Hughes; Dr. Walter Hullihen; Hon.
Stanley M. Isaacs; Dr. Millard H. Jencks; Prof. Howard INIumford
Jones; Helen Keller; Rockwell Kent; Dorothy Kenyon; Dr. Serge
Koussevitzky, leader of one of the great orchestras, I believe; Mrs.
Thomas W. Lamont; William W. Lancaster; Dr. Emil Lengyel;
John F. Lewis, Jr.; Prof. Robert S. Lynd; Clifford T. McAvoy;
Judge Lois JNIary McBride ; Maurice Maeterlinck ; Fritz Mahler ; Dr.
Thomas Mann ; Frank X. Martel ; Dr. Kirtley F. Mather ; Lewis Mer-
rill; Dr. George R. Minot; Mrs. Lucy Sprague Mitchell; Dr. Wesley
C. Mitchell; Charles Michael Mitzell; Pierre Monteux; Mme. Pierre
Monteux ; Bishop Arthur W. Moulton ; Hon. James E. Murray, United
States Senator; Dr. Philip G. Nash; Dr. Robert Hastings Nichols;
Eugene O'Neill ; Dr. ]\Iarion Edwards Park ; Dr. Frederick Douglas
Patterson ; Bishop Malcom E. Peabody ; Hon. Claude Pepper, United
States Senator ; Prof. Ralph Barton Perry ; Dr. E. C. Peters ; Dr. John
P. Peters ; Henry W. Pope ; ISIichael Quill : Carl Randau.
Also Anton Refregier; Elmer Rice; AVallingford Riegger; Paul
Robeson; Col. Raymond Robins; Earl Robinson; Reid Robinson;
Harold J. Rome; Joseph A. Rosen; Joseph A. Salerno; Miles M.
Sherover; Raymond P. Sloan; Dr. P. A. Sorokin; Maxwell S. Stew-
art; Leopold Stokowski, leader of an orchestra; Raymond Swing,
radio commentator; Genevieve Tabouis; Hon. Elbert D. Thomas;
R. J. Thomas: Dr. Max Thorek; S. A. Trone; Philip H. Van Gelder;
R. E. Van Horn; Professor George Vernadsky; Bishop W. J. Walls;
Dr. Harry F. Ward; Leroy Waterman: Max Weber; Dr. Henry N.
Wieman ;'Dr. C. C. Williams ; Hon. James H. Wolfe ; Dr. Max Yergan ;
Dean Mary Yost ; Dr. J. J. Zmrhal ; Leane Zugsmith.
I think that they all ought to be in there, so that we can judge from
the association the full purport of the letter and the inference.
Senator Lodge. Before you go on, Mr. Chairman, I want to say
once again that I am for having questions and I am for having the
statements with the proper connotations and proper evaluation, but
I think to interrupt the witness every single time and break up his
continuity and destroy the flow of his argument, the way we are doing,
is not the right procedure.
Senator Tydixgs. Just let me sav somethino- here in answer to that,
Senator Lodge. I have never in my life been connected with an}- sena-
torial, legal, or other inquiiy where an exhibit could be placed in evi-
dence and only parts of it read. It is not only fair, it is incumbent
upon this committee that the whole exhibit be placed before the press
of tlie country if this is an open hearing, and not just the parts of i*"
that may serve some ulterior motive.
Senator Lodge. Of course if we read the list on every single letter-
head of ever}' single thing that is put in here, we will be here until
Christmas. I am not objecting to putting in the complete documents
in the record; of course I am not objecting to that. I am objecting to
this constant interruption of the witness so that he never gets a fair
shake, that's all.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 3
24 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVE'STIGATION
Senator Green. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it is the only proper
thing for us to do to interrupt. Here the witness has introduced a
document, and he ended up his introduction by introducing the docu-
ment as evidence of the Communist affiliations of Miss Kenyon. He
ends up by saying, "other well-known Communists sponsoring the
event were Howard Fast, Saul Mills, Ella Winter, John Howard Law-
son, and Langston Hughes," and I wanted to ask the Senator from
Massachusetts whether he thinks it is fair to pick out those names and
omit the other names that were read.
Senator Lodge. I think the time to do that is after Senator Mc-
Carthy has made his statement. Then we can each one go at him.
That is the way it has been done here ever since I have been here. I
think the immemorial practice is to let the witness make a statement
and then the chairman asks the senior man to ask questions, and then
the senior man on the other side, and then he finally comes down to
the low man on the totem pole and everybody has his chance to ask
questions. That is the way it has always been done. For some reason
that has not been made clear to me, whether it is to rattle or whether
it is to confuse or something, I do not knoAV, we have an entirely dif-
ferent procedure today.
Senator Green. What the witness is attempting to do is to give the
impression of a certain instrament — I do not mean to say it is inten-
tional, but the result of the names that he has selected gi^es a very
false impression of the instrument.
Senator Lodge. And the Senator from Khocle Island is perfectly
capable of clearing that point up. He is a very eloquent man. He
is not a Philadelphia lawyer, he is a Providence lawyer, and when
his time comes to question he can clear all those points up, and that
is the orderly way to do it from the standpoint of the committee, from
the stand])oint of the presentation in the press, and from the stand-
point of fairness to the witness.
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge, if I may say this, if this were a
hearing in executive session, that would be one thing, but these charges
are going out all over the country in the press and they ought to go
out with all of the evidence available, and not just selected parts of it.
If it does not go out in that status before the people of the country,
then the people cannot draw the full conclusion that the evidence
presented warrants, and I think it has to go that way or it should
not go at all, if we are going to have open hearings.
Senator Green. We are not attem]:)ting to introduce other evidence
to contradict tlie witness or to supplement it. All we want is the full
statement, and not extracts.
Senator Lodge. All the evidence is not available. I quite agree with
the chairman and with Senator Green that it would be most unfortu-
nate if reputations of innocent persons were in any way besmirched,
but we cannot in any possible way clear up the wrong that has been
done on the spur of the moment. The time to do that is after the Sena-
tor has made his charges. Then we investigate the charges. That
is the Avay to proceed.
Senator Green. Mr. Chairman, as was brouoht out in the intro-
ductory discussion of this matter, this is a public meeting and charges
go out and are spread all over the country in the news]iapers, and if
at the time a mistaken summary of a document is given, the correct
summary won't catch up with it at all. The matter will be ancient
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 25
history and newspapers won't print it. The eloquent Senator from
Massachusetts knows as a newspaperman that that is tlic fact, so it is
important to have tliat false impression removed at the time the list
of these people is given out to the press.
Senator Lodge. I also know that there are none of us here in this
connnittee who have the information at hand to correct any misstate-
ments that the Avitness may make.
Senator Gijeen. The witness has given it to us to be given to the
public.
Senator Tydtngs. Now that the Chair is overruled, all documents
that are submitted will be read in full hereafter so that the people
of the country may get all the evidence at the time.
Senator Lodge. That is perfectly all right with me. I have no
objection to the documents that the witness puts in being read in full.
What I object to is this constant interruption and hacking away at
him all the time so he does not get a chance to make his argument.
Senator Hickenlooper. Just to clear up a statement of the chair-
man, the Senator from Wisconsin just submitted the Official Register
of the United States, 1949, containing on page 490 the name of Doro-
thy Kenyon, Commission on the Status of Women, New York; sal-
ary and compensation, $12,000 a year. Does the chairman intend to
read the entire Official Register of the United States every time the
Senator from Wisconsin wants to produce a name or something to
prove a specific point?
Senator Tydixgs. I will read into the record the names of all the
people on this Commission. I do not see any need to go and put all
the consuls from Shanghai to Singapore on the one hand, and Ice-
land to some other place, in the record.
Senator Hickexlooper. But, Mr. Chairman, the witness only intro-
duced that to indicate a position of employment of a particular in-
dividual.
Senator Tydixgs. That's right.
Senator Hickenlooper. The other names are not involved one way
or another, other than the allegation that she was employed by the
State Department.
Senator Tydixgs. And there is no allegation here that this is a
Communist-front organization, but there was an allegation in the
other case that that was a Communist-front organization, and there-
fore we ought to see who is in it, which is an entirely different matter.
Senator Hickexlooper. I just want to know whether the chairman
is going to read the entire Register.
Senator Tydix'GS. I would also draw the observation that the gen-
tlemen on the right of me are now consuming more time than are the
gentlemen on the left.
Senator Lodge. I deny that. I would like to have my comments
drawn up against those of the chairman, and we will find out.
Senator Tydix-^os. You should not complain and then adopt the
ver}^ thing j'ou are complaining about.
Senator Lodge. I am not doing that. No, I am not doing that.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I think as I give the documents
showing the Communist-front organizations that this individual has
belonged to. you will find in almost rather a sizable number the names
of some fine individuals, I think that it is possible that you yourself
may be duped into joining, or having your name used on some Com-
26 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
munist-front organization. The reason I submit the vast number
is that it is impossible for any normal individual, of normal intel-
ligence, to be so deceived that they can act as sponsors for 28 different
Communist-front organizations, I might say that I personally would
not be caught dead belonging to any one of the 28.
Senator Tydings. That is opinion, Senator. We would like to have
the evidence and the facts, and we can judge more from them than
we can from opinions. We will have to form the opinions.
Senator Lodge. Surely the Senator can express opinions.
Senator Tydings. If we are going to condemn people on opinion
evidence, there won't be many people left in the end.
Senator Lodge. If we are going to prevent the Senator from ex-
pressing opinions, the character of this whole body is going to change.
Senator McCarthy. I thank the Senator.
I might say that one of the grounds for dismissal of an employee
who has top-secret clearance is his associations. As the Senator knows,
if he is a banker and he is looking for a cashier and he finds that Mr.
Smith chums with safecrackers, bookies, gamblers, cheats, and rogues,
he won't hire Mr. Smith as a cashier, and that is the theory that I as-
sume our State Department goes upon. If they find these individuals
with unusual connections, a long trend, they can assume that they are
unsafe risks. The Secretary has so stated, I believe.
In sponsoring the Red Dean of Canterbury's appearance in the
United States a j^ear and a half ago Miss Kenyon collaborated with
such pro-Communists as Ben Gold, the avowed Conamunist leader of
the Fur Workers Union, and Paul Robeson.
Here we have the singular situation of the Department of State
refusing to admit one of the world's most prominent radical Com-
munist churchmen and on the other hand one of the Department's
prominent officials welcoming and sponsoring him to this country.
It would seem, Mr. Chairman, as though perhaps the State Depart-
ment's left hand does not know what the other hand is doing ; or per-
haps put it the other way around. The right hand does not know
what the left hand is doing.
I should now like to hand the committee exhibit 3. This is a cordial
invitation to attend a dinner and presentation of the first annual award
of the American Russian Institute to President Franklin Roosevelt for
"Furthering American-Soviet Relations."
The event occurred on May 7, 1946, at 6 : 30 o'clock in the evening
in the grand ball room of the Pennsylvania Hotel in New York City.
The dinner cost $7.50 a plate.
The American Russian Institute has been cited as subversive by the
House Un-American Activities Committee, California Un-American
Activities Committee, and the Attorney General.
Senator McMahon. On what date. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. What date were they cited ?
Senator McMahon. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. I do not haA^e the dates of the citation. I think
the Senator will recall as well as I do the date the Attorney General
put out his list.
Senator Tydings. Was this before or after the Attorney General
put out his list?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 27
Senator IMclMAirox. That is quite material. You see Senator Lodge,
this is a perfect illustration of the value of a question at the proper
time to clear up a statement of fact. Here is a dinner which is held
under date of May 7, 1946. in New York City. The Senator proceeds
to say that the organization that sponsored it was cited as subversive
by the House Un-American Activities Committee, the California Un-
American Activities Committee, and the Attorney General. Now, it
is quite conceivable that a jierson would have been a sponsor on May
7, 194G, and have refused to have been a sponsor a year or a year and
a half later, after the American Russian Institute had been denom-
inated as being subversive. There is a perfect illustration of the value
of questioning any Avitness, whether he be a Senator or anybody else,
in order to ti-y to convey what the truth of the matter is.
I think it is regrettable, Senator, that you have not that information
with you at the present time. I shall secure it and jnit it in the record.
Senator Ttuings. I am sure the Senator from Wisconsin sees the
wisdom of what the Senator from Connecticut has so pertinently
brought out — the great difference that there might be in a case like
this, of an innocent person joining what he thought was a worth-while
organization or movement or occasion or ceremony on the one hand,
thinking there was nothing subversive about it, and who learns later
that it is denominated as a subversive organization.
Now, certainly, don't we owe it to these people whose names we are
throwing about the country, on the radio and in the press and in
magazines and in the newspapers, to at least give them, those who have
acted in good faith and with purely patriotic motives, the right to have
the testimony surrounded by facts before it is given, so that we do not
do infinite harm to people mIio, I am sure the Senator himself in some
cases would say, are not Communists ?
Senator Lodge. Before the witness answer that, my able friend from
Connecticut addressed me. I do not agree with him at all that this
is an example of why it is a good thing to interrupt the witness. It
is perfectly possible to make a note of the fact that he did not mention
the date and later on bring it out. In fact, I think that is a more
effective way to do it. These questions of dates, I noted that myself
and I made a note of it to ask the Senator from Wisconsin later, when
my turn came to ask questions.
All I want to do is not to break the continuity of the argmnent. Then
let him make the argument, and those who want to try to tear the
argmnent down will have a chance to do it.
Senator Tydixgs. Let me say I thought I was speaking for every
member of the committee wdien I said that I hoped we could conduct
this investigation so that it would not be labeled either a witch hunt
or a whitewash. In order to do that, if we are going to live up to that
formula, it seems to me, if we allow a lot of statements to go in the
record that are subject to instantaneous false impressions and con-
clusions, that we may not have intended to conduct a witch hunt but
we are getting pretty close over on the other barrier.
I have no desire to shut off anj^ testimony that the Senator from
Wisconsin has, but I would caution him that when he makes a state-
ment he ought to be able to supply the dates so that false impressions
and false conclusions cannot be drawn from his testimony, which,
even though we corrected it later, might not reach the press and the
28 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVEiSTIGATION
radio, and I simply say that tliat is just justice, nothing more than
simple justice.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I can say right now that the
proceedings as far as they have gone this morning, if the proceedings
as patterned this morning are to continue throughout this investiga-
tion, it is heading for a label of some kind, and I may have to name it.
Senator Tydings. I agree with you thoroughly, and I could name
it too.
Senator McCarthy. The Chair just stated that he thought these
names should not be all bandied about the country. I have pointed
out to the Chair, and I believe this was pointed out by the Attorney
General, that in almost any one of these organizaitons labeled sub-
versive you will find from time to time competent people's names listed.
You will not lind one individual belonging to 25 or 30.
Senator Tydings. That is drawing a conclusion, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. When the Senator says we shall not put all
these names out to the country, it is the Senator who is reading them.
I am merely reading the name of this individual who belongs to 28
organizations that have been listed as subversive by the Attorney Gen-
eral, by the House committee, and other official bodies. Let us make it
clear that you are referring to all of these names going out. I am
not putting those names out ; that is the chairman.
Along with the lady sponsoring this dinner appeared Lee Pressman,
who has been named as a member of the Communist underground cell
in the Government by Whitaker Chambers. Other well-known Com-
munists sponsoring the event were Howard Fast, Saul Mills, Ella
Winter, John Howard Lawson, and Langston Hughes.
Senator Green. There, I think that is a selected list that you have
made up, is it not ?
Senator McCarthy. The present executive director of this subver-
sive organization is Henry H. Collins, late of the State Department,
who has been named by Whitaker Chambers as a member of the Com-
munist spy ring operating in the Federal Government.
Senator Hickenlooper. Didn't you skijD a paragraph ?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have another paragraph, following the
list of names the Senator read in. I don't know whether the Senator
intended to leave the paragraph out or not, or whether I have an
accurate copy.
Senator McCarthy. I beg your pardon. The Senator from Khode
Island interrupted, and I lost my place.
Other well-known Communists sponsoring the event were Howard
Fast, Saul Mills, Ella Winter, John Howard Lawson, and Langston
Hughes.
Although I shall discuss the unusual affinity of Mr. Phillip C.
Jessup, of the State Department, for Communist causes later in this
inquiry, I think it pertinent to note that this gentleman now formulat-
ing top-flight policy in the Far East affecting half the civilized world
was also a sponsor of the American Russian Listitute.
The present executive director of this subversive organization is
Henry H. Collins, late of the State Department, who has been named
by Whitaker Chambers as a member of the Communist spy ring oper-
ating in the Federal Government. It was in the home of Mr. Collins,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 29
accoixling to Chambers, that some of the niicrofihns of secret State
Department documents were made. Collins was also one of those
who refused to testify before the House Un-American Activities Com-
mittee as to whether or not he was a Communist Party member.
The Conference on Pan American Democracy has been declared to
be a subversive Communist organization by the Attorney General of
the United States, the House Un-American Activities Committee, and
the California Un-American Activities Committee.
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, would you put in the dates
tliere, if you have them?
Senator McCarthy. I think much of the material the Chair wants
will have to be developed by the committee. I just cannot afford to
hire the investigators to present a court case to the committee.
Senator Tydixgs. I thought you might have it and it would save
us work ; that is all.
Senator McCarthy. I would rather the committee saved me some
work.
Senator Tydixgs. You are making charges
Senator McCarthy. I am not making charges. I am giving the
committee information of individuals who appear to all tlie rules of
common sense as being very bad security risks. I am giving the
committee information which I think they are bound to follow under
the Senate mandate.
Senator Tydings. Let me follow you there.
Senator McCarthy. Let me finish, Mr. Chairman. Let's have an
agreement. When you ask a question, let me finish my answer, will
you?
The Senate unanimously gave this committee a mandate. I think
that mandate is to develop any information which on its face makes
it appear tliat the individual concerned is a bad security risk. And
I frankly do not — let's make this clear — have the staff to take each
of the cases and develop it to the point of making a court case. You
understand that.
Senator Tydings. You have left the committee in a rather embar-
rassing position, because the resolution which brings us here and
which brings you here reads as follows :
In the conduct of this study and investigation, the committee is directed to
procure by subpena and examine the complete loyalty and employment files and
records of all Government employees in the Department of State and other such
agencies against whom charges have been heard.
Without somebody makes a charge, or you call it a charge, what
do we do then ? How do we get the records ? We are only author-
ized to get them, by the Senate language, if you or somebody makes a
charge. You say you are not making any charge. We are in a pretty
small position to issue a subpena.
Senator McCarthy. Senator, let me say this. If there is any-
thing you want me to do to make it possible for you to get those sub-
penas, I will do it. I am not in a position to file any formal charges.
What you mean by a charge I do not know. If you want me to
charge that from the evidence it appears that this woman is an ex-
tremely bad security risk, that she should not be in the State Depart-
ment 1 hour, I will be glad to say that. If you tell me what you
mean by a charge, what 3'ou want me to do so that you will under this
30 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
mandate be entitled to say to the President, "We want those files, all of
them," yon may be snre I will do that.
Senator Tydings. Senator, let me say to yon that I think all that
you have said up to now are charges, and you have given information
that you have to support those charges as you see it. I would call
them charges. Certainly we are not going to have an investigation
without some charges being made, and the Senate itself put the lan-
guage in. Fortunately I was not there the night the resolution was
adopted. I only inherited it, and I have read it over six or eight
times. I think that we are perfectly at liberty to get these files by
any proper method that we can devise, because of what you are testi-
fying. But I would label them charges, because I am sure you are
charging these people with being either Communists or allied with
Communists. You called it a Communist spy ring in the State De-
pai'tment, and I think all those things are charges, and I think it is
our duty to investigate it. I think they are charges.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I take it the witness is actu-
ally charging that the people to whom he refers in these outlines of
information are bad security risks. I take it the Senator is making
that charge.
Senator McCarthy. I am convinced of that. I think any normal
man would be convinced of that. If I must do something in addition
to that to make it possible for you to get the files, you can be sure
I will do it.
Senator Ttdings. I will consider that what you said are charges.
Senator McCarthy. I will say before handing you this next doci^-
ment that it is difficult for me to understand the apparent perplexity
of my Democratic colleagues on the committee with reference to the
names that appear on these documents. I know the Senators are all
aware of the fact that if the Communists did not enlist well-meaning
and prominent persons in every phase of American life it would not
be a front organization. Wlien the FBI turned over the results of its
probe of these front organizations to the Attorney General, it was well
known that the names of prominent and reputable citizens were inter-
mingled with the Communists and pro-Communists. Despite this
knowledge he proceeded to declare without equivocation these organi-
zations that I have specified as Communist front and as subversive
and therefore dangerous to our national security ; and I might say that
the significance of these documents, Mr. Chairman, is not that this
woman belongs to one organization that the Attorney General has said
is subversive, but her long chain of activity starting from, I believe the
first document is 1935, right up to date.
Senator Tydings. To reassure you, I do not know of anything you
have said so far that we should not investigate.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you.
Senator McMahon. I gather, then, from what you have just said,
that just because a person's name is on the list of sponsors of an organi-
zation which has been declared as — what is the language, "subversive"?
Senator McCarthy. The Attorney General declares them subver-
sive. Different committees have given them a different label.
Senator McMahon. That that per se does not make a citizen suspect.
Senator McCarthy. No. I think this, though, Senator. If you
find someone in the State Department who is a member of a Commu-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 31
nist front oroanizatioii, then you should check the amount of activity
he has had in that organization, his association with people who are
known Communists. No, definitely not. There are some fine people
who have been tricked into having their names placed on these. For
example, I would not be surprised, Senator, if some of the members
sitting at the table, who are certainly all loyal Americans, might have
at some time or another received a letter from an organization, "Will
you sponsor a dinner we are throwing for So-and-so?", and you might
write back and say "All right."
I do think, however, wdien you get to people who are on loyalty
boards, who are getting top secret clearance^ then if you find they even
belong to one Communist front organization we should go further.
I think when you find that you have a long chain such as we have here,
of 28, you haA'e an extremely bad situation.
Senator McMaiion. The point you are making is that it is cumula-
tive. One case might well be just casual and accidental, but your
opinion is that it is cumulative, and if there are — how many has she
been a member of ?
Senator McCarthy. Twenty-eight I have now. Most likely that is
not the entire list.
Senator ]\IcMaiiox. That is a great number and it is something to be
looked into, and it would be very helpful, Senator, and of course I
understand that you say you can't do it, but it would be very helpful
to me in evaluating it to find how many she joined after the Attorney
General went into them, and how many before.
This is said with no reference to this Kenyon woman, whom I never
heard of before in my life, but there are some naive people in the
country, too, that will join any old thing that comes along.
Senator McCarthy. Someone so naive is a bad security risk, so
naive that they would sponsor 28.
Senator McMahox. I am not arguing that. I am just pointing
out that it would be interesting to find out the dates this woman
joined the organizations and when they were declared subversive.
Senator McCarthy. That is one of the reasons I hope very quickly
the committee hires a staff so that these matters can be checked into.
I give the committee exhibit 4, a letterhead of this organization
dated November 16, 1938, going back 12 years. The members will
note that over 11 years ago Dorothy Kenyon was a sponsor of this
organization which held a conference in Washington on December 10
of the same year.
Her Communist associates in this enterprise included Langston
Hughes, Rockwell Kent, Lewis Merrill, Mervyn Rathborne, and Dirk
J. Struick.
Senator Tydixgs. Put in all the names, Mr. Recorder, in addition to
those the Senator has named.
(Note. — Other names on the letterhead marked exhibit 4 are as
follows:)
Prof. Donald ^IcConnell Algernon Black
Dr. David Efron Bruce Bliven
Louis Adamic Dr. Franz Boas
Dr. Wallace W. Atwood Heywood Broun
Eleanor Copenhaver Anderson Erskine Caldwell
Prof. Hugo Fernandez Artucio Charlotte Carr
Eunice Fuller Barhard Bennett A. Cerf
Alfred M. Bingham Evans A. Clark
32
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Max Lerner
Marine Lopes
Jeau Lyons
George Marshall
Lewis Merrill
Dr. Clyde R. Miller
Prof. Gardner Murphy
William Pickens
A. Phillip Randolph
David Saposs
Prof. Margaret Schlauch
Adelaide Schulkind
Guy Emery Shipler
James T. Shotwell
Upton Sinclair
George Soule
Isobel Walker Soule
Maxwell Stewart
Isidore F. Stone
William Wachs
Prof. Goodwin Watson
Roy Wilkins
Dr. Max Winkler
Dr. Stephen S. Wise
Max Yergan
Gifford A. Cochran
Dr. Gilberto Concepcion De Gracia
Prof. George Counts
Malcolm Cowley
Prof. Horace Davis
Prof. Jerome Davis
R. E. Diffendorfer
Bail<?y W. Diffie
Dr. William K. Dodo
Prof. Paul H. Douglas
Dr. Henry Grattan Doyle
John L. Elliott
Prof. Henry Pratt Fairchild
Prof. Irving Fisher
Prof. Eugene Forsey
Margaret Forsythe
Frances R. Grant
Alberto Grieve
Sidney Hillman
Prof. Arthur H. Holcombe
John Haynes Holmes
Quincy Howe
Rev. William Lloyd Imes
Stanley M. Isaacs
Gardner Jackson
Prof. Chester L. Jones
Senator McCarthy. The Senator will note this, that yon have the
names of the same men who have been pnblicly labeled as Communists
on practically each one of these Communist-front organizations as a
sponsor or one of the top officers. You will note also that the re-
spectable names that you will find on one or two of these do not perme-
ate the whole file.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead, Senator. Conclude that page, and
then we will try to quit ; before you get to the next exhibit.
Senator McCarthy. It might be of interest to the committee to
knoAv that Mervyn Rathborne, a consponsor with Miss Kenyon, has
just testified for the Government at the trial of Harry Bridges, stating
under oath that he was a member of the Communist Party at the
time of this conference and that he was frequently a visitor at the
White Plouse.
I think it is important that the committee know that the Communist
activities of Miss Kenyon are not only deep-rooted but extend back
through the years. Her sponsorship of the doctrines and philosophy
of this ruthless and Godless organization is not new.
It is inconceival^le that this woman could collaborate with a score
of organizations dedicated to the overthrow of our form of govern-
ment by force and violence, participate in their activities, lend her
name- to their nefarious purposes and be ignorant of the whole sordid
and un-American aspect of their work.
Senator Tydings. That finishes exhibit 4. The committee will
stand in recess until 10 : 30 tomorrow morning, in this place.
Senator McCarthy. May I ask the Chair before you adjourn how
long you p]i\n on proceeding tomorrow ?
Senator Tydings. I would imagine Ave would go for probably an
hour and a half for certain, and maybe 2 hours.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, to 12 : 30 or 1 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m., the hearing was adjourned, to re-
convene at 10 : 30 a. m. of the following day, Thursday, March 9,
1960.)
STATE DEPAETMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY
INVESTIGATION
THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington^ I). C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :30 a. m. in room 318
Senate Office Building, Senator Millard E. Tydings, chairman of the
subcommittee, presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) , Green,
McMahon, Hickenlooper.
Also present : Senators Connally (chairman of the full committee) ,
McCarthy, Lucas, and Knowland.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH K. McCARTHY, UNITED STATES
SENATOR PROM WISCONSIN— Resumed
Senator Tydings. Senator, at the opening of yesterday's hearing I
asked you, or sometime during the hearing I asked you, if you could
be in position this morning to give us the name of the individual that
caused so much controversy yesterday. Would you care to respond to
that request now ?
Senator McCarthy. I am very happy to do so, ]Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I understand you would like me to answer the fol-
lowing questions in case No. 14. We are referring yesterday to case
No. 57. I learned afterward you meant case No. 14,
Senator Tydings. I said No. 14, but I did not know what connota-
tion you had.
Senator .McCarthy. Question No. 1: "Will you give the name of
this individual ?" The answer is yes. I now hand you that name, with
a copy for each of the individuals on the committee.
Senator Tydings. Just a moment. Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Let me finish the statement : Can I give you the
name of the State Department official mentioned in the secret files in
that case, and am I making any charge against that official ?
The answer is no.
Senator Hickenlooper. Would you repeat what you said. Senator?
I was busy looking here and did not hear what you said. You handed
in the name of the individual.
Senator McCarthy. Let me read you both of them. I understand
the chairman wants me to answer two questions this morning. No. 1 :
"Will you give the name of the individual in case No. 14 ?*' The answer
to that is yes, and I have now handed him the name, with a copy for
each member of the committee.
33
34 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INrVESTIGATION
No. 2, can I give him the name of the State Department official men-
tioned in the secret files in that case, and am I making any charge
against that official? The answer is no. The committee can make
snch charge against this or any other individual in this case or any
other case as it sees fit. That is the task delegated to the committee by
the Senate. Only those whom I name am I charging as bad security
risks. However, the committee undoubtedly will find many whom it
desires to charge in like manner.
If the chairman, now that he has the name of case No. 14, desires
the name of the particular State Department official whom he referred
to yesterday, I can tell him how to obtain it in a very simple and easy
manner. That is by subpenaing the files. However, to get the com-
plete story in this case, it undoubtedly will be necessary to get not
merely the State Department's — and this is important, Mr. Chair-
man— loose-leaf loyalty and personnel files, the two files of the State
Department, but also the files of the Civil Service Commission and the
FBI.
If tlie chairman considers this morals case more important than the
other cases, I have no objection whatsoever to recessing the hearings
until the committee obtains the files.
Senator Ttdings. Senator, might I ask you whether the name of this
individual is in your files?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Senator Tydings. It is not?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Senator Tydings. It is not in the file in case No. 14?
Senator McCarthy. I have given the chairman all of the informa-
tion in case No. 14 on the Senate floor. There are a great number of
names in the secret files, in the FBI files, and the Civil Service Com-
mission files. He wdll find those names by, as I say, subpenaing and
getting the files.
Senator Tydings. Wlien you testified in this case — and I just want
to clear it up — you said :
In this case —
that is case No. 14 —
a CSA report of September 2, 1947, is replete with information concerning the
attempt of a high State Department official —
and so forth.
Now I assume that the information which is so replete did not con-
tain the name of this high State Department official.
Senator McCarthy. I am sure the chairman will find all the names
he is interested in in that file. I tell the chairman those are the secret
files to which I have not access. I have the information. I am sure
the chairman will find that every word, every single word, that I have
stated on the Senate floor in 'regard to this case is true. If the
chairman wants the name, he can get the name. I can't. I do not
have subpena powers. If the chairman is interested in this case, he can
now test the authority of the committee and, as I say, if the chairman
thinks this particular morals case — this is principally a morals case,
understand — is of sufficient import, I have no objection whatever to
recessing — not that my objection would be controlling, understand —
letting the chairman subpena the files ; and, if upon examination of
those files he finds that he wants to investigate some individual other
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 35
than those I have named, obviously that is completely up to the chair-
man.
Senator Tydings. I would like to say, Senator McCarthy, we will in
due time, I am sure, attempt, and I believe obtain, access to all these
files. A-NHiat I was trying to ascertain this morning was whether or not
your photostatic copies, whicli you said you had, of a great many of
these cases — I assumed all of them — had the name of this person in
j'our own files, and I understand that you say it is not there.
Senator McCarthy. I do not have the name of the individual. Un-
doubtedly his name will show up from time to time in my files, but I as
of now cannot identify the individual to whom you refer. But there is
nothing mysterious aljout any of these names, Mr. Chairman. If the
Chair is so anxious to get that name, he can recess this very minute and
go over and say to the Secretary of State, "Let me see the file in case
No. 14. I want tlie names." Then, if the Secretary of State says you
cannot see them, that that is a secret from you, the Chair has the power
to subpena. Mr. Chairman, don't expect me to give you all the minute
details of these files.
Senator Greex. Apparently Senator Tydings has not made clear the
point. It isn't that we want to know the names, but we wanted to know
whether you knew the names.
Senator McCarthy. I have told you that I cannot give you the
name. I do not know it at this time. I can try and get it for you.
Senator Hickenlooper. I may say that the point certainly has not
been made clear to me as yet. 1 don't know what the purpose of this
persistent inquiry on a matter which this committee can readily find
out if we just subpena the files and get hold of the information is.
I think the Senator has made clear that he does not have all the minute
details, and I take it that it is a part of the duty of this committee to
get hold of those files and to get hold of the intimate and detailed
information. So, I agree with the Senator from Ehode Island that
the point probably hasn't been made clear.
Senator McCarthy. I might say I have a very strong suspicion as
to the name of the individual. I will not give the Chair any suspicions.
1 understand that certain other — in fact, one of the members of one
of the investigating committees called me and told me he thought
lie knew the name of the individual. He might be able to help you.
I can give you that. But it is much simpler to get the name definitely
and certainly by calling and getting the FBI file in this case.
Senator Tydings. Thank you. Senator. We will endeavor to get
the names of all people who are involved in this case from all of the
files that are pertinent to this case. But I don't want to pursue the
matter unduly. I simply wanted to ascertain whether or not the
name of this man was in file 14 of your own records, and I under-
stand from your statement that the answer is "No."
Am I correct or wrong ?
Senator McCarthy. The name of the individual is not in my file
No. 14, period ; at least, not that I know of. When you ask do I know
his name, I have a strong suspicion as to what his name is, but the
Chair can find out definitely.
I am very curious, incidentallv-
5, im^n^ciiLtiii V f
Senator Tydings. I want to get on with the testimony, but I would
like to tell you that the reason I have asked you this question again
36 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
was this : You say, "In this case a CSA report of September 2, 1947,
is replete — is replete — with information covering the attempt of a
high State Department official to induce several individuals who had
signed affidavits reflecting adversely upon the employees to repudiate
their affidavits," and it occurred to me that if you could make that
statement, obviously, the name of the individual would be in your hies,
and I thought we could get it very quickly that way and act on it
very quickly in accordance therewith.
But now that you have testified that the name of this individvial
is not in case 14, although you say it is replete with information, there
is nothing else for us to do but look elsewhere for the name, as you
obviously do not have it.
Senator Green. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that necessarily
follows. The witness has several times limited his reply to saying,
when asked about the source of his statement that you have read,
that he did not have the name in file 14. I would like to ask hmi
whether he has it in any other files.
Senator McCarthy. Let me put it this way, so there is no doubt in
jour mind : I think I know the name of the individual. I have
naturally written that name down. It is in my files. I have seen no
original, no document, upon which I can definitely state the name is
John Jones or Pete Smith. That is available to you, gentlemen. I
do have papers, any number of them. I have information from indi-
viduals indicating various names. I do not have any documentary
proof of that, and I am sticking to that. Do you understand me now,
Senator ?
I have a very strong suspicion. I think I know the name, but it is.
too easy for you gentlemen to find it out for me to start giviiig my'
suspicions, to give you hearsay of what John Jones or Pete Sinith
has told me. When I say I do not have the name, I have seen no
original document stating what his name was. I have not seen the
original file giving his name. I have not seen a photostatic copy
of that file giving his name.
You, gentlemen, apparently know his name also. I think I know
the name. If you Icnow the name, which I assume you do, you can
j^roceed to make any charge you care to against this individual.
The Senator has referred to this as a "mystery" case. I don't think
there is anything mj^sterious about the case to the Senator. I am
slightly mystified as to the importance of this particular individual.
I think that case is important, you understand, or I Avould never have
mentioned it on the Senate floor. I think it is important. But let
me repeat that, while I feel I am reasonably certain I know his name,
I think the Senator who is now addressing me knows it just as well
as and better than I do.
I have no documentary proof, no original file, upon which I can
say definitely "The name is John Jones" or "Pete Smith." I have
given you the name of the individual in case No. 14. In his file you
will find documented everything which I said on the Senate floor,
everything I have said about this man, and I intend to stick to facts
that are completely documented. I hope that is clear. Senator.
Senator Green. I don't think your answer is responsive to my ques-
tion. You mistake the purpose of it. The purpose is not to find
the name of the individual ; it is to find out how accurate the founda-
tion is for your charges.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 37
Senator McCarthy. That .you can find out by obtaining the files.
Senator Tydings. Let the Senator finish his question.
Senator Greex. The question is not of the fact, but whether your
charges are based on facts. This is an illustration that I would like
to follow up.
I do not yet understand from your answer whether or not this
charoe, where you say the files are replete with references to this
individual and yet you cannot say whether you have his name or not.
And I want to know AA'hether there is, not in file 14 alone but in any
otlier file on which your charges are based, the name of this individual.
Senator jNIcCakthy. Senator, if you want to know whether or not
my charges are true or false, the best way in the world to find out is
to get the file. I have told you what is in the files. That file can be
subpenaed by you. You understand that, Senator. And that is the
best way in the world that you can determine whether every word I
have spoken here is true or false. We have given you the subpena
power. The entire Senate said to this committee, "We want this
committee to go into those files and find out whether or not what
McCarthy said is true," and the easiest way to do that is to get those
files. If I am saying a single word that is not true, I know that many
in the administration will enjoy proving it. The best way they can
prove it is to bring down all those files.
Now let me make this clear : I and the public will not be satisfied
with a loose-leaf State Department file in which you can shove in and
take out material. Unless you get all the files, so you are sure you
have them, and I will tell you how to do that without any difficulty,
when you do that, then you will find that every word, every word, that
I have given you as to what those files contain is, so far as I know,
absolutely true.
Now, the simplest and easiest way to find that out is to get those
files.
Senator Green. As I have stated to you several times, the object
of this question is not to find out whether it is true or false; it is to
find out how far 3'ou relied on facts in your possession for making
the charges.
You have said that your files are replete with references on which
you based an accusation against a high official of the State Depart-
ment.
Senator McCarthy. Not my files. I said the State Department files.
I didn't say copies of files in my possession. If the Senator will read
that statement, he will see that I said "the files'' — referring to the
State Department files, the FBI files, the Civil Service Commission
files — "are replete with that information." I repeat it now. I repeat
it. Senator, that every Avord that I have given you, every piece of
evidence as to what those files contain, you will find is there if you
will get the files.
Senator Green. I am going to be persistent, and I am going to get
an answer out of this or else get your refusal to answer. My question
is whether there is in your files the name of this individual.
Senator McCarthy. I think I know the name of the individual.
Senator Green. That isn't what I asked.
Senator McCarthy. Let me finish. Senator, please. I am reason-
ably certain I know his name.
Senator Green. That isn't what I asked.
38 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. You be quiet until I finish.
Senator Tydings. Let the witness answer in his own way.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am reasonably certain I know his name. I have nothing in my
files upon which I can base a definite, documented answer. There-
fore, I am not going to guess for you. Senator. I have told you this,
and let me make it clear. Unless I have seen the document showing
the name of that individual, I will not try and give it to you. Is that
clear ?
Senator Green. The question is perfectly clear, but the answer is
not. The question is : Is there in your files the name of this individual ?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, I don't know, because I don't know
definitely what his name is. There are many names in my file. Un-
doubtedly his name is in some of those files ; but, unless I know defi-
nitely that he is this particular State Department official, I can't
answer that.
Now the Senator can get that. He can find it out very simply. He
can get it in half an hour by calling Secretary Acheson.
Senator Tydings. Senator, you can proceed in a moment, but, with-
out wishing to be captious about it, I don't think the witness is testi-
fying to the accusation here by telling us over and over and over again
what we can do. 1 think the witness ought to be more responsive to
the direct question. I say this in the best of temper and with no desire
to cut him off, but I do think he ought to say "I have it" or "I haven't
it" and not how we can get it.
Senator McCarthy. I have made it very clear, Mr. Chairman. I
am sure the chairman is not dull. No one has ever accused him of
that. The chairman understands exactly what the situation is. He
knows the names in that file. I think I know them. I haven't seen
the original. I haven't seen a photostatic copy of the original so I
cannot tell this committee whether the name is John Jones or Pete
Smith, and until I can give them that information I will not attempt
to guess at it. This is not going to be any guessing contest so far as
I am concerned, gentlemen.
Senator Green. That is just what we want to avoid — a guessing
contest.
Here is an individual, a high official in the State De]:>artment, against
whom there is an accusation. I am not asking what his name is; I am
asking whether in your files his name is.
Senator McCarthy. I have just gotten through telling you that I
do not know definitely what his name is, period.
Senator Green. That is not the answer to the question.
Senator McCarthy. That is the answer you will get.
Senator Green. I am not asking you what the name is. I am asking
you whether you know the name is there — whether you know it or not.
Senator McCarthy. If I do not know definitely what his name is,
how can I know whether it is there? Your name is in my files, per-
haps ; I don't know. Not as a Communist, you understand.
Senator Green. I would not be surprised, in view of the long list
of very prominent people and people of highest position in the world.
I should judge it an honor to be on some of those lists you have put in.
Senator McCarthy. Just a minute. If you think it is an honor to be
on any of the lists that I am giving you — strike that.
STATE DEPARTAIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 39
Senator Hickenloopek. Mr. Chairniaii, I might suggest that these
organizations have been declared subversive by the Attorney General,
^vlio is a member of the Senator's own party, and it is an official de-
termination of the Federal Government bodies that these are sub-
versive organizations. If the Senator can take comfort out of that
Senator Green. The list seemed to be bipartisan so far as I can
distinguish.
Senator Hickenloopek. But the organizations have been declared
to be subversive.
Senator Green. As I have said several times, and I am going to
stick to it, I haven't J'et an answer to ni}^ question. Do you know
whether the name of the individual to whom you have referred, ap-
pearing in your files, not only once but the files are replete with his
name, do you know whether his name is there or not ?
Senator McCarthy. Let's first answer the first part of your ques-
tion. We will go right through it. You will get all the answers you
want. It may not be the one you want. Can we have an agreement
that Avhen you are talking I will be quiet, and when I am talking you
will be quiet ?
Senator Tydings. The witness will proceed until he has completed
his answer, without interruption.
Senator McCarthy. Can we have that understanding?
Senator Green. I think that is an understanding.
Senator McCarthy. You are speaking about honorable people,
honorable organizations. Here is what Secretary Acheson said about
the organizations that I have cited to you. He said this 4 days ago.
Referring to the security files, he said :
Participation in one or more of tlie parties or movements referred to above,
or in organizations whicli are fronts for, or are controlled by, any such party
or movement, either by membership therein, taking part in its executive direction
or control, contribution of funds thereto, attendance at meetings, employment
thereby, registration to vote as a member of such party, or signature on petition
to elect a member of such party to political office or to accomplish any other
purpose supported by such a party, or by written evidences or oral expressions
by speeches or otherwise, or political or economic or social views —
he lists those people as bad security risks. I am giving you the names
of organizations that come within the purview of that. If you think
these are honorable organizations you are entitled to that opinion.
Now you asked the next question. Now you say, "Is there in your
file the name of the State Department official referred to in the secret
files of case No. 14?" I have told you that I have a strong suspicion
as to who the individual is. I have no way of definitely knowing.
There is in my file the names of individuals whom I suspect of being
mentioned in that particular file, but not being able to say definitely
it is John Jones or Pete Smith, I cannot tell you whether he is in the
file or not.
Senator Tydings. I would like to interject for a moment. Inas-
much as a charge has been made by a witness now on the stand that
attempts have been made to doctor the record in the State Depart-
ment, I would like to serve notice on the witness now that we may
subpena or ask him to deliver his own files, so that we can check as
to whether the information that he has obtained in his photostatic
copies ties in with the loyalty and other files that we will, I hope, in
the course of time examine, and I wnll ask the Senator now to keep
68970—50 — pt. 1 4
4U STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY DsWESTIGATION
those files intact, with all the papers in them, so that we may make the
comparison at the proper time to see whether or not the State Depart-
ment files and the photostats which he allegedly had of them contain
the name.
Senator McMahon. ]\Ir. Chairman, as I understand it, yesterday
you notified Senator McCarthy that this case was to be the subject
of discussion today.
Senator Tydings. That's right.
Senator McMAHoisr. I take it. Senator, that you have prepared your-
self and brought with you everj^thing that you have on case 14 ?
Senator McCarthy. Everything of anv moment that I have on case
14 has been read into the Congressional Record.
Senator McMahon. Will you show me what you have on case 14 ?
Senator McCarthy. Just read the Congressional Kecord.
Senator McMahok. Will you produce for my inspection what you
have on case 14 ?
Senator JNIcCarthy. I am telling you what I have is in the Congres-
sional Record.
Senator McMahon. Or do I have to get a subpena for it, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, I have gotten through telling just now
that what I have in case 14 is in the Congressional Record.
Senator McMahon. Just a minute. Senator, if you please.
Senator McCarthy. May I finish?
Senator Tydings. Quiet, first.
Senator McCarthy. May I finish the answer?
Senator McMahon. I have a question pending, and I insist upon
an answ^er to it.
Senator Tydings. Will the reporter read the pending questions ?
The Reporter (reading) : "Will you produce for my inspection
what you have on case 14?"
Senator McCarthy. If somebody will hand me the Congressional
Record I will produce for you all I have on case 14. It is a very com-
plete case in the Congressional Record. That is what I have on case 14.
Senator McMahon. Senator, you have brought with you your file on
case 14 and all related papers, according to your own statement, of
any consequence. Will you or will you not produce them for my in-
spection right now?
Senator McCarthy. I will produce for your inspection everything
I have in case 14. It is all in the Congressional Record. That Con-
gressional Record refers to secret State Department files. The infor-
mation with regard to what is in those files is in the Congressional
Record. If the Senator questions the accuracy of what I have put into
the record, the only way he can determine — the only way he can deter-
mine— whether that is accurate or not is by getting the State Depart-
ment, the FBI, and the Civil Service Commission files.
So there is no question in your mind, all of the information, all of
the information, which I have on case No. 14 is in the Congressional
Record. If the Senators wants that produced, I will have to ask him
to ask one of his clerks to get me a copy of the Record, turn to page
2050 and 2051, and he will find everything.
Senator McMahon. Mr. Chairman, I again direct a simple question
to the Senator from Wisconsin, and I ask the Senator whether or not
he will produce for my inspection and the committee's inspection every-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 41
thing that he has on case No. 14 in his possession. I am not interested
in looking at the Congressional Record; I am interested in what infor-
mation the Senator has in his possession, and I would lilce to see it. I
would like to see it now. 1 f he won't give it to me, that is his privilege.
Senator McCarthy. I am glad to give it to you, Senator.
Senator McMaiion. Let me have it, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Let me finish, please.
Senator Tydings. Let the witness answer.
Senator McCarthy. I will be glad to give it to you. I gave the
Senator all of the information I had on case No. 14. That is the
extent of the file. It is all in the Congressional Record. Now, if the
Senator questions the truthfulness of that, the only way he can deter-
mine it so far as I know is by supenaing the files. All the information
is in the Congressional Record.
Senator Tydings. Maybe I can, by being an observer to the colloquy
that is going on, help to clear it up by asking one question. Have
3^ou in your possession evidence, papers, photostatic copies, or other
matters which wall support what you put in the Congressional Record ?
Senator McCarthy. Kave I in my possession evidence, papers,
photostatic copies, on everything that is in the Congressional Record?
Senator Tydings. I didn't ask you that.
Senator McCarthy. Let me answer, will you, Senator ?
Senator Tydings. Let me state the question again. Senator. Have
you in your possession any paper, memorandum, photostatic copies,
affidavits, other materials, which will support the charges in whole
or in part that you put in the Congressional Record in case 14, to wit,
that a high official in the State Department has attempted to doctor
the records of the loyalty committee passing on applicants for office
and those who held office ?
Senator McCarthy. Everything in the Congressional Record, in-
sofar as I know, is absolutely true. There is no doubt about that.
If the Senator questions that he can determine it very easily. As to
slips of paper, notes, and such like, there are none that I can give
the Senator.
Senator Tydings. I didn't ask you that. I didn't ask you whether
there were any you could give me. In order to end the controversy,
I asked you if you had in your possession any material, memoranda,
affidavits, photostats, or other papers or evidence, to support any or
all of the charges made by you in case 14. The answer is you either
have them or you don't have.
Senator McCarthy. All of the supporting evidence, all of it and
plenty of it, documents, affidavits, what liaA^e you, all of that evidence,
is in the files and not in my office. By the files I mean a combination
of the four files, State Department loyalty files; personnel files, the
Civil Service Commission files, and the FBI files. That is where all
of the supporting documents are. They are not in my office.
Senator Tydings. I didn't ask you that, but I will go back to Senator
McMahon, and I ask his pardon for interrupting. I thought maybe
that one question might bring it to a head.
Senator, I apologize.
Senator McMahon. That's all right. Senator.
I am left with the unfortunate opinion that the Senator has material
in his possession on this case which lie refuses to turn over to the com-
jnittee. He again and again has stated that we can go to other places
/
42 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEiSTIGATION
to get it. He again says that everything he has he has put in the
Record. But I tliink if I were in the Senator's place, what I would
do is say, "Yes, here is what I have on case 14" and turn it over to
us. I am very much disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that the Senator
takes the attitude that he does, and won't give the committee the mat-
ters that are in his possession which bear upon this very serious case.
I regret very much that the Senator takes that attitude.
Senator McCarthy. May I answer that, Mr. Chairman?
And I regret very much, Senator, that this committee seems so
vitally interested in find out whether they can get the names of anyone
in the State Department, good, loyal Americans, who may have given
me information. You are not fooling me, Senator. I know what you
want. I know what the State Department wants. They want to find
out who is giving out information on these disloyal people so their
heads will fall, and so far as I am concerned, gentlemen, no heads of
any loyal people in the State Department will fall, none of those heads
will fall, because of their having possibly imparted information to me.
You are not fooling me. Senator. You know the information — let
me finish. You know the information is in tlie file. You know you
can get it. You know that if you want any of those names you can
get them.
I know — I have been informed and I am sure of it — that the State
Department is very curious to know whether or not someone in that
Department is telling me who has communistic activities, who belong
to these Commie-front organizations. I know they want those names.
I am very surprised and disappointed. Senator, that this committee
would become the tool of the State Department, Senator, not to get
at the names, the information, of those who are bad security risks, but
to find out for the Department who may have given me information so
those people can be kicked out of their jobs tomorrow.
Senator Tydings. I am not going to ask a question. I just want to
say that the chairman of this committee, and I am sure with the sup-
port of all members of the committee, is going to get every scrap of
evidence in any files, any place, that have to do with any charges
brought before this committee. I said this investigation is going to
be thorough, and I don't mean maybe. So far as that is concerned,
the investigation will go to the -nth degree on every scrap of evidence
that is available.
But that has nothing to do with the immediate matter before the
committee.
Senator McMahon. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am profoundly shocked
by the irresponsible speech that has just been made by the Senator
from Wisconsin. His imputation of me, of the members of this com-
mittee, of any such motive in asking that question, is something I
repudiate and denounce. It is unworthy of any Senator of the United
States.
We are engaged in responsible business. If there is to be this kind
of irresponsible talk, it won't be in the best interests of the United
States. I say to you. Senator, when you start making charges of that
kind against me you had better reflect on it more than once.
Senator McCarthy. Senator, you can be sure that everything I
say has been very carefully reflected upon.
Senator McMahon. I doubt it.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 43
Senator jNIcCartht. And I think that that attempt — I know — is
going to continue through this hearing, the very clear-cut, obvious
attempt, not to get at the facts, not to find out what is in the files. You
know you can find it out. But this obvious attempt to try and find
the name of some State Department official, some loyal person who
has come down to a Senator and said, "Now here are facts. Here are
things that should be brought to the attention of the Senate" — to
try to get their names so their heads will fall I think is shameful. I
think it is.
Senator Tydings. The questions which I directed to you, and I as-
sume that the questions which other members of the committee have
directed to j'ou, are not calculated by any stretch of the imagination to
ask you where you got this matter and I had no thought of that in the
question. My question simply was. Did you. have the matter and
would you be willing to tell the committee what that matter is? I
don't want to know who gave it to you. I don't want to know how
you got it. But I would like to know what it is so that we can have
evidence here upon which to proceed.
Now, the question that I asked was simply this : Have you in your
possession any memorandum, any affidavit, any papers, any photo-
stats or other material, which would tell us who this individual is —
not where j'ou got it, not how you got it, not who gave it to you, but,
have you the material ?
Senator McCartht. Let me answer the first half of your question
first. You say it isn't your intention, it is not your desire to find out
where I have gotten this information. The Senator from Connecticut,
Mr. McMahon, has just ordered me to produce my file and give the en-
tire file to him so he can check and see who did give me this informa-
tion. *
Now, No. 2, you have asked whether T have in my possession photo-
stats, affidavits, and such like. I again tell you that all of the affidavits,
all of the photostats
Senator Tydings. Why don't you say you haven't got it or you have
got it ?
Senator McCarthy. Let me say all the photostats are easily acces-
sible to you. You can get them without any trouble at all. They are
all in those files.
Senator Tydings. If we subpena those records, which I hope we
will never "do, we would get the names of the people who gave the
information to you, if that is in your file. I am not after that at all.
I am after the memoranda and the photostats of the State Department
and other loyalty agency files that might be in your records, not who
gave them to you. Do you or do you not have that information in your
possession ?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, if you are after the material in the
State Department files don't come to my office. Go to the State De-
partment. You will get it there. Senator.
Senator IIickenlooper. ]\Ir. Chairman, may I suggest that there
has been reference to legal procedure here in the past. There is such
a rule, of course, which is well known to all members of this com-
mittee, as best evidence, and the courts without exception recognize
that hearsay or copied documents are not available when the best
evidence, which is the original and fountainhead of information, is
available. I suggest that the files are available which the Senator
44 STATE DEPARTMEIN^T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
says will substantiate his cliarges, and the best evidence is the files
which are the property of the United States Government. I think all
he is sno-gesting is that we get the files, which is the fountainheacl
of information, and I hope we do get them.
Senator Tydings. Senator Green?
Senator Green. ]\Ir. Cliairman, in reph^ to what my distinguished
colleague has just said and to remind him, these cases, in spite of the
obvious attempt of the witness, are not being answered on the basis
Mdiich he assumes. "We are not asking for the best evidence as to
what has happened. We are seeking to know tlie basis that he had
for his charges on the floor of the Senate.
Senator PIicKENLOOPEPt. That is exactly what disturbs me.
Senator Green. I would like to finish my statement, if I may. May
I proceed?
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Senator Green. The point is, what basis has the Senator for his
charges on the floor of the Senate ? Or was it simply guesswork in the
hopes that it might start a general investigation of the State Depart-
ment files? He did not limit himself to a simple general statement
that he suspected the State Department of having certain papers and
doing certain things. He made specific charges, and my questions
were directed to finding out what was the basis that he had for making
the charges, or whether he had any. He has made the charges, and he
says now, as I understand it, if my understanding is correct — perhaps
my mind doesn't follow his; perhaps he doesn't wish to give it — but
however, he has not answered the question, which was to find out
•whether he had or had not a basis for the charges.
He says, "Go elsewhere and prove if my charges are false or true."
That isn't the point. The point isn't getting the best evidence of the
facts of whether there has been disloyalty or not. The point is whether
the Senator had any basis for his charges which he has made, and
which he said he was ready to prove before this committee.
Senator Tydings. Senator SfcCarthy, I want to repeat again
Senator McCarthy. May I first ansvrer the Senator's question?
Senator T^iT)iNGS. There is no answer. He was making an observa-
tion to Senator Hickenlooper's proposition. Pie didn't ask you a
question.
Senator McCarthy. I thought it was a question.
Senator Tydings. I would like to say again and again and again
and again and again and again that this committee will exhaust every
avenue, investigate, request, and I feel sure obtain, all the files that
are in question.
Senator McMahon. Except his.
Senator Tydings. Just a moment.
That we will do. The pertinency of this particular question grows
out of your own testimony, where you say :
In this case a CSA report of September 2. 1947, is replete with informatiou
covering the attempts of a high State Department official to induce several
individuals who had signed affidavits reflecting adversely upon the employees
to repudiate their affidavits.
Now, inasmuch as the charge is here made that there have been
attempts to alter these records which we will in due course examine, it
is important for us to know when we do examine them whether they
are all there, whether the things that you have asserted we will find
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 45
are all there, without any alteration, and if 3'ou have photostats that
were made prior to this hearing and prior to the time you made your
testimony on the floor, it is important for us to know that the same
record is still there, and the only way we can be sure of that is to
compare your photostats that were taken before you spoke on the
floor of the Senate on February 20 with what we shall hnd in those
tiles, otherwise we shall never know whether they have been tampered
with, which you A^ourself, in your own testimony, say was the result
of an attempt, at least, to alter them.
So therefore you can see, as a good lawyer and judge yourself, the
pertinency of making sure that the best evidence is all there. It is
right. The Senator from Iowa is perfectly right. We must have the
best evidence to draw our conclusions upon. But we must proceed
so that we know that when we get to the best evidence the best
evidence has not been altered or changed during the course of the
controvers}'.
So, therefore, I would like you to see the pertinency of this
matter and tell us whether or not you have in your possession photo-
stats or other material that will substantiate the charge made in
case 14.
Senator McCarthy. Let me answer that, Senator — and we are not
fooling each other in this case, you understand.
Senator Tydings. I am not fooling anybody. I am out in the open
and aboveboard.
Senator ^McCarthy. You say it is important to know what photo-
stats I have, if any. I know there is nothing that the State Depart-
ment would like better than to know what photostats I have. You
have and I have heard rumors that the State Department is rifling
the files. We know that that is the kind of rumor that would be cur-
rent; we do not know whether this is true or false. We know also
that if the State Department desired to rifle any of these files it
would be very important to them to know what photostats, if any, I
had, so they won't be caught short.
I might say this : If I have any photostats, then the committee should
be interested in keeping the particular photostats which I have ab-
solutely secret '
Senator Tydixgs. You're right.
Senator McCarthy. Until they have seen the State Department
files. I think when we get through with those files. Senator, then the
general public should know definitely whether or not they have seen
all the files, and if I have any photostats in my possession they
would become extremely valuable to the committee if those photostats
only became valuable after the State Department files have been
opened. Those photostats, if I have any, would be extremely impor-
tant today to any State Department official who was desirous of rifling
a file.
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, you are right.
Senator ^IcCarthy. You can lie sure of this. Senator : That I will
give this committee every bit of help I possibly can, to help them get
at the truth ; and, I will resist any attempt which, in my opinion, is
aimed toward giving the State Department officials information which
they are not entitled to at this time, and any attempt to aid them in
the way of a whitewash of any individual.
You can be sure of that help from me, Senator
46 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Waving aside the imputation that the committee,
which I do not think you meant, is going down to help the State De-
partment, in the event any papers are missing, or any other imputa-
tion that might be there — as chairman of the subcommittee, and speak-
ing for all the members of the committee, I would consider it a mat-
ter of extreme secrecy, and pledge on our part that we keep your
jBles away from everybody so that when w^e did investigate the State
Department files, they w^ould have no knowledge of what was in your
files at all. We would simply use them for comparison, to see whether
or not the allegation that tampering has been attempted, had actually
taken place; and, under no circumstances would the files that you have
be commended to the State Department so that they, if they had peo-
ple of this kind down there, could alter them.
I see your point and I agree with it, and it was not our intention to
get these files to turn over to the State Department so they would
have any knowledge of it.
The point in getting it was to make sure that the allegation which
you have made in this particular case has not been carried into prac-
tice in this, or any other case, to wit, tampering with these files.
Senator McCarthy. Let me assure the chairman that
Senator Tydings. I agree with you.
Senator McCarthy. In my opinion, if the committee employs a
competent staff, in my opinion we will have no difficulty whatsoever
in determining whether or not the complete files are turned over
to the committee.
Senator Tydings. We do not want to detain your testimony. I am
going to summarize it here in the record, just as I understand it:
That you, this morning, will not give us the name of this individual ;
that you are not saying that you do or do not have the name of this
individual
Senator McCarthy. That is incorrect.
Senator Tydings. In this file.
Senator McCaritiy. That is incorrect.
Senator Tydings. Then, you do have the name of this individual in
the files.
Senator McCarthy. I have told you about 10 times, over and
over — I have told you before that I have a strong suspicion, I have
great reason to believe I know his name. I have seen no original
document, no photostat of an original document which proves to me
conclusively that I have his name ; and until I can give you the defi-
nite information as to what his name is, I do not feel I should give
you any name ; and I have stated also that you can get the name by go-
ing to the files
Senator Tydings. I understand that ; but then, do I understand you
to say that you do not know whether you have the name or not?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Senator Tydings. Wliat do I understand then ?
Senator McCarthy. Exactly what I said, Senator. T do not know
what you understand, but the record is clear. I have told you that I
ha.ve no way of definitely knowing the name of this particular in-
dividual.
Senator Tydings. You have no way of knowing it?
Senator McCarthy. Definitely knowing it. I think I know his
name. His name will be found in the files, in the secret files. The
STATE DEPARTjMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 47
Senator can get those files, so if the Senator actually wants any names,
he can get them without holding up this hearing for 2 hours this
morning.
Senator Green. How do you know his name is in the secret files?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, if you question that, you can get the
files and look at them.
Senator Green. I am not asking you that. I want to know how you
know.
Senator Tydings. Answer the question.
Senator Green. The question is : You say you know the name was
in the secret files — how do you know the name is in the secret files?
Senator McCarthy^. If the Senator will get the files and look at
the files, he will find the name. He will find that everything I have
told him is in that file.
Senator Green. I am not asking whether the name is there or not.
I want to know how you know it. I cannot examine your mind.
You will have to tell us how you do know the name is in the secret
files.
Senator McCarthy. I have said before that I know ; and I am very
disappointed in this — this committee has spent now a great deal of
time trying to find out whether I will give them the name of some loyal
employee in the State Department who told me what was in the file,
who has given me the information — I am very much disappointed in
that, Senator. I think that is entirely improper. You and I know
that if I give the name of anyone I have gotten information from,
anyone over there, if his name were made known, his job would not
be worth a snap of the fingers.
Let me make it clear, if the Senator wants the name, he can get the
files and he will see the name.
Senator Green. I cannot avoid the conclusion that you are trying to
evade the question.
Senator McCarthy. You think so ?
Senator Green. I did not ask you for the name. You stated that
the name was in the secret files of the State Department. I asked you
how you knew that it was in the secret files of the State Department,
unless you have, for instance, a photostatic copy. If you say that,
that will be the answer; if that is not the answer, what is the answer?
How do you know ?
Senator McCarthy. I think the Senator should be more concerned
with finding out whether the information I have given is true or not,
than trying to find out my source of information, if any. He can find
out whether the information is true by getting the file.
Senator Green. You refuse to answer my question ?
Senator McCarthy. No; I don't refuse to answer your question.
Senator Green. Please answer it
Senator Tydings. Turn back and read the question of the Senator
from Rhode Island.
(The record was read by the reporter.)
Senator McCarthy. Again we find the thing that the chairman has
just condemned, an attempt to find out what photostats if any I may
have.
Now, Senator, let me say this : If you want to perform a ser\dce,
rather than to try to make this public information as to what if any
48 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTVESTIGATTON
photostats I have, so that if this rumor is true, the rumor we hear about
rifling the files — if instead of doing that, you will try to get the secret
files — after you have gotten the files, I will give you all the aid in the
world to help determine whether or not you have the complete file.
You understand that?
Senator Green. That does not answer the question, and you know
it does not answer the question. The question wasn't that.
The question was, I am not asking you to produce the photostatic
copy, I am simply asking you how you come to that conclusion in
jour mind, that you said you knew it was in the secret files, in the
State Department.
Senator McCarthy. I came to that conclusion by all the informa-
tion that was available to me.
Senator Green. Well then, you have that information in your
files, I suppose. Is that a correct conclusion ?
Senator McCarthy. I have what information in my files?
Senator (treen. That they had the name in the secret file of the
State Department.
Senator McCarthy. I have given you all the pertinent information
I have, or all I know about the case in the Congressional Record, if
you will read that. It is a rather important case, I think. You will
find out the information in the files, you won't find it in my files.
You will find it in the State Department files.
Senator Tydings. Gentlemen, it is perfectly apparent to me, unless
the members of the committee wish to pursue this further, that the
witness does not want to disclose the information about which all the
interrogations are directed.
The question is : Shall we pursue this course further by asking the
questions again and again and again, or, shall we go on and let him
testify ? What is the committee's pleasure?
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I suggest the committee go
on with the business for which the committee was set up, and listen
to the various allegations that the Senator has to make ; and then, to
do what it is my belief the committee should do — go after the origi-
nal sources of the information, instead of following this obvious
attempt to require the witness to disclose all his investigative pro-
cedures and ramified sources from which he mnj have gotten the
information.
His information is either true or it is not true. It can either be
proved or disproved by the files, and I was of the opinion that this
subcommittee was after the facts, and not after any procedure which
might become a harassment of the witness, to the avoidance of the
real purpose of this investigation.
Senator Tydings. What is your thought. Senator Green ?
Senator Green. Well, I think it is futile to continue to ask the
same questions when the witness insists on evading them and makes
a speech, instead of answering the questions. I don't know what the
chairman would suggest.
Senator Tydings. What do you suggest. Senator McMahon?
Senator McMahon. I won't put it in the record.
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, go ahead with your testi-
mony; but, the chairman, on behalf of the committee, would caution
you not to lose any of these files, because we may want to, in case
No. 14, to have you verify or have verified, one or the other, the dif-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 49
ierence in these files, between your photostats and the original copies
if an}', inasmuch as charges of tampering have been brought by you,
before the Senate in this case, and in order that we may see that there
has been no tampering, we may want to see if your photostats accord
with what we find in the files in question.
Go ahead with your testimony. Please bear that in mind how-
ever— to keep those files safe and untouched, as far as papers are
concerned, until we get a chance to come back to this.
Senator Hickenlooper. Just to clear that point up, Mr. Chairman :
I would like to ask the witness, because it is not my recollection that
the witness has specifically and formally charged that the files of
the State Department have in fact been tampered with, if he has,
I want to be clear in my own mind. I don't know what the situa-
tion is.
Senator Tydixgs. Let us leave that
Senator McCarthy. Let us make it clear, it is all a part of the
record.
The only reference I have made to the files, this does not refer to
tampering" with the files, but it referred to information in the files
in regard to attempts to get certain witnesses in this morals case to
alter their affidavits. That was not a case of tampering with the files,
but an attempt by one of the men in the State Department to get wit-
nesses to alter their affidavits. That information is all in the files.
As to any tampering with the files, that is, as the Chairman knows
as I know — once you start talking about getting files, whether it
is rumor, or true or not, the natural rumor is that the files are being
rifled and we have all heard those rumors.
The Chairman need not caution me to save anything that will be of
assistance to this committee in determining whether or not there in any
rifling of the files.
Senator Tydings. You can well see that this committee is on the
spot. You can well see that if we look into this file and unanimously
say that the charges are true, that is one thing. If we say, after look-
ing in this file, unanimously, that the charges are not sustained, that
is another thing. The inference would immediately be drawn, how-
ever, from the testimony you have made on the Senate floor, that the
files that we investigated did not contain all the papers that you
allegedly say we will find in this file.
Now, in order to make this investigation airtight, it ought to be
cleared up as to whether the file in this particular case is an accurate,
exact, and complete file in every particular; and whether these at-
tempts to fix it have succeeded or have not succeeded. If we do not
cover that point and would find these charges unsustained, the infer-
ence could be drawn, very properly, that the file was not the same
file of which you may have a photostat.
So, that is the reason I am asking you, in this and all other files, to
make sure that any photostates and other memorandum which you
have, that might be in these files, are not in any way allowed to fall
into places where they would not be cared for, or changed in any way
whatsoever.
Senator McCarthy. I sincerely hope that when the files are finally
made available, the committee will have a competent staff looking
over the files and be able to tell the committee and the public whether
the files are complete or not.
50 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Your hopes will be fully gratified.
Senator McCarthy. That can be done, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. Your hopes will be fully gratified, and I hope
we get all the files and all the evidence when we go over it and make
a complete report without leaving anything out that comes within
the ken of this investigation.
Senator McCarthy. Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I referred to an
individual by the name of Kenyon, who, according to the Federal
Register of 1950, was employed in the State Department, and com-
menced producing the documentary proof of her connection with 2&
organizations that had been listed either as Communist-front or sub-
versive. Last night the State Department announced that this indi-
vidual was no longer with the Department, having severed her con-
nections on January 1 of this year, or December 31.
Even though tliis individual may no longer be with the Department,
the case, in my opinion, is still extremely important in that it will shed
considerable light on the workings of our loyalty program.
In the past when the loyalty of any Government employee has been
questioned, the case has been shrugged off with the statement, "Oh,
he has been cleared by the Loyalty Board." I assume that during
these hearings, the same will be repeated often. In fact, the Secre-
tary of State's office attempted to clear one of the cases I mentioned
a short time ago with that identical statement — "He has been cleared
by the Loyalty Board." Therefore, it is extremely important to know
just wdiat "being cleared by the State Department's Loyalty Board'^
means.
Senator Tydtnos. Senator, if I may interrupt, when you are refer-
ring to the "Loyalty Board," is that the Loyalty Board of the State
Department, or which one are you referring to? There are five or six
of these agencies.
Senator McCarthy, That is a good point. I think it should be
agreed, and should be clear that each agency has its own Loyalty
Board.
Senator Green. Which one is that?
Senator McCarthy. I am referring to the State Department's Loy-
alty Board, obviously, because Kenyon's case was considered by the
State Department Loyalty Board. She was cleared by that State
Department Loyalty Board.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Senator McCarthy. Let me make this clear, also : That there is an
Appeals Board, a Civil Service Commission Appeals Board. I think
it should be clear, at least as far as I can determine, that the Civil
Service Appeals Board, or Civil Service Loyalty Board gets no juris-
diction over a case in which the agency board has cleared the individ-
ual. If, however, the individual has been discharged because of
disloyalty, or being a bad security risk, he can appeal to the Civil
Service Commission Appeals Board
Senator Tydings. May I interrupt again ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Tydings. The committee will get a list of each one of these
investigative agencies, and each one of these Boards, and each one of
these agencies that have to do with the clearing of an individual.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 51
Senator McCarthy. I might say I have that complete list here,
Mr. Chairman. Whenever you want to introduce it in the record, I
-u'ill he clad to do it.
Senator Tydix(;s. Let's have it now, if you have it handy; and, we
will have it put in the record at this point; but, I simply wanted to
ask the Senator, in the future — when he refers to any particular Board,
it would be of help to the connnittee in its i n vest iirat ions if he could
identify the Board he has in mind, so that we would not have to hunt
around and find out which one it is.
Senator McCarthy. I am glad to know the chairman and I agree on
something.
Senator Tydings. We agree on a lot of things, but not on our ques-
tions and answers this morning.
Senator McCarthy, I think it is an excellent idea to keep these
different Boards well identified, because some of them have been doing
a rather good job.
Let me make this clear, if I may: The Civil Service Commission
Loyalty Board, even though it has no jurisdiction over a case that has
been approved by the State De]iartment Loyalty Board, can pick
up that case and conduct what is known, I believe, as a post audit on
that. In their post audit, however, they have no right to take action
and say that that man is disloyal, and they can be overruled by the
Secretary of State. You will find, and I will give you cases as we
go along, a number of cases in which the State Department Loyalty
Board has given an individual a completely clean bill of health. The
Civil Service Commission Loyalty Board picked that case up in a
post audit
Senator Tydings. If you will allow me to interrupt you?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Tydings. AVliat we will have to do, Senator McCarthy, in
order to make this investigation complete, is, if it is a subject of in-
vestigation, to immediately set up cross references, and follow case A,
the name of case A through all the other Boards to see what is in the
file, pro and con, all the way through, by a series not only of direct
examinations of the record in question, but by cross checks on the other
records, and that is what you want, and that is what we will do.
Senator jNIcCartpiy. I might sa}-, sir, we will have the question of
the jurisdiction of the various boards clear if you take, for example,
case No. 1," which I referred to on the Senate floor. In that case, the
State Department's Loyalty Board gave this individual a clean bill
of health. The Civil Service Commission picked that up on their
own — you understand it was not appealed, but picked it up on their
own — and audited that and sent it back indicating their dissatisfac-
tion with the Loyalty Board's findings. However, the State Depart-
ment's Loyalty Board can, if they care to, close out the case, unless the
Secretarj^ then says, "I wnll depend upon the Civil Service Commis-
sion's Loyalty Board and discharge this man."
As far as I know, he has not done that in any case.
Senator Tydings. Well, we will examine the whole record; we will
check, double-check, up and down and diagonally check to make sure
everything is checked all the waj^ through.
Senator McCarthy. I want to commend the committee's attention
especially to those cases that have been picked up by the Appeals Board
52 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
and checked, and sent back, because tliey felt that the Loyalty Board
did not do its job.
Therefore, it is extremely important to know just what being;
"cleared by the State Department Loyalty Board" means.
We have here documents to indicate that this individual belonged
to at least 28 different Communist-front organizations, I understand
tliat the FBI ^ave the State Department a detailed report on this
individual showing that she belonged not merely to 28 but to con-
siderably over 28 Communist-front organizations.
I urge that tlie committee immediately subpena the records. What
is of utmost importance in this case is to determine why the Loyalty
Board passed this individual with that type of report from the FBI
iri its iiIgs
Senator Tydings. The FBI
Senator McCarthy. I stated, I think, to get the complete record
you must subpena the State Department records, the Civil Service
Commission records, the FBI records — —
Senator Tydings. I did not understand whether you said the record
or records.
Senator McCarthy. Records.
. Senator Tydings. You mean plural ?
Senator McCarthy. Plural.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Senator McCarthy. I might say, in my opinion, there is not even
any remote possibility of any FBI record being tampered with. So,
when you get the FBI record
Senator Tydings. We are satisfied that is so.
Senator McCarthy. That is why I insist, in all these cases, in order
to have the complete record, we get all four records.
I urge the committee immediately to subpena these records which
are of the utmost importance in this case to determine why the Loyalty
Board passed this individual with that type of report from the FBI
in its files.
This is doubly important in view of Secretary Acheson's statement
the other day. He says :
iParticipation in one or more of the parties or movements referred to above,
or in organizations which are fronts for, or are controlled by, any sueh party
or movement, either by membership therein, taking part in its executive direction
or control, contribution of funds thereto, attendance at meetings, employment
thereby, registration to vote as a member of such a party, or signature of petition
to elect a member of such a party to political office or to accomplish any other
purpose supported by such a party ; or by written evidences or oral expressions
by speeches or otherwise, or political, economic, or social views.
Now, in answer to Senator Bridges' question, "Would you say that
a person who is known to associate with members of Communist-front
organizations would be a security risk?" That isn't merely referring
to the members of the front, but is referring to people who associate
closely with them, and Secretary Acheson made the following reply :
That is one of the matters that must be taken into consideration under the-
regulations which I have just read to you.
In this connection, I think the committee will find, when they sub-
pena these records, that the Department Loyalty Board — I do not
like to use the words "Loyalty Board'" in this case — but the State'
Department Loyalty Board, even though they had the complete file
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 53
on the Coinmiinist-front oroaiiizjitions of this individual, did not call
her down to ask her a single question, or any explanation of this long
list of subversive activities.
I commend to the attention of the Appropriations Committee this
and other cases which 1 shall present showing just exactly the type
of individuals this Board calls loyal.
The next case which I ishall present to the committee is inlinitely
worse than this one, but the Loyalty ]^oard still placed its stamp of
ai)proval on him.
Senator (irken. jMay I interrupt 'f
Senator Tydincjs. Senator McCarthy, have you com[)leted now what
3'ou want to tell us about case No. 1 ? Am I correct in that ?
Senator IMcCartiiy. I have about 24 documents which have not
been
Senator Tydings. That is what I was going to ask you about.
Is it your intention to put these other documents in the record now,
so as to have them in connotation with case No. 1 ?
Senator ]\IcCaktiiy. I think that is very important.
Senator Tytuxgs. Put them in now, if you will.
Senator McCarthy. I will, if the Chair has no objection.
Senator Tydings. I haA'e no objection. I think the documents sup-
})ortin.g each case, if placed in the record while that case is before us,
would hei]) us to further consider it, rather than having them put in
at a later date.
Senator McCarthy. I agree fully.
Senator Tydixgs. Have you the documents now ?
Senator ]\IcCarthy. May I finish my reading here ?
Senator Tydixgs. I thought you were on case No. 2 now^
Senator McCarthy. No; talking about the Loyalty Board. The
Senator interrupted, and wanted to ask a question. '
Senator Green. If I may ask a question here — you referred to the
Loyalty Board of the State Department, made several references to it.
Senatory McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Green. About its actions and the way it acted. Do joii
know who the head of the Board is ? ?
Senator jNIcCarthy. There is a panel of about nine. Senator. They
are pulled in, two or three at a time, so you never who the head of
an}^ particular Loyalty Board is.
The head -of the Board as a whole is a Mr. Snow, but
Senator Tydings. Give us his full name.
Senator McCarthy. I cannot give you his full name.
Senator Green. Gen. Conrad Snow.
Senator McCarthy. That is right ; but, you uderstand, he may or
may not be on 10 consecutive panels. You see, if a particular case is
being considered. Snow may be on this; he may not be. You have, I
think, nine individuals. I think you raise a good point. I think it is
very important. Take, for example, in this case and the next case I
cite, that w^e find what specific individuals were on that panel or were
sitting as the Loyalt}' Board. Undoubtedly, there are some fine indi-
viduals in that panel of nine, but there is something radically wrong
with the individuals who will take a case where there are 28 — or more
than that, according to the FBI file, in that case — 28 Communist-
front connections and passed like that, without even calling upon the
individual for an explanation.
54 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I doubt very much that Mr. Snow was on that. I do not know.
I might say that I do not know him personally ; I know very little
about him. I am doing this, however — at the appropriate time I will
give the committee some very interesting information about some of
the members of the Loyalty Board.
Senator Green. I may help you explain that temporary lack in your
information.
General Snow's father was formerly president of the New Hamp-
shire State Senate, and New Hampshire State Supreme Court, and he
is now the head and therefore the responsible head of the Loyalty
Board.
You referred to the Appropriations Committee, and to Senator
Bridges. I happened to be on it and was there when Senator Bridges
was being asked about General Snow, and you have not given what
he said about him. I thought you might like to know it.
My colleague. Senator McMahon, asked Senator Bridges what
Conrad Snow's reputation was, and Senator Bridges replied
"Excellent."
I will not go any further, because if I do you will accuse me of
bringing politics into that, but
Senator McCaetht. I would not accuse you of that.
Senator Green. I asked him about that, and he seems to be of the
same politics as Senator Bridges.
Senator McCarthy. I would not accuse you of playing politics.
Senator Hickeni coper. That would contribute to the proof that he
was a man of excellent ability.
Senator Green. I came to the defense of the Loyalty Board and,
I will not say accusation, but information that everything was not
right.
Senator Tydings. I do not think Senator McCarthy said that the
loyalty board was unpatriotic or disloyal or Communist-ridden. He
has not made any charge like that so far.
Senator McCarthy. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman : That, if the
verj^ able Senator sat on a case such as this, or especially the next case,
and gave this man a clean bill of health, I wmild say that he was in-
competent from then on to sit on a Loyalty Board. I can only judge
by the results that come from the Board. As I say, I do not know
whether your ISIr. Snow sat on the board in this case or not.
Senator Green. Again, my point is-
Senator McCarthy. Let me say this, if Mr. Snow ■
Senator Tydings. General Snow.
Senator ISIcCarthy (continuing). Was one of the men who gave
a clean bill of health to the next case, then I would say that Snow,
or anyone else on tliat Board is incompetent to sit further.
Senator Green. Let me comment tliat he is not "my" Mr. Snow ; and,
furthermore, I do not tliink he has done anything yet to be reduced in
rank from "General" to "Mr."
Senator McCarthy. Tliank you. Senator.
Mr. Chairman, I have here information which I think the committee
may want.
We have first, if I may label it "Exhibit No. 1"
Senator Tydings. What did yon put in yesterday? You had better
go on from there.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 55
Senator JNIt (Ivrtiiy. Well noAv, how many did we have in yesterday ;
do you Tenieniber ?
Senator Tvdixgs. Start from the back of the alphabet.
Senator jNIcCartiiy. Let me hand those to the chairman, and mark it
as you like.
The lirst exhibit is a list of all the Department loyalty boards. The
second is a memorandum which I will give the Chair, and which is a list
of all the regional boards.
Senator Tydtngs. Will the Senator desist just a moment until we
get a chance to look at these ?
Senator Greex. I think it ought to be put in testimony.
Senator Ttdings. You mean, it ought to be read ?
Senator Green. Yes.
Senator Tydixgs. A^liat is your wish on this? To put it all in
testimony with or without reading ?
Senator McCarthy. That was gotten from the Civil Service Com-
mission. You might want to know^ the source before you decide that ;
it was gotten from the Civil Service Commission. I called the Civil
Service Commission. I believe it is a Mr. Malloy or something like
that, and he sent it over. So, I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but
assume the Commission can.
Senator Greex. I think we should have somebody who can vouch
for its accuracy.
Senator Tydixgs. The question before us now is : The Senator from
Wisconsin has offered this ; does the committee want it read ?
Senator McMahon. What is it ?
Senator Tydixgs. It is a list of the different, I suppose, inves-
tigating
Senator McCarthy. Let me withdraw it, if you are going to read
that long document.
Senator Greex. Tell us how many there are.
Senator ^McCarthy. I would say there are about 50 pages there.
Senator Greex^. I mean, how many loyalty boards are there through
which individuals are screened — how many ?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, every agency has one. I can go over
this and count them.
Senator Greex. The State Department
Senator McCarthy. One loyalty board is in the State Department.
Senator Greex^. There are screenings below, lower than the Loyalty
Boards ; are there not ?
Senator McCarthy. There is one loyalty board in the State De-
partment.
Senator Greex. Yes, but are there not screenings below that level?
Senator McCarthy. By "screenings," I am not sure if I know what
you mean.
Senator Hickenlooper. ^Yhat they have been burning the last 3
months
Senator Greex^. Examinations of the record and character of indi-
viduals, whether they are good security risks.
Senator McCarthy. I believe a man's superior would have the
right to examine his record.
Senator Greex^. The FBI has one, and the Civil Service Commis-
sion has one.
Senator ^McCarthy. Let's get clear on the FBI.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 5
56 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Green. That shows how justified my question is.
Senator McCarthy. Let's get clear on the FBI. The FBI does no
screening;. The FBI has taken the sixteen thousand-odd names, and
they run them through what is known as a name check ; and if a man
has been previously investigated, if there is something in the record
on him, then his name comes out; and then, if the State Department
wants an investigation of that man, they get it.
The FBI then sends the information over the State Department.
The FBI makes no recommendations. They do not say, "Discharge
this man," or "Do not discharge him."
They give all the information, and that is the last power they have
over this individual. So, these people will say that the FBI is re-
sponsible and that is entirely wrong.
You see, take in the Kenyon case, the FBI conducted an excellent
examination. Apparently the Loyalty Board just disregarded it. I
think we should make it clear that the FBI is in no way responsible
for security risks in the State Department.
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, one of the papers I hold in
my hand is "United States Civil Service Connnission, Washington,
D. C." and it is signed by Seth W. Richardson, Chairman of the Loy-
alty Review Board. My question is : Is it your information that all
the employees of the State Department, in one way or another, have to
go by this loyalty board?
Senator McCarthy. No; that is incorrect.
Senator Tydings. They do not?
Senator McCarthy. No; they do not.
Senator Tydings. Wliich ones do?
Senator INIcCarthy. They go by this Board. Shall I read their
names here?
Senator Tydings. Does this Boai'd at any i^lace pass on any of the
qualifications of the peo|)le who work in the State Department?
Senator McCarthy. Wlien you say "this Board," that is a list of
regional boards, plus-
Senator Tydings. You did not set-
Senator McCarthy. I am sure I know what you mean.
Plus the Civil Service Commission's Loyalty Board, headed by
Seth W. Richardson.
Senator Tydings. I am asking you whether the head board of the
United States Civil Service Commission, headed by Seth W. Rich-
ardson, Chairman, Loyalty Review Board, former Assistant Attorne)'
General of the United States, under President Hoover I tliink it was,
is the head board and do the employees of the State Department —
does their fitness come under this Board in whole or in part for review ?
Senator McCarthy. I will answer that: No. 1 here is the Appeals
Board; No. 2. the only time a case comes officially before that Board,
speaking of the State De])artment, is when the State Department's
Board says this man is unfit, and they discharge him. Then he can
appeal to the Richardson Board. That Board then has the right to
either affirm or overrule the State Department's Loyalty Board.
If, on the other hand, the State Department's Loyalty Board gives
a man a clean bill of health, then it never officially gets to the Richard-
son Loyalty Board. However, that Board does, on occasion, pick
up a man's name in what is knoAv as a postaudit. and takes a look-see
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 57
and if tliey are dissatisfied, to the best of my information, if they are
dissatisfied, then the extent of their authority, as I understand it, is to
send the name back to the State Department Loyalty Board, indicat-
ing that they feel the State Department Loyalty Board made a mistake
and tliat they let by a bad security risk.
There are a number of those cases, you understand. Then, the
State Department Board, if they want to close the file on that indi-
vidual
Senator Tydings. Do you know whether or not the case that you
have just finished reading, and the cases that you read about on the
floor of tlie Senate, have been passed on, in whole or in part, by the
Loyalty Board of which Mr. Seth W. Richardson, former Assistant
Attorney General, was the Chairman?
Senator McCarthy. I have just gotten through telling you. Sen-
ator, that until a man has gotten an adverse ruling from the Sta^^e
Department Loyalty Board, it never gets to Mr. Richardson's Board
officially. Mr. Richardson's Board has no jurisdiction. They do not
pass through that Board.
I will, however, give you the names of some individuals who were
picked up, I do not know, by the Richardson Review Board which took
a look at them and sent the names back and said, "You made a mistake
in this man's case."
One of those cases is my case No. 1. The State Department's
Loyalty Board merely closed its file, however, and he is still there,
even though tlie Richardson Board said this man should not be in
the State Department.
Senator Tydings. I again ask the question : Do you or do yon not
know whether the cases that you read on the floor of the United
States Senate, or any of the cases you are about to bring before us,
other than the one you have just finished, have been passed on, in
whole or in part, by the Loyalty Board headed by Mr. Seth W. Rich-
ardson, former Assistant Attorney General of the United States?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, I am trying to tell you that only in
those cases in which the State Department's Loyalty Board has failed
to give clearance, do they go to the Richardson Board; and, I think in
almost each of the cases the State Department's Loyalty Board has
given clearance, the first No. 1, the case of Judge Kenyon — the State
Department Loyalty Board I understand gave lier a completely clear
bill of health so that naturally she would not appeal to the Richardson
Board.
Do you follow me on that?
Senator Tydings. Yes. Leave her out. Take up the others.
Senator McCarthy. The same is true of these cases as I will go
throug]i them, my cases, so that unless the State Department Loyalty
Board said they are out, they do not come before Seth Richardson. I
do not tliink. that is. as far as I know, I do not know of any case in
which Richardson's Board reversed a decision of the Loyalty Board
in which they said John Jones is disloyal and should go out.
That is the only time they have authority.
Senator Tydings. I understand when they have authority and when
they do not have authority.
Senator McCarthy. So that then the only cases that will get before,
or go before the Richardson Board, will be those cases that the State
58 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Department says are' disloyal, as far as I know, according to wliat's-
his-name's testimony, Mr. Peurif oy the other day, who .said they only
discharged one man since 1947, and under the loyalty program, he
said 200 resigned, so that there would be occasion for only one review,
if we take his testimony.
Senator Tydings. I will ask you once more to try to make it plainer :
Do you, yourself, know of your own information
Senator McCaetiiy. I do not think any of these cases were ap-
pealed to Richardson's Loyalty Board. I clo not think any cases that
I gave on the Senate floor were, because if they had been, they would
not have been in the State Department.
Senator Tydings. Were they passed on, as far as you know, whether
they were appealed, or not appealed, by the Board headed by Seth
W. Richardson ?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, I •
Senator Tydinos. I say, in event they were not appealed.
Senator McCarthy. I told you, as far as I know, the Richardson
Board has no jurisdiction over a case that has not been declared dis-
loyal by the Loyalty Board.
Senator Tydings. Did not you say, in addition to the cases not ap-
pealed, that they occasionally picked up a case and examined that?
Senator McCarthy. Tliat is right.
Senator Tydings. Then, I am asking you, in addition to the ap-
peals, whether or not any of these cases were passed on, so far as you
know, by the Richardson Loyalty Appeals Board.
Senator McCarthy. I have give you cases, I cannot give you the
numbers now, I will give you cases in which the Appeals Board in a
postaudit, suggested that the Loyalty Boaid ci. id job.
I just got througli telling you the only one I could give you definitely
was case No. 1. As we go through, I will give you cases
Senator Tydings. You are not certain at this moment that any of
the cases
Senator McCarthy. Yes; I am. I told you I know some were
post-audited and sent back with unfavorable comments. I tell you
I know that. I tell you that the only case I can give you definitely
now, is case No. 1 ; but as I go through the cases, where I know, I will
give you the information. I do not have all that information. Senator.
Senator Tydings. I would like to ask you then, at your earliest
convenience, if you will give to this committee
Senator McCarthy. You know I will, Senator. You know I
am
Senator Tydings. Just a moment. If you will give to this com-
mittee the names of any witnesses against whom information, or
charges of disloyalty have been brought by you, either on the Senate
floor or before this committee — in what number, or part of the cases
you have recited has the Richardson Loyalty Board made an adverse
or a favorable or any other kind of a recommendation or finding?
Will you do that when you have an opportunity ?
Senator McCarthy. First, let's you and I understand each other.
I do not claim to know — I do not claim to have any access to the files
and know specifically what
Senator Tydings. Senator Green would like to ask you a question.
Senator McCarthy. Wait until I finish my answer to this ques-
tion, please.
""^ STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 59
Senator Tydings. All rifrlit, go jilioad.
Did you ■want to ask a question ?
Senator McCarthy. Let me answer the chairman's question.
Senator Gkeen. Certainl}^ I thouo:lit you had finished.
Senator JMcX-artiiy. Let me me make this clear, Mr. Chairman: I
would t^ive you the information on any of those that I have. I do
not have access, do not have information as to the action taken on
a oi-ent number of these cases. Some cases, I definitely know that
on a postaudit there was an adverse recommendation, I cannot call
it re])ort, but adverse information, and they were turned back to
the State Department and obviously, as I get to the cases, I will give
them to y(m.
Senator Tydings. Do the best you can.
Senator Green, what is your question ?
Senator Green. IMy question is, to get on the record the method of
screening these individuals in the State Department. Several ref-
erences have been made to that, and in the first place I do not know
whetlier j^ou call it screening, or what your definition is, but the FBI
makes an examination and a record of the man, and what all they can
find about him
Senator McCarthy. Not in all cases. Senator.
Senator Green. This is the ordinary process.
Senator McCarthy. That is not the ordinary process.
Senator Green. Then, let us get it straight what it is.
Senator McCarthy. The vast number of cases are never touched
by the FBI.
Senator Green. Where they are, the FBI is first, when they are.
Senator McCarthy. Let me give you the picture.
The State Department, as I understand, has its own investigator.
Senator Green. Then, after that, there is the head of the State
Department Investigation Branch, that comes after the FBI, in a
case where the FBI does any investigating.
Senator McCarthy. Is that a question or a statement ?
Senator Green. I am asking you whether you agree.
Senator McCarthy. I do not know the sequence of the investiga-
tions. Let me make it clear
Senator Green. Then, in that case-
Senator McCarthy. The 16,000 names were sent over to the FBI,
I understand, when the President's so-called loyalty program was
commenced. Those names were run through what is known as a
name check. Whether that is done by card index or how, I do not
know. If there had been a previous investigation of any of those
16,000, then his name would be pulled out, and in those cases, there
was an investigation by the FBI, at least some of them.
If this name check disclosed no previous bad record, then as far as
I know the FBI would make no investigation unless the State De-
partment sent M'ord over that they wanted a particular individual in-
vestigated.
So that this is clear, no matter how bad a man's record was, unless
there had been a previous investigati(m or information in the file of
the FIjI, the FBI on its own would not commence an investigation.
Is that clear?
60 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Green. We agree entirely on that, and after this prelim-
inary investigation by the FBI, then the first investigation by the State
Department itself is by their Investigation Branch, of which Mr.
Fletcher, formerly special agent of the Department of Justice, is the
head. Is that right ?
Senator McCarthy. You are asking for the sequence of investiga-
tions ?
Senator Green. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. I cannot give it to you, Senator.
Let me say, the reason I have not gone into that, I have been perfectly
satisfied that the investigative work was well done. That is not where
the difficulty started. It was the use made of tlie information.
Senator Green. I think this is correct, and if 1 am incorrect in my
statement, I wish you would correct me
Senator McCarthy. I am not sure I can correct you.
Senator Green. If you do know that I am wrong
Senator McCarthy. I will be glad to correct you, if I do.
Senator Green. Tlien, after the FBI, then comes the investigation
by the Investigating Branch of the State Department, and Mr.
Fletcher, I think, has charge of it, and he was formerly special assist-
ant of the Department of Justice; then, after that it goes up to the
Division of Security and that is under Donald L. Nicholson, formerly
an FBI man, and then, after that it goes to the State Department's
office, the Evaluation Personnel ; and after that, it goes to the Depart-
ment's Loyalty and Security Board — that is what you have made
reference to — and after that, it may, in certain cases, go to the Loyalty
Review Board under Mr. Eichardson, and the loj^alty of the
Senator McCarthy. May 1 interrupt you there. Senator?
Again, I think I should make it clear, it only goes to the Loyalty
Review Board if the State Department Board adversely finds.
Senator Green. That is what I said, in certain cases ; but in other
cases, in addition to tlie FBI, there are five different departments that
it goes through — in this screening?
Senator McCarthy. As I said, the investigative process is excellent.
I think they develop plenty of information. That is why the files are
so good. It is not the investigative agency that is to be criticized.
It is what is done with the information after it is received.
As I stated on the first case I have given you, yesterday and today,
in that case they have turned up more information than I have, con-
siderably more. They have the names of more subversive activities
in the files than I have.
Senator Green. I am glad to get your O. K. of the Department's
Investigating Department in all its grades. That is what I wanted
to get on the record.
Senator McMahon. May I ask a question, Senator?
Senator Tydings. You may, Senator McMahon.
Senator McMahon. Senator, have you the names of the members of
the Loyalty Committee that passed on this, what is her name, the
Kenyon case?
Senator McCarthy. No ; I do not, Senator. I do not know which
of them — I think it is a panel, I believe it is a panel of nine.
Senator Tydings. Is this it [exhibiting document] ?
Senator McCarthy. No; I believe it is the other one.
Senator Tydings. You took one of them back with you.
STATE DEPARTMENT EIVIPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION 61
Senator McCarthy. Yes; here it is. Here is the panel, Senator,
and I can give you the entire panel, if yon like.
Senator McMaiion. I would like to have each
Senator JNIcCartiiy. Conrad E. Snow, assistant leaal adviser; the
nienibors are named Bertram Barnes, career minister; Dariel St. Clair,
legislative assistant; David A. Robertson, special assistant, Office of
Near Eastern Affairs ; Theodore Achilles — I am reading what I read
after the names, indicating what the individual is doing in the State
Department — Theodore Achilles, Chief of the Division of Western
European Aifairs; Arthur G. Stevens, special assistant to the Assist-
ant Secretary of Economic Affairs; William F. Baker, Chief of the
Division of Central America and Panama Affairs; John D. Bell,
Associate Divisional Chief for European Affairs; John W. Sykes,
Legislative Service Division, Congressional Legislation ; and the con-
tact is listed as Mr. Snow, room 4013, Department of State, extension
3873.
Senator McMahox. It was three of these gentlemen, presumably,
Senator, that sat on the Kenyon case?
Senator McCarthy. Undoubtedly, I would say.
Senator McMahon. All of these cases that you have brought to
the attention of the Senate, some 81 of them were heard, as far as
you know, by a committee of three chosen froni this panel of nine?
Senator McCarthy. I think that can be safely assumed.
Senator McMahox. I believe you made mention of the fact that you
would give us some further information on the members of this panel?
Senator McCarthy. I said I w'ould give you further information
upon the members of the loyalty program.
Senator McMahon. Meaning these nine gentlemen ?
Senator ISIcCarthy. I do not know what information I will give on
this particular nine.
Senator McMahon. These, however, are the nine that do hear, in
the State Department-
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Senator McMahon. And it is your contention, Senator, as I under-
stand it, that they have not done their duty in assessing these investi-
gating reports ?
Senator McCarthy. I think when they pass a woman like case No.
1, and give- her a clear bill of health without calling her down to a^k
her about any of these agencies, obviously they have not done their
duty — obviously no.
When you find a case like case No. 2, a phenomenal case, and find
a member of this panel passed this man and said he can have top-
secret clearance, then there is something radically wrong with either
their judgment or the individual.
Senator McMahon. Can you tell us — can you identify the hearing
panel in the other cases that you are going to take up ?
Senator McCarthy'. The answer is "No" ; I cannot.
Senator McMahon, That is what I wanted to know.
Senator McCarthy. Only except by rumor. When I get curious
about some of these phenomenal cases, I try to find out; and, by
hearsay, you hear that John Jones or Pete Smith, head of that par-
ticular Board — but, I cannot give you any definite information.
Senator McMahon. Have 3'ou had occasion to investigate any of
these gentlemen on this hearing board?
62 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVElSTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. I am compiling information now which I will
present to the committee on the membership of the various loyalty
boards. I frankly do not know — I do not know what information, if
any, I have on these. The information on these that I have before
me now merely consists in their activities on these various cases, and
as I say, I do not care whether it is the Governor of your State, or the
President of the United States who is on this Board, if you find that he
passes and gives a clean bill of health to some of these cases that I give
you, then you will know that there is something wrong with his
handling of the case.
Let me make this clear. I am not saying that any of these indi-
viduals on that panel are disloyal or anything like that. I just know
there is something radically wrong with the results that come from
the State Department Loyalty Board, and I am judging this solely by
the results.
Senator McMahon. You are not charging them with being disloyal,
but being incompetent and stupid. I think that is a fair statement
Senator McCarthy. I would say the Loyalty Board that passed No.
1 and No. 2 — it is putting it very generous!}' when you say they are
merely incompetent and stupid.
Senator McMahon. You say they are not disloyal, so I took the
alternative that they were dumb.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that this would indicate a rather
quick review by the committee of these gentlemen who have been
named, and who the Senator says, and in whose opinion have passed on
these cases — obviously, who they are and what their background is,
is quite material to this investigation.
I happen to know two of them rather well, and the rest I do not
know, and I would like to get their background, because the American
people should realize as quickly as possible, not only what the pro-
cedure is that has been adopted, but the kind of men who have been
put in by the Secretary of State to operate that procedure.
This man Conrad E. Snow, I would certainly take Senator Bridges'
testimony on his behalf, which he gave to me in the Appropriations
Committee meeting the other day, as a very outstanding citizen.
Mr. Achilles, Theodore C. Achilles, is a gentleman I know quite well,
he is my next-door neighbor. He is on this panel of nine. I think it
would be very helpful if we could get this as quickly as possible.
Senator Tydings. Senator McMahon, have you any suggestion as to
how this data should be assembled? Is it your idea that we should
get a biography of each one of the men, and read it into the record ?
Is it your idea that we should bring them before us? Is it your idea
that we should proceed in some other fashion?
I agree with what you said, because the witness here, as I understand
it, has said that the investigative set-ups, on the whole, are pretty
good.
Senator McCarthy. That is my opinion.
Senator Tydings. In his opinion, he called them pretty good, he paid
them a pretty good compliment, as I recall ; he said that the trouble
was at the top, where the final decision was reached, and that obviously
would be this Board in this particular Department. So, therefore, I
think it is very pertinent that if these men had been the means of
letting people hold jobs in the State Department, who are allegedly
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 63
disloyal, the public oiiglit to know the caliber of these men, as you
suiigest.
What is 3'our thought about it?
Senator McMahon. My thought was that I would have them up
here en masse, and line them up here, one by one, and I would take
a look at them and I would examine them, each one, as to how long
he had served in the Department, whether his educational background
and competency was sufficient to sit as a judge on these matters.
I think it would be very helpful, ]SIr. Chairman. I hope we do it
just as quickly as we can.
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, would that be satisfactory
to you, if we were to do that ?
Senator McCarthy. That method, Mr. Chairman, would be com-
pletely ridiculous. You can bring the men up and look at them and
find out how long they have served, and have witnesses come in who
would testify that they had been kind to their wives and families,
that they are well respected.
But, that is not the point. The only way you can determine whether
or not that Board is competent to sit, whether or not we are wasting
the money we are paying on the loyalty program, is to take the file,
let us say in case Xo. 1 first, bring the file in, and in that file you
will find^ a vast number of subversive organizations to which this
individual has belonged. Then, you should say, "Gentlemen, who
sat on that Board? Wlio was the Chairman of that Board?" And
the next thing you will want to ask them is, "Why did not you call
this individual in and have her explain these connections?"
You will say to them — and let me finish, if I may — you will say to
them, "Here is what Dean Acheson himself said, he said that anyone
connected with these organizations, even remotely, may be a bad
security risk."
You say to them, "Here are more than 28, on which you have an
FBI report. What made you think you could pass upon that case
and give a clean bill of health without even bringing the individual
in, without writing a letter on the matter? How do you explain
this?"
There is the documentation.
Then, you go to case No. 2, and say, "Here is a phenomenal indi-
vidual. '\Ylio passed on that case? Who said this man, who is one
of the top"
Wait until we get to the case, strike that part of it.
I have the cases, which I think you should take, one by one, and
bring in the Board who sat on each particular case, don't find out
whether the men are kind to their wives and families, whether the
neighbors think they are fine people, but examine them to see whether
or not they are competent for this particular job, because, you see,
all through this Government we have a vast number of individuals
who are great golf companions, great individuals, but who are doing
a very, very bad job.
This idea of bringing them up here and lining them up, and bring-
ing in their neighbors to testify that they are fine fellows and are
not disloyal is a waste of time, and is ridiculous.
Senator McMahon. I move that the committee who passed on this
matter, these nine gentlemen, be brought before this committee to
64 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
tell US what their procedures have been. We will talk with them later
on any cases that might come into question by reason of the Senator's
testimony, but I formally move that these nine members be brought
here for testimony bearing upon the procedure that they have adopted.
This is a timely point in the proceedings for that to be done.
Senator Tydings. Any comment, Senator Green?
Senator Green. No comment.
Senator Tydings. Any comment, Senator Hickenlooper ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I move to amend the motion by making a
requirement that we get the files, all of them, in case No. 1, so that we
will be able to interrogate these men who sat on the panel, in the light
of the decision on file No. 1, and the information contained in file No.
1; and in that way really be able to explore their processes of clear-
ance or nonclearance of individuals.
Senator McCarthy. Not as a witness, but as a Senator, might I
ask the committee if they will consider allowing me to sit in at that
time? I think I can be helpful to the committee, I can find out who
was chairman of the various boards, find out why the results that have
come from the Board have been so unusual. I would like to find out,
for example, when Richardson's Board considered a post audit and
said that it was bad for this, that, and the other reason, and sent it
back to them, what they have done, further, and what action they
have taken.
That is the only way you can determine whether or not that is a
competent board. Otherwise, this will just be window dressing.
Senator Hickenlooper. May I
Senator McCarthy. I do not mean to say, and I hope I am not
understood as saying that I would be the only one to delve into that
and determine those facts, but I would like to sit with you.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, in order to amplify my
statement, the procedures have been well outlined, the Secretary of
State outlined the procedures and laid out the pattern of alleged pro-
cedures, I am not so concerned about the form of the procedure which
has already been laid out, and we understand that, at least I think
I do, but simply the actions taken by any board under the procedures
that have already been prescribed, and I think it is very important,
if you are going to interrogate these people, that we be in possession
of all the facts.
Senator Tydings. Senator McMahon ?
Senator McMahon. If there is any objection to the procedure
requested, I would prefei- to do it with Senator Lodge present, any-
way. I would be glad, if the Senator from Wisconsin objects to hav-
ing these men brought up, to have the request deferred until a later
time. That is quite all right with me.
It seems to me that it would be of interest both to him and to us,
to take a look at the kind of men and get the background of the men
who are accused of having done an incompetent job in this respect.
I do not press it.
Senator Tydings. If the motion is not pressed, the Chair will tell
the witness to proceed.
I think where we were, at the time we got off on this idea, was that
the Senator was about to offer in evidence the supporting material to
sustain the statements he made yesterday, as far as I can recall.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 65
Senator McCarthy. Senator, the Senator from Connecticut just
said if the Senator from Wisconsin objects to having them, having
the men brought up, so let's make it clear: I think they should be
brought up, brought before you, but in such a fashion that some
purj)ose will be served. I objected, not to their being brought up, I
think they should be brought here, I objected to the procedure you
outlined, bringing the men up and saying "We will look at them and
find out whether they are nice-looking people."
Senator Tydixgs. We will talce that up later and bring the witnesses
up at an appropriate time. I do not think we need any further ex-
planation. I think we have to get on with the evidence, or we will be
here after the next election.
I might say some of us are hopeful that that will be a prophecy.
Senator McCarthy. Where was I, Mr. Reporter?
( The record Avas read by the reporter.)
Senator McCarthy. I objected to bringing the men up and saying
that they are nice-looking people, and finding out whether
Senator Tydixgs. You have said that before.
Senator ]McCarthy. Let me finish, ]\Ir. Chairman.
Senator Tydixgs. It takes you so long, you make so many speeches
in the course of giving the testimony, the chairman does not want to
cut you off. but we have had so many speeches rather than evidence,
that we are getting along at a snail's pace.
. Senator McCarthy. I hope the Chair is not intimating that this
is being delaved bv the witness.
Senator Typings. I think the witness will have to share at least part
of the blame.
Senator Green. If the witness could learn there were two words in
the English language, "yes" and "no," he might use them more fre-
quently and it would be very helpful.
Senator McCarthy. As I started to say, so that we may know
whether or not it means anything when it is said that a certain individ-
ual "has been cleared by the loyalty board," I do think they should be
brought up at the earliest moment, but only when the files in the
specific cases are available.
Senator Tydings. That is in the record three times now.
We will ^o on with the testimony.
Senator McCarthy. With the Chair's permission, I shall proceed
in my own'f ashion, as best I can.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Senator McCarthy. I believe, before the committee started the
discussion, I had said the next case which I shall present to the com-
mittee is infinitely worse than this one, but the loyalty board still
placed its stamp of approval on him.
Senator Tydings. Just a moment, please.
Did I understand that you were going to put the supporting testi-
mony in on case No. 1 before you took up case No. 2 ; and, did not you
say that would be a good thing to do ?
Senator McCarthy. I have told that to the chairman several times.
Senator Tydings. You mean, you do not have it now but you will put
it in later?
Senator McCarthy. I am putting it in, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. I thought you were on case No. 2.
Senator McCarthy. Wait a minute, will you I
66 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\'E6TIGATI0N
Senator Tydings. Let me get it straight.
Senator McCarthy. I did not r
Senator Tydings. Just a minute ; are you on case No. 1 or case No. 2
now?
Senator McCarthy. I intend to put in the docmnents on case No. 1
before we touch case No. 2, and put them in on case No. 2 before we
go to case No. 3.
May I finish my statement?
Senator Tydings. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. I think this very day the President has a re-
sponsibility to call this loyalty board before him and find out why
the individual I named yesterday was declared loyal. It is his duty
to find out why this loyalty board declared her loyal — without even
questioning her — when they had a report from the FBI showing that
she belonged to considerably more than 28 Communist-front organi-
zations.
Senator Tydings. That is not testimony in this case at all, it is
nothing but an opinion of wliat the President of the United States
ought to do. Let's get on with the evidence. I am tired of having
these speeches of what the President ought to do. Let us see what
we ought to do, which is get into this evidence.
Senator McCarthy. The Chair has the right to order stricken any
testimony I give, and I am making a statement I think is important.
It is difticult, with the constant repeated interruptions and hecklii^
by the Chair
Senator Tydings. We are here to hear evidence of disloyalty of
employees in the State Dej^artment. We are not here to hear what
the President of the United States ought to do. That is something
we can debate in another place, and I would thank the witness to con-
fine himself to the matter under investigation.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I believe I was up to page 4,
yesterday, and, I think, to exhibit 5.
Let us now consider exhibit 5. The committee will note that on
January 18, 1935, over 15 years ago, Judge Kenyon was a sponsor of
the Political Prisoners Bail Fund Committee.
This outfit had its headquarters in room 1200, at 154 Nassau Street,
in New York.
The Political Prisoners Bail Fund Committee was a subsidiary of
the International Labor Defense, which has been cited as subversive
by the House Un-American Activities Committee, the California
Un-American Activities Committee, and the Attorney General.
This exhibit, wliich I now hand to the chairman, employing the
well-known jargon of the Communist Party
Senator Tydings. Just a moment. The matter will be inserted in
the record in full.
Senator McCarthy (continuing). Sets forth the noble purpose of a
common bail fund for those arrested in the struggle of the working
class, for the rights of oppressed minorities, in the fight against war
and fascism.
The Chairman of the Political Prisoners Bail Fund Committee was
Paul P. Crosbie, the recently deceased leader of the Communist Party
in Queens County, New York.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 67
Recently in the Federal court in New York, 11 men were convicted
of conspiracy to overthrow our Government. Among them was Ben-
jamin J. Davis, Jr. Benjamin J. Davis, Jr., was one of the trustees
of the committee under discussion.
Other ''great" Americans on this melancholy and malodorous aggre-
gation were Corliss Lamont, Carol Weiss King, and Charles Krum-
bein, who was the late treasurer &f the Communist Party of the
United States.
Again we find the lady in familiar company.
Now, if I may, I would like to discuss exhibit 6, which I now hand
to the committee.
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, of course all the names will
be printed into the record, and the names are very numerous. You
always read, as I recall, a few of the names.
It would be very helpful, I am sure, to the press, if we could find
the medium of letting the press have all the names on these exhibits,
rather than just a few of them.
Senator McCarthy. I would suggest we make all of the exhibits
available to the press.
Senator Tydixgs. I will state to the press now, that it is going to
take a long while to number them and go through a list like that, if you
want to see it, because there is probably on this list two or three hun-
dred names, and I want to accommodate the press but I am a little at
odds as to how we can give you all these names, unless the time is taken
to read them. It will take quite a little while.
I think the fair way to do it would be to present the evidence, if a^ou
allow me to suggest it, I have no desire to alter your testimony, but
present the thing without comment in part of names, unless you put all
the names in so that the document may have the full comiotation before
the people of the country. *
Senator McCarthy. I thank the Chair for its suggestion. May I
say this
Senator Tydings. I hope the Senator will comply with it. I think it
is in the interest of fairness and would not detract from anything he
has to say.
Senator McCarthy. I thank the Chair for his suggestion, and it is
entirely possible the Chair might present the evidence in a different
fashion than I do, perhaps in a better fashion, I don't know. I think
it is important to show the well-known Communist names that appear
quite all the way through this case. There are individuals who — may
1 say that the purpose of a front organization
Senator Tydings. Rather than argue, proceed in your own way.
Senator McCarthy. That is what I am doing now, Mr. Chairman.
There are individuals who are fine Americans who have been in-
duced to put their names on a few of these documents, but I think
it is important to show the company these individuals have kept all
the way, and particularly the company this individual has kept all
the way through the picture.
Senator Tydings. I would like to tell the press that the date of the
last exhibit, or the next to the last exhibit — what was that ?
Senator McCarthy. It was January 8, 1935. I read it.
Senator Tydings. And the date of the present exhibit, is — New
York Times of October 9, 1944.
68 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. The Chair will note that these exhibits are
dated all the way from 1935 up to the present date.
It will be noted that exhibit 6 is a paid political advertisement
inserted in the New York Times of October U, 1944, on page 12.
Morris U. Schappes is a man who was convicted in the State court
of New York for perjury. This is the organization which was formed
to defend him, this organization .called the Schappes Defense Com-
mittee, with headquarters at 12 Astor Place. I was sponsored by
Judge Kenyon.
Senator Tydixgs. You mean she was one of the sponsors, do you
not?
Senator McCarthy. One of the sponsors.
Senator Tydings. You do not want to leave the impression that she
was the motivating influence.
Senator McCarthy. I do not know who the motivating influence
was, Senator.
Judge Kenyon was a sponsor of this organization. But lest there
be any doubt of the Communist character of this group, let me
quote from a report of the House Un-American Activities Committee,
which said on page 1555, of appendix 9 :
Morris U. Schappes admitted in sworn testimony before the Rapp-Coudert
committee that he joined the Communist Party in the summer of 1934. He
further admitted tliat he was a memher of the Communist Party's educational
commission. He told the Rapp-Condert committee that he used the name Alan
Horton in tlie Communist Party, and that under tliat alias he had delivered the
report of the educational commission at the tentli convention of the Com-
munist Party in 1938.
Schappes was on the teaching staff of the College of the City of New York
for a period of 13 years. In 1936 his superior on the college faculty refused
to recommend him for reappointment. This action led to prolonged agitation
by the Communist Party and its front organizations on behalf of Schappes.
The following organizations •participated in this agitation: The Communist
Party, the Young Communist League, the American Student Union, the League
of American Writers, the American League Against War and Fascism, and
the International Worliers Order.
In 1937 the borough president of the New York County in the city
of New York, Mr. Stanley M. Isaacs, appointed as an assistant on
his staff a reporter for the Communist Daily Worker named Simon
W. Gerson.
Almost immediately, the patriotic citizens of New York, led by
the American Legion and other equally reputable organizations,
entered a vigorous protest on the naming of an avowed Communist
to a responsible city position.
The Daily Worker wrote a letter, ranting and screaming against
this "witch-hunting campaign" and "injustice," and launched a vio-
lent and intemperate tirade against any and all who felt that the city
might better be served by a 100 percent American.
They sought the aid of fellow Communists, fellow travelers, suckers,
and just plain dopes. The latter two categories are found frequently
in the Communist manifestos, but they do not remain long.
The test of a real Red, Fascist, or fellow traveler is a constant adher-
ence to the rapidly shifting Communist Party line over a long period
of years. Here again we have this prominent State Department
official. Judge Kenyon, crying aloud in her anguish for a fellow
red, and I call anyone who gets $12,000 a year of the people's money,
very prominent.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 69
Senator Greex. May I ask a question? That $12,000 a year is a
little misleadiiiu'. Did she get $12,000 a year?
Senator ^McCarthy. Senator, the information I aave the rommit-
tee is from the Federal Ke«:ister. Tliat, I believe, shows she received
$12,000 a year. I understand the State Department said last night
that this woman was not receiving payment for the full year, that slie
only received payment for the time she worked, at the rate of $12,000
a year. I believe they announced that she only worked officially at
the job a number of weeks.
Senator Grekn. Thank you. That was the rate at which she was
paid 'i
Senator IMcCarthy. That is right. That is a fairly important per-
son, who gets paid at the rate of $12,000 a year and, I assume, expenses.
But this exhibit 7 is equally interesting in that Miss Kenyon is
named as representing the Consumers' Union.
Consumers' Union is an admittedly, out-and-out Communist-domi-
nated and owned organization. It has fronted for the party since
its inception in 1935 and is headed by Arthur Kallet, whose Com-
munist Party alias is Arthur Adams.
Mr. Chairman, I have the document but it is a bad job of photo-
stating, so I have gotten the complete page of the Daily Worker
which contains this particular document, and I wall give you both as
exhibit 7, the document and the much more readable Daily Worker
photostat.
Senator Ttdings. If the Senator will hesitate in his testimony a
moment, we can look over this.
A^liich part is it ( May I ask the Senator which part it is ?
Senator McCarthy. It starts down
Senator Tydixgs. I see, down at the bottom, is that it?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Senator Tydings. For the purpose of identification, these are al-
legedly, and I suppose accurately, photostats of two pages of the
Daily Worker, in which appears a news article of February 10, 1938 —
it appears to be a news article under the heading "Leading citizens
laud Isaacs' stand on Gerson," and it is continued over to page 4 of the
same paper under the heading of "47 leading citizens denounce witch
hunt on Gerson's appointment."
This is a newspaper article in the Daily Worker.
Senator McCarthy, might I ask you how much longer it would take
you to put in the exhibits you have to support the statements you
made ?
Senator McCarthy. It all depends, Mr. Chairman, on how^ much
time the committee takes in examining the exhibits. I might say, if
I am not interrupted at all, it would take about 10 minutes to put
them in.
Senator Tydixgs. I will ask the committee not to interrupt. Let
him now proceed.
I will ask the Senator if he won't try to conclude in 10 minutes. I
have a very important matter to lay before the committee, and the
Senate, immediately.
Senator McCarthy. Good — very good.
Here again we have Miss Kenyon associated with such well-known
Communists as Harry F. Ward, Louis Weinstock and Irving Potash,
who is 1 of the 11 convicted Communist conspirators.
70 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVElSTIGATIOX
One of the most notorious Communist- front orc^anizations is the
League of Women Shoppers. Two months ago, the League of Women
Shoppers merged with the Congress of American Women.
The Congress of American Women has been cited as subversive by
the Attorney General of the United States, the House Committee on
Un-American Activities and the California Committee on Un-Ameri-
can Activities. There is no question whatsoever of its Communist
domination, background, and purposes.
I submit to the committee exhibit 8 which lists the directors and
sponsors of this organization, and it will be noted that we again have
Miss Dorothy Kenyon in the company of such well-loiown pro-Com-
munists as Helen Seldes and Josephine Herbst, who was tired from
the OSS by Gen. William Donovan because of her Communist
connections.
Senator Tydings. Give the date of this exhibit. It is not on here
that I can find. If you gave it, it's all right, but I thought you might
have it.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chaiiman, I do not know whether I have
given you the elate or not.
Senator Tydings. Where does it come from ^ There is no identifica-
tion. [
Senator McCarthy. It is on the letterhead of the League of Women
Shoppers, 70 Fifth Avenue, New York, and it contains a list of direc-
tors and sponsors. That is what this is, Mr. Chairman.
Senator TydinCxS. All right.
Senator McCarthy. The message in this particular document has
been blacked out.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Senator Green. May I ask about that ?
Senator McCarthy. I won't be able to conclude in 10 minutes, if
you interrupt.
Senator Green. I notice the date is blacked out. Have you the
original ?
Senator McCarthy. I have not.
Senator Green. You have not ?
Senator McCarthy. I have not.
Senator Green. Can you get it so that you can insert the date ?
Senator McCarthy. If I cannot, I am sure the staff can get a letter-
head from the League of Women Shoppers.
Senator Green. That is not the job of the Committee
Senator McCarthy. JSIay I proceed to try to finish, Mr. Chairman,
in the requested 10 minutes'?
As an indication of the far-reaching power and influence of this
Communist-front organization, the committee might be concerned to
know that Mrs. Dean Acheson, the wife of the Secretarj^ of State, is
listed on page 1023 of appendix 9 of the records of the House Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities as a sponsor of its Washington
branch. There is no length to which these purveyors of treason will
not go to bring into their fold the names of unsuspecting and mis-
guided men and women wlio are intluenced by a glib stoiy of social or
economic improvement and thus lend prestige to a sordid and dissolute
cause.
Mrs. Acheson appears once on tlie roster of these subversive organi-
zations and Miss Kenyon more than a scoi'e of times.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 71
Mr. Chairman, this indicates that it is easy to get some fine indi-
vidual's name connected with isolated Communist-front organiza-
tions, but that circumstance is not the same when yon find the same
names through a group of 28.
I have now given the committee a partial report on the activities of
this ofticial of the State Department. We find Judge Kenyon as
s]")onsor of the American Committee for Anti-Nazi Litertaure in
March 19o9 on exhibit 9. Governmental agencies liave cited this
organization as a Communist front.
Exhibit 9, and let me make it clear that when I cite Mrs. Acheson,
I do that to show how successfid they have been in their attempts to
get tine people on their lists.
Senator Ttdixgs. You said that before.
Senator INIcCarthy. Again in January' of 194:0 we find Miss Kenyon
as a signer of a petition under the auspices of the American Com-
mittee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom, an organization cited
as subversive by the House Committee on Un-American Activities
and the California Committee on Un-American Activities. I hand
you exhibit 10 .
Senator Green. Have you the date of that previous exhibit?
Senator McCarthy. I said in January of 1940.
Senator Green. The date they were declared subversive?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, we have complete dates compiled by the
House Un-American Activities Committee. I will be glad to give that
to the committee.
I might say that the date they were declared subversive, in my opin-
ion, is not significant where we are dealing with a person who belongs
to 25 or 30 of them.
Senator Tydings. But. you will put them in the record?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, I will put them in the record.
1 think that is significant, when we find the same people connected
with them, and that information will be available, I will state that
to you, Mr. Chairman, later on.
Senator Tydings. Thank 3^ou.
Senator McCarthy. Exhibit 11 again shows Judge Kenyon on the
Advisory Committee of the Citizens Committee to Aid Striking Sea-
men, which has been cited as subversive by Government agencies.
Exhibit 12 again shows Miss Kenyon as a member of the advisory
board of Film Audiences for Democracy, an organization which has
been cited as subversive by governmental agencies.
Exhibit 13 lists the officers and advisory board of Films for Demo-
cracy, an organization cited as subversive by the governmental agen-
cies. Again we have Dorothy Kenyon as a member of the advisory
board.
The next exhibit 14, shows Miss Kenyon as a sponsor of the Greater
New York Emergency Conference on Inalienable Rights, an organi-
zation cited as subversive by governmental agencies.
I will hand the entire list to the Chair.
Senator Tydings. What is this list a ])art of, this 13 ?
Senator McCarthy. May I hand the Chair the entire list so he
can follow me.
Senator TvniNos. So that we won't get the papers mixed.
Senator McCarthy. I was referring to exhibit 1 [ now.
68970—50 — pt. 1 6
72 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Would it be agreeable to you to put the testimony
that you are about to read in conclusion
Senator McCarthy, Just one paragraph and I will be through.
In the New York Times of Tuesday, January 31, 1939, appeared
an advertisement under the auspices of the Washington Committee
to Lift the Spanish Embargo. The committee will note that this
exhibit 15 names Miss Dorothy Kenyon as an "eminent American"
who ardently supported the Communist cause in Spain.
Exhibit 16 shows Miss Kenyon as a sponsor of the Lawyers Commit-
tee on American Relations with Spain, another organization listed
as subversive by govermnental agencies.
I could continue to give this type of evidence for some time, but it
appears to me that the pro-Communist background of this official of
the State Department has been abundantly and conclusively estab-
lished.
Exhibt 17 which lists Miss Kenyon as a member of the advisory
board of the Milk Consumers Protective Committee is merely another
Communist front, cited by a governmental agency as subversive.
I suggest to the committee in concluding my remarks on Miss Ken-
yon, that by the findings of the Attorney General of the United States
and other responsible governmental agencies, she does not conform
by any stretch of the imagination to the yardstick of loyalty set forth
by Secretary of State Acheson.
Senator Tydings. Thank you. Senator McCarthy; and, I would
like to read the committee now a telegram that I have just received,
and ask the committee's advice on what we should do about it :
I will welcome an opportunity to appear before the committee at its earliest
convenience to attack Senator McCarthy's outrai;eous and maliciously false
charges against me. Judge Kenyon.
What does the committee desire to do about this ?
Senator Green, I think the committee should meet in executive
■session.
Senator Tydings. Without objection, the hearing will be recessed,
subject to the call of the Chair.
This may be tomorrow morning, it may be Monday. I camiot tell
you accurately, but will let you know later today.
Please clear tlie room promptly as some of the Senators have en-
gagements, and I am anxious to dispose of this matter.
(Whereupon, at 12 : 50 p. m., the subcommittee stood in recess, sub-
ject to call of the Chair.)
STATE DZPARTMEiNT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY
INVESTIGATION
MONDAY, MARCH 13, 1950
United States Senate,
committp^e on foreign rei^vnons,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington., D. G .
The subcoinittee met, pursuant to adjournment on March 9, 1950,
at 10:oO a. m. in room 318, Senate Office Building, Senator Millard
E. Tydings, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Tydings, Green, McMahon, Hickenlooper, and
Lodge.
Also present : Senators Connally (chairman of the full committee) ,
and McCarthy.
Senator Tydings. The committee will come to order.
The witness will proceed with his testimony.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN— Resumed
Senator McCarthy. ]Mr. Chairman, I brought along with me a book
put out by the Committee on Un-American Activities. This contains
the listing which the Chair asked for the other day.
Senator Tydings. Good.
Senator McCarthy. It indicates the date the various fro^it organi-
zations have been declared subversive, or fronts.
Now, I cannot give this to the chairman, but I will loan it to him.
1 will need it every night when I prepare for the next day.
Senator Tydings. Let us look at it for a moment.
Senator McCarthy. You may use it during the day.
Senator Tydings. Go right ahead, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. I might say, in giving that to the Chair, that
I do not think that the indication that certain front organizations have
been declared subversive is important insofar as some of the more in-
telligent people belonging to them are concerned. I think it is more
important wlien we speak of the naive people, or the dupes who may
be fooled.
The next case is that of one Haldore Hanson.
Senator Tydings, Will you s})eli that, please?
Senator McCarthy. II-a-1-d-o-r-e H-a-n-s-o-n.
I will have a copy of this for the press in about 3 minutes, and for
the members of the committee.
Senator Tydings. Go right ahead.
73
74 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVElSTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. This man, Mr. Chairman, occnpies one of the
most strategically important offices in the entire State Department.
The indications are that he joined the Department of State in Febru-
ary 1942, and is recognized in the Department as a specialist and ex-
pert on Chinese affairs.
Hanson, now executive director of the Secretariat of the Inter-
Departmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural Cooperation, will
head up a technical cooperation projects staff of the new point 4 pro-
gram for aid to underdeveloped areas, which will have charge of the
expenditures of hundreds of millions of dollars of our taxpayers'
money over all the world.
For the source of this, Mr. Chairman, this is from the as-yet-unpub-
lished Department of State departmental announcement 41, dated
February 21, 1950; and, if the Chair will just wait, I will be using
this myself later, and I will hand it to him.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Senator McCarthy. The pro-Communist proclivities of Mr. Hanson
go back to September 1938, that is, insofar as I have records of them.
Hanson was a contributor to Pacific Affairs, the official publication
of the Institute of Pacific Relations, whose staff was headed by mil-
lionaire Frederick Vanderbilt Field, an admitted Communist. Inci-
dentally, the Institute of Pacific Relations was listed as a Communist-
front organization by the California Committee on Un-American
Activities, and the date will be shown in the book I have handed to
the Chair.
However, I do not think these dates are important, insofar as this
man is concerned. This is not a dupe. Here is one of the cleverest,
one of the smoothest men we have in the State Department.
This man Field has devoted his entire fortune to the Communist
cause.
It is important to keep in mind that Mr. Hanson also wrote for the
magazine Amerasia, of which Philip Jacob Jaffe was managing editor.
Jaffe was arrested, indicted, and found guilty of having been in
illegal possession of several hundred secret documents from the State,
Navy, War, and other Government department files.
Mr. Chairman, I now have before me a document entitled "Depart-
ment of State Departmental Announcement 41." I believe I have
already given the date as February 21, 1950. The heading is "Estab-
lishment of the Interim Office for Technical Cooperation and Develop-
ment." Then, in parenthesis, by way of explanation of this rather
high-sounding name, we find "Point 4 Program."
The first paragraph of the order reads as follows :
One. Effective immediately tliere is established under the direction of the
Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs of the Interim Office for Technical
Cooperation and Development (TCD).
The initials of that will be "TCD" according to this announcement.
Turning over to page 4, Mr. Chairman, we have listed as the Chief
of this technical cooperations project staff, this man Haldore Hanson.
His phone extension is 3011, and 5012, in the State Department.
Paragraph 2 on page 1 sets forth the following responsibilities of
Mr. Hanson's division. I will read this. I think it is important to
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 75
the committee, as you hear the balance of the evidence in regard to
this man :
Tlie Interim Office is assigned srenei-al resjionsibility within tlie Department
for («) seciirins effective administration of proiirams involving? teclmical assist-
ance to economically nudeveloped areas and (h) directing the planning in prep-
aration for tlie technical cooperation and economic development (point 4) pro-
gram. In carrying out its responsibilities the Interim Office will rely upon the
regional bureaus. Bureau of Ignited Nations Affairs, and other components of
Economic Atfairs area for participation in the technical assistance programs as
specified l>elow, and upon the central administrative offices of the administrative
area for the [lerformance of service functions.
Mr. Chairman, before this is handed out to the press, I would like
to ask that the entire document be considered as accepted in evidence.
Senator Tydings. Mark it as an exhibit, Senator.
This is a new case, and you might give the initials of the subject
of it, and then put after it, a letter in sequence, so we can have them
in order.
In this case it will be "18."
Senator McCarthy. Very good, sir ; and also "19," the departmental
announcement No. 41.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Senator ]McCartiiy. I will hand that to you in just a moment.
Senator Tydings. Keep it as long as you want it, but when you have
finished it, pass it to us, so we can see it.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you very much.
From this it would appear that his division will have a tremendous
amount of power and control over the hundreds of millions or billions
of dollars which the President proposed to spend under his point 4
program, or what he has referred to as the "bold new plan."
Hanson's appointment is not made by the President, but by the
State Department, and is not subject to any Senate confirmation.
Therefore, it would seem rather important to examine the background
and philosophy of this young man.
The State Department Biographical Eegister gives what would, on
its face, seem to be a chronological story of an increasingly successful
young man. It shows, for example, that he graduated from college
in 1934 at the age of 22 ; that he was a teacher in Chinese colleges from
1934 to 1937; and then a press correspondent in China from 1936 to
1939; a staff writer from 1938 to 1942; then in 1942, he got a job in
the State Department at $4,600 a year ; that in 1944, he was listed as a
specialist in Chinese affairs at $5,600 — and I ask the committee to keep
in mind that this young man got his listing as a specialist in Chinese
affairs in 1944; that in 1945 he was made executive assistant to the
Assistant Secretary of State at $6,500; that in May of 1948 he was
made Assistant Chief of the Area Division No. 3; that on June 28,
1948, he was made Acting Chief for the Far Eastern Area, Public
Affairs Overseas Program Staff' — another date I ask the committee to
keep in mind ; and that on November 14, 1948, he was made executive
director of the Secretariat of the Interdepartmental Committee on
Scientific and Cultural Relations. There is certainly nothing unusual
about this biography. Nothing is there to indicate that this man
might be dangerous in the State Department as Chief for the Far
Eastern Area Public Affairs, Overseas Program Staff, during a time
M'hen the Communists were taking over China.
76 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVElSTIGATION
However, much is left out of this biograpli}'. It does not show, for
example, that this young man was rumiing a Communist magazine
in Peiping when the Japanese-Chinese war broke out.
May I repeat, it does not show that this young man was running
the Communist magazine in Peiping when the Japanese-Chinese war
broke out. It does not show, for example, that he spent several years
with the Communist armies in China, writing stories and taking pic-
tures which the Chinese Communists helped him smuggle out of the
country. I will show later where the Chinese generals did the
smuggling for him. Nor does this biography show that this man,
after his return from China, wrote a book — a book which sets forth
his pro-Communist answer to the problems of Asia as clearly as Hit-
ler's Mein Kampf set forth his solutions for the problems of Europe.
Nothing that he has said or done since would indicate that he re-
pudiates a single line of that book.
Incidentally, in connection with that, I would like to point out that
this is not a secret to the State Department. As early as 1947, Con-
gressman Busbey read some ver\' brief excerpts from that book on
the House floor. That was called to Mr. Hanson's attention at that
time and he did not repudiate any statement I vShall read to you from
that book.
This man clearly believes that the Communists in China stand for
everything that is great and good. His is not the picture of a mer-
cenary trying to sell his country out for 30 pieces of silver. In read-
ing his book, you are impressed with the fact that he firmly believes
the Communist leaders in China are great and good men, and that
all of Asia Avould benefit by being communized.
In other words, we are not dealing here, Mr. Chairman, with the
usual cheap Communist who is selling out for a price. Here is a man
who, apparently from his book, is completely sincere that communism
is the answer.
Take, for example, what lie has to say about Mao Tse-tung, the
head of the Communist Party at that time, and noAv the Communist
ruler of China, and Chu Teh, commander in. chief of the Eighth
Route Communist Army, and according to Life magazine of January
23, 1950, No. 2 man in prestige to Mao Tse-tung.
In chapter 23, entitled "Political Utopia on Mt. Wut'Ai," in de-
scribing a meeting with an American Major Carlson, here is what
he had to say :
We stayed up till midnight exchanging notes on gueiTilla armies, the farm
unions, and the progress of the war. I was particularly interested in the Com-
munist leaders whom Carlson had just visited and whom I was about to meet.
Mao Tse-tung, the head of the Communist Party, Carlson characterized as "the
most selfless man I ever met, a social dreamer, a genius living 50 years ahead
of his time." And Chu Teh, commander in chief of the Eighth Route Army,
was the "prince of generals," — listen to this, if you will — "a man with the
humility of Lincoln, the tenacity of Grant, and the kindliness of Robert E. L'^e."
As we go on in the book, we find that after Mr. Hanson spent
some time with these generals, his hero worship was even greater.
Mr. Chairman, for a man slated as Cliief of the Buit au which may
have the job of spending hundreds of millions of dollais throughout
the world, this indicates, to say the least, a disturbing amount of hero
worship for the No. 1 and No. 2 Communist leaders in the Far East
today.
STATE depart:ment employee loyalty investigation 77
Listen to this. These are Hanson's own words, and no one else's.
Here is what Hanson says on page 349 of his book. He condemns the
right-wing groups in the Chinese Government for "fighting against
the democratic revohition as proposed by Mao Tze-tmig and the
Comnnuiists."
Senator Ttdings. Senator McCarthy, are these his own words, or
are they quoted from somebody else ?
Senator McCarthy. The quotes are from his own book. Every-
thing in liere, I will make clear, is from his own book.
I would like the Chair's permission to present the entire book and
have that made a part of the record. I know that there is some
expense involved in having this printed, but I think, in view of the
fact that this man will be dealing with hundreds of millions or billions
of dollars, the several hundred dollars it would cost to have that book
reprinted, would be worth while. That is especially important in view
of the fact that all of the books have mysteriously disappeared. I had
to borrow the publisher's copy of the book in order to get the exact
quotes.
I assure you I have taken these directly fi-om the book and not from
anyone else's version of it.
Senator Ttdixgs. You offer it as an exhibit ; we will take it and
examine it. I understand it is a lengthy book
Senator McCarthy. It is rather lengthy. I would say about 500
pages; but it is extremely important to read the entire book, because
I have gone through, hit or miss, and picked out what I thought were
some of the sequence of quotes which very clearlj'" express this man's
attitude toward communism.
Senator McMahon. Mr. Chairman
The Chairman. Senator McMahon.
Senator McjMahon. I don't Avish to interrupt, but I think we have
to point out that this quote that the Senator talked about is quoting
this INIajor Carlson, whoever he may be.
Senator INIcCartht. Let me make it clear, so that there will be no
mistake. The first quote, as I say, is from chapter 23, and here is
what Carlson said ; then I said later on we will show a hero worship
even greater.
Then, the next is on page 349 : "He," meaning Hanson, "condemns
the right-wing groups in the Chinese Government for 'fighting against
the democratic revolution as proposed by Mao Tze-tung, and the
Communists'." And we leave Carlson in chapter 23, and there is no
other quote that will be a quote of Carlson.
Senator McMahon. But it was Carlson that described them or him
as "the most selfless man I ever met, a social dreamer."
Senator McCarthy. I have made that very clear. If the Senator
will read that, that is very, very clear.
Senator Tydixos. In order to conclude this, the witness said that the
first quote he made was the statement by INIajor Carlson, and then
he went on to quote, on page 349, the statement of the writer himself ;
is that correct ?
Senator McCarthy. Let me read this, so that there can be no ques-
tion that there was any attempt by way of a misquotation.
78 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
In chapter 23, entitled "Political Utopia on Mount Wut'Ai", in
describing a meeting with an American, Major Carlson, here is what
he had to say :
We stayed up till midnight excliaugiug notes on guerrilla armies, the farm
unions, and the progress of the war. I was particularly interested in the Com-
munist leaders whom Carlson had just visited and whom I was about to meet.
Mao Tze-tuug, the head of the Communist Party, Carlson characterized as "the
most selfless man I ever met, a social dreamer, a genius living 50 years ahead
of his time." And Chu Teh — •
still quoting from Hanson, says —
And Chu Teh, commander in chief of the Eighth Route Army, was "the prince
of generals, a man with the humility of Lincoln, the tenacity of Grant, and the
kindliness of Robert E. Lee."
Senator Tydings. All right, pause there.
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Tydings. What you have just read in quotes is what Major
Carlson told the man who wrote the book, so the press will get it clear ;
is that correct ?
Senator McCarthy. The press has a copy, and it is very, very
clear.
Senator Tydings. That is all right, then.
Senator McCarthy. I am sure it is clear enough.
I might say, I certainly appreciate very much the opportunity to
proceed and develop these facts today, the way the chair has been
doing.
Senator Tydings. All right, go ahead.
Senator McCarthy. Let me make it clear
Senator Tydings. If we do interrupt, it will be only for purposes of
identification.
Senator McCarthy. I understand that, and I certainly have no ob-
jection to clarifying questions, and I hope the committee does ask them
if necessary — ask such questions as they see fit.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this quote on page 349 of the book is very
clear as to what this young man feels. There is nothing coy about that
statement. That statement has not been retracted, either.
On the same page he points out that anti-Red officials within the
Government were making indirect attacks upon the Communists and
that, quoting from the book, Hanson's own words, "leaders of the
Communist Youth Corps were arrested by military ofJEicers at Hankow,
I myself was the victim of one of these incidents and found that
local officials were the instigators."
Just listen to this. He says, "I myself was the victim of one of
these incidents and found that local officials were the investigators.""
In other words, here is this man Hanson, in his own book, on the
same page, page 349, who says that the anti-Red officials were making
attacks on the Communists, and I quote him when he says "leaders of
the Communist Youth Cor])s were arrested by military officers at
Hankow." And he says, "I myself was the victim of one of these
incidents and found that local officials were the investigators."
So, this young man has a criminal record in China where he was
arrested, not by the Communists, but by the anti-Communists.
From Hanson's book it appears, i-ight in the next paragraph, that
the Nationalist Government knew of his close collaboration with the
Communist Army, For example, on page 350, we find that his pass-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 79
port was seized by tlie police in Sian avIumi they found that he was
travelin*^ from Communist fruerrilla territory to the Communist head-
quarters. He states tliat the man resi)()nsible "for this illegal action
was (lov. Chino; Ting-wen, one of the most rabid anti-Red officials
in China." The Governor's purpose, says Hanson, was merely to
suppress neATS about the Communists.
That should be in quotes: '■'The Governor's purpose was merely to
suppress news about tlie Comnuuiists."
Before quoting further from this book written by Mr. Hanson, it
might be well to give a clearer picture of the job which Secretary Ache-
son has picked out for him. The State Department document lists
some of the duties of his bureau as follows :
A. Developing over-all policies for the program.
B. Formulating general program plans and issuing planning
directives.
C. Coordinating specific program plans developed by the regional
bureaus, working under him, and making necessary adjustments.
D. Approving projects, determining action agencies, and allocating
funds for United States bilateral programs.
E. Directing negotiations and relationships with intergovern-
mental agencies and with other United States agencies participating
in the coordinated program or otherwise carrying on technical-assist-
ance activities.
Initiating and developing plans for technical-assistance programs
for individual countries within their respective regions,
i, B. Reviewing program proposals affecting their regions which
originate from any other source.
C. Negotiating and communicating Avith foreign governments.
D. Directing State Department personnel assigned abroad to co-
ordinate and give administrative and program support to bilateral
programs.
I might say there, ]\Ir. Chairman, section D. which I have just read,
"Directing State Department personnel assigned abroad to coordinate
and give administrative and program support to bilateral program" —
as I develop the facts which I think the committee Avill consider im-
portant enough to proceed further on, you Avill find that most of these
men with the same type of background, his unusual background; at-
tempt to grt in positions where they are directing the assignment of
personnel. If they can direct the proper personnel in the proper place,
it gives them complete control, of course, of the program.
E. Continuously evaluating programs and projects within regions.
F. Proposing program changes.
This is all work to be done by the unit to which Hanson has been
assigned as chief.
G. Initiating instructions to the field carrying out their respon-
sibilities and reviewing all other instructions concerned with tech-
nical-assistance programs.
This gives you some idea of the tremendous poAvers of the agency
in which Mr. Hanson is the Chief.
Let us go back to Hanson's writings — and incidentally, I direct
your attention to Mr. Leslie A. Wheeler, Avhose telephone extension is
3871; Technical Cooperative Policy Staff Chief will be Samuel P.
Hayes, Jr., telephone extension 4571 and 4572; Technical Coopera-
tion Management Staff is Richard R. Brown, extension 2155.
80 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Now, let US go back to Hanson's writings :
All through the book he shows that not only did he have complete
confidence in the Communist leaders but that they also had complete
confidence in him. On page 256 he refers to how Communist Generals
Nie and Lu Chen-tsao acted as his couriers, smuggling packets of
films and news stories for him, with the aid of Communist guerrilla
spies, into Peiping.
In this connection I might say that he very frankly points out that
the Communists do not tolerate anyone who is not completely on their
side. This is what Hanson himself said — they do not tolerate anyone
who is not completely on their side.
Hanson makes it very clear all through the book that he is not
only on the Communist side but that he has the attitude of a hero-
worshiper for the Chinese Communist leaders.
His respect and liking for the Communist leaders permeates almost
every chapter of the book. For example, on page 284 and page 285,
he tells about how some ragged waifs whom he had gathered into his
sleeping quarters regardecl Mao Tse-tung and Chu Teh as "gods."
That is his language. He then goes on to tell about their favorite
Communist general, Holung, and states that they convinced him that
Holung was a very extraordinary man whom they described as "big
as a Shantungese, heavy as a restaurant cook, but quick as a cat in
battle." He then goes on to describe on page 285 how, when he
himself met General Holung, he found him to be much as the hero-
worshiping boys had described him. "He is," said Hanson, ''a living
picture of Rhett Butler from the pages of Gone With the Wind."
This praise of Chinese Communist leaders goes on, page after page.
On page 278, he describes Communist General P'eng as the most rigid
disciplinarian and "the most persistent student of world aifairs."
In chapter 26, he speaks with apparent bated breath of the Brain
Trust of Communist leaders wdio were immortalized by Edgar Snow
in his Red Star Over China.
That part should be in quotes — "Communist leaders who were im-
mortalized by Edgar Snow in his Rod Star Over China."
Senator Htckenlooper. Mr. Chairman, is it Show, as on my copy,
or should that be Snow ?
Senator INIcCarthy. Sorry. The typewriters in my office sometimes
make mistakes; that is "Snow."
On page 295, in referring to two other Communist generals, he says :
Should this book ever fall into Communist hands, I must record that those two
lonely men made excellent company during my 3 weeks in Yenan.
In reference to the Communist university at Yenan, if you care to
make that correction on page 9, after referring to the Communist uni-
versity in Yenan, after describing in complimentary manner this uni-
versity and the students, on page 296 he says :
Every cadet divides his time between political and military subjects. On the
one hand he listens to lectures on Marxian philosophy, tlie history of the Chinese
Revolution, the technique of leading a mass movement; on the other hand he
studies guerrilla tactics, the use of military maps, and the organization of a
military labor corps.
On page 297 he points out that no tuition is charged at the academy
and that each student is supplied with uniform, books, and food, plus
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 81
a pocket allowance, and then has this to say — and this should be rather
]iuinorous, except that it is a bit tragic :
Some recent visitors to Yenan have spread a report that the academies are
supported by Russian rubles — a thin piece of gossip.
Says Mr. Hanson :
I was told by several Chinese leaders, including Mao Tse-Tung, that the larg-
est coutributions came fi'oui American sympathizers in New York.
On pages 297 and 298, Hanson relates that in talking to one of the
Nationalist warlords, and I will call your attention to this again — in
talking to one of the Nationalist warlords :
I suggested that he could learn a good deal from the Communists about dis-
cipline and integrity of leadership).
On page 303, Hanson has this to say :
My attitude toward Communist China's leaders was a mixture of respect for
their personal integrity and a resentment of their suspiciousness. They im-
pressed me as a group of hardheaded, straight-shooting realists.
Now, that is Hanson's description of Communist China's leaders:
They impressed me as a group of hardheaded, straight-shooting realists.
After an interview with Mao Tse-tung, he states :
I left with the feeling that he was the least pretentious man in Yenan and
the most admired. He is a completely selfless man.
Now, here is a man who is not quoting anyone else except himself.
Following is Hanson's description of how the Reds took over. I
quote from page 102 :
Whenever a village was occupied for the first time, the Reds arrested the land-
lords and tax collectors, held a public tribunal, executed a few and intimidated
the others, then redistributed the land as fairly as possible.
In chapter 28, in comparing the Communists to Chiang Kai-shek's
troops, Hanson had this to say :
I left Yenan with only one conviction about the Communists : that they were
were fighting against the Japanese more vlioleheartedly than any other group
in China.
Pie then goes on to condemn, using his language, "Red-baiting" offi-
• 1 • /->,i '^ 1 • 5 fe to to 3 to
cials m Chungking.
On page. 312 of his book, Hanson quotes a Communist editor as
stating as follows :
Our relationships to the U. S. S. R. —
<and Hanson is now quoting this editor —
is no different than that of the American Communist Party. We respect the
work of Russia's leaders and profit by their experience wherever we can, but
the problems of China are not the same as those of Russia. We plan our program
from a Chinese point of view.
Hanson then adds :
The explanation seemed logical enough to me.
In connection with Hanson's position as Chief of the Technical
Cooperation Projects staff, in charge of Truman's point-4 program,
the following on pages 312 and 313 of his book would seem especially
significant. He quotes Mao Tse-tung as follows :
China cannot reconstruct its industry and commerce without the aid of British
and American capital.
82 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVElSTIGATIOlSr
Can there be much doubt as to whether the Communist or the anti-
Communist forces in Asia will receive aid under the point 4 program
with Hanson in charge ?
Gentlemen, here is a man with a mission — a mission to communize
the world — a man whose energy and intelligence, coupled with a
burning all-consuming mission, has raised him by his own bootstraps
from a penniless operator of a Communist magazine in Peiping in the
middle thirities, to one of the architects of our foreign policy in the
State Department today — a man who, according to State Department
announcement No. 41 will be largely in charge of the spending of
hundreds of millions of dollars in such areas of the world and for
such purposes aS he himself decides.
Gentlemen, if Secretary Acheson gets away with his plan to put
this man, to great extent, in charge of the proposed point 4 program,
it will, in my opionion, lend tremendous impetus to the tempo at which
communism is engulfing the world.
On page 32 of his book, Hanson justifies "The Chinese Communists
chopping off the heads of landlords — all of which is true," because of
"hungry farmers." That the farmers are still hungry after the land-
lords' heads have been removed apparently never occurred to him.
On page 31 he explained that it took him some time to appreciate
the "appalling problems which the Chinese Communists were attempt-
ing to solve."
In chapter 4 of Hanson's book, he presents the stock Communists'
arguments for the so-called Stalin-Hitler pact of 1939.
Secretary Acheson is now putting Hanson in the position to help
the Communists solve the appalling problems in other areas of the
world with hundreds of millions or billions of American dollars.
The obvious area, Mr. Chairman, in which this man will start using
American money to help the Communists solve the people's problem
will be Indochina and India.
It should be pointed out that this case was brought to the attention
of State Department officials as long ago as May 14, 1947. At that time,
the Honorable Fred Busbey, on the floor of the House, discussed this
man's affinity for the Communist cause in China, and while he did
not discuss in detail the quotes from the book, Mr. Busbey did call the
State Department's attention to the fact that he had written this
book, and that was before he got the promotions which made him, for
example, Acting Chief for the Far Eastern Area, Public Affairs, et
cetera.
So much for Hanson.
Senator Tydings. Senator, is there any way the committee could get
another copy of this book to whicli you referred?
Senator McCarthy. The committee can get a copy, I r.m sure, from
the publishers.
Senator Tydings. Will you leave the name of the publisher, and
his address, at your convenience ?
Senator McCarthy. I am sure I can borrow another copy long
enough to have it reproduced, or for the committee's perusal. There
may be a copy available over in the Library of Congress, I am not
sure.
Senator McMahon. Wliat was the date of publication ?
Senator McCarthy. After he came back from China, so I assume
that would be in 1939, Senator.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 83
Senator IMcMaiion. It was published in 1939?
Senator INIcCarthy. Yes, in 1939 ; but keep in mind Hitler's Mein
Kanipf was published 10 years before he started putting each and
every j^aragraph into action.
Senator Tvuings. All writings you refer to, I take it for granted,
were in the book published in 1939 ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, except when I referred to Amerasia, and
the Institute of Pacific Relations — it is all in the document.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you have the book with you, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. No, I have not.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am sure the book will show when it was
published.
Senator McCarthy. I am snre it was published in 1939.
Senator McMahon. Do you know the name of it. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. I gave you the name.
Senator McMahon. Did you ? I did not think you did.
Senator Tydings. Conld you refresh yonr mind and give us the
name of the book, in ease it is not in here? I thought you gave it.
Senator McCarthy. I think it is in here. If it is not, I will have
the name for you in just a minute.
Senator JNIcMahon. It is not in here, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. It may not be in there. Without searching
for that, I have sent for it so the Chair will have it later.
Senator Tydings. You will furnish that?
Senator McCarthy. I am sure I can at least borrow a copy for the
Chair.
The next case, Mr. Chairman
Senator Tydings. Senator, pardon me just a moment.
I will ask one of the advisers of the Foreign Relations Committee
if he will not try to get that book out of the Library before somebody
else gets to it ; in the event there are not many copies of it the com-
mittee will, want to have it.
Senator McCarthy. If you will call my office, they will give you
the name of it. I am sorry it is not in the document.
Senator Tydings. That must be attended to quickly or the book
will be gone.
Senator McCarthy. I do not think that the copy will remain there
very long, .if there is a copy in the Library.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that this is my own filing system
Senator Tydings. Take your time.
Senator McCarthy. And, perhaps not the best one.
The name of the book is Human Endeavor, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. The name of the book is Human Endeavor,
by Haldore Hanson, published about 1939, apparently.
Senator McCarthy. Sorry I have to hold the committee up this
way.
Mr. Chairman, I would like next to take up the case of an indi-
vidual who was assistant to Alger Hiss at the San Francisco Con-
ference.
Senator Tydings. Let us have the copy.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chaiiuian, I would like to introduce this
document, these documents, rather, and they will be marked 20, 21,
aud 22, and ask that they be received in evidence.
Senator Tydings. Call them, as you put them in.
84 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVElSTIGATION
Mr. Clerk, are you getting tliem, because we are going to leave you
with the responsibility of having all these exhibits. Do not lose
them. If any exhibits are lost
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, if any are lost by the reporter,
I am sure I can supply the copies.
This is not in my printed document, the fact that this woman, Esther
Caukin Brunaiier, in the State Department, was the first assistant to
Alger Hiss in the San Francisco Conference. This is set forth in her
biographical sketch issued by the State Department.
I might say that the case of this woman's husband is extremely
important, important not to this committee because of his case, be-
cause he is not in the State Department, and there are facts about
that case which I cannot discuss in public, but I would like to give the
Chair a memorandum on that when he starts his investigation,
because the present status of the husband will shed lots more light
on this case.
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, how you shall give us the
information is entirely up to you. We will take what you want to
give us in the open, and what you think we ought to have in executive
session, we will receive there.
Use your own judgment, because obviously we do not know what
the evidence is.
Senator McCarthy. I shouhl like now to take up the case of Esther
Caukin Brunauer, Assistant Director of Policy Liaison. UNESCO
Relations Staff, Department of State, at a salary of $9,70G a year
according to the current Federal Eegister. I urgently request that
this connnittee give serious consideration to the details of this case
and act immediately to ascertain the facts.
I think this is one case, Mr. Chairman, upon Avhich you should take
immediate action and the information I will su]3p]y the Chair today,
in memorandum form, I believe will convince him of the necessity of
immediate action. .
Senator Tydings. Let me make sure I understand you. You are
recommending that this be one of the first cases we investigate?
Senator McCarthy. I think this definitely should be the very first
case.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Senator McCarthy. Mrs. Brunauer was instrumental in commit-
ting this organization to the support of various front enterprises,
particularly in the so-called consumer field. One such instance of
this activity was reported in the New York Times of April 27, 194?).
In the case the American Association of University Women joined
with Consumers Union, the League of Women Shoppers, and other
completely communist-controlled fronts.
I might say here, again, you do not have a woman who is a dupe.
You have an intelligent woman who makes an excellent appearance
and excellent impression. She is not mistaken about these organi-
zations. I know there are some joiners who may make the mistake
of joining two or three of these Commie organizations before they
have been declared so, who may do it without knoAving what they
are doing. But not this individual, who is an intelligenjt person.
Senator Tydings. Have you any idea what her age is, Senator, now,,
approximately ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 85
Senator McCarthy. I frankly haven't. I have never even seen
the individnal. I believe, maybe, some of the ladies do not give their
ages in their biographical sketches.
Exhibit 21 inclicates that Mrs. Brunaner presided at a Washington
meeting of the American Friends of tlie Soviet Union. This again
was some time ago. This starts back 15 years ago.
Senator Tydings. The date of it seems to be Jnnc 11. 1936.
Senator McCarthy. This organization has been cited as subversive
by the Attorney General of the United States, the House Committee
on Un-American Activities, and the California Committee on Un-
American Activities. The princi]ial s]:)eaker at this meeting was Myra
Page, long an avowed leader of the Communist Party and frequent
writer for the Daily Worker and other Communist periodicals, so
there can be little doubt about the subversiveness of that organization.
Certainly this committee has no doubts as to the domination by the
Communist Party of the American Youth Congress. It has been cited
as subversive by the xYttorney General and other governmental
agencies.
Senator Tydings. Are you referring now to the Senate cases,
Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
This, Mr. Chairman, is case Xo. 57 in the Congressional Hecord.
Senator Tydings. I take it you mean that case N^o. 47 as given by
you on the Senate floor about February 20, I think it was, is the case
of Esther Caukin Brunauer.
Senator jMcCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. Do you want to make any reference to your first
case in the Congressional Eecord, or leave that out?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. I do. Mr. Chairman. I am looking for
that.
Here is what I said on the Senate floor, Mr. Chairman. This is
what will be found in her file, along with other information :
This individual was employed in March 1944 as Division assistant in the
Division of Internal Security. The House Un-American Activities Committee
advised on August 8, 1947, that an admitted former Communist Party member
was formerly associated with this individual in Communist activitiesin Wash-
ington. D. C. This individual's husband admitted having been a member of
the Communist Party. The husband now has a highly confidential position with
the Navy Department. The file indicates that this individual has been associated
with a group of known Communists —
and I can assure the Chair the file does show that, to the best of my
knowledge anyway.
Keep in mind. ]\Ir. President, that she was given a job in the Division
of Internal Security.
A report dated July 16. 1947. states that in 1941 a Senate investigating com-
mittee had found that both this individual and her husband were members of
the Communist Party. A report dated Sept(>mber 1.5, 1947, by a Government
investigative agency, advised that a reliMble informant reported this individual
as a Communist and thnt she luis been recently contacting a member of a Soviet
espionage ring. This individual is still in a highly paid job in the State
Department.
That is from the Congressional Record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. Senator, before you leave the first case will you,
either now or later, if it has any connotation with your remarks on the
Senate floor, identify it ? If it does not it is not necessary.
86 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. The first case was not mentioned on the Senate
floor, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. That accounts for that.
Senator McCarthy. The principal speaker at this meeting, re-
ferring to the meeting that this lady sponsored, was Myra Page, long
an avowed leader of the Communist Party and frequent writer for
the Daily Worker and other Communist periodicals.
Certainly this committee has no doubts as to the domination by
the Communist Party of the American Youth Congress. It has been
cited as subversive by the Attorney General and other governmental
agencies.
Exhibit 22 shows Esther Caukin Brunauer was a signer of the
call to the annual meeting of the American Youth Congress in 1938.
Senator Tydings. I don't want to divert the witness, but I think
the press may not have a copy of this.
Senator Lodge. Neither has the committee.
Senator Tydings. It reads "We the Undersigned" and is broken
down under the headings of women's organizations, health, education,
trade-union, social service, government, and religious groups. There
again I see some of our former colleagues : Arthur Capper, United
States Senator from Kansas ; L. D. Dickenson, Governor of Michigan ;
Matthew A. Dunn, United States Representative from Pennsylvania;
James A. Farley, United States Postmaster General ; Thomas F. Ford,
United States Representative from California ; Frank W. Fries, United
States Representative from Illinois, and several other Representatives
and a number of governors and a number of United States Senators.
I won't take the time to read them.
Senator McCarthy. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I have re-
frained from naming the known Communists up here on all of these.
Each document I present from day to day you will find contains some
lespectable citizens who have been duped into joining.
I might say this also in this case, Mr. Chairman. I do not think
the fact that this woman belonged to these Communist front organi-
zations can at all compare with the information the Chair will find in
her files and in the files of her husband. I g've these documents to
show that those over in the State Department who hired her and kept
her on should have been put on notice, at least, that there was something
wrong in the record; and also, I believe, when the Chair sees her
record he will not be able to believe that she is still in a highly paid
position having top secret clearance today.
This is, in my opinion, one of the most fantastic cases I know of.
Senator Tydings. I will not look at my records, of course, until the
whole committee sees them at the same time. I just want to make
that plain.
Senator McCarthy. I understand that.
I might say also, I am not trying to advise the committee, but in
all sincerity I don't think the members of the committee will be any
more competent than I would be to go over and examine those records
personally. I think you will have to have on your staff individuals
who have been in this type of work for some years, who have taken
some ]3art in compiling those records, so that you will be able to get
everything out of it.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 87
May I suggest this further, especially. Especially in this Brunauer
case 1 urge that the committee get not only her loyalty file, her per-
sonnel file
Senator Tydings. Both in the State Department?
Senator jMcCarthy. Both in the State Department.
Senator Tydings. Give me that again.
Senator McCarthy. The State Department loyalty file, the State
Department personnel file, and both files, which Avill be combined as
one, over in the Civil Service Commission, and then what is doubly
important, a glance at the FBI file on this woman and her husband,
'iliey are living together; at least I assume they are, which makes his
file important also.
Exhibit 2-2 shows Esther Caukin Brunauer was a signer of the call
to the annual meeting of the American Youth Congress in 1938.
Esther Brunauer is the wife of Stephen Brunauer, a Hungarian by
birth. He is a scientist who has had the rank of Commander in the
United States Xavy and his scientific work has involved some of the
topmost defense secrets which the armed forces of this country possess.
I think it is hightly important that this committee immediately, in
accordance with the mandate from the Senate, obtain the files of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Naval Intelligence, and the State
Department on the activities of Stephen Brunauer, the husband of
this ranking official of the State Department.
I ask that the committee immediately seek to learn whether or not
Stephen Brunauer has :
1. Been the subject of a constant investigation by Government
agencies over a period of 10 years.
2. A close friend and collaborator of Noel Field, known Communist
who recently and mysteriously disappeared behind the iron curtain.
o. He has admitted to associates that he was a member of the Com-
munist Party.
I am reluctant to go any further into this case but I am prepared to
produce competent witnesses who will testify to the importance of
immediate action in this matter.
It can be readily shown that at least three Government agencies
have been sifting the activities of a small group of people whose work
seriously threatens the security of the comitry.
Certainly 'the Connnunist front activities of Mrs. Brunauer are
sufficient to seriously question her security status.
Let me make it clear that I think the investigative agencies of the
Government have been doing an excellent job. The thing that dis-
turbs me is, after they have done a job, after you have matters in
the files that make it unbelievable that a person could get top secret
clearance, there is just no regard whatsoever paid to those reports
of the investigative agencies.
So much for Brunauer.
Mr. Chairman, the next case will take about, or, I would say a
least an hour and a half to complete. It is 20 of 12. Housing legis-
lation is on tlie Senate floor, and I will want to be on the floor this
afternoon. If the Chair wants nie to, I shall start this document. I
very much hate to get a third of the way through a case and then quit.
If tlie Chair does not liave any objection, instead of taking lo minutes
on this and getting in the middle of this, I would prefer starting on
it tomorrow.
68970— ao—pt. 1 7
88 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Senator, of course we will try to acconnnodate
3-0U, but as I told you, we would try to sit all day and give you a chance
without any major interruptions at presentinir your case, and I noti-
fied the committee to that extent, and we are prepared to be here.
I would suggest, if you would allow me, that we start and keep on
going, and keep in touch with the floor situation. It may be that some-
body is reading AVashington's Farewell Address or some other im-
portant document, in wliich event we can keep on without the loss
of time. So, if you will start, we will keep in touch with the floor,
and I will notify the Clerk, and at the proper time I will notify you
if the housing matter is up for serious discussion.
Senator McCarthy. Let me suggest, then, Mr. Chairman, I don't
want to be cut off in the middle of this. I would rather miss some of
the housing discussion than be forced to stop in the middle of it.
Could we do this : It will take me, I assume, about an hour and a
half to finish tliis. It Avill be 1 o'clock or maybe slightly after that.
Could Ave agree to this, to notify tlie floor that I will have no objection
to the committee sitting until 1 o'clock, and I will have to object to the
committee continuing after that time, because housing legislation is
up. It is sometliing I have been working on for some time, and I
must be there.
Can we have an agreement that we will not stop in the middle of
this case, and let me finish it, and when I finish this case we can retire
to the Senate floor.
Senator Lodge. And pick up again his afternoon ?
Senator McCarthy. No. I will have to be on the floor during the
housing legislation.
Senator Tydings. Senator, there are a couple of aspects of this
thing that make it a little difficult, much as I would like to comply
with any request of yours.
The first one is that, as you knoAv, we have asked Miss Kenyon to
be here tomorrow, and she may not be ready to go on the stand. I
don't know. I sent her a telegram telling her that her request to be
heard would be honored promptly, and we had ]^lanned to hear her
on Tuesday at 10 : oO a. m. I got a reply by wire from her to the
effect that she would be here Tuesday at 10 : 30 a. m.
Now, so far as I know, she will be here tomorrow morning. In the
event, however, she should ask the committee for another day, I think
we would have to probably take counsel and extend her the time that
she requires to make her answer.
But if we could go on today and finish your case, it was my idea
that we would immediately, notwithstanding we had not concluded
the open hearings, organize our staff and take up these matters that
you have suggested here and in other places, and start to outline a
case.
I am trying to get, as you have yourself thought wise and I thought
wise too, experienced investigators, preferably FBI men who are
available, so that there will be no question about having an experi-
enced handling of these particular files. I haven't gotten those men
3'et, but I am working on it and want to submit it to the whole com-
mittee before it becomes official. But if we could conclude with you
today, I will sit here until 10 or 11 o'clock tonight so that we can
dispose of it and get the thing moving in high gear and if there is
anybody down there that is disloyal, we want to know it just as you do.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 89
Senator McCarthy. I iiiijrht say, ]Mr. Chairman, that I want to
cooperate with the Chair fully, but simply must be ovei- on the floor
when we are discussino- housing. That is a matter I have been working
on for '2 years.
Senator Tydincs. Lefs go to 1 o'clock, and talk it over then.
Senator McCarthy. I can't very well talk it over then, because I
have to notify the floor whether or not they should put in an objec-
tion to mv having the conunittee sit. The Chair knows we can sit
onlv bv uiianimous consent. If we can agree that we will finish this
case and then adjourn, I will notify the floor not to object to having
this conunittee sit.
Senator McMahon, I want the Senator to object.
Senator Tydings. Let me say this, before you do that.
Senator ^ifiCartliy:,-! want to accouunodate you as hmg as I can. Is
the reason you would like to go over that you have not your other
cases ready, or is it because of the housing legislation ^
Senator McCarthy. I have plenty of material here to take up some
time, Mr. Chairman, but as I have told you, I will give the committee
the forenoon, and an hour or so in the afternoon. I will do that as
long as necessary, but when there is legislation up which I think is
important, the Eeorganization Act provides that when such a sit-
uation occurs, a Senator is entitled to be on the floor.
Here is my thought : I don't want to be caught in the middle of
a case. I would like to present all of the evidence, because it is done
in chronological order. I would like to have an agreement either
that I can finish this case when 1 start, or that we adjourn now and
start again tomorrow morning. I do think instead of starting at
10 : 30 it might be better to start at 9 in the morning.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator, it has been suggested by my colleagues to
my right that if you can find it convenient to take up this case and
without any interruption pursue it to a conclusion, perhaps at: that
time, and without penalizing you or taking any advantage of that
agreement, we could again discuss it and work out something that
would be mutually satisfactory to you and the committee. How does
that strike you ?
Senator Hickexlooper. Well, Mr. Chairman, if you are referring
to the whispered tentative conversation which I had with you a
moment ago, which I did not feel was a final commitment one way or
the other and had not expected to be announced publicly
Senator Tydixgs, I beg your pardon. I thought it was your sug-
gestion. I merely relay eel it.
Senator Hickexlooper. I made a suggestion of that kind, but did
not exi)ect it to be published. What I suggested was that the Senator
certainly is entitled to continue a presentation of this case until he has
concluded. I said to the chairman that to my knowledge, and I think
to the knowledge of everybody else, the Senator from Wisconsin has
been vitally interested in housing for over 2 years. I had not realized
his interest until lie mentioned it just a moment ago, but I can under-
stand why he is interested in being on the floor when housing is
discussed.
Senator McCarthy. Let me say also for the Senator's benefit that
the Housing Act of 1948 was drafted by the Senator from Wisconsin ;
the only public housing measure that was passed in 1948 was drafted
b}' the Senator from AVisconsin, so this is one of the subjects I have
90 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
been working at, and I simply insist that I be there. I am not asking
iiny favor from the committee in that at alh
Senator Hickexlooper. I further suggested, if we continue our pri-
vate conversation here in public, that upon the completion of this case
by the Senator, if Judge Kenyon appears and wants to go on tomorrow
at 10: 30, so long as she has been invited to come, and if that is con-
venient, that I saM' no particular reason why she should not come on at
10 : 30 o'clock tomorrow morning and not disturb her convenience, and
the Senator from Wisconsin can go on following her testimony. I am
ho])ing to expedite this matter.
Senator Tydings, Suppose the Housing Act goes on all this week.
You will feel the same way so long as that act is pending, won't you?
Senator McCarthy. I will feel that I want to be on the Senate floor
in the afternoon. I will give you all the time you want in the forenoon.
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead with your case and we will work it out.
We won't take advantage of you if you want to get on the floor. The
Chair will vote with any group that sees that you have your chance to
be on the floor while legislation in which you are interested is up.
I regret we have to postpone this, I will say to everybody, and I know
you do, but there is no other way we can handle it, so if you will go
ahead with this case, when we get to the end of it we will recess subject
to the situation that will then be mutuallv agreeable.
Senator McCarthy. I want to make sure that we have the under-
standing, as Senator MclNIahon just made the statement he is going
to insist that I object on the floor. It is now understood that I can
start the next case and complete it, and that we then adjourn the
liearing until tomorrow or whenever you want to.
Senator Tydings. What is your pleasure, gentlemen?
Senator McMahon. I reserve my vote until we see what the situa-
tion is on the floor. I am informed that some amendment to the
FDIC may be up, and not the housing bill, for debate.
Senator Tydings. If the FDIC comes up instead of the housing bill,
of course our understanding would be to continue on here.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, in about 10 minutes I have to
decide whether or not I shall have to personally make sure that I will
he available on the floor. If the Senator from Connecticut does not
want to agree that when this case is finished I can go over to the Senate
floor and work on this matter, I shall have to call the floor and say,
"Put in my objection," which will prevent the committee sitting after
12. Otherwise I would just as soon give the committee another hour
and a half's time on this case.
Senator Tydings. Let me see if I can sunnnarize it in a way that we
'Can all agree on. Senator, you want to be present if the housing bills
are up. That is a must on your part, and everything will have to be
shaped to that end.
Now, in the event the housing bill is not up, would you object, then,
to sitting with the permission of the Senate, here, until the housing-
bill does come up ?
Senator McCarthy'. It all depends, Mr. Chairman, on what legisla-
tion comes up.
Let me make myself clear. I am willing to give the committee the
forenoon. I do have other work to do, you see. I have my own con-
stituents to take care of, and legislation in which I am interested. I
have been informed that the housing bill will be up. I think that
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 91
caine direct from your majority leader's office. If we can have an agree-
ment by the entire committee that we can adjourn after this case has
been completed,' then I shall not object to the committee sitting.
Otherwise, if the Senator from Connecticut is going to take the arbi-
trary position tliat when I have lost that right, he is going to insist
on sitting, I shall have no choice but to call the floor now and say I
object to this conunittee sitting. I don't want to do that.
Senator Ttdixgs. Unless the Chair is overruled, he will announce
that if the Senator from Wisconsin desires to take up this case to con-
clusion, and if the housing bill is up on the floor at any time we are
sitting, the committee will recess at the notice of that event until
tomorrow morning at 10 : 30 o'clock.
Senator McCarthy. That is not sufficient, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. You phrase it. Senator.
Senator McCarthy. That when I have completed this case, if the
Senate is in session that we then adjourn until tomorrow morning at
such time as the Chair desires. I don't care whether it is 10, or 9 : 30.
Senator Tydings. Regardless of what is up on the floor?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. I don't want to get into a squabble at
1:30.
Senator Tydings. We will proceed in that fashion, unless the Chair
is overruled.
Senator Green. You are not canceling the appointment we made
witli Miss Kenyon ?
Senator Tydings. Oh, no. Miss Kenyon will be here tomorrow
morning at 10 : 30.
Senator McCarthy. I don't want to interfere with Miss Kenyon
at all.
Senator Tydings. Proceed with the next case.
Senator McCarthy. I would like to introduce three more docu-
ments in the last case: exhibit 23, which is a photostat of the New
York Times dated Thursday, March 16, 193i>, which reflects that
Esther Caukin Brunaner was very active in launching an organiza-
tion called The American Union for Concerted Peace Efforts.
This is. to point out that tlie American Union for Concerted Peace
Efforts was cited as a Communist-front organization, the leader of
which was the editor of the Daily Worker. It is to be noted from this
newspaper article that Esther Brunaner served on the executive com-
mittee of the American Union for Concerted Peace Efforts.
Exhibit 21, which is another photostat of the New York Times, of
December 3, 1938, a photostat whicli pertains to the activities of
Brunaner in connection with the Committee for Concerted Peace
Efforts.
I referred in my statement to the Congress of Youth, also, Mr. Chair-
man. I did not introduce any exhibit at that time. I am now produc-
ing that, and that will be exhibit 25.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask that there be accepted iu evidence exhibits
26, 27, 28. 29, and 30 and 31.
Senator Tydings. The exhibits will be filed immediately following
the case of the subjects to wliom tliey are applicable.
Senator McCarthy. And tliey are received in evidence. I assume.
Mr. Chairman, the State Department, with great frequency, utilizes
the services of a large group of individuals in diverse "^fields as
"consultants."
92 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
One of its regiilar performers in this field is the man I wish to
discnss next. He is Owen J. Lattimore.
Lattimore was not only a consnltant. bnt one of the principal archi-
tects of onr far eastern policy. This man is one of the State De-
partment's ontstancling experts on problems dealing with the Far East
and has been for a nnmber of years.
Lattmiore is currently employed as a director of the Walter Hines
Page School of International Relations, located at Johns Hopkins
University in Baltimore, Md, He has held numerous positions with
the State Department, among them a 6-month period in 1941 as the
political adviser of President Roosevelt to Generalissimo Chiang
Kai-shek, He was a Dejnity Director in charge of the Pacific Branch
of the Office of War Information and in June of 1944 he, with John
Carter Vincent, later to head the Far Eastern Bureau of the State
Department, accompanied Henry AVallace on a diplomatic tour of
Siberia and Free China.
Recently Lattimore completed a State Department mission to India
and it is understood that he is now a consultant in the Department.
I call your attention to this. Mr. Chairman, that while the State De-
partment will tell you that he is not on the payroll as of today, the
point is he is still considered by the Department as one of its top ad-
visers and is put on and off the payroll as consultant apparently at
W'ill, and is apparently one of the top men in developing our Asiatic
program.
As I say, I know when this case is published the State Department
wnll come out and nay. "This man is not on our payroll."' Let me
make it clear that so far as I know he has free access to the Depart-
ment. I think the Chair will find upon investigation that he has a
desk which is kept there for him constantly, kept for his sole benefit,
imd he comes in at will.
Senator Hickexlooper. Is it your lUKlerstanding, Senator Mc-
Carthy, that Mr. Lattimore is on what might be termed the panel of
consultants who are called in from time to time on a per diem basis,
for a day or two or for a week or so, or for some short period of
time, and after their consultation is over they retire back into private
life until they are again called to consult on matters of their specialty?
Senator McCarthy. Even much closer than that. Senator. He is
the very close personal friend and adviser of those in charge of the
Far Eastern Branch, and I might say that in this connection I will
be glad to give the committee the names of witnesses whom they may
decide to interrogate, either in public or in executive session.
Senator Hickexlooper. Thank you.
Senator McCarthy. This man's record as a pro-Communist goes
back many years.
I hand the committee a letter, dated December 19, 1940. That is ex-
hil)it 27, exhibit 26 being this statement itself. Again we have the
familiar name of Frederick V. Field, Communist chairman of the
editorial board. Equally familiar is the name of Philip J. Jatfe,
managing editor of the magazine, who was indicted and convicted for
having illegal possession of secret State Department documents. The
connnittee will note that there follows a list of eight members of the
board of this pro-Connnunist magazine. It will also observe that 50
percent of the editorial board of this magazine, wdiose editor was con-
victed of possessing State Department secret documents illegally,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 93
have been or are iio-sv highly placed officials of the Department of State
of the United States.
Tlieir names are: T. A. Bisson, Owen Lattimore, David H. Popper,
and William T. Stone.
In the June 6, 1946, issue of the Washinoton Times-Herald there
api)ears an article entitled "How Come?" written by Mr. Frank C.
"\Val(h()i>, editorial directoi- of that newspaper, whicli will be exhibit
28.
Shortly, I shall read that article into the record, but I should like
to mention in passing that of the 57 instructors in the orientation con-
ference and training programs for personnel of the Foreign Service
and the Department of State, all but three were Government officials.
Those three were Dr. Edward C. Acheson, director of the School of
Foreign Service and brother of the present Secretary of State; Prof.
Owen Lattimore of Johns Hopkins University, and Prof. Frederick L.
Schuman, of Williams College, Williamstown, Mass.
But more of this gentleman later.
When Mr. Waldrop asked ''How come?" he was getting closer to a
sordid picture than he imagined.
Here is what he had to say :
Herewith an item that may ])e of interest to Secretary of State Jimmy Byrnes
who is doing liis level best these days to cope with J. Stalin's bucking broncos of
the Kremlin.
Whether he finds it interesting or not, he certainly could with profit ask a
few questions about a project in his own shop going by the title of the "Orienta-
tion Conference and Training Programs for Personnel of the Foreign Office and
the Department of State."
The writer of this piece sat in, uninvited, yesterday on one of those training
projects and found it nothing more or less than an example to diplomats on
how to needle a man whose back is turned — in this case Gen. Douglas MacArthur.
I might say to the committee that while I am going back a number
of yeais, I think you must go back a number of years to develop the
complete picture. [Continues reading :]
To begin at the beginning, the State Department has a Division of Training
Services which has the very valuable assignment of making better diplomats of
the departmental forces.
As a part of this, there are scheduled for every workday from Monday through
Friday all this month, a series of lectures by supposed experts on subjects of
importance in diplomacy.
Don't give u.p. It concerns you too, because the State Department is sup-
posed to look out for the interests of the United States between wars and you
live here.
Of ~)7 instructors listed to give the developing diplomats the real dope on their
business, all but three are Government officials.
The tbree exceptions are: Dr. Edward C. Acheson, director of the School of
Foreign Service at the George Washington University here and brother of Under
Secretary of State Dean Acheson : Prof. Owen Lattimore, of .lohns Hopkins
University, Baltimore; and Prof. Frederick L. Schuman, of Williams College,
Williamstown, Mass.
Lattimore is a bosom pal of Henry Wallace, th«; great mind of the ages now
trying to decide whether he can best save the world by staying on in Truman's
Cabinet to bore from within or by resigning to bore from without.
Lattimore also hangs out with other i>ersons less well known, to an extent
that ought to give .1. Byrnes some pause.
.Tust an item: He was formerly on the editorial board of Amerasia. the pro-
Soviet magazine that got caught in possession of confidential State Department
documents in 1944 with the result that an editor and a State Department em-
ployee were convicted and fined.
Lattimore also has described Stalin's blood purges of 1936-39 as a "triumph
for democracy," and that, friends, is just a slight sample.
He's clever, but you invariably find him in all those old familiar places when
you check up. Consider his performance of yesterday.
94 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Most people have the impression that on the record and the evidence the wel-
fare of the United States is better looked after in Japan with Gen. Douglas
MacArthnr in sole command than in Germany, where a four-cornered quarrel
over the remains grows worse and worse.
To all of this, Dr. Lattimore yesterday issued an hoiir-long "na-a-a-a-ah, it's
lousy." His line is that the Japs have outsmarted IMacArthur in that they are
holding onto a "conservative" agricultural policy and occasionally rescue one
of their industrialists, bankers, and so forth, from the hangman's rope.
Match that up, citizens, with what you've been hearing from Moscow, if you
both'er to listen. And match up with it the realization that such a thought is
the best offered our State Department help as expert inside dope on the Far
East.
How come the State Department has to drag in Owen Lattimore to tell what's
what in the Orient? Hasn't the Department got anybody on its own staff
who knows anything?
And as for the baby lined up for June 19 — that F. L. Schuman — ^he's all too
well known around here, especially to people who have read the record of the
Dies committee.
But if you don't already know what he is, you can get him completely in a
fla.sh by turning to page 582 of his latest book, Soviet Politics at Hmue and
Abroad, wherein he states "The Russian adventure marks a long forward stride
toward human mastery of man's fate * * *."
This again, Mr. Chairman, is referring to a man who is called in
to lecture our diplomats. He says in his book :
The Russian adventure marks a long forward stride toward human mastery
of man's fate. * * *
That is how the State Department's expert instructor on United States Soviet
relations sums up Stalin's behavior and the almost 28 bloody years of Commu-
nist dictatorship in Russia.
No wonder State Department secret documents leak. No wonder Jimmy
Byrnes goes to conferences with Molotov and comes staggering home asking
who touched off the blast.
This writer plans to sit in on Schuman's June 19 performance, if it comes off,
and will try to report on same in this space. That is, of course, if they don't
lock the door first.
Thus we have the officials of the State Department again warned
of a man who by any "yardstick of loyalty*' could not possibly be a
good security risk.
Mr. Lattimore himself is a prolific writer and there is no lack of
material for the committee to ascertain exactly where this man stands
in the political scheme of things.
The Reverend James F. Kearney, S. J., writing in the Colinnbia
magazine of September 1949, gives more first-hand information of
great value to the committee. This magazine is published by the
Knights of Columbus, the most prominent order of Catholic laymen
in America.
Here is what Reverend Kearney wrote :
Who or what has so vitiated the opinion of intelligent Americans on the China
question?
This article was in September, 1949 :
Until recently, despite the dust that has been deliberately thrown in American
eyes by pink correspondents, the question could be stated so clearly and simply
that granuuar school students could grasp it. Having explained it to grammar
school students, I know. Here it is, expressed in monosyllabic words : "If the
Reds win out tliere, we lose. If they lose, we win." Well, for all practical pur-
poses, the Reds have now won, and in consequence we and the Chinese have lost.
For communism it is the greatest triumph since the Russian revolution ; for us,
though few Americans yet fully realize it, it is perhaps the greatest disaster in
our history; and the end is not yet. Who is responsible? It wasn't a one-man
job ; short-sighted Chinese officials contributed 50 percent. There are those who
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 95
believe, though, that no Americans deserve more credit for tliis Russian triumph
and Sino-American disaster than Owen Lattiniore and a small group of his
followers.
Owen Lattiniore, contid.-int of two United States Pre.sidents, adviser to our
State Department, author of 10 books about the Far P^ast, where he has 25 years
of travel and study to his credit, was born in Washington, D. C, but after a few
months was taken to North China. At 12 he went to study in Switzerhmd, then
In Eiiirhmd, and returned to China as a newsman before taking up exploration,
particularly in Manchuria and Mongolia. He then studied in Peipinii', first on
a I'eUowship from the Harvartl Yenching Foundation and later on a John Simon
GuggenJieim Memorial Foundation fellowship, knows the Chinese, Mongolian,
and Russian languages well.
Returning to the United States at the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese war in
I'JoT. a year later he became directm' of the Walter Hines Page School of Inter-
national" Relations of .Johns Hopkins Univer.sity, a post he still holds.
Iiicidentall}', he has held that post, I believe, all through the time
he has acted as State Department consultant.
In 1941 he was for 6 months President Roosevelt's political adviser to Gen-
eralissimo Chiang Kai-shek, then returned to the States to enter the OWI, be-
coming deputy director to the overseas branch in charge of Pacific operations.
In June, 1!>44. he and J. Carter Vinent, later to head the Far Eastern Bureau of
the State Department, accompanied Henry Wallace of the State Department on
a diplomatic tour of Siberia and free China.
So high does Owen Lattimore stand in Washington that it is said the only
two books on President Truman's desk when he announced Japan's surrender
were newsman John Gunther's Inside Asia and Lattimore's Solution in Asia.
Lattimore was next named special economic adviser to Edwin V. Pauley, head
of the postwar economic mission to Tokyo. Though not an authority on Japan,
he did not he.sitate to criticize former Ambassador Jo.seph C. Grew's plan,
adopted by MacArthur, to govern the Japanese people through the Emperor.
He believed that the Emperor and all his male heirs should be interned in China
and a republic set up in Japan.
In this thoroughly distinguished orientalist's career there are many disturbing
features. For example, in fornier Red Louis Budenz' March 19, 1949, Collier's
article, entitled "The Menace of Red China," we read "Most Americans, during
World War II fell for the Moscow line that the Chinese Communists were not
really Communists, but agrarian reformers. Tliat is just what Moscow wanted
Americans to believe. Even many naive Government officials fell for it. This
deception of United States officials and public was the result of a planned cam-
paign ; I helped to plan it. The No. 1 end was a Chinese coalition government in
which Chiang would accept the agrarian reformers, at the insistence of the
United States. We could work through legitimate Far East organizations and
writers that were recognized as 'Oriental authorities.' Frederick V. Field em-
phasized use of the Institute of Pacific Relations. The agrarian reformers idea
started from there. It took root in leading Far East cultural groups in the
United Statt^s, spread to certain policymaking circles in the State Department
and broke into prominent position in the American press. The Communists
were successful in impressing their views on the United States State Department
simply by planting articles with the proper slant in such magazines as Far
Eastern Survey, Pacific Affairs and Amerasia. Both Far Eastern Survey and
Pacific Affairs "are publications of the Institute of Pacific Relations. This is not
a Communist organization."
I might say for the benefit of Father Kearney that the Califoriiia
Committee on Un-American Activities cited the Institute of Pacific
Relations as a Communist front organization.
Senator Tydixgs. You have been just quoting for the record Mr.
Budenz' article in Collier's magazine?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Where does Mr. Lattimore come in? From 1934 to 1941 he was editor of
Pacific Affairs. Freda Utley mentions him in two of her books. In her Last
Chance in Cliina she tells how ^Moscow, where .she then worked as a Communist,
was able to help its friends and discomfit its enemies in the Far East thanks
to the Institute of Pacific Relations, and that Mr. Lattimore was among those
Americans who came to Moscow for help and advice (p. 193).
96 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I may inject here, if I may, that while I have not been in touch
with Freda Utley, I believe that she would be one of the valuable wit-
nesses on whom the committee could call. She is a former Communist,
apparently has completely reformed, and is apparently a very in-
telligent woman.
Senator Tydings. Is she the Polisli lady who went in there and
came back and became an American citizen ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know her national background.
Senator Tydings. I have them mixed up, I suppose.
Senator McCarthy (continues reading) :
In her Lost Illusion (p. 194) she refers to the same 1936 Moscow meeting:
"The whole staff of our Pacitic Ocean cabinet had an all-day session at the
institute with E. C. Carter, Owen Lattimore, and Harriet Moore, leading lights of
the Institute of Pacific Relations."
Understand, I am now quoting from a person who apparently sat
in tight with the Communists at that time.
"I was a little surprised at the time that these Americans should defer so
often and so completely to the Russian viewpoint. Owen Lattimore found it
difficult at first to submit to the discipline required of the Friends of the Soviet
Union. He told me a few months later in Londcm how he had almost lost his
I>osition as editor of Pacific Affairs because he had published an article by the
Trotskyist Harold Isaacs. In later years in the United States it did not astonish
me to "find the Institute of Pacific Relations following the same general lines
as the Daily Worker in regard to China and .Japan."
Henry Wallace never claimed to be an expert on the Far East. How much,
if any, of his report after returning from the Siberia-China visit was written or
suggested by the oriental expert, I\Ir. Lattimore, I do not know. One thing
emerges, however : After their return, the American policy which has proved so
disastrous for both Chinese and American interests and so helpful to Russia was
put into effect and is still being pursued. Lattimore's solution in Asia was
described by one reviewer as "an ai)peal to Chiang Kai-shek to free himself from
the galling yoke (of the Kuomintaiig) and to set free the democratic forces
which have proved effective in northwestern China,' for example, the Chinese
Reds. That book is again referred to in an article by ex-Conununist Max East-
man and J. B. Powell in a June, 1945, Reader's Digest article, The Fate of the
World Is at Stake in China, wherein they blast the deception that Russia is a
democracy and that the Chinese can therefore safely be left to Russian influence.
Owen Lattimore is perhaps the most subtle evangelist of this erroneous con-
ception.
Mr. Lattimore praised the net result of the Moscow trials and the blood purge
))y which Stalin secured his dictatorship in 19nr>-,'?I) as a triumph for democracy.
He now urges our Government, in Solution in Asia, to accept cheerfully the
spread of the Soviet form of democracy in Central Asia. His publishers thus
indicate the drift of his book: "He (Mr. Lattimore) shows that all the Asiatic
peoples are more interested in actual democratic practices, such as the ones
they can see in action across the Russian border, than they are in the fine theories
of Anglo-Saxon democracies which come coupled with ruthless imperialism."
Does that sound as if Mr. Lattimore, a top advi.ser on our Far Eastern affairs, is
on our team?
The same article continues with a prophecy which has just about come true:
"If Russian dictatorship spreads its tentacles across China the cause of democ-
racy (for example. United States style) in Asia is lost. As is well known, these
tentacles need not include invading Soviet troops, but only the native Commu-
nist Parties now giving allegiance to the Soviet Union and taking their direc-
tives from Moscow. When these Couuuunist Parties get control of a neighbor-
ing state the Moscow dictatorship and its fellow travelers call that a friendly
government. It is by means of these Conununist-controlled friendly govern-
ments— not by Soviet military conquest — that Russian power and totalitarian
tyranny is spreading from the Soviet Union, in Asia as in Europe."
That* is perhaps good background for the current slogan of Mr. Lattimore and
his loyal followers, Edgar Snow, Ted White, Richard Lauterbach, Harvard's
Fairbank, and many an ex-OWI man, that there's nothing much for America to
worry about because Mao Tse-tung's communism is a nationalist movement.
STATE DEPAKTMEAT e:MPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 97
A moment's reflection should make it clear that the very last thing a real
riiinese nationalist would do would he to swallow hook, line, and sinker the
doctrine of Karl Marx, a (lerman Jew, who besides lieing a foreigner lias la
system that .uoes coiuiter to every Cliinese instinct and evei-y tradition in the
Chinese concept of society.
This recalls an incident a Belgian prie>st related to me in Shanghai a year and
a half ago. He had become a Chinese citizen, and when the Chinese Reds occu-
]tled his church in North Cliina they followed the usual custom (which is proba-
bly new to Mr. Lattimore) of putting up the pictures of Marx and Stalin in tlie
place of honor above the high altar, with those of Mao Tse-tung and Chu Teh
lielow. A Chinese Red then told the priest flatly, "We are going to get rid of
absolutely all foreign influence in Cliina. Our policy is China for the Chinese."
I can imagine I\Ir. Lattimore saying. "Just what I told you." But the Belgian-
Chinese replied, "And those two foreign gentlemen up there. ;\Iarx and Stalin?
When did they become Chinese citizens?"' The Red slunk silently away.
If anyone is still puzzled by the contention that the Chinese Marxists are
primarily nationalists, a glance at the Communist manifesto will clear matters
up. Though not in substance, yet in form, we read there : "The struggle of the
proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat
of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bour-
geoisie." That. I believe, .shows us wdiat is back of the present national slogan
our United States pinks apply to China's Reds. It's not authentic nationalism,
of course, as the manifesto explains later : "The Communists are reproached with
desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country.
We cannot take from them what they have not got."
The spurious nature of the nationalism of Mao Tse-tung was admitted by
Mr. Lattimore himself, perhaps unintentionally, in a tape-recorded speech he
gave in San Francisco, December 7. 1948: "The Chinese Communists never
made any bones about the fact that they are Marxists. They are Marxist Com-
munists in their international relations. They never qtiestion the Russian line.
They follow every twist and tui-n of it." That is an important admission by
Mr. Lattimore, since so many of his followers have been trying to tell us there
is no Moscow control over China's Reds. If they follow every twist and turn of
the Moscow line they are evidently not Chinese nationalists as we understand
the term, but psuedo nationalists.
A. T. Steele and Andrew Roth of the New York Herald Tribune and the
Nation, respectively, after getting out of Red Peiping recently, declared that
the Chinese Red leaders are in every sense of the word Communists who stand
squarely and faithfully for the Moscow party line, and will join the Kremlin in
the coming World War III against the imperialist powers, particularly America.
They likewise agree that while ]\Iao might possibly become an extreme nationalist
at some future date, another Tito, there is ab.solutely no evidence that this is a
factor to be seriously reckoned with for a long time, IMr. Lattimore to the con-
trary notwithstanding. Spencer Moosa, latest newsman out of Peiping, con-
firms their statements. The very first movie put on by the Reds in the auditorium
of the Catholic University in Peiping after they moved in this year was the Life
of Stalin. Need we say it was not anti-Rus-sian? And so. instance after instance
shows the very close connection between Moscow and Chinese communism that
has been witnes.sed throughout the last 28 years by intelligent observers who
have lived in Red China — where Mr. Lattimore lijis nev,er lived.
To the average American, whom the Red propaganda is intended to victimize,
it seems quite natural that Mao Tse-tung a native of China who has never
visited Moscow, should think first of China's instead of Russia's interests. Yet
how many native-born Americans are there who, once they join the party, think
nothing of selling out their country and its secrets to the Kremlin? Such is the
strange mesmerism exercised by their Moscow masters. It is. then, no harder
to understand Mao's utter devotion to the party line than it is to understand
that of P^oster, or Dennis, or Earl Browder. After all, remember, a real Com-
munist has no country. And surely Mao has pi-oved he is a 100-percent Com-
munist. Let's not be deceived any longer, then, by this fake nationalism of
China's Reds, which is the central thesis of Mr. Lattimore's recent book, The Situ-
ation in Asia.
If a man who had written 10 volumes about Africa, and thereby won a name
for himself as an authority, should nevertheless maintain that the Ne^ri^es in
Africa aren't really black but white, it would be a cause for wonder. Mr. Owen
Lattimore, who has written 10 books on Asia and is called the best informed
American on Asiatic affairs living today is doubtless well-informed on many
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Asiatic matters but unfortunately, if we are to take his written words as an
index of liis linowledtie of China's Reds, lie is very badly misinformed about the
true color of that most important body of individuals and their whole way of
acting. Which reminds me of a recent conversation with one of Mr. Lattimore's
OWI boys who had just returned from a P, years' correspondent assignment in
iChina. I aslved him why it was that practically all of our foreign newsmen,
though supposedly educated in the American tradition of fair play, spoke entirely
of corruption in the Chiang regime but said nothing about the corruption in the
Mao regime. And this man, who was being paid for giving his American readers
an honest picture of conditions in the vital Far East, answered, "Because there
is no corruption in the Red regime." I laughed at him for wasting his 3 years
in the Orient and passed him an article showing that not only is the Red regime
•corrupt, but from every conceivable American standpoint it is conservatively 10
times more corrupt than its current opposite number.
It is probably of such men that IMr. Lattimore. in his book Situation in China
(p. 277) writes : "Hitherto American observers who have been acutely conscious
of secret police activities in Kuomintang, China, have had nothing comparable to
report from Communist China." The reason is that these official observers
Avere allowed the freedom to observe the limited activities of KMT secret policy,
while they aren't even permitted to enter Red China. Had they wished,
though, they could have learned a lot from people, some of them Americans,
who had lived in Red China. They would have heard, for instance, about the
T'ing Chung hui, or eavesdropper corps, who, after killing off all watchdogs,
creep up at night, next to the wall or on the flat roofs of North China homes, to
liear what is being said inside the family about the Communists. Children are
rewarded for si)ying on their parents and, if anyone is believed to be guilty of
ranti-Communist remarks, a terror gang swoops down at midnight and the
chances are the unfortunate victim will be discovered next morning buried alive
outside his home. This sort of secret police and terrorism combined has been
■so universal in Red China that if ]Mr. Lattimore doesn't know about it he knows
■extremely little of Chinese communism.
As far back as 1945 the predominant sentiment everywhere in Red areas was
fear, universal fear, fear at every instant, according to an official report of a
Frencliman, a formei' university professor from Tientsin who spent the years
from 1941 to 1945 in Red territory, and had been hailed before both Japanese
;iud Red tribunals. "It is not terror," he says, "for terror is a fear which shows
itself exteriorally. Here one must not allow his fear to be seen ; he must appear
■satisfied and approve everything that is said and done. It is a hidden fear, but
a creeping, paralyzing fear. The people keep quiet. They do not criticize;
they avoid passing out any news. They are afraid of their neighbor, who may
■denounce them. They are afraid of the Reds who might hear and imprison them.
When the Reds impose a tax, it is paid without a word. If they requisition
anyone for public work, the work is done carefully and rapidly, without need of
any blows and curses as in the time of the Japanese, and wonderful to say,
without any need of supervision. (This is amazing to anyone who knows the
easy-going Chinese character.) I have witnessed groups of workers along the
big highways built by the Japanese, doing exactl.v the same kind of work they
did for the Japanese, but how different their attitude. There was no foreman
there to supervise, and yet everything was done carefully, with hardly a word,
"Without the least bit of joking." Mr. Lattimore, with his lack of background,
anight interpret this as a sign of enthusiasm for the Red masters. But the report
states simply, "They were afraid."
What was true in 194n in Red areas is also true today according to the very
latest 1949 reports that have filtered through the bamboo curtain : "There isn't
too much suffering from hunger in the cit.v, but it is impossible to lay up any
reserves. The Communists search every house methodically and confiscate any
surplus. Anyone who complains or criticizes them disappears mysteriously,
buried alive, it is said. No one dares say a word, even to his best friend. In
the country districts conditions are terrible. Tlie Reds take everything; grain,
livestock, clothing, tools, and now all are being mobilized for army service.
Paniine reigns everywhere together with fear. The people endure this with
clenched teeth, but when asked how things are going always answer, 'Everything
is going well.' " They had better !
These reports come from reliable people who were there and know what they
are talking about, and who ridicule the fairy tales Mr. Lattimore from his distant
and comfortable chair in Johns Hopkins spins for eager young Americans w^ho
believe he is an authority on China's Reds. What, for example, could be further
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 99
from (he tiuth tli.iii this statement in the Situation in China, page 160: "la
C^hina it may be conceded" (not by anyone who l^nows the situation, though, if
I may interrupt) "that the Communists hold the confidence of the people to
such an extent that they can probably do more by persuasion, with less resort
to coercion, than any previous revolutionaries in history. But the Communists
cannot indulge in I'xperimenls which the people do not accept, because the armed
and organized peasants would be iible to resist them just as they have hitherto
resisted the return of the landlords.' Sheer nonsense! The only real landlords
left in Red areas are the Red leaders themselves, and the people know enough
not to try to resist these ruthless masters. For some reason, no one seems to
relish being buried alive ; and so the Commvmists can indulge in absolutely any
experiment they choose without the slightest open resistance from the peasants^
who are merely awaiting patiently for better days.
Since Mr. Lattimore is patently in error on so many vital points connected
with the China Red question, it becomes more and more strange that his acfvice'
on Red China should be followed almost slavishly by the United States State'
Department. It has already brought China to disaster and may, if we continue
to follow it. also ruin America. It might be well to consider what advice he
has given for future United States policy so we shall know what a new litany
of Lattimore disasters awaits us.
He has a chapter on Japan in his Situation in Asia and. although he admits
General MacArthur is a first-class administrator, he dislikes his "fatherly
mysticism" and "oldline Republicanism", hints it would have been wiser to give
the Russians more say, considers the present policy as pseudo-realistic and
bound to fail. "It's likely to blow up in our faces, like a humiliating stink
bomb," damaging MacArthur's reputation in the end. He doesn't like keeping
the Emperor, nor the type of democracy MacArthur is giving, apparently prefer^
ring for Japan the totalitarian type Mao Tse-tung is employing in China. Mr^
Lattimore doesn't like to see Japan make a bulwark against Russian expan-
sion, and believes that since she is possessed of the most advanced technical
and managerial know-how in Asia she will eventually make her own terms with
both Russia and China, without consulting the Ignited States.
"The Japanese, watching America's failure to control the situation in China
through the Kuomintang. have been giggling in their kimono sleeves. In a queer
way it has helped to restore their self-respect for their own failure on the con-
tinent." He sees no future for Japan apart from the future of Asia, since she
needs the iron and coal of Manchuria and the markets of China.
In this he is probably right ; that is why it was always to Amei-ica's vital
interest to see that the open door policy and the territoi-ial integrity of China
were preserved, though this adviser to our State Department did not think
them very important. He considers east Asia now definitely out of control by
either Russia or America, stating that it forms a group of "third countries"
which seem to resemble Nippon's ill-fated "East Asia coprosperity sphere." He
lielieves Japan, then, will come to tei-ms both with Communist Russia and Com-
munist China, and will end b.v being more anti-American than anti-Russian.
If we had only adopted his plan foi- a Japanese democracy right after the
war, what a deal of trouble we would have saved !
What, now, are his plans for the mainland? He has long been in favor of a
Chiang coalition with the Reds, and blames our sOth Congress for spoiling
that. The result is now Communist control — which of course would have even-
tuated just as well had his original coalition idea gone tlirough. We mustn't
lay down our own conditions for dealing with a Red China, he says, or we-
shall spoil our favorable position with the Chinese. Has he never heard how
Mao"s Reds detest Americans, and hold half a dozen United States consids
under house arrest? "We must at all costs avoid the appearance of wanting:
to punish the Chinese people for having a government which we didn't approve-
for them in advance." As if the Chinese were really anxious for a puppet Red
regime. We mu.st not support any rump government, for that would be dividing-
China. We must extend credits to poor Red China and help build it up by trade-
and American eiigineeriim know-lunv as "Fot-d Motors and General Electi-ic
did in Taissia in the period between war-^." But let's not lay down any condi-
tions for our aid, by insistim,' that Red China be hostile to Red Russia. '
And if all that isn't enough to make Uncle Sam suspect that Owen Lattimore-
is making a fool o>it of him in the interests of world (-ommuiiism, the expert
goes mu(-h further: "The new government of China will claim China's Big
Five position in the L'nited Nations. in(-luding the riuht of veto. By the use of
our own veto we could delay China in moving into this position," but of course it
100 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVEISTIGATION
would be unfair to deprive Russia of another vote, especially since Russia has
had nothing whatsoever to do with iniposiug communism on China ! See now
why the pinks are so strong on their insistence that the Red movement in
<'hina is purely nationalistic? And another vote for Mother Russia?
Let's take Outer Mongolia, that voted unanimously to be annexed to Russia in
1945 — each voter being required to sign his name on his ballot. "Mongolia,"
lie says, "is between a Communist-ruled Russia and a Communist-controlled
China. It would be an advantage to American policy to be able to emphasize
that there is a country occupying 600,000 square miles of territory * * *
inhabited by people who are neither Chinese nor Russians. It is impossible
to make use of this advantage unless the separation of Outer Mongolia is em-
phasized by membership in the United Nations * * *. It is true that Mon-
golia as a member of the United Nations would mean another vote for Russsia:
but would this be a greater disadvantage than our present comiilete lack of
access to this key country between China and Russia?" (p. 226).
Yes. IMr. Lattimore. it would. Considering that the whole United States had
but one vote in the United Nations while Russia started out witli three, it is
simply wonderful f)f Owen Lattimore to give a couple more Far East satellite
votes to our cold war enemy. Since he is one of the chief advisers to our Far
Eastern State Department DureaTi. is it any wonder that disaster has been piled
on disaster in .\sia for Americans while world connuvnism engages in Irenzied
applause? If ^Ir. Lattimore is permitted to turn over one far eastern vote after
another to Russia, Moscow will soon dominate the United Nations, and then can
safely discard the veto. Why should one man, whose writings show he has no
knowledge of the character of China's Reds, be allowed to go on unchallenged
promoting chaos and ruining Christianity in Asia? Ti-ue, he doesn't say he
wants a Red Asia : but tlie publisher of his Situation in Asia indic-ates his inten-
tions when on the .jacket of the l)ook they print a maii of Lattimore's Asia,
including Japan, Sakhalin, all of China, the Philippines, the Dutch East Indies,
Siam, Burma, Malaya, and India, in nice Soviet Red.
That is the end of the quotation of Fatlier Kearney.
It is uncanny how these State Department policy makers are drawn
too;ether time after time in an organization or group or project of
pro-Soviet nature.
I now hand the committee a booklet setting forth the officers and
trustees of the Institute of Pacific Relations. It will be noted that
Mr. Lattimore is a trustee. It will be also noted from the book
I previously handed the Chair that this institute is listed as either
subversive or Conununist front by the California Un-American Activ-
ities Committee.
Senator Tydings. Where are the headquarters of the Institute of
Pacific Relations?
Senator McCarthy. One East Fifty-fourth Street. New York City
22, and my exhibit 29, Mr. Chairman, reads : "The officers and trustees
of the Institute of Pacific Relations invite you to become a member
of its American Council." This contains the name of our own Owen
Lattimore. It will be filed in the record.
The familiar pattern starts again with Messrs. Lattimore, Hanson,
Bisson, and Jessup.
In the Institute of Pacific Relations we have such ]iro-Communists
as Frederick Yanderbilt Field, Philip Jaffe, Kate L. INIitchell, Andrew
E,oth, and Nym Wales. Incidentally. I might mention that Nym
Wales, which is not her actual name, was the coeditor with Mr. Hanson
in the magazine he was running in Peiping at the time the Japanese-
-Chinese war broke out.
The Attorney General of the United States has declared the Amer-
ican Peace Mobilization to be a subversive organization and the House
XTn-American Activities Committee has placed the same stamp of
infamy on the Washington Committee for Aid to China.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 101
The American Peace iNIolMlizatioii was short-lived. It existed dur-
in<r tlie days of the Stalin-Hitler pact and was liquidated by the Com-
munists on the very day that Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.
Frederick Vanderbilt Field, one of the countrv's to]) Commiuiists,
was executive secretary of the American Peace ]\fobilization on Tues-
day evenin<r, February 11, 1941, also.
On that date, the "\Vashiiiaton Committee for Aid to China, held a
meeting at Sixteenth and O Streets NW., Washintrton.
At tlie time this meeting was held. President Roosevelt was under
the most savage attack of his career by Frederick Vanderbilt Field
and hi- American Peace Mobilization. That was when the Stalin-
Hitler pact still existed. That was when they were calling Roosevelt
a Avai'monger in no uncertain terms.
The Senators may recall that this was the occasion when the Amer-
ican Peace ]\ro1)ilization oi'ganized and carried out a 24-hour picket
line around the White House. The pickets carried placards denouncing
Roosevelt as a warmongering tool of Wall Street. That was while the
Hitler-Stalin pact existed.
On June 21, 1941, the American Peace Mobilization pickets were
still surrounding the White House. When Hitler invaded the Soviet
Union on the morning of June 22, the pickets were withdrawn within
an hour. The party line had changed in a matter of minutes and
the American Peace Mobilization then bei^ame the American People's
Mobilization, urging the immediate entrance of the United States
into the war.
Again, associated with Frederick Vanderbilt Field, we have Owen
Lattimore as the principal speaker at the above meeting on the eve-
ning of February 11, 1941, with only two other speakers. One of
them was Frederick Vanderbilt Field.
Here again we have the oUl familiar pattern of a member of the
important policy-making group of the State Department collaborat-
inir with known Communists under the sponsorship of organizations
officially declared subversive.
I want to again direct the committee's particular attention to the
fact that while Owen Lattimore was with Frederick Vanderbilt
Field, this was the same Field who, on the 22d day of June, the day
after Hitler invaded Russia, promptly changed his line of attack, the
same great .and good friend of Owen Lattimore.
Senator Tydixgs. While 3'ou are taking a little breath, I would
just like to take this opportunity to announce to the press that these
exhibits will be available in the keeping of the reporter immediately
after the conclusion of Senator INIcCarthy's testimony, because you
will want to see all of the names on here. I see ^Ir. Henry Luce's
name as one of the vice presidents of this organization.
Senator Hickexlooper. INIr. Chairman, I may suggest that there
are a number of other nsimes on there that are probably completely
on the otlier side of the feuce from Mr. Henry Luce, and I think it
is unfair for the chairman or anyone else to pick and choose two or
three names of respectable citizens who are on these lists and not
call attention to a numl)er of the Connnunists' names.
Seiiator Tydings. They were already pointed out by the witness.
I just wanted to point out one on the other side, not three or four.
Senator McCarthy. I might say that the other day as I handed
102 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
in the exhibits, as the Chair will recall, I was namino- the oiitstaiid-
ino- Communists whose names appeared on exhibit after exhibit. The
Chair objected to that and said he would have to name the respectable
people who are named -on a few of them. For that reason the Chair
will note that I have refrained from naming; all the well-known
Communists who appear on exhibit after exhibit, and I hope I have
made it clear in the past that one of the reasons why the Attorney
General, the House committee, the California connnittee, and various
other committees, have considered these front organizations so dan-
gerous is that from time to time they have succeeded in getting
respectable peoples' names on them. That is what has made them
dangerous.
Senator Tydings. I was of the impression, Senator McCarthy, that
you had read some supporting names. I might have been in error.
That is on page 1-A, where you say :
In the Institute of Pacific Relations, we have such pro-Communists as: Fred-
erick Vanderbilt Field, Philip Jaffe, Kate L. Mitchell, Andrew Roth, Nym Wales.
Senator McCarthy. The Chair is correct.
Senator Tydings. Following out Senator Hickenlooper's suggestion,
the Chair will read the lest of these names. I do not know a great
many of the people, but I will read their names. These are the of-
ficers and trustees of the Institute of Pacific Relations : First, officers
and board of trustees, American Council : Robert G. Sprout, chair-
man; Edward C. Carter, executive vice chairman; Joseph P. Cham-
berlain, Mortimer Graves, Henry W. Luce, Ray Lyman Wilbur, vice
chairmen.
Ray Lyman Wilbur was either a Secretary in the Ploover Cabinet
or is the head of one of the universities in California, I don't know
which.
Brooks Emeny, treasurer; Tillie G. Shahn, assistant treasurer; and
Lawrence Morris, secretary.
The members of the board of trustees are Edward W. Allen, Ray-
mond B. Allen, Christian Arndt, Paid S. Bachman, Eugene E. Bar-
nett. Pearl S. Buck, George Cameron, Edward C. Carter, Joseph P.
Chamberlain, Allan E. Charles, Lauchlin Currie, John L. Curtis,
Joseph S. Davis, A. L. Dean, Arthur Dean, Len De Caux, Dorothy
Douglas, Brooks Emeny, Frederick V. Field, Henry Field, Galen M.
Fisher.
Also (t. W. Fisher, Charles K. Gamble, Clarence E. Gauss, Mrs.
Frank Gerbode, Huntington Gilchrist, A. J. Gock, Carrington Good-
rich, Henry F. Grady, Mortimer Graves, Achniral John AV. Green-
slade, William R. Herod, John Hersey, the writer; Paul G. Hoffman,
William C. Johnstone, Owen Lattimore, Charles F. Loomis, Henry
R. Luce, publisher of Life, Time, and Fortune magazines; Charles E.
Martin, Mrs. Alfred McLaughlin, Abbot Low Moffat, Harriet L.
Moore, George Abbot IMorison, Lawrence Morris, A. W. Robertson.
Also Chester Rowell, Robert G. Sproul, G. Nye Steiger, Donald
Straus, George Taylor, Juan Trippe, president of Pan American Air
Liues; Henry A. Wallace. Louis Weiss, Sunnier Welles, Lynn White,
Jr., Brayton Wilbur, Ray Lyman AVilbur, Herbert J. Wood, and Mrs.
Louise L. Wright.
The M'itness will proceed.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 103
Sonntor IMcCarthy. I now h:\ud you, Mr. Chainuan, exhibit 30,
entitled ''National Enieriiency Conference for Democratic Kiohts."
On April 21, 1943, the House ^'onmiittee on Appropriations issued a
report citinir this oroanization as "'subversive and un-American."' On
March i2i), the House Special Connnittee on Un-American Activities
cited it as a Oonununist front.
On September '2, 19-1:7, on page 12 of its Report No. 1115, the con-
gressional Committee on Un-American Activities said :
It will be reiiit'inhered that dnriiis the days of the infamous Soviet-Nazi pact
the Goiunmnists Imilt a protective ()rganizati<in known as the National Emer-
gency Conference for Democratic R'ghts, which culminated in the National Fed-
eration for Constitutional Liberties.
In its 19-48 report, on pages 112 and 327 the California Committee
on Un-American Activities, after citing it as a Communist-front or-
ganization, defending Communists, had this to say :
After the dissolution of the American League for Peace and Democracy in
February 1J)40, the Communist Party frantically organized a new series of front
organizations. The National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights
was one of the new fronts and it was filled from top to bottom with veteran
Connnunist Party-liners.
The Maryland Association for Democratic Rights was an aililiate
of the National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights. At
a conference of this organization in Baltimore early in 1944, we have
as sponsors Mr. Owen Lattimore and his wife.
I might say I for one believe, and I think the committee will agree
with me after they have gone into this in detail, that Owen Lattimore
was not a dupe who joined these Communist-front organizations by
mistake. He was one of the allegedly respectable men who got some
actually respectable names on this list.
Senator Tydings. Senator, allow me to interrupt you a moment.
I don't know a lot of these people in this Baltimore chapter. Some of
them I do knoAv. Some of them I know very slightly; some of them I
don't know at all.
I am not going to read the list in the record, but I would like, inas-
nnich as the chairman is from Maryland, to notify any Maryland
papers or press services that are going to circulate in Maryland that
a copy of all these names is available here at the head table if they
want it.
Thank you. Senator.
Senator jMcCartiiy. I might say most likely the ones the Senator
knows are the good, outstanding people.
Senator Tydixgs. The ones that I see there are the ones that have
o]:)posed me pretty generally in a good many elections. I don't mean
all of them, but I recognize some of them.
Senator IMcCarthy. We Avill consider that as proof that they were
wrong.
I assume that Mr. Lattimore, a high State Department official, un-
doubtedly did get some hue Baltimore people to associate their names
with that. He must have known that a year previous to that time
this was declared a subversive, Communist-front organization. Most
likely any Baltimore people who are on that, whose names are on
that paper, did not know that that organization had been declared sub-
versive a year before. --.
689-70—50 — pt. 1 8 v-J
104 STATE DEPARTMETN'T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVE'STIGATION
Senator Tydings. There are some names on there that I recognize,
that I am sure he would exculpate from any desire to be in any dis-
loyal organization. There are some others that I do not know, but
I recognize three or four representative names.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you, sir.
Once again we have a policy-making State Department attache col-
laborating with those who have sworn to destroy the Nation by force
and violence.
I find it impossible to visualize this sort of a good security risk under
yardstick of loyalty outlined by Secretary of State Acheson.
I hand the committee an exhibit of the Writers' Congress of 194:3.
This will be exhibit No. 31.
On December 1, 1917, and on September 21, 1918, the then Attorney
General Tom Clark in letters to the Loyalty Eeview Board, cited the
Hollywood Writers' Mobilization as subversive and communistic. In
its 1945 report on page 130, the California Committee on Un-American
Ati'airs described this organization as one "whose true purpose" was
"the creation of a clearing house for Communist propaganda."'
On October 1, 2, and 3 of 1913, the Writers' Congress and the Holly-
wood Writers' Mobilization held a meeting on the University of Cali-
fornia-LA campus in Westwood. Appearing as the representative of
the Office of War Information was Mr. Owen Lattimore.
Here again we have Mr. Lattimore involved as a principal in an or-
ganization declared un-American by the Attorney General of the
United States.
In the magazine, Pacific Affairs, of September 1938, Owen Latti-
more described the Moscow purge trials as a "triumph for Democracy."
In his book, entitled "Solution in Asia," Owen Lattimore declares
tliat among the people of Asia, the Soviet Union has "a gi-eat power
of attraction — it stands for democracy."
Let me repeat that. Here is the man shaping our Asiatic policy.
He said this in his own book. No one else has said this for him. Owen
Lattimore has said, in his book entitled "Solution in Asia," "that among
the people of Asia, the Soviet Union has a great power of attraction —
it stands for democracy.
I submit that the background of Mr. Lattimore, his close collabora-
tion and affiliation Avith numerous Communist organizations; his
friendship and close cooperation with pro-Communist individuals,
leaves absolutely no doubt that he is an extremely bad security risk
under Secretary of State Acheson's yardstick of loyalty or under any
other yardstick you could apply, and in fact, his wide knowledge of
far eastern affairs and his affinity for the Soviet cause in that area
might well have already done this Nation incalculable and irreparable
harm.
So much for Mr. Lattimore.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I shall be prepared to give the committee what-
ever additional information I can at such other meeting as the Chair
decides to call me. I might say tliat in view of the fact that the Chair
said that Judge Kenyon might or might not be here tomorrow, I would
appreciate it very<,much to know at the earliest possible time whether
he wants me to appear tomorrow, and if so, at what time. I can't be
called at the last minute and asked to come up here, because it does
take a tremendous amount of night and day work for me to get these
cases in shape.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 105
Senator TYniX(;s. I would sa}' to Senator McCarthy tliat the matter
lip before the Senate is not the liousin*; bill but the FDIC. You have
been under ri<iht nuich of a strain there to read for an hour and a half
or so. I think it woidd be very wise, with your a]>i)roval, as the housing
bill is not on the lloor today, if we were to take a recess, which is at
\ o'clock, and come back, let us say, at half past two, which w^ould give
the Senator time to eat and get his next case in order.
AVould that l>e satisfactory ?
Senator McCarthy. I understood. Mr. Chairman, the agreement
was that we would recess when we got through, and I simply am going
to have to insist that I cannot spend all morning and all afternoon on
these cases. It takes me a long time to get them in sliape. I have been
w'orking just about around the clock <;etting tliese cases in shape for
the connnittee, and I cannot work night and day only in preparation
for the connnittee. I will come before the committee every forenoon.
1 just simply cannot spend every forenoon and afternoon here. There
is a great weahh of material to be gone over.
I might say this. Originally I had planned on coming here today
and giving the committee all of the information which I personally
had assembled in chronological order. I felt that the information that
1 have given in the Congressional Record from the secret files would be
sufficient to show that a sizeable number of individuals are bad security
risks, and that the connnittee w^ould develop all of those cases.
However, when I mentioned that to one of the newspaper men the
other day, the State Department heard it and promptly there was a
tremendous amount of screaming on the air and in the press that
McCarthy wasn't ]:)resenting all of his cases.
In view of that I am going to try and give the committee all con-
ceivable details of those cases. That is a hard job. I w^ill bring that
up to date as I possibly can.
Let me say this also. I think we have an unusual situation develop-
ing, an unUsual campaign over in the State Department. It seems
that whenever Dean Acheson wants to do any name calling or issue
any press releases it is clone in the name of a very likeable and fine
young fellow, a harmless young man by the name of Peurifoy. It is
a clever attempt to shift on to Peurifoy the blame for Acheson's
activities. We all know that Mr. Peurifoy has no more power to dis-
charge a ilian like Hanson or Lattimore than the President's aide has
to discharge the President, and I just hope very soon the Secretary of
State has enough guts to stand up and say "This is my baby ; I will
take the blame for the sort of situation that has been disclosed" and
quit shoving the blame on to the shoulders of a very fine young man
who must do as he is told.
Senator Tydi^'gs. I did not interrupt you, but that has nothing
to do with the evidence before this committee. Our job is to hear
evidence that has to do with disloyalty in the State Department and
other bi'anchos of the Government where State De]iartment employees
liave gone.
You have given us an outline of 81 cases. It is the policy of the
chairman, I am sure, supported unanimously by the committee, that
we will get those files, and we ho))e to organize this week and start
work on them. If you have anything you wish to add to your testi-
mony on the floor of the Senate, we will be very glad to have it, or
any other cases you may have that you want to present.
106 STATE DEPARTMETnTT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION
When I talked to yon on Friday, yon told me that yon thonght you
conld finish the presentation of yonr case today, if yon were not
interrnpted, in abont 4 or 5 honrs. Yon told Senator Lodge that^
and I so announced it to the press.
We have made our arrangements to sit today, this afternoon or
tonight, if possible, to give yon the opportunity that you wanted,
and we have made our arrangements accordingly. I think if you
could help US by coming back at 2 : 30, so long as the situation on
the Senate floor did not require you to go, it would be better if we
conld finish this afternoon, rather than have a niglit session. That
will not preclude you, of course, from giving us additional informa-
tion. We simply wanted to get the files of what we are to investigate
pretty clear before we turned it over to the staff which we will shortly
name, in more or less one piece, rather than to string it out so we
could set up an over-all system to check and cross check at the very
beginning. You can appreciate that that would be the thorough way
to do it.
Senator McCarthy. I think the chairman has a very commendable
idea. I might say, however, that as I said before, this is not the only
task I have, presenting this evidence. I have a State and a lot of
people in that State. I have to take care of their interests also. I
have been working almost 24 honrs a day getting these cases in shape.
I simply cannot work all morning and all afternoon before this com-
mittee. The most I can do is to give the committee half a day of
my time, and I will be glad to do that on any day. I will be glad to
present these cases, and I think they are of suflicient import so that
the committee will want to hear them. If not, that is entirely up to
the committee.
Senator IIickenlooper. I strenuously object and do object to night
sessions. I reserved that right the other day. I am not going to
sit in night sessions if I can help it.
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, could yon come back at 2 : SO
or 3 o'clock with more material, today?
Senator McCarthy. I have told the Chair that I will give the com-
mittee my mornings. I just can't give them all day. I don't want to
ajipear arbitrary, but this has been a tremendous task. My office staff
i.s almost on the verge of quitting. I have been working them all
night. I worked them all day Sunday and all Sunday night. I must
have time to get this material in shape.
As I say, I had originally planned on giving the committee the
material principally from the Congressional Record on many of these
individuals, giving them all of the leads. However, I find that the
Secretary of St^te is demanding that I personally give the committee
more. I think maybe he is right in this case, so I will give the com-
mittee more stuff. I will give them cases that are more fully developed
outside of the secret files.
I might say that in the Hanson case yon have a complete case with-
out any files at all. I think the files will be of interest to you.
In the Brunauer case. I do sincerely hope the committee takes that
case immediately and goes into it and gets the files. Tliere is plenty
of work for the committee to start on. They need not wait until I
present more cases. If no other case were presented except the
Brunauer case and if she is gotten out of this top-secret position, it
STATE DEPARTMEJS-T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 107
"Would justify the committee's existence, it would justify the spend-
in<2: of all the money the Senate has authorized the committee to spend.
Senator Tydixgs. It hasn't authorized any, yet.
Senator McCarthy. Let's start on that one.
Senator Tydixgs. I would like to say that the committee hasn't had
a dollar put at its disposal yet. There has been no authorization,
■but I am hopino; that today we will get some money.
Senator, the chairman of the committee is certainly not going to
press you. You are carrying a heavy burden. We are all carrying
.a heavy burden, too. I haven't been in my office to do any work now
for 4 or 5 or 6 days, and I have a bunch of people down there who are
.after me, almost beside themselves, to get some decisions, and that is
the reason I tried to get the thing under way today and hoped we
•could have concluded, but if you are not ready there is no reason why
you should not have a fair chance to produce it. It would help us
all to plan our lives if w-e could know about what you estimate — we
are not going to hold you to it — the additional time that you will re-
quire to present tlie matter that you have in mind.
Senator McCarthy. I want the Chair to know that I am not trying
to evade giving him an estimate, but let me say this. It wdll be ex-
tremely difficult to estimate. I have in my office now letters from
people, some of them having good information, some of them the
typical crackpot letters which one gets, giving information and tips
in a vast numljer of these cases. I find that some of them develop un-
usually fast. In fact, much of the material that I am presenting
tomorrow morning frankly was not in my hands the day I spoke on
the Senate floor. When I say "tomorrow," I mean the next day you
can hear me.
The information that I have presently developed, the cases that I
am ready to start on tomorrow or the next day, whenever I am called,
those cases will still take, I think, more than t^ie 5 hours which I
mentioned to the Chair last Friday. The Chair was not misquoting
me. I did tell the Chair that I thought I could get rid of all these
■cases in 5 hours without any interruptions.
I frankly don't know, Mr. Chairman. I think it will take another,
oh. at least 2 or 3 days, spending the entire forenoon without inter-
ruptions— I mean without any unnecessary interruptions.
Senator Ttdings. That gives us some line on it. Then I take it it is
the Senators position that he does not want to go on any more today.
Senator jNIcCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have this un-
derstanding, that I will not be asked to spend any afternoons or even-
ings on this. I think if I give the committee my mornings, then I
should liaTe tlie afternoons and evenings for my own work and to
further develop these cases.
Senator Tydixgs. We will try to conform to the Senator's wish.
Might I ask him if he would object to meeting earlier than we have
been meeting, so we could get more in?
Senator McCarthy. Xo objection at all, Mr. Chairman. I might
say, when I suggested 9 o'clock, I heard a great protest from all of
the members of the press.
Senator T-ydrsgs. I think the connnittee would like to get half an
Lour in the office before they come up here, but we will just have to
amike up ;om- minds to put up with some inconvenience, all of us.
108 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IX^•E'tSTIGATION
I am going to say to the Senator I have not talked with Miss Kenyon.
I presume she will w^ant to go on tomorrow. If she isn't ready to
go on tomorrow, then the Senator, I take it, would be ready to start
again tomorrow.
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. I understood she sent word to the Chairman
she would be here to go on.
Senator Tydings. That is right, but that was last week, in response
to a pretty quick telegram. I haven't seen her and haven't communi-
cated with her and have had no word directly or indirectly from
her. If she wants to take another day, I think we ought to give it to
her. She was not here to hear the charges. She has to read them and
become up-to-date on them, and so on.
But, without objection, we will take a recess until 9 : 30 o'clock to-
morrow morning, at which time I w411 ask Senator McCarthy to be
ready to go on with his testimony.
Senator McCarthy. Wait, Mv. Chairman: I would like to know
definitely How soon can you contact Judge Kenyon?
Senator Tydings. We can take you up imtil 12 or 12:30, so long
as you want to go on with us, and then we can go on with Miss Kenyon
in the afternoon, so in any event, if you will be ready tomorrow we
can dispose of you and Judge Kenyon most likely at the same time.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, I can definitely assume I will
go on at 9 : 30 in the morning?
Senator Tydings. And we Avill try to run until 12 : 30, and come
back and give Judge Kenyon the afternoon. I do not know that she
win want to go on. I imagine she will.
(Whereupon, at 1 : 15 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
the following day, Tuesday, March 14, 1950, at 9 : 30 a. m.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
TUESDAY, MARCH 14, 1950
UxiTED States Sexate,
COMMI-JTEE ON FoREIGN KeLATIONS,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Wa^^hington, D. O.
Tlie subcommittee met, pursuant to ndjouriuneut on March 13, 1050^
at 9 : 40 a. m. in room 318, Senate Office Building, Senator Millard E.
Tvdiuirs (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) , Green,
McMahon, and Hickenlooper.
Also present : Senator McCarthy.
Senator Tydings. The committee will please come to order.
Wliile YOU are getting your papers ready, Senator McCarthy, the
Chair Avould like to make an announcement.
The committee has appointed, as its chief counsel, Mr. Edward P.
Morgan, who was born May 28, 1913. After graduating from law
school, Georgetown University, with degrees from other universities,
Mr. Morgan, in March of 1940, was appointed as special agent of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation. Following services in the field with
the FBI, he was, in succession, a supervisor at FBI headquarters;
assistant special agent in charge of FBI field offices: and special agent
in charge of the Providence, R. Ir, and Albany, N. Y., field offices.
In the spring of 1945, he was appointed chief inspector at FBI
headquarters, having under his supervision and direction all inspec-
tion matters involving the 52 FBI field offices in the United States
and its Territories.
While associated with the FBI, Mr. Morgan made a special study
of Communists, Fascists, and other totalitarian ideologies, and lec-
tured to FBI agents and police officers from all over the world on
such matters.
Now, proceed, Senator McCarthy.
But, before proceeding, may I say further that Mr. Morgan is not
now with the FBI, but is a member of a Washington law firm.
The committee is going to admonish its fellow members, and also
witnesses, to try to get here on time. The chairman expects to get
here on time every morning unless he is in an accident, and hopes all
others will do likewise.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN— Resumed
Senator McCarthy. I think the Chair's clock is fast.
Mr. Chairman, in this case I have some reports from various intel-
ligence files, and some of the matei-ial I think will be of a great deal
109
110 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOISr
of interest to the committee. The copies of the reports which I am
handing to the committee contain a complete copy of the files. How-
ever, in reading this, yon will find that I will omit some of the material
which is in your intelligence report, and in the copies that go to the
press. The committee will find that I have deleted sections of the
files dealing with — well, the purpose will be obvious to the Chair.
Senator Tydings. You ai-e not going to read that i Do you want to
make it a part of the record ?
Senator McCarthy. I want to make it a part of the record also.
Senator TydinCxS. If you will desist until we get a chance to look
this over.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I intend to i-ead the entire
document.
Senator Tydings. You have this marked on toj) "For committee use
only."
Senator McCarthy. Here is the copy with certain portions of the
intelligence report deleted.
Senator Tydings. Will you give this copy to Senator Lodge, Sen-
ator Hickenlooper ?
Will you give this to Senator McMahon, Senator Green ?
Just hold up a minute, Senator McCarthy. You only gave us one
copy of your opening remarks. Will you give us a copy for each com-
mittee member ?
Senator McCarthy, may I ask if this contains a part of the material
you will read?
Senator McCarthy. Let me make myself clear. The material I am
giving the Chair contains copies of intelligence reports concerning this
man I am about to cover, Gustavo Duran. Parts of the report are such
that I do not think they should go out to the public. The reason will
be very obvious if the Chair will compare the portions I have deleted.
If I start explaining why they shottld not go out
Senator Tydings. I just wanted to get the record straight. So it is
fair to say that what j^ou have given us for committee use only is not
to be released by the committee until after they have had a chance to
look at it.
Senator McCarthy. And I am offering the deleted copies
Senator Tydings. Just a minute. Senator.
Senator McCarthy, a very proper question has been asked me, and
that is : "What you have given us is a complete record of the intelli-
gence files of the individual, or is it just a partial record of it?"
Senator McCarthy. That is all of the file that I have. There un-
doubtedly is much more in the files, but this is as complete as I can
get it, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. This is all that you have?
Senator McCarthy. That is all that I have.
I might say I will give the Chair the photostatic copies, but I would
like to keep those until I finish my statement.
Senator Tydings. All I'ight, proceed.
Senator McCarthy. I offer this as exhibit 32.
Mr. Chairman, the committee will recall that the name of Gustavo
Duran was first mentioned by me as a possible bad security risk in a
speech which I made in Wheeling, W. Va., and Reno, Nev.
STATE DEPARTIMETsT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 111
Senator Tydixgs. May I ask a question in order to keep the record
strai<:;lit^ I don't know the man, aiid didn't hear of him before, and
didn't read your l\eno speech.
Senator MtCARTiiY. You missed something.
Senator Tydings. I will ask you whether you know, or not, whether
this man is in the State De})artment today.
Senator McCarthy. His position will be shown Avhen
Senator Tydixus. He is now in the Department?
Senator McCarthy. He was in the State Department. He is now
in the United Nations, as the Chair will notice as we go along,
I have called Trygve Lie's office to find out exactly what work he
is doing.
Strangely enough, the Secretary, rather his secretary, said they
couldn't give that information to me.
I checked with the State Department and got the information,
which is in the Register.
However, my physical check indicates that this man is in IRO, ap-
parently screening refugees in connection with our DP program.
Senator Tydixgs. Well, we will investigate the case, but what I
would like to know now is about when he left the State Department
here.
Senator McCarthy. Exactly, if the Chair will bear with me, all
the exact dates are in my report.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Senator McCarthy. At that time I said :
Now, let's see what happens when inclividiials with Communist connections
are forced out of the State Department. Gustavo Duran, who was labeled as
(1 Quote) "a notorious international Communist," was made assistant to the
Assistant Secretary of State in charge of Latin-American affairs.
I refer there to Mr. Spruille Braden, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydixgs. Just a moment. Senator Green; that is "For
committee use only."
His opening remarks are on this paper.
Go ahead, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. He was taken into the State Department fi'om
his job as a lieutenant colonel in the Communist International
Brigade. Finally, after intense congi-essional pressure and criticism,
he resigned in 1946 from the State Department — and, ladies and gen-
tlemen, where do you think he is now ?
Senator Tydings. I don't want to interrupt you, but I wonder if you
would be good enough to tell us who made that quote "a notorious
international Communist" ?
Senator IMcCartht. We will get to that.
Senator Tydings. You will get to that?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
He took over a high-salaried job as Chief of Cultural Activities
Section in the Office of the Assistant Secretary General of the United
Nations.
Senator Greex. Excuse me. You say he was labeled. I think we
ought to know Ijy whom he was labeled.
Senator McCarthy. By our intelligence forces. If the Senator will
read the intelligence letters, the photostats I will give him
Senator Greex. I would like to read that and follow the testimony
better in that way.
112 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. He was labeled in our own intelligence files.
I will give the Chair a complete photostat of all the files which have
been available, and I am sure the Senator will not question that after
lie reads the files.
This statement was promptly ridiculed by the Secretary of State
who — through Mr. Peurifoy — merely said that this man Duran was
no longer an employee of the State Department, but had been in the
auxiliary foreign service from January 1943 until September 1945,
and thereafter until October 4, 1946, in the Department. Mr. Peurifoy
added that Duran had voluntarily resigned from the State Department
on October 4, 1946.
One of the important facts that the Secretary overlooked in making
this press release is that this man is still, as of today, a high-salaried
official in the United Nations. On March 8 my office phoned the
office of Trygve Lie to find out exactly what type of woi-k he was doing.
My office was advised that information could not be given to me.
In other words, the information as to what Gustavo Duran is pres-
ently doing in the United Nations was not furnished me.
The State Department advised me that Duran is now Chief of the
Cultural Activities Section of the Department of Social Affairs, United
Nations.
I was rather surprised to find that the Permanent Secretary of the
United Nations felt he could not give to a United States Senator the
information as to what this man was doing. However, since that
time I have had the matter checked as well as possible in New York
and am informed he is actually with the International Refugee Or-
ganization, engaged in work having to do with screening refugees
coming into this country. The financial contribution which the United
States makes toward the running of this United Nations agency
amounts to 45.57 percent. (Taken from S. Kept. 1274, 81st Cong., 2d
sess.. Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, pre-
pared by Subcommittee on Relations with International Organi-
zations.)
I might say that while the report shows that we pay 45.57 percent,
actually, of course, we are paying practically all of the cost, in view of
the fact that most of the nations that are contributing money are con-
tributing money which we have previously given them.
Senator Tydings. The same money ?
Senator ]\IcCarthy. Whether it is the same dollar or not does not
make any difference. If you put an American dollar in one pocket and
take out a French dollar from the other pocket to pay the expenses,
then what is the difference there.
Senator Tydings. In fairness, I don't think j^our remark is open to
the interpretation that if we had not given them this money they
would not have contributed. That is what you virtually are saying
there, and I don't think a'ou intend to say that.
Senator McCarthy." When we give some $5,000,000,000 to the
United Nations membership, and they take money, whether it is the
same dollar or not, to help pay for the UN work, obviously it is our
money. So, in effect, the 45.57 percent refers to money we put in
directly. It does not refer to American dollai's which obviously are
coming in indirectly.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LNVEISTIGATION 113
Senator Tydings. Take the case of Great Britain. I feel pretty
sure that if the Britisli were not receiving a penny from us they would
still have repi'esentation and they would pay for themselves at the
United Nations.
]My only point was — the way you stated it — it looked as though they
would not have their representatives there if we did not pay for it.
I don't tliink you mean to convey that; that is my point.
Senator McCarthy. We can speculate on this, Mr. Chairman, but
it would seem that if we were not giving the nations what we are,
they would have to contribute more heavily directly. Whether that is
true or not is a matter of speculation, but the point, as a practical mat-
ter, we are paying much more than the approximate half that this
would indicate.
However, the Chair may have a different opinion.
Senatoi- Tydixgs. That is right ; but, as you have stated, you have
stated a fact, and a fact is only a matter of speculation and I don't
think we ought to have speculation in here. I think we ought to stick
to facts. That was my point.
Senator McCarthy. I think we should stick to facts. The fact is
that the committee says that we are paying practically 45.57 per-
cent
Senator Tydixgs. All right.
Senator McCarthy. The additional fact is that the other nations
which contribute 30 or 35 percent, whatever it happens to be, are
nations that are receiving four or five billions of dollars from us.
At the time that Acheson's man attempted to ridicule my statement,
he either did not know the facts in the case or he was covering up the
information which is in the files and which should have been known to
liim.
This information, which I shall document for the committee, was
known or was available to the State Department. It shows that Duran
was (1) well known for his rabid Communist beliefs and activities;
(2) that he was active in secret Soviet operations in the Spanish Re-
publican Army; (3) that a highly confidential report was sent to the
Stat* Department by the military attache at the American Embassy
in Madrid which, according to all existing rules, called for Duran's
immediate dismissal — unless the facts were proven to be wrong.
Originally." I understand it was claimed that this was a case of mis-
taken identity. That claim, I believe, has been subsequently dropped
in view of the fact that our intelligence produced pictures of him in
the uniform that he wore at the time he was the regional head of SIM,
which was the Spanish counterpart of the Russian NKVD or OGPU.
I now hand the committee one of those pictures.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do I understand, Senator, that that was
the Spanish secret police, the SIM?
Senator McCarthy. That was the secret police of the Spanish re-
publican regime.
Senator Tydixgs. I suppose both sides had secret police ; didn't they,
Senator?
Senator McCarthy. I assume that would be a fair supposition, Mr.
Chairman.
Senator Greex. IVIay I ask a question ?
Senator Tydixgs. Certainly.
114 STATE DEPARTMEISTT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVE'STIGATION
Senator Green. Do I luiderstand you to claim that because he was-
in the Spanish secret police that was evidence of his being a Com-
munist ?
Senator IMcCarthy. As I develop this, the Senator will discover that
Mr. Prieto, who was the Spanish Minister, appointed this man from
the army, as head of the SIM. He was then dissatisfied with his ac-
tivities. He was putting too many Communists is as the subheads..
As the Senator will find as a result of that, Prieto moved Duran back
to his army post as a major in the army, and that the Russian techni-
cians called on him and told him that unless Duran headed this SIM
unit they would break off relations with Prieto. The Russians said
"You must have this man as head of this regional SIM."
Prieto ignored them, and the relations were broken off' with this
Russian technical staff'.
Now, if the Senator will let me read the document, then if he still
has any questions, I will certainly be more than happy to answer
them. I wish he would let me give him the entire document, and I
don't think he will have any questions then.
I now hand the Chair the picture I referred to, which apparently
did away with the original contention that it was a case of mistaken
identity, so the claim of mistaken identity has been dropped.
At the time this intelligence report reached the State Department,.
Duran was a highly placed official in a confidential capacity with
the State Department in South America.
When the American people read the carefully prepared statement
put out by the Secretary of State's office in regard to the Duran state-
ment, they were entitled to rely upon it as being the truth. Un-
fortunately, anyone who believed that statement got a completely
erroneous impression of the actual facts.
"VVliichever way you wish to interpret this situation I submit to-
the committee that it is typical of the carelessness of the top executives
of the State Department of this country. The situation I have just
discussed is typical of the type of news releases emanating from the
State Dei')artment; it is typical of the half-truths we hear in answer
to the information which I have been developing in regard to the bad
security risks in that Department.
I now submit to the committee the intelligence report just referred
to in its entirety.
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, I don't recall now — do you'
recall who was Secretary of State in 1945, when this happened?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Acheson, I believe, was Under Secretary..
The Senator will recall. I lielieve, who the Secretary was.
I believe you will recall, sir, as Avell as I do.
Senator Tydings. I don't recall, because we changed so frequently
about that time.
Senator McCarthy. That is why I say I think you will recall as
well as I do, sir. I think it was Jimmie Byrnes, wasn't it ?'
Senator Tydings. Has anybody got the date ?
Senator McCarthy. Jimmie Byrnes was Secretary: the Chair will
recall that Grew was the Under Secretary, that Grew was the man
who insisted upon the prosecution of a man called Service, whose case
I shall deal with this morning: that Grew was forced — let us say he
retired or resigned 2 days later, after Acheson took over arid reinstated
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 115
Service. "We will <ret to that. l)iit I think that should refresh our
recollection as to who the Secretary was.
Senator Tydtxgs. Who was the Under Secretary of State at the
time 3'ou criticize the State Depaitnient for this particular transac-
tion ? I take it from your remarks it was Mr. Grew ?
Senator McCarthy. No, Mr, Chairman. I think ]\Ir. Grew did an
excellent joh. That is why he is no lon<rer there. Mr. Dean Acheson
was lender Secretary of State at this time. It was in 1946
Senator Tydixgs." In 1945?
Senator jMcCartiiy. AVe are speaking now — he was discharj^ed in
October 1946. accordino; to Mr. Acheson's own press release. I must
rely on that — October 4, 1946.
Senator Ttdings. Hold that there, because I think we mentioned
a date of 1945 a moment aero, and I want the record to show which
is correct. I want the record to be straight.
Mr. McCarthy. If the Chair will refer to the second last paragraph
on page 12, he will find that the press release of the State Department
shows that Duran was in the Department until October 4, 1946.
Senator Tydixgs. Let's refer to that.
Senator McCarthy. The fifth line from the bottom.
Senator Ty'DINGS. Let's refer to, that paragraph and get it in.
As I understand it, he has been in auxiliary foreign service from
January 1943 until September 1945.
Now, during that ]3eriod of time do you recall who was the Sec-
retary and the LTnder Secretary of State ?
Senator McCarthy. The Chair will have to put the name on him —
as to the exact date the different men resigned
Senator Tydixgs. Was Mr. Acheson in the Department during the
time from 1943 to 1945?
Senator McCarthy. The first we have of Mr. Acheson was in 1939.
He said he would vouch for Hiss completely. He was connected with
the Department then. Again, in 1943, at the time of the FBI inves-
tigation of Hiss, he was there then, and I assume was Assistant Secre-
tary at that time. He was made Under Secretary, Mr. Chairman,
at the time Joe Grew was forced out.
Senator Tydings. When was that?
Senator McCarthy. At the time of the Amerasia case in 1945.
Senator Tydixgs. Then, from 1943 to 1945, he could not have been
the Under Secretary.
Senator McCarthy. He could not have been the Under Secretary
before he Avas made Under Secretary, that is correct.
Senator Tydixgs. As I understand it — who was the Under Secre-
tary when ^Ir. Grew was forced out, as you say?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know when Grew took over. I don't
know the exact date he resigned. I connect the date of his resignation
with the Service case. He was reinstated 2 days before Grew resigned.
v^enator Tydings. The only reason I bring it up, you have usecl Mr.
Acheson's name several times, and I think it is important to show
whether or not he was Tender Secretaiy when the alleged service was
rendered to the country by the subject you refer to.
Senator McCarthy. I think that is a good question. Mr. Chairman.
Let us clear that up now.
If the Chair will refer to the ^photostatic copy of the intelligence
report
116 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION
Senator Tydixgs. Is this it?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. Yon will find that five copies were given
to the State Department. I believe the date was in 1946; it is on the
report. At that time Mv. Acheson was the Under Secretary, I believe.
Senator Tydings. He didn't stay in very long after Acheson became
Under Secretary, according to yonr date.
Senator McCarthy. He stayed nntil October 4, 1946. Acheson be-
came Under Secretary in 1945'. If the Chair does not consider a year
a very long time
Senator Tydings. I don"t think any man can get the dossiers of
16,000 employees after 10 minutes, or within a short time of taking
over an office.
Senator McCarthy. Let's go on and see what Duran is doing now.
1 think this is important, and I will call attention to it — the State
T3epartment pnt out a carefully worded statement which certainly
did not contain the facts in my statement. I said this man had been
in the State Department. I pointed out this was an example of what
happens to an outstanding Communist when forced out. I pointed out
that he was over with the United Nations. The State Department put
out an answer to that saying, in effect, the last they knew of this man
was in October 1946.
Now, the State Department knows very well where this man is, and
I think one of the things the committee should investigate •
Senator Tydings. Just a minute — all right, go ahead.
Senator McCarthy. I think one of the things this committee should
.spend some time on is the question of how men like Duran, and these
other individuals with unusual backgrounds, shift so easily from the
State Department to the United Nations.
Senator Tydings. Senator, we will examine into everything.
Senator McCarthy. Someone, we know, using ordinary common
horse sense — we know someone in the State Department is shifting
them over. I think we should find out who.
Now, going on wuth our man Duran — it will be noted the State
Department received a copy of the intelligence report just referred to.
There are certain matters discussed in this report which I do not feel
should be made public until the committee has had a chance to thor-
oughly look into them. I have, therefore, deleted those sections from
the copies being handed to the press and will not read them into the
record at this time. The entire report, however, with nothing deleted,
is being handed to each of the members of the committee.
B. I. D. No. 7232
Report No. R~2!)f»/46
CONFIUENTIAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
For general use by any United States Intelligence Agency
From : Military Attache. American Embassy, Madrid. Spain
June 4, 1946.
Source : Spanish Ai my Central General Staff B-3
Area Reported On : Spain
Who's Who : Gustavo Duran
Following is the report given the Military Attache by the A. C. of S., G-2,
Spanish Central (Jeneral Staff, after the M/A asked v\'hether Dnran was known :
"Gustavo Duran came to Madrid for the first time in the lS)20's from the
Canary Island, in the company of another Canarian. a painter called Nestor, who
was registered by tlie Spanish police for the same reasons — " as Durans * * ♦
STATE DEPARTIME'NT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 117
[hlaiikins a poition <mtl * * * .^^^ ., fi-idul of Xt^stor, (Uistavo Duran.
became employed as a pianisr in the company of Antonia Merce the 'Arfientinita,'
and went to Berlin to participate in that capacity in dance sliows. However,
his — " * * * fhlankinii out a portion I * * * '•caused him to incur the fury
of the r.eiiin jxilice. wiiich linally ousted liim from Oermany.
"Similar trouble happened to him in other European cai)itals. His — " * * *
fa.iiain a blank space 1 * * * '-orew to the limit in Paris, which was the
preferied center for his activities sonu> years before tlie advent of the Spanish
Republic in 1J>31, while he was under the protection of his friend Nestor, the
painter, wlio was well known in certain Parisian quarters. About that time
the Soviets entrusted (Justavo Duran witli some missions and tinally appointed
him their aueiit.
■•Tpon the proclamation of the Spanish Republic, tlie "I'orcelana' (as he was
nicknamed) returned to Madrid. His identity papers indicated that he was the
repre.<:entative of the Paramount Film Co. However, liis true mission was service
of the (JPU. Duran was yi'fiitly successful in his activities due to the political
protection he enjoyed. He soon became one of tlie leading members of the
youths of the Communist Party, and greatly contributed to the merger of the
Connnunists youths with the youths of the Spanish Labor Party, thus giving
birth to the .ISC, of fateful remembrance, since this organization committed the
most cold-blooded crimes before July IS. liKUJ — that is the date of the military
uprising — and during the red revolution which ensued.
"During the republican regime (l!>31-oG) Duran continued practicing his — "
* * * [blanked out] * * *.
I might say this -was before the Spanish civil war, as Ave all know.
"Together with other 'close' friends of his and some young pro-Communist
poets, among whom Alberty was noted, Duran succeeded in becoming notorious.
All of them were his tools and all of them were made into active Com-
munists. In Duran's home located—" * * * [at blank] * * *, "such
meetings took place that the police had to interfere frequently, thus giving oc-
casion to complete his record as — " * * * [considerable blank space] * * *
"in the tiles of the General Directorate of Security. This record as — " * * *
[blank] * * * "was probably removed by his friend. Serrano Poncela. who
was the chief of tbe 'Red' police during the months of October and November
3936 in Madrid and political reporter of "Mundo Obrero' (a Communist news-
paper), and chief of the .TSS. Duran's release from his frequent imprisonments
for — " * * * [again a blank] * * * "conduct was due to his powerful
political protectors, who blindly obeyed orders from the Soviet political
police .
"T^pon the national uprising (beginning of civil war) Gustavo Duran took over
the nearest convent to his house, called 'las Siervas de Maria,' located at the old
Chamberi Plaza. He was there the 'responsable," or chief. He was afflicted there
with typhoid fever during the month of August 1936."
The next notation on the photostat is that five copies of this report
went to the Dist W Europe, one to the Spec Dist, one to DC/CG, five
to ONI, six to the State Department, and one to the FBI.
"The 'Causo General' (general judicial proceedings) has information about
the crimes perpetrated by the militia under the command of Duran's 'choca'
(illegal pri.son). He was one of the principal leaders of the popular militia
created by the Communists. He was a personal friend of Lister and Modesto
(commanders of red brigades, now Generals in the Russian Army) and soon
.became captain, major and lieutenant colonel of the 'Red' Army. He belonged to
the General staff of the 'Red' forces which directed the 'brilliant' withdrawals
of Talavera de la Reina, Maqueda, Toledo, etc.
''When the international brigades were brought into the Madrid and Aranju -z
fronts, Gustavo Duran formed part of the High Russian General Staff, with
bead(|Uarters at Tarancon and its vicinity, where they left sad and hideous
recollections.
"After Tarancon we (the Spanish Intelligence Service) lost track of Duran.
It api>ears that he went to Moscow with a delegation of male and female members
of the 'Red" Army. It appears that later he was for some time in Paris.
"And now he is in Washington as a collaborator of Spruille Braden. <'hief of
a Section of the State Department."
118 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Then, the MA Comment: "A very reliable Spaniard who is anti-Franco in
sympathies but is middle of the road Republican and extremely pro-United
States and democratic in his views states that he knows personally that Duran
as commander officer of an international brigade in a small town not far from
Madrid ordered the execution of the town electrician and another man who was
a mason, neither of whom has committed any act for which they should have
suffered this execution.
"Wendell G. Johnson.
"Colonel, O. 8. C. Military Attache."
Senator Tydings. Shortly after tliat report reached the State De-
partment, the notation is that this man vohmtaril}^ resigned.
Senator McCarthy. This apparently reached the State Depart-
ment June 4, and October 4 he voluntarily — I think that word is im-
portant— he "voluntarily" resigned.
Senator Tydings. Won't you allow me to correct that ? The date of
the report, written in Spain, was June 4, not the date it was received
by the State Department — is that correct ?
Senator McCarthy. I assume it took a couple of days to get here,
more or less, so we will say June 6 or 7.
Now, on August 2, Senator Wherry wrote to the State Department,
to Secretary Byrnes, and I think this is especially significant, because
all of this material must have been in the files at the time the Secretary
indicated this man just had disappeared from public life.
AUGUST 2, in4fi.
The Honorable James F. Byrnes,
Secretary of State, Washington, D. C.
Dear Secretary: As a member of the Appropriations Committee, on April 18,
1946, I asked for investigation of certain persons holding positions of trust and
responsibility in your Department.
It was my purpose then and is now to withhold appropriations that finance the
salaries and activities of anyone in the State Department whose allegiance ap-
parently is to some other country than to the United States.
You will recall. Mr. Secretary, that when you appeared I questioned you about
some of these officials and among them was a Gustavo Duran. This was just
prior to the Carter Glass funeral. At that time you stated there was a question
of identity of Gustavo Duran,
That question no longer exists, since Intelligence procured the par-
ticular picture I gave the Chair.
You stated further an investigation had revealed that he was some other person
than the man in the State Department, who has been an assistant to Spruille
Braden.
It has now come to my knowledge there exists an extensive military intelligence
report on this man, Gustavo Duran, and I am reliably informed that several
copies of this report have been delivered to the State Department.
I am now making this formal request upon you in my official capacity as a
United States Senator, and as a member of the State Department Subcommittee
on Appropriations, that on the basis of this report you immediately dischai'ge
Gustavo Duran.
Cordially yours,
Senator Tydings. Have you got Secretary Byrnes' reply to that ?
Senator McCarthy. I have a reply to it but, as usual in correspond-
ence, you write to the Secretary, and someone else replies.
Senator Tydings. Will you read the reply ?
Senator McCarthy. The Chair knows I intend to read the reply,
because it is on the next page of the document.
Senator Tydings, I didn't see it.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEtSTIGATION 119
Senator McCarthy. It is headed :
Assistant Secretary of State,
Washington, September IJf, WZ/G.
My Dear Sknatok: T ;iiu in loceipt of your recent inquiry about the security
investigation by the Department of ^Ir. Gustavo Duran. As you know, the De-
partment has a security committee which confines itself to reviewing security
investigations —
ill other words, the old Loyalty Board —
ami to making recommendations based thereon. Of course, this committee has
nothing to do with reviewing the qualifications or competency of the person
rt-vM'wed for ;i position in the Department other than as security is involved. I
have added this because from our conversation I would assume that you seriously
question the qualifications of Mr. Duran for employment, as distinguished from
security consideration. That phase of Mr. Duraus employment is not within
the scope of the security committee.
I want to call the committee's attention especially to the next para-
graph. This indicates that conditions have not changed much since
September 14, 1946, down to date. He says :
After reviewing the entire record on Mr. Duran as proc<u-ed from all avail-
able sources, the security committee recommended favorably on Mr. Duran.
I have carefully gone over the record before the security committee and I have
approved their recommendation.
While I recognize that the above conclusions are at variance with your own
feelings, I have to do my duty as I see it and I hope that you will recognize
that I have attempted to exercise my judgment faithfully and honestly.
With best wishes, I am
Sincerely yours,
And, it is sisrned "Donald Russell."
Senator Ttdixgs. Mr. Russell at that time — was he Under Secretary
of State?
Senator McCarthy. He was the predecessor of Mr. Peurifoy — ^held
the job now held by Mr. Peurifoy.
Senator Tydixgs. Do you know the title?
Senator McCarthy. 1 have difficulty in keeping track of the title.
I believe it was Assistant Secretary for Administration, or something
along that line. Anyway, he had the job Mr. Peurifoy now holds.
When Mr. Russall wrote this letter on September 4, 1946, he had in
Ids files the top-secret report from the militar}^ attache in Madrid,
which I have already referred to, outlining in detail the facts I have
given on Duran.
Now what was the mysterious power in the possession of Duran
that enabled him to continue to serve as a confidential assistant to
Spruille Braden, the then head of the State Department's South
American affairs?
Why was this man permitted voluntarily to resign in the face of
these grave charges?
And, I might add, who has gotten him the important task of going
to the UN, and doing the job of screening refugees coming into this
Nation ?
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, I would like to say that your
inquiry that we should find out who got him the job in the United
Nations, inasmuch as there is no evidence in what we are reading here,
will be a part of our inquiry. We don't know who he is, whether
innocent or guilty, but we Avill find out anyway.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 9
120 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. I don't have documentary evidence, but we
will be able to help your staff very considerably, as to who recom-
mends these individuals to UN, and who gets them their jobs.
Mr. Duran obviously had powerful friends, and one of his greatest
champions was his immediate chief, Spruille Braden.
I now show the committee exhibit ^3, which is a copy of a letter
marked "secret"' and dated December 21, 1942, in Habana.
I believe the chairman has this exhibit before him, which reads
as follows :
Habana, December 21, 19JfS.
Monorayiduoi for the Militarji Attache:
Mr. Gustavvi Duran wa.s recommenced, to me in the first instance by a friend
of nnimpeachaole patriotism and integrity. He was recommended for a specific
objective requiring a person of higlUy specialized qualificatiftns; his duties were
to be concerned with protecting United States intei-ests thrcmgh confidential
.surveillance over Falangist activities in Culia.
As to Mr. Duran's background, he is a naturalized American citizen born and
educated in Spain.
Incidentally, his naturalization was one of the most rapid I ever
heard of — as I recall it took about 6 weeks.
He is of good family, and in his youth was particularly interested in the arts.
When the Spanish civil war began in July 1936 he gave up everything to fight
on the side of the Loyalists and from a somewhat dilettante Init l)rilliant young
man, turned into a vital force for the Republican cause. His military record
was reportedly brilliant. He was further dest-ribed to me as l)eing a man whose
liatred for the Fascists, and his deep devotion to lii»eral principles, are not
open to debate.
This is Spruille Braden speaking, you understand,
A close association with him during a period of over a year fully supports this
description.
Mr. Duran arrived in Habana in November 1942 on the payroll of the Pan
American Union and was to transfer to the staff of the CIAA on February 1,
1043. Instead, I urgently I'ecommended his employment as an auxiliary Foreign
Service officer in a telegram from which I quote the following:
"I regard Duran as eminently qualified for the work he is performing and
I have the highest estimation for his intelligence and character as well as for
his complete loyalty and discretion. He has already proven of very great value
to this Embassy and I anticipate that his usefulness will inci-ease as he becomes
more familiar with conditions in Cuba. I consider that his continuance here is
liarticularly desirable at the present time when our relations with Spain are
of such vital importance."
Mr. Duran has now served as one of my immediate associates for more than
a year. His work has been excellent and outstandingly u.seful to the T'nited
States Government. From my personal knowledge based on close association,
Mr. Duran is not a Conmmnist but a liberal of the highest tyi)e. I consider him
an unusually worthy, patriotic, and honorable American citizen, who shows
great promise as a United States Government official capable of high resiionsibility.
Spkuili.e Braden.
This was w^-itten. Mr. Chairman, at the time, you understand, that
Duran, of Spanish fame, was not the Duran of State Department
fame, but that claim has long since been dropped.
Senator Tydixgs. The date of the connnunication you have just
read was December 21, 1943.
Senator McCarthy. That is exactly as I read it, December 21. 1943,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Braden describes Mr. Duran as one recoiameiided to him Ijv a
friend of unimpeachable integrity.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVElSTIGATION 121
He set forth in his letter that Diiran was a naturalized citizen, bom
and educated in Spain, of good family and in his youth was particu-
larly interested in the arts. Braden said that from 11);^>G Duran gave
up everything to fight on the side of the Spanish Loyalists and said he
urgently recommended his empknnient as an auxiliary Foreign Service
officer.
Incidentally, not that this is important, but Duran was mistaken
in where he was born. He was born in the Canary Islands, according
to the Intelligence reports.
Xow with that information in the possession of the then Secretary
of State, information which Braden gave, plus the claim that this was
not the same Duran, I can understand why the then Secretary kept
liim on. That was before the intelligence report was made available to^
the Secretarj^ of State.
Following Senator "Wherry's letter to the State Department of
August 194G, in which the Senator maintained that this man was such
a bad security risk that he should be discharged, we find that he was
])ermitted to resign on October 4, 1946.
In view of the grave charges made by Senator Wherry and the
unusual attitude of the State Department in permitting this man's
resignation, plus all the information the committee will have before
it. it Avoukt be interesting to know what, if any, investigation was
made by State Department officials as to his conduct while in a
lesponsible, confidential capacity in the Department.
But Duran's frieiids in the State Department did not turn their
backs on him.
After his resignation. Duran almost immediately was employed as
a representative of the International Refugee Organization of the
United Nations. He was employed there as of yesterday.
I believe I have explained that this is not his title, according to the
State Department. Tryg\'e Lie's secretary says he cannot tell me what.
he is doing, but we sent a man over there to physically check, and try
and find out, and he reports that his work has to do with the screening
of refugees.
Senator Greex. May I ask a question?
Senator ^McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Green. Can vou explain Avhv Mr. Braden did not sign this
letter of December 2.3, 1943?
Senator McCarthy. There is no part of Mr. Braden's actions that
I would even attempt to explain. Senator.
Senator Greex. All right.
Senator Htckexlooper. Mr. Chairman, this exhibit, as I under-
stand it. is not in the form of a letter. It is in the form of a memoran-
dum for the military attache, or rather, from the military attache.
Senator McCarthy. It is a photostat of the memorandum which is
in the Department file.
Senator Tydixgs. The signature is typed in; is that your point?'
Senator McCarthy. If the Senator wants to get the original, he
can get it where I cannot. I assume that would be in order.
Senator Tydixgs. Well, we will get it.
Senator McCarthy. I have received a confidential report tluit
Duran was recommended for his UX position by a member of the
present Presidential Cabinet. It has also been, reported to. me that
122 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEBTIGATION
Diiran is the brother-in-law of Michael Straight, the owner and pub-
lisher of a pro-Communist magazine called the New Republic.
Here again it is certainly pertinent to inquire where this man got
his power, what he did while in the State Department and, possibly,
of equal importance, is what he did not do.
To complete this picture, I attach hereto copies of the following
documents :
Senator Tydings. Has the New Republic been declared by any or-
ganization as a Communist-front newspaper. Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. I did not say "Communist front," Mr. Chair-
man. It is not necessary for the Chair to put words in my mouth. If
he will read the top of page 13
Senator Tydings. I did not read it, but I want to know who de-
nominates it as pro-Communist magazine.
Senator McCarthy. I have just named them that. If the chairman
will read it, I think he will agree
Senator Tydings. I do not have the time to read it.
Senator McCarthy. I do not recommend it necessarily for reading.
Now, the exhibit numbered 34, Mr. Chairman
Senator Hickenlooper. Is that the one denominated 1 ?
Senator McCarthy. This is the report from Edward J. Rutf , assist-
ant United States military attache in the Dominican Republic, ad-
dressed to the American Intelligence Service dated December 30, 1943.
I have a note here, that the date of this is December 30, 1943. I do
not find any date on this document, however. I assume that that is
the correct date.
The second page of the letter, I do not have the first page either —
the first part may not be too valuable, Mr. Chairman. It is not clear
who Ruff is referring to.
It is marked "Secret copy," and says :
He states, dogmatically, that the records showed Duraii to be a nieralier of
the Spanish Comimmist Party. Our source had previously made available to
xis the information agreeing vpith that sent to us by military attach^, Habana,
except the statement that Duran entered the Army as a private. According to
our agent, Durun was commissioned directly from civilian life and given the rank
of major in the militia. Later when the militia became part of the Spanish Re-
publican Army, he was made a major in the army. The only additional informa-
tion we had, and which we did not mention in the report, as it was not believed
pertinent, was the reported fact that Duran is a homosexual. I do not question
Duran's interest in the arts, his culture, or intelligence. However, we only stated
in our report that Duran was a member of the Communist Party, and that we
(lid not know whether he is still a member of the Communist Party. I, myself,
am convinced that Duran was a Communist and consider Ambassador Braden's
statement that he is a ''liberal of the highest type" to be a euphemism. Under
the circumstances, I believed the reliability of our report still remains as origi-
nally submitted.
The Ambassador here is inclined to concur in my report on Duran, but has
asked that no further official correspondence on the subject be sent up. Hence
this personal letter from me.
I want to repeat that, Mr. Chairman :
The Ambassador here is inclined to concur in my report on Duran, but has
asked that no further official correspondence on the subject he sent up. Hence
this personal letter from me.
Senator Tydings. Just a minute, Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. I might say the entire letter — the first half I
<lid not read, and it might be well to I'ead that into the record, also,
STATE DEPARTMEIS^T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 123
ami w ith the permission of the Chair I would like to read the first half
of that letter.
Senator Tyoings. All rio;ht.
Senator McCarthy. I read the last half from the j^hotostatic copy.
I do not have a photostat of the first. Here is the first half :
I want to take this opportunity to clarify my position in connection witli Re-
port No. 4'JS, dated December 18. l!)4:i, sub.iect : Gustavo Duran, alleged Com-
munist employee of the CIAA, Habana. As you know, this office received a cable
from th(^ military attach^, Habana, requesting that dissemination of this report
to be held up on the grounds that it was '"absolutely incorrect." A few days ago
we received letter No. 7967 from Lieutenant Colonel Brown, written by Ambas-
sador r.raden concerning this individual. Both these communications corrobo-
rated information which we had regarding Duran and I cannot see on the basis
of their reports how our report can be branded as "absolutely incorrect." Our
only statement in the report on Dui'an is that he was a member of the Commu-
nist I'arty in Spain. From further reports received, this information can now be
evaluated as A-1. For your own knowledge, the information on Duran was sub-
mitted iiy a Spanish refugee who also served on Duran's promotion board in
Spain, which board was charged with considering recommendations for promo-
tion of Spanish Republican officers. As our source was actually sitting on the
board at the time that Duran's I'ecommendation for promotion came through,
he himself saw all Duran's papers and letters of recommendation, and had
access to complete information regarding Duran's background.
I next submit to the Chair an excerpt from the book. Why and How
I Left Defense Ministry in the Intriijue of Russia in Spain, by Indali-
cio Prieto, former Minister of Defense for the Spanish Republican
cause.
Senator Tydings. Is that the next page?
Senator McCarthy. I have the original document, if the Chair
cares for it.
Senator Tydings. I want to follow you.
Senator McCarthy. I hope the committee will keep in mind that
this is the same Duran who is apparently presently screening our
DP's.
It is true that I have had certain Incidents with the Russians. Certain Rus-
sian technicians proposed to me in Valencia that a service of military investiga-
tions should be created. This was the Spanish counterpart of the NKVD. I
confess that I opposed the project. But because of insistent pressure, I created
the SIM.
The SIM, I believe the committee knows, is the counterpart of the
Russian NKVD.
I was especially concerned with choosing a chief, until I gave it to an intimate
friend of mine, who had just come from France, wliere he was with his family.
In entrusting him with the task. I gave him these insti'uctions :
"You are going to form the SIM, carefully, with elements of all groups of the
Popular Front. Your only charges will be these two: Do not permit the new
organization to be converted into an instrument of the Communists and do not
permit Russian technicians to gain control. Listen to the advice of these tech-
nicians and follow their orientations, whicli can be very useful to you, but con-
trol must always be in your hands and in that of the Government, and of no
one else."
I .showed little tact in the selection of that comrade. A Republican named
Sayagues came in fact to be the chief of SIM. Regional chiefs of the SIM
were designated and they proposed to me a certain Gustavo Duran for the
Madrid zone. It was not conv:>ale(i from me that the person proposed was a
Communist. I knew this, but in spite of that, he was appointed by decree which
I myself drew up. becau.se I did not wish to follow in a slavish manner the
project which was handed to me — there is an article by virtue of which the
appointment of all agents of the SIM rests exclusively' with the Minister of
124 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
National Defense. This was a guarantee which temporarily I wish to establish.
No one could be an agent of the SIM who was not in possession of the memoran-
dum book wliich bore duplicate the signature of the minister. Duran having
been appointed chief of the demarcation of the army of the center, of his own
acctn-d and without power to do so. appointed the agents who were under his
orders, which to the number of some hundreds, were Communists and only four
or five were Socialists.
As the Chair will recall, this was at the time Spain was trying to
Avork out her difficulties by having a coalition government of Socialists,
Connnnnists, and so forth.
I faced an intolerable situation, wherefore alleging, and with reason, that I
lacked commanders in the army. I ordered that all military chiefs who were
xiot in particular positions in the army should return to their former positions,
and thus Major Duran liad to return to his military fun( tion. Because of
Dtiran's leaving the SIM, I received a visit from a Russian technician, of these
services, who said to me :
■Russian Agent. I have come to speak to you about the dismissal of Duran.
What happened?
"Prieto. Nothing special I lacked commanders in the army and ordered Duran
to return to it.
"RiTsstAN Agent. Xo. You discharged him because he appointed Communists
as agents in Madrid.
'•Prieto. That is also sufficient reason, becau.se Duran absolutely lacked au-
Ihoiity to make appoiutmeuts.
"Russian Agent. Why did he not have the power to appoint agents?
"PuiETO. Because by virtue of the decree creating the SIM that power is
ireserved exclusively to the Minister."
Still quoting :
I read the decree and before the evidence of my statement my visitor alleged:
"Russian Agent. Duran could m.-ike temporary appointments.
"Prieto. Neither actual nor temporary. Hei"e in Spain, moreover, the tempor-
ary is converted into the definitive.
"Russian Agent. Be that as it may. I come to ask ycm to immediately restore
3Ia.ior Duran as chief of the SIM in Madrid.
■'Peieto. I am very sorry, l)Ut I cannot consent.
■"Russian Agent. If you do not consent to restore Duran, my relations with
you are broken.
"Prieto. I am sorry, but Major Duran will go to the front of his division and
will not return to the SIM. Your attitude is unjustified and I cannot yield to
it."
I did not yield as a matter of fact, and my relations with the Russian technician,
thi'ough his own wish, were absolutely cut off. I have not seen him since that
scene.
Incidentally, the Chair questioned my description of the magazine
New Republic.
Senator Tydixgs. I did not question it, I asked what information
you had to support your allegation.
Senator McCarthy. If I may finish, I want to call attention to the
fact that Mr. Wallace was for a time the editor of that paper, and
the Chair may not think he is ])ro-Connnunist. I think he is, and as
far as I know the magazine has not changed its policy in the slightest
since Wallace left, in fact it almost seemed that Wallace was a stabiliz-
ing influence on that paper, if anyone could call Wallace that in any-
thing.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that covers exhibits in the Duran case.
Senator Tydings. The confidential exhibits furnished by the wit
nesses will be held by the connnittee until the whole connnittee author
izes in whole or in part their release.
Senator McCarthy. I am going to give the chairman another photo
stat — I think that had better be given later to the committee staff.
STATE DEPARTAIEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 125
Mr, Chairman, while out making some Lincohi Day si^eeches, I also
mentioned another name which has been shrugged off by the State
-Department. I wouUl like to read what T said about this individual,
very briefly.
Senator Gkeex. May I ask a question ?
Senator Tydings. Senator Green w^onld like to ask a question.
Senator Grkex. In that connection, Senator, would you like to put
into the record all your speeches on this subject?
Senator ]McCartiiy. If the Senator wants my speeches, he most cer-
tainly can have them.
Seiiator Tydixgs. Will you i)ut in both the written speeches and the
oral speeches, because as I recall your testimony, you stated on the
floor that you spoke without notes out at Wheeling, at least.
Senator McCarthy. Not at Wheeling, at Reno, Nev.
Senator Tydixgs. Well, at Keno; and. we would like to have both
the written speech and the oral speech.
Senator McCarthy. I am glad to know the Chair is so interested in
my speeches. I will give him a complete file I have made.
Senator Tydixgs. The Chair is interested in everything you have
to say about this hearing, from the time it started until it ends.
Senator McCarthy. Here is what was said about this man Harlow
Shapley.
I said you will recall last spring there was held in New York what
was known as a World Peace Conference ■
Senator Tytjings. Do you have copies of this ?
Senator McCxVEthy. I am reading from the Congressional Record.
This conference was labeled by the State Department, and Mr. Tru-
man, as a sounding board of Communist propaganda and a front for
Russia. Mr. Harlow Shapley was a chairman of that conference. In-
terestingly enough, according to a news release put out by the State
Department in July, the Secretary of State appointed Shapley on a
commission which acts as liaison with UNESCO and the State De-
partment.
After I made my Lincoln Day speech, the State Department,
through its Under Secretary John Peurifoy, had this to say in his press
release of February 13, 1950, concerning Dr. Shapley :
Di-. Shapley has never been an employee of the Department of State. How-
ever, in 104"), he served as a nienib'r of the Amerie:in dolesation at the UNESCO
Conference in London ; and in 11!46 to the International Astronomical Union at
Copenhagen.
Dr. Shapley is a member of the National Commission for UNESCO, repre-
senting the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
I submit that this statement in Mr. Peurifov's press release is a mis-
representation of the true facts concerning Dr. Shapley's association
with our Department of State.
Keep in mind, this is the man who headed the peace conference
which the Secretary labeled as a sounding board for Russia.
Senator Tydixos, Senator McCarthy, my two colleagues are asking
me questions which I will attempt to clear up.
Is this one of the cases you outlined on the Senate floor by number?
Senator McCarthy. No; this is one of the men I mentioned in
talking, one that the Secretary had referred to in a news release, and
I assure the Chair that whenever I refer to one of those cases men-
tioned on the Senate floor, I will give him the number.
126 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
The full facts concerninfy Dr. Shapley and the facts that the State
Department's press release conveniently omitted are these:
Dr. Shapley was appointed to the National Commission for
UNESCO by the Secretary of State in May 1947 to fill an unexpired
term, and he was reappointed to that position by the Secretary of
State in June 1947 for a second term on the Commission, which expires
in April of this year.
Not only was Dr. Shapley twice appointed to the National Com-
mission by the predecessor of the present Secretary of State, in
accordance with the provisions of Public Law 565 of the Seventy-
ninth Congress, but his transportation expenses and $10 per diem are
also paid by the State Department, in accordance with the provisions
of Public Law 565.
I am at a complete loss to understand how the State Department
could seek to avoid responsibility for Dr. Shapley's appointment and
continuance on the National Commission, in view of these uncon-
troverted facts.
As a matter of fact,'! know that John Peurifoy had all of these
facts in his possession concerning the appointment and payment of
expenses for Dr. Shapley at the National Commission at the time his
misleading press release of February 13 was issued to the public.
I know that because I have a letter from John Peurifoy, dated Feb-
ruary 16, 1950, in which he furnished me with the facts concerning
Shapley's appointments and compensation, in accordance with Public
Law 565.
Now I personally do not blame John Peurifoy for attempting to
mislead the public and whitewash the State Department in that press
release. I have known Peurifoy to be an upright, honest individual,
and I for one am convinced that he is issuing these misleading half
truths to the American public on orders from higher ups.
It is inconceivable that the Secretary of State should be condemning
the Communist-inspired Scientific and Cultural Conference for World
Peace on the one hand, and retaining Dr. Harlow Shapley, one of
its main organizers, in an important position with UNESCO, on the
other.
As this committee well knows, the power to appoint carries with it
the power to dismiss unless definite restrictions are placed on the
appointing authority, which they are not in the case of Dr. Shapley.
Furthermore, inasmuch as State Department funds are being used to
pay the traveling expenses and per diem of Dr. Shapley's at the
National Commission, there is no reason why he could not be sum-
marily dismissed from that position by Secretary Acheson under the
broad powers of the so-called McCarran rider.
Dr. Shapley's active participation in the Soviet Peace Conference
is not the last nor only Communist-front with which this man has
been affiliated. His record with Communist fronts is a long and
interesting one.
Now, I have here, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take the com-
mittee's time to dwell on each one, in view of the fact that the Secretary
himself has said this man headed an outfit which was a sounding board
of Communism, but I have here in my hand, a list of some 36 Com-
munist-front organizations which this individual has belonged to,
and if the Chair's staff is interested
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 127
Senator Tydixgs. Tliey ^vill bo ])rinted in the record at this point.
Senator McCarthy. I will be glad to give them to him.
1. Joint Aiiti-Fascist Refugee Committee, sponsor (letterhead dated September
8. 1044) (also letterhead of April 2S, 1040) .
2. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee ("onuuittre, eliairnian. reception committee for
Irene Joliot-Curie, a leading French Conuuunist fronter and wife of
Fredericlv Joliot-Curie, top-ranking French Conununist Party member
(invitation to the dinner, March ;U, 1948).
3. Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee, speaker (the Worker, October 31,
1047).
4. Fraternal Outlook, official ori:an of the International Workers Order, inter-
view, March 1042. p. 12.
5. Natiomxl Federation for Constitutional Liberties, Signer of Statement on
i.ssuance of commissions to Communists (Daily Worker, March 18, 104.5).
6. Progressive Citizens of America, attack on motion picture industry for firing
Communists (Daily Worker, November 26, 1047).
7. Progressive Citizens of America, vice chairman (PCA Politics, October 1047).
8. Progressive Citizens of America, chairman, cultural freedom conference
(Daily Worker, October 27, 1047).
9. Progressive Citizens of America, honorary chairman, Massachusetts chapter
(the Progressive Citizen, March 1947).
10. Progressive Citizens of America, Conference on Thought Control in the
IL S. A. (pamphlet. 1947).
11. Progressive Citizens of America, delegate, national convention (release of
list of delegates, 1948).
12. Progressive Citizens of America, speaker on behalf of Hollywood Communists
(dinner pi-ogram, March 1948).
13. National Conuuittee to Defeat the Mundt Bill (pamphlet: Hey, Brother,
There's a Law Against You) (also release dated June 1.5, 1040).
14. League of American Writers, signer of open letter (Daily Worker, July 31,
1040).
15. Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions,
vice chairman (letterhead. May 1046).
16. Independent Citizens Committee of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions,
initiating sponsor (Daily Woi'ker, December 24, 1944).
Ma}'^ I call attention to the fact that most of the organizations with
which Harlow Shapley has been associated get their pnblicity ex-
chisivelv in the Dailv Worker, the official organ of the Communist
Party.
17. Congress of American Women, an affiliate of the Soviet-controlled Women's
International Democratic Federation, speaker (Daily Worker, September
2.3, 1047).
18. American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom, member,
national committee (letterhead, September 22, 1939).
19. Signer of statement defending," Isadore Rubin, Communist writer (Daily
Worker, January 16, 1948).
20. Teachers Union, speaker (New York Times, April 18, 1949).
I might point ont that this organization has been cited as Communist
by a number of witnesses before the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary,
21. New York Conference for Inalienable Rights, signer of open telegram
(Daily Worker. September 17, 1040).
22. United Public Workers — an organization which was thrown out of the
CIO for being Communist — speaker (Daily Worker, April 16, 1948).
23. Bill of Rights Ccmference of the Civil Rights Congress, sponsor (Daily
Worker, June 17. 1040).
24. Council for I'an American Democracy, open letter defending Luiz Carlos
Prestes, leading Brazilian Communist Party official (New Masses, De-
cember 3, 1940).
25. National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights, signer of open letter
(Daily Worker, May 13, 1940).
26. New Masses, official Conuuunist periodical, signer of oi>en letter (New
Masses, April 2, 1940) .
128 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
27. Spanish Refugee Appeal, national sponsor (letterhead dated February 26,
1946).
28. Conference Asainst Anti-Communist Legislation, speaker (Washington
Times-Herald, April 28, 1948).
29. Citizens United to Abolish the Wood-Rankin Conmiittee, supporter (New
York Times, March 14, 1946, paid advertisement).
30. American Russian Institute, speaker (Daily Worker, May 20, 1947).
31. American Russian Institute, member, board of trustees (New York Times,,
December 12, 1947).
32. Statement in defense of Gerhard Eisler (Daily Worker, June 28, 1947).
Eisler is, of course, the notorious International Communist agent
who escaped on the Polish liner Batory last year. Incidentally, the
affection between these two was mutual, because Eisler spoke in praise
of Harlow Shapley in a piece entitled "My Side of the Story," page 6.
33. Conference on Cultural Freedom and Civil Liberties (PCA Politics, October
1947).
34. Committee of One Thousand, sponsor (press release, March 5, 1948).
3ii. Attack on United States P'oreign Policy in Greece (New York Times, Septem-
ber 10, 1947).
36". Committee for the First Amendment (pamphlet, p. 5).
Mr. Chairman, in their recent testimony before the Senate Appro-
priations Committee, both Mr. Acheson and Mr. Peurifoy stated that
homosexuals are regarded as poor security risks. These State De-
partment officials pointed out in that testimony that some 91 homo-
sexuals, whom they considered to be people of moral weaknesses, were
asked to resign from the Department.
I agree, and I am sure that no one here will disagree, with the official
position of the State Department; namely, that homosexuals are poor
security risks.
Senator Tydings. Just a minute.
We will have a little less confusion in the chamber, please, a little
less noise.
Proceed, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. The case I will now discuss involves a man who
is not only reported to be a homosexual, but he was arrested for sexual
perversion.
Because of the sordid details of this case — and until the committee
has had ample opportunity to investigate the matter — I will not make
public the name of this man, but I will give to the connnittee the full
details concerning this case, including the name of the individual in-
volved, for their executive consideration.
This individual was employed in the Foreign Service and the State
Department until 1948 when he resigned for reasons unknown to me.
I had received information from several sources that this man
was a notorious homosexual. A check of the records of the Metropoli-
tan Police Department indicated that these reports were true. I now
hand the Chair, for your executive consideration, a copy of a police
report, together with a police photograph and the official biography
of this individual as it appeared in the State Department Register
of April, 1948.
I suggest that not be displayed.
Senator Tydings. The Chair will hold it until after the hearing,
and then we will have a short executive session if necessary.
The first name here is the last name, is it not, on that biography yoM
liave just given us?
Senator McCarthy. Let me look at the copy.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IX\E!STIGAT10N 129
Senator Tydings. The lirst name?
Senator McCarthy. The first name is the hist name.
All of this material, as I said, is being given for your executive con-
sideration, as I do not desire to make his name public at this time for
the reason stated above.
You will note from the police records that this man was arrested
on September 8, 1943. The charge was sexual perversion and the
police report states that he was known to hang out at the men's room,
at Lafayette Park in AVashington.
This man is getting about $i*2.U00 a year now.
He was chaiged with disorderly conduct in connection with his per-
verted activities. I do not have the record of the disposition of this
case available, but I am informed that he was required to post col-
lateral of $25 on this charge and forfeited collateral.
As I ])reviously said, this man resigned from the State Depart-
ment in 1U48 and shortl}- thereafter became employed in one of the
most sensitive agencies of our Government where he now holds an
important and high-paying position. I am prepared to furnish the
name of that agency for the executive consideration of this com-
mittee.
Senator Tydixgs. Seiuitor McCarthy, you say it is one of the most
sensitive agencies of ours ? Is it the State Department ?
Senator McCarthy. It is the CIA.
Senator Tydixgs. He was in the State Department?
Senator McCarthy. He was in the State Department, in 1948, and
went from there to the CIA, that is the Central Intelligence Agency.
Senator Tydixgs. It is not under the State Department at the
present time, is it ?
Senator McCarthy. Let us make this clear, so the wrong man will
not be suspected : He is not one of the main officials in the CIA.
Senator Tydixgs. I understand that : but he was in the State De-
partment, according to your testimony?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Senator Tydixgs. He is not now in the State Department, but is over
working in the CIA ?
Senator McCarthy. That is right, and at a salary of somewhere
around ten or twelve thousand dolhirs a year, as I recall.
Furthermore, I have been informed that the files of the State Depart-
ment and other investigative departments of the Government contain
these and other facts concerning the homosexuality of this Federal
employee.
In view of this man's criminal record, which I have just presented
to the committee, and other information concerning his lack of moral
fitness, I am at a loss to understand why he was allowed to resign
from the State Department. I might say, in connection with that,
it seems unusual to me, in that we have so many normal people, so
many competent Americans, that we must employ so numy very,
very unusual men in Washington. It certainly gives the country an
odd idea of the type of individuals who are running things down here.
Again refeiring to ]Slr. Peurifoy's recent testimony before the Senate
A])propriations Committee. I wish to point out that Mr. Peurifoy
infoi'med that committee that he has experienced difficulty in having
security risks fired from the De])artment. In his testimony, Mr. Peuri-
foy said that at one point he reconnnended the dismissal of 10 poor
130 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
security risks from the Department under the provisions of the Mo-
Carran rider but that his recommendations were overruled and only
one of these men was fired.
He did state, I believe, the other nine were allowed to resign, I assume
so they could take over some other Government jobs.
As I said earlier in this statement, I do not know why the indi-
vidual who is the subject of my present case was allowed to resign;
but I think it is the responsibility of this committee to find out the
full facts concerning his resignation.
I also believe that the committee should immediately determine how
this individual was able to stay in the Department for almost 5 years
after he was arrested on a morals charge in Washington, D, C. I
also think the committee should find out how he, after leaving the
State Department, was able to get a top-salaried, important position
in another sensitive Government agency. It should be of considerable
interest to this committee to find out who sponsored this individual
or who intervened in his behalf in both the State Department and
his present place of employment.
I feel that this case is of sufficient importance for the committee to
take immediate action.
Would the Chair like to wait until they bring the copies for the
members of the committee, for the next case, or shall I proceed?
Senator Tydixgs. How long will it be, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. About a minute.
Senator Tydixgs. We will wait.
(There was a short pause.)
Senator McCarthy. JNIr. Chairman, before these are handed to the
press, I ask that these documents be marked "Exhibit 35."
Senator Tymngs. All right, Senator, proceed.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, this is one of those so-called old
cases, but it is very new in some respects. We find in this case, and the
Chair's staff should check on this immediately — in this case you will
find that the State Department's loyalty board has again picked up this
case very recently, and again they have given a clean bill of health to
this individual.
However, a week ago last Friday, the Civil Service Commission's
appeals loyalty board, in this particular case, made what is known as
a post-audit. In that post-audit the case w^as sent back to the State
Department loyalty board, not only with the statement that they were
dissatisfied with the results but with the recommendation that the State
Department loyalty board that sat upon that case not be allowed to sit
upon it again, but that a new board be convened.
So, I want to make it clear, when I talk about this man's danger as a
security risk, that the Civil Service Commission has, as reecntly as a
week ago last Friday, rather wholeheartedly agreed, and went so far as
to say "We think you should have a different loyalty board sitting on
this case next time.''
This case is that of John Stewart Service.
This man is a Foreign Service officer of the Department of State and
at the moment is in Calcutta, India, where he is helping determine the
all-important policy of our Government toward India.
The name of John Stewart Servi(^e is not new to the men in the Gov-
ernment who nnist pass on a governmental employee's fitness as a se-
curity risk.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 131
When Mr. Penrifoy testified before the Senate Appropriations Com-
mittee, he said that Service had been cleared four different times.
It is my nnderstandinji that the mnnbei- lias now risen to five and I
earnestly request that this committee ascei'tain immediately if Service
Mas not considered as a bad security risk by the loyalty appeal board
of the Civil Service Commission, in a post-audit decision, handed down
on March 3 of this year.
I understand that this Board returned the file of Mr. Service to the
State Department with the report that they did not feel that they
could give him clearance and requested that a new board be appointed
for the consideration of this case.
To indicate to the committee tlie im])ortance of this man's position
as a security risk to the Government. I think it should be noted that he
is one of the dozen top policy makers in the entire Department of State
on far-eastern policy.
He is one of the small, potent group of "untouchables" who year after
year formulate and carry out the plans for the Department of State
and its dealings with foreign nations; particularlv, those in the Far-
East.
The Communist affiliations of Service are well known.
His background is crystal clear.
He was a friend and associate of Frederick Vanderbilt Field, the
Communist chairman of the editorial board of the infamous
Amerasia.
Half of the editorial board of this magazine were pro-Communist
members of the State Department and the committee is in possession
of these names.
On June 6, 1945. the Federal Bureau of Investigation, after an ex-
ceedingly painstakino- and careful investigation covering months, ar-
rested Philip J. Jaffe, Kate Louise Mitchell, editor and coeditor of
Amerasia : Andrew Eoth, a lieutenant in the United States Naval Re-
serve stationed in Washington : Emmanuel Sigurd Larsen ; and John
Stewart Service, who were employees of the State Department — this is
the same John S. Service to whom I have just referred and wdio is pres-
ently representing the State Department in Calcutta, India; also
Mark Julius Gayn, a magazine writer of New York City, who is about
to leave for Russia.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that while I believe some of the mem-
bers of the committee may be fully aware of the chronological record,
I think it is important that I put iii all the details for the record.
Senator Tydings. All right, go ahead.
Senator McCarthy. They were arrested on charges of espionage in
connection with the theft of the following Government records :
Classified documents from the State Department, including some top
secret and confidential classification 360
Prepared by ONI 163
Prepared liy MID 42
Prepared by OWI 53
From the files of the War Department 9
Now, some of the important documents picked np by the FBI at the
time of the arrest were as follows, and I call this to the committee^s
attention.
First: One document marked "secret" and obviouslv originating m
the Navy Department dealt with the schedule and targets for the bomb-
132 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USTS'-EISTIGATTON
ing of Japan. This particular document was known to be in the pos-
session of Philip Jaffe, one of the defendants, during the early spring
of 1945 and before the program had been effected. Tliat information
in the hands of our enemies could have cost us many precious Ameri-
can lives.
Second : Another document, also marked "top secret" and likewise
originating in the Navy Department, dealt with the disposition of
the Japanese Fleet subsequent to the major naval battle of October
1944, and gave the location and class of each Japanese warship. What
€onceivable reason or excuse could there be for these people, or anyone
else without authority, to have that information in their possession
and at the same time claim they are entitled to it because of freedom
of the press? That was the excuse they offered. They stole this docu-
ment for no good purpose.
Third : Another document stolen from the Office of Postal and Tele-
graph Censorship was a secret report on the Far East and so stamped
as to leave no doubt in anybody's mind that the mere possession of it
by an unauthorized person was a clear violation of the Espionage Act,
This was not an antiquated paper but of current and vital interest to
our Government and the Nation's welfare.
Fourth : Another document stolen was from the Office of Military
Intelligence and consisted of 22 pages containing information obtained
irom Japanese prisoners of war.
Fifth : Another stolen document, particularly illuminating and of
present great importance to our policy in China, was a lengthy detailed
report showing complete disposition of the units in the army of
Chiang Kai-shek, where located, how placed, under whose command,
naming the units, division by division, and showing their military
strength.
Many of the stolen documents bear an imprint which reads as
follows :
This document contains information aftVctinii' tlie national dofense of tlie
United States within the meaning of the Espionage Act, 50 United States Code
31-32, as amended. Its transmission or the revelation of its contents in any
manner to an unauthorized person is prohihited by law.
Despite the very small circulation of approximately 1,700 copies of
this magazine it had a large photo-copying department. According
to Congressman Dondero, who sjionsored the resolution for the inves-
tigation of the grand jury, this department was working through the
Flight, into the small hours of morning, and even on Sundays. It
could reproduce the stolen documents — and undoubtedly did — and
distribute them into channels to serve subversive purposes, even into
the clenched fists raised to destroy our Government.
In June 1944, Amerasia commenced attacks upon Joseph C. Grew,
who had during his stay in the State Department rather vigorously
o])posed the clique which favored scuttling Chiang Kai-shek and al-
lowing the Communist element in China to take over,
Larsen, one of the codefendants in this case, subsequently wrote a
lengthy report on this matter. I would like to quote briefly from parts
of that report.
Here is his quote :
Behind the now-famous State Department espionage case, involving the arrest
of six persons of whom T was one. an arrest which shocked the Nation on June 7,
1945, is the story of a highly organized campaign to switch American policy in
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 133
the Far East from its long-established course to the Soviet line. It is a story
which has never been told before in full. Many sensational, though little ex-
plained, developments such as the General Htilwell affair, the resignation of
Undersecretary Joseph C. Grew and Ambassador Patricli Hurley and the emer-
gence of a pro-Soviet bloc in the Far Eastern Division of the State Department,
are interlaced with the case of the six, as the episode became known. * * *
It is the mysterious whitewash of the chief actors of the espionage case which
the Congress has directed to the Hobbs committee to investigate. But from be-
liiiid that whitewasli tliere emerges tiie pattern of a major operation i)erformed
upon Uncle Sam witliout his being conscious of it. That oiteration vitally affects
our main ramparts in the Pacific. In consequence of this operation General
Marshall was sent on a foredoomed mission to China designed to promote Soviet
expansion on our Asiatic frontier. It was a mission which could not but come
to grief and whicli may yet bring untold sorrow to the American people.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator McCarthy, the report from which you
are readinj^ does not show whether or not you are still quoting Larsen,
but I take it that you are.
Do you see the quotation marks ?
Senator ^McCarthy. I will tell the Chair when I finish the quote.
Senator Tydixgs. If you will do that, we can follow it better.
Senator McCarthy. I will do that, sir.
How did it happen that the United States began to turn in 1944 upon its loyal
ally, the Chiang Kai-^hek Government, which had for 7 years fought Japan, and
to assume the spon^rship of the rebel Communist regime which collaborated
with the Japanese during the period of the Stalin-Hitler pact? How did it come
to pass that Washington since 1944 has been seeking to foist Communist mem-
bers upon the sole recognized and legitimate government of China, a maneuver
equivalent to an attempt by a powerful China to introduce Earl Browder and
William Z. Foster into key positions in the United States Government? How did
it transpire that our top-ranking military leader, General Marshall, should have
promoted an agreement in China under which American officers would be train-
ing and equipping rebel Chinese Communist units at the very time when they
were ambushing our marines and when Communists the world over were waging
a war of nerves upon the United States?
Whose was the hand which forced the sensational resignation of Under Sec-
retary of State Joseph C. Grew and his replacement by Dean Acheson? And
was the same hand responsible for driving Ambassador Patrick Hurley into a
blind alley and retirement?
The Chair will notice the quotation marks there. That will indi-
cate the end of that quotation.
In describing the arrest, Larsen had this to say about his arrival
at the office of the United States Commissioner :
There I found myself sitting next to John Stewart Service, a leading figure in
the pi-o-Soviet group in the China Section of the State Department, and to Lt.
Andrew Roth, liaison officer between the Office of Naval Intelligence and the
State Department, whom I also knew as an adherent of pro-Soviet policies.
Both of them were arrested separately the same night in Washington.
Larsen then goes on to describe John Stewart Service, John P.
Davies, Jr., and John Carter Vincent as the pro-Soviet group in the
China Section whose views were reflected by Amerasia and whose mem-
bers were in close touch with Jaife and Roth. In connection with this,
it will be remembered that John Service, as Stilwell's political adviser
accompanied a highly secret military commission to Yenan. Upon
the return of this mission, you will recall that Stilwell demanded that
Chiang Kai-shek allow him to equip and arm some oOO,()()0 Commu-
nists. Chiang Kai-shek objected on the grounds that this was part of
a Soviet plot to build up the rebel forces to the extent that they would
control China, (^hiang Kai-shek promptly requested the recall of
Stihvell and President Roosevelt wisely relieved Stilwell of his com-
134 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVE'STIGATION
mand. It was at this time that Service submitted his report No. 40 to
the State Department, which accordino; to Hurley, was a plan for the
I'emoval of support from the Chiang Kai-shek government with the
end result that the Communists would take over.
The espionage cases apparently had their origin when a British
Intelligence Unit called attention to material being published in
Amerasia which was embarrassing its investigations.
Preliminary investigations conducted at that time by OSS disclosed
classified State Department material in the possession of Jafie and
Mitchell. The FBI men then took over and reported that in the
course of its quest it was found that John Stewart Service was in com-
munication from China with Jaffe. The substance of some of Serv-
ice's confidential messages to the State Department reached the offices
of Amerasia in New York before they arrived in Washington. One
of the papers found in Jaffe's possession was document No. 58, one of
Service's secret reports, entitled "Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek —
Decline of his Prestige and Criticism of and Opposition to his Lead-
ership."
In the course of the FBI investigation Amerasia was revealed as
the center of a group of active and enthusiastic Communists or fellow
travelers. To give you a better picture of Amerasia, it perhaps should
be mentioned here that Owen Lattiuiore was formerly an editor of
Amerasia, and Frederick Vanderbilt Field, a writer for the Daily
Worker, was the magazine head. Mr. Jaife incidentally was nat-
ui-alized in 1923 and served as a contributing editor of the Defender,
a monthly magazine of International Laljor Defense, a Communist
organization, in 1933. From 1934 to 1936 he had been a member of
the editorial board of China Today, which was a publication of the
pro-Soviet American PMends of the Chinese People. At that time
he operated under the alias of J. W. Philips. Under the name of
J. W. Philips, he presided in 1935 over a banquet at which Earl
Browder was a speaker — speaking now of a man whom Service was
in close contact while in China.
He also lectured at the Jefferson School of Social Science, an avowed
Communist Party institution. He was also a member of the board of
directors of the National Council of American Soviet Friendship.
The New York Times, subsequent to his arrest, referred to him as an
active supporter of pro-Communist and pro-Soviet movements for a
lunnber of years.
According to an article in Plain Talk magazine Jaffe has been a
liberal contributor to pro-Soviet causes and that on one occasion
he reserved two tables at a hotel banquet held to launch a pro-Com-
munist China front in the name of "The Fifth Floor, 35 East Twelfth
Street," which incidentally happens to be the National Headquarters
of the Communist Party.
I realize that this history of JafFe's activities is unnecessary for most
of the members of this investigating body, but I feel that the record
should be complete so that anyone who reads it will understand the
background of the individual to whom his four codefendants had been
delivering secret State and War Department material. His coeditor.
Miss Mitchell, gave a party for John S. Service when he returned from
China. Service had previously attended a special press conference
held by the Institute of Pacific Relations, in which he supported the
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 135
position of the Chinese Communists. The committee will recall that
the California committee cited the Institute of Pacific Relations as a
Conunnnist-front oroanization.
Larsen had this to say about his codefenclants :
I knew JalTe and his group as the editor of a magazine which had almost
semiofficial standing among the left wingers in the State Department.
The niojht Kate Mitchell was arrested, she had in her possession,
accordino- to Conirressman Dondero. a hifrhly confidential document
entitled "Plan of Battle Operation for Soldiers," a paper of such im-
portance that Army officers were subject to court martial if they lost
their copies.
Con<j:ressman Frank Fellows, a member of tlie Committee on the
Judiciary which investigated the grand jury which failed to indict
Service — incidentally, the committee's report shows that some of the
members of the grand jury voted for his indictment; that is in the
House report — wrote a minority report in which he stated :
The author of the resolution under which this committee assumed jurisdiction
stated upon the floor of the House, "The President authorized the arrest to be
made and the arrests were forbidden by the State Department."
Under Secretary Joseph C. Grew very urgently insisted upon a pro-
secution of the six individuals who were picked up by the FBI oil
charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. He thereupon immedi>
ately became a target in a campaign of vilification as the culprit in
the case rather than the six who had been picked up by the FBI.
I wish the committee would keep in mind when we are talking about
Service we are talking about the same Service whose loyalty report
was sent back to the State Department on March 3, 10 days ago, with
the request that they look it over again and appoint a new board
this time. It is the same Service, so there are some men over in the
Civil Service Commission loyalty board who certainly are loyalty
conscious.
Lieutenant Roth wrote a series of articles for a New York paper
and published a book in which he vigorously attacked Grew for his
opposition to the Communist sympathizers in the State Department
insofar as the far-eastern policy was concerned.
Under Secretary Grew, after a lifetime in the diplomatic service,
resigned, and President Truman announced that Dean Acheson would
take over the post of Under Secretary of State.
''During my conference with Mr. Jaffe in October," Larsen said,
'•he dropped a remark which one could never forget," and here is
what Jaffe had to say : "Well, Ave've suffered a lot, but anyhow we
got Grew out."
I might say that in the article in which I am quoting Larsen, the
article in Plain Talk, he quotes Joe Davies as saying that one of the
conditions of Acheson's taking over was the resignation of Grew.
Tliat is the quotation from Larsen's article in Plain Talk.
In regard to the legal handling of this case, the following is found
in Plain Talk in an article by Larsen :
While public attention was largely focused upon extraneous issues, the Espi-
onage case itself was following a special course behind the scenes. It appeared
that Kate Mitchell —
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 10
136 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVE'STIGATION
one of the coeditors of Amerasia and one of the codefendants —
had an influential uncle in Buffalo, a reputable attorney by the name of James
M. Mitchell, former president of the New York State Bar Association. Mr.
Mitchell was a member of a very influential law firm in Buffalo, Keneflck, Cooke,
Mitchell, Bass & Letch worth. The New York City correspondents of that law
firm include the most redoubtable Col. Joseph M. Hartfield, extremely well known
and extremely influential in Government circles in Washington. Col. Hartfield,
who is regarded by some as one of the most powerful political lawyers in the
country, made at least four trips to Washington where he called on top officials
of the Department of Justice in the matter.
In that connection I would like to quote a<^ain from Congressman
Dondero's talk on the House floor, in which he stated :
I have lieretofore charged and reiterated now that the court before whom these
cases were brought was not fully informed of the facts. A summary of the
court proceedings has been furnished to me, which shows no evidence or exliibit
obtained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation presented to the court.
This, incidentally, was not the FBI's case. They were not trying the
case. They merely presented the evidence.
.Jaffe's counsel told the court that Jaffe had no intention of harming the Govern-
ment, and United States Attorney Hitchcock told the court there was no element
of disloyalty in connection with the case. If that is the fact, may I respectfully
ask wliat purpose did these individuals have in mind in stealing these particular
files?
Had this same thing happened in certain other governments, these people would
undoubtedly have been summarily shot, without a trial. Let us not forget we
were still at war at that time with Germany and Japan when these files were
stolen, and Jaffe, in whose possession they were found, had been for more than
10 years a leader and heavy financial supporter of Communist propaganda causes,
according to the FBI.
As I stated above, after the grand jury failed to indict Mitchell,
Service, and Roth, the House passed a resolution in wliich it directed
( he Committee on the Judiciary —
to make a thorough investigation of all the circumstances with resrect to the
disposition of the charges of espionage and the possession of documents stolen
from secret Government files which were made by the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation "against Philip J. Jaffe, Kate L. INIitchell, John Stewart Service,
Emmanuel Sigurd Larsen, Andrew Roth, and Mark Gayn," and to report to the
House (or to the Clerk of the House, if the House is not in session) as soon as
practicable during the present Congress, the results of its investigation, to-
gether with such recommendations as it deems necessary.
In this connection let me point this out to the committee. When
I mentioned John Stewart Service in February of this year the
State Department then prepared a press release, something to tell
the people what had happened in this case, of course. In that they
stated that Joltn Stewart Service had been cleared four times. One
of the times they refer to is the Hotise investigation of the grand
jury. They failed to tell the people that a number of the members of
that grand jur}', but not the required 12, voted for the indictment of
Service. They failed to tell the public that that grand jury, as I will
point out later, in effect has said, as I can show, that it is not a ques-
tion of guilt that they were going into —
we are concerned with a question of whether or not the evidence was in such
fashion that it could be presented to the court to prove the guilt.
Now, if that is what the State Department calls a clearance, when
less than the 12 votes are present for indictment, then I say there
is somebody wlio has a bad conception of the loyalty rules and regu-
lations in that Dej)artment.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 137
This committee then confirmed a report of a theft of a vast number
of documents from the State, War, and Navy Departments', which
i'an<2ed in classification all the way from top secret to confidential.
Tliis connnittee report indicates that a nnnioer of tlie members of
the grand jury voted for the indictment of Service and Mitchell on
the espionage charges, but that the required number of 12 did not so
vote.
It will be noted that the connnittee was not appointed for the pur-
pose of passing upon the guilt or innocense of the espionage suspects,
l)ut the connnittee was appointed for the purpose of investigating the
Avay that the case was handled and to make recommendations. The
committee did not in any way question the theft of the documents.
Incidentally, the committee said nothing to indicate that they thought
Service was not guilty. Howevi-r, it seemed to place a great deal of
stress upon the fact that the documents might not be admissible in
evidence because of the method of obtaining them.
For example, on page 5 the report states as follows :
4. Mauy of the identifiable documents might have had their evidential value
desitroyed* by reason of tlie possibility of the court's sustaining the defendants'
motions nrtai-liing the warrants of arrest.
VL Judicial decisions require scrupulous care to see that searches and seizures
are reasonable. While search and seizure on arrest may be made without a
search warrant, yet this is not so unless the warrant of arrest issued after
"probable cause" of guilt had been established by legal evidence.
On page 6 of the report the following statement is made :
If the warrant for arrest was not issued on "probable cause" substantiated
by facts, the evidence disclosed as a result of the search and seizure incident
to the arrest based on such a warrant should be subject to suppression and,
therefore, not usable as evidence of the crime for whicli the arrest was made.
I think this is extremely important in considering this Service case
and considering any statements that he was cleared by this grand
jury. The House committee, in effect, says that the reason they are
not taking action, not against Service — they had no right to take
action against Service — the House committee says :
The retison we are not taking action against the grand .iury in this case is
because, while in effect all of those documents were stolen —
some foiu' or five hundred ; I forget the luunber —
they were ol)tained in such a manner by the FBI, under the search warrant,
that perhaps they could not be effectively used in convicting these men —
the six individuals who had stolen them.
Senator Ttdixgs. We understand your point, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. I want to make it very clear in the record.
I am speaking not only for the committee but trying to make a very
complete record in all these cases, Mr. Chairman.
Wliile I have not seen any testimony of any of the grand jurors
themselves, and do not know whether it is available or not, the above
would seem to indicate that the committee felt that the grand jury
was disturbed, not so much by the question of guilt or innocence of
the defendants but by the question as to whether or not the guilt or
innocence could lie proven. They apparently felt that much of the
material would not be admissible because of the method of search
138 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVE'STIGATION"
and seizure. The following comment will be noted on page 7 of the^
committee report :
Most of the items seized at Jaffe's ottice were typewritten copies. Some of such,
copies were proved to have been typed in one of the Government departments..
It may be fairly inferred that the originals of such copies were never removed,
but that copies were made at the department or auency where the original
reposed.
Let me cite this for the benefit of the lawyers, especially, on the
committee. Here is what the committee report says in accnsing the-
grand jury. They say :
Most of the items seized at Jaffe's office were typewritten copies. Some of
such copies were proved to have been typed in one of the Government depart-
ments. It may be fairly inferred that the originals of siich copies were never
removed but that copies were made at the department or agency where the-
original reposed.
This seems to make it very clear that the committee, for some
unknown reason, felt that making copies of secret documents and then
delivering the copies to unauthorized persons placed the crime in a
diiferent class than if they had delivered the originals. It is rather
cliiRcult to understand this reasoning, in view of the fact that photo-
stats or copies of an impoi'tant secret document would normally be of
the same value to any enemy power as the original.
The committee further pointed out that an additional reason for
not finding the grand jury at fault is because any of the six: can still
be further prosecuted on the charge of espionage. That, of course,,
is no longer true. The statute of limitations has now run. The
majority report makes some excellent recommendations, which the
Secretary of State might well read. I especially call his attention to>
recommendations 1, 2, and 3 on page 9, which read as follows :
1. That the head of every department and agency of our Government see to-
it that more — much more — care be exercised in personnel procurement. That
all those considered for Government positions in every echelon be investigated
so tlK)roughly as to insure that no one be employed unless absolute certainty
has been attained that nothing in background, present attitude, or affiliations
I'aises any reasonable doubt of loyalty and patriotic devotion to the United
States of America.
That is very good advice for the Secretary of State if he will
follow it.
2. That the watchword and motivating principle of Grovernment
employment must be : None but the best. For the fewer, the better ,^
unless above question.
3. Again the recommendation of the House committee —
That each and every present employee who fails to measure up to the highest
standard should be discharged. No house divided against itself can stand.
One of the members of the six-man committee, Congressman Han-
cock, was prevented by illness from participating in the report. Two
of the members of the committee wrote dissenting opinions, which
meant that the decision to absolve the grand jury of responsibility
was made by a 3 to 2 decision.
There are other valuable recommendations made by that House
connnittee, recommendations with which I do not think anyone can
disagree.
I might say this : I am not criticizing the House committee for fail-
ing to recommend action against the grand jury. Wltile I think their
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVElSTIGATION 139
Teasonintr. wlion they say some of the docuinents were only copies and
tliei-efore they do not have the same strength as the originals, is rather
ridiculous, there were some competent hiwyers on that House com-
mittee. I understand, and I can see where they would decide that
even though the evidence was overwhelming to prove the guilt of
these six individuals, if the evidence were i^ot in such shape that it
•could be used in a court of law to convict under the circumstances,
they could well have said "We will not recommend any action against
the grand jury."
So that House committee, which was not considering the guilt of
Service but considering whether or not the grand jury was competent,
rendered a split decision, 3 to 2, and decided that they would not
hold the grand jury liable in this case, and that is the type of clear-
ance that the State Department refers to when they tell the country
"This man was cleared four times.''
Congressman Fellows, in his dissenting opinion, made the following
statement :
JafEe either took these docuaients himself, or his confederates took them
for him. And two of the documents found were top secret, so marked and so
desi.£nated. I can see no point in arguing that these papers may not have been
of much value. The thieves thought the.v were. The Government agencies
so ad.iudged them. And the facts show that the defendants could have had
their choice of an.v documents they wished ; they were given no protection so
far as the State Department was concerned.
That is the end of Congressman Fellows' quotation. He was a
member of the Un-American Activities Committee,
Tliis transaction, or rather a series of transactions involved, embraces the
unlawful removal of top secret, secret, confidential, and restricted flies from the
Department of State, in our National Government. This. .Air. Chairman, is a very
serious offense. In time of war, this is a most serious offense. When war is in
progress, or even in time of peace, it is of little or no concern whether the files
removed were originals or copies; the fact that information of either or any
classification was removed from the secret files in the Department of State and
was delivered to any individual, or group of individuals, who had no lawful
right to receive the same, is the essence of the offense.
I call the committee's attention to this. Here is where the majority
went wrong, for whether they were copies or originals, the crime was
the same :
Wlien that very secret information was thus unlawfully revealed to others, no
matter how the same was imparted to Mr. Jaffe, whetlier by an original, or by
copy, or by any other method, the real damage has been done.
There should not be any attempt made in the report to either minimize or
acquit anyone from the magnitude of the act or acts committed. The report
filed appears to at least attempt to either minimize or completely justify some
of the unlawful acts which were undoubtedly committed.
All of those who participated in any way in the i-emoval, or attempted removal,
of these documents from the Department of State, or who copied such reports
and thereafter delivered such copies to Mr. Jaffe, or to any other person, not
lawfully entitled to receive the same, should be prosecuted, and all those par-
ticii)ating. in any degree, in the unlawful acts under investigation should be
immediately discharged from their positions in our Government. The repoi't
should speak strongly and without any reservation upon that subject.
I might say, after this recommendation was made, Mr. Chairman, as
the Chair knows, not only was John Service reinstated, after they got
lid of Joe Grew, but he was placed subsequently in charge of promo-
tion and placement of personnel in the Far Eastern Division, or some
title such as that, so the State Department certainly did not take the
140 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVE'STIGATIGN'
advice of either the majority or the minority opinion of that com-
mittee.
Again quoting from the minority opinion :
• The questions here involved are so grave and the offenses so great that no
effort should be made to protect or defend those who so offended, but the report
should be made both firm and strong — to speak the truth — but to place the blame
where the same rightfully belongs.
This is but a small portion of the pertinent background of Service,
but certainly, beyond doubt, it forever excludes this man as a security
risk, no matter what yardstick is used, and again may I say I con-
gratulate the Civil Service Loyalty Appeals Board in this case,
though not in some of the others we will bring up, for having the in-
telligence and guts to send this back and say that: the State Depart-
ment loyalty board who cleared this man did wrong, and the next time
we don't want the same men sitting on the board, and I certainly hope
that the State Department follows the advice of the Civil Service
Loyalty Appeals Board.
Again we have a known associate and collaborator with Communists
and pro-Communists, a man high in the State Department, consorting
with admitted espionage agents, and I wish to say to this committee
what I said on the floor of the Senate on P'ebruary 20, 1950 :
When Chiang Kai-shek was fighting our war, the State Department had in
China a young man named John S. Service. His task, obviously, was not to
work for the coniniunization of China. Strangely, however, he sent oflicial re-
ports back to the State Department iirging that we torpedo our ally Chiang
Kai-shek and stating, in effect, that communism was the best hope of China.
Later this man — John Service — was picked up by the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation for turning over to the Communists secret State Department informa-
tion. Strangely, however, he was never prosecuted. However, Joseph Grew, the
Under Secretary of State, who insisted on his prosecution, was forced to resign.
Two days after Grew's successor. Dean Acheson, took over as Under Secretary
of State, this man John Service, who had been picked up by the FBI and who
had previously urged that communism was the best hope of China, was not only
reinstated in the State Department but promoted. And finally, under Acheson,
placed in charge of all placements and promotions.
I might say I think the Avord "all" should not have been in that
speech. I believe it was only in charge of placements and promotions
in the far-eastern area.
Mr. Chairman, today this man. John S. Service, is a ranking officer
in the policy-making group of "untouchables" on duty in Calcutta,
India, one of the most strategically important listening posts in the
w^orld today, and since the fall of China the most important new front
of the cold war.
Five times this man has been investigated as to his loyalty and his
acceptance as a security risk to the Nation.
Wliat possible reason could there have been for even a second in-
vestigation of his record?
He was not an acceptable security risk under Mr. Acheson's own
"yardstick of loyaltj- '■ the day he entered the Government.
He is not a sound security risk today.
I am going to try to finish out a short one. I would like permission
to finish it even if the bell does ring before I get through.
Senator Tydings. All right. Senator. We wdll give you the time.
Might I ask if you have an approximation of the amount of time
you would like to have to finish this?
STATE DEPARTME:NT employee loyalty INVEiSTIGATION 141
Senator McCarthy. It will take some time on this, Mr. Chairman.
Tlien I have a sizable number of names which I wish to present to the
committee, not in the public record but some for the staff, now that a
staff has been appointed. I cannot finish it between now and 12
o'clock.
Senator Tymngs. We will wait a little longer. Go ahead.
Senator McCarthy. I might say that I am very gratefid for the
fact that I have been able to put my case on in the manner that I have
been in the last 2 days. I want to thank the Senator very much.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator jNlcCarthy, of course we are going to re-
serve the right to ask you some questions. We are not doing it now
because we do not want to interrupt you.
Senator McCarthy. Absolutely, and I certainly will be here for
any questions you want to ask.
if the Chair wants to ask questions about the last case
Senator Tydixgs. Inasmuch as we have let them all go by with no
opportunity for interrogation, we will have to go back and fill in
things we will want to know.
Senator McCarthy. Very good.
I would like to mark these. Mr. Chairman, as exhibits 36, 37, 38
Senator Tydixgs. It has been suggested that you use the three
initials of the subject in each case. Then there probably won't be any
confusion.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, I can do that.
Senator Tydixgs. I think that will be a good way to handle it.
Senator McCarthy. I have already marked these.
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead and leave them that way.
Senator McCarthy. 39. 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, and 48.
Exhibits Nos. 36 to 48 I now offer as evidence in this case, if that
is agreeable to the Chair.
Senator Tydixgs. The exhibits will be printed at the appropriate
place in the Senator's remarks.
The Department of State of the United States operates with thou-
sands of employees and requires a tremendous budget which has
aided materially in placing on the American people the greatest tax
burden they have ever been called u])on to bear.
All but a_ small handful of those employees are honest and loyal
Americans. The State Department is their life work. They have
given to it years of service, unquestioned loyalty ; and they have served
it with great pride.
In the far-flung places of the world, these loyal men and women
have spent their lives and exercised all their ingenuity to give to their
De])artment and their Government every possible bit of information
and advice they thought useful.
Career employees of the State Department, by virtue of their long
residence in every foreign country on the globe and their close asso-
ciation, and many times friendship, with citizens and officials of those
countries, have had access to, have reported on, every phase of eco-
nomic and political affairs in the nations to which they are attached.
These are the real "experts" of the State Department.
It is a tragedy when we find the advice and experiences of such
outstandingly able employees stored in a multitude of steel filing
cases and disregarded while the Department of State's closed corpora-
tion of "'untouchables" call upon pro-Communist idealists, crackpots,
142 STATE DEPARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOIALTY INVESTIGATION
and, to put it mildly, "bad security risks" to advise them on American
diplomatic policy.
The next case I wish to call to the attention of the committee is that
of Prof. Frederick L. Schuman.
Dr. Schuman is on the faculty of Williams College and is a highly
placed lecturer with the Department of State.
It is the function of Dr. Schuman to explain how to be better diplo-
mats to veteran diplomats and career men of the State Department
in its Division of Training Services.
Senator Tydings. I do not know this gentleman or anything about
him. Might I ask you if he is an emi)loyee of the State DejDartment ?
Senator McCarthy. He is one of the lecturers, as I will show you.
His task has been to come in and lecture to young men sent out into
foreign fields and tell them how they should be guided.
Senator Tydings. I undei'stand that, but I do not know what his
status is. Is he an employee or not an emploj- ee ?
Senator McCarthy. Do you mean does he get paid for that ?
Senator Tydings. Both ways. Does he work for the State De-
partment?
Senator McCarthy. That, Mr. Chairman, is not a year-round job, I
understand. He is listed, I believe, as a consultant. If you call the
State Department and say "Is he working there?" if they check and
find he made no lecture today, which he obviously didn't, they will
undoubtedly tell you he is not working for the State Department.
He is one of the lecturers.
Senator Tydings. How often does he lecture ? Have you any idea ?
Do you know whether he is paid or not for those lectures ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know. In fact, I don't think that is
important.
Senator Tydings. We will find out. I thought maybe your record
might have it.
Senator McCarthy. I don't think it is a question of whether he is
paid. It is the fact that this man is picked, of all the competent, out-
standing Americans we have, to come and tell these young men who
are going into the field how they should act and what they should
do that is an unusual matter.
It is the function of Dr. Schuman to explain how to be better diplo-
mats to veteran diplomats and career men of the State Department in
its Division of Training Services. He is described by the State De-
partment itself as one of a group of "experts on subjects of importance
in diplomacy."
Appearing with Professor Schuman in the lecture program were
Owen Lattimore and Dr. Edward C. Acheson, director of the School of
Foreign Service at George Washington University and brother of Sec-
retary of State Dean Acheson.
Let me make it clear that I am not referring to any one program
in which all three of them appeared. I am referring to three men who
were called in to make these lectures.
Dr. Schuman was formerly with the Federal Communications Com-
mission, where he served under Mr. Goodman Watson, who was finally
discharged by that department.
Dr. Schuman is one of the closest collaborators in and sponsors of
Communist- front organizations in America.
STATE DEPAETMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 143
He was affiliated with the National Council of the Arts, Sciences
and Professions, which was denounced as a subversive organization
by the House Committee on Un-American Activities. This is the or-
franization under whose auspices was held the Cultural and Science
Conference for World Peace at the Hotel Waldorf-Astoria in New
York from March 25 to 29, 1949, and which, incidentally, was de-
nounced by the Secretary
Senator Tydings. Which Secretary ?
Senator McCarthy. Secretary of State Acheson. If I can quote his
exact words, I think he said it was "a sounding board for Russian
propaganda."
This organization was denounced as an instrument of Soviet propa-
ganda by the State Department.
Dr. Schuman's affiliations with the National Council of the Arts,
Sciences and Professions are not casual. He was a member of its
policy and program committee in 1948. To those who say many of
these Communist-front connections have been at a time when we were
friends wath Russia, I call attention to the fact that there has been
no break from even during the days of the Hitler-Stalin Pact right up
mitil 1948 and 1949. You don't find any change whatsoever in their
sponsorship of these Comnumist front organizations, and I might say
that some individuals can come down and say "I didn't know about
this organization: I didn't know anything about its aims," but not
Dr. Schuman. When he belongs to the organizations I am going to
give you, you can be sure he knows what he is doing. This is the man
w^ho lectures in the State Department.
He was a signer of a press release of the same organization on March
1, 1949. He was a member of the National Council of the Arts, Sci-
ences and Professions for Wallace, according to the Daily Worker,
August 18, 1948, page 7, and he again appeared as a sponsor, according
to the Daily Worker on October 19, 1948, page 2.
Professor Schuman was a sponsor of the American Committee for
the Protection of the Foreign Born, which was cited as subversive
by the Attorney General, the House Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities, and the California Committee on Un-American Activities.
He was prominent in the affairs of the American Council on Soviet
Relations, which has been cited by subvei^ive by the Attorney Cen-
tral, the House Committee on Un-American Activities and the Cali-
fornia Committee on Un-American Activities. He was a sponsor of
the American League for Peace and Democracy, which has been
cited by the same three official bodies as a communistic and subversive
organization.
The American Russian Institute, which has also been the recipient
of Professor Schuman's aid, has been cited as communistic and sub-
versive by the Attorney General, the House Committee on Un-Ameri-
can Activities, and the California Committee on Un-American
Activities.
The same adherence applies to the American Slav Congress, which
the same three organizations have cited as subversive.
He sponsored the Civil Rights Congress, an organization teiTiied
subvei"sive by the House Committee on Un-American Activities ; and
he was also affiliated with the Committee for Boycott Against Japanese
Aggression, named communistic and subversive by the Attorney
144 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATIOX
General, the House Un-American Activities Committee, and the Cali-
fornia Committee on Un-American Activities.
Professor Schmnan lent his name and prestige to the activities ot the
Friends of the Soviet Union, which was cited by all three of the above
as officially a communistic and subversive organization. The African
Aid Committee was named subversive and communistic by the At-
torney General, the House Un-American Activities Committee, and the
California Un-American Activities Committee; and here again we
have Professor Schuman as a sponsor. The same three agencies have
declared subversive and communistic the National Conference ot
American Policy in China and the Far East. This is one he has been
really active in. They called a conference under the auspices of the
Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy. Here again we have
Professor Schuman lending aid and comfort to a subversive organ-
ization. - - . ,,
We could perhaps continue for hours m elaborating on the pro-
Communist affiliations of this consultant to the small group of "un-
touchables" who determine, force through, and carry out the foreign
policy of this country. ■ .
I have chosen at random some of the organizations, all pro-L.om-
munist in nature, with which this man has been affiliated.
Incidentally, when I talked about this man's activities as a lecturer,
I hope I made it clear that that was one of his activities in the State
Department. He is also a consultant, one of the authorities on far-
eastern affairs, naturally. A most casual survey of these organizations
will indicate that, if he is not a card-holding member of the Com-
munist Party, the difference is so slight that it is unimportant.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I have before me the photostats of documents
showing his connection with there organizations. In view of the fact
that the Senate is in session, I am not going to take the Senators'
time to read them. i • i i
Senator Tydings. They will be put in the record at this place as the
Senator has marked them.
Exhibit 36
American Committee for Protection of Foreign Born,
New York 10. N. Y., February 8, 19.1,9.
Testimonial to Ellis Island Hunger Strikers
-CHARLES DOYLE— GERHART EISLER— IRVING POTASH— FERDINAND C. SMITH— JOHN
WILLIAMSON
Hotel McAlpin, New York City, March 3, 1949
Dear Friend: We invite you to join with us in a testimonial dinner to be lield
Ht the McAlpin Hotel, New York City, on Thursday evening, March 3. 1949, for
the five men who participated in a hunger strike on Ellis Island, during March
1948
These five men— Charles Doyle, Gerhart Eisler, Irving Potash, Ferdinand Smith,
and John Williamson— uniteci in a hunger strike in order that the constitutional
right to bail should not be lost to the American people.
As you will remember, people all over the country joined in demonstrations
for them and the principle for which they so heroically were ready to give their
lives. As a result, bail was granted by the courts. ^ « w
We are holding this testimonial on the first anniversary of their great fight
which is not vet won. Bail has been granted to Irving Potash, Ferdinand Smith,
and John Williamson by the Immigration and Naturalization Service. But it is
still being denied to Charles Doyle and Gerhart Eisler, although they are at this
moment free on the original bail granted by the courts.
STATE DEPARTJSIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 145
Therefore, the fight for bail must go on. This testimonial must demonstrate
•our determination to continue the defense of Doyle and Eislcr and to carry on au
(>ffeciive campaign to defeat the Justice Department's deportation (h-ive.
We hope that you will participate with us in this testimonial. Reservations
^re $6 per plate. Reservations for tables of 10 are $60.
Sincerely yours,
Rev. John W. Dark, Jr.,
Chairman, Board of Directors.
Exhibit 37
China aid Council,"
American Le^vgue for Peace and Democracy,
Champaiyn-Urbana Branch , June 11, 1938.
M\ss Jane Swaxhauser.
Chicago, III.
Dear Miss Swanhauser : Since you give us the choice of day for Dr. Su, I
will ask for Friday, June 24, or Saturday, June 25. I still leave it to you to
decide which of these two days, since I feel it is possible some other branch may
have sjioken already for one of these two dates 1 named. Kindly write at once
which date I may count upon and send me, tirst of all, any particulars about
Dr. Su that I may use in publicity ; also tell me if this trip is to raise money
for I must pay $15 flat if I use a university hall and make any sort of collection.
lYe have little hope of raising nuich here, as the bowl of rice drive is now on,
but we feel that if Dr. Su can speak to the 3,000 students of the summer school
-who come, many of them from country regions, that they will carry the idea of
iboycott, etc., back to their homes and spread the idea. I am sure you will consider
even this worth while. I shall not be able to do any advertising until I hear from
jou, so please write as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Anna H. Rubio.
Exhibit 38
African Aid Committee,
New York 10, N. Y., January 20, 1950.
Dear Friend : "We have l»nt one appeal to make to you. our brothers abroad —
your moral and tinancial support will highly be appreciated" — that is the message
from leaders of the Nigerian workers recently shot down while striking for
SO cents a day pay.
A token contribution of $2(X> has already been sent to these workers by our
<ommittee. We nuist send more. With your help, we can do so.
Even if you have already contributed to the African Aid Committee, we urge you
to give again in this emergency.
And please help us in reaching others with this appeal by signing and returning
the blank below.
Very truly yours,
W. E. B. Du Bois, Chairman.
To Dr. W. E. B. Dr Bois.
African Aid Committee:
I'll be glad to get others to help, too.
Send me materials for soliciting contributions among my friends and organiza-
tions in response to the appeal from the workers of Nigeria.
Name __.
Address
(Plea.se sign and return if you can assist in this way.)
146
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IKA'ESTIGATION
AFRICAN AID COMMITTEE SPONSORS
Elisha Bailey, Panama
Louise R. Berman, New York City
Dr. Phillips Brooks, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Peter B. Brown, Chicago, 111.
Lonis E. Biirnham, Birmingham, Ala.
Hugh Bryson, San Francisco, Calif.
Charles A. Collins, New York City
Councilman Eugene P. Connolly, New
York City
Evelyn Cooper, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Dr. Oliver C. Cox, Tuskegee Institute
Bindley C. Cyrus, Chicago, 111.
Wendell P. Dabney, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Councilman Benj. J. Davis. Jr., New
York City
E. A. Davis, Toronto, Canada
Earl B. Dickerson, Chicago, 111.
Dean Dixon, New York City
Dr. Arnold B. Donawa, New York City
Aaron Douglas, Fisk University
Arnaud D'Usseau, New York City
Rev. Charles C. S. England, Brooklvn,
N. Y.
Howard Fast, New York City
Frederick V. Field, New York Citv
Elinor S. Gimbel, New York Citv
Ben Gold, New York City
Kumar Goshal, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Shirley Graham, St. Albans, N. Y.
Percy Greene, Jackson, Miss.
Ewart Guinier, New York City.
Dashiell Hammett, New York City
William Harrison, Boston, Mass.
Rev. Dr. Wm. P. Hayes, Newark, N. J.
Donald Henderson, Philadelphia, Pa.
Rev. Charles A. Hill, Detroit, Mich.
Velnia Hopkins. Winston-Salem, N. C.
Rev. J. L. Horace, Chicago, 111.
Charles H. Houston, Washington, D. C.
Charles P. Howard, Des Moines, Iowa
Rev. Kenneth de P. Hughes, Cambridge,
Mass.
Langston Hughes, New York City
Dr. W. A. Hunton, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Ada B. Jackson. Brooklyn. N. Y.
Luther P. Jackson, Virginia State Col-
lege
David Jenkins, California Labor School
Rev. C. Asapansa Johnson, Staten Is-
land. N. Y.
Dt. R. O. Johnson, Atlanta. Ga.
Albert E. Kahn, Croton-on-Hudson,
N. Y.
Rockwell Kent, Au Sable Forks, N. Y,
John Howard Lawson, San Fernando,
Calif.
Ray Lev, New York City
Dorothy C. Lymas, Philadelphia, Pa.
Albert Maltz, Los Angeles, Calif.
Dr. Cecil Marquez, New York City
George Marshall, New York City
Larkin Marshall, Macon, Ga.
Dr. Benjamin E. Mays, Morehouse Col-
lege
Rev. Jack R. McMichael, New York City
John T. McManus, New York City
Rev. Wm. Howard Melish, Brooklyn,
N. Y.
Herbert T. Miller. Brooklyn, N. Y.
Willard Motley, Chicago, 111.
Rev. Chas. C. Monlton, Panama
Capt. Hugh Mulzac, Jamaica, N. Y.
George B. Murphy, Jr.. New York City
Estelle Massey Osborne. New York City
Rev. George L. Paine, Boston. Mass.
Father Clarence Parker, Chicago, 111.
William L. Patterson, New York City
Dr. H. T. Penn, Roanoke. Va.
Dr. Charles A. Petioni. New York City
Martin Popper, New York City
Eslanda G. Robeson. Enfield, Conn.
Paul Robeson, New York City
Dr. B. J. Robinson, Los Angeles, Calif.
Rev. James H. Robinson. New York City
Therese L. Robinson, Washington, D. 0.
O. John Rogge, New York City
Paul Schnur, San Francisco, Calif.
Prof. Frederick L. Schuman, Williams-
town, Mass.
Mrs. Andrew W. Simkins, Columbia,
S. C.
Ferdinand C. Smith, New York City
Rev. Stephen G. Spottswood, Washing-
ton, D. C.
Max Steinberg, New York City
Dr. Bernhard J. Stern, New York City
Ella P. Stewart, Toledo, Ohio
Deems Taylor, New York City
Rebecca Stiles Taylor, Chicago, 111.
Alma Vessells, New York City
Henry A. Wallace. South Salem, N. Y.
Bishop Wm. J. Walls, Chicago, 111.
Dr. Edward K. Weaver. Texas College
Dr. Gene Weltfish. New York City
Dr. Charles H. Wesley, Wilberforee,
Ohio
Lindsay White, New York City
Di-. J. Finley Wilson, Washington, D. C.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 147
Exhibit 39
Call to a Xatioaal Conferenck on American Policy in China and the
Far East
Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, January 28-25, 1948, Hotel Roosevelt, New York
City
National Cliairmen : T. A. Bisson, Dr. W. E. B. Dubois. Hon. Stanley M. Isaacs ;
Organizing Secretary Stephen H. Fritcliman
"It is my considered opinion that future generations will regard the betrayal of
the Chinese people by the American Government in the Truman administration
as one of the greatest errors ever made in American diplomacy." — Brig. Gen.
Evans F. Carlson, United States Marine Corps.
The three undersigned ntaional cha'rmen call upon all interested organizations
to send delegates and observers to a national conference on American policy in
China and the Far East to be held in New York City, January 23, 24, and 25,
194S.
The purposes of the conference are to discuss and plan action on —
1. The halting of United States intervention in China and other friendly far
eastern countries.
2. The carrying out of the democratic decisions of the Potsdam agreement and
the Moscow conference regarding policies in Japan and Korea.
8. The relationship between far eastern policy and domestic well-being.
4. A program to achieve a genuinely democratic far eastern policy which alone
can give any hope of peace.
o. Rallying all democratic Americans to support of such a program.
We Americans have always felt a pride and strength in our heritage as a
dem(»cratic people. Our Government's present far eastern policy violates our
most c-herished American political beliefs and threatens our own democracy.
In China, the largest nation in earth, United States policy, through military,
financial, and political intervention, is aiding in the imposition of a backward,
corrupt and violently antidemocratic regime which the vast majority of the
Chinese people themselves repudiate. The most reactionary elements in the
United States are now scheming for further intervention on a scale which will
subject the Chinese people to an autocracy dependent upon outside financial and
military help — that is the United States — for its continued existence. This
American intervention also violates the Charter of the United Nations.
In Japan, many observers. Americans and others, are deeply disturbed over
the practically unilateral American occupation which seems less concerned about
eradicaring the reactionary elements responsible for Pearl Harbor than is now
harnessing these elements to the dangerous ambitions of an antidemocratic
American group.
In the I'hilippines. the American Government is giving energetic support to
Filipino collaborationists and other betrayers of their country's independence;
and by imposing upon the I'hilippines economic conditions inimical to their
development as a free nation, is making a mockery of Philippine independence.
In Indonesia, the people struggling against their Dutch oppressors have been
forsaken by an American policy evidently geared to safeguarding the status quo
rather than to giving encouragement to those seeking freedom and a rising
standard of living.
In southern Korea, where American occupation forces now rule over people
who wore our allies in the war, economic chaos and political fascism are the
fruits of American policy.
The Ameru-an democratic heritage and destiny is now suffering what may
prove irrevocable damage from the present far-eastern policy of our (iovern-
ment. This policy is costing us taxpayers billions of futile dollars; it is post-
poning the healthy trans-Pacific trade we should be enjoying ; it is creating condi-
tions that contrilnite toward an economic depression here at home; it is fast
making enemies of the millions of Asia who are our natural allies in the desire
for a peaceful and democratic world: it is engendering international frictions
which can easily lead us into another war.
It is time for democratic American citizens to act. In addition to organiza-
tional delegates and observers we invite individuals to attend as visitors.
This conference will bring together citizens who wish to secure the facts and
understand the issues related to far eastern policy, and to discuss the means of
148 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IX^ESTIGATION
effective citizensliip action on that policy. The conference will assist the dele-
gates and individuals to carry back to their organizations and communities the-
facts, insights, convictions, and suggested methods of action necessary at this
time. All decisions of the conference will come out of floor discussion and, we-
hope, will be implemented in whole or in part, by each organization in its own.
way.
T. A. BissoN,
W. E. B. Dubois,
Stanley M. Isaacs,
National Chairmen.
PROGRAM
Friday, January 28
8p. m fVmference mass meeting. City Center Casino, 135-
West Fifty-fifth Street :
Speakers : Anna Louise Strong, first hand report on
the Far East, just returned from li/o years in
China and noi-thern Korea ; Dr. .Tames G. Endicott,
Toronto, recently returned China-born missionary
for the United Church of Canada ; Dr. Rexford Guy
Tugwell.
Saturday, January 24
9-10 a. m Registration of delegates and observers, and meeting^
of sponsors.
10-12 m Election of conference committee.
Delegates' hour : Opportunity to present questions tc
experts on tlie Far East.
Keynote address : Hugh Bryson. San Francisco.
2-5 p. m Wliat is the United States doing in China?'
8-10 : 30 p. m What is the United States doing in colonial ai'eas?'
Dramatic presentation by Theater Workshop.
Sunday, January 25
9: 30-10: 15 a. m Memorial service for Brig. Gen. Evans F. Carlson,
United States Marine Corps ; address by Michael
Straight, publisher. New Republic.
10 : 15-12 m What is the United States doing in Japan and Korea? *
2-4 : 30 p. m Report of conference committee; adoption of action
program.
Closing address : Paul Robeson.
Adjournment.
Additional conference speakers include : Hugh DeLacy. Israel Epstein. Mark
Gayn, and the three cochairmen. Dr. W. E. B. DuBois, T. A. Bisson, and
Stanley M. Isaacs. Further speakers will be announced.
SPONSORS
(Partial listing)
Organizations are listed for the purpose of identification only. Such listing
does not indicate sponsorship of the conference by these organizations
Louis Adamic, writer Dr. Deik Bodde. University of Penn-
Charlotte Adams, editor, Look maga- .sylvania
zine Dr. Dwight Bradley, consulting psy-
Dr. Thomas Addis, Leland Stanford chologist
University. Josepli Brainen, chairman. American
Emily G. Balch. Nobel Peace Prize, Committee of Jewish Writers. Ar-
1946 tists, and Scientists
C. B. Baldwin, executive vice-chairman, Harry Bridges, president. International
Progressive Citizens of America Longshoremen's and Warehouse-
S. L. M. Barlow, composer mens Union
John W. Bicknell. writer on the Far Di-. Charlotte Hawkins Brown, presi-
Ej^gl; dent. Palmer ^Memorial Institute
Charles Bid' en. e^>H-ntivp spcr^torv. Hugh Bryson. president. National
American Committee for Free In- Union Marine Cooks and Stewards
donesia Henrietta Buckmaster, writer
Dr. Algernon Black, executive leader, Angus Cameron, editor-m-cnief. Little
Ethical Culture Society Brown & Co.
1 The ma.ior portion of these sessions will be devotetT to delegates' discnssions of positive
action on far eastern policy.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 149
Chu Tonj;. editor. China Daily News
Dr. Uiifus E. Clement, president, Atlan-
ta Universit.v
Kev. Donald B. Cloward. execntive sec-
retary, Council on Christian Social
Troiiress
Dr. Clark Walker Cunnninps. exeentive
seeretary. Metropolitan Chnrrh Fed-
eration. St. Lonis. Mo.
Dr. II. W. L. Dana, educator
l{ev. John W. Darr, Jr., executive sec-
retary. United Christian Council for
Democracy
Frank Marshall Davis, assistant editor,
Chicai;o Star
Hugh DeLacy, foi'mer United States
Congressman
Mrs. Elliott Dexter, Encino, Calif.
J()hn T. Doles. Jr., lawyer
Dorothy Doyle, nurse, recentl.\- with
UNRRA in China
Muriel Draper, executive vice presi-
dent. Congress of American Women
Barrows Dunham, writer
James Durkin. president. United Office
and Professional Workers of Am.n-
ica
Dr. Henry Pratt Fairchild, New York
University
Frederick V. Field, writer
Olga Field, writei on the Far East
Dorothy Cantield Fisher, writer
Dr. Albert L. Franzke, University of
Washington
Ben (lold. president. International Fur
and Leather Workers Union
Ira Gollobin, chairman. American Ver-
erans of the Philippine Campaign
Carlton B. Goodlett, president, San
Francisco National Association for
the Advancement of Colored People
Kumar Goshal. writer on India
Edmonia Grant, Associate Administra-
tor, Southern Conference for Human
Welfare
Dr. Ralph H. Gundlaeh. University of
Washington '
Uta Hagen. actress
Dr. Calvin S. Hall, Western Resei've
University
Dr. S. Raliih Harlow, Smith CoUege
William Harrison, as.sociate editor,
Boston Chronicle
Dr. A. Eustace Haydon, University of
Chicago, Divinity School
Charlotte Honig, husinesswoman
Leo Huberman, writer
Harold Ingalls, executive secretary,
Student Division, National YMCA
Philip Jaffe, publisher, Amerasia As-
s( c'iates
I>r. Pufus M. Jones. Haverford Collei-'^e
Philip O. Keeney, libraries officer, Su-
preme Command Allied Powers in
Japan
Dr. J. Spencer Kennard, educator, for-
mer Baptist missionary to Japan and
China
Dr. Raymond Kennedy, Yale Univer-
sity
Morris E. Kriensky, artist
Dr. John H. Lathrop. Church of the Sa-
viour. I'rooklyn
Richaid E. Lauterbach, editor, the
^lagazine '47
Harold Leventhal. chairman, American
Friends of India
Dr. Alain Locke. Howard University
Kev. Jack R. JIcMichael, executive sec-
retary. Mt^thodist Federation for
Social Action
Albert Maltz, writer
Dr. William Mandel, writer
(iHorge Marshall, cbairman, board oi
directors. Civil Rights Congress
Dr. Kirtley F. :\Iather, Harvard Uni-
versity
Dr. H. T. ]Medford, secretary. Foreign
Missions, A. M. E. Zion Church
Dr. Clyde R. Miller. Teachers College,
Columbia University
Kate L. ^litchell, writer on the Far
East
ISernard J. Mooney, upstate New York,
regional director, United Office and
Professional Workers of America
Rev. Richard iNlorford, executive direc-
tor. National Council of American-
Soviet Friendship
IJishop Arthur W. Moulton, Protestant
Episcopal Church
Gi-ant W. Oakes, president. Farm
lupiipment Workers Union
Patrick H. O'Brien, judge of probate,
Wayne County, Mich.
Mrs. Jessie L. O'Connor, Fort Worth,
Tex.
Dr. Ernest Osborne, Columbia Univer-
sity
Bishop Edward Parsons, Protestant
Episcopal Church
Kobert I'ayne, writer on the Far East
Dr. Arthur Upham Pope, chancellor,
Asia Institute
ilartin Popper, board of directors, Na-
tional Lawyer's Gn'ld
Dr. Edwin McNeill Poteat, president,
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
Phelps Putman, poet.
Dr. Walter Rautenstrauch. educator
Dr. Raymond Robins, social economist
Holland Roljerts, director, Califorrija
Labor School
Paul Robeson, concert singer
Nathaniel L. Rock, lawyer
Sidney Roger, radio commentator, CCO
Edward Itohrbough, writer on the Far
Knst
Walter Rosenblnm, president. Photo
League
150 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mand Russell, executive director, Com-
mittee for a Democratic Far Eastern
Policy
Rose Russell, legislative director,
Teachers Union
Dr. W. Carson Ryan, University of
North Carolina
Dr. Frederick L. Schuman, William'^
College
Arthur Schutzer, New YorJc City
Dr. Vida D. Scudder, Wellesley College
Bernard Seeman, writer on the Far
East
Joseph P. Selly, president, American
Communications Association
Rev. Guy Emery Shipler, editor. The
Churchman
Elie Siegmeister, composer
Harold G. Slingerland, chairman, Che-
mung Comity American Labor Party
Dr. Maud Slye, University of Chicago
Agnes Smedley, writer on the Far P^ast
Christine B. Snuth, ijresident, National
Association of Colored Women
Ferdinand C. Smith, secretary, national
Maritime Union
Mrs. Edgar Snow, writer on the Far
East
Johannes Steel, publisher, Johannes
Steel Newsletter
Dr. Harry C. Steinmetz, San Diego
State College
We urge immediate registration.
Dr. Bernhard J. Stern, Columbia Uni-
versity
Martha Dodd Stern, writer
Annalee Stewart, president, U. S. Sec-
tion, Woman's International League
for Peace and Freedom
Paul Strand, artist
Frank E. Taylor, editor, Random House
Dr. Donald G. Tewksbury, Columbia
University
Dr. Rexford G. Tugwell, University of
Chicago
Jennette Turner, executive secretary,
New York City Consumer Council
Olive Van Horn, secretai-y for adnunis-
trative affairs. National YWCA
Rev. Eflgar ]M. Wahlberg, formerly with
UNRRA in China
Dr. Harry F. Ward, writer
( harles Weidman, dancer
Dr. Gene Weltfish, Columbia University
Dr. Charles PI. Wesley, president, Wil-
berforce State College
Howard Willard, artist
Dr. James M. Williams, Hobart College
Ella Winter, writer
Justice James H. Wolfe, Sunreme
Court. State of Utah
Uii-liard Yaffe, writer
Victor A. Yakhontolf, writer
William Zorach, scidptor
CONFERENCE APPLICATION
Name Address
I am an individual visitor Organizational delegate Appointed
observer
Organization represented
Indicate whether : National State Local
Enclosed is $ for registration fee ($3 per delegate)
Admission to single sessions (morning, afternoon, or evening) $1
Address requests for housing accommodations to organizing secretary
Contributions in support of the conference are invited
Address all comnmnications to: The Organizing Secretary, Far Eastern Con-
ference, 111 West Forty-second Street, New York 18, N'. Y., LOngacre 4-3943.
Exhibit 40
Urgent Summons to a Congress on Civil Rights in Detroit, April 27 and 28,
1946. to Organize an Offensive Against the Rising Fascist Aggression in
the United States
Today's drive to subvert our democratic liberties is well-organized, well-heeled,
insidious. It presents an emergency that emergency measures alone can meet.
The great war against fascism is won, but the victory is far from secure.
Only a coalition of all the forces of the people, through united action, can prevent
its destruction.
Here's what is happening in the United States :
PROGRAM
Congress on civil rights, Detroit, Mich., April 21 and 2!8, 19Ii6
Saturday morning. First Congregational Church (Woodward Avenue at Forest) :
11 a. m., registration.
12 noon, opening luncheon.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN VEST I CATION 151
Saturday afternoon. 2 p. ni. to fi p. tn., :\Iaccabees Auditorium (Woodward Avenue
at I'm nam) :
l>etVnso A.yainst tlu' Enemy Within — Presentation of key issues.
I'roteet Minorities for America's Defense — Tlie tight against police terror
in Columbia, Tenn., the Freeport Ivillings, and other \videspread violation
of civil rights: results of campaigns on tliese cases.
Labor's Rights— First Line of Defense — The tight against the Case bill,
police violence, the injunction menace.
Crush America's Fifth Colunm— The light against the Kanliiu committee,
Gerald L. K. Smith, the KKK, Bilbo and all domestic fascists.
Tlie :\Ienace of anti-Semitism and Jim Crow— The fight against terrorism,
and discrimination in employment, housing, and educaticm.
Initial report of resolutions conunittee ; report of credentials committee;
election of campaigns coordination committee.
Saturday evening, 8 : 30 p. m., reception for delegates by Michigan Civil Rights
Federation.
Sunday. 9 : 30 a. m. to 3 : 30 p. ra. :
Report of campaigns coordination committee. Discussion of proposals.
Luncheon recess.
Continued discussion :ind action on committee report.
Final report of resolutions committee.
Proposals f()r carrying out conference decisions.
Conference Headquarters: GO!) Hanunond Building, Fort and Woodward
Avenues. Detroit. Telephone : Cadillac 6278.
Registration : At First Congregational Church from 11 a. m. to 2 p. m. on
Saturday. After 2 p. m.. at Maccabees auditorium. Registration fee: $2 for
each (U'ganization delegate, or individual.
Rein-esent;iti()n : Two representatives from each organization; interested
indiv'(hia]s.
Conference huu-iieon : Saturday noon, at First Congres.sional Church.
Reservations nuiy he made at $l.r)0 per plate. I'lease make reservations in ad-
vance. Luncheon speakers to be announced.
Acc-omm(»dations : Reservations for hotel accounnodations must be made in
advance because of housing difficulties. Address all requests for reservations
to New York headquarters of Congress on Civil Rights. For further details,
additional copies of this call and general inquiry, send all communications to :
Congress on Civil Rights, 205 East Forty-second Street, New York 17, N. Y.
Reactionary forces, based on war-rich monopolies, the die-hard union break-
ers, red-baitei-s. and race haters, command the largest surviving fifth column
in the \\orld. They are turning the weapons and methods of fascism against
the American people. They are prepared to destroy our democracy, even to the
establishment of outriglit fascism.
Their program consists of smashing unions through strike provocation,
in.tunctions, and legislation like the Case bill that would wipe out labor gains
of a quarter of a century : spreading discrimination and hatred against
minorities throngh violence against Negro civilians and veterans, partic-
ularly in the South. anti-Semitism and destruction of FEPC ; maintaining
the poll-tax system to defranchise 10,000.0l¥) Negro and white Americans;
sapping the strength of labor and other organizations by using Hitler's prime
weapon of i-ed baiting, esjiecially tlii-ough revival of the Dies committee under
Rankin.
This reactionary program has met the growing organized resistance of the labor
movement and other groups and individuals who believe firmly in democratic
liberties.
The popular response to such campaigns as FEPC and poll-tax repeal shows
that the people will organize. Veterans are fighting discrimination and challeng-
ing the pro-Fascist press. Committees everywliere have sprung up to defend
victims of police and lynch violence: the renewed activity of such Fascist spokes-
men as Gerald L. K. Smith has brought widespread, fighting protests.
Labor has sharply stiffened the defense of its civil rights, and people in all
walks of life are rallying with enthusiasm to labor's defense.
Now more than ever the united action of the democratic forces is needed to
enable ea<h organization and individual to exert maximum effectiveness in the
realizntion of a common program. The elaboration of a campaign or series of
(;s!)70 — .'-,0 — pt. 1 11
152
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
campaigns, coordinated in detail and Nation-wide in scope, is therefore essential
to meet the challenges that today confront us all :
To safeguard and extend all democratic rights, especially the rights of
labor, and of racial, political, religious and national minorities ;
To combat all forms of discrimination against these groups ;
To defend and aid victims of the fight for these rights ;
To fight against domestic fascism and all its forms — Jim Crow, anti-
Semitism, red-baiting, discrimination against the foreign born.
To these ends, we call upon civil rights, labor, religious, interracial, and other
organizations and individuals to attend a congress on civil rights in Detroit
on April 27 and 28, 194(>, to formulate and agree upon a national program to
defeat the offensive of reactionary and Fascist forces, and to consider all steps
required to assure the maximum unification of effort to advance that program.
INITIATING COMMITTEE
Zlatko Balokovic, vice president, Amer-
ican Slav Congress
Elmer A. Benson, chairman, executive
council. National Citizens PAC
]\Iary McLeod P.ethune
Dr. Charlotte Hawkins Brown, presi-
dent. Palmer Institute.
Col. Evans Carlson
Edward Chodorov
Norman Corwin
Julius Emspak, secretary-treasurer,
United Electric, Radio and Machine
Workers, CIO
Jess Fletcher, vice president, Building
Service Employees International
Union, AFL
Chirk Foreman, president. Southern
( '(Uifei-ence for Human Welfare
Carey McWilliams
Rep. Vito Marcantonio, president, In-
ternational Labor Defense
George Marshall, chairman. National
Federation Constitutional Liberties
Dr. Kirtley F. Mather
Dr. Benjamin E. Mays, president, More-
house College
Bishop Edward L. Parsons
James G. Patton, president. National
Farmers Union
Dr. Edwin McNeill Poteat, president,
Colgate-Rochester Divinity School
Paul Robeson
Edward G. Robinson
Wesley E. Sharer, co-chairman, Chicago
Civil Liberties Committee
Prof. John F. Shepard, president, Mich-
igan Civil Rights Federation
Johannes Steel
Donald Ogdeu Stewart
Milton Kaufman, executive secretary
SPONSORS
(Partial list)
Louis Adamic
Meyer Adelman, district director,
United Steelworkers, Milwaukee
Raymond Pace Alexander
James Egert Allen, president, New
York State Conference NAACP
Branches
Rep. Charles W. Anderson, Kentucky
State Legislature
Judge William A. Anderson, Minneapo-
lis
Susan B. Anthony II, secretary, Con-
gress of American Women
Elmer J. F. Arndt, cliairman. Commis-
sion Christion Social Action, Evan-
gelical and Reformed Church
Bishop James C. Baker, Los Angeles
C. B. Baldwin, executive vice president,
National Citizens PAC
Howard Bay, president. United Scenic
Artists Local S29
W. A. Bell, president. Miles College
Lewis Alan Berne, president. Federa-
tion of Architects, Engineers, Chem-
ists and Technicians
Warren K. Billings
Rev. Shelton Hale Bishop, New York
City
Judge Jane M. Bolin, New York City
H. D. Bollinger, secretary. Department
of Student Work, Board of Educa-
tion, Methodist Church
Rev. W. Russel Bowie
Louis E. Burnham, organizing secre-
tary. Southern Negro Youth Congress.
D. A. Cameron, editor. Little, Brown
& Co.
Councilman Charles N. Carr, Cleveland
Del Castle, Ship Scalers Union, local
589
Rose Mae Catchings, president. South-
ern Negro Youth Congress
Prof. Emmanuel Chapman, chairman,
Commission of Catholics for Human
Rights
Dr. Rufus E. Clement, president, At-
lanta University
Dean Nick Comfort, Oklahoma School
of Religion
Philip M. Connelly, secretary, Los An-
geles CIO Council
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVE'STTOATION
153
Councilman Eugene P. Connolly, New
York CMty
A. A. Couch, president, Iowa Federa-
tion of Labor
Julius Crane, vice president. United
Shoe V\'orkers
George W. Crockett. Jr., executive di-
rector. Fair Practices Committee,
UAAV-CIO
Josepli Cun-an, president. National
Maritime Union
Councilman Benjamin J. Davis, Jr.,
New York City
Adolph Dehu
Pep. Hugh De Lacy, Washington
Hon. Earl B. Dickerson, president, Na-
tional Bar Association
Catherine Dunham
Roscoe Dunjee
N. H. Eagle, director of organization.
United Rubber "Workers
Prof. R. D. Feild, Tulane University
Lion Feuchtwanger
Elizabeth Gurley Flynn
Eleanor Fowler, secretary. Congress of
Women's Auxiliaries
Stephen H. Fritchman, editor, Christian
Register
Leo Gallagher, L-os Angeles
.lohn Garfield
Sander Genis, manager. Twin City
Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing
\\'orkers
Elinor S. Gimbel, New I'^ork City
Leonard Golditch, secretary. National
Committee to Combat Anti-Semitism
Rabbi .Solomon Goldman, Chicago
L. A. Gossett, secretary, Georgia State
CIO Council
Bishop J. A. Gregg, Kansas City, Kans.
Abner Green, secretary, American
Commission for Protection of Foreign
Born
Mel J. Heiuritz, secretary, Wisconsin
State CIO Council
Donald Henderson, president, Food, To-
bacco, Agricultural .md Allied Work-
ers
Rev. Charles A. Hill, president, De-
troit NAACP
James A. Hinton, president, State Con-
ference of NAACP for South Carolina
Langston Hughes
Rev. Kenneth deP. Hughes, president,
Boston NAACP
Hosea Hudson, local president. United
Steel Woi'kers, Bii-mingham
Ralil)i Ferdinand M. Is.serman, chair-
man, Justice and Peace Connnittee,
( entral Conference (tf American Rab-
bis
I>r. I). V. Jemison, jiresident, National
Baptist Convention
1)1-. Kufus M. Jones, Haverford. Pa.
J. F. Jnrich, pie.sident. Internal icnial
Fishej-inen and Allied AA'orkers
Millard Lampell
Ring W. Lardner, Jr.
Kenneth Leslie, edit(>r, The Protestant
A. A. Liveright, executive director,
American Council on Race Relations
Arthur Le Sueur, Duluth, Minn.
Bishop Francis J. McConnell
Prof. Edward W. IMcFarland, president,
IMetropolitan Council FEP, Detroit
O. E. McKaine, secretary. Progressive
Democratic Party, South Carolina
Rev. Jack R. McMichael, secretary,
Methodist Federation for Social
Service
Herbert March, district director,
United Packinghouse Workers, Chi-
cago
Prof. F. O. Matthieson, Harvard Uni-
versity
Sannxel D. Menin, Denver, Colo.
Lewis Merrill, president, United OflEice
and Professional Workers
Saul Mills, secretary, New York CIO
Council
Dr. George S. Mitchell, director. Vet-
erans Service, Southern Regional
Council
J. I'. IMooney, organizer, Textile Work-
ers Union, Bessemer, Ala.
Morris Muster, president, United Fur-
niture Workers
Tom Neill, executive secretary. Serv-
icemen's and Veterans' Welfare Com-
mittee, UERWMA
Josephine Nordstrand, secretary, Wis-
consin State Conference on Social
Legislation
Grant W. Oakes, president, United Fai'm
Equipment and Metal Workers
Rep. Ellis E. Patterson, California
Boyd E. Payton. president, Virginia
State CIO Council
Dr. Charles A. Petioni, chairman. West
Indies National Council
Terry Pettus, president, Washington
State CIO-PAC
Irving Potash, manager. Furriers Joint
Council, New Y'ork
Rep. Adam Clayton Powell, Jr., New
York City
Lee Pressman, general counsel, Con-
gressman of Industrial Organizations
Councilman Michael J. Quill, president,
Transport Workers Union
Thomas C. Rabbitt, Washington State
senator
Mervyn Rathborne, secretary, Califor-
nia State CIO Council
Prof. Walter Rautenstrauch, Columbia
University
Earl Robinson
Reid Robinson, president. International
Union, Mine, Mill and Smelter Work-
ers
Dorothy K. Roosevelt, executive secre-
tary, Michigan Citizens Committee
Rep. William A. Rowan. Illinois
Rep. Charles R. Savage, Washington
154 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
William Jay Schieffelin Senator Glen H. Taylor, Idaho
Prof. A. M. Sclilesinger, Harvard Uni- ReiJ. Donald C. Teigland, Illinois State
versity Legislature
Artur Schnabel W. E. Tucker, president, Local 157, In-
Prof. Frederick L. Schuman, Williams ternational Union of Brewery Work-
College ers, Dallas, Tex.
Joseph P. Selly, president, American Prof. Ralph E. Wager, Emory Univer-
Communications Association sity
Henry R. Silberman, executive director, Dr. Harry F. Ward
New England Division, American Courtney D. Ward, secretary. Painters
Jewish Congress District Council, Cleveland
Charles N. Smolikoff, director, Florida Max Weber
State CIO Council Lulu P.. White, secretary, Houston,
Herbert K. Sorrell, president, Confer- Tex., NAACP
ence of Studio Unions, AFL Rev. Claude C. Williams, director. Peo-
Christina Stead pie's Institute of Applied Religion
Max Sein, secretary, Cincinnati CIO James H. Wolfe, Justice, State Su-
Council prenie (Jourt, Utah
A. E. Stevenson, secretary, Cleveland Bishop R. R. Wright, Jr., secretary,
CIO Council Fraternal Council of Negro Churches
Prof. Dirk J. Struik, Massachusetts In- Dr. Max Yergan. president. National
stitute of Technology Negro Congress
Gleiui J. Talbott, president. North Da- Jack Zeller, educational director, UAW-
kota Farmers Union CIO
Note. — Organizations listed for identification only.
Exhibit 41
Schuman signs this.
April 7, 1948.
A Statement of American Educators
As American educators, we are much disturbed by one of the byproducts of the
Presidential "loyalty order" — the listing of a number of schools as "subversive"
organizations by the Attorney General of the United States. The charge that
these schools "appear" to be "adjuncts of the Communist Party" could be made
against any institution that teaches Marxism, and could thus always be used as
a device for labeling Marxist teaching subversive.
We may or may not believe in Marxist schools. Catholic schools, single-tax
schools, or any other schools with particular social outlooks. We are alarmed
that any official of the American Government assumes the power officially to
proclaim the teaching and study of an economic philosophy to be subversive.
We believe that every group — including Marxists — has the right, under the
American Constitution, to teach and propagate its ideas, and that students,
whether they are Marxists or not, have the right to study Marxism and to judge
for themselves the validity of its teachings. If this right can be denied by
arbitrary government fiat — in the sense that teaching at or attending a school
where such ideas are taught is declared "subversive" — then similarly any other
ideas not approved by those in power can as readily be stifled.
We recognize, for example, that the Jefferson School of Social Science in New
York is, in its teaching of the social sciences, avowedly Marxist. It operates as
an independent institution under its board of trustees, and clearly defines its edu-
cational objectives and organization in its bulletins. Whatever one might think
of Marxism as a method or a body of doctrine, it is clear that the action of the
Attorney General in stigmatizing such institutions as "subversive," esiiecially
without hearing or trial, represents an extremely dangerous step in the direction
of thought control and the institution of thought police. If Marxist schools can
be declared subversive, then social science teachers who assign Marxist materials
or express Marxist views may quickly be sultjected to the same label. Freedom
of inquiry will be gravely imperiled.
The President's Commission on Higher Education for American Democracy
(December 15, 11)47) has ably stated : "The social i-ole of education in a democratic
society is at once to insure equal liberty and equal opportunity to differing indi-
viduals and groups, and to enable the citizens to understand, appraise, and re-
direct foi-ces, men, and events as these tend to strengthen or to weaken their
liberties."
STATE DEPART-MENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 155
111 this spirit, we ask that the President of the United States and the Attorney
GeiUM-al withdiaw tlie blacklist of Marxist and labor educational institutions, as
repusnaut to uur national ideal of freedom of thought.
SIGNKUS OF STATEMENT OF AMERICAN EDUCATORS
Professor Institution (for identification only)
Thonias Addis Stanford University.
Edward S. Allan Iowa State College.
Ku>seII Ames Queens College.
Earl Maynard Aris Albion College.
Francis ^I. Harbour Southern Illinois University.
Fred Asa P>arnes Cornell (retired).
Ralph P.eals University of California at Los Angeles.
Edward IMberinan.
Leonard lUoomfield Yale University.
Cornelius P.ol Stanford (retired).
Earl C. Bowman De Pauw University
Lyman K. Bradley 1 New York University.
Theodore Brameld Do.
Joseph Bressler Brooklyn College.
Dorothy Brewster Columbia University.
John Bridge City College of New York.
Arthur G. Brodeur University of California.
Charles N. Brooks Harvard University.
William B. Bryan Macalester College, Minnesota.
Edwin Berry Burgum New York University.
John L. Buys St. Lawrence University.
Robert Chambers Ts^ew York University (retired).
Charles M. Child Stanford University.
Edith F. Claflin Columbia University.
Edwin L. Clarke Rollins College.
Will.son L. Coates Sarah Lawrence College.
M. Robert Cobbledick Connecticut College.
Joseph W. Cohen University of Colorado.
Philip W. L. Cox New York University.
Oliver C. Cox Tuskegee Institute.
Grace L. Coyle Western Re.serve University.
Abraham Cronbach Hebrew Union College.
Dean W. C. Curtis University of Missouri (emeritus).
John J. De Boer University of Illinois.
Haii Dougla.ss Director, School of Education, University
of Colorado.
H. M. Doutt University of Akron.
Arnold Dresden Swarthmore College.
W. E. B. DuBois National Association for the Advancement
of Colored People.
Lyford-P. Edwards Bard College.
Franklin Edgerton Yale Law School.
Thomas D. Eliot Northwestern University.
Albert I. Elkus '_ University of California.
Thomas I. Emer.son Yale University.
Bergen Evans Northwestern University.
Frederic Ewen Brooklyn College.
Henry Pratt Fairchild New York University.
Philip S. Foner Jefferson School.
Abraham Edel City College of New York.
Frances A. Foster Vassar College.
Royal W. France Rollins College.
Harold A. Freeman ]\Iassachu.setts Institute of Technology.
Reirinald F. French Amherst College.
Henrietta V. Friedman Hunter College.
Wendell H. Fuiiy Harvard University.
David R. Goodard University of Pennsylvania.
Erwin R. Goodenough Yale University.
Ralph H. Gundlach University of Washington.
Calvin S. Hall Western Reserve University.
156 STATE DEPARTMETnT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\^ESTIGATTON
SIGNEKS OF STATEMENT OF AMERICAN EDUCATORS Continued
Professor Institution (for identification onlyi
Victor E. Hall Stanford University.
R. Travis Hardaway Queens College.
Harrison Harley Simmons College.
Virginia Harlow De Pauw University.
Robert .J. Havighurst University of Chicago.
Harold Haydon I>o. ^ ^. . ,. , ^. t^
G A Hedger TTniversity of Cincinnati (retired).
virgii B Heltzel Northwestern University.
J Allen Hickerson New Haven State Teachers College.
Philip M. Hicks Swarthmore.
Ernest R. Hilgard Stanford University.
Stefan Hirsch Bard College.
Harry Hoijer University of California at Los Angeles.
Hamilton Holt President, Rollins College.
H-irold Hotelling University of North Carolina.
Abbott G. Houk St. Lawrence University.
Abbott Kaplan University of California at Los Angeles
Forrest M. Keen Heidelberg College.
Raymond Kennedy Yale.
Walter B. Keighton Swarthmore.
C. Wendell King Rollins College.
Paul Kirkpatrick Stanford University.
Samuel Kliger D"ke University.
John L Kolehmainen Heidelberg College
Luther P. .Jackson Virginia State College.
William .Taffe Northwestern University.
Hirold N Lee Tulane University.
Paul L. Lehmann Princeton Theological Seminary.
Norman Levinson Mass. Institute of Technology.
Alton A. Lindsey. .. .p ^ , ^
Gerhard Loose University of Colorado.
Chaplain Sidnev Lovett Yale.
Robert S. Lynd Columbia ^
Curtiss MacDougall Northwestern University.
Npw MTclMiiiri i-'O.
Wilfred H. MainwVring"7_V__ Stanford University (emeritus).
Lutlier B. Marchant Mills College.
Jphn M. Marsalka Yale.
F O. Matthiessen Harvard Umjersity.
Wesley H. Maurer University of Michigan.
HeSry K McCnntock University of Minnesota Law School.
V.J. McGill. ^^ ,. ^ „
J F. Mack Oberlin College.
Kirtlev F. Mather Harvard.
Clyde Miller Columbia.
Frmim Mills De Pauw University.
Julii Neely Southern Illinois University.
Arthur H Nethercot Northwestern University.
Robert HasnngrSic'hols Union Theological Seminary (emeritus).
F. S. C. Northrop Yale.
Michael Pargment University of Michigan.
Ralph Barton Perry Harvard (emeritus).
John P. Peters New Haven, Conn.
PjIiHi Plillins Swarthmore.
wlr lert T ™^^ - l^"iversity of Washington.
?^\^-Ji^n":::::::::::-—. romona CoHege (enxeritus).
Walter Rautenstrauch Columbia (emeritus).
Tra De \ Reid Atlanta University.
George F.' Reynolds University of Colorado (emeritus).
Sarah R. Riedman Brooklyn College.
RAvnnvfl P Riess Hiiuter College.
Holland Robust:::::::::: California Labor School.
Theodore Rosebury Columbia University.
STATE DEPARTMETSTT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEiSTIGATION 157
SIGNERS OF STATEMENT OF AMEatlCAN EDUCATORS — Continued
Professor Institution (for identification only)
Alt'xancler Sandow' New York University.
Marpiret Schlanch Do.
FrtnU'rick I^. Scluuuan Williams College.
Agnt-r H. Schroeder Western Reserve University.
Walter Sliz Swarthmore.
Harry Slochower ^__. Brooklyn College.
William C. Smith Linfleld College.
Willand Smith Mills College.
James D. Sorher Swarthmore.
Bertha K. Stavrianos lioosevelt College of Chicago.
Bernard J. Stern Columbia.
Dirk .7. Struik Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Ernest L. Talbert University of Cincinnati.
\\'illiain('tta C. Thomson Syracuse University.
Miriam D. Thompkins Columbia.
Charles Triukaus Sarah Lawrence College.
William Lewis Troyer Albion College.
Kexford Guy Tugwell University of Chicago.
Colston E. Warne Amherst College.
Edward K. Weaver Alabama State Teachers College.
David L. Webster Stanford University.
Charles H. Wesley President, Wilberforce University.
Louis Weisner Hunter College.
F. W. Weymouth Stanford University.
George F. Whicher Amherst College.
Samuel K. Workman Noi'thwestern University.
Henry N. Wieman University of Chicago.
Edward H. Zabriskie Rutgers University.
Thomas Woody University of Pennsylvania.
Eugene C. Holmes Howard University.
Stuart Mudd University of Pennsylvania Medical School.
Exhibit 42
To Honor a Great American on the Third Anniversary of His Courageous
Launching of the Fight for Peace
You are cordially invited to join us in honoring Henry A. Wallace, a great
leader and a wonderful human being at a dinner, at the Hotel Astor, New York
City, Monday evening, September 12, 1949, at 7 o'clock.
Convert: .$10 — dress optional.
R. S. V. P. .
Ted O. Thackrey, Dinner Chairman.
Three years ago, a man of courage and principle and great concern for his
fellow man raised his voice against what he regarded as a betrayal of the people.
His conscience aflame, he spoke up, at Madison Square Garden, on September
12, li)46, against the drift away from the Roosevelt path of peace and cooperation.
He did this at great personal sacrifice. .Just as 2 years earlier when his
denunciation of Jim Crow at the Democratic National Convention cost him the
Presidency, so now his .Jeremiah-like warning led inevitably to his resignation
from the Cabinet a few days later.
On that September 12, Henry A. Wallace launched, and has since led with
magnificent integrity, the resistance movement that has given organized ex-
pression to the peace forces of America. Some day this movement will be judged
in true perspective and all who have participated in it will have reason to
be proud.
Funds from this dinner will be used to further Mr. Wallace's great work as the
leader of the Progressive Party.
158
STATE DEPARTME'XT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IKA-ESTIGATIOX
John Abt
Jacob L. Aisenberg
Helen L. Alfred
Oliver S. Allen
Irving Andors
Robenia Antliiniy
I. Duke Avnet
Homer Ayres
C. B. Baldwin
Verda Barnes
Prof. Cyrns P. Barnum
Mrs. Moses Barron
Dr. Edward K. Barsky
Henry Beitscher
Dr. Vincent Bellaflore
David Beloff
Elmer A. Benson
Irving Berke
]Mrs. Irving Berke
^'ictor Bernstein
Walter Bernstein
Edwin Bjorkman
Dr. Algernon Black
Morton Bloom
Millen Brand
I'rof. Dorothy Brewster
Harry Bridges
Hngh Bryson
Harold Bnchman
Dr. Robert K. Burns
Rev. Dudley H. Bnrr
Dr. Allan M. Butler
Angus Cameron
Dr. Ulysses Campbell
Dr. John E. T. Camper
Herman Cherry
Jerome Chodorov
John M. Coe
Louis Cohen
Charles A. Collins
Fannie Cook
Israel Cramer
DIXAER SPONSORS
Prof. Thomas I. Emerson
Lion Feui-htwanger
Frederick Y. Field
Thomas Fitzpatrick
Russell H. Fluent
Clark Foreman
Clemens J. France
Lew Frank, Jr.
Patricia Murphy Frank
I>rof. Mitchell Franklin
Jr. Dr. Richard A. Freedman
Dr. Asa B. Friedman
Paul J. Kern
Charles M. Kerns, Jr.
Dr. John A. Kingsbnrv
Hannah Kirtz
Harry G. Kriegel
Leo Krzycki
Corliss Lamont
Millard Lampell
Marjorie Lansing
Karly Larsen
John La Touche
Arthur Laurents
Rev. Stephen II. FritchmanJames D. Le Cron
William S. Gailmor
Mrs. William S. Gailmor
Zalmon Garfield
A. J. Gelb
Zina Getmansky
Elinor S. Gimbel
Kaye Ginsberg
J. W. Gitt
Mrs. J. W. Gitt
Ben Gold
Fred F. Gold
B. Z. Goldberg
Mrs. Louis Goldburt
^Minnie Golden
Sanford L. Goldman
Dr. Samuel M. (ioodman
Esther Lowe Gordon
Jack Greenbaum
William Gropiier
Ewart G. Guinier
Uta Hagen
Vincent Hallinan
Mrs. Vincent Hallinan
Dashiel Hammett
E. Y. Harburg
Mrs. E. Y. Harburg
Dr. Fowler Harper
Dr. Marion Hathway
Dorothy Haven
Prof. Henry W. Longfellow Lillian Hellman
Dana
Francis Danowski
Zoltan Deak
John J. DeBoer
Hugh De Lacy
Raymond Dennis
Freda Diamond
Harry L. Diehl
Martha Dodd
Dr. Barnet Dorwitt
Olin Downes
Muriel Draper
Paul Draper
Mrs. Paul Draper
Benjamin Dreyfus
Dr. W. E. B. DuBois
Prof. Barrows Dunham
James H. Durkin
Arnaud d'Usseau
Dr. Lewis A. Eldridge, Jr.
Kvrle Elkin
Dr. Robert H. Ellis
Donald Henderson
Erma L. Henderson
Edith Weil Hertz
Rev. Charles A. Hill
Ira A. Hirschmann
Charles P. Howard
Leo LIuberman
Canada Lee
Ray Lev
Grace K. Liebman
Irma Lindheim
Seymour Linfleld
Alice F. Liveright
Stan Loney
Michael Loring
Dr. Oliver S. Loud
Thomas Ludwig
Prof. Curtis D.
MacDougall
Bernard Z.
McGrogart.v
John T. McManus
Mary Cabot Macy
Albert Maltz
Vito Marcantonio
James Martin
John Martin
Winfred L. Martin-
dale
Mary Bacon Mason
Prof. F. O. Matthiessen
Dr. Leo Mayer
Mrs. Leo Mayer
Rev. William Howard
Melish
Arthur Miller
Clyde R. Miller
William H. Miller .
Dimitri Mitro-
poulos
Mrs. Albert Mizzy
Thomas G. Moore
Elizabeth Moos
Jacob Moscowitz
Rev. Kenneth deP. HughesStanley Moss
James Imbrie
Jeremiah C. Ingersoll
Minneola P. Ingersoll
Leo Isacson
Rev. J. yuinton Jackson
Crockett Johnson
Walter *1 Johnson
Alvin Jones
Dr. Harry Joseph
Robert Joseph.v
Mrs. Robert Josephy
Elinor Kahn
Manya Kahn
Rockwell Kent
Rev. Arthur W.
Moulton
Russell Nixon
Grant W. Oakes
Walter O'Brien
Jerry J. O'Connell
Ernest Thor Olson
Orville Olson
Harry C. Oppenheimer
Mrs. Harry C. Oppen-
heimer
Sona Osato
Estelle Massey Osborne
Arthur Osman
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
159
Dr. Lionel Ovesey
Meyer Parodneck
Ivobert Tattersoii
Dr. Linus Pauling
William Ponnock
Jennings I'erry
Nels Peterson
Morris Pi/.er
Ely Pollack
A. L. Ponierantz
Martin Popper
Prof. Edward A. Post
George Provost
Harry Ragozin
Mrs. Harry Ragozin
Willard B. Ransom
Bernard Reswick
Libby Holman Reynolds
Dr. John G. Rideout
Paul Robeson
Eslanda Goode Robeson
Col. Raymond Robins
Earl Robinson
Reid Robinson
Sidney Roger
O. John Rogge
Harold J. Rome
Dr. Samuel Rosen
Mrs. Samuel Rosen
Paul L. Ross
Norman Rosten
Dr. John F. Rutledge
Lee Sabinson
Dr. Artur Schnabel
Prof. Frederick L.
Schuman
Arthur Schutzer
Dr. Benianiin Segal
Joseph P. Selly
Theodore Shapiro
Agnes Smedley
Dr. Randolph B. Smith
Raphael Soyer
Mrs. Lawrence D. Steefel
Johannes Steel
Boris R. Steinberg
Alfred K. Stern
I. F. Stone
Fred W. Stover
Frieda Strassler
Dr. Dirk J. Struik
Paul M. Sweezy
Helen Tamiris
Dr. I. M. Tarlov
Dr. Alva W. Taylor
Mandel A. Terman
P. Frankel Thau
Jacob Turner ^
Mrs. Jacob Turner
Jerry Tyler
Exhibit 43
Elsie II. Tyndale
Louis Untermeyer
Mary Van Kleeck
Katherine Van Orden
Craig Vincent
William Vulcan
Dr. Alexander J.
Walker
Courtney Ward
Dr. Harry F. Ward
Alice H. Ware
( 'loldie Watson
Dr. William H. Watts
Max Weber
Dr. Gene Weltfish
Mrs. Louis Wender
Prof. Frank W. Wey-
mouth .
Rev. Eliot White
Mrs. Eliot White
Henry Willcox
Mrs. Henry Willcox
James Waterman Wise
Bert Witt
Alexander Wright
Herman Wright
George Wuchnich
Coleman Young
Joseph Zwillinger
Mrs. Joseph Zwillinger
[Bureau of Acartpmic Freedom. National Council of the Arts. Sciences, and Professions,
49 West Forty-fourth Street. New York 18 (Johanna Grant)]
For relea.se Tuesday, March 1, 1949.
One HrxDRED and Fifty Leadi.xg Educators Call for Reinstatement of
Unr^rsity of Washington Professors
letters to dr. ALLEN CALLS FIRINGS THREAT TO ENTIRE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM
One hundred and fifty educational leaders from more than .oO colleges and
universities throughout the country have urged Dr. Raymond Allen, president of
the University of Washington, to reinstate with full rights of tenure the 3
professors recently discharged from the university for membership in or "am-
biguous relationship to" the Communist Party in a letter released today (Tuesday)
by the Bureau of Academic Freedom of the National Council of the Arts, Sciences,
and Professions.
Dr. Christian Gauss, dean emeritus of Princton University; Prof. L. C. Dunn
of Columbia University ; Dr. L. B. Arguimbau, of the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology; i:>r. Howard Mumford Jones, of Harvard University; and Prof.
Robert Chambers, of New York T'niversity. are among the signers of the letter
which characterizes the firings as a "shocking repudiation" of the principles of
democracy and academic freedom.
Otlier signatures to the letter, which has also been sent to the board of
regents of the University of Washington, include: Dr. David Haber, Yale Law
School : Prof. Colston Warne, Amherst College ; Dr. Harl R. Douglass, director of
the ('i)llege of Education, University of Colorado; Dr. Frank W. Weymouth,
Stanford University; Prof. Joseph F. Fletcher, Episcopal Theological School,
Cambridge; Dr. W. C. H. Prentice of Swarthmore College; Dr. I. M. KolthofC,
University of Minne.sota: and Dr. T. W. Reese, Mount Holyoke College.
Following is the complete text of the letter, released by Dr. Clyde R. Miller,
director of the NCASP Bureau on Academic Freedom :
"The principle that every citizen has a right to his personal lieliefs and as.so-
clations and to voluntary participation in the affairs of the community is funda-
mental to the traditional American concepts of democracy and academic freedom.
160 STATE DIEPARTME'NT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
"The recent decision of the University of Washington to dismiss three faculty
members on the basis of membership in the Communist Party, or on the premise
of "guilt by association," is a shocking repudiation of this principle. If these
dismissed professors are not reinstated, the result will be irreparable damage to
all educational institutions and particularly to the University of Washington.
"The university's action, if it is not swiftly reversed, will se*" a precedent for
the dismissal of any instructor for any personal beliefs and associations.
"As educators, deeply concerned for our nwn civil rights and t'^^ose of our fellow
citizens, and cognizant of the further implications of this action as a threat to
our entire educational system, we urge the immediate reinstatement, with full
rights of tenure, of the dismissed professors, Phillips, Butterworth, and
Gundlach."
List of other professors whose names appear on the statement are attached.
Signers of Statement to President Allen of the University of Washingtok
(Universities and colleges listed for identification purposes only)
Dr. M. H. Abrariis, Cornell University. Dr. W. E. B. DuBois, Council on African
Dr. Vaughn S. Albertsou, Vanport Col- Affairs.
lege. Dr. Barrows Dunham, Temple Univer-
Dr. Gordon Allport, Harvard Univer- sity.
sity. Dr. L. C. Dunn, Columbia University.
Dr. Kurt Anderson, Bennington Col- Dr. Henry Pratt Fairchild, New York
lege. University.
Prof. L. B. Arguimbau, Massachusetts Dr. I. Fankuchen, Polytechnic Insti-
Institute of Technology. tute of Brooklyn.
Dr. Albert F. Ax, Harvard University. Dr. Harold Feldman, Cornell Univer-
Dr. Bernard Baum, University of sity.
Iowa. Dr. Leon Festinger, University of
Dr. Paul H. Baurnan, University of Michigan.
Louisville. Dr. Mary Jo Fink, University of Louis-
Dr. Carter Bechtel, University of Louis- ville.
ville. Dr. Joseph J. Firebaugh, University of
Dr. Albert J. Becker, Western Reserve Florida.
University. Dr. William H. Fisher, Eastern Wash-
Dr. Robert O. Blood, Jr., William Penn ington College.
College. Prof. Joseph P. Fletcher, Episcopal
Prof. Henry Blumberg, Ohio State Uni- Theological School.
versity. Dr. G. L. Foster, Columbia University.
Dr. Bart J. Bok, Harvard Observatory. Dr. Frank S. Freeman, Cornell Uni-
Edith Keene Bower, American Asso- versity.
elation for Adult Education. Dr. Stanley Friedman, Western Reserve
Dr. Theodore Brameld, New York Uni- University.
versity. Dr. Wendell Furry, Harvard University.
Dr. Louise Fargo Brown, Vassar Col- Dr. Morris E. Garnsey, University of
lege. Colorado.
Dr. Robert Winzer Bruce, Lyndon Dr. Christian Gauss, Princeton Univer-
Teachers College. sity.
Dr. Edith Burnett. Smith College. Dr. Josephine M. Gleason, Vassar Col-
Dr. Robert C. Challman, Menninger lege.
Foundation. Dr. Alma Goetsch, Michigan State Col-
Dr. Robert Chambers, New York Uni- lege.
versity. Dr. Irving Goodman, University of Col-
Dr. M. M. Chatterjee, Antioch College. orado.
Dr. George B. Collins, University of Dr. M. Goodman, Western Reserve
Rochester. Universitv.
Prof Alfred Crofts, University of Den- ^v. David Ilaber, Yale.
yer. Dr. William Haller. .Jr.. University of
Prof. John J. DeBoer, University of Massachusetts.
Illinois Prof. Fowler Harper, Yale Law School.
Dr. IMarion DeRonde, Smith College. Dr. Frederick P. Harris, Western Re-
Dr. Malcolm Dole, Northwestern Uni- serve University.
versity. Dr. Mary Hemle, New School for Social
Dr. Harl R. Douglass, University of Research.
Colorado.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 161
Dr. Nicliolas Hobbs, Colunibiii Univer- Dr. Otto Natlian, New York University.
sity. Dr. Wesley Osterberg, Western Reserve
Dr. Lee Elbert Holt, American Inter- University.
national College. Dr. Erwin Panofsky, Institute for Ad-
Dr. Lloyd U. liuniplireys, Stanford Uni- vanced Study.
versity. Dr. Melber Phillips, Brooklyn College.
Dr. W. llurewicz, Massachusetts Insti- Dr. Dale Pontius, Roosevelt College.
tute of Technology. Dr. W. C. H. Prentice, Swarthmore
Dr. Kobert Iglehart, New York Univer- College.
sity. Dr. Claire F. Rabo, Western Reserve
Dr. Otto Jelinek, (Jrinnell College. University.
Dr. Howard Muniford Jones, Harvard Mr. Walter Rautonstrauch.
University. Dr. Peter L. Rabe, Western Reserve
Dr. Mervin Jules, Smith College. University.
Dr. Daniel Katz. University of Michi- Dr. T. W. Reese, Mount Holyoke Col-
s:>n. lege.
Dr. Noble H. Kelley, University of Louis- Dean Geraldine Richard, Chandler
ville. School.
Dr. John C. Kennedy, Oberlin College. Dr. Walter B. Rideout, Harvard Univer-
Dr. George R. Kernodle, University of sitv.
^"^^"'*- Dr. Bernard F. Riess, Hunter College.
Dr. Philliiv Klein, New York School of Mr. Holland Robert. California Labor
Social Work. School.
Dr. Ellis Kolehin. Columbia University. Dr. Milton Rokeach, Michigan State
Dr. I. M. Kolthoff, University of Miune- Colleo"e.
i^ota. Pi-of cufford P. Rowe, Pacific Univer-
Dr. Oliver W. I^rkin, Smith College. gj^-y
Dr. Douglas H. Lawrence, Yale Uni- Dr. Sevmour B. Sarason, Yale Univer-
versity. j,ity /
Dr. Ronald B. Levy, Roosevelt College. Dr. "s. Stansfeld Sargent, Columbia
Dr. Gardner Lindzey, Harvard Univer- University.
^it-^'- ^ ^ Dr. T. C. Schneirla, American Museum
Dr. Bert James Loewenberg, Sarah Law- ^^ Natural History.
rence College. , ^ , ^ , ^ Dr. Waldo' Schumacher, University of
Dr. Helen Morrell Lynd, Sarah Law- Oregon
rence College. „ , , ^, , Dr. Frederick L. Schuman, Williams
Dr. Solomon Machover, Brooklyn Col- Colleo-e
^ ^^f^ ... ., • .. ^.r- .■ r>r. Witliam R. Sears, Cornell Univer-
Dr. Gorman Maier, L niversity of Michi- .^
T.^^\'V T ,r ^, 1, TT • -4. Dr. Theodore Shedlevsky, Rockefeller
Dr. F. L. Marcuso, Cornell University. Institute
Dr. S. E. Margolin. University of Louis- ^^^ Henry W. Shelton, La Jolla, Calif.
I, ^V V Ar Ar „ A- , TT • -^ Dr. B. dthanel Smith, University of
Prof. J. M. Marsalka, Yale University. Illinois
Dr R. E. Marshak, University of Ro- ^ ^ Bi-ewster Smith, Harvard Uni-
^'^^^^*'^"- versitv
Di-. (Jlenn C. Martin, Santa Monica City j^^ Randolph B. Smith, New York City.
Lo.itge ^ ,, ^, „ , r- • Dr. P. A. Serekin, Harvard University.
Prof. Kirtley F. Mather, Harvard I ni- ^^, ^^^^ Stagner, University of Illinois.
Di- 'r (rMatthies.son, Harvard Univer- ^'■.^- J" Stauverman, Emery Univer-
T-w :/ 1 T AT T 11- A.- V ..1 Dr. Bernhard J. Stern, Columbia Uni-
Dr. Samuel J. McT>aughlin, New York .:
Universitv versity.
Dr. Alice McNiff, New York University. J^l'^'^P^! ^^ ^^r^^M ^' m J'JnlSIn« Tn
Dr. Willis B. Merriam, State College ^\^'l^ l' r^^T \ ^t^^^^^^"^^"s In-
of W-mhiiK'toii stitntP of Technology.
Dr! Ad:/!.!, E. Mever, New York Uni- ^r. Edward A. Suchman, Cornell Uni-
versitv ' versity.
Prof. Otto Meyerhof, University of Dr^ Ralph B. Tower, West Virginia
Pennsylvania. University.
Dr. Uul.v Turner IVIorris, VassaV Col- Dr. Charles Trinkhaus, Sarah Lawrence
le^re College.
Dr. Philip Morrison, Cornell Uni- Dr. Ralph H. Turner, Oberlin College.
versity. Dr. Robert Ulich, Harvard University.
Dr. George A. Muench, University of Dr. J. Van der Zee, State University of
Louisville. Iowa.
162
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Dr. T. W. Van Metre, Columbia Univer-
sity.
Dr. George B. Vetter, New York City.
Dr. John Voll^mann, Mount Holyoke Col-
lege.
Dr. Herbert Weisinger, Institute for
Advanced Study.
Dr. Louis Weisner, Hunter College.
Dr. Gene Weltfish, Columbia University.
Dr. Frank W. Weymouth, Stanford
University.
(Partial list as of February 21, 1949.)
Dr. Paul L. Whitely, Franklin and
Marshall.
Dr. Maxine Wolfenstein, Western Re-
serve University.
Dr. Thomas Woody, University of
Pennsylvania.
Prof. Colston E. Warne, Amherst Col-
lege.
Dr. Thomas I. Emerson, Yale Law
School.
Exhibit 44
Culture and the Crisis
an open letter to the writers, artists, teachers, physicians, engineers,
scientists, and other professional workers of america
League of Professional Groups for Foster and Ford
In October this group was organized as the League of Professional Groups
for Foster and Ford. An editorial committee was appointed and instructed to
expand the original statement into a 10,000-word open letter, and publish it as
an election pamphlet. This pamphlet is now issued under the title of "Culture
and the Crisis."
Leonie Adams
Sherwood Anderson
Newton Arvin
Emjo Basshe
Maurice Becker
Slater Brown
Fielding Burke
Erskine Caldwell
Robert Cant well
Winifred L. Cliappell
Lester Cohen
l<ouis Colman
Lewis Corey
Henry Cowell
Malcolm Cowley
Bruce Crawford
Kyle S. Crichton
Countee Cullen
H. W. L. Dana
Adolf Dehn
John Dos Passos
Howard N. Doughty, .Jr.
Miriam Allen De Ford
^^'aldo Frank
Alfred Frueh
Murray Godwin
Eugene Gordon
Horace Gregory
Louis Grudin
John Herrmann
Granville Hicks
Sidney Hook
Sidney Howard
Langston Hughes
Orrick Johns
William X. Jones
Matthew Josephson
Alfred Kreymborg
Louis Lozowick
Grace Lumpkin
P'elix Morrow
Samuel Ornitz
James Rorty
Isidor Schneider
Frederick L. Schuman
Edwin Seaver
Herman Simpson
Lincoln Steffens
Charles Walker
Robert Whitaker
Edmund Wilson
Ella Winter
Five cents per copy ; $1 for 25 ; $3.50 for 100.
Send orders to League of Professional Groups for Foster and Ford, 35 East
Twelfth Street, New York City,
Exhibit 45
List of Officers and Members of the National Citizens Political Action
Committee, as Submitted to the Committee on Campaign Expenditures of
the House of Representatives in the Last Week of August 1944. An In-
complete List Was Published in the Daily Worker of July 15, 1944
officers
Hon. George W. Norris, honorary chair-
man
Hon. Sidne.y Hillman, chairman
Hon. James G. Patton, vice chairman
Hon. Freda Kirchwey, vice chairman
Hon. R. J. Thomas, treasurer
Hon. James H. McGill, comptroller
Hon. Clark Foreman, secretary
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 163
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Verda White Barnes Freda Kirrhwey James G. Patton
Elmer A. Benson Janu's Ldeb Gifford I'iiK-hot
Van A. Bittner Lncy Ranilolph INlasou R. J. Thomas
Qark Foreman James H. McGill Dr. Robert C. Weaver
Sidney Hillnian I'hilip Murray A. F. Whitney
MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Adamic. Louis, author, Milford, N. J.
Alexander, Dr. Will W., vice president, Julius Rosenwald Fund, North Carolina
Anderson, Mary, former Director, Women's Bureau, Department of Labor, Wash-
ington, D. C.
.\nderson, Mrs. Sherwood, New York City
Baldwin, ('. B., assistant chairman, CIO Political Action Committee, New York
Balokovic, Zlatko, president. United Committee of South Slavic Americans, New
York
Barnes, Verda White, director, women's division, CIO Political Action Commit-
tee, New York
Bauer, Catherine, author, California
Benet, William Rose, poet, New York
Benson, Elmer A., ex-Governor, Minnesota
Bethune. Mary McLeod CMrs.), Daytona Beach, Fla.
Biffsert, Robert (Mrs.), Winnetka, 111.
Bittner, Van A., United Steelworkers of America, Washington, D. C.
Blaine, Emmons (Mrs.), Chicago, 111.
Bliven. Bruce, editor. New Republic, New l^'ork
Boas, Dr. Ernst P., New York City
Bowie, Dr. W. Russell, professor. Union Theological Seminary, New York
Bremer, Otto, banker, St. Paul. Minn.
Bunr'.ick, Zarko M . president. Serbian Vidovdas Congress, Akron, Ohio
Burke, J. Frank. Pasadena, Calif.
Butkovich, John D., president, Croatian Fraternal Union, Pennsylvania
Cai-ey, James B., secretary-treasurer, Congress of Industrial Organizations,
Washington, D. C.
Clyde, Ethel (Mrs.), Huntington, Long Island
Coinielly, ^larc, Los Angeles, Calif.
Cooke, Morris Llewellyn, consulting engineer, Philadelphia, Pa.
Coolidge, Albert Sprague, professor. Harvard University, Massachusetts
Corrothers. Rev. S. L., president, National Nonpartisan Colored Ministers Asso-
ciation, U. S. A., Westbury, Long Island
Curran. Joseph, president. National Maritime Union of America, New York
Dalrymitle, Sh»rnian H., president. United Itubber Workers of America, Ohio
Davis. Dr. Michael M., editor. Medical Care, New York
Dombrowski, Dr. James A., executive secretary. Southern Conference for Human
Welfare, Tennessee
Dun.lee. Roscoe,'editor and publisher, the Black Dispatch, Oklahoma
Dul'ont, Ethel, writer, Kentucky
DuPont, Zara, Cambridge, Mass.
Durr, Clifford (Mrs.), vice chairman, National Committee to Abolish the Poll
Tax. Virginia
Eliot, Thomas H., attorney, Cambridge, Mass.
Emliree, Edwin R., president, Julius Rosenwald Fund, Illinois
Epstein. Henry, attorney. New York City
Fitzgerald. Albert J., president, United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers
of America, New York.
Foreman, Clark, president. Southern Conference for Human Welfare
Frazier. Dr. E. Franklin, professor of sociology, Howard University, Washing-
ton, D. C. •" o
Galbraith, John Kenneth, editorial department. Fortune Magazine
Ginibel, Elinor, Committee for the Care of Young Children in Wartime, New
York Cit.v.
Green. John, president. Marine and Shipbuilding Workers of America, New Jersey
Gufknecht. John, judge. municii)al court. Chicago, 111.
Harburg. E. Y.. motion picture director, Hollywood. Calif
Hastie AVilliam. judge, dean, Howard Law School, Washington, D C
Hays, Mortimer, attorney, New York City.
164 STATE DEPARTME'IsTT EMPLOYEE LOYALTT ESTVESTIGATION
Haywood, Allan S., administrator, Federal Workers of America, Washington,
D. C.
Hecht, Ben, writer, California.
Hewes, L. I., Jr., Palo Alto, Calif., National Council on Race Relations.
Hillman, Sidney, president, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.
Hollander, Si'lney, manufacturer, Maryland.
Hughes, Langston, poet. New York.
Imbrie, James, banker, Trenton, N. J.
Kenyon, Dorothy, judge. New York City.
Kingdon, Dr. Frank, author. New York.
Kirchwey, Freda, publisher, the Nation, New Yorlv.
Krzycki, Leo. president, American Slav Congress, New York.
Kulikowski. Adam, publisher, Opportunity, Virginia.
Lange, Oscar, professor. University of Chicago, 111.
Lapp, John, Independent labor conciliator, Chicago, 111.
LeCron, James, assistant to Henry A. Wallace as Secretary of Agriculture,
Berkeley, Calif.
Lee, Canada, actor, New York City.
Lerner, Max, author, editor, PM, New York.
Lewis, Alfred Baker, Greenwicli, Conn., president. Trade Union Accident and
Health Association.
Lewis, John Frederick, president. Art Alliance, Philadelphia, Pa.
Lewis, William Draper. Philadelphia, Pa.
Lochard, Dr. Metz T., editor, Chicago Defender, Chicago, 111.
Loeb, James, secretary, Union for Democratic Action, New York.
Lxiyten, Dr. W. J., professor of astronomy. University of Minnesota, Minneapolis,
Minn.
Mason. Lucy Randolph, Atlanta, Ga.
Maurer, Dr. Wesley, School of Journalism, LTniversity of Michigan.
McAllister, Mrs. Thomas F., former director, women's division, National Demo-
cratic Party, Grand Rapids, Mich.
McConnell, Francis J., bishop. New York City.
McCulloch, Frank, director, Mullenbach Institute, Chicago, 111.
McDonald, David J., secretary-treasurer, United Steelworkers of America,
Pennsylvania.
!\Ic<Till, James H., McGill Manufacturing Co., Valparaiso, Ind.
Mc^Iahon, Francis, professor, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111.
McWilliams, Cary, attorney. Avriter, Los Angeles, Calif.
Motherwell, Hiram, author. New York.
Murrav, Philip, president, Congress of Industrial Organizations, Washington,
D. C.
Mulzac. Capt. Hugh, United States merchant marine, Jamaica, Long Island.
Neilson, William A., educator, Falls Village. CouJi.
Niebuhr. Dr. Reinhold, professor, Union Theological Seminary, New York.
Norris. Hon. George W., Nebraska.
Osowski, Dr. W. T., president, American Slav Congress, ^Michigan.
Patton, James G., president. National Farmers Union, Colorado.
Perry, Jennings, editor, Nashville Tennessean, Tennessee.
Pinchot. Cornelia Bryce, Washington, D. C.
Pinchot. Gifford. Milford. Pa.
Platek. V. X., president. National Slovak Society. Pennsylvania.
Pope, Dr. Liston, Yale Divinity School, New Haven, Conn.
Pdjiper, Mai-tin, executive secretary. National Lawyers Guild.
Porter, Katherine Anne, writer. New York.
Poynter, Nelson, publisher, St. Petersburg Times, Florida.
Quilici, Judge George L., municipal court, Chicago, 111.
Ratica, Peter, president. United Russian Orthodox Brotherhood of America,
Pennsylvania.
Reid. Dr. Ira., associate director. Southern Regional Council, Atlanta, Ga.
Reynolds, J. Louis, Reynolds Metals Co., Virginia.
Ricker, A. W., editor. Farm Union Herald, St. Paul, Minn.
Rieve, Emil, president. Textile Workers Union of America, New York.
Robeson, Paul, actor. New York.
Robinson, Edward G., Hollywood, Calif.
Robinson, Mrs. Edward G., Hollywood, Calif.
Robinson, Reid, president, United Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers of America,
Colorado.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 165
liosenhluin, Frank. Aiualf,'a mated (lothing Workers of America, New York.
lioseutlial, Morris S., Steiu, Hall »fc Co., Inc., New York.
Koss, Mrs. J. D., Seattle, Wash.
K.vaii. n. Frank, managing editor, Courier-Post, Camden, N. J.
Sackelt, Sheldon F., editor, Coos Bay Times, Marshfield, Oreg.
Schli'singer, Arthur M., professor of history, Harvard University.
Schnman. Frederick L., professor of international relations, Williams College,
Massachusetts.
Schwartz, C. K., attorney, Chicago, 111.
SeitVrheld, David F., president. N. Erlanger Blumgart & Co., New York City.
Suiathers, Hon. William H.. New Jersey.
Smith, Lillian, editor. South Today, and author, "Strange P'ruit", Georgia.
Smith, S. Stephenson, Eugene, Oreg.
Soule, George, associate editor. New Republic, New York City.
Speir, Mercedes Powell, presiilent, Iticlimond Consumers Cooperative, Rich-
mond, Va.
Steele, Julian D., president, Boston Branch, NAACP, Boston, Mass.
Sweezey, Alan, professor of economics, Williams College, Massachusetts.
Stone. Maurice L., business executive, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New York.
Thomas, R. J., president. United Automobile, Aircraft, Agricultural Implement
Workers of America, Detroit. Mich.
Tilly, Mrs. M. E., jurisdictional secretary of Christian social relations of the
southeastern jurisdiction of the Women's Society for Christian Service, Metho-
dist Church, Georgia.
Tobias, Dr. Channing H., member of Joint Army and Navy Committee on Wel-
fare and Recreation and Mayor's Committee on Unity, New York City.
Townsend, Willard, president, United Transport Service Employees of America,
Chicago, 111.
Van Kleeck. Mary, Russell-Sage Foundation, New York City.
Walsh, J. Raymond, director of research, CIO Political Action Committee, New
York.
Waring, P. Alston, farmer-author, New Hope, Pa.
Weaver. Dr. Robert C, Mayor's Committee on Racial Relations, Chicago, 111.
Welles. Orson, Hollywood, Calif.
Wesley, Carter, publisher, Plouston Informer, Tex.
Wheeluright, Mrs. Ellen DuPont, Wilmington, Del.
Whitney, A. F., president, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Ohio.
Williams, Aubrey, National Farmers Union, Washington, D. C.
AVilson, Mrs. Luke I., Bethesda, Md.
Wise, James Waterman, author, radio commentator, New York.
Wright. Jr., Bishop R. R., executive secretary, Negro Fraternal Council of
Churches in America, Ohio.
Young, P. B., publisher, Norfolk Journal and Guide, Virginia.
Zeman. Jr., Stephen, president, Slovak Evangelical Union, Pennsylvania.
Zmrhal., Prof. Jaroslav J., president, Czechoslovak National Council, Illinois.
Exhibit 46
[From Daily Worker, New York, Wednesda.v, April 16, 1947]
Notables Defend Communist Rights
More than 100 prominent individuals yesterday called upon Congress to defeat
the various "exceptional and punitive measures directed against the Communist
Party," now in the hands of the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
Signers of the letter include Thomas Mann, Franklin P. Adams, Vincent
Sheean, Prof. Frederick L. Schuman of Williams College, Mr. and Mrs. Sher-
wood Eddy, Mrs. Margaret Sanger Slee, Jo Davidson, Garson Kanin, Libby Hol-
man, and Dean Walter G. Mudder of Boston University School of Theology.
■'Legislation such as that proposed by Congressmen Rankin, Sheppard, Hartley,
Parnell Thomas, and McDonough follows the Hitler pattern," the signers declared
in a letter to House Speaker Joseph Martin, released by the Civil Rights Congress.
"The Communist Party is a legal American political party. We see nothing
in its program, record or activities, either in war or peace to justify the enactment
of the repressive legislation now being urged upon the Congress in an atmos-
phere of an organized hysteria."
166 STATE DEPARTMENT EJMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Among the other signers of the letter are Samuel L. M. Barlow, Sholem Asch,
Elmer A. Benson, former Governor of Minnesota ; Prof. S. P. Breckenridge, Uni-
versity of Chicago : Zlatko Balokovie, Professors Archibald Cox, H-^nry Wads-
worth Longfellow Dana and F. O. Matthiessen of Harvard University; Prof. J.
Frank Dobie, University of Texas, Adolf Dehn.
Also, Mayor Cornelius D. Scully, Pittsburgh, Pa.; Charles Houston, attorney
Roscie Dunjee, Oklahoma City ; Prof. Henry Pratt Fairchild, Howard Fast, Dr.
Harry F. Ward, John Howard Lawson, Agnes Smedley, Rev. Charles F. McClen-
nan, Cleveland, Ohio ; Arthur Miller, Artnr Schnabel, Dashiell Hammett, and Dr.
Charlotte Hawkins Brown, president, Palmer Memorial Institute.
Also, Max Weber, William Jay Schieffelin, Dr. E. Franklin Frazier, Howard
University; Bishop W. Y. i'ell, Cordele, Ga. : INPitthew Josephson. h'storian;
Rabbi Jacob H. Kaplan, Miami, Fla. ; Francis Fisher Kane, Philadelphia attorney ;
Prof. Malcolm Sharp, University of Chicago Law School ; George Marshall and
Milton Kaufman, Civil Rights Congress.
(Titles and institutions for identification only.)
Exhibit 47
National Wallace for President Committee,
39 Park Avenue, Netc York, N. T.
For A. M. Belease, Fridaii, March 26, 19 '/S
Formation of a 700-member National Wallace for President Committee was
announced yesterday (Thursday) by 'Elmer A. Benson, former Minnesota
Governor and chairman of the Wallace group.
The committee will hold its first meeting in Chicago April 9, 10, and 11, to
make plans for the formation of a new national political party and to plan
the program for the Wallace campaign.
Programs for the various divisions of the Wallace committee will be drafted
on the opening day of the meeting. The divisions include those for labor, women,
professional groups, nationality groups, youth, and farm.
On April 10 and through part of Ai>ril 11. State directors from apijroximately
40 States will report on their organizational progress and their drive to jiut
Wallace's name on the ballot. The press will be admitted to this session of the
meeting.
On the night of April 10 the committee members will attend a mass rally at
the Chicago Stadium, where both Mr. Wallace and Senator Glen Taylor will
speak.
The Chicago meeting will also issue the call for the new party convention and
set the date and place.
Eleven new State parties have already been formed by Wallace groups. Plans
are already under way for forming new parties shortly in 24 other States.
Among the 700 members of the committee are :
Zlatko Balokovie, violinist and president of the American Slav Congress, New
York: Charlotta Bass, California publisher: Leonard Bernstein, musician. New
York ; Bart J. Bok, assistant director of Harvard University Observatory, Massa-
chusetts ; Harry Bridges, president. International Longshoremen's and Ware-
housemen's Union, CIO, California ; Charlotte Hawkins Brown, educator. North
Carolina; Scott Buchanan, educator, Massachusetts; Quentin Burdick, education
director of North Dakota Farmers Union ; Dr. Allan N. Butler, Harvard Medical
School, Massachusetts ; Hugh Bi-yson, president, aiarine Cooks and Stewards
Union, CIO ; Mrs. Evans Carlson, Oregon ; John Clark, president. Mine, Mill, and
Smelters Union, CIO, Illinois; Robert Coates, New Yorker Magazine: John Coe,
State senator, Florida ; Fannie Cook, novelist, Missouri ; Dr. Leo Davidoff, neuro-
surgeon, Monteflore Hospital, New Y^ork; Prof. Frank Dobie, University of
Texas ; Olin Downes, music critic, New York ; W. E. B. DuBois, research director
of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, New-
York ; Roscoe Dunjee, publisher, Oklahoma : James Durkin, president, United
Office and Professional Workers of America, CIO, New York ; Mrs. Clifford Durr,
Virginia ; Prof. Thomas Emerson, Yale Law School ; Jose Ferrer, actor, New
York: Prof. Robin Field, Tulane University. Louisiana; Albert J. Fitzgerald,
))resident. United Electrical, Radio, and Machine Workers of America, CIO,
New Y^'ork ; Dr. Clark Foreman, president of the Southern Conference for
Human Welfare, Georgia ; Mrs. Elinor Gimbel, New York ; Josiah Gitt, publisher,
York (Pa.) Gazette and Daily; Ben Gold, president. Fur AVoikers International
Union, CIO, New York ; Uta Ilagen, actress, New York ; Roy Harris, composer,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 167
Colorado: Lillian Hellinan, playwridit. New York; Donald Henderson, presi-
dent. Food, Tobacco, and Asricnltural Work(M-s of America. ("lO: Ira A. Hirsch-
mann. former inspector jieneral for I'NKKA. New York: Henry T. Hnnt, former
mayor of Cincinnati: N^. Floyd Hunter, director. Community rinnnini;' Council,
Atlanta. Ga. : .Tohu Huston, tilm director, California: Contj.ressman Leo Isacson,
New York: Francis Fisher Kjuie, rhiladelphia : Howard Koch, Hollywood screen
writer: Leo Ki-zycki, retired A'lce president, Amaliiamated Clothinc: Workers of
Ameriia. Wisconsin: Canada Lee, actor. New York; Curtis McDouuall, North-
western I'niversity. Illinois: .lames McfJill, Indiana nianufa<-turer : Howard
McKenzie, vice president. National Maritime Union, CIO; Aline McMahon,^
.•ictress, Los Angeles; Congressman Vito Marcantonio, New York; Prof. F. O.
Matthiesson, Harvard LTniypi-sity, Massachusetts ; Daniel Mebane, publisher.
New Kepuhlic, New York; Frederic G. Melcher, editor of Publishers* Weekly,
New .lersey ; Dmitri ^litropolous. conductor of the Minneapolis Symphony
Orcliestra ; Capt. Hugb IMulzac, captain of the Booker T. W<ishi)if/to)i : Stanley
Nowak, State senator, Michigan ; Grant W. Oakes, president. Farm Equipment
Workers Unuion, CIO, Illinois: Sono Osato, actress, California: Dr. Linus
Paulinir, physicist, California Institute of Technoloiry : Morris Pizer, president.
United Furniture Workers of America, CIO: Abraham Pomerantz, former United
States prosecntin- at the Nuremburu' War Crimes Trials. New York : Lee Press-
man, former CIO general counsel : Michael J. Quill, president. Transport AVorkers
of America. CIO: Magistrate Joseph Rainey. Philadelphia: O. John Rogge,
former Assistant United States Attorney General. New York; Prof. John G.
Rideout. Durham. N. H. ; Prof. Frederick L. Schumann. Williams College. Massa-
chusetts ; Jospeh P. Selly, president. American Communications Association,
CIO; Artie Shaw, bandleader. Norwalk, Conn.; Dr. Michael A. Shadid. Okla-
homa City. Okla. : Dr. Maud Slye, director of the University of Chicago Cancer
Research': Mrs. Edgar Snow (Nym Wales) Madison, Conn.; Robert St. John,
author. New York ; Kenneth Spencer, singer. New York ; Fred Stover, president,
Iowa Farmers Union: iSIark Van Doren, poet. New York; Mary Van Kleeck,
Russell Sage Foundation, New York; F. A. Vider, chairman, Slovene American
National Council, Chicago: Smeale Voydanoff, president. Macedonian American
Peoples League, Michigan : Addie L. Weber, president, New Jersey State Feder-
ation of Teachers. AFL ; Don West. poet. Oglethorpe LTniversity, Atlanta, Ga.;
Nelson V\'illis, president. Cook County Bar Association. Chicago; James Water-
man Wise, New York: Ed Yeomans. director of the Eastern Division. Naticmal
Farmers Union : Chester Young, vice president. National Maiitime Union, CIO.
Assistant M. Benson as cochairman of the committee are Jo Davidson, sculptor ;
Albert J. Fitz*,^erald. president of the CIO United Electrical, Radio, and :Macliine
AVorkers of America ; Mrs. Anita McCormick Blaine, of Chicago ; Paul Robeson,
sinirer, and Dr. Rexford G. Tugwell of the University of Illinois faculty.
Comnuttee treasurer is Angus Cameron, editor in chief of Little, Brown &
Co., publishers. Campaign manager is C. B. Baldwin.
Exhibit 48
The Text of an Open Calling for Greater Unity of the Anti-Fascist Forces
AND Strengthening of the Front Against Aggression Through Closer
Cooperation With the Soviet Union Released on August 14 by 400 Leading
Americans
To All Active Supporters of Democracy and Peace
One of the greatest problems confronting al Ithose 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 com-
mon goals. The Fascists and their allies are well aware that democracy will win
if its supporters are united. Accordingly, they are intent on destroying such
unity at all costs.
On the inteinational scene the Fascists and their friends have tried to prevent
a muted antiaggression front by sewing suspicion between the Soviet Union and
other nations interested in maintaining peace.
On the domestic scene the reactionaries are attempting to split the democratic
front by similar tactics. Realizing that here in America they cannot get far with
a definitely pro-Fascist appeal, they strive to pervert American anti-Fascist
sentiment to their own ends. With the aim of turning anti-Fascist 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
GS070 — 50 — pt. 1 12
168 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
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 neces-
sary to point out that amouy 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 initia-
tors and controllers of the committee.
A number of other committees have been formed which give lip service to
democracy and peace while actually attacking the Soviet Union and aiding re-
action. Honest persons approached by such committees should scrutinize their
aims very carefully and support only those groups genuinely interested in pre-
serving culture and freedom and refusing to serve as instruments for attacking
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 fundamen-
tally from totalitarian fascism.
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 inter-
national order.
2. It has eliminated racial and national prejudice within its borders, freed the
minority peoples enslaved under the Tzars, 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
ownership of industry and the collectivization of agriculture.
4. It has established nation-wide socialist planning, resulting in increasingly
higher living standards and the abolition of unemployment and depression.
5. It has built the tiade unions, in which almost 24,000,000 workers are organ-
ized, into the very fabric of its society.
6. The Soviet Union has emancipated woman and the family, and has de-
veloped an advanced system of child care.
7. From the viewpoint of cultural freedom, the difference between the Soviet
Union and the Fascist countries is most striking. The Soviet Union has aff'ected
one of the most far-reaching cultural and educational advances in all history 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 published in
the Soviet Union. Tlie 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 constitution guarantees Soviet citizens universal suffrage, civil liberties,
the right to employment, to leisure, to free education, to free medical care, to
material security in sickness and old age, to equality of the sexes in all fields of
activitv, and to equality of all races and nationalities.
10. In n^atiou 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.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
169
Accordingly, tlie signers of rliis letter ur.ce Americans of whatever political
persnasion to stand iirmly for close cooperation in tlii.s sphere between the United
States and Soviet Russia, and to he on yuard 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
Dr. Thomas Addes, professor of medi-
cine, Leland Stanford University
Helen Alfred, executive director Na-
tional Public Ilousiug Conference
Prof. Newton Arvin. professor of Kng-
lish, Smith College
Dr. Charles S. Bacon, honorary piesi-
denr, 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, For-
eign Policy Association
Alice Stone Blackwell, suffragist, writer
Marc B itzstein, composer
Anita Biock, Theater (Juiid playreader
Stirling B >wen, i>oet
Richard Boyer, staff writer. The New
Yorker
Millen Brand, writer
Simon Breines, architect
Robert Brirfault, v.riter
Prof. Dorothy Brewster, assistant pro-
fessor of English, Columbia Univer-
sity
Prof. Edwin Berry Burgum. associate
professor of English, New York Uni-
versity
Fielding Burke, writer
Katherine Devereaux Blake, teacher
Meta Berger. writer, widow of the first
Socialist Congressman
Prof. Robert A. Brady, professor of eco-
nomics. University of California
J. E. Bromberg, actor
Bessie Beatty, writer
Vera Caspary, scenaiio writer
Maria Cristina Chambers, of the Au-
thors' League
Prof. Robert Chaml)ers, research pro-
fessor of biology. New York Uni-
versity
Harold Clurman. producer
Robert ^I. 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 Dodd. .Jr.. chairman Anti-Nazi
Literature Committee
Stanley D. Dodge, University of INIich-
igan
Prof. Dorothy Douglas, department of
economics. Smith College
are :
Muriel Draper, writer
Prof. L. C. Dunn, professor of zoology,
Columbia University
Prof, llaakou Chevalier, professor of
French, University of Califoriua
Prof. George B. Cressey, chairman of
the department of geology and geog-
raphy, Syracttse I'niversity
Ilariet G. Eddy, library specialist
Prof. Henry Pratt Fairchild, professor
of sociology. New York University
Kenneth Fearing, poet
I'rof. 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
Marjorie Fischer, writer
Angel Flores, writer, critic
Waldo Frank, writer
Wanda Gao, artist
Hugo Gellert. artist
Robert Ge.ssuer, department of English,
New York University
Prof. Willystiue Goodsell, associate pro-
fessor of education (retired), Colum-
bia University
Mortimer Graves, of the American
Council of Learned Societies
Dr. John H. Gray, economist, former
president of the American Economics
xVssociation
V\'illiam Gropper, artist
IMaurice Halperin, associate editor,
Books Abroad
Earl P. Hanson, explorer, writer
Prof. Samuel N. Harper, professor of
Russian language and institutions,
Chicago Universit.v.
Rev. Thomas L. Harris, national execu-
tive secretary, American League for
Peace and Democracy
Dashiell Hammett, writer
Ernest Hemingwa.v
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, jwet
Agatha Hies, writer
Rev. Otis G. Jackson, rector of St. Paul's
E])iscopal Church, Flint, Mich.
Sam JafFe, actor
Orrick Johns, poet
^latthew Joseph.sou, writer
170 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
George Kauffinan, playwright
Prof. Alexander Kann, associate pro-
fessor of Slavic languages, University
of California
Fred C. Kelly, writer
Rockwell Kent, artist
Dr. Jolin A. Kingsbury, social worker,
administrative consultant, WPA
Beatrice Kinkead, writer
Lincoln E. Kirstein, ballet producer
Arthur Kober. playwright
Alfred Kreyniborg, poet
Edward Laml>, lawyer
Dr. Corliss Lamont, writer, lecturer
Margaret I. Lamont, sociologist, writer
.7. J. Lankes, artist
Jay Leyda, cinema critic
John Howard Lawson, playwright
Kmil Lengyel, writer, critic
Prof. Max Lerner, professor of govern-
ment. Williams College
Meridel LeSueur, writer
Meyer Levin, writer
Prof. Charles W. Lightbody, department
of government and history, St. Law-
rsHice University
Robert Morss Lovett, Governor of the
Virgin Islands, and editor of The
New Republic
Prof. Halford E. Luccock, Yale Univer-
sity Divinity School
Katherine DuPre Lumpkin, writer
Klaus Mann, lecturer, writer, son of
Thomas Mann
Prof. F. O. Mathiessem, associate pro-
fes.sor of bistory of literature. Har-
vard University
Dr. Anita Marburg, department of
P^nglish. Sai'ah L:!wrence College
Dr. George Marshall, ec(momist
Aline MnclNIalion, actress
Clifford T. McAvoy, instructor, depart-
ment of romance languages. College of
the City of New York
Prof. V. J. McGill, professor of philoso-
phy. Hunter College
Prof. Robert McGregor, Reed College
Rutb McKenney, writer
Darwin J. Mesrole, lawyer
Prof. Herbert A. Miller, professor of
economics, Bryn Mawr College
Harvey O'Connor, writer
Clifford Odets, playwright
Senator McCarthy. I would like to call one to the committee's at-
tention, somethino- I did not suspect before I saw this document.
It seems that on September 12. 1949, one of these Communist-front
organizations sponsored a dinner for Henry A. Wallace and, believe
it or not, the convert charge was $10.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I understand that you have hired a staff to
obtain the complete information on anyone in the State Department
or closely related agencies who is suspected of being a bad security
risk.
Shaemus O'Sheel writer, critic
Mary White Ovington, social worker
S. J. Perelmau, writer
Dr. Jolni P. I'etei-s, department of in-
ternal 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 anthro-
pology. University of California
Prof. Walter Rautenstrauch, professor
of industrial engineering, Columbus
University
P.ernard 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, Jew-
ish Joint Distribution Board
Eugene Schoen, architect
Prof. Margaret Shlauch, associate
p/ofessor of English, New York Uni-
versity
Prof. Frederick L. Scliuman, professor
of government, Williams College
Prof. Vida D. Scudder. professor emer-
itiis of English, Wellesley College
George Seldes, writer
Vincent Sheean, writer
Viola Brothers Shore, scenario writer
Herman Shuudin, producer
Prof. Ernest J. Sinnuons, assistant pro-
fessor of English literature, Harvard
T jiiversity
Irina Skariatina, writer
Dr. F. Tredwell Smith, educator
Dr. Steplienson Smitii, president, Ore-
gon Conunonwealth Federation
Hester Sondergaard, actress
Isobel Walker Soule, writer, editor
Lionel Stander, actor
Cliristina Stead, writer
A. F. Steig, artist
Alfred K. Stern, housing specialist
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 171
1 am, therefore, subiiiittin<i; to the cliairinan for the attention of
the staff a list of 25 names which requires further investigation. All
of these individuals to the best of my knowledoe are either in the State
De]>artment, or in closely related a<»encies. At least they were very
recently.
Senator Tydings. We will look them up.
Senator Mc^Caktiiy. I understand all of them have been investi-
•rated by the Federal Bureau of 1 n vest i^fi^t ion and that such FBI in-
vest i<>at ions have developed information which is now in the files —
information which, accordino- to Acheson's own "yardstick of loyalty"
would stamp many, if not all of them, as beinj^ bad security risks.
'\^'ith the very limited staff which I have available (and, as the
Chair knows, 1 have been alloc;:ted no funds for this investi<2:ation ;
I have been conducting it completely on my own), it would take me
a considerable period of time to develop all of the information on
all of these individuals and submit individual cases on each of them
to the connnittee.
I intend, of course, to continue my investigation and assemble all
available information which comes to my attention on any of these
individuals, which information shall be available to the staff of this
connnittee.
In the meantime, in order to get things started, I believe the staff
might well start checking on these individuals. Obviously, the staff
could do a much speedier job in that the files, which are not easily
available to me, will be available to the committee.
Xone of the names which I now hand the Chair covers the cases
which I covered on the Senate floor.
Let me make that clear. These are additional names, some I had
not had time to develop when I made the speech on the Senate floor.
vSenator Tytoxgs. AYe are glad to have them. We will look into
them, examine the files, and make a report.
Senator McCarthy. I thank the chairman.
I shall continue to develop as much information on those cases as
possilde and will, of course, submit to the connnittee all such informa-
tion as soon as I have it properly documented.
I have remaining a considerable amount of information on the bal-
ance of these cases covered on the Senate floor, which information is
being assembled as rapidly as possible and put into shape to be pre-
sented to the committee. This task will be completed as soon as
possible.
I now give the Chair, if I may, these names.
Senator Tydixgs. Those are the keys?
Senator McCarthy. Those are the 25 names that have bad informa-
tion in their files, information which indicates they should not be
there.
Senator Tydixgs. I am very ho])eful that we can get our staff under
way some time during the week, and I would like to consult the Sena-
tor as to his convenience when he will give us in executive session,
as he said he would, the names of the 81 people, some of whom he
has since given us in public, but all of the 81 cases that he delineated
on the Senate floor, so that we may key the names to the information
which the Senator has given ns, and when we request the files, make
sure that we are requesting them for all the people that he has men-
tioned in his testimony.
172 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I would like to say to tlie Senator that it would be very helpful to
the committee if we could get all of the names at one time, for this
reason : I would like to make the request in writing, confidentially of
course, to the proper authorities for all of these files at one time, and
provide a safe place, arranged as they come from different depart-
ments, where they can all be assembled in one room, so that if the
Civil Service files or State Department or any other files are needed,
we will have them all in one place, where we can make a thorough
and complete investigation of a case without having to go from one
de])artment to another, and I am sure the Senator will want it done
that way.
Senator McCarthy. I think it is an excellent idea.
Senator Tydings. But unless we have all of the files in one room at
the start, it will take us much longer than we need to do it. So I will
ask the Senator, as I said, at his convenience, in executive session,
today if he would like to, or tomorrow, if he will not give us the
keys'so that we can turn them over to counsel and our staff and begin
the operation of assembling these files.
Senator McCarthy. Let me say to the Chair that as soon as I have
all the information assembled which I have— I think I have con-
siderable information of benefit to your staff.
Senator Tydings. We would like to have it.
Senator McCarthy. It will all l)e turned over with the names. I
have given you the names of 25 that I consider very important, 25 that
I have not been able to develop beyond the point of knowing that the
files are valuable. The files show that the FBI has given information
which, so far as I know, makes them bad security risks under Ache-
son's own yardstirlv. The staff will have plenty to do on those 25
and will have no difficulty at all, I am sure, in transmitting to the
staff information which I have. I am sure we will get along on that
very well.
I might say that before I turn over the Senate floor cases 1 want
to check all of the information, document it, and give it to you. There
seems to be a great deal of interest, and rightly so, on the part of
people as to just the extent of the information we have on those par-
ticular cases.
Senator Tydings. I would say to the Senator that during the course
of this proceeding if he will come to me with any additional matter
that he has not given to us at the start, we will be glad to have it.
In order that there may be no misunderstanding about it, I would
appreciate it if the Senator would hand it personally to me until
such time as I can designate somebody else to hand it to in the event
that I am not available at the moment.
As I understand it, the Senator has now placed his case before us.
and he wants us to go ahead and investigate these loyalty files and
Senator McCarthy. You understand that I have a sizable number
of additional cases to lav before the Senator, work that will take, I
assume, 2 or 3 or 4 days. ^ Whether the Chair will want it in executive
session or in public I frankly do not care.
Senator Tydings. How does the Senator want to do it ?
Senator McCarthy. I think, Mr. Chairman, when we refer to men
like John Service, Owen Lattimore, individuals of top importance,
I believe any facts which we have with regard to them definitely
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION ] 73
should 1)0 made public. 1 think those morals cases, which also are
extremely bad security risks, obviously should be made in executive
session. Then there is an area in between which I frankly don't care
Avhotlier they are made in public or executive session.
1 miirht say this, outside of the top men, like Hanson, who is taking
over this point 4 program, Lattimore. and several other names that
I think should be given in ])ublic. I think the names better be given
in executive session, now that you have a staff to check on them. That
is merely my suggestion.
I might say to the Chair I would like to see the Chair follow through
his suugestion this afternoon. I can give him information which
1 think^
Senator Tydings. I am going to ask the Senator if he won't hold
that information until tomorrow, because I have no place to keep it.
1 prefer to have the Senator keep it until tomorrow, until I can make
some definite arrangements for quarters and one or two other things,
protecting the information we get and so on.
What I would like to know is, does the Senator want us to go ahead
now. or does he want us to sit to hear more things ?
Senator McCarthy. I will have considerable more, Mr. Chairman,
but I would like some time to develop the cases so I can present them
in chronological order, with all the information I have. That wall take
me time.
Senator Tydings. I am not questioning it. I am just trying to find
out to acconnnodate the Senator. When does he think he will want
to have this stuff available, and how does he want to deliver it to us?
Does he want to do it in a session such as we are in now, or does he
want to hand it to the committee for investigation? There are five
of us on the committee. Whatever way the Senator wants to do it,
we will try to accommodate him. We will leave that up to his judg-
ment.
Senator McCarthy. I thank the Chair, and as I get the other cases
in shape I will contact the Chair, and I am sure we can work out some-
thing completely satisfactory to both the committee and myself as to
how the further facts will be presented.
Senator Tydtxgs. In order to make the record straight, I put in
the record the first day, cut out, the case numbers from 1 to 81, 1 think
it was, and put those in the record so that vce would have that already
as a part of the testimony, and I take it for granted the Senator wants
that made a part of his sworn testimony.
Senator McCarthy. I do no not mind having it made part of the
recf)rd. If the chairman wants me to repeat any of it under oath, I
will be glad to do so.
Senator Tydings. I do not want you to repeat it. I want to know
what category it is in. I want to know whether you desire it to be
part of your sworn testimony. We can put it in as a part of the Con-
gressional Record, or we can put it in as part of his sworn testimony.
Which would he prefer?
Senator McCarthy. I do not follow the chairman. The chairman
has ])ut the evidence in the record. That is the committee's testimony.
If I see fit to put any testimony in, I will put it in. Do you follow
me?
174 STATE DEPARTMENT EAIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. AVliat I meant was, the Senator gave us 81 cases
on the floor of the Senate. I am not trying to take any advantage of
the Senator.
Senator McCarthy. The Senator would have difficulty doing that.
Senator Ttdings. I believe I would, and I would not do it if 1
could. I would like the Senator to believe that. I want him to have
a fair chance here in every sense of the word.
Senator McCarthy. I am sure the Chair does.
Senator Tydings. He delineated 81 cases on the floor of the Sen-
ate, which I have put in the record. I see no reason \A'hy they should
not be a part of the Senator's sworn testimou}', that he is bringing
those cases before the committee.
Senator McCarthy. The only way you can make those part of the
sworn testimony, Mr. Chairman, is to ask me to repeat them. You can-
not make an oath retroactive. I do not follow the Chair at all, and
I assume the Chair is not a lawyer. There is no way of making an
oath retroactive. If the Chair wants me to repeat what I said on the
Senate floor, under oath, I will be glad to come in and do that. There
is no possible way the Chair can put things in the record and say
"Now will you consider that as part of your testimony under oath?"
Let's make this clear. If the Chair wants me to come back here
at any time and repeat any part or all of what I said on the Senate
floor, and do it under oath, I will be glad to do it. I am not going
to try to indulge in some completely impossible and ridiculous proce-
dure of trying to make an oath retroactive.
Senator Tydixgs. I have no disposition to make it retroactive.
What I thouglit was, the Senator has testified under oath. He has
also delineated certain cases on the Senate floor. I simply wanted
to ask him if the remarks he made on the Senate floor, and which are
now a part of tlie record, he wishes included in his sworn testimony,
or wlietlier he wishes them not included in the sworn testimony. That
is all I asked the Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, regardless of what my wishes
are, the only way I can make them part of the sworn testimony is to
swear to them, either in affidavit form or repeat them. If the Chair
desii-es them put in affidavit form, if he wants me to repeat them, I
will be glad to take that up with him. Otlierwise, the Chair has
introduced them.
Senator Tydings. All right, if the Senator does not want to make
them part of his sworn testimony.
Senator McCarthy. I will make it part of my sworn testimony
if the Chair wants me to come in and repeat it. There is no way
of making an oath retroactive.
Senator Tydings. Certainly there is. All he needs to say is "All
the things I gave in these cases on the Senate floor I would like
considered a part of my sworn testimony." It is just as simple as
that. There is no trick about that.
Senator McCarthy. I am telling the Chair it can't be done, but
if he wants me to come in and read that part of the Congressional
Record under oath, I will be glad to do that at any time, this after-
noon.
Senator TvmNGS. I was asked by some committee members to ask
that c}uestion of the Senator, and I have discharged my obligation
to them.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVEiSTIGATION 175
Wlioiiever tlie Senator wants to return to the stand, all he has to do
is to tell the chairman.
Senator McCarthy. I thank the chairman very much.
Senator Tydixgs. I would like to ask if Jud<ie Dorothy Kenyon is
in the room ^ I don't know her. She may have some friends in the
room. AVe are counting on hearing her at 2 : 30 this afternoon unless
when I get to my office I find she has requested a postponement to
another day. So far I have received no such message, so unless that
is received, we will proceed, as scheduled yesterday, at 2: 30, to hear
Judge Kenyon.
(Whereupon, at 12: 20 p. m., a recess was taken until 2:30 p. m. of
the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
Senator Tydings. The committee will come to order.
For the record, the day that Senator ^IcCarthy testified, bringing
in the name of Miss, or Judge Dorothy Kenyon, I received a telegram,
either that daj' or the following morning, I think that night, in which
^liss Kenyon asked me to accord her the privilege of a hearing.
I inmiediately replied and told her that I would be glad to set Tues-
day, today, as the time when she might come before this committee
and answer any remarks or charges which Senator ISIcCarthy had
made, and asked her was that satisfactory.
I immediately received another telegram from Judge Kenyon in
which she said Tuesday would be satisfactory, and she is here in re-
sponse to those telegi'ams.
So that Judge Kenyon may know what the powers of this com-
mittee are, and what its duty is, and I think we owe it to her, she
may not have seen the formal resolution which brought us into being,
I would like to read it before she testifies.
This is Senate Resolution 231. It was agreed to on February 22,
1950. The resolution reads as follows :
That the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, or any duly authorized
subcommittee thereof, is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete
study and investigation as to whether persons who are disloyal to the United
States are or have been employed by the Department of State. The committee
shall report to the Senate at the earliest practicable date the results of its
investigation, .together with such reconnuendations as it may deem desirable,
and if said recommendations are to include formal chai-ges of disloyalty against
any individual, then the committee, before making said recommendations, shall
give said individual open hearings for the purpose of taking evidence or testi-
mony on said charges. In the conduct of this study and investigation, the com-
mittee is directed to procure, by sul»pena, and examine tlie complete loyalty
and employment files and records of all the Government employees in the
Department of State and such other agencies against whom charges have been
heard.
Senator McCarthy, on the first day he appeared before our com-
mittee in open hearing, made certain statements. Judge Kenyon, in
which your name was drawn.
You are now at liberty to proceed to answer them in such manner
as you deem fit.
Before you testify, will you stand and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly promise that the testimony you shall give m this
matter pending before the committee, in accordance with Senate
Resolution 231, shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God ?
176 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Miss Kenton. I do.
Senator Tydings. Take a seat, Judge. You may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF MISS DOROTHY KENYON, ACCOMPANIED BY
THEODORE KIENDL, COUNSEL
]\tiss Ken YON. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for giving
me this opportunity to appear.
My name is Dorothy Kenyon. I live at No. 433 West Twenty-first
Street, New York City. I am a practicing lawyer with offices located
at No. 50 Broadway, New York City.
When I was informed of the accusations that were made against
me before this subconnnittee last week, I did explode. Doubtless my
indignation led me to make some impulsive remarks in unparliamen-
tary language. Reflection, and a recollection refreshed by such in-
vestigation as I could make in the interim, now permits a more dis-
passionate approach. However, nothing can diminish the deep
resentment I feel that such outrageous charges should be publicized
before this subcommittee and broadcast over the entire Nation without
any notice or warning to me.
My answer to these charges is short, simple, and direct. I am not,
and never have been disloyal. I am not and never have been, a
Communist. I am not, and never have been a fellow traveler. I am
not, and never have been, a supporter of, a member of, or a sympathizer
with any organization known to me to be, or suspected by me of benig,
controlled or dominated by Communists. As emphatically and un-
reservedly as possible, I deny any connection of any kind or character
with connnunism or its adherents. If this leaves anything iinsaid to
indicate my total and complete detestation of that political philosophy,
it is only because it is impossible for me to express my sentiments.
T mean my denial to be all-inclusive.
So absolute a negation of the charges should be supplemented with
an equally positive, but brief, affirmation of what I am and have
been.
I received my A. B. degree from Smith College and my law degree-
doctor juris — from New York University Law School. I am a member
of Phi "Beta Kap])a and have been for several years a senator of the
United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa.
I come of a f amilv of lawyers, my father having been a patent laywer
in New York City where my brothers and a cousin now practice under
the firm name of Kenyon & Kenyon. My father's cousin, William S.
Kenyon, was for many years a member of the United States Senate
and later a Federal judge in Iowa.
I was admitted to the bar in 1917 and have practiced law continually
ever since, except during certain periods when I held public office.
Mine is a general practice. I am a member of the Bar Association of
the City of New York, the New York County Lawyers' Association,
the New York State Bar Association, the American Bar Association,
the National Women Lawyers' .Association, the American Society of
International Law, the American Branch of the International Law
Association and several others.
I have held public office three times, first from June 1, 1936, to De-
cember 31, 1937, 2 years, as deputy commissioner of licenses by ap-
pointment of Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia : second from January 1,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1 77
1939, to December 31, 1939, 1 year, as municipal court judge in New
York City, also by appointment of JNIayor LaGuardia; and third,
from January 1, 1947. to December 31, 1949, as United States delegate
to the Connnission on the Status of Women of the United Nations,
by appointment of President Truman, ratified and confirmed by the
Senate. I was also appointed in January 1938 by the League of
Nations as one of a Connnission of seven jurists — of whom I was the
only American — to study the legal status of women throughout the
world. This Connnission continued to operate until the war made
further communication between its members impossible. I have also
served on a number of governmentally appointed commissions and
connnittees dealing with such varied subjects as the regulation of
employment agencies, minimum-wage legislation, consumer-cooper-
ative corporations, problems growing out of the wartime employment
of women, et cetera. I have also done a small amount of labor arbi-
tration.
My interest in good government led me early into the ranks of the
League of Women Voters, of which I have been a member for almost
30 years and which I have served in many capacities and offices. It
also led me into the Citizens Union of New York, of whose executive
committee I have been a member for almost 20 years. When the
American Labor Party was formed in New York I was one of its
earliest members, but I left it after our efforts to save it from Com-
munist domination finally failed.
I have here, Mr. Chairman, an exhibit, copies of which I am giving
to all the members of the subconnnittee ; it is dated, the Daily News,
Wednesday, February 14, 1940. It is announcing the setting up of a
committee to fight the Communist attempt to capture the Labor Party,
and I was one of the vice presidents of that organization.
Senator Tydixgs. Would you pause until we can look at the exhibit?
Miss Kenyox. Yes.
Senator Tydixgs. Do you want to read it in, yourself?
Miss Kexyon. No, no, I have read everything, Mr. Chairman, that
is of importance; and I am leaving the whole statement with the ex-
hibits attached. I have a number of other exhibits.
Senator Tydixgs. Just a moment.
Miss Kexyox. Yes.
Senator Tydixgs. Miss Kenyon, would you be kind enough to
identify for us, this document again, and to tell us in a brief way, for
the information of the press, who may not have copies of it, and who
want to know — briefly what is it all about ?
Miss Kexyox. Yes. It is a statement that appeared in the Daily
News, a New York newspaper, on Wednesday, February 14, 1940,
announcing the setting up of a liberal and labor committee to safe-
guard the American Labor Party and to fight the Communists' attempt
to capture that labor party, and my name is there listed as one of the
vice chairmen.
I am simply offering that as documentary evidence.
Senator Tydixgs. I think that identification is sufficient. It will be
accepted as exhibit 49.
I will say to the press : I will leave a copy here on the table, as we
have some extra ones, and should you gentlemen wish to familiarize
yourselves with this to a greater extent, go ahead.
All right, Judge Kenyon, proceed.
178 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Miss Kenyon. I am now an enrolled Democrat. I am also a member
of Americans for Democratic Action.
My interest in civil liberties led me equally early into the ranks
of the American Civil Liberties Union, of which I have been a member
of the board for almost 20 years. In that connection I have fought
on many civil liberties issues and have participated in many briefs
amicus in defense of the bill of rights.
My interest in education, in labor problems, and in the problems
of women made me an early membei' of the American Association of
University Women, of which I am now second vice president. I am
also a member of the national board of the Young Women's Catholic
Association, a director of the Women's City Club of New York, the
Association for the Aid of Crippled Children, and the Committee of
Women in World Affairs. I was also for many years on the board
of the Consumers' League of New York and was for a time its presi-
dent. I am also a member of numerous other women's organizations.
I am, and always have been, an independent, liberal Rooseveltian
Democrat, devoted to and actively working for such causes as the
improvement of the living and working conditions of labor and the
preservation of civil liberties. To the latter cause especially I have
given much time and attention and have made speeches on that subject
for many years in various parts of the country. At times I have
espoused unpopular causes in that connection and have probably made
some enemies of those who disagreed with my views.
I am, and always have been, an ardent, outspoken American citizen,
yielding to no one in my admiration of the great privileges this coun-
try offers to all its sons and daughters, and determined to do all I
can to maintain those privileges inviolate forever. I am, and always
have been, unalterably opposed to anyone who advocates the overthrow
of onr Government by force or violence, or who otherwise engages
in subversive activities or entertains subversive ideas.
I am not content to rely on these general denials and observations,
however, and I therefore proceed to deal more specifically with the
charges against me. In substance, as I understand it, it is claimed
that it can be established by documentary proof that I have been at
some time a member of 28 or more Communist-front organizations
and therefore stand convicted under the doctrine of guilt by asso-
ciation.
Thus far I have not been confronted with this documentary proof
and as I am totally unaware of the contents of most of the documents,
I am in no position to make an}^ categorical denials or assertions
regarding such statements as they may contain. Here and now, how-
ever, I can and do state, with the absolute confidence borne of my
personal and positive knowledge, that there does not exist and never
has existed any genuine document that proves, or even tends to prove,
that I have ever knowingly joined or sponsored or participated in
the activities of au}^ organization known to me to be even slightly
subversive.
Frankness and caution ndmonish ?ne to nvoid ''T'eatino; fa^se impres-
sions or otherwise putting myself in the i)Osition of the lady who
protested too much. I cannot and do not deny that my name may
have been used, even at times with my consent, in connection with
organizations that later proved to be subversive but which, at the
time, seemed to be engaged in activities or dedicated to objectives
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 179
M-hich I could ami did approve. Nevertheless 1 challenge and defy
anyone to ])rove that I ever joined, or sponsoi-ed, or continued to
identify myself with any organizations or individuals 1 knew, or
had reason to believe, were subversive.
I do not even know the names of all the 28 or more Communist-
front organizations I am sup})osed to have joined. I have taken the
list of organizations from the ])ublished reports in the press. The
names may not be quite accurate, and the list is apparently incom-
plete, or else my arithmetic is w^rong. It is impossible for me to
identify some of the names and events described in those charges.
I have done the best I could, however, in the brief time since hearing
of them and have searched my files, and my own menior}^ in respect
to each one. If any further organizations are alluded to today I shall
ask the committee's indulgence for time to investigate and make my
replies thereon at a later date.
Senator Ttdings. That will be granted.
Miss Kexyox. Thank you very much.
First, let me deny acquaintance with practically every one of the
l^ersons mentioned in the charges as being "familiar company"' to me,
"collaborator," or "fellow red.'' I do not know and have never to
my knowledge laid eyes on Bernard J. Stern, Albert Maltz, Anna
Louise Strong. William Gropper, Langston Hughes, Hewlett John-
son, Ben Gold, Lee Pressmen, Whittaker Chambers, Howard Fast,
Saul Mills, Ella Winter, John Howard Lawson, Henry H. Collins,
Rockwell Kent, Lewis Merrill, Mervyn Rathborne, Dirk J. Struick,
Harry Bridges, Paul P. Crosbie, Benjamin J. Davis, Charles Krum-
bein, Morris Y. Schappes, Simon W. Gerson, Loids Weinstock, Irving
Potash, Helen Selden, or Josephine Herbst.
I once heard Paul Robeson sing at a concert. Harry F. Ward was,
in the thirties — before its Communist purge — chairman of the board
of the American Civil Liberties Union and I of course knew him
there. Corliss Lamont is still on its board. I met Carol King years
ago, before she went "left,'' but I have seen hardly anything of her
in many years. Arthur Kallet's name I vaguely remember, as I
vaguely remember Consumer's Union, but he and it date back in my
memory at least 15 years and, if he were a Communist then, I did not
know it.
I may be -pardoned for putting the other names mentioned in a
different category. They are Mrs. Dean Acheson, Stanley Isaacs,
Philij) Jessup, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. I am proud to say
I have had a slight acquaintance with them all.
To re})eat, the rest are unknown to me, except as above mentioned,
and the innuendoes as to my relationship with them absolutely false.
Now for the organizations themselves.
I begin with the League of Women Shoppers because my connec-
tion with that organization, which was set up to investigate labor dis-
putes, is ancient history and it was also very short lived. Evelyn
Preston Baldwin, wife of Roger Baldwin, and a close friend of mine,
became its ])resident at its founding in lOo.") or thereabouts. I was a
sponsor. We both withdreAv a year or bO later. I remember that 1 did
so because I did not approve the way the investigations ^vere being
handled. If it was Communist then, neither of us knew about it.
The Political Prisoners' Bail Fund Committee is also ancient his-
tory.
180 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I have no documentation on this organization in my files but I re-
member that I served as sponsor for a short time at the request ot
Koo-er Baldwin. Mr. Baldwin, who was a trustee ot the tund, tells
me^'that he and others set it up about 1925, to write bail ma great
variety of worthy cases, some may possibly have involved Commu-
nists but most of' them definitely did not. It was liquidated, he tells
me, about 1934. He regarded it as wholly nonpartisan and non-Com-
munist. It is significant that it is apparently not on any subversive
list It is described in the charges merely as subsidiary to the inter-
national Labor Defense, which is on the subversive list. The connec-
tion between them is not stated.
The Consumer's Union is also ancient history. I have never repre-
sented Consumer's Union. I had acted as attorney for Consumer s
Research in its incorporation and for several years thereafter, prior
to 1935, but I never acted for Consumer's Union. Consumer s Union
came into existence, as I recall it, following a strike and split-up of
the business into two organizations. They both test merchandise and
give advice as to good buys. This is where I had my short acquaint-
ance with Arthur Kallet. He was with Consumer's Research and,
later, with Consimier's Union. t c ^
The Conference on Pan-American Democracy comes next, i Una a
letterhead in my file listing me as a sponsor of this organization, dated
March 4, 1939, along with now Senator Paul A. Douglas, John Haynes
Holmes, Quincy Howe, Stanley Isaacs, and Dr. Ralph W. Sockman,
all friends of mine. I remember almost nothing about this organiza-
tion except that I think I may have spoken before it in 1938 or there-
abouts I have never heard of it since. I certainly had no idea at that
time that it was Communist, and I am sure my other sponsor friends
had no such idea either. . o-.t^-ji- t
Now for the National Council of American-Soviet Friendship, i
was never a member of this organization, but I became a sponsor ot
it_alon(r with many distinguished people— at the height of the war
effort— in 1943, 1 think it was— when the Russians were making their
stand before Stalingrad and many of us believed that friendship with
the people of Russia was both possible and good. I withdrew my
sponsorship some 3 years later, when I had become convinced that the
ortranization was no longer being used for the purposes stated m its
title Not long ago a friend told me that my name had not been re-
moved from the sponsor's list as I had requested, and I wrote demand-
ing its removal. I quote that letter :
Gentlemen : I am advised that you are still carrying my name on your letter-
head as a sponsor of your organization. . f
I became a sponsor in 194:? or 1!>44 when the Germans were at the gates ot
Stalingrad and the United States was de-.-p in admiration of the great courage
of the Russian people. Anything which looked toward genuine friendship
between the peop'es of our two countries was highly desirable. Since then,
aiowever vour policv, as I have had occasion to observe it in the press, has
had less and less to do wirh developmeut of genuine friendship between the peoples
of our two countries and more and more to do with mere apologetics for the
Russian Government, which you have supported no less consistently than you
have attacked the United States. This is no way to build friendship and it
makes a mockerv of vour name and alleged purposes. My sponsorship ot the
council as a genuine organ of friend^^hip between the peoples has therefore long
since lapsed. „ , .,. * „c^,.c
I have previously requested you to remove my name from your list ot sponsois
and I must now insist that you do so.
Sincerely yours.
STATE DEPARTIMEXT EiMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVEvSTIGATION 181
Senator IIickknloopkr. Mr. Chairiiian, J wonder what the date
of tliis let(er is.
Miss Kkxyox. I have it here.
Senator Tydixos. ,Iune IT), ll)4i).
Miss Kenyox. I assnnie tliat my name has been removed by now,
althonji-h I have no way of bein<>- sure. I have no a[)ohjoie.s wliatever
for s})ons(>rin<i" tliis orii-ani/.ation at tlie time I did and under those
circumstances.
As indicative of the standin<r: it liad, it is sig-niticant that President
Rooseveh himself sent a message of greeting to the council at its
meeting on November IG, 11)44, reading as follows :
1 am grateful to you and all those who are celebrating American-Soviet
I'riendship Day for the words of support and confidence I have received. There
is no heiter tribute we can hold out to our Allies than to continue working in
ever-growing accord to establish a peace that will endure. The Dumbarton
Oaks Conference wjiis a step in this direction. Other steps will be taken. In
line with this objective such meetings as you are holding in Madison Square
(rarden and in i^ither great centers throughout the United States are of tremen-
dous as.sistance and value.
It is also significant that President Truman followed it np by another
greeting on November 14, 1045, reading as follows :
The President has asked me to extend to you every good wish for tlie success
of the meeting and to assure you of his interest in all efforts to continue the good
relations between this country and the Soviet Uni<ni.
As for the Red Dean of Canterbury, I certairdy never welcomed
him at Madison Square Garden or anywhere else.
I never met him. I surmise that the fact that my name remained
on the sponsor list longer than it should have is the explanation of
this incident.
I have no recollection of sponsoring the dinner in question but, since
it was given in honor of President Roosevelt, it would not seem in-
appropriate had I done so.
American Lawyers" Committee on American Relations with Spain:
Now for the group connected with Spain, This committee was appar-
ently working early in 1939 to lift the embargo on Spain, which was
defeated by the combined efforts of revolutionary forces within that
country plus Hitler and Mussolini. This organization is not on any
subversive list that I can find, and I was on it.
Washington Committee To Lift the Spanish Embargo : As for the
Washington committee I can find nothing on this in my files and I
have no 4"ecollection whatsoever.
The Abraham Lincoln Brigade probably belongs in here too. I
have no recollection or documentation for this whatever. Further-
more, if the petition which they say I signed really contained a charge
that war hysteria was being whipped up by the Roosevelt adminis-
tration, it is inconceivable that I could have signed it, since I myself
was then passionately pro-ally and in process of trying to force our
Government into greater and greater activity in their behalf rather
than less. I refer to that matter later.
xVmerican Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom :
I have no recollection or documentation in respect to signing a peti-
tion in my files. I do have correspondence, however, showing that
in 1940 I accepted membership on a citizens' committee to promote
free public education. The letterhead lists many distinguished col-
182 STATE DEPARTMETSTT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
lege presidents and professors, including- Miss Park, the former presi-
dent of Bryn Mawr, and Prof. Harold Urey. This organization is
not on the Attorney General's list.
Greater New York Emergency Conference on Inalienable Rights :
I can find nothing on this in my files, and I have no recollection of it,
but I find a press clipping reporting a meeting held in New York
February 15, 1940, at which Newbold Morris and Mary Woolley, for-
mer president of Mount Holyoke College, were listed as speakers.
Advisory Board of Film Audiences for Democracy, and Advisory
Board of Films for Democracy : I can find nothing on either of these
organizations in my files, and there is nothing in my memory. I may
possibly have made a speech before them. Neither of them are on
any subversive list that I can find.
Schappes Defense Committee; Daily Worker Letter on Simon W.
Gerson; American Committee for Anti-Nazi Literature; Advisory
Committee of the Citizens' Committee To Aid Stril»ng Seamen; and
Milk Consumers' Protective Committee : 1 can find nothing on any
of these matters in my files and have no memory of them except a
vague recollection of the Gerson and Schappes controversies. If I
pai'ticipated in either of them in any way I have completely forgotten
it and I am certain that I never approved or endorsed Communist
activities in those or any other matters.
Congress of American Women: This is one organization T know
something about. It is the American affiliate of the Women's Inter-
national Democratic Federation, a wholly Moscow controlled body
over which I have been battling with Mme. Popova of the USSR at
the United Nations for all the years since the creation of the Com-
mission on the Status of Women. To charge me with membership in
this organization is nothing short of fantastic.
This completes the roster of specific charges.
One general charge remains, my "constant adherence to the * * *
part}^ line," as evidenced by this alleged multiplicity of associations,
actually boiled down to a handful and most of them before 1940.
Well, how about it ? Is this all I have done ? Is this the whole of my
life? Em])hatically, no. I have done many other things, some of
them strangely inconsistent with the party line, some of them in flat
contradiction to it. Let's look at the record in the round and not just
a distorted fragment.
In the early years of my life I Iniew very little and cared less about
Communists. They were an utterly negligible factor in my life. Dur-
ing the thirties, however, as world tension increased, they began show-
ing their hand, and by the end of that period, I, like others, had come
to know and loathe their philosophy. The signing of the Hitler-Stalin
pact in October 1939 suddenly made the issues startlingly clear. I
voiced those issues in a letter I wrote to Alex Rose, secretary of the
American Labor Party, under date of October 10, 1939, as a state-
ment for him to use in conjunction with my candidacy as judge of
the municipal court:
Senator Ttdings. One minute. Judge Kenyon, please.
Miss Kenyox. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman ?
Senator Ttdings. Just a second, please.
Miss Kenton. There are three particularly important paragraphs.
Senator Ttdings. Do you want to put the whole thing in the record?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 183
Miss Kexyox. Yes; but I would like to read now the significant
I!ai-aij:rai)lis.
Senator Tydings. Go right ahead. This will be exhibit 50.
]\[iss Ken YON (reading) :
First, I regard witli lionor mihI loathing the Hitler-Stalin pact.
Se<()iul. 1 ;ii;i-ec with you tliiit any fnsinji' of the hrown and red dictatorships
is a treaclierons hlow to worhl civilization.
Tliird. 1 also aiiree, insofar as I understand them, with the President's pro-
posed clianges in our present neutrality law. But frankly I have been far too
liusy lately ti-yiuf;- to he as g:ood a .iudjje as possible to have given such legislation
the careful study it reijuii-es.
Fourth, it is not easy for nie to he neutral when I think of either Hitler or
Stalin but I try not to lose my head and I continue to believe in the traditional
American civil liberties. Above all 1 hope that we may keep at peace and still
preserve American democracy.
Fifth, it goes witlunit saying for I should have thought it did) that I am
not a Communist or anything even remotely resembling one. I am just an old-
fashioned believer in democracy who gets awfully weary sometimes of all its
ructions but would never, never give it up.
Senator Tydings. That is dated October 10, 1939 ?
Miss Kenyon. Yes ; that is right.
Events moved so quickly after that, by February 1940, we had been
forced to form a liberal and labor committee, of which I was a mem-
ber, vice president, to safeguard the American Labor Party and to
fight the Ccmmunist attempt to capture it.
I have already presented you with thiit document, Mr. Chairman.
At the same time the American Civil Liberties Union found it neces-
sar}' to purge from its own board all nonbelievers in civil liberties.
This action barred from its governing councils anyone ''who is a
member of any political organization which support^ totalitarian
dictatorshi]^ in any country, or who by his public declarations indi-
cates his sup])ort of such a principle." Within this category we in-
clude organizations in the United States supporting the totalitarian
governments of the Soviet Union and of the Fascist and Nazi coun-
tries— such as the Communist Party and the German-American Bund
and others; as well as native organizations with obvious antidemo-
cratic objectives and practises. Needless to say, I was not one of those
purged, and I am still a member of that board.
The Communist party line in 1040— tl was antiwar, anti-French and
anti-British.' But that was not my line. Being, on the contrary,
passionately i)ro-French and pro-British I became increasing!}'
anxious to aid them as the months passed by, first by all means short
of war and later by wai* itself if need be.
I was one of the original members of the so-called William Allen
White Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies. William
Allen White in a telegram iuYited me to join, saying:
Here is a life and death struggle for every jirinciple we cherish in America,
for freedom of speech, of religion, of the ballot, and of every freedom that up-
holds the dignity of the human spirit. Here all the rights that the common man
has fought for during a thousand yeai's are menaced. Terrible as it may seem,
the people of our counti\v cannot avoid the consequences of Hitler's victory or
of those who are or may be allied with him. A totalitarian victory would wipe
out hope for a just and lasting peace.
I submit a copy of the complete telegram of William Allen White.
vSenator Tydings. And the date of that is June 19, 1940 i
Miss Kenyon. June 19, 1940.
6S970 — 50 — pt. 1 13
184 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION
I think the telegram was sent a bit before that, but that was after
the connnittee was organized.
I favored giving Great Britain overage destroyers, I favored lend-
lease, selective service, et cetera, et cetera. I made many speeches
during that period extolling freedom, urging aid to the Allies and
criticizing the isolationists and the Communists alike for their opposi-
tion.
On May 26, 1941 — a month before Hitler attacked Kussia — I joined
with other members of that committee in an open letter to the President
of the United States, in effect inviting him to declare war on the dic-
tators. It read in part :
We cannot close our eyes to the wholesale murder of liberty * * * The
dictators have extended their world war and world revolution from continent
to continent * * * The challenge is inescapable. We know that strong
action, even armed action, will be required of us.
This was signed, among many others, by Mrs. J. Borden Harriman
and Ambassador Lewis W. Douglas.
I am attaching a photostat of that letter.
Shall I i^roceed, Mr. Chairman ?
Senator Tydings. You may proceed. That will be exhibit 51.
]\Iiss Kenyon. All right, thank you.
This history of my efforts during the crucial years 1940-41 hardly
needs any gloss but it should give pause to those who dare to call me a
Communist.
After Russia had been attacked we all changed our viewpoint
slightly and many of us made earnest efforts to be friends with our
new allies. I do not apologize for that impulse or effort. I think
it was right and good.
However, we failed. AAHien the war ended the cold war began and
it is intensifying. I have been in the thick of it. Confronted with
Madame Popova of the U. S. S. R. at the United Nations I have had a
fidit on my hands from the outset. At the first meeting of our
Commission on the Status of Women held in February 1947, she
sought preferential treatment for her particular pet organization,
the "Women's International Democratic Federation — of wijtiich the
Congress of American Women is the United States affiliate. I battled
her on eight different occasions during that first meeting on that one
issue alone, practically single-handed since most of the other delegates
did not yet know what it was all about. They know now, however.
The re])orts and summary records of the Commission's proceedings
tell the tale.
The struggle went on at subsequent commission meetings. It
reached its peak at Beirut, Lebanon, last spring — see New York Times
clipping of March 26, 1949, which I have here to present to you.
Senator Tydixos. Do you want to put that in the record at this
point ?
Miss Kenyon. We only have the one copy.
Senator Tydings. Put 'that in the record at this point, if you have
the original copy.
Miss Kenyon. Yes.
Senator McMahon. Are you mentioned in that clipping?
Miss Kenyon. Certainly.' Madame Popova and I are it.
Senator Tydings. Just hold up for a moment, please.
Senator Green. I request that it be put in.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INATPTIGATION 185
Senator Ttdings. It has been requested, Judge Kenyon, if you do
not mind, if you identify the article by the paper in which it appeared,
and tlie date under which it appeared, and read the article into the
record.
Miss Kenyox. You want me to read it now ?
Senator Tydings. If you please.
Miss Kknyon. There are two of them.
Senator Tyuings. Two?
Miss Kenyon. One is dated March 2G. 1949, and the other is dated
December 16, 1948.
Shall I read the first one first?
Senator Tydings. I think it would be wiser if you were to read
the first one first.
Do you have a copy of the first one ?
Miss Kenyon. I have, but not of the second one.
This, Mr. Chairman, appeared in the New York Times under date
of Thursday, December 16, 1948, and this is a speech I made in New
York City.
The headline says: "Dorothy Kenyon says women's equality with
men in Russia is one of slavery."
"Women in Russia undoubtedly have more equality in a greater variety of
j(/bs than do American women, but it is an equality of sslavery," Dorotliy Kenyon,
United States delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women,
declared here yesterday.
At a luncheon of the Women's City Club of New York at the New Weston
Hotel, Miss Kenyon charged that statements by Prof. A. P. Pavlov and other
Soviet Union delegates at recent United Nations sessions that women in the
United States and Great Britain were living in slavery were for political con-
sumption abroad. .She said non-Russian delegates were placed on the defensive,
and she intended to take the offensive at the next commission meeting.
"The Rus.sians have made a lot of noise aI)out equality, but I wonder whether
women there are any more in the driver's seat than they are in this country,"
she said. "I have never been able to discover any Soviet woman, except for
Alexandra Kollontay, for many years their Minister to Sweden, in a position of
real power."
Pointing out there never had been a woman member of the Politburo and that
there was now none either on the central committee of the Communist Party, she
said the Russians made much propaganda of the fact that 21 percent of the
Supreme Soviet is made up of women. But she contended that this was of no
significance, as the body sits only a few days a year for unanimous approval of
Goveriunent proposals. In newspaper pictures of Moscow celebrations, she
declaicd, "there are not even women used as window-dressing."
Alrhough she said the United States should place more women in the Cabinet
and have more Representatives in Congress, Miss Kenyon pointed out that at
least liere they were not prevented from running for office. But in Russia, she
declared, "not one of our Russian sisters has run for election as we know it,"
but are merely handpicked if the Connnunist Party cliooses them to run.
"If women are to achieve recognition as equal citizens the world over, we had
better admit our diftieulties and team up to help each other meet them." she
declared. "Paper participation in government is too flimsy a foundation to
advance the principles of democracy or of women's rights."
Shall I read the next one now, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Tydings. What is the committee's pleasure?
Senator IMcMahon, Yes.
Senator Tit)ings. Yes, read the next one.
Miss Kenyon. This is a little long.
It was before I went to Lebanon.
Senator Tydings. Identify the article, please.
Miss Kenyon. This appeared in the New York Times under date
of Saturday, March 26, 1949.
186 STATE DEPARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION
The lieadlines are '"United States, Soviety women clash on rig^hts of
wives of foreigners nnder Russian restrictions."
Then, it says :
Beirut, Lebanon, March 25. — ^A long and bitter attack on the United States by
Soviet delegate Elizavieta A. Popova was strongly opposed here today by other
delegates of the United Nations Coniniission on the Status of Women. These
delegates included Judge Dorothy Kenyon of the United States who pleaded
that the commission be permitted to get on with its work.
The Soviet representative's criticism of alleged racial discrimination and other
faults of United States society followed Judge Kenyon's presentation of a pro-
posal for the convention to guarantee women's freedom to <'hoose their nationality.
The aim of the projiosal is to adjust the tangle of legislation that endangers
women's status through international marriage, she said.
Judge Kenyon again brought into the foreground the reason for the Soviet
opposition, which had caused a crisis previously in the commission's transac-
tions— the Russian refusal to permit Soviet citizens married to foreigners to
reside abroad with their husbands.
Describing this policy as an outrageous ]inutati<in on the rights of women,
Judge Kenyon said that in addition to the Russian wives of British subjects
there were now 350 Russian wives of United States citizens who could not leave
Russia with their husl»ands and 65 Russian husbands of American girls who were
equally restricted.
The principal business of the present meeting has been to lay the ground-
work for a convention and the implementation of treaties to disentangle the
maze of conflicting regulations of various countries on the subject of a woman's
nationality after marriage to a man of another nationality.
The United Nations Secretariat has prepared elaborate studies of the law and
treaties. However, the Soviet delegate i-ejected tlie whole project before dis-
cussion of any data had begun. She said :
"This is not a matter for the Commission on the Status of Women to study.
Our problem is discrimination against women. Why was this problem brought
to our attention at all?"
She then charged discrimination in the United States and gave no further
attention to the nationality issue. She said that 15 States of the United States
prohibited mixed marriages between Negroes and whites, that 5 prohibited mar-
riages with Malays and 5 with Indians, and demanded to know where the prin-
ciple of women's fi'eedom of choice existed in the United States.
Slie added that in some States officials were punished for issuing licenses for
mixed marriages and that in Mississippi any propaganda for mixed marriages
or even equality was prohibited.
Judge Kenyon indicated that only recognition of a woman's right to choose
her own nationality as freely as man would be the solution. This view was op-
posed later by a spokesman for the Catholic Feminine League who pleaded for
the principle of unity of the family. She said that a man and a woman were
not equal in all things, though equal in dignity, and that they had different
functions in society.
The commission adopted a resolution calling for investigation by the United
Nations of the application to women throughoiit the world (jf penal and police
procedure. This is expected to be opposed by Russia since it would involve an
investigation of penal labor camps.
That is the conclusion of that, Mr. Chairman.
May I proceed ?
Senator Tydings. You may proceed.
Miss Kenyon. The culmination of it was when, after bitter debate
over many things, including equal pay for equal work, I finally de-
manded of Mme. Popova whether women received equal pay for equal
work in the Soviet slave labor camps.
The issue was always slavery versus freedom. I raised the point
over and over again in writing, speeches, at meetings, even over
the Voice of America.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVEISTIGATION 187
Eventuall}' Moscow answered back. Maria Sharikova, assistant
chairnian of the Moscow Soviet on the rights of women is reported
on January 5, 1949, to have said:
I>oi-orliy Keiiyoii, in endeavoring to conceal her reactionary stand has engaged
in slandering tlie Soviet people, in particular Soviet women. In a radio broad-
cast over the Voice of Amei-ica, she talks a lot of irresponsible drivel attempting
to deny tiie political, economic, and social equality enjoyed by the women of the
U. S. S. K.. at the same time painting a glowing picture of the position of women
in Britain and the United States, when she knows full well what their position
really is. "I am shocked at this shameful downright lie, completely unsupported
by the tiniest fact." As it happens, Di»rothy Kenyon could not quote facts for
that would at once disprove her assertions.
Dorothy Kenyon had engaged in slandering the "freest women on earth, the
women of the U. S. S. R." However, as any of the thousands of visitors to the
r. S. S. K. can witness, "the slander indulged in by Doorthy Kenyon can hood-
wink no one."
Mr. Charintan, I offer that entire gem in evidence as exhibit 52.
That is a State Department release quoting that release from Moscow
in toto.
This is my defense. "\Miat does it add up to? With all the mis-
takes and errors of judgment which the best of us can and do commit
only too frequently, I submit that the record proves without question
that I am a lover of democracy, of individual freedom and of human
riglits for eveiybod}', a battler, perhaps a little bit too much of a
battler sometimes, for the rights of the little fellow, the under dog,
the fellow who gets forgotten or frightened or shunned because of
unpopular views: but who is a human being just the same and entitled
to be treated like one. The converse of these things; dictatorship,
cruelty, oppression, and slavery are to me intolerable. I cannot live
in their air, I must fight back. This is not perhaps a very wise or
prudent way to live but it is my way. It has got me into hot water
before and probably will again. But my faith in people and my
impulse to fight for them is my religion and it is the light by which
I live. I also believe that it is America. There is not a Communist
bone in my body.
This is a matter of grave consequence to me. Literally overnight,
whatever personal and professional reputation and standing I may
have acquired after many years in private practice and some in public
oiRce. they have been serioush' jeopardized, if not destroyed by the
widespread disseminaiton of charges of Communistic leanings or
proclivities that are utterly false. The truth may never catch up
witli the lie, but insofar as I can. I desire to regain as much of what
I have lost as possible and I have faith that this subconunittee will
see that justice is done. Of course, I am more than willing to attempt
to answer any questions the members of this subcommittee, or anyone
permitted by the subcommittee, may care to ask. I conclude with an
expression of my appreciation of the opportunity and privilege af-
forded me so promptb', to answer these charges at this public hearing.
Senator Tydings. I will ask our guests, no matter wdiat the testi-
mony may be, whether it pleases them or displeases them, to kindly
refrain from any applause or any other demonstration, because if
we permit it in one case, we will have to permit it in another, and we
are trying to conduct a very careful investigation and we would
appreciate if those who come, no matter what your impulses may be,
would not give us any demonstration.
188 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senatoi' Hickenlooper, would you like to ask the witness any ques-
tions?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to canvass
the situation a little bit with Judge Kenyon.
I want to say, al the outset, Mr. Chairman, that I told the com-
mittee that while I thought it was perfectly proper to have Judge
Kenyon come here and make such a statement as she cared to make,
that I felt that no adequate or satisfactory canvass of the situation
surrounding the accusations of Judge Kenyon's membership in these
organizations which have been declared subversive by various public
bodies, could be had without full and complete access, prior access to
the investigative files in connection with Judge Kenyon.
The committee has not seen fit to produce those investigating files
for my perusal at this point, so that I feel that any examination at
this time, while perhaps eventually adequate, I cannot be certain that
it has a sufficient background of all the facts upon which to base ques-
tions, but I do have some questions I would like to ask Judge Kenyon
if I may.
In the first place, I would like to canvass some of these organiza-
tions, and I may say, Mr. Chairman, that my questions are based en-
tirely upon my understanding that Senator McCarthy did not charge
Judge Kenyon with being personally subversive or with being a
Conununist. I believe the charges went to the point of charging her
Avith membership in a substantial number of organizations which have
been declared subversive by various public bodies.
Senator Tydings. May I interrupt ?
Senator Green. May I reply to that?
Senator Tydings. Let me read the resolution.
Senator Green. May I reply to that point ?
Senator Tydings. All right. ,
Senator Hickenlooper. May you reply? I am stating my under-
standing.
Senator Green. I think you have misunderstood the purpose of the
resolution, which was read at the beginning of this hearing.
The purpose of the resolution is to authorize and direct us to in-
vestigate charges of disloyalty, so the charges that were made against
Miss Kenyon were charges of disloyalty. That is what she directed
her answers to, and it seems to me that further questions ought to be
directed to that point.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do I understand that the Senator
Senator Tydings. Just a minute. There is evidently a dispute
here. Let the chairman read the resolution himself, and he will take
no further part in it :
That the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, or any duly authorized sub-
committee thereof, is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete
study and investigation as to whether persons who ai-e disloyal to the United
States are or have been employed by the Department of State.
Proceed.
Senator Hickenlooper. If the subcommittee is to be limited to the
very artful interpretation that is now apparently put on the resolution,
then I certainly should be handicapped and completely limited in the
questions I think should be asked in the general public interest of
examining this matter.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 189
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead with your question.
Senator Hickexloopeh. Judge, I believe that you were alleged to
have been a member of the Consumers National Federation Conference
Connnittee, or the Consumers National Federation, which was cited
as a Communist front by the Special Committee on Un-American
Activities, in its report of March 29, 1944, and in 1943, by the Cali-
fornia Committee on Un-American Activities; and by the New York
City Council Committee on Investigating the Municipal Civil Service
Commission.
I have a photostat, alleging that it is copied
i\Iiss Kenyon. Give me the name again, Senator, because I have not
heard that name before.
Senator Hickexlooper. Consumers National Federation. I have a
photostat of your name among the list of individual sj)onsors of that
organization.
Sliss K.EXYOX. And the date ?
Senator Hickexlooper. December 11 and 12, 1937, apparently this
document was published. You may see it if you like.
Miss Kex-^yox. I would be very happy to, yes.
This, Mr. Chairman, is not one of the organizations which was in
the public print that I had, that was released last week. I remember
nothing about it.
Senator Hickexlooper. The list of names is on the second page.
MissIvEx^YOx. Yes.
I will tell you. Senator, what I remember, if I have got the name
correct, because there are an awful lot of names that are very con-
fusing, and it is difficult to tell.
I have a recollection of a group concerned with consumers' problems
that was formed around the middle of the thirties, about this date,
probably, and that I went and made a speech at one of their meetings,
and that I was probably perhaps connected with for a little while and
later I decided that I did not like the tone or complexion or company
that I was keeping, and I got out very early and washed my hands
of it and never had anything to do with it for many, many years.
I do not know what my files may show, but that is my recollection.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you have any recollection of that par-
ticular organization, or your sponsorship ?
Miss Kexyox. That is what I say I think I am talking about — that
organization. That is my recollection — of one where I did not like
the company. I w^ent and made a speech and did not like the company
I was keeping and after a very few months, I got out and had nothing
further to do with it.
Senator Hickex-^looper. Do you recall whether you got out by
writing a letter of resignation, or just not going?
]\Iiss IVEXYOX. I cannot recall anything about that. I only know,
Senator, my recollection is I washed my hands of it long ago, because
I suspected the people. I will be very glad to look it up in my files
und see if I can find anything further.
Senator Hickexlooper. As far as you recall, you attended just one
meeting of the organization?
Miss Kex'yox. That is right. That is what I remember — making
a speech on consumers' problems, a very good speech and they liked
it, and I think they asked me to be a sponsor. That was my
misfortune.
190 STATE DEPARTME^'T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATTON
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you recall the American Committee for
Democracy and Intellectual Freedom, in New York City ?
Miss Kenyon. I think I made a speech there. That was not one
of the names given by Senator McCarthy last week, this is a new one
^"s^nator Hickenlooper. I have a photostat, alleged to be a copy of
the list of sponsoring people, and you are listed as Dorothy Kenyon,
former instice, New York City. This organization was cited as a
Communist front bv the Committee on Un-American Activities m
1942 and 1044; by the California Committee on Un-American Ac-
tivities, in their report in 1948 ; cited as subversive and un-American
by the special committee of the House Committee on Appropriations,
xYpril -21, 1948. -, t i . 4-
Miss Kenyon. What is that ? I beg your pardon, I do not want
to interrupt. „ „ ,. ^- • ^- <)
What did you say ; what was the date allegedly ot my participation j
Senator Hickenlooper. You understand, I have no hrst-hand
knowledge, and these are alleged to be photostatic copies ot tlie
documents.
Miss Kenyon. I understand. i . . ^
Senator Hickenlooper. This is dated, according to the photostat,
January 17, 1940. Your name appears on the second page of the
photostat, if you care to see it— you may. i u ^
Miss Kenyon. Wait a minute. I am afraid I am contused about
this. Whatisthenameof that organization?
Senator Hickenlooper. American Committee for Democracy and
Intellectual Freedom. ,
Miss Kenyon. Oh, I beg your pardon. It is one of the ones 1
mentioned. Senator, and I have a statement m my file I ]ust read
my statement in respect to that. I said that what I did, according
to mv record, was to accept membership on a citizens committee to
promote free public education. The letterhead lists many distin-
guished college presidents, including INIiss Park, former president ot
Bryii Mawr, and Professor Urey. . • • .
1 also believe I am correct in saying that the organization is not
on the Attorney General's list. It had an astounding number ot
presidents of colleges on it— most impressive. ^ , ^ ^ ^
Senator Hickenlooper. Would you look at this alleged photostat
and see if you are referrintr specifically to that organization whose
name appears at the top ? there are some of these organizations hav-
ing similar names. ^,T^ 1VT r^ ^^ T)-f
Miss Kenyon. "President Marion Park, Brvn Mawr College; rrot.
Harold Urey." This is the same one, yes. There are lots of other
college presidents there too— very fine gentlemen. • ^. ,
Senator Hickenlooper. Did von withdraw from this organization ?
Miss Kenyon. I had nothing to do with it, sir, according to my
records except to serve for a short period on this Committee to
Promote Free Public Education— just one single ad hoc committee
for one specific job. I don't know what we did.
Senator Hickenlooper. You are not connected with it now, then ?
Miss Kenyon. I never have been since 1940, if that is the date on
it I was only connected with it then to that extent.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have another photostat of an alleged
pro<^rani of the Greater New York Emergency Conference on Inalien-
state: departme^s't employee loyalty investigation 191
nblc Rifilits, 'J1iis is Monday, February 12, 1940. I1ie ]^hotostat is
alleged to be of a list of members of the general conmiittee. This
ora-anization is cited as a Conmuniist front, which was succeeded by
the National Federation for Constitutional Liberties. That citation
Avas by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities in their
report March '2d, IJU-i; also cited by the Congressional Conmiittee on
Un-Aniei-ican Activities, report Xo. 115, September 2, 11J47; cited as
a Connnunist front by the California Connnittee on Un-x\merican
Activities, report. 1948.
Do you recall that organization?
Miss Kenyon. Yes. I have mentioned that ali-eady, to say that
all my records showed, and it nnist be ihe same meeting that wou are
talking about — was a meeting held in New York. I thought it was
February 15, 1940, and Newbold Morris, who is not mayor of New
York, aiid Mary Woolley, former president of Mount Holyoke College,
were listed as the speakers in this clip}Mng that I had.
Senator Tydings. Who is Newbolcl Morris, so we will know who
he is.
Miss Kexyon. He was president of the city council for 12 years
when Mayor LaGuardia was president. He ran last fall for mayor
against jSIayor O'Dwyer. He is a liberal too.
Senator (Ireen. In order that the record may be complete, on what
ticket did Mr. Morris run for mayor?
Miss Kexyon. Well, Senator, 1 think he ran on the Republican
ticket. That is probably why I voted for O'Dwyer.
Excuse me. Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. I notice it is the occasional Republican who
belongs to one of these organizations that can be pointed to.
Mr. KiEKDL. I am on your side on that. Senator.
Miss Kenyon. Guilty by association.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is this organization still in existence that
3'ou know of ?
Miss Kenyon. Wliat, this Inalienable Rights?
Senator Hickenlooper. This (xreater New York Emergency Con-
ference on Inalienable Rights.
Miss IvENYON. I haven't the faintest idea. I can't even remember
it. All I can find Avas this clipping in my files, 1940.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now the testimonial dinner in honor of
Ferdinand C. Smith, on /6'eptember 20, 1944, at the Hotel Commodore,
in New^ York. I have a photostat alleging to be a copy of the list of
sponsors containing your name. Were you a sponsor of that or-
ganization ?
Miss Kenyon. I haven't any recollection. That is also a new one
on me. It wasn't included in the list that Senator McCarthy gave last
year. When was that, and what was the man's name?
Sen.ator Hickenlooper. September 20, 1944, testimonial dinner in
honor of Ferdinand C. Smith at the Hotel Commodore in New York.
You may see this, if it will refresh your memory.
Miss Kenyon. Thank you very much. Was he a Negro?
Senator Hickenlooper. I don't know. The allegation was made,
I believe, that he is a prominent Communist.
Miss Keny^on. Do you mean at the dinner ?
Senator Hickenloopzil I don't know about at the dinner.
192 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^EISTIGATION
Miss Kenyon. Excuse me a moment. I don't remember anything-
about this. I haven't any recollection of it.
Senator Hickenloopek. Your name is on the second page.
Miss Kenyon. Yes, "in recognition of his outstanding service to-
labor, the Negro people, and the Nation."
I may have fallen for the fact that he is a member of the Negro race.
That was a mistake like LaGuardia's occasional mistakes. It was a
beaut.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you recall attending the dinner ?
Miss Kenyon. I don't know the individual. I don't recall having-
att ended the dinner. I don't go to dinners if I can lielp myself.
Senator Hickenlooper. The American Connnittee for Anti-Nazi
Literature, suite 302, 20 Vesey Street, New York City. The photo-
stat is alleged to be a copy of a letter, or photostat of the letterhead
of that organization, upon which your name appears as a sponsor.
Miss Kenyon. What is the date ? May I see it '?
Senator Hickenixioper. March 24, 1939. You may see it, of course.
Miss Kenyon. I reported on this in my statement. I said I could
find absoliitely nothing in my files in regard to it, sir. I see a num-
ber of friends of mine along here on this sponsor list, including-
Prof. John Dewey. I just sponsored a dinner for him this fall. And
Lillian Wakh who is also on the board of the American Civil Liberties
LTnion, and Professor Maclver.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you have any recollection of it?
Miss Kenyon. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. And you are not now a member of it, nor
a sponsor?
Miss Kenyon. Certainly not.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have an alleged photostatic copy of a
clipping of the Daily Worker of February 10, 1944, containing a story
which I shall show you, headed as follows: "Leading citizens laud'
Isaacs' on Gerson," and it is alleged to be a letter of which they
claim you w^ere one of the signers, in this news story, a letter to Mr.
Isaacs lauding the appointment of S. W. Gerson, former Daily Worker
reporter, as an assistant on Mr. Isaacs' staff.
They print your name as one of the signers of that letter.
Miss Kenton. A Daily Worker clipping, you say ? I never see that
sheet.
Mr. Chairman, I have said that I could find nothing in my record
in respect to Gerson, or any letter or any action of mine iii respect
to it, and I have no recollection of anything except the Gerson con-
troversy itself, which I remember, but the thing that seems to me
extrao7-dinary is that if my memory is right, that Gerson incident was
in 1937 and this is dated 1944. It may not be a very good paper, but
news 7 years old seems a little stale. I would suspect it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I don't know. Judge. You are the one
who either has the recollection or does not have the recollection, and
I am merely asking whether you have any recollection or whether
you did sign such a letter or not.
Miss Kenyon. I have no recollection, and this seems to me in-
credible.
Senator Hicklenlooper. I have heard that term before.
Miss Kenyon. I did not mean to plagiarize.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVEIST I CATION 193
Senator Hickenlooper. In spite of the general sentiment, there is
no monopoly on the term.
Miss Kexyox. It is like "warmonn:erino;.-'
Senator Hiokeni.oopek. Now I have a photostat of an alleged news
story in the Daily Worker of February 21, 1940, in which your name
appears as the signer of a ])rotest to President Roosevelt and Attorney
(teneral Jackson, protesting the attacks upon the Veterans of the
Abraliam Lincoln Brigade and condemning the war hysteria now
being whipped up by the Koosevelt administration. I show you the
photostat. I have no knowledge of it whatsoever.
Miss Kexyon. Thank you ver}^ much. I have already commented
on that. I will just take a look at it now.
So far as I know, I have already referred to this, to say that I
have absolutely no recollection of having done anything of the sort,
and I will say this time it is simply preposterous in relation to my
record, which was almost that of warmongering at that time. It is
undoubtedly a complete and absolute falsehood.
Senator Hickenlooper. I take it that you are quite positive that
you did not sign such a protest ?
Miss IvEXYON. I am as positive as I can be.
Senator Hickexlooper. The National Citizens Political Action
Committee. Do you recall that organization?
]\Iiss Kenyon. I believe that that was the organization of which
Sidney Ilillman was the head, and I was very happy to be a member
of the PAC. I regarded him as a great labor leader and a great citi-
zen and American. I don't need to look at the documentation on that,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hickenlooper. You well remember that organization?
Miss Kenyon. Quite.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have a photostat here of a page of the
Daily Worker of February 10, 1944, headed "American women leaders
greet colleagues in U. S. S. R."
INIiss Kenyon. Has that a picture of Dorothy Thompson in the
middle of the page ^
Senator Hickenlooper. It has a picture of Miss Thompson.
Miss Kenyon. I remember that very well indeed. I am proud to
say I did send greetings along with Dorothy Thompson and a lot of
other fine women to the brave women of Russia, who at that time were
our allies and were putting up a wonderful fight. Dorothy Thomp-
son and I both remember it very well, and we are very proud of the
fact that we did it.
Senator Hickenlooper. That was at the National Council of So-
viet-American Friendship; is that true?
Miss Kenyon. L don't know anything about that. We just sent
greetings as individuals. I did not belong to that organization.
Senator Hickenlooper. You did not?
Miss Kenyon. No. I understood we Avere invited as individuals to
join in a Christmas greeting and we did — a lot of us. I think Mrs.
Ogden Reid, of the Herald Tribune, was on it too.
Senator Hickenlooper. I believe j^ou recall the Political Prisoners
Bail Fund Committee in your State ; do you not?
Miss Kenyon. Yes, Senator. I have very little recollection of it
myself. I mostly got it from Mr. Baldwin.
194 STATE DEPARTMENl EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^EISTIGATION
Senator Hickenlocper. I have here an alleged photostatic copy of
a letterhead dated January 18, 1935, of the Political Prisoners Bail
Fund Committee, 154 Nassau Street, room l!^00. New York City, and
your name is printed on the side of this alleged photostat as one of
the sponsors. Is that correct ?
Miss Kenyon. I believe so; yes, Mr. Baldwin's name appears
there as trustee; is that correct ?
Senator Htckenlcoper. Mr. Baldwin is the first named as trustee.
Miss Kenyon. Perha])S I had better look at it.
Yes, that is the one. I see Hej^wood Broun's name there too.
Senator Hickenlooper. How long were you a member of that or-
ganization?
Miss Keistyon. It died in lOol or 1935. This must have been its
death agony, I guess. That is vrhat Mr. Baldwin told me. I have
no recollection of it.
Senator Hickenlooper. You are not a member of it at this time?
Miss Kenyon. It liquidated 15 years ago. Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. It was cited as subversive and Communist
June 1, 1948, and September 21, 1948. It was called a legal arm of
the Connnunist Party by Attorney General Francis Biddle, accord-
ing to the Congressional Eecord of September 24, 1942. It was cited
as 'Tt is essentially the legal defense arm of the Communist Party of
the United States'' by the Special Connnittee on Un-American Activi-
ties, reports, January 3, 1939; also cited in reports, January 3, 1910,
and March 29, 1944, and again by the Congressional Committee on
Un-American Activities in 1947. I have no knowledge as to whether
or not it is still in existence, Init those are the citations.
Miss Kenyon. Senator, I believe you have confused it with the
International Labor Defense. I think what you have been reading
about is the record of the International Labor Defense, with which
I never had anything to do, and it was, so far as 1 know, the arm of
the Connnunist Part3\
Senator Hickenlooper. The Political Prisoners Bail Fund Com-
mittee is alleged to be a subsidiary of the International Labor Defense,
which has been characterized as I have just given you by those reports.
Miss Kenyon. Yes, but I gave you Roger Baldwin's report, which
is to the contrary, and there is no evidence that it is a subsidiary that
I know of, and I have Mr. Baldwin's statement to the contrary. That
is the best I can do in respect to that. Senator.
So far as I am concerned, I have forgotten every single thing
about it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have a photostat of a letter headed
"Lawyers Committee on American Relations With Spain." This is
dated March 5, 1938. Your name is carried on th-e photostat, appar-
ently in a list of members. At the bottom of the list it says " (partial
list)."
Miss Kenyon. Will you give me the name again? I think I have
covered it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Lawyers Committee on American Rela-
tions With Spain.
Miss Kenyon. Yes, I covered that and said that I belonged to that.
That was in 1938-39, and the purpose of that was, we were working
to get the embargo against the Government of Spain lifted. If you re-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 195
call tlie situation at that time, the policy of nonintervention 1 believe
was in effect, and was })racticed by everybody except Hitler and
Mussolini, and I have a oood deal of goocl conipany in that list. I
also could not fiiul that orounization on any subversive list. It must
have <»one out of existence.
Senator Hickexlooi'kk. I believe you will find that it was cited by
the Sj^ecial Committee on Un-American Activities, report. March lO,
l'.)44. i)a<res l(iS-109. as "When it was the policy of the Connnunist:
Pai'ty to or<;anize much of its main pro]ia<::anda around the civil war
in Spain" the above "Connnunist lawyers" front or<^anization" sup-
ported this movement.
It was cited as a Communist front. I believe, by the California
Connnittee on Un-American Activities, in their report, 1948, page 835.
Cited, I believe, also by the Xew York City Council connnittee in-
vestigating the municipal civil service commission.
Miss Kenyox. I have told you that I was a member of it in 1939,
for that one specific purj)ose. There are a great many very fine Amer-
ican citizens also included on that list. I had no knowledge Avhat-
soever that it was Connnunist at the time, and I am not sure of it yet..
I have had nothing to do with it since 1939.
Senator HicKEXLoorER. It is not in existence, so far as you know,
at this time^
Miss Kexyox. I understood it was formed for that one purpose, and
then it went out of existence.
Senator Hk'kexi.ooper. I have a photostatic copy of an alleged
political advertisement in the New York Times of October 9, 1944,.
entitled "An Open Letter to Gov. Thomas E. Dewey"' in connection
with the Morris U. Schappes" conviction and asking the Governor to
pardon Mr. Schappes. Your name is listed in this alleged photostat
of the advertisement as one of the signers of the open letter.
Miss Kexyox. I covered that in my statement. I will be very glad
to look at it.
Senator Hickexlooper. I think there is a pencil mark right there
at your name.
Aliss Kexyox. I have absolutely no recollection of that whatever,
Senator. That is one of the matters which I tried to see if I could
find something on to refresh my recollection. I found absolutely
nothing. I remember a long debate in regard to this Schappes case,
and I think the American Civil Liberties Union had the matter
under advisement in respect to a number of possible aspects of civil
liberties in connection with the matter. Of course, in connection
with civil liberties, as you know, we are always having cases come
befoi-e us where it is charged that there has been some violation of"
civil liberties, and it is one of the basic tenets of the American Civil
Liberties Union that every person is entitled to civil liberties, even
if we hate his ideas.
I have no recollection of this or or myself having taken any action:
whatsoever. If I did take any action,' it would have been entirely
because of some civil liberties question which I believed was involved.
Frankly. I don't think I took any action at all. I think I just chewedi
the i-ag the way a lot of others dicl.
Senator Hickexlooper. Then, the inclusion of your name in that
advertisement as one of the sponsoi-s was entirely without youi- consent
or a])i)roval ; would you say?
196 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Miss Kenyon. No, I can't be sure of that. I simply say I cannot
remember. If it was included, it was only included because of some
civil liberties aspect of the matter so far as I was concerned, but I
have no recollection. -^ i u
Senator HiciiENLOOPER. The Schappes Defense Committee has been
listed by the Special Committee on Un-American Activities m its re-
port of March 29, 1944, as a front organization with a strictly Com-
munist objective, namelv, the defense of a self-admitted Communist
who was convicted of perjury in the courts of New York. It was
listed as a front organization, I am informed, by the California Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities in its report in 1948, page 55.
Miss Kenyon. Mr. Senator, I take it that you are not charging
that I was a member of that committee, but simply that I signed the
letter. Is that correct?
Senator Hickenlouper. Miss Kenyon, I am charging nothing.
Miss Kenyon. I beg your pardon.
Senator Higkenlooper. I am asking for information.
Miss Kenyon. Yes, yes. To clarify, let me say I know I never
was a member of the committee. , . . . i
Senator Hickenlooper. I do not allege that this photostat shows
any membership on anything, except it is alleged that yoii were a
signer of the so-called open letter to Gov. Thomas E. Dewey as
co'iitained in a political advertisement of that date.
Miss Kenyon. And that I may have done, although 1 doubt it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you recall the Washington Committee
To Lift the Spanish Embargo ? . -r • i t n « i v.
Miss Kenyon. No. I mentioned that, and I said 1 could tincl ab-
solutely nothing whatsoever about it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have a photostatic copy ot an allegecl list
of s])onsors, I presume, of this organization: I dont know. It is
l^eaded "These Americans say : 'Lift the Embargo Against Republican
Spain ' ". It is a booklet of the Coordinating Committee to Lift
the Embargo, an auxiliary of North American Committee to Aid
Spanish Democracy. , ^_ „
Under the heading "Lawyers" is listed "Judge Dorothy Kenyon.
I^Iiss Kenyon. Well, I was fighting for that cause. I wanted the
embargo lifted. „ , . , -r <• ^ i. t^
This is one of the causes, Senator, for which I fought It says,
"These Americans say: 'Lift the Embargo Against Eepublican
Spain.' " They say they want the embargo lifted. I did.
Senator Hickenlooper. You signed that ?
Miss Kenyon. That was 1939, was it not?
Senator Hickenlooper. I believe it so.
Miss Kenyon. Yes. , , <. ^^ t „
Senator Hickenlooper. Then I have a photostat ot an alleged page
in the New York Times of January 31, 1949, entitled "An Open
Letter to the Government and the People of the United States, de-
manding that they lift the embargo now.
Miss Kenyon. You mean 1939, not 1949
Senator Hickenlooper. Did I say 1949? Im sorry; 1939. And
at the bottom of this is a list of names, in which your name appears.
I^Iiss Kenyon. I suppose that is the same thing, Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. I don't know.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 197
Miss Kenyox. There are an awful lot of bishops on this. This is
what I was for. I see some very respectable hiwyers of New York
on there. Harold Rieaehnan's name is there.
Senator HicKKM,(H.ri.:K. The AVashin«rton Committee to Lift the
fepanish Embargo, I am informed, was cited as one of a number of
front oro:anizations set up during the Spanish civil war by the Com-
nnmist Party in the United States and through which the party
carried on a great deal of agitation. That citation is by the Special
1 ommittee On Un-American Activities, report March 2!), 19^:4 padres
lo( and 138. ' i &
Cited as a Communist front bv the California Committee on Un-
American Activities, report, 11)47, page 210. according to the informa-
tion I have.
Miss Kenyon. I certainly had no idea it was Communist, and I
am sure those other Republican New York lawyers did not know it
•either.
Senator HiCKENLoorER. Can't you find any Democratic laywers
on that list ? "^
Miss Kexvox. I think my counsel will be glad to.
Senator Hickf^^looper. Here is a photostatic copy, allegedly, of
a letterhead of Films For Democracy, 342 Madison Avenue, New
1 ork-. Uisted on the side as a member of the advisory board is the
name of Dorothy Kenyon.
Miss Kexyox.' I haVe reported on that already. I will be o-lad
to see the exhibit. ^
I have absolutely no recollection. I see Stanley laacs' name here
I thought perhaps I might have made a speech before it, but I don't
know. '
Senator HicKEXLooPER. Would you sav the inclusion of your
name on the list of advisers was without ymir consent or authoriza-
tion ^
Miss Kexyox. Xo. I wouldn't know. I wouldn't have any idea
about It. This was m 1938, and I couldn't tell vou about th'at. I
Have no recollection whatever. I should have thought that I had
perha])s made a speech before the group.
Senator Hickexlooper. And from that they put your name on
the list { ^ 1. ./
Miss Kexyox. They might very well have. I am inclined to think
tliat they did m a number of cases.
I see Senatoi- Capper here. I think I had some good company,
and it It was Communist then. I certainly did not know^ it
Senator Hickexlooper. I might suggest that on some of these lists
you nad some very bad company as well as good company
Miss Kenyox. You are quite correct. We know that now. We
dul not all knoAv as much then.
Senator Hickexlooper. I am not reading any other names on
^r- T^ -^^^ ^^ '^ matter th.-it concerns you. Judge Kenyon
Miss Kexyox. Yes, I understand. Senator.
Senator Hickexlooper. Films for Democracy was cited as a
Communist-front organization by the Special Committee on Un-
American Activities, report INIarch 2!), 1944, and as a Communist Front
organization which merged with another front. Film Audiences to
become Film Audiences for Democracy. It w^s cited in the year
198 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION
1939 by the California Committee on Un-American Activities, report
of 1948, according to the information I have.
Miss Kexyox. I also referred to that in my statement, saying that
1 had absolutely no record of it or memory of it. I take it from
wliat you say that one was merged with the other.
Senator Hickenloopek. I doivt know. I am merely quoting from
the report. ^ . ,
Miss Kenyon. And the letterhead on which my name appears was
dated, as you say, January 5, 1938 ? r ^aoo
Senator Hickenlooper. There is a date, January o, 1-J6b.
Miss Kenyon. Yes. , . <• ^- xi
Senator Hickenlooper. Later, according to the information 1 have,
it was merged with another organization to become an organization
known as Film Audiences for Democracy, m 1939.
Miss Kenyon. That I know nothing about. . ..^ -p
Senator Hickenlooper. I have an alleged photostat of a letter ot
Film \udiences for Democracy, 342 Madison Avenue, iSew York, i
do not have the date on this one, but on the advisory board, on the
side of this letterhead, is the name of Dorothy Kenyon. Ihat is the
merged organization.
Miss Kenyon. I know nothing whatever about it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I take it, then, that your name was put on
there without your consent or approval. , , •, ^
Miss Kenyon. I have no recollection, Senator, whether it was or not.
I doubt that I ever had anything to do with it, but I cannot be sure.
I have led a reasonably full life, and this was a long time ago.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then you might have been a member ot
this ^
Miss Kenyon. It is possible I might have, but if I did I will repeat
again that I had no ideas that it was Communist then, and 1 haven t
anv idea what it is now. , ^^ , .
Senator Hickenlooper. The Special Committee on Un-American
-ictivities, in their report of INIarch 29, 1944, cited it as a Communist
front I have the citation book here if there is any question about
the citation. And the California Committee on Un-American Activ-
ities, in its report in 1948, said ^'The (^ommunist fronts, Film Audi-
ences and Films for Democracy, merged in 1939 to form a new front,
Film Audiences for Democracy.''
I am told the New York City Council Committee Investigating tlie
Municipal Civil Service Commission cited it as "an organization ot
Communist complexion." -,.-,, - r^ v^-
Do you remember whether you canvassed the American Committee
for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom ?
Miss Kenyon. I think we discussed that previously, did we noU
Yes, that's right. I have mentioned it, you have it, I mentioned it,
and' nov,' von mention it again. . ,, ^ • +• »
Senator Hickenlooper. Were you a member of that organization ?
Miss Kenyon. I told vou that I, in 1940, accepted membership in
an ad hoc Citizens Committee to Promote Free Public Education. 1
have never heard of it since.
That is the one which had all of the college presidents on it, it
you will recall.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 199
Senator Hickenlooper. There was a meetino-, I am told, according
(o this photostat which 1 have here and which 1 will hand you,
>|H)nsoro(l, I believe, by that organization on April lo, 11)40, and under
the heading "Tliese people sponsored this meeting'' is the name of
Dorothy Kenyon.
Miss Kf.xyon. 1 have no recollection, but I may have.
Senator IIickexloopeh. Vou would not say that you did not ? You
would not positively state that you did not sponsor it i
JNIiss Kenyon. That meeting^
Senator Hickenloopeu. That particidar meeting.
Miss Kenyon. I may have. It was, 1 believe, in that same year
that 1 was accepting membership on this committee. It would not be
inconsistent if I did. I repeat that I had no idea at that time that it
was Connnunist. 1 saw Alvin Johnson's name there, and I am sure
he did not think it was Connnunist either.
Senator Hickenlooper. It was cited by the Special Committee
on Un-American Activities in its report for June 15, 1942, and also
on ^larch '29. 1944. as a C\)mnuniist front which defended Commu-
nist teachers. The California Conunittee on Un-American Activi-
ties, in its report in 1948, says :
This Communist front was establislied on Lincoln's birthday in 1939. The
activities of this group were always in l)ehalt of comnmnisni. It has followed
the Communist Party line as it switclied and squirmed in support of tlie foreign
policy of Soviet Russia.
It was cited as subversive and un-American b}^ the Special Sub-
connnittee of the House Committee on Appropriations report, April
2i, 1943.
1 ha^e a photostat, allegedly, of the letterhead of the Citizens'
C{jnnnittee to Aid Striking Seamen, 277 West Twenty-second Street,
Xew York City, with a letter Avhich is apparently a form letter photo-
graphed on this letterhead. On the side, under the heading "Ad-
visory Conunittee", among others, appears the name of Dorothy Ken-
yon. This letter is dated January 28, 1937. Were you a member of
that organization?
Miss Keny'on. I have already reported on that. I could find
absolutel}' nothing in my files, and I have absolutely no recollection.
I have been sympathetic in a number of strikes, and it is perfectly
possible that I may have sympathized with this. I know nothing
about it whatsoever.
Senator Hickenlooper. The Special Committee on Un-American
Activities in December 1944, in a report in appendix IX, I believe —
there is a typographical bobble here — cited it as a Communist front.
Miss Kenyon. At that time?
Senator Hickenlooper. The report was made in December 1944.
The date of the letter that I have is 1937.
Miss Kenyon. I certainly did not know that it was Comnuniist if
it was Connnunist, nor am I snre that I was on it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I do not know whether you were or not,
Judge. I merely showed yon the ])hotostat with the name "Dorothy
Kenyon"' on the side as a member of the advisory committee.
I have a photostat of a letterhead of the Conference on Pan Am-
erican Democracy, with oflices at 156 Fifth Avenue, New York. It
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 —14
200 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
is dated November 16, 1938, and in the list of sponsors printed on
the left-hand side of the letterhead is the name of Dorothy Kenyon.
Miss Kenyon. I have covered that already in my statement.
Senator Hickexloopeb. Just to refresh my recollection, were you
one of the sponsors of the organization ?
Miss Kenyon. Yes. I said that. I found the letterhead in my
file dated March 4, 1939, and I remember making a speech before that
organization, I think in 1938. On the letterhead was the name of
Senator Paul H. Douglas, Quincy Howe, Stanley Isaacs, and Dr.
Ralph W. Sockman, all good friends of mine. I didn't know the
Communists on it, if there were some.
Senator Hickenloopkr. I believe it is alleged there were some on it.
Miss KoNYON. I believe those gentlemen that I named were not
Conimunists or even considered so by this committee.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you still a member of that organiza-
tion ?
Miss Kenyon. I have never heard of it in 10 or more years.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you ever withdraw from it?
Miss I^nyon. Acording to this letterhead, I was a sponsor in 1939.
Senator Hickenlooper. 1938 is the date of this letter.
Miss Kenyon. I m sorry. The letter I have in my files is 1939.
I'm sorry.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then if this photostat is an accurate re-
production, you wei'e a sponsor in 1938, and also according to your
own letterhead in 1939 ?
Miss Kenyon. That's right. I told you it was in my file, which
brought me up a whole year longer than what you have.
Senator Hickenlooper. When was the last time you had any con-
nection at all with this organization ?
Miss Kenyon. So far as I know, March 4, 1939. I have never
heard of it since. I have difficulty remembering even this connec-
tion with it.
Senator Hickenloopeh. Attorney General Tom Clark's letters
to the Loyalty Review Board, released June 1, 1948, and September
21, 1948, cited it as subversive and Communist. It was cited as Com-
munist front by the Special Committee on un-American Activities
in its report March 29, 1944 ; also cited in the report of June 25, 1942.
The California Committee on un-American Activities, in its report,
1947, cited it as a Communist front, and it was cited as subversive and
un-American by the Special Committee of the House Committee on
Appropriations in its report of April 21, 1943.
Miss Kenyon. I do not think I need repeat my position.
Senator Tydings. We want to go along, if you will permit us, to,
for quite some time yet, but obviously there will be other members of
the committee who will want to ask you some questions, and I am won-
dering whether it would be convenient for you to stay over tonight
and come tomorrow to finish up.
Miss Kenyon. Could we possible finish tonight, Senator? I do
earn my bread and butter practicing law, and I have had several days
just knocked right out.
Senator Tydings. We will proceed, then.
Senator Hickenlooper, I believe you discussed the Neiw York
League of Women Shoppers, and your association with that. I have
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 201
uhat is alleged to be a photostatic copy of their letterhead of January
25. 11)40, in which you are listed, among others, as one of the sponsors.
Is that correct?
Miss Kexyon. No, that is absolutely not so, because I disagreed
violeniiv ^Yith them in about lUoO or 1937 and withdrew with a bang.
I remen'iber that very well indeed, so they probably just continued to
carry my name on the letterhead, which I am sorry to say many organ-
izations apj^ear to have done.
Senator HiCKEXLooPEr.. Did you withdraw in writing?
Miss Kexyon. I think I prcbably did. 1 know I had a great row
with them. I could find nothing in my files, but I don't keep files
forever and ever.
Senator Hickenlooper. At about what time did you withdraw from
that organization?
Miss Kenyox. That was 1937, I think — maybe it was earlier than
that. No. I think it was founded about 1935, and I think it was 1936
or li»37 when 1 withdrew as a sponsor. I Avas never a member.
I didn't approve of the way they handled things, and I told them so.
Senator Hickenlooper. 1 lien their use of your name on their letter-
head as late as January 25, 1940, was completely without your consent
and unauthorized?
Miss Kenyon. That's right.
Senator Hickexlooper. This organization was listed in 1944 by the
Special Committee on Un-American Activities as a Communist-con-
trolled front by indisputable documentary evidence obtained from the
files of the Communist Party in Philadelphia, according to the cita-
tion, and it was cited by the California Committee on Un-American
Activities in 1943 as one of the Communist-inspired and therefore
Communist-dominated and controlled consumer organizations.
Miss Kexyon^. That was my undei-standing, too, and that is one of
the reasons I withdrew from it.
Senator Hickexlooper. I merely wanted to get these things com-
pletely cleared up for the record.
I have a photostat of a letterhead of the Milk Consumers Protective
Committee, 215 Fourth Avenue, New York, New York. The date of
this is snpposed to be April 23, 1940, according to the photostat, and
under the heading ''advisory board'' is the name Dorothy Kenyon.
Do you recall the Milk Consumers Protective Committee?
Miss Kexyon. I covered that in my statement. I have absolutely
no i-ecol lection of any such thing, and I can find absolutely nothing in
my files.
Senator Hickexlooper. So that you cannot recall now whether or
not you ever were a member of it, or a member of the advisory board?
Miss Kexyox. That's right; that's right. It sounds so utterly
foreign to me that I would say I could not possibly have been, but
you do sometimes have a lapse of memory, especially about unimpor-
lant things.
Senator Hickexlooper. I think it is very apparent that a number
of these organizations have been free with your name. Judge Kenyon.
They have taken rather unusual liberties.
Miss Kexyon. I think so too. Senator. It is unfortunate to be a
liberal and a fighter for causes. It is probably better not to belong
to anvthing.
202 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. Do vou recall the organization called the
Associated Blind, Inc.?
Miss Kenyon. This is conipletel}^ new.
Senator Hickenioopek. Anion o; the list of sponsors on this letter-
head is "Honorable Dorothy Ken3'on, Justice." I am merely asking
you about the organization.
Miss Kenyon. This, of course, is completely new, and I remember
absolutely nothing about it. I don't know anything about it at all.
Senator Hickenlooper. You have no recollection of the organiza-
tion ?
Miss Kenyon. No. I would say I had never heard of it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is that the fact, that you have never heard
of it, so far as you remember?
Miss Kenyon. That is right, yes. I haven't any recollection what-
soever of such a name.
Senator Hickenlooper. Therefore the inclusion of your name as a
sponsor of that organization would have been without your authority
or consent ?
Miss Kenyon. I would say so ; I would say so.
Senator Hickenlooper. This organization is cited as a Communist-
front organization by the Special C'ouDnittee on Un-American Ac-
tivities in December 1944.
I have a photostat of an alleged program of the American Eussian
Institute, or I should say it ap])ears to be an invitation to a dinner
given by tlie American laissian Instiiute, a dinner and presentation
of its first annual award to Franklin D. Eoosevelt for outstanding
service in furthering American-Soviet relations, given on Tuesday,
May 7, 1946, at 6 : -)(> o'clock in the grand ballroom of the Hotel Penn-
sylvania, in New York. On the list of sponsors — a partial list, it
says — appears the name "Dorothy Kenyon." Do you recall that
dinner of that organization?
Miss Kenyon. I also covered that in my remarks. I do not recall
the dinner, but I did say that, being a Rooseveltian, a devoted Roose-
veltian, it might not have been strange if I had sponsored such a
dinner in his honor.
Senator Hickenlooper. The American Russian Institute for Cul-
tural Relations With the Soviet Union w^as cited by the California
Committee on Un-American Activities in its report in 1948.
Miss Kenyon. Are you talking about the same organization. Sen-
ator, or is this another one ?
Senator Hickenlooper. It says "American Russian Institute for
Cultural Relations With the Soviet Union." Perhaps I had better
look it up in the citations.
Senator Tydings. AVhile Senator Hickenlooper is looking that up,
do some of these organizations have a parent body wnth branches in
the various States, some of those that have been enumerated, like the
Maryland Division or the California Division, or is there one organ-
ization that covers the country with a mantle? Do they have State
chapters?
Miss Kenyon. Of what ?
Senator Tydings. Any of these organizations.
Miss Kenyon. Do you mean, do I know ?
Senator Tydings. Do you know ?
Miss Kenyon. No.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 203
Senator Tydings. The reason I asked yon is that there was put
in evidence yesterday in one of the cases an exhibit where they had
a Maryhmd chapter, and I was woiuUn-inir Avhether or not tliey had
chapters over the country in otlier States, because — and I don't say
this is a fact, but I think it is a U)<>ical inference — one of the chapters
nii<rht have a connotation that the ])arent body might not have, and
vice versa, for that matter, so I tliink that when Ave go into the State
fiiulinas on any of them we ought to know whether there are State
chapters there. We (h)n't know exactly what is being referred to.
Miss Kenyox. Unfortunately 1 know so little about these organiza-
tions that have been mentioned that I am not the authority to tell you
what their organization is.
.^"enator 1Ii(!vt,xi.( oper. Of course, the oidv reason these orfjaniza-
lions ai-e brought up is that your name appears on all of them as a
sponsor or adviser or something of that kind, and I merely wanted
!o })robe that situation a little.
Aliss Kexyox. That's right.
Senator Hickenlooper. 1 think perhaps I should not press this for
tlie moment, because this program says "The American Russian Insti-
tute cordially invites," et cetera, and the citation refers to the or-
ganization "American Russian Institute for Cultural Relations With
the Soviet Union.'' That is the citation of its Communist activities.
There is some addition to the name as contained in the program. It
may not be the same, and I shall therefore pass it up.
The organization known as "Descendants of the American Revolu-
tion"— are you familiar with that?
Miss Kexyox. Yes. That is not on this list. I have, however, a
inemory of that which is very clear, because that, again, Avas one of
the organizations that I neA-er Avould become a member of. I Avas
associated Avith them at the start and I didn't like them, and I just
droj^jied them as fast as I could.
The idea Avas a A^ery nice idea, and I think it Avas Helen Hall, of
XeAv York, Avho told me that some Quaker lady Avliose name I forgot
liad thought up the idea of having some Descendants of the American
Revolution avIio might have a slightly diti'erent program from that of
the I). A. R. It sounded to me like an interesting idea. Dr. John
Haynes Holmes, as I recall, was interested and Avas an adviser, and
also, if I recall, Mary Simkhovitch, the very fine Avoman in NeAv York
Avho Avas for long the head of Greenwich House. We explored the
itlea. and I may haAe been on that advisory committee for a little
while, but A^ery soon I saAv a little bit of some other people Avho
were Avorking in it and, as I say, I didn't like them at all and I got
out as delicately but as fast as I could. That Avas all back in the
early, or the middle of the lOoO's, I would have said. I remember
the idea intrigued me, but I did not like the people Avho were trying
to j)ut it into effect. They struggled to get me to join.
Senator Hickexlooper. The photostat AA'hich I liaA'e lists "Dorotliy
Kenyon, prominent attorney" as a member of the advisory board.
Miss Kexyox. As I say, I may have been on the advisory board for
a year, along Avith John Haynes Holmes and Mary Simkriovitch, but
1 got out very fast. What is'the date on that 'i
Senator Hickexlooper. There is no date that I notice.
204 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IINVEISTIGATION
Miss Kenyon. It was the middle 1930's, I tliinlv. Oh, yes, they
are both on there. Isn't that wonderful ! My memory was good.
That idea did interest me.
Senator Hickenlooper. And that was when, did you sa}^ ?
Miss Kenyon. It was around the middle 1930's, I would have said.
I am not too clear about that. As I say, I haven't had a chance to
look it up. I do have the recollection.
Senator Hickenlooper. Your memory is good about that organiza-
tion in the 1930's?
Miss Kenyon. Yes, I i-emember that very much, because 1 was
really interested in that idea. Most of these others I know nothing
about because I had nothing to do with them.
Senator Higkenloopicr. The Descendants of the American Revolu-
tion are described by the Special Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties in its report of June 1942, as —
A Communist-front organization set up as a radical imitation of the Daughters
of tlie American Revolution. The Descendants have uniformly adhered to the
line of the Communist Party.
It was cited as a Communist front by the California Committee on
ITn- American Activities in its report in 1948 ; cited as "subversive and
un-American" by the Special Subconnnittee of the House Committee
on Appropriations in its report of April 21, 1943.
Miss Kenyon. My feeling was sound. I might say that quite a
number of my ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War — on the
right side.
Senator Hickenlooper. In the New York Journal-American of
Sunday, March 12, 1950, under a story with a byline by Howard
Rushmore, you are quoted — and I shall show you the entire story
Miss Kenyon. Yes; thank you very much.
Senator Hickenlooper. As saying, "Perhaps I was a sucker," when
letterheads listed your name nmong the sponsors of Communist-front
organizations dating from 1935 until 1949 and, "Denied in many in-
stances that the use of her name had been authorized on stationery
of organizations listed as Communist by Congress or the Attorney
General." and, "Declared McCarthy w^as attempting 'to make people
afraid of supporting popular ideas.' "
I wonder if that statement that "Perhaps I was a sucker" when
letterheads listed her name among sponsors of the Communist organ-
izations is an accurate statement.
Miss Kenyon. I may have said that perhaps in certain instances
I was a sucker, as who has not been, and I remember LaGuardia'i's
statement that when he made a mistake, it was a "beaut," and I may
have made one or two of those myself. When I have made a mis-
take, however, I think it has always been from generous motives, and
never because of selfish political motivations.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you have a copy of this?
Miss Kenyon. I have it right here. My counsel did not let me
read it until this moment.
Senator Hickenlooper. You are welcome to look at this, but if
you have a copy of it we might as well keep this file together.
I have here a news story. Judge Kenyon, taken from the Times
Record of Troy, N. Y., Tuesday evening, January 17, 1950, headed
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 205
"Hiss trial seen example of civil liberties hysteria"; subheading
"Dorothy Kenyon, former judge, speaks at annual YAVCA dinner."
The story is as follows, and is under date of January 17, 1950 :
The current perjury trial of Alger Hiss was cited last night by former New
York City Municipal Court Judge I)orothy Kenyon as "a perfect example of a
sacrifice to the hysteria created by the Congressional Committee on Un-American
Activities." Speaking before a large gathering at a membership dinner at the
Troy VWCA, Judge Kenyon claimed. "Lawyers agree tliat tliere is not one shred
of respectable evidence to prove that Hiss did what he is charged with doing."
She added that in spite of this, Mr. Hiss "will be lucky if he can get a hung jury
in his second trial."
Now, for the })urpose of my question. Judge, I do not intend to read
any more of tliis. I expect to offer the entire story in evidence, and
you uuiy read it all if 3^ou want to, in evidence or anything else. But
for the purpose of my question I will ask you, is that a substantially
accurate statement of what you said in that speech?
Miss Kenyon. There is one sentence in there which is not correct,
where I am quoted as saying that lawyers agreed there was no evi-
dence— did3^ousay?
Senator HiCKKXLoorER. I shall read the quotation again, and I Avill
be glad to hand you the story.
Miss Kexyon. Thank you very much.
Senator Hickenlooper. The quotation here is as follows :
Judge Kenyon claimed "lawyers agree there is not one shred of respectable
evidence to prove tliat Hiss did what he is charged with doing." She added that
in spite of this Mr. Hiss "will be lucky if he can get a hung jury in his second
trial."
^fy question is as to the accuracy of the alleged quotation, which is
alleged in the story to be a direct quote from your statement. I have no
objection — in fact, it is perfectly all right with me if the whole stor}^
goes in the record.
Senator Tydings. Either way you want it.
Miss Kenyon. It makes no diflference to me, because I said every-
thing except that one thing, as I recall it.
Senator Hickenlooper. It will be put in the record.
Miss Kenyon. May I make a conmient in respect to that?
Senator Tydings. You. may.
Miss Kenyon. I made the remark quoted in substantially those
words, that it was a product of the hysteria created by the Congres-
sional Committee on Un-American Activities. I was asked in the
question pei'iod about the Hiss case, which many people have said too
many things about already, and if I can very briefly summarize what
I said about it, it was this : I did say that he would be lucky if he got
a second hung jury. I also said, which is not here, that in the present
condition of hysteria in tlie country it was almost impossible, it seemed
to me, to find a jury who had not perhaps already gotten some percon-
ceived idea of tlie issues, and tlierefore would be disqualified by having
made up their minds in advance, and that I really thought it Avould be
almost impossible to get what you would call a fair trial with a jury
completely objective for at least 2 years in the present temper of the
country.
In regard to this matter of evidence, what I said, in substance, was
that there wasn't a shred of direct evidence except what Mr. Whittaker
Chambers had said, plus the documents which also went back to Mv.
c
in
206 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IX^•E1STIGATI0N
Chambers, because he had produced them. In fact, I think that is
louohly what I said. There ^Yas some discussion of the whole subject
on the part of the audience and myself. I think that there are a num-
ber of lawyers who ao-ree with that position.
I do not know Mv. Hiss or Mr. Chambers or any of the parties
involved. .
Senator Tydings. The exhibit will be printed m the record.
[From Troy (N. T.) Times Record, January 17, 1950]
Hiss Trial Seen Example of Civil Liberty IIvsteei a— Dcrotht Kenyon,
Former Judge. Speaks at Annx'al YWCA Dinner
The Piirrent perjiirv trial of Alser Hiss was cited last night by former New
York City MnnieipalVourt .Indue Dorothy Kenyon as "a perfect example of a
sacrifice to the hysteria created by the Congressional Committee on Un-American
Speaking before a large gathering at a membership dinner at tlie Troy YWCA,
.Judge Kenvon claimed "lawyers agree there is not one shred of respectable, evi-
dence to prove that Hiss did what he is charged with doing." She added that
in spite of this Mr. Hiss "will be^ lucky if he can get a hung jury in his second
trial "
Tlie case of the former State Department official came up during .Judge
Ivenvon's discussion on the status of civil liberties in the United States and in
the 'world She charged that '•under J. Parnell Thomas (former Republican
Representative from New .Jersey) the House Un-American Activities Committee
made accusations l)ased on the flimsiest hearsay."
The loyalty tests of Federal emv)b'yees, the Feinberg law, and wire tapping also
ame in for criticism from Judge Kenyon, a practicing attorney, who is now serv-
o- on the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women.
She declared that the Federal loyalty tests "contain no elements of a fair
trial" and pointed out that the accused employees "do not even know the nature
of the charges which are brought against them."
Characterizing the Feinberg law, wniich was recently declared unconstitutional,
as an -invitation to tattle on teacher," Judge Kenyon called it a violation of
academic freed<.m. She expressed the hope that the law "which is certain to
be drawn up to replace it" (the Feinberg law) will be drafted with more caution
Judtte Kenvon told the gathering that "the people of the United States will
soon he presented with a United Nations covenant on human rights which will
include a mechanism for enforcement." She said that Americans must decide if
they are willing to guarantee these rights and submit our violations of them
""The examp*ie\'he United States sets in the world will decide whether
the democratic ideal will stand or fall," she asserted.
"If we are going to win the battle of ideas we have to put into practice our
ideals of civil liberties," Judge Ivenyon said, concluding with a plea for America
to "get over the hysteria and end the witch hunting." „ , , . t ,• rr
Judge Kenvon was introduced by Mrs. Margaret Spencer, Rabbi Julius^ li.
Gutmann of the Third Street Temple led the devotional services, and Mrs. Gor-
man R. Clarke, executive director of the Troy YWCA, gave the invocation.
The program was under the direction of Mrs. Sterling P. Olmsted of the public
affairs committee.
Senator Hickenlooper. Just as a matter of interest in your phi-
losophy, which you have referred to in the past, Judge, I believe you
graduated from what schools?
]Miss Kexyon. Smith College.
Senator Hickenlooper. That was in 1908 ? ^^ . . ^
Miss Kenyon. Yes, that's right; and New York University l^aw
School. Harvard was not open then to women, otherwise I would
have done what my brothers did, _ i • i? 4^1
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you recall writing something tor tli*^
Decennial Class Book of 1918?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION 207
Miss Kfxyox. 10 is ? 1 am afraid. Senator, you have tlie advantage
of nie. 1 haven't the faintest idea of what folly I may have connnit-
ted at that point. , , , ^ n i
Senator TydixCxS. I don't think you would have been old enou<>li
to write in 1018. ^ ^ v i ^
Miss Kenyon. Very sweet of you, but I was. I hope you did not
mean mature. • -j. n
Senator HickkxL(M)i>er. T am just wondering if you recall.
Miss Kexyox. 1 don't recall one thing about it.
Senator Hickexlooper. Before I have even read it?
Miss Kexyon. I don't recall one thing.
Senator Hickexlooper. It is interesting, lou might desire to
check it. It goes to the question of your philosophy. I am told, in
the DecennialChiss Book of 1918, in writing about yourself, you used
these words: "Absolutelv not a Republican, nor a Prohibitionist.
She can't altoo-ether agree with the Democrats, nor can she quite com-
mit herself to Socialists, toward whom perhaps she most inclines.
Six years of nothing at all, of polite visits, existence and travel. How
it reads like the davs before the Russian Revolution. Here comes
a change, and with "about as little ceremony, enter the radical, the
woman economicallv indei)endent, the wage earner, the advocate of
international democracy. Having once started on the downward path,
nothing but disillusion is apparently likely to gtop me."
Do you recall writino; any such sentiments a^ that?
Miss Kexyox. I don't even know what it means. Do you ? I un-
derstand that part about Prohibition and Republicans, but nothing
else.
Senator Hickexlooper. I confess to some confusion, and 1 thought
perhaps you might be able to explain it.
Miss Kenyon. I am afraid I thought I was funny.
Thank vou very much for calling it to my attention.
Senator Hickexlooper. I thought sometimes those historical things
are interesting to go back and review.
Miss Kexyox. My class was also antisuft'rage if I remember aright.
Senator HiCKEXLt)0PER. The question involved, so far as I am con-
eerned— I assure you that I haven't the least evidence, nor do I have
any belief, that you are subversive in any way.
Miss Kenyox. Thank you very much. Senator.
Senator Hickexlooper. Or disloyal. I haven't approached that
from that standpoint at all. Regardless of what other members of
the committee may interpret as the statement Senator McCarthy made,
I interpret the statement he made as suggesting that your membership
or alleged membership in a great many organizations at least later
or presently declared to be subversive is a matter for concern so
far as the security risk goes in public service, especially in the State
Department and its activities.
Senator McMahox. Will the Senator yield at that point? I just
wanted to quote from the record as to what the Senator did charge the
witness with.
Miss Kexyox. I have it here, and it was a little more than member-
ship.
Senator McMahox" (reading) :
I think it is important that the committee know that the Communist activities
of Miss Kenyon are not (jnly deep rooted but extend back through the years. Her
208 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION
sponsorship of the doctrines and pliilosophy of this ruthless and godless organi-
zation is not new.
Miss Kenton. Thank yon very much, Senator, and he also at one
point, on page 168, said :
Here again we have this prominent State Department official, Judge Kenyon,
crying aloud in her anguish for a fellow Red —
and he adds —
I call anyone who gets $12,000 a year of the people's money very prominent —
but of course I didn't get it —
a fellow red.
I consider that I have the right to assume that I was charged with
being a Communist, and therefore disloyal, and I don't want to get
angry. I have tried very hard not to.
Senator Hickenlooper. I assure you that I am not taking the posi-
tion that you are a Communist, so far as my views of the matter are
concerned, but I would like to ask you whether or not you are familiar
with Secretary Acheson's criteria on security risks as he has laid
them down before committees of Congress and, I understand, pub-
lished tliem.
Miss Ivenyon. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you familiar with that?
Miss Kenyon. No, I don't believe I know them.
Senator Hickenlooper. Assuming that he has laid down the cri-
teria, among others, that membership in organizations that have been
declared to be subversive by official bodies is a matter for serious
question and examination of the person as* a security risk before
public employment is given them — I say assuming that; if I am in-
correct in that statement I can be corrected — before you took public ,
employment as a representative of this country on the United Nations,
did any official discuss with you the allegations of your membership
in organizations that had been declared to be subversive?
Miss Kenyon. Never. They have come and talked to me about other
people.
Senator Hickenlooper. In the event, and this is a hypothetical sit-
uation, a supposition that I am making, the files in connection with in-
formation on your activities disclose, prior to tlie time of your em-
ployment or representation of this country, allegations of member-
ships in a substantial number of organizations that had been declared
to be subversive by various public bodies, such as the Attorney General,
the House Un-American Activities Committee, or other organizations
of that sort, what is your personal opinion as to whether or not j^ou
should have been interviewed along that line?
I am assinning, for the purpose of this question, and making no al-
legation one way or the other, that there were repeated allegations in
your file of membership in organizations that had been declared sub-
versive. Do you think that you should have been talked to about this
matter for some explanation or inquiry as to liow your name hap-
peiied to appear on these lists as sponsor and otherwise?
Miss Kenyon. Well, Senator, I appreciate your asking me my
o]:)inion as to how the State Department shoidd have handled this and
other cases of dangerous persons. I would thinlc, myself, in the first
place, of the organizations that have been named here, membership in
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 209
them is practically not cliar<i;ed to me at all. I have been charfred
Avith sponsoring a number of organizations, some of which I am i)er-
fectly certain I never did sponsor. The ones that I think I did boiled
down to a handful that were probably at the time I belonged not Com-
riumist at all, because I am sure you know about the infiltration of
Connnunists into various organizations, and I would have thought
that it would have been i)roi)er for the State Department, or any other
governmental body, in considering taking someone on their staff, or
whatever that they should look at their record in the round, and look
at all their activities, and not just at a tiny little bit of a group, and
I have recited a number of my acti"vnties here today. There are many
others, during most of my life, which I have not troubled the com-
mittee with going into, because I did not want to take your time or
bore you. I therefore simply hit the high spots of the things which
were inconsistent with the so-called Communist line, and if you were
to look into all my activities, I think you might think yourself, with-
out further questioning of me, that I was a good security risk.
Senator Hickexlooper. Judge Kenyon, the question I asked you
Miss Kexyox. I am sure I have been looked into b}^ everything.
Senator Hickexlooper. The question that I asked you — perhaps I
didn't make it clear, and I merely asked for your opinion.
Miss Kexton. Yes; I understand.
Senator Hickexlooper. In the light of the criteria laid down by
the Secretary of State himself, in whicfi he said that membership in
organizations which had been declared to be subversive, or which were
declared to be subversive by official bodies, was at least a cause for
serious examination of the background and security risk potential of
the individual who is considered for public office. In that light of
those criteria, and then assuming for the sake of this question that
in your files there appeared numerous cases where you were alleged
to have been a sponsor or a member of a number of organizations,
whether it is 20 or 25 or whatever number, but a substantial num-
ber
Miss Kextox. It boils down nearer to six or eight.
Senator Hickexlooper. I am talking about the allegation. I am
not talking about your actual membership. I am talking about the
allegations that you were a member of a substantial number of these
organizations. Wouldn't you tliink that in keeping with the criteria
laid down for examination someone officially should have talked to
you about this matter? Shouldn't it liave raised some question?
Shouldn't they have said, "We will go and see Judge Kenyon. We will
give her an opportunity to tell us about these things."
Here are these allegations. Wouldn't you think that would be a
perfectly normal thing in carrying out the investigating procedure
before appointment as a public official ?
Miss Kextox. It might have been done. Senator. I have no doubt
that very serious consideration was given to my text, but what is gained
by talking to a person and asking them whether they are subversive
or are in favor of overthrowing the Government by force and vio-
lence, when you know perfectly well the answer that you will get
does not seem to me very substantial? I think the things which they
doubtless did do were to talk to people with whom I had been asso-
ciated in various activities, and to get their views on me, which was
210 STATE DEPARTME]S^T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION
considerably more intelligent than to come and talk to me. What
do yon think I wonld have said ?
Senator Hickenlooper, I would have said some of the things I have
been saying to you today.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am minded to ask the question, Judge
Kenyon
Miss Kenton. It is the only way I can answer it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Because you so vigorously and so very prop-
erly and so quickly demanded to be heard in this case, when the charges
were made by Senator McCarthy, and I would think that normally
it would therefore be your reaction that of course the State Depart-
ment shoidd have come to you and let you jn-esent your case in this
matter if these things appeared in the file. It would seem to me to
be perfectly consistent.
Miss Kenyon. I understand you now. Senator, and I would say
this. You are now, instead of asking me whether I think this was
something the State Dej)artment should have done, talking about it
in terms of what I would have liked in respect to my own reputation.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am asking you for your judgment. You
are a very able woman, a woman of experience; you are a jurist.
Your opinion, I think, is valuable.
Miss Kenyon. I would have been very happy had they come and
had I been able to answer and to tell them that most of these things
I had had nothing whatsoever to do wnth. I didn't know at the
time that there was a case like this building up against me.
Senator Hickenlooper. Don't you think it was a matter
Miss Kenyon. I have learned a lot lately.
Senator Hickenlooper. That you miglit well have known about,
that they should have talked to you about and told you about?
Miss Kenyon. I would have liked it had they come to me; yes,
indeed. I would have been delighted, and I would have given them
another piece of my mind.
Senator Hickenlooper. With the reservation, Mr. Chairman, that
I still feel and insist that, inasmuch as this is one of the cases involved
in this matter, the investigative file must be available to this com-
mittee and that I don't consider this to be any kind of a complete
ciuestioning of the witness without the background of those files, I
have nothing more to say at this time.
Senator Tydings. Judge, I would like to ask you one or two ques-
tions.
Have you ever been an employee of the State Department?
Miss Kenyon. My answer would be that I don't think so. I am
not sure what you call a United States delegate to the United Nations.
I had always described myself as a piece w^orker — p-i-e-c-e worker —
for the State Department. I do not think that that position is con-
sidered an employee. I am not sure. Senator. You are asking me a
technical question. That is my only connection ever with the State
Department.
Senator Tydings. The-r.ext question I would like to ask you is. What
was your first notice of the charges that Senator McCarthy had
brought here concerning you?
Miss Kenyon. Wednesday.
Senator Tydings. In the newspapers?
STATE DEPAKTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 211
Miss Kknydx. At 1-2 o'clock ;i reporter called nie up, and from then
until 1 a. ni. reporters called nie up.
Senator Tydings. Did you have any notice that your name was
ooinir to he called into question before this connnittee before the re-
jiorter called you up ^
Miss Kknyox. I never had the faintest inkling. I was horribly
busy. I had })rofessional engaoements all last week and this and next
week; and tomorrow is income-tax day. and I do some income-tax
woi-k; and 1 was submerged witli things and never once thought about
Congress.
Senator Tynixiis. Thei'e has been no evidence here that anyone who
has made any charge against you has actually seen the files in the
State DeiKirtment, so you, in answering these charges, are in the same
position so far as the connnittee knows as was the witness who brought
the original charges. They were brought, so far as we know, without
any seeing of the State Department files themselves, and consequently
you are here without us having seen the State Department files.
Miss Ken YON. We are all in the same boat.
Senator Tydixgs. I would like to ask 3'on this : When you joined
an}- of these organizations, those that you have particularly identified
yourself with and have given your reason for joining, how did you
come to join them ? Did you organize these things, or were you in-
vited by someone you knew to join ?
Miss Kenyox'. I was always invited. I have always been very busy
with my law practice and then, of course, with my governmental work
during those years of the thirties. Perhaps Government work isn't
quite as trying as practicing law. I seem to have had a little more
time in the late thirties when I was a Government official for extra-
curricular activities, and perhaps that is a pity. But in any event, you
know, I got around, I spoke, and then I have always cared very much,
as I stated, for the under dog; and the American Civil Liberties Union,
of course, has dealt with under dogs ; so people came to me and told me
about projects.
Senator Tydixgs. What character of people suggested that you join
any of these organizations?
Miss KKX'Yt)X. Well, they were just people that I knew.
Senator Tydings. Were they prominent i)eo])le in the community oi
well-known "i-eiiutation, or were they ]:)eo))le that were of shady re))u
tation. or Conununists. or pro-Connnunists. so far as you know, look-
ing back on this record?
Miss Kenyox. I would have said, for the most part, many of them
were friends of mine who do have re])utations, but I also know a lot
of little peo])le who don't have reputations in that sense of the word,
and some of these little groups that have been talked about I surmise
were perhajis in the beginning just a group of little peo])le in some
neighborhood in Xew Yoi-k who had heard me speak and told me
about their idea, and would I hel]) them — nuiybe wovdd I go on the
advisory connnittee while they were trying to organize this tiling, be-
cause I don't entirely deal in the world of Park Avenue and Wall
Street.
Senator Tydings. I did not mean in the economic sense. I meant
in the citizenship sense. Were any of these peo]de who invited you
to join, so far as you knew them, or so far as you know now, members
212 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATIOK
of the Communist Party, or allied with the Communist Party, or
identified with Communist movements per se ?
Miss Kenyon. At the time when they came to me, I had no idea
that they were Communists, if they were. I have had no idea whatso-
ever in respect to it. As I grew a little older in the thirties I worked
out a policy that I was cooperative and friendly toward most people,
but in respect to Communists, while I would support their civil liber-
ties, my policy was isolationism, and I kept away from them and tried
to keep them away from me. .
Senator Tydings. I have lots of other questions, but I am going to
defer to my two commiteeemen so you may not stay here if we can get
through. Senator Green ? • • i i.
Senator Green. Miss Kenyon, you have many times m reply to a
question referred to your filing system and having found nothing m
your files. I think perhaps it would be just as well for you to say a
few words as to what this filing system was. Was it your habit to
open a file for a new organization you joined, and things like that^
Miss Kenyon. Yes, Senator. I would be very glad to answer that
question. It sounds a little formidah.le to call it a filing system; but,
of course, you know I have my law office ; and we, of course, have my
legal files ; and I have file clerks.
When it has come to the question of these nonlegal matters, but
extracurricular activities, so to speak, my organizational matters,
mv various secretaries from time to time have tried to get order in
them and I have a file of associations. Wliere I have a great deal
to do'with them, the files with respect to them become very voluminous,
and then I have miscellaneous association files. Wlien there are spe-
cific things which become important enough to have a file by them-
selves, they get a file; and then, as 1 say, in the ''miscellaneous comes
in what I would call the cats and dogs, the things that maybe I have
iust contact with for a very short period of time.
I did not. Senator, keep— unfortunately, if I did, I would have to
pay much more rent than I do now— and I cannot keep, all my files
from the beo-inning of time, because every now and then we burst at
the seams and I either have to throw out some old ones or buy some
new filing cabinets or do both, and my office in New York is not a very
bio- one. It is jammed with files. Every now and then we have to
ha'^ve a house cleaning, and out go a lot of little innocent lambs.
I had a file on this Political 1 'ail Fund thing. We had a card tor
it But it ended, you see, in 1934 or 1935, and there wasn t any file.
We had thrown it out. So I was stuck. All I could do was to ask
Roger Baldwin. „
Senator Green. As a rule you have a file of one kind or other tor
any organization of which you are actively a member ?
Miss Kenyon. That's right, and we have cards for them.
Senator Green. And, when you say you haven't found any refer-
ence to it, you infer that in all probability it was ]ust a passing
interest or some minor activity like a speech or something of that
Miss Kenyon. That is precisely it. I also have a speech file, but it
does not go back to the thirties.
Senator Green. My distinguished colleague asked you about a good
many associations and organizations on which your name appeared
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 213
in some publication, such as an invitation to a dinner or something
like that, and it was based on the theory of guilt by association.
Miss Kenyon. Yes.
Senator (tkeex. Because that is tlie only purpose it seems to me it
could have, and he quoted the Secretary of State as referring to that
as one of the criteria which might be used in determining an applicant
or an employee's loyalty, although the Secretary of State used that
only as one of a number
Miss Kenyox. a number of criteria?
Senator Green. Yes ; that the thought should be applied.
I think it would be just as well, or I would be glad, at any rate, to
liear your views on this theory of guilt by association. It always
seemed to me as though that was one of the fundamental differences
between the totalitarian and the democratic form of government.
Senator Hickexlooper. Mr. Chairman, so long as the Senator has
predicated his question on his assumption of what I said, may I clear
it up?
Senator Greex. I will be glad to have you do so.
Senator Hickexlooper. I did not say the Secretary of State had
set these up as criteria of loyalty. I used the term ''security risk."
There is a vast difference between security risk and either proof of
or allegation of disloyalty. There is a vast difference between them.
A bad security risk may be loyal intentionally.
Senator Green. I am glad the Senator understands the difference,
because the resolution under which we are. acting specifies disloyalty
and not security risk, so I assumed that those who are charged in these
hearings and before this committee were being charged with dis-
loyalty. It seems to me it is a logical conclusion.
However, about this theory of guilt by association, I know you must
have very definite ideas, and I will be glad to hear them.
Miss Kexyox'. Thank you, Senator. I want to be very brief.
Of course, guilt hy association alone seems to me a violation of due
process, whicli is in our Constitution as one of the civil liberties which
I have fought for. The associations themselves, the organizations
themselves — and I hold no brief for any of these; I am prepared to
believe they are all devilish — nevertheless they themselves have never
been found subversive by a court of law or by any process other than
an administrative edict; and administrative edicts or fiats or what-
ever you call them sound to me like Mr. Hitler and Mr. Stalin; there-
fore, I think that the terming of an organization subversive is in itself
a violation of civil liberty.
And then from that to jump to the fact that a person who is a spon-
sor or a member or participates in one tiny little project for a short
])eriod of time is therefore tarred with the same brush and is there-
fore himself or herself subversive seems to me a non-sequitur. Very
frequently it just is not true.
Therefore it seems to me that due process is violated, and maybe it
js a bill of attainder and maybe it is an ex post facto law. I am pre-
pared to say that it is completely contradictory to the democratic
process.
Senator Green. I thought that was your view, and I am glad to hear
you state it so clearly.
Miss Kexyox. I hope vou read the New York Times editorial on
"The Right To Join."
214 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
><pn.ifor Green I did not. Perhaps this will be a good siibstitute
^efesjS one other question: You were furnished with a good
m.nv lis s on which appeared disreputable people as well as people
of he Idlhe t repute. I have before me a docmnent relatnig to you
whic^ cont^^ins people I do not think any of whom are disreputable,
all of the highest repute.
Miss Kenyon. Oh, Senator, thank you. „ .^ .^ i • n ^
Senatoi Green. And I think it would be well if it appeared m the
record now It is headed "For release upon completimi of testimony
by Judge Dorothy Kenyon before Subcommittee of Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, March 14, 1950.
I don^t know whether von care to read it and place it m the lecmci.
You are the only witness here; I suppose, unless you are overcome by
"m^^SycS'^S^^i-. vou embarrass me. Might my counsel read
it foi- me ^ If I know what it is, I would prefer not to read it myself.
Senator Tydings. Counsel will read the document.
Mr KiENDL. The document reads as follows :
The" following is a statement made public t.>day by New YorK Attorney C. C.
"^SiT:^ ::^ZS'^^^^^o^^eZ senator McCarthy, of Wis-
"^'^ ;^ bif teSumony before'tbe -^committee of tl^ Senate C^mnnt^e o
consm,
"t a public natuie. She lias attained a tigli ieimta(ii.n t<Ji bei abilitj aiitt bei
'■":\V'l'!rie,fr, ir'w'^SlSge'iS'sbe l,a, never bad tbe sligbtes, .y^^
states No citizen of New York is a more loyal American.
That is signed by : Ernest Angell C. C. ^^m;lingbam John W D^^^^^^^
T Invd Garrison Edward S. Greenbaum, ^lcholas Kelley, William H.
D^l^^il NeXld Morris, Robert Moses. Robert P. Patterson, A. J. G.
Priest, Whitney North Seymor, and Ordway lead.
Senator Green. Thank you.
Miss Kenyon. Thank you very much. Senator.
Senator Tydings. Senator McMahon ?
Senator McMahon. No questions.
Senator TvmNGS. Miss Kenyon, we are very much obliged to you
for coming down here and testifying. We will try and not call you
hack unless you get in the headlines again.
Miss Kenyon. Unless I get in hot water. ^„ fL^f
Senator TvmNos. I would like to announce before we^adjourn that
I would like to have an executive committee meeting of the subcom-
mittee in room G-23 in the Capitol tomorrow morning at 10 :.^0
o'clock I hope all members will be present. It is important that they
•ill l)e there promptly so we can dispatch some pending business.
(Whereupon, at 5 : 15 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
upon the call of the Chair.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
MONDAY, MARCH 20, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington^ D. C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment on March 14, 1950,
at 10 : 20 a. m. in room 318, Senate Office Building, Senator Millard
E. Tydings, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Tydings, Green, McMahon, and Hickenlooper.
Also present : Senators Connally (chairman of the full committee),
Tobey, Wiley, and ]\[cCarthy.
Senator Tydings. The committee will please come to order.
Dr. Jessup, would you care to take the stand 1
Hold up your right hand, first.
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in the pend-
ing matter before this committee, shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Ambassador Jessup. I do.
Senator Tydings. Take a seat, sir.
TESTIMONY OF HON. PHILIP C. JESSUP, AMBASSADOR AT LAPvGE
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Senator Tydings. Dr. Jessup, you are familiar, I assume with why
this committee is sitting.
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. I likewise assume that you are familiar with the
statement made by Senator McCarthy concerning you, sometime ago,
during the process of these hearings ?
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. You have read it ?
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Are you prepared to make an answer to that,
today ?
xVmbassador Jessup. I should like to do so, sir.
Senator Tydings. You may proceed in your own way.
Ambassador Jessup. Thank you. Senator.
Mr. Chairman, my name, as I think may be known, is Philip C.
Jessup. I reside in Norfolk, Conn., and my present position is Am-
bassador at Large of the United States.
Senator Tydings. Dr. Jessup, you might, for about a minute or two,
give us a little biography as to how long vou have been in the State
215
68970— 50— pt. 1 15
216 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LNTESTIGATION
Department, and so forth, so that when you take up the record, those
of the people here who are not familiar with that, will have that in
mind. . -,1 • ^
Ambassador Jessup. I have included that ni my statement, with just
a little prefatory paragraph, if I may.
Senator Tydings. That is all right, sir.
Ambassador Jessup. I wanted to say, sir, that I greatly appreciate
the opportunity that your committee lias given me to appear before
you in connection with the charges and insinuations which have been
made against me by Senator McCarthy. On March 8 Senator Mc-
Carthy made the following statement to this committee which I quote
from pages 71 and 72 of the record :
Although I shall discuss the unusual affinity of Mr. Philip C. Jessup of the
State Department for Communist causes later in this inquiry, I think it pertinent
to note that this gentleman now formulating top-flight policy in the Far East
affecting half the civilized world was also a sponsor of the American-Russian
Institute.
That is the end of the quotation.
I^Ir. Chairman, no one can be loyal to communism and also loyal to
the Hnited States. This attack on me by Senator McCarthy is obvi-
ously intended to give the impression that I am disloyal to the United
States. When Senator McCarthy made that statement, I was m
Pakistan completing an official mission throughout the countries of
Asia. This mission was carried out as part of the effort this country
is making to strengthen the free and democratic forces in Asia and the
capacity "of free Asia to resist subversive or antidemocratic forces.
During the course of this mission it was my duty to speak on behalf
of the Government of the United States to the chiefs of state, prime
ministers, foreign ministers, and otlier high officials of almost all of
the countries of that area. In the course of that mission I also made
various public statements in an attempt to make clear to the peoples of
the east that the solution of their problems does not lie in the false
hopes dangled before them by the agents of Communist greed and
imperialism.
For example, at New Delhi, on February 23, 1950, 1 issued this state-
ment to the press, and I should like to read that extract:
Since the end of the Second World War, history has recorded the extension
of a new imperialism that has broutiht more than a dozen countries under the
domination of a sin£;le expanding power. The device used by this expanding
power in extending its imperialism is to hold out the glittering promises of
communism as a beacon light for the rescue of peoples who are suffering from
economic underdevelopment or who are trying to remove the shackles of the old
traditional kinds of colonialism. However, where communism gains control,
it becomes immediately apparent that the peoples are not allowed to determine
their own future, but must conform to a single policy laid down in Moscow.
* * * Communism is hostile to what the Asian people want to do and
what we want to help them to do— which is to develop the stability of their new
countries and to develop their resources and their technical skills so that they are
not subject to penetration, either through ignorance or distress or because they
succumb to the false promises of the Communists.
That is the end of the quotation from that statement I made at
New Delhi.
If Senator McCarthy's innuendoes were true, the representatives ot
the foreign governments with whom I spoke would be entitled to be-
lieve that mv statements to them were deceitful and fraudulent. They
would be entitled to b^^lieve that no confidence should be placed in the
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 217
declui-ations wliich I made on behalf of our Government. If it were
true that the President and tlie Secretary of State had sent on such a
mission a person who was a traitor to his own Government they might
well feel that they could place no confidence in the statements made
by any of the representatives of the United States abroad.
It may be relatively unimportant whether the character of a single
American citizen is blackened and his name is brought into disrepute,
but in the present serious situation of international relations through-
out the world today it is a question of the utmost gravity when an
official holding the rank of Ambassador at Large of the United States,
of America is held up before the eyes of the rest of the world as a liar
and traitor. I am aware, ]\Ir. Chainnan, that Senator McCarthy has
not used those words. But if his insinuations were true, these words,
would certainly be appropriate.
It is impossible for anyone to estimate the harmful effect that these
innuendoes have had on the success of my mission and the foreign
policy of the United States. It is clear that if these insinuations re-
main unanswered, they will further weaken the United States in its
conflict with world communism. For that reason I flew back from
Europe and asked this opportunity to be heard by this committee.
It is obvious that an individual holding the high position of Senator
of the United States would not venture in this way to undermine the
position of the United States in its relations with the rest of the
world unless there was some reason for doing so. I have tried to
figure out \\hat the reason behind this attack might be.
I suppose that if I chose to follow the tactics which you gentlemen
have witnessed in recent weeks, I would start with the hypothesis
that this action was Communist inspired. It so happens that, so far
as I know, the only other attack upon my integrity during the course
of my trip in Asia was made by the Peiping Communist organs, and
by Izvestia, the official publication of the Soviet Union in Moscow.
On March 3, Izvestia attacked me in the following manner:
At a press conference arranged on February 23 in Delhi, Jessup set out to
obtain a change of view in Indian public opinion. Jessup brought into action
all kinds of means: Flattery and the publicizing of American "assistance to
backward regions" and most of all, of course, slanderous fabrications against
the U. S. S. R. * * * In general, Jessup tried with all his might but he had
little success. < The imperialistic aggressive character of the policy of the
United States throughout the world, and in Asia in particular, is so evident
that no hypocritical speeches and anti-Communist phillipics could hide it.
Mr. (Chairman, I should like to place before the committee copies
of other Communist attacks upon me. I have them with me, and
would like to deliver them before you in a few- moments.
Senator Tydings. They will be inserted in the record at this point.
Exhibit 1 — Jessup
Attacks by Commlnist Press and Radio Upon Ambassadob Jessup
(1) Excerpt from an article in Jen Jlin Pao, Peiping newspaper, on January
10, 19.50.
(2) Excerpt and summary of article in Wen Hui Pao, Shanghai newspaper,
on January 11, 19,50.
Co) Excerpt from an editorial in Wen Hui Pao, Shanghai newspaper, on
January 12, 1950.
(4) Excerpts from an editorial in Chaunmin Pao, Communist newspaper, oa
January 2fi, 1950.
218 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVElSTIGATION
(5) Excerpts from an editorial in Seng Hwo Pao, Djakarta newspaper, on
January 31, 1950.
(6) Kadio Peking broadcast of February 13, 1950.
(7) Radio Moscow broadcast of February 13, 1950.
(8) Excerpts from an article in Izvestia on Marcb 3, 1950.
(9) Official translation of an article in Izvestia, March 3, 1950.
Excerpt From Jen Min Pao, Petping Paper, January 10, 1950, Concerning the
United States Occupation of Japan
[The excerpt is contained in an official plain language telegram to the Department of State
from Peiping]
INCOMING telegram
Department of State, Division of Communications and Records
Control 5359
Rec'd January 13, 1950, 10 : 45 p. m.
From: Peiping.
To : Secretary of State.
No. 101, January 13.
Sent Department 101, Shanghai 29, Tientsin.
Peiping Jen Min Jib Pao January 10 carried NCNA.
January 9 despatch re United States occupation Japan. Translation follows :
Administrator U. S. Far East aggressive policy and Ambassador at Large
Jessun arrived Tokyo January 5, held series secret meetings with MacArthur.
According own statement discussed Japanese Peace Treaty and other problems
including Taiwan question. According Tokyo UP January 8 despatch, observers
believe Jessup talked about question forming U. S.-Japanese alliance simul-
taneous conclusion separate peace treaty with Japan. This means under foim
U S -Japanese alliance U. S. will occupy Japan long-term basis make Japan
main U S base advancement aggression Far East. Concerning China Jessup
said "U S has not abandoned, not planning abandon China other Far East
countries U S. will continue oppose C. P. actions overthrowing existing gov-
ernments by violence." This means U. S. imperialism continuing to adopt
aggressive policy intervention China's domestic affairs and to be enemy people
China all Far East countries. End translation.
AGA : MW
Excerpt and Summary of Article in Wen Hui Pao, Shanghai Communist
Publication, on January 11, 1950, Criticizing Ambassador Jessup
FThe document which contains the excerpts and summary i^s an official plain language
telegram to the Department of State from Shanghai]
incoming telegram
Department of State — Division of Communications and Records
Control 4238
Rec'd January 12, 1950, 3 : 08 a. m.
From : Shanghai
To : Secretary of State
No. 176, January 12 . . j. ^ -^ \
Sent Department 176, repeated Peiping 42, Taipei 61 (Taipei repeat Hong Kong).
Press Review :
Wen Hui Pao January 11 carries following comment entitled "another devilish
scheme" : "Ambassador-at-large Jessup, executor of American aggressive policy
in Far East, is conducting series of secret meetings in Japan with MacArthur.
"What is secret? It is one known to all, a 'secret' filled with devilish designs
They are attempting to conclude unilaterally peace treaty with Japan, and at
same time 'American-Japanese alliance.' American imperialism intends to place
Japan under its perpetual enslavement, and use Japan as base for aggression
of Far East, principally China,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 219
"Let us listen to droam-like babbling of Jessup. He says that U. S. has
not abandoned, and does not propose to abandon, China or other Far East coun-
tri(>s, and that U. S. will contimie to oppose acts of Comniunists in seeking over-
throw of existing governments with brntal force. Such is way Jessup slanders
overthrow by Chiiiese people of traitorous reactionary group."
I>ut Chinese people, too, have not abandoned, nor do they propose to abandon,
mission against imperialism, feudalism, and bureaucratic capitalism. Though
this mission has been basically consummated, China will continue to raise high
her vigilance, and continue to oppose and deal blows to imperialism attempts for
enslavement of Far East.
Excerpt Prom an Editorial in Wen Hui Pao, Shanghai Communist Paper,
January 12, lUoU, Concerning Ambassador Jessup's Trip to the Far East
[The excerpt is contained In an official plain language telegram to the Department of
State from Shanghai]
incoming telegram
Department of State — Division of Communications and Records
Control 5403.
Rec'd January 14, 1950, 1 : 33 a. m.
From : Shanghai
To : Secretary of State
No. 205, January 13
Sent Department 205, repeated Peiping 46, Hong Kong 23, Taipei 71', Tokyo 8.
Press review :
Wen Hui Pao, January 12, carries following editorial headed "Watch Ameri-
cans New Intrigue in Far Bast."
"Philip C. Jessup, American Ambassador at Large, Chief of American State
Department's Far East Policy Study Group, and responsible executor of Ameri-
can policy of aggression in Far East, arrived in Japan about week ago and has
, since been engaged in series of secret conferences with MacArthur, American
reactionai-y leader who now rules Japan.
"According to Jessup's open announcement and to information given out by
Americans' own news agency, problem of peace treaty with Japan together
with other problems related to Far East (including problem of Taiwan) con-
stitute object of these secret conferences.
"What is termed problem of peace treaty with Japan is nothing but attempt
by American imperialists to conclude unilateral peace treaty with Japan to
exclusion of Soviet Union and China, to lay foundation for future formulation
of 11 S.-Japanese alliance. In other words, America will use U. S.-Japanese
alliance to turn Japan into American base of aggression in Far East, and use
unilateral peace as means of carrying out prolonged occupation of Japan as well
as fostering Jajpanese reactionary.forces."
Translation of Editorial in Chinese Communist Newspaper Chuanmin
Pao of January 26, 1950, Enclosure to United States Foreign Service Des-
patch No. 162 of March 2, 1950, From John F. Stone, First Secretary of
Ebassy, Bangkok, Thailand
Period : January 20-30, 1950.
translations from CHINESE NEW^SPAPERS, AMB^SIcAN EMBASSY, BANGKOK
Chinese atgociations: Kir Pong Elected President of Taechiu Association
News Item January 20
CHUANMIN PAO (Commuuist)
Following is the result of- yesterday's elections of the Taechiu Association:
*Kir Pong, President and Member of Standing Committee; Sow Kung-kiam, Vice
President ; Tang Sang Hah, Treasurer ; Lee Ki-heong, Secretary ; Teng Boon-iang,
Ngow Jin-an, Rae Thian-ek, Members of Standing Committee. *Kir Pong at
present is in Hongkong (translator's note).
220 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Sino-Thai relations: Peking Radio Attack on Thailand
Editorial January 25
KUANG HUA PAD (Tending to pro-Communist)
We Cliinese overseas are, of course, fully aware of the denials from the Thai
Pa dfamentarv Secretary to the Foreign Ministry, the Foreign Minister, Premier
S vrand the Piibl ci[y Department, following the UP report quoting Peking
So b?oadcSts conce/ning the Thai government's I'^J-f -!;. ^^^^^^^f^Thai
Sneaking conscientiously, since the very Ijeginnmg of Smo-Thai i elations inai
peopl' have very rarely gone to China but a great n/^mbev of Chinese hav^
mierated into this countrv, especially during recent years. Ihe Chinese have
Svoi^ to seek from Thailand, while the Thai have nothing to obtain f^oni China
Tlierefore the Thai authorities take no interest in Chinese problems, and chatter
freeU without fear because they assume they have support. Such "denials of
''5f^;p?obl^: ^c:^SS;s Chinese are to be solved, instead of laying bl^me
on others we should help ourselves first by stabilizing the pohtical com^^iion
so that the rich may invest their money at home and the poor may contribute
ther series to the nation. If overseas Chinese can change the heath and
Jhk-ket to prosperous cities in behalf of others, why not rebuild our own home
"\?^W.s is realized, there would be more Chinese going home than soing f road,
and such matters as a "protest" will be unnecessary since every Chinese over-
seas is pleased to go back to his motherland.
Imperialism: Bangkok Conference and "Pacific Pact"
Editorial January 26
CHUANMiN PAD (Comiuunist)
The U. S. imperialist Far East Diplomatic Conference has been scheduled to
onen from Februarv 13-17 in P.angkok. This important conference m which the
US imperials I^ir East aggressive plan is to be revised should not be over-
looked Jessup, head of this^conference, is one of the authors of the aggressive
Far East policy of the U. S. State Department. „ i „r./i
From the United States, he has been to Tokyo. Taiwan. Hongkong and
Manna DurJng a two-day stay in Taiwan, he had secret talks with the bandit
Oliian- • in Manila he did not quit until Quirino promised to accept the U. S.
fmSi-falist "pS'fom-" and to convert the Philippines into the "showroom
""^TherfrhrSf be no doubt of the purpose of the conference since Jessup has
to to r^-id for secret talks with rulers of various Far Eastern nations long be-
forltl^'conSrence takes place. For example, according to informed quarters
in ?h" Phil pp nes, Quirino not only gave assurance of his "cooperation" with
the united Sates in its defense plan, but also expressed his "welcoin^'to the
assurance from American officials that the U. S. will retain adequate forces in the
Fai East Whereas any nation in the Far 'East needs only to express wel-
c(mie" and give assurances of "cooperation" with American imperial sts foi what
they required, the deal surely is successful and mutually beneficial.
ExCFiiFT Feom an Editorial in Seng Hwo Pao, Chinese Communist Newspaper
IN Djakarta, January 31, 1950
[The excerpt is contained in au official communication to the Department of State from
*■ Djakarta, Indonesia]
Foreign Service of the United States of America
Priority : Air pouch.
956d.61/2-750
Security : Unclassified
To : Department of State
From : Djakarta 92 February 7, 1950
f: Voluntary .
Subject : Chinese newspaper editorial on Jessup Mission.
There is cited below an English translation of an editorial. A Few Words to
Jes^uirwiiidi appeared January 31, 1950, in the SENG HWO PAO, a Chinese
Communist newspaper published daily in Djakarta.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 221
A FEW WORDS TO JESSUP
The American Ainbassador-at-Large, Philip C. Jessiip. the day before yesterday
arrived in D.laliarta from Vietnam. He intends to stay here five days. He con-
ferred with Hatta. The sub.iect of discussion was kept a secret. What medicine
he is offering for sale only he himself knows.
Bnt the secret medicine he is selling is after all no great mystery — it is only a
qnack medicine !
The medicine Jessup is selling was offered in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan,
Philippines, Vietnam, Singapore and now in Indonesia. It is reported that it will
be brought to Rangoon and Bangkok. In the Bangkok American Foreign Service
Officers (Conference special instructions will be given for the sale of "anti com-
munism" medicine.
Well, has this "anti communism" medicine trade of Jessup had any success?
No. it is a failure !
The cause of his failure is his misunderstanding of the main problem : The
chief aspiration of all Asiatics at present is. as pointed out by Nehru, "Colonial-
ism. Quit Asia ! The Asiatics must be fully independent." But Jessup appa-
rently does not realize this. On the other hand, he is applying the "colonialism
whip" harder and harder.
As evidence, let us look at Vietnam. The fact that the U. S. is going to recog-
nize Bao Dai is a clear proof of its motive. Vietnam is a puppet of France. This
can be seen from the transfer of sovereignty agreement signed on December 30,
1949. In that agreement it was said down !
KWRinden/rnm 2-1-50
% 1 1
Radio Peking Broadcast to China and Overseas, February IS, 1950, as Trans-
lated From the Mandarin and Published in the Official Daily Report of
THE Foreign Broadcast Information Service of the United States (No.
31-1950) AT Pages BBB 1-2, Concerning Ambassador Jessup's Recent Trip
to the Far East
China, February I4, 1950.
Bangkok Conference to Plan New Schemes.
Peking, in Mandarin, to China and Overseas, February 13, 1950, 1230 GMT — R.
(Anonymous Commentary on "American Ambassador Jessup's So-Called For
Eastern Tour of Inspection".)
"In the middle of this month, the conference of American far eastern diplo-
matic personnel will meet in Bangkok, the capital of Thailand, to discuss the
over-all American plan for aggression in the Far East.
"Some time ago, the American imperialists had made intensive plans for this
conference. The head of this conference, American Ambassador Jessup, left
America last year on Dec. 22 for the Far East to carry out his nefarious schemes.
■•Within the Ijist month. Jessup has been to Japan, South Korea, Okinawa,
Taiwan. Hong Kong, Philippines, Viet Nam, Indonesia, Sinq;apore, and Burma.
"Every time Jessup reached a place, he held secret meetings with the local
leaders on the so-called conditions for anti-Communism.
"meetings in TAIWAN
"On Jan. 15. when Jessup arrived in Taiwan, he met with the head of the
Kuomintang, Chiang Kai-.shek. Wu Kuo-chen, Ten Hsi-shan, and Chen Cheng
for secret talks. The Kuomintang CENTRAL NEWS reports that Jessup ex-
changed views with the bandit Chiang on the Far Eastern situation and the
world problem of anti-Communism. They discussed * * *, the military
aspects of the defense of Taiwan, and other military problems relating to politics
and economics.
"When Jessup arrived in the ea«t, on Jan. 18, he issued a statement on
the policy for the Far East and Asia. In this statement, he openly stated the
points which the American imperialists opposed their enemy, the peoples of
Asia.
"The American imperialists have a clear policy for the Far East. That is to
say, America will continue to use force and other similar measures to oppress
222 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATTON
the people's liberation movement in Asia. She will support reactionary control
In the countries, so that she can compromise the nation's independence and make
them into American colonial territories and protectorates.
"arrival in INDOCHINA
"On Jan. 27, after Jessup's arrival in Hanoi, Indochina, he personally called
upon the puppet king of Viet Nam, Bao Dai, and the puppet premier, Nguyen
Phan Long. He also delivered American Secretary of State Acheson's letter of
congratulations to Bao Dai.
"This letter stated : 'America is willing to establish close relations ; that is to
say, is willing to recognize the puppet Bao Dai regime.'
"Not long afterwards, on Feb. 7, the American Government recognized the
Bao Dai regime forthwith. At the san^e time, under Jessup's direction, Amer-
ican arms flowed to Indochina for Bao Dai.
"After staying in Viet Nam for a few days, Jessup arrived in the capital of
Indonesia on Jan. 29. The reactionaiT leaders of Indonesia, Sukarno, Hatta,
etc., held secret talks with him. At this time American arms were shipped to
Indonesia for Sukarno and his group to oppose the liberation movement of the
people of Indonesia.
"After Jessup had left Jakarta and had arrived in Singapore, he made a broad-
cast speech on the evening of Feb. 6 in which lie exposed the American imperi-
alists plans for aggression in the Far East. He insisted that the western nations
had the right to drastic steps in Southeast Asia.
"point 4 PROGRAM
"Jessup brought up Truman's plan for economic penetration known as the
so-called point 4 program. He said that this plan could bring universal pros-
perity to all peoples. This so-called coprosperity is not Jessup's new inven-
tion ; this scheme for aggression was long ago loudly proclaimed by the Japanese
Fascists, such as the so-called joint prosperity, greater East Asia coprosperity
sphere etc.
"The people of Asia know the meaning of these words. On the morning of
Feb. 8, Jessup enplaned for Rangoon, Burma, the last point of aggression before
his arrival in Bangkok. .
"From reviewing the past two months of Jessup's secret negotiations in the
different parts of Asia, we can see what the Bangkok conference is like. There
is no doubt that this conference is to discuss American imperialist aggression
in Asia. , - , ,
"Because of the great victory of the Chinese people, the struggle of the people
of Asia for democracv and independence has been growing daily. American
imperialists have received a serious blow. The American imperialists in order
to overcome their losses in Asia and the Far Ea.st are planning new schemes to
enslave the peoples of Asia. The Bangkok conference has been convened for
this purpose. But the people of China and the other countries of Asia are grow-
ing exceedingly powerful. They know that imperialism is only a blufE, and all
its schemes will fail."
Radio Moscow English Language Broadcast to Southeast Asia, February 13,
1950, as Published in the Official Daily Report of the Foreign Broadcast
Information Service of the United States (No. 31, 19.10), at Pages CC 5-6,
Concerning Ambassador Jessup's Recent Trip in the Far East
USSR : Overseas and Far East,
February U, 1950.
In 1871 the Germans obtained the drawings of Russian ice breakers and built
similar boats. The first oceangoing ice breaker was constructed in Russia in
the latter part of the nineteenth century. Today the Soviet Union has the
largest fleet of ice boats.
Bangkok Parley to Plan Paciflc Union.
Moscow, in English, to Southeast Asia, Feb. 13. 1950, 1600 GMT-L.
(Commentary on the Conference of the U. S. diplomats, which opens in Bangkok
on Feb. 14.)
The conference of U. S. diplomats opens in Bangkok today. U. S. intelligence
agents and spies, agents of Wall Street in Southeast Asia who have taken the
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 223
guise of diplomats are meeting togetlier. Judging by reports from the foreign
press, the ci inference is to discuss the plan of struggle against the Chinese People's
Republic and the national liberation movement in Asia.
The New York Herald Tribune has reported that immediately after the procla-
mation of the Chinese People's Republic the State Department decided to draw
up what is called "a positive policy" with regard to China and the other coun-
tries of the Far East and Southeast Asia. A special commission was set up under
Dr. .Jessup to work out concrete steps. The paper also revealed that the main
ta.sk before the commission was to work out a general plan of combat in Asia.
The U. S. militarists are laying the ground for larg.'-scale intervention in
Asia, and they are doing it under the guise of economic aid to the underdeveloped
and dependent countries, as formulated in Truman's Point Four program. They
are thus trying to stem the rising tide of the national liberation movement in
order to turn the territories of the Far East and Southeast Asia into U. S.
colonies and into military bases for fighting against the Chinese People's Republic
and for unleashing a new World War.
TOUR OF JESSUP
Shortly after Jessup's arrival in Tokyo, there was held a conference of U. S.
Chiefs of Staff. This conference discussed MacArthur's plan for converting
Japan into an advance outpost of the U. S. strategic defenses ; that is, of U. S.
aggression in the Pacific. In this connection, the conference considered the ques-
tion of including Japan as a member of the so-called Pacific Union. The U. S-
sponsors of this aggressive union intend Japan to play the role of gendarme to
strangle the national liberation movement. However, the foremost task of the
Japanese militarists is to render aid to the Kuomintang i-emnants on Taiwan.
This help is already being given.
As has been reported in the American press, Jessup spent his time on Taiwan
making a thorough revision of Kuomintang finances and in holding a number of
secret conferences with the representatives of the Kuomintang clique. Apart
from Chiang Kai-shek, Jessup met other jiuppets and reactionaries, the U. S.
agents in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. He also conferred with the heads of
the colonial administrations of Britain, France, and the Netherlands, assuring
them all of U. S. active help and support.
Speaking at a press conference in Singapore, Jessup said that urgent measures
would have to be taken to stem the advance of communism in southeast Asia.
And so to halt the further spread of the national liberation movement, the
U. S. imperialists are now feverishly searching around for new bases and
new agents. They are putting their stakes on the Japanese militarists. They
are tiyiug to breathe new life into the political corpse of Chiang Kai-shek, to
muster all the reactionary forces of the Far East and Southeast Asia together
in an aggressive Pacific Union.
But all these attempts are in vain. Jessup made a broadcast at Singapore
in which he made the admission that his stay in Asia had been a disappointment.
Ever more energetic action is being taken by the peoples of the colonial and
dependent countries against the Anglo-U. S. imperialists and their hirelings and
puppets. China has liberated herself, she is an independent country. The
imperialists are being thrown out of Viet Nam.
The peoples of Malaya and Burma are rising in a struggle for liberation.
The mighty national liberation movement of the peoples of Asia is mounting
day by day, and .Jessup could not but feel it. The New Yoi'k Herald Trb'ine
has had to admit that the situation in the Far East is so bad that it would be
absurd to suggest that a few arms, aircraft, capital investments, or diplomatic
ruses could save the position. That really is so; nothing can help the U. S.
imperialists now.
224 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LNVE'STIGATION
EXCEKPT AND SUMMARY OF ARTICLE IN IZVESTIA ON MARCH 3, 1950, COMMENTING
ON Ambassador Jessxjp's Trip
[The document which contains the excerpts and summary is an official plain language
telegram to the Department of State from Moscow]
incoming telegram
Department of State — Division of Communications and Records
Control 1758
Rec'd March 3, 1950, 7 : 45 p. m.
From : Moscow.
To : Secretary of State.
No. 740, March 3.
Sent Department 740. Department Pass Delhi 18, Karachi 12.
Izvestla March 3 prints % article bad reception Jessup India. States goal
trip India, Pakistan. Afghanistan to bring countries into "Pacific aggressive
bloc" not secret. "Discomforting results conference Bangkok and evidence re-
ceived by Jessup that Paciiic bloc idea does not elicit enthusiasm countries Asia
forced Jessup strengthen pressure ruling circles India, Pakistan." At press con-
ference February 23 Jessup used all means "tlattery and advertisement Ameri-
can 'aid backward areas' and more than all of course slanderous inventions
against USSR' to change "established Indian opinion, according his own acknowl-
edgement, that USA striving for world domination, that they are 'conducting
struggle for control' over people Asia and would wish create more military bases
particularly Nepal, Kashmir."
Jessup mission failure since could not conceal "imperialist aggressive char-
acter US policy." "Even in bourgeois Indian press' this revealed. Quotes "search-
light" effect Americans not welcomed Southeast Asia as liberators, "we suffered
much from colonial domination, don't wish cropping up wars on doorstep."
Quotes "Indian NEWS CHRONICLE" effect accusations Soviet imperialism
more convincing if Soviet not French, British troops occupy Indochina, Malay,
Soviet not American planes given Chiang bomb civilians Shanghai, "only foreign
domination which people Asia know is domination western powers."
Barbour.
LWH : EMS
NOTE : Relayed to New Delhi, Karachi, 7 : 50 p. m. 3/3/50— MB PLAIN
I
Official Translation by the Division of Research for Europe, United States
Department of State, of an Article Appearing in the Soviet Newspaper
Izvestia, March, 3, 1950, Concerning Ambassador Jessup's Recent Trip in
THE Far East
Taken From Isvestia, March 3, 1950
After the conclusion in Bangkok of a conference of American diplomatic repre-
sentatives in the countries of Asia and the Pacific Ocean, the director of this
conference, the representative of the United States Department of State, Jessup,
made a trip to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan. The aim of this journey does
not present a secret to anyone. Jessup's task is to convince the governments of
these countries to enter into a Pacific aggressive block whose creation was
planned at the conference at Bangkok.
It must be said that if, before the conference in Bangkok and in the conference
itself, Jessup took measures to keep the aggressive intentions of the United
States secret, then on arriving in Delhi he himself destroyed the fruits of his
previous efforts. It is evident that the unsatisfactory results of the conference in
Bangkok and the information received by Jessup that the idea of a Pacific block
does not provoke enthusiasm in the countries of Asia, forced him to increase
pressure on the ruling circles of India and Pakistan. At a press conference
arranged on February 23 in Delhi, Jessup set out to obtain a change of view in
Indian public opinion. Jessup brought into action all kinds of means: flattery,
and publicizing of the American "assistance to backward regions" and most of all,
of course, slanderous fabrications against the U. S. S. R. With these weapons
Jessup b;'gan a campaign against the opinion which, according to his own
admission, had formed itself in India that the U. S. is striving for world
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 225
doniiiiMtiun, that it "carries on a struggle for power" over the peoples of Asia and
WDiilil like to create numerous new military bases, in particular, in the Nepal
anil Kashmir. lu general, Jessup tried with all his might but he had little
success. The imperialistic aggressive character of the policy of the United States
throughout the world, and in Asia in particular, is so evident that no hypocritical
speeches and anti-communist phillipics could hide it. This is seen according to
the reaction to the visits of Jessup to India which has appeared even in the
bourgeois Indian press. Here are some of those reactions :
The paper Searchlight : "The supposition that the Americans are welcomed in
Southeast Asia as liberators is idiotic and shameless * * *. We have suffered
much from colonial mastery and we do not want the start of a war at our
doorstep." . ,. ,
The paper Indian News Chronicle: "The accusation of 'Soviet imperialism
would be more convincing if it was Soviet and not French troops who are occupy-
ing Indochina, if it were Soviet and not English forces who are occupying Malaya.
The accusation about 'Soviet intervention' would be more convincing if it were
Soviet and not American planes given to Chiang Kai-shek who are bombing the
civilian population of Shanghai * * * the only foreign domination which is
known by the people of Asia— that is, the domination of the Western Powers."
This declaration of an Indian newspaper scores a target right in the face of
the American imperialists and their partners in Colonial looting. Mr. Jessup
has difficulty in finding people who would oi)enly agree to defend American policy
in Asia and as far as touching the secret combinations which are being organized
by Jessup in the capitols of Asiatic countries, they will inevitably fail as has
often happened with a foreign policy of American ruling circles.
(Signed) Observer.
Ambassador Jessup. So you see, while I was on this mission, I was
attacked by two sources, Izvestia and Senator McCarthy. Anyone
who believes in the concept of fjuilt by association might draw some
startling conclusions from this fact. However, I do not believe in the
concept of guilt by association.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, at that point, might I ask
Mr. Jessup a question ?
Senator Ttdixgs. Would you like to let him finish and then interro-
gate him, so we won't be charged with heckling; or would you like to
do it now ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I shall bow to the suggestion of the chair-
man.
Senator Tydings. I think he should finish his statement.
Ambassador Jessup. Thank you, sir.
As the Attorney General stated in a letter to Seth W. Richardson,
Chairman. Loyalty Review Board, Civil Service Commission, dated
November 24, 1947, "Guilt by association has never been one of the
principles of American jurisprudence."
Moreover, Mr. Chairman, I do believe that anyone who, without
adequate proof, levels a charge of conscious or ignorant support of
communism at a Member of the United States Senate, or at an official
of the United States Government, is irresponsible. I have no evidence
that Senator McCarthy was motivated by a desire to assist the interna-
tional Communist movement, even though his words and actions have
liad that effect. I therefore reject this first possibility concerning the
reasons for the insinuations made against me.
A second possibility might be that such an attempt to discredit the
position of the United States in its relations with tlie other free coun-
tries of the world was inspired by sheer partisanship. It is hard to
believe that anyone holding the position of a Member of either House
of Congress of the United States would so subordinate the interests of
his country to sheer partisan advantage. I am sure no one of our
226 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ENYE'STIGATION
major parties would do so. I shall therefore pass on to a third
possibility.
The third possibility might be that the person bringing these charges
had made a careful investigation and was convinced they were true
and so serious that they ought to be made public even before the indi-
vidual concerned had been asked for his side of the story.
Are these charges and insinuations true ? Senator McCarthy asserts
that I was a "sponsor" of the American-Russian Institute. It is true
that my name appeai-s on a list of the sponsors of a dinner given by
the American-Russian Institute, but not as a sponsor of the organiza-
tion itself. The dinner in question was one given on May 7, 1946, on
the occasion of the presentation of its first annual award to Franklin
D. Roosevelt, which was accepted on behalf of his family. Senator
McCarthy pointed out that the names of Howard Fast, Saul Mills,
Ella Winter, John Howard Lawson, and Langston Hughes also ap-
peared on this list. He did not point out that approximately 100 peo-
ple were named on this list of sponsors and that it also included such
names as H. V. Kaltenborn; George Fielding Eliot; Dean Christian
Gauss, of Princeton; and Mary Emma Wooley, former president of
Holyoke. The entire list of them is already in evidence as an exhibit
of this committee, and the committee can make its own judgment as to
the caliber and variety of the ])eople who are on it. A search of my
files has failed to reveal any information concerning this incident, nor
do I remember attending the dinner. From approximately February
to June of the year 1946 I was seriously ill in a hospital in New York
City, so it is unlikely that I attended.
I do recall, however, that I was asked by Mr. William Lancaster,
a prominent New York lawyer, to permit my name to be used as a
sponsor of a dinner which was to be held on October 19, 1944. I had
met Mr. Lancaster particularly through his activities on the Foreign
Policy Association, at a time when Gen. Frank McCoy was presi-
dent and Senator Alexander Smith and I were members of the board.
I accepted that invitation in 1944 but was unable to attend the dinner.
I shall be glad to make the entire list of approximately 250 sponsors
available to the committee.
It is, however, utterly irrelevant to the charges or insinuations that
I or anyone else agreed to sponsor dinners of the American-Russian
Institute of New York City in 1944 or 1946. There was no reason why
a loyal American should not have done so. The Attorney General
expressly excluded the American-Russian Institute of New York fromi
the first "lists of subversive publications which were published and did
not include it until April 21, 1949. The committee may be interested
in knowing that I turned down invitations to speak at dinners held
by this organization in both 1948 and 1949.
During the course of my life I have participated in many organi-
zations. These organizations have been of a type that one would
normally associate with a person of my outlook and interests. They
include the American Philosophical Society, founded by Benjamin
Franklin; the Foreign Policy Association; the American Society
of International Law ; the Sigma Phi Society ; the Carnegie Endow-
ment for International Peace; the American Bar Association; and
f the American Legion. From 1933 to 1946 I was closely associated
with the Institute of Pacific Relations. I am proud of my association
with that organization, which was founded by a group of leading
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 227
businessmen and scliolars in Honolulu sometime in the midtwenties
for tlie purpose of increasing knowledge and friendship among the
peoples of the Pacific area. Despite the controversy which has occa-
sionally surrounded it, that organization continued to discharge the
functions for which it was created. Although there is still much to
be done in increasing the knowledge of the American people about
countries of the Pacific area, the institute has made a real contribu-
tion to the advance which has been made in this field during the last
25 years.
I first became associated with it in 1933, when the late Newton
D. Baker wns its chairman. It is necessary to explain that the Institute
of Pacific Eelations is an international organization composed of
national councils in countries touching upon or having close inter-
ests in the Pacific area. My first contact with the organization was
to attend in 1933 one of the periodic international conferences which
have been held by the organization. In those meetings leaders of
business and banking, former high officials of government, journalists,
labor leaders, researchers, and teachers from all of the Pacific coun-
tries have met for a common study of the problems of the area. Many
of the leading figures whom I have since met in the United Nations
I first met through my connection with the Institute of Pacific Rela-
tions, including Mrs. Pandit, presently Indian Ambassador to the
United States, and Dr. Hu Shih, the great Chinese philosopher who
was former Chinese Ambassador in Washington. As indicative of
the type of personnel attending these conferences, I should also like to
refer to the one held in Hot Springs, Va., in 1945, at which I was
chairman of the American delegation and Admiral Thomas C. Hart,
later United States Senator from Connecticut, was vice chairman.
I was a member of the board of trustees of the American council
of the institute from about 1933 until my resiijnation because of health
and the pressure of other work in 1946. I was chairman of the board
of trustees of the American council during 1939 and 1940. I was the
chairman of the Pacific council from 1939 to 1942. I have also at
various times served as a member of the executive committee of the
American council and in 1944 as chairman of the research advisory
committee. I was succeeded as chairman of the American council
by the late Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, president of Stanford University,
who, m turn, was succeeded by Robert G. Sproul, president of the
University of California, and now by Gerard Swope, honorary presi-
dent of the General Electric Co. Throughout my connection with
the institute, the board of trustees has included leaders of American
business, finance, and academic and public life.
Now, ]\Ir. Chairman, I would assume that anyone who was interested
in inquiring into what I had done and what I have stood for would
be interested in my entire life and background. An inquiry into my
background would have shown that my ancestors came to this country
from I]ngland in the seventeenth century and settled on Lono- Island
and in Pennsylvania and New England. My great-grandfather,
Judge William Jessup, of ^Montrose, Pa., was a delegate to the'
Republican convention of 18f;0, which nominated Abraham Lincoln
for the Presidency. He was chairman of the committee which drafted
the platform upon which Lincoln was elected. A great-grandfather
on my mother's side, John M. Butler, as a Pennsylvania delegate, cast
228 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\'E'STIGATION
his vote for Lincoln at that same convention. My father was a
lawyer in New York City and a lay leader in the Presbyterian
Church. On my mother's side my forebears were Irish and also amon<j
the early settlers of this country. ,
While the Bolshevik revolution was o;ainino- control in Russia, I
was servino- as a private in the Olne Hundred and Seventh Infantry
in the AEF in France. Shortly after the armistice I returned to
Hamilton College in central New York to finish my education, which
had been interrupted by my enlistment in the Army.
Now, one hears in these days that some individuals have been misled
during their college years to espouse radical doctrines, including the
Communist philosophy. If I had developed any radical tendencies
in that period, they presumably would have been revealed in my im-
mediately subsequent activities. Actually, on leaving college I took
a position as assistant to the president of the First National Bank of
Utica, N. Y. I remained with the bank for 2 years, subsequently
becoming assistant cashier. During those 2 years in Utica, I was
also superintendent of the Sunday school of the First Presbyterian
Church and commander of a local post of the American Legion. I am
still a member of the American Legion.
In July 1921 I married Lois Walcott Kellogg, whose ancestors were
.ulso of English and Dutch pioneer stock and whose mother was a
sister of the late Frederic C. Walcott, United States Senator from
Connecticut.
During my service in the Army I had developed an overwhelming
desire to devote my life to promoting the cause of international peace,
and with this purpose in mind I resigned my position at the bank
soon after my marriage and entered the Columbia University Law
School. At tins stage, as later in my life, I had the privilege of secur-
ino- the advice of the late Elihu Root, who had lived on the campus of
Hamilton College and whom I came to know there. After 2 years at
Columbia, I transferred to Yale University and received my bachelor
of laws degree there in 1924. Immediately afterward I secured a posi-
tion as assfstant to the Solicitor in the Department of State and served
in this capacity for a year before going back to Columbia as lecturer
in international law. I have been on the Columbia faculty ever since.
1 am now on leave from my present position as Hamilton Fish pro-
fessor of international law and diplomacy. , ,
In 1925-26, when the Senate of the United States was considering
a^ain the question of American accession to the World Court, I served
as personal research assistant to the late Senator Irvmg Lenroot, of
Wisconsin. , -, , o . ^ o^ ^ rr n
In 1929 Mr. Elihu Root was asked by Secretary of State Kellogg
to represent the United States at a Conference of Jurists m Geneva,
at which the question of United States accesion to the Statute of the
World Court was considered. Mr. Root, whose views about Russian
communism are certainly a matter of public record, invited me to go
alonfr with him as his assistant. I am proud to say that I continued
to enloy Mr. Root's confidence and friendship until his death m 1937.
Not long after I had accompanied him to the Conference of Jurists,
be authorized me to write his biography, and I spent a good deal of my
time between 1931 and 1937 on its preparation The biography was
iniblished in 1937, and covers the wide range of American law, bu^
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 229
ness, politics, and diplomacy which filled tho life of that very great
American statesman and leader both of the American bar and the
Republican Party. In 19:50, Mr. Harry Gucroenheim, who had just
beeii a])pointod by President Hoover as United States Ambassador
to Cuba, invited me to oo to Cuba with him as his personal legal
adviser. I served with him there for about 9 months.
After several yeai-s back at Columbia, I was called back into public
service by Governor, now Senator, llerbeil H. Lehman, who in 1943
asked me to come to Washington as Chief of the Division of Training
and Personnel in the Office of Foreign Relief and Rehabilitation Opei^
ations which he was then organizing. In December of that year, I
served as Assistant Secretary General of the P'irst Conference of the
United Nations Relief and Rehabilitation Administration, commonly
known as UNRRA, and in 1944 I served in a similar capacity at the
United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference at Bretton Woods.
iNIeanwhile, during a period from 1942 to 1945, I was the associate
director of the Naval School of Military Government and Administra-
tion, established at Columbia University at the request of the United
States NaA^y Department. In that school we trained some 500 officers
for service in occupied areas in the Pacific area. During part of that
time, I was also serving as consultant to the Navy Department in
Washington, as a lecturer at the Army School of Military Government
at the I'niversity of Virginia, and 'as a lecturer in the Navy War
( ^ollege at Newport. I had previously lectured at the Navy War Col-
lege in 1931, 1939, and 1941. I might add that since the war I have
also delivered two lectures at the National War College in Washing-
Ion, and in 1948 was invited to become a member of the National
War College staff. I was unable to accept this appointment because of
my duties with the Department of State.
Just before the San Francisco Conference in 1945 the then Solicitor
General, ^Ir. Charles Fahy, and I served, together with I^Ir. Green
Tlackworth, as members of a committee of jurists who pre]-)ared a pre-
liminary draft of the statute of the International Court of Justice. I
then served with the United States Delegation to the United Nations
Conference at San Francisco as an assistant on judicial organization,
and thereafter continued as a consultant to the Department of State.
In 1947 I was appointed as the United States member of a UN com-
mittee on the Codification and development of international law.
On January 3, 1948, I was appointed deputy United States repre-
sentative on the Interim Committee of the General Assembly of the
I nited Nations. On April 14, 1948, my apopintment as United States
representative to the second special session of the United Nations Gen-
eral Assembly was confirmed by the United States Senate. On June
1, 1948, the Senate confirmed my appointment as deputy United States
representative in the United Nations Security Council. On March 1,
1949, my appointments as United States Ambassador at Large and
also as United States representative to the third regular session of the
General Assembly were confirmed by the Senate, and last September
26 I was again confirmed by the Senate as a United States representa-
tive to the fourth regular session of the General Assembly.
So niiich for the record of my career. It does not read like the
record of a Communist, a pro-Communist or a fellow traveler.
At the beginning of my statement I said that the insinuations which
liad been leveled against me had the effect of impairing the confidence
230 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVE'STIGATION
of otlier government in the United States and its representatives. I
made that statement because it would be impossible to reconcile the
actions I have taken both in the course of my recent trip to Asia
and in the course of the last 2 years with the Department of State with
"an unusual affinity for Communist causes." I shall submit to the
committee for insertion in the record, a collection of extracts from
statements which I have made on the subject of communism. Merely
by way of illustration I would like to read from a statement which I
made in the Political Committee of the General Assembly last
December in the debate on China, and I was speaking, sir, to the chair-
man of the committee. There I said :
* * * I hope, Mr. Chairman, it will be crystal clear that the United States
policy is against imperialism everywhere. We flatly reject it for ourselves and
we condemn it when practiced by any other state. We condemn it specifically
as revealed in the Soviet-Russian continuation of Tsarist-Paissian imperialism
in the Far East. Our concern is that China, India, and all Asia be safeguarded
against Soviet Russia or any other aggression.
That is the end of the quotation. , xi -j
I believe that I should be judged not merely by what I have said
but also by what I have done. 1 have already indicated that I. have
had the honor of representing the United States m the Security
Council of the United Nations, in the Interim Committee of the Gen-
eral Assembly of the United Nations, and in one special and two
regular sessions of the General Assembly. The proceedings of these
bodies are public and their records are published. ■ ^ .
I shall submit, sir, for insertion in the record, official authenticated
copies of sections of the proceedings of the organs of the Jnited
Nations in which I acted; and also, copies of statements wnich I have
made to the press, and over the radio in the course of my Asian trips.
I have these here for insertion.
Senator Tydings. They will be inserted in the record at this point,
and I am not sure that you want the whole records, or just sections of
it that are pertinent, or that pertain to you? ,
Ambassador Jessup. I am quite content, sir, merely to have inserted
in the record the excerpts which will be marked as showing particular
passages in my statements dealing with the questions of international
communism. .,, , . ^ i • ..i a ^
Senator Tydings. Those excerpts will be inserted m the record at
this point, and should the committee desire, the whole record will be
available for further examination.
(The matter referred to is as follows :)
Exhibit 2 — Jessup
Statements by Ambassadob Jessup on the Subject of Communism
(1) Excerpts from statement to the Security Council on October 4, 1948.
(2) Excerpts from a statement to the Security Council on October 19, 1J48.
(3) Excerpts from a statement to the Security Council on October 25, 1J4J.
(4) Excerpts from statement to the Security Council on January 11, 194y.
(5) Excerpts from a speech on February 18, 1949.
(6) Excerpt from a speech on March 12, 1949.
(7) Excerpts from a speech on April 7, 1949.
(8) Excerpts from a speech on August 24, 1949.
(9) p]xcerpts from a speech on September 6, 1949.
(10) Excerpts from statement in Committee I of the General Assembly on
Novcmlier 2S, 1949. „ , . tt • at v..,
(11) Excernts from a speech to the English Speaking Union on November
28, 1949.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 231
(lii) ExciM-pt from statement to Committee I of the General Assembly, on
December (i, 19-19.
(LS) Text of statement to the General Assembly on DecemlxT 7, 1949.
(14) Excerpts from statement to the press, Hons Kong, January 18, 1950.
(15) Excerpts fi'om a broadcast over Radio RIalaya, on Febi'uary (i, 1950.
(Iti) Excerpts from speech over Kadio Thailand on Felinuiry 17, 1950.
(17) Excerpts from statement to the New Delhi press on February 23, 1950.
(18) Statement to the Security Council on October 6, 1948.
ExCERi'T From Statement by AMn.\ssADOR Jessup tn the Security Council of the
UN on October 4, 1948
The source of this speech can be found in the official records of the Security Council, three-
hundred-and-sixty-flrst meeting, October 4, 1948 [No. 113], at pages 24-26
The Government of the United States believes in the purposes set forth in
article 1 of the Charter and in the principles stated in article 2 of the Charter.
It is because we believe in these purposes and principles that we have joined in
referring this case to the Security Council. The representative of the U. S. S. R.
made a number of references to the desirability of respecting signatures to inter-
national agreements. I would like to point out that the Charter of the United
Nations is an international agreement and that it bears the signature of the
U. S. S. R.
In accordance with our obligations under article 33 of that Charter, the Govern-
ment of the United States, in agreement with the Governments of France and the
United Kingdom has made every elTort to remove the threat to the peace created
by the U. S. S. R., through direct discussions with the Government of the Soviet
Union. The systematic periodic evasion and repudiation of the promises by that
Government has made further i-ecourse to these direct discussions futile. Mean-
while, the U. S. S. R. continues, in violation of its obligations under the Charter,
to apply force or the threat of force against the Governments of the United
States, France, and the United Kingdom.
The representative of the Soviet Union has intimated, as liis Government has
already alleged, that the illegal U. S. S. R. blockade measures were imposed in
retaliation for the lawful steps relating to currency taken by the Western Powers
in the western zones but, as I shall explain later to the Security Council when
we come to the substance of the question, the U. S. S. R. measures and the motive
liehind them were revealed some months before the currency measures of the
Western Powers were put into effect.
Any such argument on the part of the U. S. S. R. will not succeed in obscuring
the actual situation which confronted the Governments of the United States,
France, and the United Kingdom and to which I have just referred. Faced with
that situation, the three Governments were confronted with the following alterna-
tives. One, they could have supinely bowed to the U. S. S. R. use of force ; or two,
they could in turn have resorted to force to meet the force of the U. S. S. R. ;
or three, they could have recognized the fact stated in article 24 of the Charter
that the Security Council has "primary responsibility for the maintenance of
international peace and security * * *".
The Governments of the United States, France, and the United Kingdom chose
that third alternative. It was the only alternative consistent with the obligations
of a mi'iiiber of the United Nations. It was a recognition of the conviction of the
three Governments that the United Nations is and will remain the cornerstone
on which the structure of peace must be built.
The Government of the U. S. S. R. has been loud in its protestations of support
for the United Nations. If these protestations had been sincere they would have
welcomed an opportunity to invoke the assistance of the Security Council in
bringing about a termination of the present serious situation in order that all
questions and issues between them and the Governments of the United States,
France, and the United Kingdom might be solved by peaceful means. The Gov-
ernment of the U. S. S. R. has not taken that course. It repudiates the ma-
chinery of pacific settlement established by the United Nations. The U. S. S. R.
•It-nies that the United Nations is an organ to which the peoples of the world
can tnrn for help in maintaining international peace and security.
Again, at this point. I would cite to the representative of the U. S. S. R.
the great Latin maxim to which he has referred, pacta servanda sunt. The
U. S. S. R., in repudiating the machinery of peaceful settlement, and repudiating
its obligations under the Charter, is trying to secure for itself unihiteral free-
dom to resort to force. It is evidently unwilling to have the Security Council
68970 — 30 — pt. 1 16
232 STATE DEPARTMET^'T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY n^'EOTIGATION
and the public opinion of tlie world examine the record in this case. The
Gove r meTof the United States, acting in accord with the Governments of
France Ind the United Kingdom, is, on the other hand, ready and willing to
ha?e this Council of this great world organization examine the records and
iSike its condition to the maintenance of international peace and security.
If the U S S R wants peace, let it welcome a resort to the United Na ions,
the instrument of peace. If the U. S. S. R. intends to support the United Na-
t ms let iT ac-;,ept the established procedures of the United Nations. We for
on -Dai t CO fntend to support the United Nations, and we are therefore invoking
ft LferU?e resort to diict discussion with the U. S. S. R. has failed to remove
letlu-eat to peace resorting to it in the hope that the Security Council, m dis-
clSi^eS its Sponsibilities under the Charter, can make its contribution where
other means have failed.
Excerpt From Statement by Ambassador Jessup in the Security Council of
Excerpt ^ijoM^ of October 19, 1948, Concerning the Berlin Question
[Source: Official records of the Security Council three hundred and sixty-eighth meeting
(iVO. lib), pp. Oi— 0-J
There is an aspect of the blockade measures which I particularly wish to re-
emT)hasize to th^ members of the Council. As I pointed out before, under a series
of^inteimational agreements, the four occupying powers undertook responsibiU-
Hes for me population of the sectors of Bt-rlin cmuiitted to their charge. The
hlockade s a method used by the U. S. S. R. for the expansion of its power m
uteisreVard of these joint responsibilities and with a callous indifference
S the effect of their measures on the population of the western sectors.
I woukl also remind the Council that it was not until a month alter the blockade
wnsimnsed that the U S S. R. made its offer to supply food and coal to the
wSte™ sec o rs. It was thus clear that it originally contemplated putting this
TesSie on the poindation, in an attempt to break their spirit and it was on y
after the succels of the airlift was demonsfated that an attempt was made to
counter the airlift with an offer of Soviet supplies. ^,t,,,.,i
This is the blockade which Mr. Vishinsky says is entirely mythical.
. Hs contention that there is no blockade has been amply disi.roved by the
facts The Soviet interpretation will, in any event, be somewhat disputed by the
21 million people who are the direct object of Soviet power politics, who are
faced with a choice between accepting the real and potential hardships of die
blockade or accepting Soviet political food and political coal and, hence, Soviet
ancl CommunS polifical domination. Their choice has been clear and unmis-
takeable from the beginning. They have chosen hardship and freedom, msjs
a hopeful sign for the future peace and securi y of ^"^'^If ' /^f, ^he f ke o^^^^^
the four povvers undertook the occupation of Germany. Let us not foiget that at
''''^^^S'V^l^l^^i^eement together, now and in the future, the other
measuretnecessai-y to assure that Germany never again wiU threaten her ii^eigh-
bors or the peace of the world. It is not the intention of the Allies to destioy or
eiismve the German people. It is the intention of the Allies that he German
peoi'le be Sven the opportunity to prepare for the eventual reconstruction of their
"'5Ct wra?;;ed'arp' tS^m'^^Th^^^ of the Soviet Union, using the
harsh in^l-ifment of the blockade, has. indeed chosen a strange way m Be,i^
to live up to its agreement to democratize German political lite. Thanks to the
airbridS and to the support given to it by the Berliners, the Government of the
Soviet Union has not succeeded in its purpose.
Excerpt From Statement by Ambassador Jessup in the Security Council of
THE UN on October 25, 1948, Concerning the Berlin Question
[Source : Official records of the Security Council, three hundred and seventy-second meeting
'■ (No. 120), pp. 11-13]
I have listened in vain, as he was speaking, for any suggestion in his remarks
that he too like the representatives of the three western Governments, was
amirou-hin"-' this draft resolution in a spirit of accommodation, in a^i effort to
set e the prob em of Berlin. On the contrary, he flatfootedly asserted that they
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 233
would contiuue the threat of their blockarle measures until the mark of the
Soviet Zone was established as the sole currency, not by free agreement but under
Soviet dictation.
The main issues wiiicb are before the Security Council have been made very
clear in our proceedings. A resolution, which was eminently fair, has been
put iH'fore us through the efforts of the six (Jovernnients which led to its formu-
lation. It .^eems to me that we must now ask what the Soviet Union wants.
Does the Soviet Union want a meeting of the Council of I'oreign Ministers
to discuss Berlin, or the unification of Germany which has always been, and
still is. the aim of the three western Governments, or to discuss the questions of
Germany as a wholeV The U. S. S. R. Govermnent can have such a meeting without
tlie threat of force. We have told them that before. We repeat that promise.
We have indicated our acceptance of the principle in our approval of the draft
resolution which is before us.
Does the Soviet Union want the Soviet zone mark established as the sole
currency in Berlin under four-power control, as Premier Stalin himself sug-
gested? They can have that without maintaining a blockade. We have told
them so before, and we tell them so again.
Does the Soviet Union want assurance that we do not want to use the four-
power cimtrol of the currency in Berlin to control the general economy of the
Soviet zone outside Berlin? They can have such assurance witliout threat
or violence. We liave made that clear before. We make it clear again.
Does the Soviet Union want guarantees to prevent the use of transport fa-
cilities for black-market operations in currency in Berlin? They can have such
guarantees without resorting to duress. Again, it is a matter which we have told
them before we would do, and we are ready to say so again. If the U. S. S. R.
Government will remove all the restrictions imposed on transportation, communi-
cations and commerce, subsequent to March 30. 1948, between the western zones
and Berlin, the United States Government will undertake to provide the safe-
guards for the western mark B and the eastern mark of the Soviet zone and
presented by the United States representative during the course of the Berlin
discussions.
As I understood the representative of the Soviet Union in his remarks a few
moments ago, he argued that the blockade measures which liave be?n imposed
by the U. S. S. R. were imposed to protect the economy of the Soviet zone
against the western mark. However, as I have had occasion to point out to
tlie Security Council before (thi-ee liundred sixty-third meeting), the blockade
measures began in January, reached a focal point on March 30, and the westerii
mark was not introduced until June 24. I think it necessary to point out again
that the matter or i-estrictions on traffic has nothing to do with the question
of safegimrds to prevent movements of currency. The removal of the blockade
restrictions imposed upon land and water commmiications by the U. S. S. R.
would restore the normal channels of supply and transport which are now
confined to the airlift. In effect, this would merely substitute the normal
ground means of transport for the present air means.
The United States never intended to use currency as a means of adversely af-
fecting tlie economy of the Soviet zone. The objective of currency reform is to
improve economic life and not to destroy it. If, on the other hand, the Soviet
Union wants to drive us out of Berlin — where we have an acknowledged right
to be — that result they cannot get by maintaining their threat to the peace. We
have stated that position over and over again, and that simple fact should now
be clear. If the U. S. S. R. wants us to work out the technical details of tlie first
four questions I put, under the duress of the maintenance of the blockade
measures, instead of throught the process of free negotiation, again the answer
to the question is "No." In short, the Government of the Soviet Union can obtain
all it says that it wants without maintaining the blockade. With the blockade,
it can get neither what it says it wants nor what its actions seem to suggest it
actually does want. It is the blockade which is the barrier, and it is the U. S. S. R.
which can lift the blockade.
Even now, despite the fact that the Soviet Union has seen fit to indicate that
it intends to bhjck the efforts of the Security Council of the United Nations,
if it wishes to end the threat to the peace which it created, the Berlin ques-
tion eaii l>e settle<i on the basis of the program suggested in the draft resolution
which is now before the Security Council. The three western Governments have
indicated their acceptance of the principles contained in that resolution. If the
Government of the U. S. S. R. would give recipi-ocal assurances that that pro-
gram suggested in that resolution would be carried out, it can be done.
234 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYE'STIGATION
Excerpt From Statement by Ambassador Jessup in the Security Council on
January 11, 1949
r Source- Official records of the Security Council, three-hundred-and-ninety-eighth meeting
"• (No. 2), i)p. 9-10]
When this question of Indonesia was being discussed in the Security Council
in Paris, the Soviet Union, speaking both through its own representative and
through the representative of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic, followed
its familiar prtjrvdure of endeavoring to cloak its own improper actions by
seeking to phn-e ti e blame on someone else. The representative of the U. S. S. R.
(three hundred ..n-i ninety-first meeting) and the representative of the Ukrainian
SSR (three hundred ninety-third meeting) both insinuated that the Government
of the United States was in some way responsible for the action of the Nether-
lands in resorting to hostilities against the Indonesian Republic. It thus be-
comes necessary to point out again certain salient facts. , „^ ^ ^ ■ r, ^ ^
In the tirst place, it was the Government of the United States which took
the initiative in convening an urgent meeting of the Security Council when
it became apparent that the Netherlands was resorting to military action in
Indonesia (S/1128). It was the Government of the U. S. S. R. which endeavored
to prevent the Security Council from acting promptly by insisting that the
Council meeting should be deferred for 3 days. Every other member of the
Council attended the three hundred eighty-seventh meeting on December 20
except the two Soviet representatives. _
The United States also took the initiative, in conjunction with the repre-
sentatives of Colombia and Syria, in proposing a resolution (S/1142) to the
Security Council to deal with the situation, but the U. S. S. R. representative re-
fused to support this resolution (three hundred ninety-second meeting) . He later
tried to cover up this further attempt to block Security Council action by intro-
ducing a resolution of his own (S/1148 and S/1148/Corr. 1) which he knew
could not be adopted by the Council. M.n-e fundamental, however that these
obstructionist tactics in the Security Council, is the fact that the U. S. b. R. is
fundamentally opposed to the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and has
itself, through the Communist Party, which is, of course, its moutlipiece through-
out the world, sought to undermine and overthrow this Government.
No one doubts that the Communists in Indonesia like the Communists through-
out the world are responsive to and act in accordance with instructions from
Moscow The Communist revolt against the government of President Soekaino
and Premier Hatta was itself an effort on the part of the Government of the
U S S R to overthrow the Indonesian Republic. Furthermore, when the re-
sumption of hostilities by the Netherlands Government against the Indonesian
Renublic took place, the official Communist Party line, as printed m the Com-
munist press, instead of deploring this action, openly gloated that it was a
punishment for the government of President Soekamo and Premier Hatta,
which had successfully put down a Communist revolt. ^ ^v a • ^
The Communist line which, I repeat once more, means the hne of the Soviet
Government, accused that distinguished statesman of the Indonesian Republic,
Mr Hatta, of being a traitor to his country. At the very time when editorials
wei-e appearing to this effect in the Communist Party organs in Pans, the
USSR representative on the Security Council sought to cover up the actual
Dolicv of his Government by identifying liimself with the Council's endeavors to
secure the release of Mr. Hatta and other political prisoners (ninety-second
These are the facts, which are on the record and known to the world, and
which reveal that the Government of the U. S. S. R. is not interested in support-
ing the Government of the Indonesian Republic or in restoring peace to Indo-
nesia On the contrarv, it is following its familiar tactics which it has used
in Korea in Greece, in Berlin, and again, now, in Indonesia, and which have
been described in the speeches of many representatives at the last session of the
General Assembly— namely, seeking to overthrow a lawful democratic govern-
ment and to undermine its authority. But the U. S. S. R. does not want an
independent Indonesia; it wants an Indonesia under the domination and control
of a Communist minority taking its orders from Moscow. Anywhere in the
world when a Communist government climbs in through the window, independence
is kicked out of the door. . .
The Government of the United States, on the contrary, has viewed with
admiration the efforts of the Indonesian people, both in the Republic and else-
where to gain their independence, and it has steadfastly sought to support tnem„
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 235
The Government of the United States still takes that position, and it is for this
reason that it has taken tlie lead in endeavoring in the Securitv Council and
in the ( ommittee of Good Offices to bring about a peaceful adjustment of the
diflicnlties between the Indonesian Republic and the Netherlands Government
and to establish the United States of Indonesia as one of the fully sovereign and
in(lei)endent peoples of the world.
Excerpts From Spekch by Ambassador Jessup, February 18, 1949
[Source : Press release No. 550 of the United States delegation to the United Nations, dated
February 16, 1949]
Annex 6
Excerpts from Speech Before Nationat. Farm Ixstitxjte, February 18, 1949
The North Atlantic Pact does not by-pass the United Nations. It is not a
substitute lor the United Nations. It will not weaken the United Nations
It we did not intend to work through the United Nations we could boycott
the Intenni Committee or "Little Assembly." The Soviet Union has boycotted it
It we did not intend to work through the United Nations we could have acted
^l^]'^ l\,\ovea Instead we took the matter to the United Nations, helped a
United Nations Commission supervise elections in our zone and recognized the
Korean Government only after the United Nations General Assemblv had
adopted a resolution which acknowledged that this was a proper thing 'to do
The Soviet Union would not let the Ukraine accept a place on the Korean Com-
mission It would not let the Commission operate in the Soviet-occupation
zone. It supports a puppet Government in the northern part of Korea Three
days ago in the Security Council, the Soviet representative was repeating all
their oW arguments about Korea, in total disregard of the resolutions adopted
by the General Assembly.
If we did not intend to work through the United Nations, we would not have
taken the Berlin case to the Security Council. The Soviet Union refused to admit
tnat the Luited Aatiou.s or any organ of it could deal with the case. When the
Security Council discussed the question, Vishinsky sat in sulkv silence When
the Security Council voted, Vishinsky vetoed.
Ti^yj^\^^y United States cooperate in all the 13 specialized agencies of the
United Nations. The Soviet Union joined only three of them: and this week I
regret to say, the Soviet Union withdrew from one of those three— the World
Health Organziation.
Look at the records of United Nations meetings— General Assemblv, S'-curitv
Council. Economic and Social Council, Trusteeship Council, Commissions anil
Committees— dealing with atomic energy, disarmament, the struggle for human
rights, the struggle for peace in Indonesia, for peace in Palestine, for peace in
Kashmir, lor peace in the Balkans, and many other subjects, and vou will find
the proots of United States cooperation in the work of the United Nations The
record is long, our record is good. No American need be ashamed of the record
Every American should be proud of it. ci^uiu.
* * * I do not hesitate to say that the attitude of the Soviet Union is
making it more difficult for the United Nations to do its job. The USSR has
not yet begun to cooperate with the United Nations. Behind its iron 'curtain 'it
is manufacturing fear. Out in the open we along with 51 other countries are
building peace. Make no mistake about it, we are going to win But it is not
going to be an easy job or a short one. Peace is not merelv the end of a war
Peace has to be made and it also has to be kept. Nobody in the democratic
world can ever be unemployed if he or slie works for peace. You can work on
It lull time or part time— as a Government official or as a citizen. But we
rfp°e pfece of f ruTt'"'^ ""'^^'^ ^ ^'"^^ ^""^ ^''^'''''^ ^^''''^ ^"^ "^^^ '"^ ''"'' ^'^^ ^'^^ ^
1 ?t7fJTlinS^^^ ^'l^'^f ?*!'^"'l^ -'^"^ P""^^ ^""^ ^^^" *« ^'-e'-^te and maintain
of tSi^^Lt , 1 That «tate of tention is, of course, greatest in those parts
an nco^. . ,T^"'^'^?■^^•'''^■'* *^ *^^ ^°^'^' Union and the Red Army. It is
fn Pnr« H *l»:'"'^ '^""''""^ *''^* ^^""^ '" *'^^ U"'t^d Nations General Assembly
took'r.nn;fnf °^A^'' couutries of the world distrusted Soviet armaments and •
atomiP p1 <! '° ^"\^^ica° armaments. In the votes on resolutions dealing with
aromic eneigy and disarmament they showed that this is the way they feel We
236 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
deserve that confidence because we have no aggressive intent. AVe must and we
shall continue to deserve it. * * *
* * * What we have done and are doing is to .loin in a process of bringing
the nations of the world closer together— in the United Nations itself and in
groups of states which have common interests. So long as the smaller groups
Operate within the United Nations, inspired by its purposes and principles we
nre moving forward. I don't believe any of us here want to move in any o her
d[rec ion We may disagree among ourselves from time to t>me on he bes
road to take-Thank God we live in a country where we are free to disagree-but
1 think we will always agree on the objective which is peace and freedom.
In seedn- that objective we will cooperate with every other country which
is willfng 0 act in accordance with the purposes and principles of tbe United
NaUons That includes the Soviet Union. We do not want any country to.
v^nrrestimate the seriousness with which we intend to support the peace system
foi whfch the United Nations stands. That, too, includes the Soviet Union.
'•Cpriarv purpose of these agreements," said President Tiniman, referring
to the Rio and North Atlantic Pacts, "is to provide unmistakable proof of the
oint deT^rndnation of the free countries to resist armed attack rom a^ Quarter^
Each country participating in these arrangements must contribute all it can to
*'"K rrn miTelt sufficiently clear, in advance, that any armed attack affect-
ing our national security^ would be met with overwhelming force, the armed
'''"irwoTiif also'be a'g'J-eat mistake for the Soviet Union or any other country
to thhik that we are hoeins a lone row. We are using modern machinery, to
harvest the biggest c?op in the world and there are nioi. ^han 50 nations helping
us. Any other country that wishes to join in the job is we come If Jhey join
with the rest of us, they will have the same satisfaction in looking in their pay
Sivelopes and finding each week, each month, each year that peace pays and
that it pays to work for it.
Excerpt From Speech by Ambassador Jessup on March 12, 1949
[Source: Press release No. 570 of the United States Mission to the United Nations, dated
March 11, 1949]
EXCERPT FROM SPEECH BEFORE THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOB THE
UNITED NATIONS, MARCH 12, 1949
Although the issues as they presented themselves to the ^wo assemblies were
not preciselv comparable, of course, the striking isolation of the negative six
Ztesot the Soviet bloc on issue after issue was clearly apparent. This develop-
ment was taken to mean different things by various observers. One implica
?on o^ this polarization, I believe, was that the major cleavage could no
onger be looked upon merely as a conflict between the Soviet Union and the
United States, nor as a conflict between the east and the west It had become
a cleavage be ween the Soviet bloc and the rest of the United Nations
TWs cleavage represents a victory for no one. The interests of the United
States a ebettei served bv a truly United Nations, than by one in which a
dangious cCn isolates an important part of the world. It was not our pur-
pose to create this isolation, even for an ill"««'-y ^^^"^•^■•'^"Tt fp Siet 5t^i S
it was rather the inflexible and uncooperative character of the Soviet attitudes
o^d such issues as disarmament and the control « atomic energy wh cj
drove the wedge between the Soviet Union and the majoiity of the Unitea
^ Ancrthose of you who were at Paris will recall that it was no "n^^cjiaidcal
maioritv" as it has sometimes been called in propaganda. It is much more
SXal^'to^^ak'f a •'mechanical -i-rity.: Witlun the majcvnty^ he demo-
cratic processes of accoinmod -tion. c-nrprririse. ,Mve-an>M.ik . ^^^^^/J^^.V' ;'":
Perhaps it could with more justice be said that the United States ""^^'^ "If ^^f ^^
res, msil ilities of leadership than that it exercised an "i" "^^ f ."^j"'^^f., "l
flue ce However, I venture to assert that the action of the United States
Delegation at the Paris Assembly fully recognized the responsibilities which
rest upon this country.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 237
In linip. one may liopo that tho Soviet TTnion. intlnenoed by this example of
tlie siuTessful nccomnKuhilion of a variety of interests and viewpoints within
tlie majority fjnnip. will come to appreciate more highly the mutual advantage
of wlioiehearted participation in the work and deliberations of the United
Nations. But in the me.mtime, this crystallization has had the effect of dem-
onstrating that even under present adverse circumstances the United Nations
can jierform essential functions.
Excerpts From a Speech by Ambassador Jessup on April 7, 1949
[Source: Department of State press release No. 221, April 5, 1949]
EXCERPTS FROM 'THE ATANTIC COMMUNITY AND THE UNITED NATIONS," ADDRESS
DEn-ERED BY AMBASSADOR JESSUP BEFORE THE ACADEMY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE.
NEW YORK, APRIL 7,194!)
"For the very reason that the North Atlantic Treatv is subject to and in ac-
cordance with the Charter of the United Nations, it cannot constitute a threat to
any other state whose policies and actions are also in conformity with the subject
to that same Charter.
"It would be less than frank, however, to avoid stating the fact that the con-
clusion of this treaty has resulted from the fears which the policv of the Soviet
Union has created.
"It is impossible to overlook the fundamental cleavage in the basic theory
of the Soviet Union on the one hand and of the United States on the other The
{soviet Union officially stands on the proposition tliat war is inevitable
"The Soviet Union is officially committed to a philosophy of conflict which is
alien to our thinking and to our ideals. Premier Stalin likes to quote the follow-
ing passage from Lenin :
" 'We live * * * not only in a state but in a system of states, and the
existence of the Soviet Republic side by side with the imperalist states for a
long time is unthinkable. In the end either one or the other will conquer And
until tliat end comes, a series of the most terrible collisions between the Soviet
Kepublic and the bourgeois states is inevitable.'
"We also believe that we live in a system of states, but from this premise is
drawn the opposite conclusion. Our conclusion is that it is unthinkable that the
members of that system of states should not be able to find wavs to live in peace
with each other," ' v^ i >c m yt;av.t;
Excerpts from a Speech by Ambassador Jessup on August 24, 1949
[Source: Department of State press release No. 643, August 23, 1949]
excerpts from "the FOREIGN POLICY OF A FREE DEM0CBACY"-ADDRESS MADE BY
AMBASSADOR JI^.SSUP AT THE GOLDEN JUBILEE NATIONAL CONVENTION OF VETERANS
OF FOREIGN WARS, MIAMI, AUGUST 24, 1049 Vh.lh.KANS
peoples*." * ^^^'^^ *^^ ^*^^''^' ^'^^«"' ""^'^ d" n*'t want more territory or subject
^f"* t • *i '^l^^ Soviet I^nion refuses to cooperate in imiiroving the welfare
or mankind and in insuring international peace and security "
"This opposition is not only obstructive but aggressively so. It not only is
a challenge to the beliefs and aspirations of the free peoples but al?o a thfeat
to their security and welfare. It is a challenge that must taken up! a threat
cafm derrmfnS.""' ^'"" ^^ "^ ^^^^^"^^ '"^^ ^^^^^--- ^^^^ ^« "-^^ ?-
cit\Z\ZJ!^rif^^'f ''^'I^^V^^^flff^^.that many of the actions and much of the effort
ot the I nitPd States m international affairs in recent months have been directed
toward countering the clear threat to ourselves and other free peoples We
"Thrr' V'^ ^l"T ^^herwise without betraying all that we stand fon"
ihe Lnited States has never been afraid to face the future Times of neace
dirf nT^H^r^t '' 7!'' "' ''''''' '' ^^"^^'^ ='"'^ ^'^''''^ "^-^ forethought If w|
lil^llv to r^.-?i 7h ' ^^'''^' r ^'''"^'^ ^^ ^^"'^ 'i'^^^y to reach the goal and lesl
Si.andoc ne thff'"' T^'" /^^'^ ^'^ °^''^^*^- ^t i« Communist, and not
Ameru an doctune, that enmity and war are inevitable.
1
238 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION |
..consistent wit. our.^^^^::^^:^:^^,^^ SZtemrtlTt^e
proposals us a mere propaganda maneuver ^J^^l^ff^^'^^^^,^^ Soviet Union is
"One of the plain facts ^^,f ^, P[,f,^f .tfen^h It wS the strength of the
contemptuous of weal^ness but ^^spects stren tn it ^ ^^^^ to make
west which led the Soviet Union to abandon tlieBei in d^^ock ^^
at least some moves toward agreement ntie ^^^/^^ e tna.^o ^.^^ ^^^ ^^^^^
Foreign Ministers in Pans 9^ i I^tv^ of Ni it-irv n^.wer • and of calm con-
peoples of the world ; of industnal P^;?;^ ', «/^^"^\^ |;;'o\u la cef ul foreign policy.
-^^1 ^^^:ve;^^a^ -^iS^iri^^ SirSn
^S^USfll^ B^rX^S^de^M^e^ ^i^Lut to pay tribute to
the men who organized it and ope^^^^^^^^ the organization of a Western
"Then there was J^e steady P^o.i ess to^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^ ^.^^^^^^^
^::S:::v:^K^r!l!l^^'^^ii^ ^tites was a most Intent factor.
?haUs\auniUe must preserve, strengthe.^^^^^^^^^ ^^^.^^ ^^
"We have other friends and alhes for Pe^ce m all pans or u e
are cfosely bound to our good neighbors scnitlj^ of the R^^ ^a^_
formalized that unity in ^he defensive pact of Rode janem ^^^^^ ^.^_
eluded within the fi'^mework of the United Jsation^^ .^ ^^^
*""Sidose associations are no, ami ™'--"\''f, '>---;' ^^.f^ Wei Zt
;„otat,on .-f'-^ovlet union be^evesu, .at „ e,,^;, as ^j|Jl^'|-i,^^Jf„,t^, „.
:iS;V;ose^?,t«t/e;fef:a^e.esoW^^^^
are not trying to conquer Russia. We aie nor inai^ o-overnment will
coming It. I; « " J wf.nX „e -irins the most significant. We will not hesitate
}:i„''whr;rnec«sa,'; ;o''l"lp'he'free natioL preserve their independence
and integrity."
Excerpts From a Speech by Ambassador Jessup on September 6, 1949
[Source: Department of State press release No. 674, September 5, 1949]
FXCFRFFS FROM "THE CONQrERING MARCH OE AN IDEA," ADDRESS D^I^IVEBED BT
iMBASSrDOR JESSUP TO JhE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION, ST. LOnS, SEPTEMBEB
6, 1949
„a;^,s'LSiS:?j=n::z'^siirh^t^::nff^i;s^
sieved in imposing the power of their small elite governing class.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 239
"On tho oth^T liaiul. in conutrios sliroiulcd liy an iron cnrtain, or we may well
say curtained by an iron shroud, it is not news tliat an individual is doi)rlved
of life or liberty, is imprisoned and tortured. This is not novel; it is normal to
tlieir unhaiipy way of life. In that way of life the individual is nothing; the
state, embodied in a small rulinsr c-li(iue. is everything. Even if an atrocity were
news in our sense of the term, it could not be printed in those countries because
there is no free press. These denials of the inherent rights of the l)nnian being
reach the press only when they pierce the veil and reach the free world outside."
Excerpts From Statement by Ambassador Jessup in CojrMiTTEE One on
November 2S, 1949, Concerning China
[Source: United States Delegation press release No. 757, November 27, 1949]
EXCERPTS FROM STATEMENT IN THE POLITICAL COMMITTEE OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY,
NOVEMBER 28, 1949, SUB.TECT : CHINA
A cliarge by one member of the United Nations that another member is violat-
ing both a treaty and the Charter of the United Nations is a matter of serious
concern to us all. This is particularly true in the present case because the
alleged violation includes the charge of assisting in attempting the violent over-
throw of a recognized government; and, most of all. because both China and
the Soviet Union, as permanent members of the Security Council, are pledged
to fulfill special responsibilities in maintainng international peace and security.
A due regard for the normal deliberative processes of the United Nations as
well as for the opinion of the world community would have dictated that the
member against which the charges have been leveled should make some response
to them and should place its side of the case before this committee. We regret
that it has not seen fit to do so and that the Soviet delegation and also the dele-
gations of other eastern European states have refused to participate in the
consideration of this case.
Equally .serious although not equally well documented charges were made in
this As.sembly by the U. S. S. R. against the United States and United Kingdom in
the discussion of the resolution on the essentials of peace just concluded in this
committee. Both my delegation and that of the United Kingdom not only voted
in favor of placing that item on the agenda for discussion and hearing but took
their full part in the debate in answering the charges of the Soviet Union. In
this we were fulfilling our duty to the United Nations in helping to make the
Assembly, as Secretary of State Acheson in his opening speech in the Assembly
urged that it should be. "a forum in which the international public interest can
be fully expressed" through the participation of all members. Had we not done
so — had we adopted the Soviet tactics and refused to participate — it is not diffi-
cult to imagine the inferences which the Soviet delegation would have drawn
as to the truth of those charges made against us.
Unfortunately, the members of the United Nations must recall previous in-
stances in which the Soviet Union adopted the same procedure of refusing to
participate when an item which it regarded as unpleasant or disagreeable to it
was brought up for consideration.
The United States cannot but deplore this selective participation in the work
of the United Nations. Such an attitude seems the more regrettable when viewed
in the light of the overwhelming judgment of this committee given only last
Friday that one of "the essentials of peace" is full participation In this Organ-
ization, a judgment expressed by the terms of the resolution in a specific call
upon "every member to participate fully in the work of the United Nations."
The Soviet" delegation, it will be recalled, explained its vote of absention on
this provision on the ground that it was already binding upon all members by the
terms of the Charter.
*******
During the past few weeks this Committee has been engaged in a sobering
discnssion of what constitutes the essentials of peace. Although the debate was
initiated by the Soviet Union through an attack upon the western powers, the
discussion soon became focused, as every consideration of the requirements of
peace necessarily must, on the foreign policies and measures of the Soviet Union
itself. In that debate the representatives of countries from all areas of the
world, including one courageous example from eastern Europe itself, voiced the
same basic concern and urged the same basic solution — the concern arising from
240 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION
what the distinguished delegate of Brazil termed the "unbridled imperialistic
encroachments" of the Soviet Union, and the solution to be found in the fulfill-
ment in good faith of the pledges and principles of the Charter.
The general charges made against the policies and activities of the U. S. S. R.
in that debate find a further specific application in the complaint which the
Chinese delegation has now laid before us. Although these charges focus upon
one geographic area, the fundamental problem is the same. It is a problem of
maintaining an independent, unified, and free country against what are charged
to be aggressive encroachments of a foreign power.
Ml ***** *
At the time of the Russian occupation of Manchuria at the turn of the present
century, the United States, in a note sent to the Russians and to other interested
governments, exerted its influence to maintain "China's territorial and admin-
istrative entity." Shortly thereafter Russian pressure for a privileged position
in Manchuria "brought a similar response from my Government. In the succeed-
ing years in the clashes between competing Russian and Japanese imperialisms
in north China, the United States sought repeatedly to establish respect for
China's integrity as the standard of conduct in the relations of these and all other
countries with China.
*******
United States aid to China during the last war and United States efforts
in the postwar period, to bring about internal peace and to end the civil war,
are well Ivuown. So, too, is United States insistence over Soviet objection that
China be included as one of the great powers in the prosecution of the war and
tlie oriianizaticm of peace— leading to her role as one of the sponsoring powers
of the United Nations at San Francisco, and one of the permanent members of
the Security Council.
The continuing concern of my Government for the independence of China was
recently reflected in an official statement issued August 5, calling attention to
dangers of Soviet Russian imperialism in the Far East, reaffirming the basic
principles which have traditionally guided United States policy and emphasizing
the opposition of the United States to the "subjection of China to any foreign
power" and to its "dismemberment by any foreign power, whether by open or
clandestine means."
*******
The evidence presented by the representative of China, and other reports that
have come to the attention of my Government, raise most serious questions as
to whether certain provisions of the Yalta agreement have in fact lieen carried
out properly and in good faith by the Soviet Union during the last 4 years.
Thr(^e months ago my Government officially called attention to the fact that Soviet
Russian demands upon the Chinese Government in connection with the negotia-
tion of the Sino-Soviet Treaty of 1945 exceeded the provisions of the Yalta
agreement. Some of the evidence and of the reports create grave cause for con-
cern that groundwork is in fact once again being laid for a further Russian
attempt to dismember China.
* * « * * * *
The United Nations must be alert to see that the domination of China by one
totalitarian power has not been displaced only to make way for the subjugation
of that conntrv to any other imperialism. The common efforts of the United
Nations in rescuing China and Japan from the grasp of imperialist and mili-
tarist power must not be nullified by acquiescence in new imperialist conquest by
more subtle devices than outright war.
I
Excerpts From Speech by Ambassador Jessup, November 28, 1949
[Source- Press release No. 758 of the United States Delegation to the General Assembly,
dated November 28, 1049]
EXCERPT FROM REMARKS OF AMBASSADOR JESSUP BEFORE THE ANNUAL DINNER OF THE
ENGLISH-SPEAKING UNION, HOTEL WALDORF-ASTORIA, NEW YORK, NOVEMBER 29,
1949
"Because Soviet Russia has embarked upon the new international Communist
imperialism, there is a tendency among cynics today to say that while we have
fought and won a war the victory has availed us nothing. It is the common
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 241
phrase that we are 'losing the peace.' Our freedom is not yet secure. But had
we not won the war we would not be in a position today to carry on our fight
to make freedom tlie common property of all mankind."
• EXCERPT FROM STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR JESSlTP IN COMMITTEE ONE OF THE GEN-
ERAL ASSEMBLY, ON THE CHINESE SITUATION, DECEMBER 6, 1949
[Source: United States Delegation press release No. 771, December 6, 1949]
* * ♦ I hope, Mr. Chairman, it will be crystal clear that the United States
policy is against imperialism everywhere. We flatly reject it for ourselves and
we condemn it when practiced by any other state. We condemn it specifically
as revealed in the Soviet-Russian continuation of Tsarist-Russian imperialism
in the Far East. <^ur concern is that China, India, and all Asia be safeguarded
airainst Soviet Itussia of any other aggression.
We believe that the joint resolution which we have cosponsored, supplemented
by the Pliilippine amendment to the three-power resolution, is the most effec-
tive contribution the United Nations at this stage can make toward accomplish-
ing this purpose. Furthermore. Mr. Chairman, we are certain that the adoption
of such resolutions on the part of this committee would not be misunderstood
by the representatives of the cominform states. It is true that they have re-
mained silent in this committee during the current debate, but they have listened
to all our discussions and they must therefore understand without any mis-
understanding that the occasion of the joint draft resolution which my delega-
ion has had the honor to cosponsor. is Soviet Russian action in the Far East
which raises acute fears for the safety, independent, and integrity of China.
Those of us, Mr. Chairman, who share those fears should unite our voices and
our acts.
Text of Statement by Ambassador Jessup to the Foi'rth General Assembly,
Plenary Session, December 7, 1949
[Source: United Nations, official records, General Assembly (Plenary, December 9, 1949;
A/PV.272) 131-151]
Mr. .Tessit (United States of America). One thing whii'h f;riu)d out clearly in
the deiiates in the First Committee on the item which now engages our attention
was the strong friendship of the overwhelming majority of nations for China and
their concern for its welfare and the welfare of the people of China. Those debates
also revealed the determination of the overwhelming majority of the delegations
represented, as shown in the adoption of the resolution on the promotion of the
stability of international relations in the Far East, to do their [Jart to maintain
China's integrity and independence.
In sliari> contrast to that attitude of the vast majority of the delegations in the
First Committee was the attitude of the delegation of the Soviet Union and of
the .small group' of delegations following its lead. The attitude of those delega-
tions was the direct opposite of that which I have described. That attitude
strengthens the justified suspicions of other nations regarding the Soviet policy
and intentions toward China. That attitude revealed especially two things:
First, a callous disregard for the interests of China and the Chinese people ; and
secondly, a renewed indication of the most regrettable Soviet unwillingness to
co-operate in the work of the United Nations and to carry into effect the prin-
ciples of onr Charter. I think it is appropi'iate to review the actions of the dele-
gation of the Soviet Union on the item which we are now considering.
The first action which it took was to oppose the placing of this item on the
agenda, thus seeking to deprive the General Assembly of an opportunity even to
study the matter. The second action, which it has repeated today, was an attempt
to deny the right of the duly accredited representative of China to speak in the
General Assembly. I think it has been the experience of all of us that the delega-
tion of the Soviet Union is not unaware of the existence of the rules of procedure
of the General Assembly. It has, on frequent occasions, invoked those niles.
If it had chosen, on this occasion, to abide by our rules of procedure, it would
have found in rule 2."> the exact way in which this T)oint might have been raised in
a regular fashion. It would have found in ride 25 that :
"Any representative to whose admission a Member has made objection shall be
seated provisionally with the same rights as other representatives, until the
242 STATE D!EPART]VIE]SrT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Credentials Committee has reported and the General Assembly has given its de-
cision."
The Soviet Union did not choose to follow the procedure laid down in our rules.
In the third place, the Soviet Union has failed to respond to the expressed
willingness of the Chinese delegation to refer certain questions involved in this
case to the International Court of Justice. In the fourth place, the Soviet Union |
refused to participate in the debates in the First Committee and, this afternoon,
has said that it refuses to participate in the debates in this plenary meeting of
the General Assembly.
I claim no special virtue for the policy of my Government, but I cite examples
as the normal attitude of most Members of the United Nations. I refer to the
question of willingness to discuss items on the agenda.
The Soviet Union placed on the agenda an item containing slanderous attacks
upon the United Kingdom and the United States. Those attacks, the charges
made therein, were repudiated, after full discussion, by a vote of fifty-three
Members of this Assembly. But, in the first instance, when we were asked to
consider placing this item on the agenda, our delegation and the delegation of
the United Kingdom made no ob.1ection to the consideration of the item, because
we believe that this is the forum in which charges, no matter how unfounded^
should be discussed.
I would also say that my Government has not been afraid to have the record
of United States policy in China in recent years examined by the world. The
official United States publication telling this story was referred to by Mr. Vyshin-
sky himself, who stated that its frankness must be admired. If the Soviet
Union admires frankness and open discussion of national policies, why does
it not practice frankness? Why does it not publish or produce before the
General Assembly the text of the Barter Agreement which the representative
of China reported that the Soviet Union had concluded with the local authorities
in Manchuria, an Agreement under which the Soviet Union sought an arrange-
ment to take away from the people of China the food and other products
of Manchuria which are essential to Chinese recovery? Why does it not pub-
lish or produce before the General Assembly the text of the reported monopolistic
agreement which it has concluded for the exploitation of the resources of Man-
churia? Why does it not publish or produce before this Assembly the text of
the reported agreement under which it seeks to control, for fifty years, the
monopolistic exploitation of the natural resources of Sinkiang? Why does it not
publish or lay before us a record of any other such agreements for special rights
and privileges which it may now be seeking to obtain or which it has already
obtained in China?
If the Soviet Union had not been afraid to publish the facts concerning its
policies and practices in the Far East, we could have had a basis on which to
decide whether or not we are mistaken in our well-founded conclusions that
the Soviet Russian policy in China today is part of a continuous story, a story
which began in the days of Tsarist Russian imiTerialisra and which still is
characterized by the search for special monopolistic privileges, by encroach-
ments and by attempted dismemberment of China.
Let us look at the votes of the Soviet Union delegation on the resolutions which
came before the First Committee. The vote on the resolution to promote the
stability of international relations in the Far East is most revealing. When
this question was put to the vote, the Polish delegation— which, it is fair to
say, more often than not reflects the view of the Soviet Union delegation —
called for a separate vote on the title. And let me repeat the title : "to promote
the stability of international relations in the Far East". Five negative votes
were cast against the title. One can interpret those five negative votes only to
mean the opposition of five delegations to stability in the Far East. Perhaps we
should not be surprised, for such an attitude is indeed in accordance with their
communistic creed of promoting turmoil and unrest. The five negative votes
on the rest of the resolution to promote the stability of international relations
in the Far East must raise more questions in our minds :
Can it be that the Soviet Uni(m does not intend or wish to respect the political
independence of China? Can if be thU the Soviet Union does not intend or wish
to respect the right of the Cliinese p.'ople freely to choose their own political
institutions or to maintain a government independent of foreign control? Do
they not intend or wish to respect their treaties relating to China? Do they
not intend or wish to refrain from seeking spheres of influence or the creation
of puppet regimes, or from obtaining special monopoly rights in China?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 243
These are the things which are set forth in this resolution which we call upon
all States to adopt. These are the principles which are opposed by the Soviet
Union delegation, and the four other delegations.
In my oi>enlng statement before the First Committee, I said that the failure
to endorse this resolution might well be interpreted as indicating an intention
to profit by the present situation in Cbina for purposes of imiierialist aggrandise-
ment. What other conclusion can the world draw from the fi . e votes cast against
these fundamental principles
Let us look on the allirmative side at the merits of this resolution. The very
fact of the Soviet opi;osition attests indeed to its importance. That opposition
is conclusive proof that this resolution is not, as one representative feared in
bis statement in the First Committee, a mere "song to the moon." The Soviet
opposition is proof that the Soviet Union understands perfectly that this reso-
lution, far from condoning the past actions of Soviet Russia in China, is oc-
casioned by those very actions and reflects the acute fears of the international
community of this Soviet Russian continuation of Czarist Russian imperialism
in the Far East. This resolution is addressed to the real root of the international
problem, to the real concern that the international community has regarding this
situation.
The representative of Chile pointed out in the First Committee that the General
Assembly is not now dealing with the question of the justice or injustice of the
civil strife now raging in China. This resolution does not seek to deal with that
issue. It does deal in an integral manner with the international aspects of this
problem. This resolution is constructive because it is forward-looking. While
it does not ignore the past, it does not content itself with a mere sifting of past
events. It is a clear statement of the principles to which all nations must adhere
at all times.
The second resolution which has been reported to the General Assembly from
the First Committee is one in regard to which I do not intend to rehearse the
discussions that took place in the Committee. These discussions have already
been referred to. It is clear that, in the course of those discussions, certain mis-
understandings aro.se among various delegations.
1 have listened with interest to the suggestion just advanced by the representa-
tive of Ecuador, proposing, on behalf of the three sponsors of the original resolu-
tion, a new amendment which would incorporate a certain additional thought in
their joint resolution. While it is true that this amendment does not go the
whole way to meet the difficulties to which we called attention in the First Com-
mittee, we do feel that it goes part of the way, and we shall accordinglv vote for
the resolution introduced by Cuba, Ecuador and I'eru if this amendment is
adopted and incorporated in it.
In my statement before the First Committee, I pointed out that the conscience
of the world has expressed itself in the past in multipartite declarations which
have played a real part in the history of China's strug-le for its integrity. The
reality of these declarations has been proved, even though from time to time they
have been flouted by aggressors. The enunciation by the Government of the
United States in 1900 of the policy of promoting the maintenance of the inde-
pendence and integrity of China .served as a restraining influence on the conduct
of all the pnwers in the ensuing years, despite the continuance of unsettled
conditions in China. These principles were written into the Nine Power Treaty
of 1!;)22, which the representative of China himself stated gave to his country
the opportunity for constructive development.
If the nations of the world had not, during the past fifty years, recorded these
self-denying ordinances the devouring waves of Russian and Japanese im-
perialism might well have totally engulfed China. The proper place today for
thereaflirmation of these principles is the General Assembly of the United
Nations. The vote in the First Committee shows that the conscience of the
world will again speak in the interests of China and the people of China.
I wish to point out also that the debate on the item which we are now con-
sidering is in reality a continuation of the debate which resulted in the adoption
of the resolution on essentials of peace by a vote of 53 Members of the United
>ations. The general charges made against the policies and activities of the
Soviet Union in that debate find a further specific application in the matter
we are now considering. Although our attention is now focussed upon one
geographic area, the fundamental problem is unchanged. It is the problem of
maintaining an independent, unified and free country against the aggressive
encroachments of a foreign power. The resolution on essentials of peace applies
to Lluua as weU as to all other parts of the world. That resolution and the
244 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
resolution which is now before us to promote the stability of international
relations in the Far East are closely linked. Together they constitute a code
of conduct regarding the Far East. The United States pledges itself to abide
by that code of conduct, and it expects all other nations to do likewise.
In joining with other delegations in sponsoring the resolution on the stability
of international relations in the Far East the paramount consideration of my
delegation and of my Government has been to promote the interests of the people
of China. This is not a new policy of the United States. The record shows
that this has consistently been our policy. That policy has received only one
challenge, and that challenge was made by Mr. Vyshinsky when he was seeking
to prevent the General Asssembly from discharging its duty to discuss this item
which had been placed on the agenda. Mr. Vyshinsky then charged that the
proposal of this item was instigated by the United States for imperialistic
rea.sons. It was not instigated by the United States. Moreover, the United
States, unlike the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, has no imperialistic
designs on China.
I wonder where are the evidences of United States imperialism in Cliina
which Mr. Vyshinsky may have had in mind. Surely they are not monopolistic
agreements of the type which the Soviet Union lias been concluding in China, for
the United States has neither sought nor obtained such rights. I do not hesitate
to say that the Chinese people will agree that there is nothing imiierialistic in
the continuation of our historic policy of aiding Chinese students and scholars
by the allocation in recent years of 200 million dollars for the programme of
exchanging students and teachers between the United States and China. I do
not think that the Chinese people believe that it was a sign of American im-
perialism to distribute some 400,000 tons of rice and 180,000 tons of wheat and
flour in Shanghai and Canton during the past two years. Nor will they maintain
that it was American imperialism which led to the supplying of cotton to keep
the textile mills of China in operation so that the workers would not be
unemployed and so that they would have wages with which to buy food and
clothing.
Charges of United States imperialism can hardly be levelled against the joint
Ignited States-Chinese rural reconstruction programme, which was launched in
1!)4S and continued as long as possible in Szechuan and Chekiang, to improve
rural living conditions, increase foreign output, and improve the social and
educational position of the Chinese farmer. We neither desire nor claim any
monopoly in extending help to the people of China ; we have not been alone in
extending help. But not only in the last year and a half, but on earlier occasions,
when the people of China were hungry the people of the United States have sent
food. The rice alone which we sent in 1048 and 1048 meant that 10,000,000
Chinese had their rice bowls filled daily during that period. In view of the vast
problems of that great population, what we have been able to do has been little
em. ugh. hut in view of current food shortages in China, I submit that it contrasts
favourably with the barter agreement recently concluded by the Soviet Union
with local authorities in Manchuria, under which food would be taken from the
rice howls of the Chinese people for shipment to the Soviet Union.
We shall not cease our efforts on behalf of the people of China, nor shall we
cease, in the field of international relations and through the United Nations, to
work for the real interests of China itself, for its independence and its integrity.
The draft resolution on the promotion of the establishment of international
relations in the Far Fast will unite the peoples of the free world in the promotion
of this connnon objective.
The PuKsiDEMT. The Chair proposes to close the list of speakers in ten minutes
from now.
Mr. Chaudluny, representative of Pakistan, will address the General Assembly
on the amendment.
Mr. CiiAUDHURY (Pakistan). AYhen the tripartite draft resolution was being
discussed in the First Committee my delegation abstained from voting for the
very simple reason that Ihe words, "that item," appearing in the operative part of
the draft resolution had considerably limited the scope of the problem It was
limited to the extent that the entire draft resolution appeared to be an outcome
of a prejudiced mind. But we greatly welcome the amendment which has now
been submitted, which focuses the attention on the four fundamental principles
that are contained in the five-power draft resolution reading as follows-
"1. To respect the political independence of China and to be guided bv the
principles of the United Nations in their relations with China •
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 245
"2. To respect the right of the people of China now and in the future to choose
freely their political institutions and to maintain a government independent of
foreign control ;
"3. To respect existing treaties relating to China ; and
"4. To refrain from (a) seeking to acquire spheres of influence or to create
foreign controlled regimes within tlie territory of China; (h) seeking to obtain
special rights or privileges witliin tlie territory of China."
Excerpts From Statement to the Press by Ambassador Jessup, Hong Kong,
January 18, 1950
[Source: Press statement attached as enclosure 1 to official communication from Consul
General Kankin to the Department of State, Honj? Kong No. 84, of January 31, 1950]
EXCERPTS FROM STATEMENT TO THE PRESS BY AMBASSADOR JESSUP, HONG KONG,
JANUARY 18, 1950
"I wish to make a statement regarding United States policy in Asia and
the whole Far p]ast. These principles have been stated officially many times,
but it is important that people throughout the world not lose siglit of them.
"First : The United States opposes the Communist theory and practice of
attempting to overthrow governments by violence or subversive action. We
shall continue to oppose that vicious theory and practice by i)eaceful means
throughout Asia and tliroughout tbe world.
"Second: We are opposed to imperialism in any form. We have always
firmly rejected it in our own policy, and we oppose it wherever practiced."
"The interest of the United States in the independence of the countries
of Asia is genuine and abiding. The history of tlie past 150 years proves this
statement. Within our economic capacity, a major factor in determining the
assistance we can render the people of Asia is the degree to which these peoples
are prepared to support governments of their own choosing in opposition to
Communist tyrainiy.
"The United States will continue to take its stand for freedom, because of
our conviction that there lies the true interest not only of the peoples of Asia
but also the United States and of all of the United Nations."
EXCERPTS FROM BROADCAST BY AMBASSADOR JESSUP OVER RADIO MALAYA, SINGAPORE,
FEBRUARY 6, 1950
[Source: United States Department of State Press Release No. FE. 50/36 ; February
6, 1950]
As a result 'Of these fundamental beliefs, we are firmly opposed to all sys-
tems of government which seek to enslave the individual or to subordinate him
to .some supposed overriding interest of the state. That is why we opposed
and will continue to oppose all forms of totalitarian dictatorship whether they
take the form of the Nazi or Fascist regimes of Eurofoe and of .Japan which
we and our allies defeated in the last war or v,-hether they take the form of
the current theories of communism.
Specifically, we are opposed to imperialism. By imperialism I mean the
policy of attempting to subject and exploit other peoples for one's own benefit.
Imperialism is thus the exact opposite of the policy which the United States
followed in training the people of the Philippines for self-government and of
granting them their full independence. It is the exact opposite of the policy
followed by the United Kingdom in granting independence to India, Pakistan,
Burma, and Ceylon and in developing here in Malaya a progressive program
toward nationhood. It is the exact opposite of the policy which the Nether-
lands followed in helping to establish the United States of Indonesia and which
France is following in perfecting the independence of Viet Nam, Cambodia, and
Laos.
On the other hand, the new form of imperialism which we see in the world
today is illustrated by the policy of the Comiuform, the international agency
of the Conuinmist Party, which insists that the peoples who are brougb.t under
its control are not entitled to express their own views but must? conform in
246 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LNTVESTIGATTON
every respect to the decisions laid down in Moscow. The official public pro-
nouncements of the Communist leaders announce that nationalism in Asia is
to be encouraged only as a step on the road to the subjection of the peoples of
Asia to the alien rule of the Russian dictators who control the policies of the
Cominform.
* * * I have had the privilege of being one of the representatives of my
Government in many meetings of the United Nations. As the record proves
and as the experience of everyone who has attended such meetings testifies,
states which are closely with the Soviet Union must always take identical action
with the Soviet Union. There is no room in that system for the expression
of any separate point of view. The rigid control which exists over the in-
dividual in the Soviet-Russian system, which is the Communist system, ex-
tends also the relations of governments which form part of the Soviet bloc
and which are therefore naturally and properly known as satellites.
It is precisel.v because of this fundamental difference in the theory of the free
nations of the world and in the theory of the Soviet Union that many of the
actions taken liy the General Assembly of the United Nations are seen in
their true significance.
ExcEatPT From Speech by Ambassajdoe Jesstjp Over National Radio Station of
Thailand Delivered February 17, 1950
[Source : Original manuscript in files of Department of State]
excerpt from speech by ambassador JESSUP over national radio station OfF
THAILAND
What I should like to discuss briefly is one of the great problems which both
our countries face and which other free nations of the world face — the danger
that a hostile power, through subversion, through infiltration of disloyal ele-
m' nts, may seek to overthrow the government and to establish an alien rule
which will put an end to the independent existence of the state alfected. That is
the menace of international communism today and against that menace we
stand firm.
Excerpts From Statement to the Press by Ambassador Jessup at United
States Information Library, 54 Queensway, New Delhi, February 23, 1950
[Source : U. S. Department of State press release, February 23, 1950]
EXCERPTS FROM STATEMENT TO THE PRESS BY AMBASSADOR JESSUP AT UNITED STATES
INFORMATION LIBRARY, 54 QUEENSBURY, NEW DBXHI, FEBRUARY 23, 9150
Since the end of the Second World War, history has recorded the extension of
a new imperialism that has brought more than a dozen countries under the
domination of a single expanding power. The device used by this expanding
power in extending its imiierialism is to hold out the glittering promises of com-
munism as a beacon light for the rescue of peoples who are suffering from
economic underdevelopment or who are trying to remove the sha'kles of the
old traditional kinds of colonialism. However, where communism gains control,
it becomes immediately apparent that the people are not allowed to determine
their own future but must conform to a single policy laid down in Moscow.
* * * Communism is hostile to what the Asian people want to do and
what we want to help them to do — which is to develop the stability of their
new countries and to develop their resources and their technical skills so that
they are not subject to penetration, either through ignorance or distress or
because they succumb to the false promises of the Communists.
Ambassador Jessup. Thank you, sir.
Among the international matters with which I have been called
upon to deal for the United States are those of Korea, where the
efforts of the United Nations to unify and give independence to that
country encountered boycott and obstruction from the Soviet Union,
the lifting* of the Berlin blockade, in which I had the good fortune
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 247
to play a part, the attempts of the United Nations to preserve the
independence of China, and the disposition of the Italian colonies in
north Africa. Another case that I mio^ht mention is that of Indo-
nesia, wliere it has been the aim of the United States to encourage the
Indonesian national government, the government of w'hicli has shown
its ability to cope with Indonesian communism.
I should like at this point to read just a few sentences from a state-
ment which I nuide in Security Council of the United Nations on
January 1, 1949, on this question of Indonesia. I said at that time:
No one douhts that the Communists in Indonesia, like the Communists through-
out the world, are responsive to and act in accordance with instructions from
Moscow. The Communist revolt against the Government of President Soekarno
and Premier Hotta was. itself, an effort on the part of the Government of the
U. S. S. R. to overthrow the Indonesian Republic.
Furthermore, when the resumption of hostilities by the Netherlands Govern-
ment against the Indonesian Republic took place, the official Communist Party
line, as printed in the Communist press, instead of deploring this action, openly
gloated that it was a punishment for the Government of President Soekarno
and Premier Hotta, which had successfully put down a Communist revolt.
And, I said further :
But, the U. S. S. R. does not want an independent Indonesia, it wants an
Indonesia under the domination and control of a Communist minority, taking
its orders from Moscow. Anywhere in the world, when a Communist govern-
ment climbs in through the window, independence is kicked out of the door.
That is among the records which I 'have submitted for the com-
mittee, sir.
In these matters, as in others, the Soviet Union opposed the settle-
ments supported by the United States and other members of the
United Nations. I have defended the position of the United States
and fought the obstructive tactics of t'he Soviet Union and its Com-
munist satellites. It is not for me to judge whether I have done well.
I do assert that it cannot be denied that the record reveals complete
devotion to the interests of the United States and our way of life and
uncompromising hostility to international communism and all that it
stands for.
Although I believe, Mr. Chairman, I have made it clear from w'hat
I have already said, I wish to repeat categorically and without quali-
fication that I am not a Communist and never have been a Communist.
I am not and never have been a Communist sympathizer. I have
never knowingly supported or promoted any movement or organiza-
tion which I know had as its objective the furtherance of Communist
objectives. Although I cannot claim to have any detailed knowledge
of the process, I wholeheartedly support the efforts of those whose
official responsibility it is to see that Communists or Communist sym-
pathizers are kept out of our Government.
Mr. Chairman, as I have attempted conscientiously to review the
record of my activities, I have perhaps been prejudiced by by own
inner knowledge that Senator McCarthy's charges and insinuations
are utterly false. But I submit that any sincere person would have
concluded from a review of the record that it does not offer the slightest
iota of proof that I have "an unusual affinity for Communist causes."
I therefore conclude that Senator McCarthy's charges and insinua-
tions are not only false but utterly irresponsible and under the circum-
stances reveal a shocking disregard for the interests of our country.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 17
248 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LSTVESTIGATTON
Mr. Chairman, if these insinuations affected me alone, they would
perhaps not be a matter of any great importance, except to me, my
family, and my friends. But these insinuations, and the manner in
which they were put forward, have had an effect upon 150,000,000
Americans and all the people in the world who are striving for peace.
I know I do not have to tell the members of this committee of the
serious situation which exists in the world today. You know that the
stakes are high. The United States is in the midst of a struggle for
peace. We are opposed by the efforts of a diabolically clever and well-
organized Communist organization which is seeking to destroy our
democracy. If we are to succeed in our struggle, we must forego all
partisanship and all partisan political adventures. If we are to suc-
ceed, we must show to our friends in the free world that we are not
divided in our counsels, but that we are united in our determination to
promote the cause of peace and to pursue the wisest policy which our
united genius can devise. If we are to succeed, we must all dedicate
ourselves to the cause of peace with devotion and unity of purpose.
For my part, that is my one and only thought.
Thank you.
Senator Tydings. Thank you. Dr. Jessup.
(Loud applause.)
Senator Tydings. Please, no demonstration.
Any questions. Senator Hickenlooper ?
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions that
I feel I should ask Mr. Jessup ; but again, I want to make my position
clear.
Over a week ago, Senator McCarthy publicly named nine names
and at that time I requested that we immediately get the files so we
would have whatever information, in fairness to the witnesses, or to
the people who were named, and in fairness to this committee — that
we immediately get the files on those nine people.
So far as I know, those files have not been secured. I have had no
opportunity to look into the rounded-out information which may
affect any of these people, and therefore I feel that any questions of
mine, at this time, are utterly witliout any foundation of extensive
knowledge of the allegations, or information, and I again renew my
request that this committee do what the Senate ordered it to do, and
that is, to secure these files.
I think an inexcusable delay has occurred in the securing of the files
of the nine people who are named, not only in the interest of good
investigation, but in the interest of the people who have been named,
themselves.
Now, I also received a copy of a letter from Senator McCarthy,
delivered by hand to my office just a few moments ago, in which he
requested that he, as the moving party in this accusation, be allowed
to confront the witness and to examine him and question him.
Has any action been taken on that, Mr. Chairman ?
Senator Tydings. It would be pretty hard to take action on the last
request, because it did not reach me until about 10 minutes after 10
this morning; and, the chairman is not making policy for this com-
mittee. He has to have all five members present and ascertain what
their wishes are.
The matter will be laid before the committee at the earliest possible
moment when a meeting can be had.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 249
Now, as \ong as we are talking about a list of names, the only
detailed charge against Mr. Jessup that I recall is "that he has an
unusual affinity for Connnunist causes."
There has been no supporting data offered by any witness to sub-
stantiate that charge.
In the second place, we are here because that is the only evidence
that has been brought before this committee up to now concerning
Dr. Jessup.
In the third place, on the Senate floor on the 20th of February 1950^
over a month ago, over 4 weeks ago. Senator McCarthy outlined by
number the cases of 81 individuals whom he asked the Senate com-
mittee to investigate. The individuals were not named. They were
designated by number.
Up to this minute, none of those 81 names has been furnished by
Senator McCarthy or anybody else, and how we can get the files of
someone whose name we do not know is a matter of great conjecture
to the chairman, as it must be to the other members of this committee.
I have asked repeatedly, publicly and privately and by letter, for
these 81 names ; and, I have not yet received an answer to my letter,
except a telephone conversation which I had with the Senator when
he received my letter of request ; to wit, that they would be furnished
today, Monday. Up to the present time, they have not come in my
office, as the result of an inquiry I just made before I came up here^
to make sure that that was the case.
Now, the nine names, of which Dr. Jessup, I believe, was one, were
submitted only about 10 days ago. It is a matter of some difficulty
for me to realize why we could get nine names submitted 9 days
ago in public, and could not get the 81 names submitted almost a
month ago; and, the names of the nine, as I understand it, are at
least for the most part, if not entirely, not names that were mentioned
in the debate in the Senate which caused us to be appointed and con-
duct this investigation.
Now, as to the files : I have asked the State Department to turn over
the files to us in the cases that have been mentioned. I have likewise
had a brief made of our rights under subpena to obtain those files.
The State Department has indicated a willingness to turn over these
files, but as it will create a precedent they are moving very cautiously
so that in other instances what is done here may not be seized upon, at
the Avhim of everyone to get to the files in the future; and, if the
committee will bear with me just a moment, I would like at this point
to ^ive some information about these files, so that there will be fuller
understanding of the task of the committee, and why I have been
proceeding in the manner outlined.
As I said, I had looked up and had prepared our authority to
proceed to obtain these files, and I will now read the history of the
actions by numerous executives dealing with files and similar informa-
tion that had been requested by the Congress.
Who are the authorities that have established the soundness of the
constitutional doctrine that the legislative branch may not subpena.
the executive branch?
I. Presidents who established this doctrine in the first century of
our national existence :
1796. George Washington refused papers to the House (Richardson,
Messages and Papei-s of the Presidents, vol. I, pp. 194, 19G — hereafter
cited simply as Richardson).
250 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
In 1825, James Monroe refused papers to the House (reported in
Eichardson, vol. 2, p. 278). , o ^ / 4. a -^
In 1833, Andrew Jackson refused papers to the feenate (reported m
Richardson, vol. 3, p. 36). ,
In 1835, Andrew Jackson refused papers to the Senate (reported
inKicharclson, vol. 3, pp. 132andl33).
In 1843, John Tyler refused papers to the House (reported m
Richardson, vol. 4, pp. 105 and 106, and 221 and 223) .
In 1886, Grover Cleveland supported his Attorney Generals re-
fusal to comply with Senate resolution calling for papers.
II. Quotations of views expressed by various Presidents who served
prior to the current period :
George Washington : * * * As it is essential to tbe due administration of
the Government that the boundaries fixed by the Constitution between the dif-
ferent deprtments should be preserved, a just regard to the Constitution and
to the duty of my office * * * forbids a compliance with your request.
(Reported by Richardson in vol. 1, pp. 194 and 196.)
George Washington's Farewell Address ; * * * The habits of thinking in
a free ?ountn slSd Lspire caution in those entrusted with its administration
to coniSe themselves within their respective constitutiona ^P ^^;^^^' ^r !:ie
the exercise of the powers of one departmen to encroach ^ 7, ^^^^^^^T^^ J^'JI
spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all he depaiU^
in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of govemment, a leal
despotism * * *.
(Richardson, vol. 1, p. 239.)
°'rmv'hl;SS!a compliance with tbe resolution wi,lch has been transmittea
4- ^,;^i,i 1 hP 1 surrender of duties and powers which the Constitution nas
conTerr^reiau'sive >n the Executive ; and! therefore, such compliance cannot
be maie by me nor by the heads of departments by my direction.
^"^iSTn^ai^ ??f/,"his Presidency, and before his Chief
Justiceship :
The President is required by the Constitution from Uine to time to ^ve^to
Congress information on me state of the union j^XeJufidential in-
enable Congress or either House of CoiW e,^^ to eiicii i discharge
S^^S^Sl^iJ;S,lfr^^s^oJ^rSe^&iosure J such informaUon
prudent or in the public interest.
(The Chief Magistrate, published in 1969, at p. 129.) .
TTT The views of a congressional committee: in lb<J, ttie ±iouse
Judiciary Committee reported to.the House, supporting the constitu-
tional doctrine here under discussion, saying :
and records of the House or Se^^^^^^^^^ * documents might easily be a very
This mischief of tbe House ^^^t^"' *«^ ^ this point. It clearly cannot
S'the^HouL or M.^^ZS.e""^*^ ' tL bead of the executive depart-
ment * * * must be the judge * * *.
IV Attorneys General have consistently taken this view and so
advised Houses of Congress and the President.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 251
The following include distinguished holders of the chief legal posi-
tion in the Government, including Republicans of stature, and two
l3emocrats of conservative reputation, one of them (McKeynolds of
Tennessee) subsequently a Justice of the Supi'eme Court, and the other
(Gregory of Texas) one of the greatest holders of that office through-
out the Nation's history particularly for his support of the Consti-
tution and the American political system.
In 1901, Attorney General Knox*, in a communication to the House
of April 27, dealt with this point.
In 1908, Charles J. Bonaparte, Attorney General under Theodore
Roosevelt, to the House on A])ril loth dealt with this point.
In 1912. Attorney General Wickersham, in a communication to the
House dated ISIarch 18th.
In 1914, McReynolds to the President, in a communication dated
August 28th.
In 1915, Gregory to the Senate, in a communication dated February
23d.
In 1926, Attorney General Sargent, in the Coolidge Cabniet, to the
House Judiciary Committee, in a communication dated June 8th.
The above citations, besides appearing in the Congressional Record
and committee hearings, appear in Opinions of the Attorney General,
volume 40, pages 47 and 48.
V. Court discussion of the separation of powers :
(1) The United States Supreme Court, in Kilhourn v. Thompson
(103U.S. 169, 190), said:
It is believed to be one of the chief mei'its of the American system of written
constitutional law that all the powers entrusted to Government, whether State
or national, are divided into the three grand departments — the executive, the
legislative, and the judicial — that the functions appropriate to each of these
branches of Government shall be vested in a separate body of public servants,
and that the perfection of the system requires that the lines which separate and
divide these departments shall be bi-oadly and clearly defined. It is also essen-
tial to the successful working of this system that the persons entrusted with
power in any one of these branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the
powers confided to the others, but that each shall by the law of its creation be
limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department and no
other.
(2) State" courts agree. For example, Pennsylvania court in
Apfeal of Hartranft (85 Pa. 433, 445) , reading :
* * * We had better at the outstart recognize the fact that the executive
department is a coordinate branch of the Government with power to judge what
should or should not be done, within its own department, and what of its own
doings and communications should or should not be kept secret, and that with
it, in the exercise of these constitutional powers, the courts have no more right
to interfere than has the executive, under like conditions, to interfere with the
courts.
VI. Other court authorities supporting the constitutional doctrine
are as follows :
Marbury v. Madison — these are mostly Supreme Court cases — re-
ported in 1 Cranch 137, 1G9.
Totten v. United States, reported in 92 U. S. 105.
Vogel V. Gniaz, reported in 110 U. S. 311.
In reference to Quarles and Butler, 158 U. S. 532.
Boshe V. Cominffore, 177 U. S. 459.
In reference to Huttman, 70 Fed. 699.
252 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
In reference to Lamherton^ 124 Fed. 446
In reference to Valecia Condensed Milk Co.^ 240 Fed. 310.
Elrod V. Moss, 278 Fed. 123.
Arnstein v. United States, 296 Fed. 946.
Gray v. Pentland, 2 Sergeant & Rawle's (Pa.) 23 and 28.
Thompson v. German Y alley Railroad Co., 22 New Jersey Equity
Worthington v. Scrihner, 109 Mass. 487.
2 Burr Trials, 533-536.
And, 25 Opinions of the Atorney General 326.
VII. American writers on constitutional law who explain and
approve the above doctrine :
3 Willoughby, the Constitutional Law of the United States (1929),
pages 1488, and so forth.
Mason, Congressional Demands upon the Executive for Informa-
tion. Five papers of the American Historical Association (1891),
page 33.
Eberling, Congressional Investigations (1928), page 282.
Finley and Sanderson, the American Executive and Executive,
Methods (1908) , pages 199 and 200, and 246 to 265.
Then there are others that I will not put in the record at th^
moment.
In view of this opinion which I have had for sometime, which I
obtained shortly after my appointment, I wanted to get all of these
records; and, realizing that the road to get them by force or by
subpena might be a stormy and a fruitless one, I have been trying
to get the records without having a controversy over them.
The State Depai'tment, I believe, is willing to give me these records.
I shall be disappointed if I do not get them. It will be contrary to
the indications I have so far received; but I do realize that in the
face of the precedents which support, in my opinion, the right of the
Executive to withhold them, should he so desire, that we had better
proceed in the manner best calculated to put the files in our hands,
and I am very hopeful that before very many days go by, I hope today
or tomorrow, or not later than Wedesday as a matter of conjecture,
we will have access to the files and can go ahead with them.
However, I want the public to know, and the committee to know,
that it will be a courtesy extended to us, and contrary to the legal
precedents from George Washington down to date, if we do get them.
Senator McMahon. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to make this obser-
vation: That you may have been informing the public as to the law
or the precedents but you were not informing any member of this com-
mittee, including the Senator from Iowa, as to the precedents.
Senator Tydings. I believed that I ought to make this statement
that I have because I want to get the files. I want the files of every
case, every person or number that has been mentioned. There were
81 mentioned a month ago, and I hope we will get those today, together
with all others, and I want to arrange at some place and time where
we can look at these files and see whether these accusations and charges
are true or false, but I do want the public to know — I do not believe
I have to tell the committee; there are good lawyers here — that the
precedents all seem, in my opinion, to favor the President's right to
withhold them should he see fit. I have reason to believe we will get
STATE DEPARTMENT ElVIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 253
these files, but we won't get tliem if we are going at it the wrong way.
I am trying to^et resuks and not get into a controversy with the execu-
tive department.
Senator Hickenlooper. The brief which the chairman has read has
been, I think, discussed repeatedly on the floor of the Senate. These
alleged precedents and others have been the subjects of discussions
from time to time in the past, even in the short time that I have been
a Member of the Senate.
Nevertheless the Senate, in adopting its resolution, and in view of
the fact that these have been thoroughly discussed and threshed out
with various opinions on the floor of the Senate, directed this sub-
committee as follows in the last sentence of the resolution, Senate
Resolution 231 :
In the conduct of this study and investigation, the committee is directed to pro-
cure by subiiena and examine the complete loyalty and employment tiles and rec-
ords of all the Government employees in the Department of State and such other
agencies against whom charges have been heard.
Do I take it. Mr. Chairman, that this subcommittee of the Commit-
tee on Foreign Relations is setting itself up as a judicial body to inter-
pret the law and to overrule the direct mandate of the Senate of the
United States to do this act ?
Senator Tydings. Will you let me answer that ? I was not present
when this resolution was passed. After it had been passed and my
committee had been appointed, I called to the attention of the full
Foreign Relations Committee a great many ambiguities in the resolu-
tion, in my o]iinion. and I called this to the attention of the Senate
on the floor. For example, if we want to go by the resolution, and stick
strictly to it, as my colleague from Iowa seems to indicate woidd be
wise, then the only thing we can investigate is the following :
is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete study and investigation
as to whether persons who are disloyal to the United States are or have been
employed by the Department of State.
So far as the present witness before us is concerned, he has been
charged with having an affinity for Communist causes. There has
been no charge, other than that, that he has been disloyal to the United
States. So," unless a charge is made that he is disloyal to the Uuited
States, if we are going to stick to this resolution and are going to be
technical with all parts of it, I hardly know how to proceed with
this witness.
Now I will in due time, to carry out the wishes of the Senate, should
entreaties and requests to get the files fail, issue a subpena, although
my face, to be frank, will be a little red when I do it because I know
in advance we have no power to enforce it. Nevertheless, I shi?,ll be
true to the commitment which the Senate enforces upon the commit-
tee. But I hope, too, if we are going to be that strict about interpret-
ing this resolution, that we will not forget that our job is to investigate
whether i)ersons who are disloyal to tlie United States have been em-
ployed by the Department of State, and in the latter part of the same
resolution which Senator Hickenlooper just read, I will read that
whole sentence :
In the conduct of this study and investigation, the committee is directed to
procure by subpena and examine the complete loyalty and employment files in
the Depaitment of State and such other agencies against whom charges have
been heard.
254 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTVESTIGATION
Now Senator McCarthy, in his testimony under oath on the stand,
said he was not making charges. He said he was only giving us in-
formation. Should we investigate all of the information that comes
before us regardless of whether it contains a charge or not? For,
in one case I have been handed 25 names with not even one sentence
about any of them to show what the charge was.
If we are going to be technical, I would be delighted to have my
friend from Iowa right here and now tell me what he thinks the scope
of this investigation should be as outlined by the resolution which
brings us into being.
Senator Hickenlooper. I will be delighted to tell the Senator that
I think long since we should have secured the files of the nine people
who have been specifically and publicly mentioned ; that we have de-
layed overlong; that we have not been zealous or diligent in getting
those files, and that any number of things covdd happen to those files.
I do not say that they will or that they have happened. But this de-
lay is certainly mysterious to me, and I see no reason why we should
not immediately have got hold of the files, all of the files, on the nine
people mentioned, in their interest as well as in the interest of expedi-
tious investigation. That is one step, and if we take that we will
occupy our time for a while and we will be getting at the heart and
meat of this matter.
Senator Ttuings. Should we investigate people against whom no
charges have been filed ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I think it is entirely within the committee
to determine what people in the State Department should be investi-
gated. If this is to be a highly technical investigation, with the re-
fusal of this committee to look into specific cases as well as collateral
cases, then it will be a fruitless investigation, as anyone can see.
Senator Tydings. We cannot subpena any of the records except for
the files of people against whom charges have been heard. That is
what the resolution says.
Senator Hickenlooper. There haA^^e been nine specifically men-
tioned, and if I understand the English language there have been some
definite charges made against these people, and we have made no
progress so far as I know in the acquisition of the files on these spe-
cific nine people. There is a start for us.
Senator Tydings. The resolution says:
In the conduct of this study and investigation the committee is directed to
procure by subpena
Senator Hickenlooper. That's plain.
Senator Tydings (continuing) :
and examine the complete loyalty files and records of all employees against
whom charges have been heard.
With regard to Mr. Jessup, who comes before us this morning,
the sole charge so far that I have heard is that he has an affinity for
Communist organizations. I suppose that would be a charge. The
Chairman said on the floor of the Senate, in answer to an interrogation
I think from Senator Knowland, that he would extend the widest
measure of interpretation to this resolution, and that he will do. So
even the 25 cases against whom no charge has been made, being only
a list of names which Senator McCarthy gave me, without a line or
a syllable to tell us what the charge is, I have already asked for the
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 255
records on, and I happen to know that the State Department at this
very moment is trying to work out a procedure so that we can see the
records. Their fear is that if they give them up now, every time in
tlie future that somebody wuuts to use them, we will assume for pur-
poses that best suit the individual so that they can be reviewed, this
will be used as a precedent. There has been no breach of this precedent
so far and there naturally is some concern among those who are re-
sponsible for the executive branch about making a precedent now.
But I want to conclude by saying this, that I expect to get the files.
I have asked for the files as a gentleman and not as a sheriff, because
I think the President of the United States is entitled to some respect
whether he is a Democrat or Republican or what he may be, and I said
on the floor of the Senate, when I was asked whether we would issue
a subpena that insofar as I was concerned I would not issue a subpena
until I had made a proper and decent request for the files, before
resorting to any such action, which might be misinterpreted by the
person against whom it was directed.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then do I understand, Mr. Chairman,
that this subcommittee must, at a time to be prescribed at the con-
venience of the State Department, go with hat in hand and stand
outside of some door until they, in their own good time, will open that
door and, under certain regulations, restrictions, and surveillance,
watch over the deliberations of this committee and say, at certain
points, "Uh-uh, you can't go any further than that ; you must do this" I
In other words, are we to investigate this under the direction of the
State Department or are we to investigate it under the direction and
the power and the authority of a Senate committee that is set up under
a resolution?
Senator Tydings. You know just as well as I do that if the Presi-
dent refuses to give us these files there is no way in the world that we
can get them. I am going to proceed upon the premise that we want
the files, although I have some doubts about that in some quarters.
Nevertheless, I want the files.
Seantor McMahon. I am not so sure, Mr. Chairman, that they want
the files. What they want is a refusal of the files.
Senator Tydixgs. I am not going to say that, but that inference is
clearly drawn. I am going to get those files if it is humanly possible
for me to do it, and I am going to do it in a way that I think will
bring success and not bring controversy and smear up this issue when
it ought not to be smeared up but clarified.
I think we ought to give the witness now a chance to be interrogated
by Senator Hickenlooper, and I will say that I will call a meeting of
this connnittee at their earliest convenience to go into all the proceduies
that are now before us.
Senator Hickexlooper. At the outset, Mr. Chairman, Senator
McCarthy, who is in the room, just came up a moment ago and gave
me some Avhispered information in my ear, and I said, "Have you got
the papers there?" and he said "Yes, he had," so he brought them up.
I was handed what is alleged to be — I have no personal knowledge of
this at all — a receipt for a registered letter mailed Saturday afternoon,
March 18, at 5 : 20 p. m. to Senator Tydings. It bears a Washington
post office stamp showing the fees. Its register number is 342589.
256 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
It lias a copy of a letter of March 18 addressed to Senator Millard
Tydings, chairman, Foreign Relations Subcommittee, Washington,
D. C, signed by Joe McCarthy, which is as follows :
Dear Senator Tydings : Enclosed are the names which you as chairman of the
subcommittee demanded that I furnish in connection with tlie 81 cases cited on
the Senate floor. They are being submitted as part of the record in executive
session. I believe you will find complete and detailed reports on each in the
\arious files which I indicated to the committee the other day, namely State
Department, Civil Service, and FBI. I would, however, like the right to present
to the committee additional documentation in cases of bad security from time
to time.
Attached to that — may I complete the exhibit, because I am going
to offer this whole business here in the record
Senator Tydings. The names too?
Senator Hickenlooper. Senator McCarthy desires that I offer the
names in executive session. I will hand them to the Chair, and he may
do what he wishes.
Attached thereto is a list of 81 names. Then another letter attached
to this file, a copy of a letter alleged to be signed by R. H. Hillenkoetter,
lear admiral, Director of Central Intelligence, to Hon. Joseph
McCarthy. Senator McCarthy has just whispered in my ear that he
prefers that that not be made public, that copy of that letter. I shall
hand the entire file to the chairman. The first page has the registered
receipt for the letter containing the 81 names.
Senator Tydings. I am certainly glad to get them. It is exactly 1
month to the day since the 81 cases were brought before the attention
of the Senate. This is the first time I have had the names in my
hand, and I shall request, before the day is over, from appropriate
officials in the State Department, to get these files available to the
committee at the earliest possible date.
Senator Hickenlooper. One other thing, Mr. Chairman. I think it
is very important, in the interests of complete examination of this
matter at this moment and ineffective as I think any examination of
this kind can be without full access to the files, that a decision be made
on whether or not Senator McCarthy, who is the moving force in con-
nection with Mr. Jessup. be permitted to interrogate Mr. Jessup at this
time, when they can confront each other.
Senator Tydings. I am sorry ; I did not get your request. I was con-
ferring with Senator Green.
Senator Hickenlooper. Personally I have no knowledge of these
files. I say that I think it is very important that Senator McCarthy
confront Mr. Jessup. He is here ; Senator McCarthy is here. I know
nothing about this matter. I have no particular or specific questions
that I can ask Mr. Jessup. I don't know Mr. Jessup. I have never
seen any information on him of any kind. I think it is very important
that Senator McCarthy, who has generated this matter, be permitted
to bring up whatever matters he has with Mr. Jessup. Mr. Jessup has
come up here, I assume, at his own request, and I would like to urge
that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. We will lay this question before the committee
and decide on procedure. I do not want to be precluded from passing
on it in the committee. However, I think this is a fair observation,
that Mr. Jessup did not know he was to be accused, I presume, until
he heard about it through the press. Mr. Jessup was not invited to
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 257
be here to cross-examine Senator McCartliy. The Constitution of the
United States, in the bill of rights, says — and this is a pretty serious
case — that every man accused of any offense is entitled to be con-
fronted Avith the witnesses against him. I do not think it gives a
comparable right to his accuser. So if we are going to go along in the
democratic process, at least, I think Mr. Jessup might be entitled to
interrogate Senator McCarthv.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think that is utterly fair.
Senator Tydings. Further than that, the committee itself has had
no opportunity to interrogate Senator McCarthy up to now. We did
have some discussion about a collateral matter the first 2 days, when
the chairman wanted to get the name of a man who was accused of
attemi)ting to fix the State Department records, but other than that,
in the Ken>'on and all the other cases, outside of asking for the date
of a document or something of that sort, there has been no chance for
the connnittee to ask Senator McCarthy any questions, and certainly
the committee is going ahead asking Mr. Jessup questions when they
have not even had a chance to ask Senator McCarthy any questions
yet-
Senator JNIcCaRtht. Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to let Mr. Jessup
ask me any questions he cares to.
Senator Tydings. Just a minute. We have not asked you as yet,
Senator McCarthy. I think it would have been fair if these people
against whom charges are brought might have been notified so that
they might have at least been here and heard the charges against them.
But that has not been done, and therefore I think we have got to be
as fair to one side as we are to the other in this matter, and you your-
self asked that you not be interrupted, finally, until you could completer
your statement, and the committer sat more or less mute. Up to the
present time it has had no chance to ask you questions and I would
like to ask you several questions, particularly about the discrepancies
that have appeared in various statements that you have made con-
cerning the number of people who are card-carrying Communists now
in the State Department, and known to the Secretary of State.
So far as I read your debate on the Senate floor and your charges
before this committee, you have not charged a single person, so far
as I can recall, with being a card-carrying Communist now in the
State Department. Nevertheless, according to the press, those charges
have been printed all over the United States and there has been no
evidence before this committee from you, sir, or from anybody else,
that assert any of the individuals named are card-carrying Com-
munists or members of the Con:wnunist Party.
Go ahead. Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. I take it that the committee at this time
says that Senator McCarthy cannot confront Mr. Jessup.
Senator Tydings. Not until we pass on it as a committee, and one
of your colleagues is absent. We want his version of what should be
done. I will call a meeting this afternoon, if we can get the full com-
mittee together, and lay this matter before them. It is all one with
me. I have no preconceived ideas, except tluit I am going to be fair
to both sides so far as I am able.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think Senator Lodge, who had a very
unfortunate situation at his home, will not be here today and perhaps
258 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA^ EST I CATION
not tomorrow. I do not know. I checked with his office this morn-
ing and they are not certain whether he will be here tomorrow. He
is not in town today.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I have just a few questions, and I feel that
I am moving utterly in the dark in this matter. I have no particular
things to ask of Mr. Jessup that could possibly be generated by any
previous information.
Senator Tydings. Senator Hickenlooper, if you will pardon an in-
terruption, it is now 5 minutes to 12. If it meets with your approval,
the chairman would be glad to have a recess whenever you wish it, and
meet again at 2 oVlock or 2 : 30, during which time you might confer
with Senator McCarthy and get such data as he has, so that you
can use those data to cross-examine Ambassador Jessup. I would be
delighted to do that. .
Sentaor Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I sort of reserve the right
to make up my own mind on what questions I ask.
Senator Ttdixgs. I am only suggesting it.
Senator Hickenlooper. And I would like to have the information
on which to pass my own judgment on the questions I ask, rather
than to be spoon-fed information from the State Department or from
Senator McCarthy or anybody else. ,r ^ i i
Senator Tydings. I only said that because Senator McCarthy has
been handing you information. I thought you might want time to
get it all. ^ . _ . -
Senator Hickenlooper. Senator McCarthy did hand me some very
definite information about the registered letter he sent you.
Senator Tydings. Also, in the Kenyon case, as I recall, he gave you a
list of a great many propositions to put to Judge Kenyon.
Senator Hickenlooper. And incidentally, in the Kenyon clise, mav
I suggest that the day after Judge Kenyon was on the stand I learned
some very pertinent information about Judge Kenyon which I think
would have been very important had I known it at the time she was
on the stand so I could have interrogated her about that particular
matter, but I did not have access to any files, and I have some reason
to believe that this information which I did not have is contained m
Judge Kenyon's files, and therefore that examination was not only ot
the most cursory nature, but I had nothing particularly to go on.
Mr. Jessup, I apologize for attempting to interrupt you when 1 tirst
sat down. I was about 7 minutes late here and I found the hearing
was already under wa}^ j. j +
On pao-e 2 of your statement there is the matter that i wanted to
mention at that time. You say in the next to the last paragraph, about
the fourth line:
However, I do not believe in tlie concept of guilt by association.
I am using the mimeographed copy.
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir. ^ , . , ■,- j
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, a little later on I think you discussed
the legal philosophy of guilt by association as not necessarily being
an accepted doctrine in American jurisprudence.
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. You are, of course, aware ot the doctrine
that is accepted generally in American jurisprudence, of circumstan-
tial evidence ; are you not ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 259
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir.
Senator Htckenlooper. And that comes pretty close to the doctrine,
when it is nsed to convict, of fyiiilt by association; does it not?
Ambassador Jessup. I think tliere is quite a difference, Senator,
Senator Hickexlooper. I tliink tliere are some legalistic differ-
ences, yes, indeed; but circumstantial evidence is nevertheless, when
it is used for conviction, evidence which is produced by circumstances
rather than b}^ actual proof or visible witnesses of the commission of
the actual crime. Is that roughly the concept?
Ambassador Jessup. I should think that would be sufficient, sir.
Senator Htckenlooper. So there would be elements of guilt by as-
sociation in our concept of circumstantial evidence; would you agree
with that ?
Ambassador Jessup. I think there is quite a difference between what
is commonly called guilt by association and the doctrine of the ad-
mission of circumstantial evidence in a criminal trial.
Senator Hickenlooper. I assure you, Dr. Jessup, that I shall avoid
at all costs getting into a legalistic dispute with a law professor. I
respect your judgment and ability and I do not feel that I can cope
with you on the finer points of the law.
Ambassador Jessup. Thank you, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe that there is anything to the
doctrine that I might describe as "risk through association"? We
have heard a great deal about guilt by association, and that seems
to come up every so often — guilt by association. But is there some-
thing to risk by association, especially where people are in sensitive
positions of importance in the Government? Is it well to look into
their associates to determine whether or not there is a risk involved
in the positions those people hold?
Ambassador Jessup. I stated, Senator, in my statement, and I would
like to repeat that part :
Although I cannot claim to have any detailed knowledge of the process, I
wholeheartedly support the efforts of those whose official responsibility it is to
see that Communists or Communist sympathizers are kept out of our Govern-
ment.
I understand that part of the process involves an investigation of
the kind that you have referred to. What I would suggest. Senator, is
that in connection with the so-called doctrine of guilt by association
there seems to be a tendency to select the existence of one name,
coupled with another name, in some list, in some undefined context,
and to assume that that means that the coexistence of those names
reflects the attitude and position of the person in question.
One might just as well say, in my opinion, that if one had a photo-
graph of the GI's who shook hands with the Russian soldiers when
the American and Russian Armies first met in Germany one might
charge that the GI who was shaking hands with the Russian was
guiltily associated with communism. I think there is nothing in
that kind of attempt to associate persons or events which has any
validity, and it is that which I object to, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. Then I take it that you discard any idea
that the membership of an individual in one organization wliich is
determined to be subversive or pro-Communist is, of course, not much
evidence of that person's sympathy for the Communist or subversive
cause ?
260 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Ambassador Jessup. I think tlie important thing, Senator, is
whether he knowingly belongs to an organization which is support-
ing Communist objectives and, with that knowledge, continues his
support.
Senator HiCKENLOorER. Let us say that one case makes not a very
strong case. Would you say that two or three instances where the in-
dividual is a member or a sponsor of organizations that have been
declared to be subversive, or afterward are found to be subversive,
were such as to strengthen a suspicion that this person has a leaning
toward that kind of philosophy ?
Ambassador Jessup. I think not necessarily, Senator, and I think
that was brought out in the testimony of Judge Kenyon.
Senator Hickexlooper. Would you say 15 such cases would
add cumulatively to the question as to whether or not that person
had leanings toward the philosophy of these subversive organizations?
Ambassador Jessup. Obviously, sir, that is cumulative, but I do
not think it atfects the principle.
Senator Hickenlooper. And suppose twenty-five cases occurred
where this person was a member of organizations either declared or
iound to be subversive. Would you think that that would be cumu-
lative evidence which might raise a question for reasonable inquiry ?
Ambassador Jessup. I think it is necessary in those cases, Senator,
to do two things: First, to find out whether the organization was
publicly branded and known to be subvei^ive at the time of the in-
dividual's contact with it. and in the second place, what was the
nature of the contact of the individual with the organization. The
fact that you had 25 or 50 such cases
Senator Hickenlooper. I was going to suggest, suppose there were
Ambassador Jessup. I would say, sir, whether there were 25 or
50 or 56, unless one pays some attention to the other two factors which
1 have just referred to ,, . .i p ^ j;
Senator Hickenlooper. But would you say that the tact ot mem-
bership in a large number of organizations which either have been
declared or have been found by official bodies to be Communist front,
that the membership of an individual in a substantial number— let
us say 25 or 30, or 40, or as many as 50— would be sufficient grounds
to inquire, then, into the further activities of that individual or the
organizations involved, in order to arrive at a proper judgment on
the attitude of this individual? _ u . ^i
Ambassador Jessup. If you mean, sir, whether it would be the
duty of those officially charged with examining into the loyalty ot
an individual to determine whether that person should be appointed
to a position of trust or any position under the Government of the
United States, I would say "yes". If it is merely the basis for mak-
ino- a public charge without an investigation of those facts, I say no.
^Senator Hickenlooper. Now, then, putting another hypothetical
question, if the record of such an individual did disclose member-
ship in a large number of organizations which had been declared or
found to be subversive, and if the persons in charge of the appoint-
ment of that individual, knowing that, then failed to make any fur-
ther inquiry or examination into the attitude or other activities ot
this individual along those lines, would you say that they had failed
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEtSTIGATION 261
to do wliat the preliminary information should properly indicate in
connection with security risk matters?
Ambassador Jessip. My understanding of an investigation of that
kind, Senator, is that the investigator is to look into all affirmative
and negative evidence. I assume that is done whether they find 1 case
or 50 such cases. It is their duty to look into the question.
Senator TTicKEXLOorER. Would you consider membership in such
organizations to be negative evidence as original evidence as a basis
for further investigation?
Ambassador Jessup. I should say that without an investigation of
the facts to which I have referred it is still very slight evidence. In
other words, as I have said before, it seems to me necessary to know
whether at the time of this hypothetical association of an individual
with an organization that organization was itself actually subversive,
or was known to be such; and secondly, I think it is necessary to
examine into the exact nature of the association of the individual with
that organization.
Senator Hickexlooper. Dr. Jessup, do you have any objection what-
soever, or any reservation, with respect to this subcommittee, as a
subcommittee, fully examining all of the files and the information con-
tained in Govenment departments with respect to you ?
Ambassador Jessitp. So far as I personally' am concerned, sir, every-
thing in my record or anything which anybody has found out about
me can be made public. So far as the question which has been dis-
cussed in this committee this morning, as to whether the executive
department should turn over the files to the committee, that is a
question with which I am not charged and on which I should not like to
express any opinion.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you have any personal objection to those
files being turned over?
Ambassador Jessup. As I have said, Senator, I have no objection
to any information about my career being made public at any time.
Senator Hickexlooper. I am not even suggesting that any informa-
tion be made public.
Ambassador Jessup. So far as I am concerned, it can be made public.
Senator Hickexlooper. The question I asked was, Do you have any
objection to the turning over of the files?
Ambassador Jessup. As I said, Senator, I am not concerned with the
question of policy involved, as to wdiether the executive department
should turn over its files to the Senate committee.
Senator Tydixgs. You said you had a statement there. Was that
in answer to one of the questions ?
Ambassador Jessup. I merely wanted to add, in connection with
what I have just said. Senator, a paragraph from a letter written by
Mr. Peyton Ford, Assistant to the Attorney General, to Senator Elbert
Thomas on IVIarch 6, 1950, which I think is pertinent, if I may. It is
very short, Senator. He wrote :
It is characteristic of many front organizations that their purported purposes
and programs are designed to appeal to loyal Americans and frequently it is
behind a screen of respectability, loyalty, and even patriotism that subversive
activities are carried on, often by only a few disloyal persons. In other instances
a small minority subverts an organization of previously good purposes and hav-
ing many members of unquestionable loyalty to the United States.
It is because I believe that is an accurate statement and a sound
statement that I have made the comments which I have, indicating
262 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
that the mere association is not a sound basis for condemning an
individual.
Senator Hickenlooper. Again I want to call your attention to the
fact that I draw a sharp distinction between conviction based upon
association and the question of risk indicated by investigation into
association. There is a vast difference between risk, in my judgment,
in public office — that is personnel risk — and conviction of any specific
crime. I think it has been authoritatively testified to that the Com-
munists have not carried cards in this country for better than 2 years.
They are ordered not to. And positive proof of membership in the
Communist Party, I am told, is a most difficult thing indeed to produce.
Ambassador Jessup. May I just also say, Senator, that I wanted to
make clear the distinction which exists in my own mind between the
process of investigation of a person considered for appointment in the
Government service and the question of public charges which are made
without an opportunity for the individual to be confronted with the
evidence and to answer in regard to what seem to me to be the perti-
nent facts.
Senator Hickenlooper. On page 3 of your statement, with respect
to the dinner on May 7, 1946, given by the American-Russian Insti-
tute
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. The only thing that I know about that is
that that was quite an important dinner apparently ; it was a dinner
for the presentation of the First Annual Award to Franklin D. Roos-
evelt, which would be a matter of some importance, but I notice in
your statement that you don't remember whetlier or not you attended
that dinner. The thing that caught my eye was that on the rest of the
page, and part of the next page, you remembered very distinctly at-
tending meetings back, I believe, as far as 1943 and 1939 and 1933, I
believe, is the earliest one. I thought it rather unusual that you
wouldn't remember wliether or not you attended a dinner that was
given for an award of this kind in 1946.
Ambassador Jessup. Well, may I say in regard to that. Senator,
that as I pointed out in my statement, I searched my files to see if
there were any information on this matter, and I couldn't find any.
I also pointed out that I was very seriously ill in the hospital from
February to June of that year, so that it was unlikely that I attended:.
Perhaps that was an understatement.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have an alleged photostat of a letterhead
of the American Law Student's Association, Woolworth Building,
room 530, New York, N. Y., in which you are listed as a Faculty Ad-
visory Board member ; that is, there is listed from Columbia Univer-
sity the name Prof. Philip Jessup. Were you a member -of that
organization ?
Ambassador Jessup. I have a very slight recollection of that or-
ganization. If I may refresh my recollection on it
Senator Hickenlooper, Yes.
Ambassador Jessup. What was the year of that supposed affilia-
tion, Senator, if I may ask?
Senator Hickenloper. I don't have a date on this letterhead. I
have an alleged photostat of a letterhead which you may look at.
Ambassador Jessup. I did make an attempt to find out whether
I had any such associaiton, and the best I could do in trying to find
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 263
some record on it, or stimulating my memory, was this, tliat I recalled
that perhaps 10 years ago some of the students at Columbia had asked
me to serve on the Advisory Board of an association. It may have
been this one. So far as 1 could tell from my files, the last contact
I had with it was about February or March of 11)40. I have no
definite recollection about the organization or of my association
with it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I believe the American Law Student's As-
sociation is listed as an affiliate of the American Youth Congress,
which was cited as a Communist front by Attorney General Bidclle on
I\Iay 28. 1948, by the Special Committee of the House Committee on
Appropirations April 1, 1948, and by the Special Committee on Un-
American Activities on June 25, 1942, and on March 29, 1944, and also
by the Massachusetts House Committee Report On Un-American
Activities in 1938, which would put it more than 10 years ago.
Senator Green. That w^as not the organization with which Dr.
Jessup was connected.
Senator Hickenlooper. The organization, as I stated a moment
ago, was affiliated with the American Youth Congress.
Ambassador Jessup. As of what date. Senator, w^as it affiliated?
Was that found ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I do not have the date upon which it was
affiliated, but the American Youth Congress, I believe, was cited as a
Connnunist-front organization by the Massachusetts House Com-
mittee Report on Un-American Activities in 1938.
Ambassador Jessup. Do I understand that the American Law Stu-
dent's iVssociation is not in your citation ?
Senator Hickenlooper. The American Law Student's Association,
I believe, w^as an affiliate of the American Youth Congress.
Ambassador Jessup. But you have not indicated on what date it
became affiliated, sir?
Senator Hickenlooper. No.
Ambassador Jessup. I see. Thank you.
Senator Ttdings. Might I ask, too, if the organization that was
delineated as being subversive in Massachusetts was a local chapter
or a national' chapter? Was it the local orgnization, the State branch
of that organization, or was it an indictment of the whole organiza-
tion throughout the whole United States? Do you Itnow?
Senator Hickenlooper. I do not know.
Senator Ttdings. I would not think an organization in Massachu-
setts or California or any of these State agencies would be in a posi-
tion to indict an organization nationally. I would presume they
would indict an organization in their own State, but it would be a
little diihcult to know how^ they would indict an organization that
covers the United States.
Senator Hickenlooper. I understand the American Law Student's
Association was affiliated with the United Student's Peace Committee,
347 IVIadison Avenue, New York City. That is according to an ex-
hibit, volume 12, page 7568 and 75G9 of the Report of the House Com-
mittee on Un-American Activties.
Ambassador Jessup. I don't know about those organizations. I
don't know Avhether they existed at the time of my meager associa-
tion with the American Law Student's Association.
08970—50— pt. 1 18
264 STAVE DEPARTMEWT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. For whatever worth this may be, I believe
the Dailv Worker of February 27, 1937, on page 2, lists the American
Law Student's Association as an affiliate of the American League
Against War and Fascism. The American League Against War and
Fascism has been cited as a Communist front by the Special Commit-
tee on Un-American Activities and by Attorney General Biddle.
Ambassador Jessup. I don't read that paper, sir, so I wasn t aware
^ Senator Hickenlooper. I don't either. I said that it is alleged
that that was printed there. , . -, -r p i ^ +
The letter head which I have here, which I referred to a nioment
a<ro containing the name of Prof. Philip C. Jessup on the facuUv ad-
vfsJry board, bears the union label imprint of Local 209 of New York
City which I am informed is the Communist print shop of New York,
the'letterhead being printed in a Communist print shop. I can otter
that in evidence, Mr. Chairman. . ^ ^t - .
Senator Tydings. It will be printed m the record at this point.
American Law Student's Association
woolwobth building, boom 530
New York, N. Y.
Faculty Advisory Board : Faculty Advisory Board— Continued
Northwestern University School of Brooklyn Law School
T„ Prof. Jerome Prince
Dean Leon Green Prof. Abraham Rotwein
New York University Yale Law School
Dean Frank Sommers Prof. L red Rodell
Prof F D. Sloovers Prof. Abe Fortas
Prof" Augustin Derby National Executive Board:
Prof WiUiam Walsh Robert Page, president
P of. He^an Grey Thomas Levinia, vice president
e. Tnhns University Morris Engel, secretary
Vice Dean John Maloney Norman Leonard, treasurer
Prof. D. S. Edgar, Sr.
Prof. D. S. Edgar, Jr.
Columbia University
Prof. Elliot Cheatham
Prof. Walter Gellhorn
Prof. Philip Jessup
Union label (109). From Communist print shop.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, Mr. Jessup oil page 6 of JOur state-
ment you are quoting some attitudes toward China. I would like to
ask you, are you in complete agreement with the present policy of the
StatI Department towaid China as announced some 2 months ago with
respect to the withdrawing of support from Cl^^ang Kai-shek
Senator TymNGS. I am not going to interfere with this question,
but I do not see what that has to do with the fact of whetheT disloyal
persons are employed in the State Department or whether Mr. Jessup
is a Communist or not, because I think in both parties there are a great
manv men who disagree or who agree. i i i j
Senator McMahon. The Formosa beachhead was abandoned, and
I suggest if they want to reestablish it with this committee you go
^'senator Tydings. I suggest that if we go into all of the ramifica-
tions of our China policy we will be here until Christmas.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 265
Senator Hickenlooper. May I just clear that up and say that I
asked the question as a direct result of the statements made in Mr.
Jessup's statement
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead.
Senator Hickexloopek. In which he stated his philosophy toward
China quite clearly, and I would like to inquire whether Mr. Jessup
is in full accord with present announced State Department policy to-
ward China as contained in a statement of a few weeks ago — I can't
give you the exact date.
Ambassador Jessup. I don't identify the particular statement,
Senator, but I have no hesitation in saying that I am in complete
accord with the policy of the United States toward China at the pres-
ent time.
Senator Hickexloopek. That is, the position the State Department
has taken i
Ambassador Jessup. The position of the State Department is the
position of the United States with regard to international policy.
Senator Hickexloopek. Then further with respect to your state-
ment on page 6 with regard to China policy, were you in accord with
the policies which General Marshall was sent to put into effect? In
other words, as I understand them, the inclusion of some Communist
members in a coalition government in China ?
Ambasador Jessup. Senator, if I may, I suggest that that is a rather
misleading question.
Senator Hickexloopek. I don't w ant it to be misleading.
Ambassador Jessup. It assumes the nature of General Marshall's
mission. I should like to point out that I had no connection with
far eastern policy of the State Department at that time. The slight
connection I had with the State Department at that time was solely
in regard to matters having to do with the United Nations, its organ-
ization, and the codification and development of international laW'.
Senator Hickexloopek. Are you acquainted with Mr. Owen Latti-
more ?
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickex^looper, When was the last time you saw Mr. Lat-
timore?
Ambassador Jessup. I don't remember, exactly. I should think
perhaps a year or two ago. I don't remember the last time.
Senator Hickexloopek, When did you leave for China and the Far
East on your last trip ?
Ambassador Jessup. I sailed from San Francisco on Demember 20.
My memory is refreshed now that ISIr. Lattimore was in Washing-
ton at a meeting which I attended shortly before that time. That was
then in last December which must have been the last time I saw him.
Senator Hickexloopek. Did you discuss China policy with Mr.
Lattimore at that time?
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir; with a large group of people who
were at the Department at that time. I think there were about 30
of them.
Senator Hickexloopek. What was Mr. Lattimore's capacity at that
timei'
Ambassador Jesslt. Mr. Lattimore's capacity was — I don't know
his exact title. He is on the faculty of Johns Hopkins University,
I believe the director of a research institute there
266 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATTON
Senator Tydings. The William Hines Page chair.
Ambassador jESsrp. The William Hines Page chair.
Senator Hickenlogper. Was Mr. Lattimore at that tnne actmg m
the capacity of consnltant to the State Department, do you know ?
Ambassador Jessup. I could not say definitely, sir, the actual com-
position of that group, which I would be glad to furnish to the
committee. I haven't it all in mind. I remember it included Mr.
Harold Stassen, among others. They were a group of citizens of the
United States who had had contact with or had ideas about the Far
East and were brought down to the State Department for a conference
which, as I recall, lasted 2 days, so that we could have a general dis-
cussion of views about far eastern policy. They included some busi-
nessmen, bankers, one representative of missionary interests, and a
number of academic people.
Senator Hickenlogper. How long after that meeting was
Senator Green. Mr. Chairman, may i ask the Senator kindly to
o-ive us the ground for this line of examination ? What has it to do
with the loyalty of the witness? Is this guilt by association with Mr.
Lattimore? If so, I think he should tell us why Mr. Lattimore is a
person one should not associate with.
Senator Tydings. What do you say to that ?
Senator Hickenlogper. I say I shall pursue my own line of ques-
tioning unless the committee forbids me.
Senator Tydings. Objection overruled. The witness will proceed.
Senator Green. I have made no objection. I thought we might be
enlightened as to the purpose of this line of questioning, if there were
Senator Hickenlogper. How long after this meeting of the State
Department was it before you left for China? -, ,i ^ .
Ambassador Jessup. I can't remember the exact date of that meet-
ing. I think it was a matter of weeks.
Senator Hickenlogper. Two or three weeks, would you say i
Ambassador Jessup. I don't remember the exact date. I think it was
early in December and I left Washington, I believe, on the 15th to
begin my trip. j.- •4.-U -\/r„
Senator Hickenlogper. Did you have any conversations with Mr.
Lattimore of any kind after that meeting and prior to your departure
for China?
Ambassador Jessup. I do not recall any. .• vu
Senator Hickenlogper. Did you have a telephone conversation with
Mr. Lattimore after that meeting in the State Department and before
your departure for China ? . -ui x i '<-
Ambassador Jessup. I don't recall any. It is possible. I dont
^"^ Senator' Hickenlogper. Do you recall whether you had a telephone
conversation with Mr. Lattimore in which you asked him to accom-
pany vou to China ? .
Ambassador Jessup. I never asked him to accompany me, I never
suggested it, I never thought of it.
Senator Hickenlogper. At no time?
Ambassador Jessup. At no time. -, ^ . i • w
Senator Hickenlogper. Then Mr. Lattimore could not have said to
you that he thought it was better that he not accompany you on that
trip ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 267
Ambassador Jessup. We had no such conversation.
Senator IIickexloopek. Mr. Jessiip, I believe you were a character
"witness, were you not, for Mr. Alger Hiss?
Ambassador Jessup. I was, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Character witnesses are witnesses who at-
tempt to meet the matter of association, are they not? When one
testifies as to the character of an individual, that is testimonial as to
that individual's associations and general reputation, isn't that so?
Ambassador Jessup. My understanding of the role of character
witness, Senator, is that it is a very essential part of our jury system
under which traditionally a person accused is entitled to have the
testimony of persons who are familiar with him in regard to his repu-
tation in the community.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you of the same opinion about Mr.
Hiss that you were when you testified as a character witness for him
at his trial ?
Ambassador Jessup. The testimony which I gave in his trial, sir,
as you have properly pointed out, was as a character witness, in which
I testified to the reputation. I see no reason to alter the statements
which I made under oath as a witness in that case.
Senator Hickenlooper. I was asking you whether your opinion at
this time would permit you to give the same evidence now as you gave
at that time.
Senator Green. I object, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. Wliat is the objection?
Senator Green. I object on the ground it has nothing to do with
the testimony that has been given.
Senator Tydings. Let's be as broad as we can. I think it is a little
beside the point.
Ambassador Jessup. I will be glad to answer tb-^t, Senator. I
would like to say this about it. It seems to me that this line of ques-
tioning, perhaps unconsciously on the Senator's part, is designed to
involve me in comments upon the charges which have been made
against Mr. Hiss and for which he was tried. As the Senator well
knows, it is a very important part of the principles of our system that
comments by members of the bar particularly, about matters which
are before a court, are not appropriate. I believe that that is an
important part of our system. I have been a member of the bar for
some 25 years, and I do not intend to engage in a public discussion
of the charges which have been made against Mr. Hiss and which are
still before the courts. It is for the court to pass upon those charges.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Jessup, did you join with a group of
other Columbia University professors in addressing a letter to the
editor of the New York Times on the subject of the atomic bomb, which
letter appeared in that paper, I believe, on February 16, 1946 ^
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir. I should like to get that letter here
before you. That was a letter, sir, which was printed in the New
York Times on February 16.
Senator Green. What year ?
Ambassador Jessup. 1946. I will be glad to submit a photostat
of it for the record. The signers of that letter were a group of the
Columbia University faculty. Their names were: Prof. L. C. Dunn,
I. Edman, A. P. Evans, S. Hecht, P. C. Jessup, R. M. Maclver, Edgar
268 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
IMiller, F. C. Mills, George B. Pegram, I. L. Eabi, J. Scliilt, C. S.
Shoiip.
I would like to point out, sir, that among those the names of Pro-
fessor Pegram and Professor Eabi are particularly well known in con-
nection with the matters of atomic energy, since both of them were
leading physicists prominently associated with what was known as the
Manhattan project, which was the project nnder which much of the
\Aork on the development of the atomic bomb went on during the war.
Professor Pegram, the dean of the faculty at Columbia, and Pro-
fessor Eabi, Nobel prize winner and one of the leading physicists en-
gaged in the atomic research program, are two of the signers.
I would like to call attention to the fact that this letter was written
some 4 months before the Baruch proposals were made known. It was
a conscientious effort on the part of this group of us at Columbia
to make what seemed to us at the time a useful suggestion in regard
to the procedures which should be followed in the discussion of control
of the atomic bomb through the United Nations. I have a photostat
of that letter and will be glad to submit it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I would like to read this letter into the
record. This letter is as follows under the heading "Urge bomb-
making vacation. Columbia professors ask declaration to aid UNO
Commission."
To the Editor of the New York Times :
In view of the establishment of the UNO Commission on the Atomic bomb,
we would like to suggest a declaration of policy of the following nature by the
President of the United States in order that the discussions of the UNO Commis-
sion may proceed in an atmosphere of full good faith and of confidence in their
successful outcome for international peace :
1. The United States will at once stop the production of bombs from material
currently produced. This includes the preparation of subassemblies and all
other procedures involved in the fabrication of bombs.
2. For 1 year, which would seem to be a reasonable time for the Commission
to mature its plans and to secure action on them by the governments concerned,
we will stop a •< uniulating puritied plutonium and uranium-235, which are the
essential ingredi nts of atomic bombs. The plants which produce these materials
will be kept merely in a stand-by condition. For this purpose they will run
at the minimum i-ate compatible with maintaining them in good order, but they
W'ill not accumulate the resulting purified and fissionable products. As produced,
these will be eliminated by appropriate means, such as dumping them into the
ocean or returning them to their original mixture.
3. We are prepared to have the disposition of our present stockpile of bombs
considered as one of the items in an agreement to be entered into by us and
the other governments.
I have read the letter signed by the individuals whom you named
a moment ago ?
Ambassador Jessup. Yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. I hand it now to the reporter for inclusion
as exhibit 53.
Now, Dr. Jessup, in the light of the fact that it has been very widely
reported that Eussian zeal in the production of atomic weapons has
not abated at any time, do you still feel that we should stop the pro-
duction of fissionable materials for a year and dump our accumulated
materials into the ocean ?
Ambassador Jessttp. I certainly do not, sir. That is a statement
which was made in 1946 without the benefit of hindsight. It was the
general hope at that time, I believe, of the Government of the United
States as well as the American people, that it would be possible to
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 269
reach an international agreement for tlie control of atomic energy,
and the policy of the Government, as is well known, was to submit
proposals to the United Nations with that end in view. We have since
found ont that the Soviet Union is not prepared to cooperate in any
feasible sheme for the control of atomic energy. Obviously under these
present circumstances a proposal made in February 1946 is inap-
plicable.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you acquainted with Mr. Frederick
Vanderbilt Field?
Ambassador Jessup. I am, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you work with him in the Institute of
Pacific Relations?
Ambassador Jessup. I did, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did he remain on in that institute after
you ceased your active associations or active participation in its
affairs at your insistence and request?
Ambassador Jessup. After I terminated my affiliation?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
Ambassador Jessup. I never insisted or requested that he should
continue after I left.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you aware of what public declara-
tions Mr. Field has made with regard to his affiliation or nonaffiliation
with the Communist Party?
Ambassador Jessup. I am not familiar with the text of them. I
understand he is now an editorial writer on some Communist paper
and I believe he has made some statements about his sympathy for
Communist causes in the last few years.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you recall whether you were sponsor
in May of 1939 at a meeting of the National Emergency Conference
held in the Raleigh Hotel in Washington ?
Ambassador Jessup. If I may just look at my file notes, Senator,
there appears to have been, as I have been able to find, something
called a National Emergency Council for Democratic Rights. Is that
the one you refer to? Would you repeat again, sir, the one you have
in mind?
Senator Hickenlooper. I was going to ask you about the National
Emergency Conference. This was held on May 13 and 14, 1939, at
the Raleigh Hotel, in Washington.
Ambassador Jessup. I have actually at the moment no recollection
of that conference. I have seen a list which purports to be a list of
sponsors of this meeting. It is a long list, I have very little recollec-
tion about it. My recollection is that it was a meeting called to con-
sider certain bills then pending before Congress in regard to aliens,
so-called antialien bills pending in the Congress.
I didn't attend that meeting. I understand — I know — my name is
on the list, at least as it is reproduced, and I am willing to assume that
I consented to have it put on that list. I can vaguely remember some
of the matters which were under discussion at that time in connection
with the legislation. My recollection is that some of the bills which
were then before the Congress were amended before they were enacted
by the Congress. I do not recall the particular details of the bills
at this time which attracted my interest, or whether those were the pro-
visions which were rejected or accepted by the Congress in the enact-
ment of this legislation.
270
STATE DEPARTMETSTT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEBTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. I take it you are aware, then, that this
organization has been declared a Communist-front organization by the
House Un-American Activities Committee.
Ambassador Jessup. I am not informed, sir, as to whether, at the
time this meeting was held, it had been publicly proclaimed a sub-
versive organization or whether the later finding was a finding that at
the time of this meeting it was subversive. I certainly had no knowl-
edge at the time that it was subversive, if that was the case. I don't
know whether it was or not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Were you a sponsor of the organization
which you mentioned a while ago, the National Emergency Council
for Democratic Rights, in the early part of 194:0^
Ambassador Jessup. So far as I know I was not individually a
sponsor of that. I find my name is listed there. Whether they con-
tinued the list of the people who were sponsors of that meeting which
we have just discussed or otherwise I don't recall. I don't recall the
organization or any participation in it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I do not have the exact date, but I believe
that has been listed as a Communist-front organization by the House
Committee on Un-American Activities.
Ambassador Jessup. I believe that w^as later. I would be glad to
put into the record, if you wish, Mr. Chairman, a complete list of the
sponsors. They are contained in the volume. Investigation of Un-
American Propaganda Activities in the United States; Special Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, on
page 1210.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead and put it in.
(The list referred to is as follows :)
Honorary chairman :
Prof. Franz Boas
Executive committee:
Alfred K. Stern, chairman
Daniel S. Gillmor, treasurer
Bertha Josselyn Foss, secretary
Samuel L. M. Barlow
Mrs. W. Russell Bowie
Oliver La Farge
George Marshall
Jeanne Ratner
Donald Ogden Stewart
Oswald Garrison Villard
J. Raymond Walsh
Board of sponsors :
Louis Adamic
Prof. Josephine T. Adams
Mary McLeod Bethune
Katherine Devereux Blake
Van Wyck Brooks
May M. Colum
Prof. Albert Sprague Coolidge
Virginius Dabney
Prof. Jerome Davis
Prof. Paul Douglas
Dr. Haven Emerson
Prof. Henry Pratt Fairchild
Prof. Irving Fisher
Osmond K. Franekel
Prof. Walter Gellhorn
Margaret Halsey
Dr. Alice Hamilton
Hon. Stanley M. Isaacs
Prof. Philip C. Jessup
Hon. Paul J. Kern
Prof. William H. Kilpatrick
Frieda Kirchwey
Mrs. William S. Ladd
Prof. Max Lerner
Johanna M. Lindlof
Prof. Robert Morss Lovett
Prof. Robert Lynd
Carey McWilliams
Prof. Clyde R. Miller
Mischa MischakofE
Bishop Walter Mitchell
Prof. Wesley C. Mitchell
Bishop Edward L. Parsons
Williams Pickens
Rev. A. Clayton Powell
Jeanne Ratner
Bertha C. Reynolds
Wallingt'ord Reigger
Prof. Margaret Schlauch
George Seldes
Prof. Harlow Shapley
George Soule
Maxwell S. Stewart
Hon. Robert K. Straus
Prof. Harold C. Urey
Prof. Oswald Veblen
Elizabeth Bacon Walling
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 271
Senator Hickenlooper, ]\Ir. Chairman, again with the statement
that had I been able to see the files in this case I might not have asked
the questions I did ask, or I miglit have asked me, I must say that I
consider this is an utterly inadequate examination even from the
standpoint of the questions asked or the questions that might not
have been asked if a full foundation of this matter could be laid, and
I again suggest that we cannot investigate these matters with fairness
to the witness or fairness to this committee until the files, and especi-
ally the files of these nine publicly mentioned cases, are available
for free and complete examination by the members of this committee.
Senator Tydings. The chairman will lay before the committee the
full files as soon as he can get them. In the meantime the charges were
made without access to the files, and rather than let people labor nnder
these accusations without a chance to appear and answer them, we
have given each one who has so far requested, demanded, or insisted
upon a hearing the chance to come publicly in the same manner that
the accusations were made and answer them.
However, the chairman will pursue his pursuit of the files with
some optimisim and hopes that he will soon have them available, but
he does appreciate the difficulties in the way and he is trying to get
the files by cooperation. In the event that a subpena was issued at
this or some later period in the proceedings, it is the fear of the
chairman it will block the access to the files by the committee, and
therefore what he wants is the files and is proceeding in the best way
he knows how to get them.
Senator Hickenlooper. I just want to say that it is entirely possible
and probable that when full information is available there w^ill be
other questions, and I hope that the witness will be available.
Senator Ttdixgs. IVIaybe some of the charges might also be with-
drawn when we have full access to the files.
Senator Green. Most unlikely.
Senator Tydings. I have two letters, addressed to Dr. Jessup but
sent to me, which I should like to read into the record. They are
short :
My Dear Jessup : I am shocked and distressed by the attack on your integrity
as a public servant.
Throughout your intimate sei'vice with me while I was Secretary of State
you were clearly outstanding as a representative of the Government both as to
your masterful presentations and the firmness of your oppostion to all Soviet or
Communist attacks or pressures. This was conspicuously the case during your
handling on the Security Council of the Berlin blockade issue.
Both the Under Secretary, Mr. Lovett, and I counted you as a great source
of strength to the State Deimrtment during those critical days.
Faithfully yours,
G. C. Makshaix.
The second letter :
My Dear Jessup: I am writing to tell you how much your university deplores
the association of your name with the current loyalty investigation in the United
States Senate.
Your long and distinguished record as a scholar and a public servant has
won for you the respect of your colleagues and of the American people as well.
No one who has known you can for a moment question the depth or sincerity of
your devotion to the principles of Americanism. Your university associates
and I are confident that any impression to the contrary will be quickly dispelled
as the facts become known.
Sincerely,
DwiGHT D. Eisenhower.
272 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION
Ambassador Jessup. Thank you.
Senator Tydings. Senator Green ?
Senator Green. Dr. Jessup, in the first place let me congratulate
you on the way you have so thoroughly cleared whatever charges, so-
called, have been made against you.
Ambassador Jessup. Thank you.
Senator Green. There occurred to me as you testified two thoughts.
One is, how fortunate you are that you are able to do this thnig so
easily from the high level of your reputation and friends who are glad
to come to your assistance. What would have happened to you when
you were unknown instead of known, if you had tried to recover from
a similar charge? You would have had a shattered reputation under
those circumst'ances. It is appalling, the harm that would have been
done and the harm that may be done to younger men m the service
under similar circumstances.
The other matter is this : The terrible effect on the success of our
f oreif^n policies when confidence in the State Department is shattered.
You spoke briefly on that. I wish you would elaborate, if you will, a
little on what effect this particular hearing or this particular series of
hearings has on the success of our foreign policy abroad, or may
have. , . ^ . ii i. T
Senator Hickenlooper. May I ]ust at that point suggest that i
am not objecting to that question. I think it is a perfectly proper
question for the Senator to ask, but he objected strenuously to my
asking questions which did not go to the question of loyalty, m his
Senator Green. I did not object. The chairman stated I objected.
All I wanted to know was the grounds on which the questions were
asked, and you explained it was based on a portion of his stat:ement.
All I am asking him now is to elaborate what he stated too briefly m
his original statement. ^, , . .
Senator Tydings. Senator Green is correct. The chairman put
those words in his mouth.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think it is a very proper question to ask
the witness. . . j.- rr\
Senator Tydings. Everybody agrees it is a proper question, iiie
witness will proceed with his answer. • i i •
Ambassador Jessup. Senator, one point which I tried to bring out
in my statement was this, that when you have representatives of the
United States making public statements or official statements to officials
of other governments in regard to the questions which are now at
issue in the international scene, particularly between the Soviet Union
and the United States, it is obviously of the utmost importance that
the officials of other governments and the world as a whole should
have confidence that the official spokesmen of the United States are
persons who are trusted bv their Government.
Now I have found, sir,'in the course of my trip through tne Asian
countries, that as you get particular items of news carried from the
United States and perhaps reproduced only m the local papers
throuo-hout 15 or 17 countries of Asia that locally they do not always
distinguish between the statements which are officially made on be-
half of the United States in foreign policy by the Secretary of State
and statements which are made by other persons m high positions m
the American Government. And frequently the effect on the people
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 273
in these other countries is to get an impression which I think is a
wrong impression, that the United States is not united in its policy of
combating international communism and the imperialism of the Soviet
Union.
It seems to me, as I tried to point out in my statement, Senator Green,
that it is so important at this very serious juncture in international
atl'airs that the United States should speak with one voice, and that
we should make it perfectly clear not only to the governments of other
countries to whom you can privately explain one thing and another but
to all the peoples in all the other countries of the world that the
United States is a country which wholeheartedly supports the policy
which has been enunciated officially on our behalf.
For example, in this particuhir connection, I refer to the statement
by the Secretary of State in his recent speech at the University of
California.
I am not suggesting, Senator, that in our system of government we
want in any way to emulate the Soviet system, which makes it im-
possible for anyone to disagree with the government and line. We
are proud of our system which permits individuals to differ. But I
suggest in the context that we are discussing that it is a matter of the
utmost seriousness and a matter which does affect the success of the
international policies of the United States if the qualifications and the
integrity of the persons selected, confirmed by the Senate, to repre-
sent the United States in these negotiations, are called into question.
And that is why I have tried to stress, sir, my feeling that it is
important that these insinuations and charges should be cleared up.
Senator Green. Thank you.
Senator Ttdings. Senator McMahon ?
Senator McMahon. Dr. Jessup, I am proud to have you as a constit-
uent of mine.
Ambassador Jessup. Thank you, sir.
Senator McMahon. And I am delighted that you are a fellow citizen
of the State of Connecticut. I am also happy that we have you to
represent us in the United Nations. I think that you are entitled
to the thanks of all of our people for the magnificent work which you
have done and to which General Marshall and General Eisenhower
have paid tribute. I join with them.
Ambassador Jesstt. Thank you very much. Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. INIr. Chairman, just one question.
Senator Tydings. Senator Hickenlooper ?
Senator Hickenlooper. It is generated as a result of the answer to
Senator Green's question.
You said. Dr. Jessup, that people in the Orient, for instance, might
look askance at disputes in this country and say we were not united. I
wonder what the people in the Orient think when they find that
Russian communism has apparently gained by either diplomacy or
something else what it probably could not have gained by war at this
lime; in other times, the complete dominion of China, all China. In
other words, do the people of the Orient believe that we. by such a
policy, are approving the Communist capture of China?
Ambassador Jessup. No ; certainly not.
Senator Hickenlooper. You said that certainly that would be very
fatal to our prestige, certainly among those in China who do not believe
in communism.
274 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION
Ambassador Jesstjp. I would like to point out, Senator, that there
are always stages in international affairs in which the scales go up
and down. There were stages during the war at which it appeared to
the people of Asia that we were licked and that Japan was the master
of Asia, and they were wrong. There were momentary successes of the
Japanese forces and the people of Asia were wrong in thinking that
that meant that the United States was licked. If anybody now thinks
that at the present juncture of international affairs the United States
is licked, they are wrong again.
Senator Hickenlooper. I may suggest that during the period when
Japan was in the ascendancy tliere was still a fighting Nationalist
Chinese group there that gave physical and visible evidence of resist-
ance to communism. The situation, so far as I have been able to find
out, seems to be quite different now ; even with our own declarations
communism lias been extremely successful in China. It has driven the
Nationalist Chinese Government over to Formosa — what is left of it —
and with our policy declarations that we are pulling out our support,,
there seems to be no physical evidence in China upon which those who
dislike communism and oppose it have the least peg to hang their
hats on.
Ambassador Jessup. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would like to suggest
that I hope to have an opportunity to discuss with the full Committee
on Foreign Relations the results of my trip and the information which
I gathered at that time. I think it would perhaps be more appro-
priate if I went into these details of the situation on that occasion, if
tJiat is in accordance with the wishes of the subcommittee.
Senator Hickenlooper. I do not care to continue discussing high
policy at this time. I only asked those questions
Senator Tydings. I am sure Senator Connally, of the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee, who is here, will seize the first available opportunity
to call the committee together so it may hear you, Dr. Jessup. I know
him well enough to assume that that is so, because he is always very
diligent in bringing information before the committee from those who
are well informed.
The Chairman (Senator Connally). I apologize for the interrup-
tion. We have that in mind. We were waiting, however, somewhat
the convenience of Dr. Jessup. We decided he probably would not
want to appear before the full committee until he had met these serious
charges, or so-called charges, whatever they are. So we have not
approached him about a time when it will be convenient, but we hope
you will hold yourself in readiness. We are very anxious to have you
before us and have a full exposition of developments in your trip
abroad.
Senator Tydings. Do not leave the room, committee members, for a
moment, because there is no scheduled meeting at present for the
committee, but I may want to get in touch with you this afternoon
in the light of information I hope to get sometime during the day and
arrange for a meeting.
In the meantime, Dr. J?ssup, I can always reach you, I suppose,
through the State Department.
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Do you intend to be here for a few days ?
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 275
Senator Tydings. Those members of the press who have requested
me to get copies of the two letters that were put in the record, if they
will come forward I will read them to them now.
Tiie meeting will stand adjourned subject to the call of the Chair.
(Whereupon, at 1 p. m., the hearing was adjourned, to resume upon
the call of the Chair.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
TUESDAY, MARCH 21, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington, D. C.
executi\t: session
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call at 2 : 30 p. m. in room G-23,
United States Capitol, Senator Millard E. Tydings (chairman of the
subcommittee) presidino;.
Present : Senators Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee), Green,
McMalion, and Hickenlooper.
Also present : Senator McCarthy,
Senator Tydings, This meetino; has been called by the chairman,
after conferring with Senator McCarthy, so that Senator McCarthy
might give to the committee the name of the very important person
in the State Department concerning whom he desired to give the com-
mittee information, and Senator McCarthy is here and ready to
proceed.
Senator McCarthy. There is nothing mysterious about this one.
This is the case of Owen Lattimore. This has all been put in the
record already, plus some exhibits.
You understand when I talk about what you will find in the files,
this is to the best of my knowledge.
Senator Tydings, That is right.
Now, particularly, you are meaning the loyalty file in this matter?
Senator McCarthy, I don't know what part of this you will find in
the loyalty file.
Senator Tydings, How about the Civil Service file?
Senator McCarthy. I understand that the Civil Service Commis-
sion has in its file what ultimately goes in the loyalty file. The bene-
fit of getting the Civil Services file as well as the State Department
loyalty file is largely because in that way you have some check as to
what is in the State Department loyalty file,
I might say on that, even assuming that there is no attempt to
rifle the State Department loyalty files, assuming they are protect-
ing them as fully as they can, the system of filing them is such that it
is entirely possible that you will find many things missing from the
loyalty file which are in the Civil Service Commission file, but actually
there should be the same material in the State Department loyalty file
that is in the Civil Service file.
277
278 STATE DiEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ENVEISTIGATION
To get to this fellow Lattimore, for Lattimore's stuff I think you
will have to rely quite largely upon the FBI file.
Senator McMahon. Have you contacted Hoover? Is Hoover in
favor of displaying the FBI files ?
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't know.
(Discussion of Mr. Lattimore was continued off the record.)
Senator Tydings. It appears that he was once an adviser of Chiang
Kai-shek. Then, when last year the State Department "'white paper"
was written it actively reflected the thinking of Mr. Lattimore. In
the Atlantic Monthly, Mr. Lattimore wrote, "Sound policy would
avoid premature excessive strategic development in the Far East."
Again, "United States policy should aim to increase the ability of
countries in Asia to do witliout Russia." Again, "For the problem of
recognition of the new Government of China, the United Nations
offers the ideal avenue to a solution. If a majority of the non-Com-
munist countries in Europe, Latin America and Asia should vote to
seat the new Chinese representative (meaning Communist) to the
United Nations, the LTnited States should not vote against that ver-
dict," and so on and so on.
That is from the New York World-Telegram and Sun of the 15th
of March 1950.
Senator McCarthy. That gives you some of his background.
He has also written a considerable amount. In case j^ou care to
get some of his writings, he wrote a l)ook, Solution In Asia. I
haven't read it at all. I have a few excerpts from it. He wrote for
Pacific Affairs. But this is entirely separate and apart from his
writings. As I say, when I give you this information it is to the
best of my knowledge, and I am absolutely confident that this is the
case that you really should find — well, it's explosive. If you crack this
case it will be the iDiggest espionage case in the history of this country.
That is my own personal thought on it.
He has been over in Baltimore, as you know, with Johns Hopkins.
I don't know when he has been on the payroll of the State Depart-
ment. I uiiderstand that he has very free access to a desk there and
access to all the files, and comes in whenever he cares to.
Jessup has had a very close relationship with Lattimore. I per-
sonally think that Jessup does not have the slightest conception of
what Lattimore is doing. I think that Jessup thinks that Lattimore
is a liberal individual who feels perhaps that Communist Russia is
more accurate than most of us feel Russia is. Beyond that I don't
have anything that indicates that Jessup has the picture of Latti-
more's activities, but I do think the files will show you that Lattimore
has been using Jessup to do the things which he, Lattimore, himself
couldn't do.
Lattimore is now, as I understand, over in the Khyber Pass. As I
say, on this your information will be a lot more accurate than mine.
I do not think he is on the payroll of the Department of State or any
Government agency. I understand that he was invited over by the
Afghanistan Government. Khyber Pass, as you know, is the one
route from Russia over to the new area. What he is doing there I
don't know. I do not think the files will show anything as of now
definitely of what he is doing, because any information they will get
on that will be after a considerable lapse of time.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 279
That is about the entire picture, that his files — the FBI files — I think
^yi]l just <i'ive you the one case.
Senator ]\Icj\Iaiion. Have you seen the FBI files.
Senator McCarthy. I think I know what is in them.
Senator McMahon. That is not the question. Have you seen them ?
Senator McCarthy. I will tell you. Senator McMahon, do not worry
about whether I have seen them or not.
Senator McMahon. I am worried. You will either answer or you
will not. You have or you have not.
Senator Tydings. Nobody is going to ask for your sources.
Senator McCarthy^. Senator McMahon, let me tell you this.
Senator McMahon. Do not tell me anything. I am not interested
in a single thing. That technique you have is not going to work on me.
If you cannot answer the question, that you have or you have not, then
I am not interested in anything else you are going to say. That is
the question : Have you seen the FBI file or have you not?
Senator IMcCarthy. I heard your question.
Senator Tydings. Let me say this
Senator McMahon. You refuse to answer?
Senator McCarthy. No ; I don't refuse to answer.
Senator Tydings. We do not want to know your sources. But what
I think we are entitled to know is, is this a speculation or liaA^e you
had some contact with the files in one way or another that makes you
think you have some accurate information ?
Senator McCarthy. I am about as certain as I could be of anything
as to what those files will show. As to whether I have seen them, who
might have helped me get information, or things like that
Senator Tydings. I do not want to know that.
Senator McCarthy. I know you do not.
Senator McMahon. Let me point out that that is a very material
question. I want to make my question clear. We have not had any
decision from the executive department as to whether we are going to
see the FBI files. If the Senator from Wisconsin /is permitted the
FBI files, then I do not know why this committee should not be per-
mitted to see the FBI files.
Senator Ty'dings. I would rather think, from what he has already
said, that he has talked with somebody who has seen the files in whom
he has confidence. I think it would help our investigation, and I have
no ultei'ior pur])ose to serve except frankness and honest.y as far as it is
possible, and I assure you it comes from the heart: I think you
might say, "I haven't personally seen the files, but I know a man who
has seen the files whose name I won't disclose, in which I have confi-
dence, v.iio tells me this and that and the other thing is in the files."
In other words, it will help us in our investigation if you will testify
along that line.
Senator McCarthy. I thiidc that is a very reasonable request, and
I might say that I have not seen the original FBI files.
Senator McMahon. The original FBI files. Have you seen a copy
of them ?
Senator McCarthy. I think. Senator, wliether I have seen a copy or
not, not having seen the original I would have no way of knoAving
whether I saw a copy unless I compared it with the original.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 19
280 STATE DEPARTME?\T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IX\"ElSTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Have you seen what purports to be a copy, or have
you got your evidence from somebody who has seen the files? That
is alL
Senator McCarthy. Let me say this. To the best of my knowledge^
and I think it is good, I think it has been proven so far in dates and
places that I have been giving the committee, the FBI file will show
in detail not the case merely of a man who happens to favor Russia,
not the case of a man who may disagree with what we think about
Russia, but a man who is definitely an espionage agent.
Senator McMaiion. See how he goes away from the question?
Senator Tydings. He has tried to answer it. Let me say this. He
has said this : He has said he has not seen the files, but he said if we
saw the files he has reason to believe that this, that, and the other
tiling he is going to outline would be in the files. I would like him
to say that. I do not want him to give away anything: I do not Avant
him to name anybody ; I do not want to know his sources and do not
want him to do any of that.
Senator McMahon. Neither do I.
Senator Tydings. But I would like to knoAv if you have seen what
purports to be a copy of the file or whether someone in whom you have
confidence has seen the file and the following things are likely to
turn up there. That is all.
Senator McCarthy. I know this
Senator Tydings. I cannot see where there is anv harm in answering
that question.
Senator McCarthy. It is the source of my information. If divulg-
ing that would actually aid in getting at the facts in the Lattimore
case you would have it.
Senator Tydings. I will not ask you for the source.
Senator McCarthy. I will stretch a point a long way if the com-
mittee thinks information will be of benefit. Even though I do not
think so, I will go as far as I can in getting the information. But
where we have something that clearly, in my opinion, will be of no
benefit to the committee in arriving at the facts, then I just think it
is a waste of time to go into those things.
Senator Tydings. Listen ; I do not want to get your sources, and I
will never ask you intentionally to disclose any of the sources that
fortify you in what you want to say.
Senator McCarthy. I appreciate that.
Senator Tydings. I do not want to know it by indirection ; I do not
want to put anybody on the trail to find out. I am not interested
in that.
Senator McMahon. Let me add that I feel the same Avay.
Senator Tydinc.s. But I am interested in knoAving whether or not
you have seen a copy of the files or whether or not somebody told you
what was in the files, simply as a means of Aveighing tlie credence of
Avhat you say. That is not goinir to stop us from looking at any files
we can get hold of. Do you understand me ?
But suppose I get hold of the files after this hearing and find
nothing in them, just to illustrate. I would want to ask why certain
papers are not in those files. Do you see my point ?
Senator McCarthy. I do ; yes.
Let me say this, and I am certainly not trying to avoid your ques-
tion. I do not knoAv if you have had any experience with the FBI
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 281
files or not. Tliev are serialized and numbered. You could take
things out of those files. It would be extremely difl'cult.
In the Kansas City case, wliich was not made public, I do not
believe, some of the FBI files were obtained, and it did appear that a
sizable number of documents had been removed. But the staff ap-
parently— Flanagan and Rogers, I believe, were on the staff — had no
difficulty at all detecting the number of documents that were removed.
1 think fortunateh' we did nothing about that publicly.
I was giving a picture of the files. As I recall, the evidence was
that Hoover did not know anything about any removals, and such
like. I merely mention that to show you if you get those files I do not
think you will have any trouble at all knowing what is in them,
I have not talked to Hoover about this. If I did, I do not suppose
lie would give nie the information.
Senator Tydixgs. I haven't either.
Senator McCarthy. I think if, as chairman of this committee, you
take this testimony over to him and say "Is this substantially true?"
with the respect I have for Hoover I am sure he won't lie to you.
I want to make it very clear that Mr. Hoover has not given me any
information himself of any kind from the files.
Senator Tyt)Ings. I know that.
All that I am asking you is this. I do not want to know the
source. I would appreciate it if you would tell me whether or not
you have seen — and it is not difficult to see a great many documents
that are secret — what purports to be a co])y of the files. You have
said, I know, you have not seen the files: or wether someone in whom
you have confidence has said, "I believe you will find this stuff in the
files." That is all I want to know, just "yes" or "no," and you can go
on with your story. There can't be any harm done by that question.
It does not say who told you. I don't want to know that. I just
would like to know the method.
Senator McCarthy. I hope 3''ou don't push that question. You
ask that question ; the next question, of course, if I were questioning
and if I did want to find out what the sources were, would be "Have
you seen a photostat?" Then, "How large a document was it?"
Senator Tydixgs. I will not ask you any of those questions.
Senator McCarthy. Anything that I would give you I think would
tend to disclose the source of my information. I do not think the
committee sliould ask for that.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Senator
McCarthy this question : Are the sources of your information which
you have alleged here with regard to Mr. Lattimore and what is con-
tained in his file, in 3-our opinicm and judgment, of sufficient reliability
so that you rely ui)on them utterly and sincerely in basing your
allegations:*
Senator McCarthy. That's right, and I am absolutely convinced
beyond any doubt that if the committee sees that file they will agree
with me wholeheartedly that I have perhaps understated the case
rather than overstated it.
Senator Tydings, I am as sincei'e as any man can be in this case.
This man is the top of the Avhole ring of which Hiss was a part. I
think you will find this: I think you will find that Stephen Brun-
auer — and as I say I do not have the definiteness about this that I have
about the others — is tied up with that ring, and the No. 1 case that I
282 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION
gave 3-011, Herbert Fierst, That was the No. 1 case of the 81. He, in-
cidentally, was post-audited by the Civil Service Commission the same
as Service, and they sent it back to the State Department, I under-
stand— the State Department Loyalty Board. Just what they re-
quested I don't know, but they expressed dissatisfaction, and I under-
stand the State Department Loyalty Board shortly after marked
the case "Closed.'-
As I say, I do not feel my source of information on this is as re-
liable as the stuff on Lattimore. I believe, however, that you will
undoubtedly find that Fierst and Brunauer are tied up with Latti-
more in this case.
Senator McMahon. Can I ask a question : You apparently thought
what I was trying to do w^as to get your source, in which I am not
interested at all. I wish to point out to you that if the files are open
to you as a Senator, as apparently they must be, because you tell us
what is in the FBI files, it is very material for us to know that in
making our I'equest for a look at the same files, because if they are going
to be opened to Senator McCarthy they certainly ought to be open
to a Senate connnittee. So much for that.
Now let me ask you this question about Lattimore:
Senatoi' Tydings. Before you leave that, I want to serve notice here
on every man in this committee, and in your presence, that I am going
to do everything that I can do to get every file that is requested.
The reason I am proceeding as I am is that the precedents show clearly
that if I issue a subpena they can turn it down and there is nothing I
can do about it. What I want to do is get the files. Anything that you
can say or do that puts me in a position to get those files is going to
help 3'ou to prove 3^our case, assuming that these facts as you allege
them are true.
Now, if you do not give me something to go on, if I want to go to
Hoover and show hiui this testimony, if I say "I want you to read
this," I want to ask you if you can devise a way wliei-e I can verify
this or not. Unfortunately Mr. Hoover, for this hearing, has taken
the position, so I am well advised although I have not talked with him,
that the minute he ever discloses one of the FBI files in the future if
he goes to somebody for an interview about John Smith, the person,
knowing that the files were subsequently opened, is going to refuse
to be as frank with him as he would otherwise be, and he is scared
of it.
I understand by the grapevine — I have nothing fi-om the White
Llouse and nothing from any source except general gossip — that
Hoover is protesting against tiie opening of any of these files, because
FBI reports are in the loyalty files.
Senator McMahon. But Mr. Hoover certainly will have to recog-
nize
Senator Tydings. Hoover is no softv, and he isn't "oino- to do this
unless we can show him a particular circumstance that will justify
him in making an exception. Mark my words !
Senator McMaiion. But mark my words on this: If Mr. Hoover's
files are going to be divulged to Senator McCarthy, and by him the
contents of them to the press, then certainly the reason why we
should not get them falls to the ground, because the Senator has
made this charge against Lattimore. True, he did not attach his
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 283
name to it last nig:ht, but he has made this charge. He has made it
on the basis of the FBI files.
NoAv, so louo- as a charge has been made on the basis of the files,
I don't see how they are going to keej) that FBI file away from ns.
Therefore it is very material to find out whether the Senator from
"Wisconsin actually did have access to those files.
Now, whethei- he physically had the file in his office or in his hands
does not make a bit of dilTerence. But did somebody read the file,
somebody in a position of trust in the FBI, and give it' to the Senator,
or did he show him copies of the files?
That is why I thought it was very material to us to know the
answer to that question.
Senator Tydings. I agree with you.
Senator McMahon. I would like to ask the Senator one further
question right along that ]K)int.
Senator, in all of this information regarding Lattimore, which you
say is so patent, which demonstrates him to be a bad egg, is there
anything in your information to indicate that the Federal Bureau
of luA^estigation turned over his case to any district attorney or to
the Attorney General or to the Assistant Attorney General for prose-
cution ^
Senator McCarthy. I frankly do not know what the top men of
the Department think on the subject of whether or not the case
is ready for criminal action. I know this. I know that there are
some who are aware of at least some of the facts — at least this is
my best information — who feel that the case is ready for prosecution.
I think you will find some in the Department who feel that the
evidence is gotten in such a fashion that while it proves the guilt, it
may not be in such shape that it could be presented in court.
Senator Tydixgs. The answer is "No," that you do not know it has
been turned over to anj^body for prosecution up to now ?
Senator McCarthy. Here is my thought on that, and I do not know
too much about the procedure. I do not believe that they ever turn
a case over. I think it is discussed with the Justice Department and
somebody in Justice who is interested is kept apprised of the facts
as they develop, and I believe that the attorneys over in Justice, in
the Justice Department, are the ones who decide when they will take
the case and start prosecution.
Senator McMahon. That is not entirely true. It is sort of a mixed
question. I mean by that that it is a mixed decision. It is true that
in some cases the daily reports or weekly reports go forward to the
Criminal Division. In other cases, according to my memory — of
course this is 10 years ago or more- — they go through as they finish a
case.
The Justice Department, at least while I was there, did not under-
take a prosecution unless the investigative department said "We have
completed the investigation and we are through. In other words, we
have done all we can."
If you did not have that system in force you would find that you
would be springing cases with only half of the case being investigated,
springing them publicly, and I think it is very material to me to
know, you see, and very important to know, whether this case has been
turned over to the Criminal Division by the FBI as a. completed
284 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE, LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
matter, or whether it is still in process between the Division and the
FBI.
Senator Tydings. That w^ould be a matter of record, and all you are
asking Senator McCarthy is. Does he know whether or not the matter
has been put in tlie hands of the Department of Justice or any branch
thereof for prosecution, and I take it from his answer that so far as
he is advised, he does not know.
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator McMahon. You do not charge any dereliction in the prose-
cution forces of the Department? Do you charge any dereliction,
from your present knowledge of the case, in the nonprosecution of
the case ?
Senator McCarthy. The answer to that is "No,"' for the reason that
I do not know what the men in charge consider sutRcient evidence to
prosecute. One of the reasons why I wanted to take this in executive
session is that it is entirely possible when you talk to Mr. Hoover or
someone you may find that they feel they have a case that they could
prosecute but they want this man, for all I know, left in the Depart-
ment so they can follow up other leads.
Senator McMahon. You see, that is very important to our inves-
tigation, to know^ whether there is any charge
(Discussion was continued off the record.)
Senator Tydings. Wliat we want to know is this : Why do you think,
in addition to what you have told us, that this man Lattimore is a bad
fellow and the head of a spy ring, and so on ? Wliat makes you think
that yourself ?
Senator McCarthy. I think this :
(Discussion was continued off the record.)
Senator Green. I ha^e been trying to listen and find out, but I have
not yet found out, what the charge is.
Senator McCarthy. I think he is one of the top espionage agents.
This man, I think, is one of the top espionage agents. If it is neces-
sary— it may be, under your resolution — for you to charge him with
being that, I will be glad to do it. In my opinion he is, and I don't
know wdiat kind of charge I should make, but I will be glad to make
any charge that is necessary.
I am very serious about this. One of the reasons I hope you get this
file is that I think it will dispel in the minds of some of the members
of the committee this feeling: Some of them, I believe, have had the
honest feeling that this was being done for political purposes. I
think if I did not bring this forth I would be completely derelict in my
duty, and I think after you see this case then we will be able to sit
down and just man-to-man across the table discuss the other cases
a lot more freely. In other words, if you get this, this will prove that
I am completely wrong or it will prove I am 100 percent riglit. If it
proves I am lOO percent right, I know in your mind no longer will
there be any suspicion, as I think you have had that and most likely
honestly so, that this was being done for political purposes. If you
find I am right about Lattimore, then I think that a lot of the suspicion
we have had flowing back and forth in this committee will be com-
pletely dispelled and I think we can go ahead and do a good job.
Senator Tydings. You think Lattimore is one of the biggest?
Senator McCarthy. By far and away.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 285
Senator Green. What do you claim he has done to show that?
Why do you tliink so ?
Senator McCarthy. I think he is the top Russian spy.
Senator Greex. Why do you think so 'i I thought you were going
to give us some evidence.
Senator Tydixgs. Let me just say this
Senator Green. If you do not want me to pursue my question, I
will leave.
Senator McCarthy. Because I think the files will show he has
been contacting and giving material to Russian espionage agents as
part of an espionage ring.
Senator Green. I want to know if that is anything more than a
suspicion on your part.
Senator McCarthy. There is a firm conviction from all of the in-
formation that I can get that that will be in the files. If, when you get
that file, it is not there, you will know that there is not too much to
my claim.
Senator Green. You suspect that there is information in the file,
but you do not know what, which shall sustain your belief ?
Senator McCarthy. No; that is not right, Senator.
Senator Green. Correct me. I am trying to find out what you
really mean.
Senator McCarthy. I do not suspect. I am firmly convinced that
I know that the Lattimore file, the FBI file, will convince you the
same way I am now convinced, that you are dealing with the top
espionage agent.
Senator Green. Have you any facts that convince you of that ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes ; I think you will find in that file
Senator Green. They are in your mind, too ; aren't they, now ?
Senator McCarthy. I am giving you the benefit of all my investi-
gation.
Senator Green. Yes, but you are just giving me the conclusions.
Your conclusions must be based on certain facts that have been brought
to your attention, and I was wondering whether you were going to
give us those facts.
Senator McCarthy. I am trying to give them to you. Can we have
an agreement that I can complete my answer before I am interrupted?
(Tlie reporter reread the pending question.)
Senator McCarthy. The fact is that to the best of my knowledge
the file will show the complete workings of an espionage ring. That
is the best I can give you, Senator. I have not been able to run down
till the vast amount of work that the Government investigative agen-
cies have been doing. I am telling you tluit this is the one case in
which I think we can easily have a determination by this committee
.'is to whetlier or not my charges are well-founded or not. I think for
the balance of tlie investigation you should know that. If I am com-
])letely mistaken on this case, then you can assume that many of the
other cases
Senator Tydings. This is the key ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir; and when you see that file. Senator
Oreen, I am sure that you will agree with me wholeheartedly.
Senator Green. Let me ask the question again in another way.
Have you any evidence that ]iroduces conviction in 3'our mind that he
delivered confidential papers to an enemy ?
286 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY rNVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. I frankly cannot even come remotely complete
in giving you the case yon would have in the file. I think you have
simply got to get that file. I don't think I can give you enough ma-
terial to make out a criminal case with the investigation I have. All
I can tell you, Senator, is ^Yhat, to the best of my knowledge, is in
those files.
Senator Green. If that is all, it seems to me that my designation
of it as suspicion is in your mind a conviction. It seems to me you
must have some facts upon which to base it.
Senator McCarthy. You might call it a suspicion ; I call it a con-
viction. We have a different name for it, apparently.
Senator Tydings. What I get out of it is this: That you have a con-
viction, based on certain things that you have seen or heard, which
lead you to the conclusion that if these files are examined, evidence
will be found to show that this man is the keyman in a Russian es-
pionage ring.
Senator McMahon. He is a traitor.
Senator McCarthy. That is putting it pretty well. I think he is.
Senator Tydings. Furthermore, I get this out of the combined col-
loquy that has gone on, that without disclosing how you have that
conviction, information has come to you which leads you to that
conclusion.
The next thing I get out of it is that the information has come to you
in a way you do not care to disclose — information which supports the
position that you have taken.
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Tydings. The next thing I get out of it is that you yourself
said you have not seen the files, which I would assume to be true with-
out asking you, but that in other ways you have received information
as to what is likely to be found in the files.
Senator McCarthy. I have not seen the files. .
Senator Tydings. But in other ways you have formed your opinion
f 1 om information that you think will be in the files.
Senator McCarthy. From all the information I can possibly get.
Senator Tydings. Have you any questions, Senator Hickenlooper?
Senator Hickenlooper. No.
Senator Tydings. Senator McMahon ?
Senator McMahon. I think it is exceedingly important that we
develop, in view of what Senator McCarthy says, whether or not, in
addition to there being a traitor in the Government, there has been
laxity in rooting out this traitor, and therefore I wish to develop in
the questions I now ask, if I can develop, whether or not the Senator,
from his information, thinks that in addition to the traitor being there
there has been dereliction of duty in bringing him to light. What is
your conclusion on that. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Senator McMahon, I am not evading your
question. First, we start at the top. When you ask that question I
say to myself, "Is Acheson derelict in his duty ?" I do not know what
part of these facts has been brought to his mind. I just frankly think
that you will have to wait until you get the files and find out how
much of that has been transmitted to State and how much has been
transmitted to Justice.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 287
Let me say this : In order to answer that question you would have
to first know whether he is heinjj; used as a decoy at this time. I do not
think he is, but that is possible.
No. 2, whether or not this is true : For all I know, the Attorney
Genera] may have said to State, "Keej) him on. Let him use that desk,
because if you deny him the desk he will know that we are after him.''
I would say this: If lie i^ not being used as a decoy — no; it is im-
possible to answer. Senator.
Senator McMahon. In other words, you have not enough knowledge
to nuike the further charge that there is dereliction of duty existing
on some official's part?
Senator McCarthy. I do not think I would be in a position to make
any charge.
Senator McMahon. That is all I want to find out. Let us find out
where we are. That is a perfectly reasonable position for you to take.
I have no quarrel with it at all.
Of course, as 3^ou say, there may be that explanation of it, assum-
ing your substantive facts are correct. On the other hand, it may
be that if your substantive facts are correct the failure to have done
something about it is of direct concern to this committee.
Senator McCarthy. I think we will get along a lot better, and
you gentlemen will have a lot more confidence in what I tell you,
after we get that file.
Senator Green. You mean that you can supplement the file and give
US more information after the file is produced?
Senator McCarthy. No. I think this : I think maybe in your mind
you have a suspicion of these facts I am giving you. I think this will
prove definitely how much weight you can place upon my testimony
from now on.
Senator Green. You have additional testimony to give?
Senator McCarthy. I might say this : I have a number of former
FBI men working for me. We are trying to develop facts. Any-
thing that is develo]ied will be made available to the committee.
Senator Green. Have you now any information in addition to what
you say we can get from the files ?
Senator McCarthy. Do you mean on Lattimore ?
Senator Green. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. I have been getting information about him for
sometime. Senator. I brought the conclusions together and put them
in this document. At that time you recall I asked to be further heard
in executive session, because at that time I did not want to disclose
the additional information which I gave here.
Senator Green. Are vou willing to now ?
Senator ]\[cCarthy. I think you have everything that w^ill be of
value to the committee. 1 do not think there is anything additional
that I can give you.
Senator Green. You have not given us any information about his
misdoings.
Senator McCarthy. Take that along W'ith you and read it. I gave
you all that.
Senator Green. When ?
Senator McCarthy. The other day in the hearing.
Senator Green. I don't understand.
288 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE! LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. He read the statement the other day in the
hearing.
Senator Green. Oh, that. You have no additional facts?
Senator McCarthy. There is nothing additional that I think would
be of great value now. As any facts come to me in regard to this
case or any of the cases that will be of benefit, I will certainly be glad
to give them to the committee. After all, we are doing the same job
here, Senator.
Senator Green. Certainly. From the way you expressed yourself,
I thought you had additional information that you would give us
after we had seen the tiles.
Senator Hickenlooper. Contrary to opinion, I am not concerned
with the method or details at the moment of acquiring these files.
I am concerned with the fact of acquiring the nine files that have
already been mentioned publicly.
Senator Tydings. I am trying to get them.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am not concerned at this moment whether
we got them by subpena or otherwise. The importatnt thing to me is
to get our people to have access to the files, and I think that this com-
mittee is in a position to have sometime since made a formal request.
So far as I know, this committee has made no request.
Senator Tydings. I took for granted you would want the chairman
to do it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am not criticizing what the chairman
has done. That is not the point. I am saying so, so far as I know,
there has been no formal action of this committee even requesting
these files.
Senator Tydings. I have clone this. I have said the committee
wants these files. Senator McCartliy wants these files. I have reason
to believe that the President wants to give us the files. I likewise
have reason to believe that the State De]3artment wants to give us the
files. I likewise have reason to believe that Mr. Hoover and Attorney
General Howard McGrath probably are concerned about this question
of opening the files for fear of its effect on future investigations, but I
have said : "I don't care what McGrath w^ants or what HooA^er wants,
I want those files.''
Well, the State Department says : "We want to give them to you.
We are trying to work out a procedure whereby we can give them
to you. We have to communicate witli the Executive."
They had hoped to give them to me on Monday. I did not get
them on Monday, and I am after them every day on the telephone,
doing all I can. If I subpena them I am going to make them all
mad and Avon't get the files.
Assuming Senator McCarthy has a good case here, and he may
have it for all I know, it is not going to be proven unless we can get
hold of the files, because the evidence we liave to relv on, as he himself
admits, is the files.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have never demanded up to this point
that the first move in the acquisition of files or tlie attempt to get them
be by subpena.
Senator Tydings. What do j'ou want me to do ?
Senator Hickenlooper. For the sake of the record and for the
sake of ]Drocedure, I now move that this committee proceed first to
request the delivery of all of the loyalty, personnel, and employment
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 289
files from the Department of State on the nine persons publicly
named bv Senator INIcCarthy; that we also request eni])l(\vment, se-
curity, personnel, and loyalty files, whatever they are, all the files,
on the same individuals from the Civil Service Commission; and that
they request from the Federal P)ureau of Investigation or the Depart-
ment of Justice, whoever has the authority, or both, the complete
investigative files on these same nine individuals.
In making that motion I want to say tluit I do not say that the
request should be exclusive. If we get turned down on that request,
and I am not trying to push the chairman
Senator Ttdixcs. We will deal with it then, if we get turned down.
Senator Hickenlooper. I make this motion so there will be some
fornuil action and sense of this committee, rather than just the chair-
man of tlie connnittee going out on his own on this business.
Senator Tydixgs. I think it is a good suggestion.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then I would like to suggest, as a part
of that motion, that request be made innnediately of those depart-
ments, and I want to make it clear that if we are turned down on any
of those then I shall pursue it immediately with a motion to subpena,
in the language of the resolution. I feel we have a duty to attempt
to carry out the mandate of the resolution. Maybe your brief is right.
I do not say that it is or it is not.
Senator Tydixos. You want the State Department file, the Rich-
ardson file — I will call it that for short — and the F. B. I. file?
Senator Hickenlooper. That is right.
Senator Tydixgs. I shall draft, if I have time this afternoon, a
f oi'mal letter, if the committee does not vote me down.
Senator Green. I think we ought to make a list. I think we ought
to go through all the names that have been submitted and pick out
those on whom we think there is reason to ask for the files. I would
not limit it to the nine. I would go through all the list we have of
names that have been submitted to us.
Senator Tydixcs. Would you amend that in line with his sug-
gestion to instruct the chairman to ask for the files, or any part of
the files
Senator Hickenlooper. No ; all of the files.
Senator Tydings. Would you allow me. instead of asking for the
nine files, to ask for all of them ?
Senator Hickenlooper. The sense of my motion is this, and the
way I feel about it : I think that we are obligated to attempt to get
the nine files that are publicly named.
Senator Tydings. Can I ask for all of them at one time and take
the nine out and look at those first ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I feel that Ave may have much more chance
of getting them peacefully, the nine, rather than 80-some at this
moment.
Senator Tydings. Then you do not want me to ask for any files
except the nine ?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes; but I vrould like to have the nine
separately.
Senator Tydings. I have already asked for them all, but I will now
formally write a letter and particularly ask for the nine you have
in mind.
290 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. At this time.
Senator Tydinos. Will you give me the list of those nine this
afternoon in my office, at your earliest convenience. Senator McCarthy,
so I will be sure to get the nine names you have in mind?
Senator Green. I do not think he is the only one to be sure as to
these nine names and I do not see why there is objection to increasing
that number to all those who have been named.
Senator Hickenlooper. If I may conclude, I will say I am putting
the nine in one categoiy for the reason that they have been publicly
mentioned by name and they are apt to come and demand a hearing,
and I think it is utterly futile to attem])t to question a person without
those files. Maybe after seeing the files there may not be a single
question to ask of those individuals.
Senator Tydings. You want the files, do you not ?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
Senator Tydings. Here is the reason I asked for all of them : If we
get permission to see these files, we will get it a whole lot easier if
we can get them in all at one time than if I ask for four or five every
day. That is just common sense, because there will be a precedent
started the minute they give us the files, and they w^ill want to know
how many files you want and everything else, which seems simple
here, but when I am on the other end of the thing with one man down
there it is tough.
Senator, I told you in the beginning that I was going to exert every
influence I had to get these files, and I tell you I am standing between
not getting them now and getting them, more than anybody. If I go
down and ask them for nine, it does not seem to me that they will want
to give us nine and say "Come another day for nine" and "Come an-
other day for another Jiine." If I ask for them all, to have them locked
up in a room, we will then, when the}'^ are on the table, say "Let's
pick out those nine and go through those first."
It may seem simple to say, "What difference does it make, to give
you nine at one time?" It does make a difference. I am dealing with
some people in the administration who are opposed as a matter of
principle to turning over one of these files, and I have done the best
job of salesmanship to get them of which I am capable.
Senator Hickenlooper. You understand that in no way am I resist-
ing or opposing the acquisition of all tlie files.
Senator Tydings. If I get them all it is satisfactory to you?
Senator Hickenlooper. On all the lists that Senator McCarthy has
listed. I have a feeling — this is just in executive meeting — that there
may be a nimiber of names on some of the longer lists that we may con-
sider inconsequential or of no value to get and pursue. That may be
true ; I don't know. My thought is, we will get the nine, look at those,
and then get the others.
Senator Tydings. You do not want it to go out to the press that we
have only asked for nine files. I will have to say that I wanted them
all, the Republicans wanted only nine, if they put me up against the
wall. These fellows have ways of finding out things. Wliy not get
them all, and we will agree right here and now that we will look at
the nine first.
Senator McCarthy. I think that is right.
Senator Tydings. If I go down for nine files they will say "What
is going on?" These fellows will have it in the afternoon paper and
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVE1STIGATI0N 291
I Avill be put in the position of sitting out as the iron curtain in front
of this investig-ation.
Senator McCarthy. One of the files you want to get is the personnel
file of ('luules AV. Thayer. He is one of the names. He was until
several weeks ago in charge of the desk of the Voice of America in
New York and he was, T understand, assigned to those two Russian
fliers tliat were brought to this country. I think you will find letters
from the FBI objecting to that because of his unnatural conduct.
Senator McMahox. Do you mean to suggest he is a pervert ?
Senator Hickenlooper. Entirely independently of anything Sen-
ator ^McCarthy says, or that stems from liim at all, I have some inde-
pendent information on Tliayer which I believe to be accurate. It
comes from a pretty high source, that he is a bad apple.
Senator Ttdixgs. Why not make your motion to tell me to get the
nine files?
Senator Hickexlooper. I move that the chairman be authorized
and directed by the subcommittee to immediately request all of the
security, loyalty, and personnel files of the State Department and of
the Civil Service Commission and the FBI investigative files on. No. 1,
the nine persons publicly mentioned by Senator McCarthy; No. 2,
the list of 25 that he gave; No. 3, the list of 81, or whatever it is, that
he has furnished to tlie subcommittee by delivery to the chairman.
Senator Greex. Now I would like to ask a question. I have been
trying to for some time. Does that include Dr. Jessup and Miss
Kenyon i
Senator Ttdixgs. Oh, yes.
Senator Greex. Does it include all those names that have been
submitted
Senator Tydixgs. Everybody.
Senator Grrex. I haven-f finished the sentence. Does it include
all those names that have been submitted on whom no information
Avhatever has been given ?
Senator Hickexlooper. It includes those as a direct result of the
request of the chairman.
Senator (jreex. If it does, I am opposed to that motion, and shall
vote against -it. I am not going to vote for asking for files on persims
against whom there is no evidence whatever before this committee.
Senator Hickexlooper. I am caught between the chairman and my
motion.
Senator Tydixgs. This boy started something and he wants to
finish it. He said Lattimore is his big keyman. He has given us some
details of the 81 cases on the floor of the Senate. For the time being
let's confine this request to something we have the greatest oppor-
tunity on.
Senator Hickexlooper. No; because there is one man whose name
is in that list of 25 that I think is probabl}- as dangerous a man as the
man he has mentioned. That is my own personal suspicion. That is
onh- a suspicion, but his name is on the list of 25. I just happened to
see it from the chairman's pocket.
Senator Tydixgs. If you give me his name, I will try to get his
in addition to the 81 plus the 9.
Senator Hickexlooper. No. I have bounced around on his
motion
292 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION"
Senator McCarthy, In the 25 there is actually a duplication of two.
Two of the 25 I understand are in the 81.
Senator McMahon. I amend the Senator's motion by suggesting
that the 25 against whom no specific charges have been made be omit-
ted from the request.
Senator Green. I think they all should be omitted from the re-
quest— those against wdiom no substantial evidence has been submitted.
Senator Tydings. We have an amendment. The chairman is hereby
directed to request innnediately from the FBI. from the State De-
partment, and from the Civil Service Commission, the files of all
persons against wdiom any charge has been made. That would in-
clude the nine he has given us in open session and it would include the
81 cases about which some evidence was given on the floor of the
Senate.
Senator Green. In some cases no evidence was given.
Senator Tydings. One Senator McCarthy himself said was not
much of a case. I w ould I'ather ask for the whole 81.
Senator Hickenloopei!. I thought you wanted the 25 too, a while
ago.
Senator Tydings. Are you ready for the question^ We are voting
on the Brien McMahon amendment. All those in favor will say "Aye" ;
opposed, "No."
Senator HickenlO(jper. "No" with a qualification that I want the
25 included.
Senator Tydings, Do you vote either way ?
Senator Green. That is on omitting
Senator Tydings. Omitting the 25.
Senator Green. Yes; but I think there also should be omitted those
in the 81 against whom no charges have been made.
Senator Tydings. Let's go along. Then the motion is on the Hick-
enlooper proposition as amended. All those in favor say "Aye." Op-
posed, "No." The motion is carried.
Senator McMahon. Now, if the request is not complied with, we
will subpena. Let that come later.
Senator Hickenlooper. The committee has taken no action on that.
Senator Tydings. What we have done here is, you have asked me
to request the files. I have already said I have requested them, but
we want the formal thing so there won't be any question.
Senator Hickenlooper. I want the record to show that there is
in that list of 25 one man wdio is utterly dangerous.
(Whereupon, at 3 : 50 p. m., the hearing was adjourned.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
MONDAY, MARCH 27, 1950
United States Senate,
CoMMIT'lTiE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington^ D. G.
The siibcoinmittee met, pursuant to adjournment on March 20, 1950,
in room ol8, Senate Office Building, at 10 : 30 a. m., Senator MiHarcl
E. Tydings, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee), Green,
McMahon, and Hickenlooper.
Also present : Senator Connally, chairman of the full committee.
Senator Tydings. The chairman received this morning a letter from
Dr. Philip C. Jessup, who desires to make a correction in his testimony.
The letter is on the stationery of Ambassador at Large, Depart-
ment of State, Washington. It is dated March 24, 1950 :
Deab. Senator Tydings : In connection with my testimony on March 20, 1950,
before your committee, I was aslced by Senator Hiclienlooper as to the precise
date of a roimd-table discussion which was attended by Mr. Owen Lattimore and
in which I saw Mr. Lattimore. I stated in my testimony that I believed that this
meeting was in December. Upon consulting the tiles of the Department, I find
that the meeting was on Octoiier 6, 7, and 8, l'J4'J.
I am enclosing a list of all the persons who attended this meeting.
Sincerely yours,
Philip C. Jessup.
Attached is a list of the persons attending the meeting.
(The letter and list are included as exhibit 54)
This morning we have before us Mrs. Brunauer, who has written
to the chairiuan and to the committee asking for an opportunity to an-
swei- the charges made against her by Senator McCarthy.
Mrs. Brunauer, would you please staud and raise your right hand?
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in the
matter now before this connnittee shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so lielp you God ?
Mrs. Brunauer. I do.
Senator Tydings. Take a seat, Mrs. Brunauer; you may proceed in
your own way to read your statement. Does the statement give your
full name ?
STATEMENT OF MRS. ESTHER CAUKIN BRUNAUER, ASSISTANT
DIRECTOR FOR POLICY LIAISON, UNESCO RELATIONS STAFF,
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mrs. Brunauer. It does, tliank you.
Senator Tydings. Does it tell where you live?
Mrs. Brunauer. It does.
293
294 STATE DEPARTMEJ^T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\"EISTIGATION •
Senator Tydings. All right ; go ahead in your own way.
Mrs. Brunauer. JNfy name is Esther Caukin Briinauer. I live, with
my husband and our two cliildren, at 3417 Quebec Street NW., Wash-
ington, D. C. I am an officer of the Department of State ; my present
position is Assistant Director for l*olicy Liaison, of tlie UNESCO
Eelations Staff. I came to the Department in 1944, after 17 years of
continuous service on the staff of the American Association of Uni-
versity Women as associate in international education. I am a native
of California. My ancestors for several generations back — Caukins,
Blackwells, Reillys, Welches, Tates, Bushes, Upsons, and Smiths —
were part and parcel of the growth of America. None of them became
rich or famous, but thev were steadfast and loval citizens, with high
standards of personal conduct and with the habit of speaking their
minds freely and openly. I come before you today to avail myself of
the opportunity you have given me, in accordance with my request, to
speak my mind freely and openly in reply to charges made against me
by a Senator of the United States — charges made in violation of the
traditions of fairness which are among our oldest heritages.
My first notice that charges might be made against me came on Feb-
ruary 11 when I was called by a reporter who said that Senator Mc-
Carthy, in an off'-the-record press conference, had mentioned my name
as one of four cases that he intended later to make public in comiec-
tion with the claim which he was making on a speaking tour that there
were Communists in the State Department. As a result of this warn-
ing I read very carefully the list of numbered cases which Senator
McCarth}^ read on the Senate floor on February 20. On the second
reading I observed that No. 47 contained a reference to a husband in
the Navy Department and a date of employment which coincided with,
my own. I, therefore, assumed that I Avas No. 47, although the "facts"
contained in No. 47 consisted so largely of innuendoes and veiled ref-
erences that it would be impossible to say whether they were intended
to apply to me or to anyone else. Then on March 1)] I was informed
by newspaper men that I had been mentioned by Senator McCarthy
before this subcommitte as one of the cases which he claimed proved
his contention that there were persons in the State Department who
were disloyal to the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I am a loyal Ameiican. I am not a Communist and
never have been a Communist. I have never engaged in Communist
activities. I am not a Communist sympathizer and never have been a
Communist sympathizer. I do not have, and I never have had, any
sympathy for any doctrine which conflicts with the basic principles
of our American democracy. I suj^port the President's loyalty pro-
gram and have been cleared under that program. I have enough con-
fidence in the strength of our American institutions to believe that
Communists and their sympathizers can be kei)t out of our Govern-
ment without violating the traditional Amei-ican principles of decency
and fair play. Before I was given a hearing, my name was first
divulged as one who was about to be attacked and then I was publicly
branded as disloyal without having had an op]:)ortunity to speak in
my own defense. lii fact, Senator McCarthy said on March 13 that
I presented such a danger to the country that my case should l)e the
"very first case,"' to use his own words, to be investigated by this com-
mittee.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 295
1 am aware, Mr. Chairman, that after this statement about me had
reverberated in the headlines for a few days I lost my priority, and
there is now anotlier case which Senator McCarthy claims is the No. 1
case, upon which he says he is willing to stand or fall.
I do not exaggerate in saying that in this hearing my reputation is
at stake. I am aware that nowhere in his public statements did
Senator McCarthy actually a})ply the word "'disloyal'' to me, but his
insinuations were plain, and the newspapers, thougli they have been
fair, v.ere quick to see what he had in mind. I appreciate the oppor-
tunity which this connnittee is giving me to answer these charges, but
no matter how satisfactory my answers may be to this connnittee the
news of the disproof ma}- never catch up with the accusation. The
effects of these insinuations have not been limited to the press. In my
household there are two small children and an elderly grandmother,
besides myself and my husband. "We are all upset and bewildered.
Since Mai'ch 13 we have been receiving anonymous telephone calls,
accompanied by threats and profanity, with such advice as "Get out
of this neighborhood, you Conniiunists, or you will be carried out in
a box.'- All of you who have families will realize the effect this has
on the atmosphere of a home. You know how 3'ou would feel if it
were happening in your home. Senator McCarthy may have his own
reasons for what he has done and the way he has done it, but I will
never be able to understand them.
Senator McCarthy began his attack on me by saying that I was "the
first assistant to Alger Hiss in the San Francisco Conference." This
is an advanced form of guilt by association. Moreover, it is incorrect.
I had no personal or official contact with Mr. Hiss at San Francisco.
At the San Francisco Conference I was a technical adviser in the
delegation of the United States. Mr. Hiss was the Secretaiy General
of the Conference and was not a member of our delegation. Although
I was not an assistant to Mr. Hiss, I was an assistant and adviser to
the late Congressman Bloom, who was one of the United States repre-
sentatives there. In Washington my work up until February 1946
was in the Office of Special Political Affairs. I was about the fourth
in line in one of the divisions of this Office. A few months after I
started this*work, Mr. Hiss began his connection with the Office, first
as Deputy Director and then as Director. My contacts with ]Mr. Hiss
in this work were infrequent and routine.
Senator McCarthy also charges that I was instrumental in commit-
ting the American Association of University Women to various front
enterprises "particularly in the so-called consumer field.'' He refers
particularly to an instance reported in the Xew York Times of April
'27, 1943, in which, as he said, "The American Association of University
Women joined with the Consumers' Union, the League of Women
S]io])pers, and other completely conti'olled Communist fronts." The
Senator went on to say that I took this action knowingly and was not
mistaken about what I was doing. The Senator, however, is badly
mistaken. I believe the chairman already has in his hands a letter
addressed to him from Kathrvn McHale, general director of the Amer-
ican Association of University Women, in which she states, "at no
time did Mrs. Brunauer have any connection with the association's
consumer ])rogram."
Senator Tydixgs, Mrs. Brunauer, I have that Icttvi'. Would you
like to i)ut it in the record now, or at the conclusion of your remarks?
68970— 50— pt. 1 20
296 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION"
]Mrs. Brunauer. I \Tould like it in the record at any time it suits
3'our convenience.
Senator Tydixgs. We will let you finish.
Mrs. Brunauer. It can go in now.
The report in the New Yoi-k Times to which Senator McCarthy re-
ferred obliquely, but did not quote, lists a total of fifteen women's or-
ganizations who strongly urged grade labeling of canned fruits and
vegetables as a means of making price control more effective. The
Senator mentioned by name the only two organizations which were
ever officially cited as Communist controlled. Senator McCarthy did
not read the entii-e list of these organizations, which included such
bodies as the American Home Economics Association and the Young
Women's Christian Association. The entire list is available to the
committee.
Senator ^McCarthy has also charged that I presided at a Washington
meeting of Friends of the Soviet Union in 1936 and that Myra Page
spoke at that meeting. I do not recall that meeting and I have- no
recollection of ever meeting Miss Page, but I have ascertained that I
did preside and Miss Page spoke on "who rules in Soviet Eussia." As
has been indicated in the letter from Miss McHale to the chairman, to
which I referred a few minutes ago, my position with the American
Association of University Women was that of associate in international
education and international relations. In that capacity it was part
of my job to attend and preside upon occasions at meetings of numerous
organizations in this field. In 1936 the attitude of most Americans
toward the Soviet Union was friendly and hopeful. I had no way of
ascertaining then that tlie organization called the American Friends
of the Soviet Union would at some later time be declared subversive.
I was never a member of that organization, and it was not considered
reprehensible or a sign of disloyalty for American citizens to attend
lectures on conditions in Soviet Russia, even if made by Soviet sym-
pathizers.
Senator McCarthy next charges that I signed a call to the annual
meeting of the American Youth Congress held in July 1939. I did
sign this call and I invite your attention to the creed which was
adopted at the meeting. The creed contains a pledge to "seek progress
only within the framework of the American system of government"
and to "oppose all undemocratic tendencies and all forms of dictator-
ship.'' I was 1 of 110 signers. The other signers included persons
who were active in women's organizations, health organizations,
educational institutions, social service organizations and religious
groups. I believe this committee will be particularly interested in
the signers who were active in public life. These included Senator
Capper of Kansas, Senator Logan of Kentucky, Senator Murray of
Montana, and Senator Wagner of New York. They also included
Representative Coffee of Washington, Representative Dunn of Penn-
sylvania, Representative Ford of California, Representative Izak of
California, Governor Bottolfsen of Idaho, Governor Dickenson of
Michigan, Governor Jones of Arizona, Governor Moses of North
Dakota, and Governor Olson of California. They also included two
members of the Cabinet, Postmaster General Farley and Secretary
of Interior Ickes. My recollection of this call is that it represented
an attempt of the liberals to capture the leadership of the American
youth organizations. The fact that the American Youth Congress
STATK DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 297
has been cited by the Attorney General as a subversive organization is
an indication that we failed, but if we are to be criticized it is perhaps
because we are not active and aggressive enough to succeed, but at
least we tried.
The Senator states that I was active in the launching of the Ameri-
can Union for Concerted Peace Eti'orts. That is true and I am proud
of tlie fact.
He states that the American Union for Concerted Peace Efforts was
cited as a Conmiunist-front organization. That is less than a half
truth. It was, in fact, cited by the Dies Committee on March 20, 1944,
but not as a Communist -front organization. It was cited as "an
organization with the same aims as the American Congress for Peace
and Democracy, a Communist front advocating collective security
prior to the signing of the Stalin-Hitler Pact" of lOol). The American
Union for Concerted Peace Efforts did advocate collective security.
So did the loyal members of the League of Nations. So do all the
loyal members of the present United Nations. Those aims appear
to have been shared bv the American Congress for Peace and Democ-
racy up to the time of the Stalin-Hitler Pact. No other aims were
shared by that organization and the American TTnion for Concerted
Peace E^orts. These aims were, of course, abandoned by the Com-
munists, according to the party line, upon the announcement of the
pact. Thej^ were not abandoned by the American Union for Con-
certed Peace Efforts; on the contrary they were intensified.
The Senator states that the leader of the American Union for Con-
certed Peace Efforts was the editor of the Daily Worker. This is en-
tirely false. The editor of the Daily Worker was a member of the
executive committee of the American Congress for Peace and Democ-
i-acy. Neither he nor any other Communist played any part in the
direction of the American I^nion for Concerted Peace Efforts. The
chairman of the executive committee of the American Union for Con-
certed Peace Efforts was Dr. Clark M. Eichelberger, at that time presi-
dent of the American Association for the League of Nations, and now
president of the American Association for the United Nations. The
lo other members of the executive committee, including myself, were
persons of known loyalty to the United States. There were no Com-
munists in this group. The American Union for Concerted Peace
Etf'orts was succeeded by the William Allen White Committee, also
known as the Committee to Defend America by Aiding the Allies.
The work of this committee in combating the Communist Party line is
well known. I was one of the founders of this committee.
Mr. Chairman, I think 1 have answered Senator McCarthy's charges
against me. If any of my answers is not entirely clear, I should be
glad to supplement them to the best of my ability. I would like to
])resent a group of letters which I have been requested to deliver
to tlic chaii-man. I offer also a list of my publications.
Senator Tydinos. Is it your wish to put them in now? The list of
publications will be exhibit 55.
Mrs. Bruxaukk. I should like to put them in now.
There is a list of the letters. I do not think it is necessary to read
the whole list, if that is all right with the conunittee.
Senator Tydings. You do want the letters in the record?
]Mrs. Bruxauer. Yes. There is an additional letter also received.
Senatoi- McMahox. I would like to know who they are from.
298 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mrs. Brunauer. These are the names of persons who addressed
letters to the subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Eelations
and that are being presented to the subcommittee by me today :
Mikon S. EisenhoAver, president, Kansas State College;
Senator Joseph H. Ball, Washington, D. C. ;
Ralph H. Lutz, president, Stanford University and president of
the American Association of University Professors ;
Mrs. Vera B. Whitehome, New York, N. Y. ;
Miss Margaret S. Morris, dean, Pembroke College in Brown
University ;
Katherine K. Rice, a physician in Washington, D. C. ;
Sarah Gibson Blanding, president, Vassar College ;
Dr. Gertrude Kornf eld, Rochester, N. Y. ;
James P. Hendrick, Washington, I). C. ;
Mrs. Helen Alley, Arlington, Va. :
Mrs. Ruth Lyons, Washington, D. C, director. Statistics Branch,
Public Housing Administration;
Ben M. Cherrington, director. University of Denver ;
Howard E. Wilson, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace,
New York, N.Y.:
Plerbert Emmerich, director. Public Administration Clearing
House, Washington, D. C. ;
Mrs. Olive Clapper, Washington, D. C;
Richard P. McKeon, department of philosophy, University of
Chicago ;
Blanche N. Dow, president, Cottey College, Nevada, Mo.;
Eliot B. Coulter, Assistant chief', Visa Division, Department of
State ;
George F. Zook, president, American Council on Education, Wash-
ington, D. C. ;
Louise Leonard Wright, The Chicago Council on Foreign Rela-
tions, Chicago, 111. ;
Graham H. Stuart, department of political science, Stanford
University ;
Dr. Margaret Mary Nicholson, Washington, D. C, our family
pediatrician ;
Hugh Moore, chairman of the board, Dixie Cup Co. ;
Mrs. Marjory B. Loengard, New York, N. Y. ;
Malvina Lindsay, the Washington Post, Washington, D. C;
Mrs. Helen K. Knandel, educational consultant, traffic engineering
and safety department, American Automobile Association, Wash-
ington, D. C. ;
Mrs. Anne H. Johnstone, director. League of Women Voters of the
United States, Washington, D. C. ;
Ralph E. Himstead, general secretary, American Association of
University Professors, Washington, D. C. ;
Herman Hertzberg, a personal physician ;
Mrs. Gladys Murphy Graham, Santa Monica, Calif. ;
Miss Dorothy Fosdick, Policy Planning StaflF, Department of
State ;
C. Mildred Thompson, emeritus dean and professor of history,
Vassar ;
Eleanor Lansing Dulles, Department of State ;
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 299
Mrs. Ruth S. Briimbau<ili, president, Washington branch, Ameri-
can Association of University Women ;
A. J. Brnmbangh, Washington, D. C.
I wish to add, ^Ir. Chairman, that these hitters are presented to you
as letters from people who have known me well and worked with me.
They are not letters presented in order to impress the conunittee with
what an important person I may or may not be, but people who can
tell you about my character through the years.
May I also add Mrs. Eire Stevens ?
Senator Tydings. The lettei-s will be put in the record to supplement
the names which have been read, as a group numbered exhibit 56.
Mrs. Bkunauer. Thank you, sir.
Senator Tydings. Will you give the letters to the reporter before
you leave, so that they may go in the record ?
Mrs. Brunauer. Yes. Then I have one more, Mr. Chairman, from
Judge Marion J. Harron, who has known me since I was in high
school.
]May T also read a personal letter fiom Mv. Milton Eisenhower? He
said :
Dear Esther : I am happy yoii wrote me, because I have been so angry about
the McCarthy eharses that I have been wanting to take some kind of action.
You give me the very opportunity I need. The first letter I wrote for you just
smoked with adjectives. Then I decided you didn't want that kind of testi-
monial, so I send you the attached very calm letter. If it isn't exajctly what
you want, please let me know at once.
I will see you in April at the commission meeting.
Senator Tydings. Dr. Brunauer, is he the president of Kansas or
Penn State College?
Mrs. Brunauer. He is the president of Kansas and will assume his
duties as president of Penn State very soon — July 1, I believe.
May I proceed?
Senator Tydings. You may proceed.
Mrs. Brunauer. It is possible that a very brief summary of the
high 23oints in my career may save time in the end.
I was born and brought up in the State of California. I received
my Ph. D. at Stanford University in 1927 in histovv and political
science. M}' principal interest since my graduation has been in in-
ternational relations. ]My first job was in that field. It lasted 17
years. It was with the American Association of University Women.
I have been in the Department of State ever since.
One of my most important projects for the American Association
of Univeisity Women may be considered to deserve special men-
tion. This was a study of national defense in relation to foreign
policy wliich was undertaken by the National Committee on the
Cause and Cure of War under a connnission of which I was chair-
man. The report, entitled "National Defense, Institutions, Concepts,
Policies" was ])ublished in 19?)7 by the Women's Press of the YWCA.
After that, the commission rei^orted annually on the problems of
the National Defense Establishment wliich were important in the
ever more critical international situation. Admiral Standley, who
was then Chief of Naval Operations, has stated to me that he con-
siders that this study was largely resi)onsible for converting various
pacifistic organizations in this country and thus making possible an
immediate program of rearmament.
300 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
In this reg:ard, I think the committee will also be interested in the-
part that I played in the international activities of the American As-
sociation of University AVomen durinoj the critical period of 1939-41,
the ])eriod of the Stalin-Hitler friendsliip pact. These activities cnl-
minated in the resolution of May 8. 1941. adopted by the biennial con-
vention of the association in which tliey voted for —
Recognition of a common cause with all nations resisting totalitarian aggres-
sion and furnishing of whatever aid we can give to make this resistance effec-
tive.
This was in direct opposition to the Communist line at that time.
Of course, I don't want the committee to believe that I did all this
single-handed. I was a staff member, but it was a development of
opinion in which I participated and of which I am proud.
Between 1941 and the befjinninof of 194(') there is nothing of par-
ticular interest to this committee in my career except my Avork with
IMr. Bloom at San Francisco in 1945. In February 1946. I was des-
ignated representative of the United States on the Preparatory Com-
mission for UNESCO. ' In my work with ITNESCO I have attended
sessions of the General Conferences at Paris, Mexico City, and Beirut.
Those who have worked Avith me could tell 3^()u that I have been
diligent in devising ways to thwart the attempts of Communists to
use UNESCO for their own purposes.
Mr. Milton Eisenhower, president of Kansas State College, was at
those conferences as a delegate. He has asked me to deliver a letter
to you, Mr. Chairman, in which he is ki)id enough to make the fol-
lowing statement regarding my work. Now I am quoting from Mr..
Eisenhower's letter :
I would say that the present ideological warfare in the world is Di-. Brunauer's
chief concern, and in this she is constantly working t<> uphold United States
policy, as well as the democratic philosophy generally, and to (h^feat the devious
and clever tactics of the Russians and their satellites. At the Mexico City
conference in 1047. for example, she spent a full month in counteracting the
efforts of a Rus.sian-dominated Polish delegation to pin the tag of "warmonger"
on the Western democracies, and especially on the Uiuted States. She worked
witli devotion, precision, and effect. She was-^ completely sincere in all she did.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer briefly t«) the charges
made by Senator McCarthy against my husb'ind. Dr. Stephen
Brunauer. As to my husband's past, his Comnnniist connections ex-
isted a very long time ago, more than 20 years ago. in fact. He came-
to this country at the age of 18 as an innnigrant. He was without
friends, without money, and without a conunand of the language. He
w^as eager for American companionship, but this was largely denied
him. His need for friends and companions was filled, in his first year&
here, by a group of young people of similar national origin who spoke
the same language, and these peo^jle unfortunately were largely Com-
numists. They brought him into the Hungarian section of the Young
Workers League. After about 3 years, he began to understand the
operations of the Connnunist movement more clearly and to see more
clearly its conflict with American institutions. He di'o])ped out of
the Young Workers League early in 1927 and has not been a member
of any Connnunist group since that time. His association with in-
dividuals in the Communist movement diminished rapidly after he
came to Washington in 1928. Bv 1932 he had been denounced by the
Communists as a deserter from their cause.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 301
My husband is a loyal American. He has devoted himself to our
national defense and his positive contributions have been widely rec-
ognized. My husband is an outspoken opponent of communism.
He has done whatever lay within his power to thwart the Connnunists.
A^'e have as a neighbor and are privileged to have as a friend one of
your colleagues, Senator Joseph H. Ball. He asked me to present
a letter and 1 would like to do so now. 1 would like to quote the last
few lines of the letter to you, Mr. Chairman :
As yon know. Stephen Bruuauer was born in Hungary and spent his youth
there. Many of his boyhood friends have l)een victims of Connminist dictator-
ship. He is perhaps the most violently anti-Communist person I know.
1 have no hesitation in vouching for the complete loyalty of Stephen and
Esther Brunaner to the United States and to our way of life.
Senator Tydixgs. Thank you very much. Dr. Brunauer.
Senator Cireen, have you any questions at the moment '*.
Senator Green. No, I haven't.
Senator Tydings. Senator Hickenlooper ?
Senator HiciiEXLOorER. I have a few questions that I would like
to ask Dr. Brunauer, but again, Mr. Chairman, I want to call atten-
tion to the fact that I have no basic information, no access to the files
of information which the Government has in this case or any other
case, and it seems to be a futile thing to attempt to question peop e
about matters which should be of public interest without having all
available information before one, so that it is either ineffective in the
witness' interest or in the interest of the public to be so stymied a? id
hamstrung by being refused, apparently, the information which the
Government maj^ have pro or con in this case.
Senator Tydixgs. I would like to say, Senator Hickenlooper, that
I have been most diligent in trying to get all of the files that the Sen-
ate directed us to obtain. I have taken the matter up orally and by
letter with the President. I have taken the matter up orally and by
letter with the State Department. I have taken it up by letter witli
the Civil Service Loyalty Review Board, and I have personally gone
to see the Attorney General and Mr. J. Edgar Hoover to obtain the
FBI files in addition to taking it up formally in writing.
The State Department has written me a letter wdiich I just received
today that under the President's directive they cannot turn over the
files without his permission. Mr. Richardson has written me in the
same vein, saying that he cannot turn them over, and I asked Mr.
Edgar Hoover and Attorney General Howard McGrath to come be-
fore our connnittee at 3 : 80 this afternoon to state their position on
this and such other matters as they may care to comment upon.
Under the terms of the resolution we are directed to subpena. I
had hoped that we could work it out amicably without resorting to
this legal device, and I likewise leai-n from the press — T do not know
whether it is accurate or not — that 1 may get some word from the
President before the day has passed concerning the files, after Attor-
torney General ]McGrath and Mr. Hoover have testified. It may be,
however, that this information may not reach me until tomorrow
morning. I simply make this statement because I have exhausted
every bit of jngenuit}' and effort and resource at my command to carr}"
out the resoUition of the Senate, and therefore I can do nothing more
than to give these witnesses wdio have been openly accused without
the committee having any data in its hands or any files available at the
302 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
time of the accusation the same rights to appear as Senator McCarthy
had when he was making the charges. We had no files then and we
liave no fdes today, and I believe the biggest thing for ns to do is to
try to give those wlio are accused as rapid a hearing as we can.
I would like to say in conclusion that we can always recall witnesses
at any time for further testimony in the event that any member of the
committee wants them recalled.
I ask your pardon for the interruption. I only make it because I
thought perhaps I should make the general statement on the files at
this time.
Senator Hickexlooper. In the first phvce, I have interposed no ob-
jection to the Avitnesses making their statements. That is not part of
my position at all. But I would like to ask the chairman whether the
chairman has transmitted to the Civil Service Commission, the FBI,
and the State Department the motion which was adopted by the sub-
committee which I made on last Tuesday, that we officially request
these files from those three agencies. Has that been translnitted to
those three departments as notification that this subcommittee has
officially requested these files.
Senator Tydings. That has been done not only with the State De-
partment, the Loyalty Board of the Civil Service, but with Attorney
General McGrath, representing the Department of Justice and the
FBI, but I have encompassed a general formal request on the Presi-
dent at the same time. I have heard fi-om all three of them, other
than the President, and I am rather expecting that very shortly we
will have the President's position on it.
In the meantime, as I say, I have carried out religiously the com-
mittee's instructions, with which I was in hearty accord, and in the
event we are defeated all along the line I shall call the committee
together and ask them Avhat the next step is that they would like me
to take, and whatever they agree upon, I shall try to be their humble
and obedient servant.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Brunauer, to begin with, in the first
part of your statement, the last sentence, you say that —
I come before yon today to avail myself of the opportunity you have given me,
in accordance with my request, to speak my mind freely and openly in reply to
charges made against me by a Senator of the United States — charges made in
violation of the traditions of fairness which are among our oldest heritages.
That is the end of the quote.
This is not the first time that you have been before an official board
or Connnission testing the question of your loyalty or your security to
the country, is that correct?
Mrs. Bruxauer. No, sir. I appeared before the Loyalty and Secu-
rity Board of the Department of State on July 28, iO-tS, and I was
cleared.
Senator Hickenlooper. That was as a result of charges made
against you ?
Mrs. Brunauer. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. And hearings were held on those charges,
and thereafter you were cleared of those charges ?
Mrs. Brunauer. I was cleared: yes. sir. ,
Senator Hickenlooper. So that another official group of the Gov-
ernment has in fact filed charges against you upon which questions
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 303
were asked and an exainiiiation had as to the matter of your loyalty
and security?
]\Irs. Brunafer. Yes. sir. Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment?
Senator Ttdtxgs. You may make any answer you wish to any of
us Avho interrogate you today.
Mrs. Brunaukr. 1 think the State Department was entirely correct
in seekino: to learn the origin of various charges that had been made
against me, and in seeking to evaluate all of the evidence about me
and my character, my loyalty, and my security status. The hearing
was a very thorough' one. The Loyalty Board had, of course, in its
]iossession all of the information on file in the Department of'State
jibout me. It knew not only the half-truths and suggestions and
possibly the innuendoes that have come in the course of a rather long
period of service. They also knew all other facts about my positive
work, my contributions, where I have stood down through the years
in the field of international relations; they knew what I had done in
the Department of State in this phase of American foreign policy, and
they cleared me after considering all of the evidence. I must say that
I tliought that had settled the matter.
Senator Hickenlooper. The only comment I would have on that,
Dr. Brunauer, is that you have just stated, and I think it is true, that
they had all of the information and facts that have been collected by
the' Government agencies. This committee unfortunately has been
denied the facts and the evidence up to this point in the possession of
the Government. So that this hearing cannot, of course, be based
upon as exhaustive a field of information as that which was possessed
by the Government at that time.
" Mrs. Bruxauer. That is why I have tried to put these other pieces
of information before you.
Senator Hickenlooper. I believe you testified that your husband
some years ago was in fact a Communist, but after a short time in this
country he ceased his association Avith the Communist Party.
]Mrs. Brunauer. Yes — his association with the Communist move-
ment. He was never a member of the Communist Party.
Senator Htckenlooper. You make the positive statement that he
never was a member of the Communist Party in this country ?
Mrs. Brunauer. I make that statement ; yes, sir.
Senator Htckenlooper. I do not want to be unfair about this ques-
tion, but I believe in those years of Avhich you are making this very
positive statement now you were not even acquainted with him. so
I assume you make your statement based upon what he has told you.
Mrs. Brunauer. T make that statement based upon what he has
told me, and in the first years that he was in Washington, when he
occasionally saw some individuals whom he had known previously, his
connections were just as I have stated, as a member of the Young
Workers League. The Young Workers League was organized and run
by the Communist Party. There is no attempt to deny that my. hus-
band for a short time supported the Communist ideals.
Senator Htckenlooper. The only purpose of my question is that
you made a positive, flat declaration apparently of vour own knowl-
edge, and I was merely attempting to help by calling attention to
the fact that you did not know your husband during those years,
therefore your statement about his membership must be from what
someone else has told vou — he and other people.
304 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mrs. Bruxauer. At least I gathered this information, or the infor-
mation was told to me, at a time when there would have been no
reason to conceal and there would have been no embarrassment about
his admittino- it if he had been a member of the Communist Party.
Senator Hicivenlooper. Have you ever been acquainted with a man
named Malcolm Nurse, alias George Padmore?
Mrs. Brunauer. No, sir. The name means nothing to me.
Senator Hickp:nlooper. He was a native of the West Indies, I be-
lieve. You have never known him or had any association with him?
Mrs. Brunauer. Not that I can recall. I must remind you that in
the past 25 years I have had a great many associations with a gi^eat
many people, but I do not remember that name.
Senator Hickenlgoper. Did you ever know a man by the name of
Noel Field?
Mrs. Brunauer. Yes, sir. I used to knoAv him.
Senator Hickenlooper. What was your association with Noel Field ?
Mrs. Brunauer. I became acquainted with Noel Field and his wife
Herta about 1928. I knew them socially for a time. At that time I
believe he was in the Department of State. Later, about 1934 or so,
after my husband came back from a year in Germany, we saw him
and Herta once or twice and then they went to Europe, and on in-
frequent occasions since then we have had very brief social contacts
with them in groups of people. I have not seen them since October
1945.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know whether or not he is a member
or was a member during those associations of yours( of the Communist
Party ^
Mrs. Brunauer. No, sir; I don't know that. He didn't say it,
and no one told me that he was.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you have any associations or experi-
ence with Noel Field that would lead you to believe that he was at
that time a member of the Communist Party ?
Mrs. Braunauer. The only incident which has any bearing at
all on this occurred about 1934. At that time, as I said, after my
husband and I came back from Germany, we were invited to a party
where the Fields w^ere present, and in the course of the discussion
Noel Field discussed the world situation in terms which expressed
the feeling that the Communist movement had a great deal to com-
mend it. My husband argued with him bitterly and vigorously, and
tried to convince him that he was wrong. That is the only time on
which we have ever had any discussion of political ideologies.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know whether or not Field was a
member at that time or at any other time of the Russian OGPU organ-
ization, or secret-service organization?
Mrs. Brunauer. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. During this period of time that you knew
him, I believe at least part of the time he was an employee of the State
Department, was he not ?
Mrs. Brunauer. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. In what capacity, if you recall ?
Mrs. Brunauer. I don't know his exact title, but I know that he
was doing work which brought him into the Disarmament Confer-
ence. He went as one of the advisers to the American delegation to
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 305
the Disuriimiueut Conference and subsequent questions on ainuunents
questions during the 10;^,0's. and lie left the Department, I believe, to
take a position in the League of Nations.
Senator Hickf.xi.ooper. Did you attend a meeting or meetings of
the Inter-Racial Club on Eye Street in Washington at various times in
the past?
Mi-s. Bkuxauer. There Avas a club which met at the Friends Meet-
ing House on Eye Street, sir. It was the Internatioiuil Friendship
Club. Its members consisted of young people from the various uni-
\ersities, including a number who came from a number of different
countries, and included some students from Howard University. I
(lid attend the meetings there. I was a member of the organization.
Senator Hickexl(>opp:r. And at those meetino-s, or some of them —
perhaps not all — both Noel Field and Malcolm Nurse are — I should
not say "alleged," because I have no personal knowledge of it — were
they in attendance at those meetings?
Mrs. Brunafer. Noel Field I know was in attendance at some of
the meetings. I am sorrv to sav I don't remember the names of most
oi the people who came to the meetings. I know a few of them. But
I don't know the name of Malcolm Nurse. I wish I could help you,
Intt I do not know it.
Senator Hickenlooper. So you do not know whether Malcolm
Nurse Avas there or not ^
Mrs. Bruxauer. No ; I am sorry I don't.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did 3'on deliver a speech in 193-1: at a meet-
ing of the Friends of the Soviet Union as a substitute for your hus-
band?
Mrs. Bruxauer. I did: and the subject was "The Cultural and
P>lucational Policy of the Nationalists in Germany." The reason for
delivering the speech was that when my husband and I came back
fioin (lermany we were very much concerned about the Nazi menace,
about what it was doing not only to subject races — minority races —
liut what it was doing to the very cultural fabric of Germany and
threatened to do to the cultural fabric of the world, and we seized
every opportunity to tell Americans what Nazi Germany was like.
When this opportunity arose, I seized the opportunity.
Senator Hickex'looper. Was your husband requested to speak?
Mrs. Bruxauer. Yes. He agreed to do it. Shortly after receiving
the invitation his chief in the Naval Research Laboratory said he
thought it would be better for a person who was an officer of the
United States Government not to make a speech in a public place
that might be taken by Germany, with whom we were at that time
in peaceful relations, as being in active emnity, so he decided not to
do it, and it was decided I should speak in his place.
Senator Hickex'looper. Has your husband written articles for a
paper, Magyar Jovo. a Hungarian-language newspaper?
Mrs. Bruxauer. Not for that newspaper, sir. That is the successor
to the news])aper called Uj Elore, which was the Communist paper
(luring the time when he belonged to the Young Workei's League, and
I believe he has told me that he wrote articles during that time.
Senator Tydixgs. What was the date of that?
Mrs. Bruxauer. That would have been before he came to Wash-
ington— 1927 or earlier.
306 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION
Senator Hickexlooper. Was that paper run, edited, or conducted by
a brother of your husband's Avife?
Mrs. Brunauer. So I understand, sir — my liusband's first wife, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. AYhen your husband was in the Navy he
made a trip to France, did he not ?
Mrs. Bruxauer. He made several trips.
Senator Hickenlooper. On at least one of those was he a g-uest at
the home of Jules Curie?
Mrs. Brunauer. Sir, to my knowledge my husband has never set
eyes on Jules Curie, and if he has an opportunity to appear before
you he will likewise state so under oath.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was he a guest at any time in France of
General Gassault ?
Mrs. Brunauer. Not to my knowledge. Likewise he will testify
on that subject under oath. So far as I know, he was not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you attend the Communist -controlled
American — I should not have said that. I will witlidraw that ques-
tion. Did vou attend the American Youth Convention in New York
City in July 1939 ?
Mrs. Brunauer. I do not remember whether I did or not. I think
it rather unlikely, because I was getting ready to go to Europe to
attend the Conference of the International Federation of University
Women in connection with my official duties, and I left at the end
of July, so I doubt very much that I attended that.
Senator Hickenlooper. Has there ever been any protest, so far as
you know, by any local chapter or chapters of the American Associa-
tion of University Women protesting alleged activities of yours in so-
called front organizations?
Mrs. Brunauer. Not that I have ever heard of, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. No such protests were made while you were
executive secretary ?
Mrs. Brunauer. Pardon me; I was not executive secretary of the
American Association of University Women. I think it is rather im-
portant. I was international relations secretary first, and the title
was later changed to associate in International education. I was re-
sponsible for the international relations program of the organization
from the staff point of view.
Senator Hickenlooper. Were you a member of the executive com-
mittee for concerted peace efforts in 1939? I think perhaps you
covered that in your statement.
Mrs. Brunauer. Yes, sir; I think I did.
Senator Hickenlooper. W^ere you ever a member of the Young
Workers League ?
Mrs. Brunauer. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Were you ever a member or an attendant
at meetings of the Young Communist League?
Mrs. Brunauer. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did vou ever attend meetings of the Young
Workers League?
]Mrs. Brunauer. No, sir. May I suggest possibly that the fact
which the Senator brought out a few moments ago, that my husband
was previously married for a short time during the period of his
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 307
resilience in New York, may cause some of the confusion. Possibly
someone has testitied that his wife attended some of those meetings.
That woukl have been my husband's first wife.
Senator Tydixgs. When were you nuirried^
Mrs. Bkuxauer. In IIKU. AA'e became acquainted hite in 1928 and
were married in lOol.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did the Communist member of the Hun-
garian delegation to UNESCO visit you or your luisband or your
home a few years ago on his way from Mexico ?
Mrs. Brunauer. He called on my husband and I would be glad
to give you what I know of that, if you wish, or, if you prefer, it
can wait until my husband comes before you.
Senator Hickenlooper. Were you present at the time your husband
met the gentleman ?
Mrs. Bruxauer. No, sir ; I Avas not.
Senator Hickenlooper. So anything you would say about what
went on between j^our husband and this delegate would be completely
hearsay ?
Mrs. Brux'auer. It would be hearsay, but not in the usual sense
of the word, sir, because on matters of this sort my husband and I
see completely eye to eye, and inform each other completely.
Senator Hickexlocjper. That was a Mr. Ferenczi?
Mrs. Brux'auer. I think perhaps I had better give the story, because
otherwise it will remain as a question mark in somebody's mind if I
don't tell you a little more about it, if I may do so.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have no objection to j^our giving the story,
but I want to emphasize that this is evidence of someone who has re-
peated it to you.
Mrs. Brunauer. However, sir, there is a good deal about it that I
can give on my own testimony, and I think perhaps the committee
should hear it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have no objection.
Senator Tydings, So long as the point has been raised, if you care
to make any comment on it you can make it, and when your husband
testifies, of course we can interrogate him more fullv. Whatever vou
want to say you are at liberty to say.
Mrs. Brunauer. Thank you, sir.
Some months before the Mexico City Conference of UNESCO
Hungary was taken over by the Communists, as you know.
Senator Tydixgs. Would you fix the date of that ?
Mrs. Brunalter. That was at Hie end of May 1947. The second ses-
sion of the UNESCO General Conference in Mexico City was in No-
vember and part of December 1947. In preparing for that conference,
we in the Department of State realized that the Comnnmist character
of the Hungarian Government would cause problems in connection
with tlie membership of Hungary or the application of Hungary for
membership in UNESCO.
Besides that, on the personal side, my husband and I were very close
to the Hungarians in Washington, who were in the Legation under Dr.
Alachir Szegedy-Mas/ak. Minister of Hungary at that time. We
were with them as friends during the i)eriod when they decided not to
recognize the Communist regime. We were close to them : we sym-
jiathized with them, we felt their problems deeplv. I am giving you
308 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
this part of the background to help make you realize that any actions
or statements which my husband may have made or which he may be
alleged to have made were very greatly colored by his feelings, his
heartbreak over the fact that Hungary had been taken over by the
Communists.
At the Mexico City conference, after the vote was taken on the
membership the United States abstained in the voting, just as it had
done in the Economic and Social Council when the question came up.
After the vote was over and the majority vote to admit Hungary made
the Hungarian delegation eligible to sit as observers, Mr. Ferenczi. a
member of the delegation, approached me and invited me to luncheon.
We had luncheon in a public place in the presence of a very large num-
ber of other ])eople. He asked me about reconstruction questions con-
cerning UNESCO; he asked me whether Hungary could expect to
receive reconstruction aid from the United States ; that is, educational
reconstruction aid from the United States as a member of UNESCO.
I told him then — I have had no further personal conversations with
him but I told him then — that it was my opinion that while the United
States Government could not force its citizens to make contributions
to any course in which they were not interested, in contrast to dictator-
ship countries, the people of the United States would be very doubtful
about giving money for educational reconstruction in a country where
their own organizations and people who represented their own inter-
ests could not see how the money was being spent. I gave him no en-
coui'agement whatever.
He told me at that time, and Avhen he came to AVashington he called
me on the telephone and told me again, that he wanted to meet my
husband while he was in Washington because he had letters, so he-
said, from two or three people whom my husband had known and
whom my husband knew as anti-Communist, so I said, '"Well, when
you come to Washington, if you wish to call on my liusband you call
on him," knowing perfectly well that my husband was adequate to
take care of such a situation.
After the return fi-om the Mexico City Conference — I do not recall
just when it was — I had a telephone call which was started by Mr.
Florian, a member of the Hungarian staff' here, who was later asked tO'
leave the United States. He told me that Mr. Ferenczi wished to speak
to me, Mr. Ferenczi spoke to me. He told me that on his trip to
Washington his briefcase had been lost so he didn't have the letters
to i)resent to my husband, but he wanted to see him anyhow, to go on
with the efforts he had started before the Communist coup to suggest
to the Rockefeller Foundation that they look into the possibility of
getting assistance to the scientific institutions of Hungary. That was
before the Connnunist coup.
After the Communist regime came into power, naturally my hus-
band had no more interest whatever in trying to get the Rockefeller
Foundation or anybody else to give money to Hungary.
Mr. Ferenczi went to see my husband, and the consequence — which
I have no reason on earth to believe was anything but the truth — was
that he discussed this question of the Rockefeller Foundation, and my
husband said that under the circumstances he could not do anything
about it.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 309
Subsequently, some time later, 1 was tokl by someone — my husband
Avas not told this; I was — some of the people in the Legation that Mr.
Ferenezi and Mr. Florian had discussed very seriously the possibility,
and liad dis(Missed it as a matter of somethino; that they could use as
reveno'o on my husband, of revealino- to the public my husband's long-
aii() Connnunist connection. However, another member of the staff
dissuaded them from i)ublishino- this material, on the point that when
a man had woi'ked hard and achieved as much as my husband luid
done, there was no reason, and it was unfair, to brin;^- up somethiuir
tliat existed long- ag-o in his past, and that had no influence whatever
*on his j)resent life — (]uite the contrary.
That is the story of my contacts with Mr. Ferenczi. I knew he was
a person not to be trusted. I never did trust him and I would not
t lust him.
Semitor Hickexlocpeij. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tyd:x<;s. I would like to ask at this point, so long as your
Imsband has come into this controversy, or this hearing, rather, to
youi- knowledge has youi- husband ever been an employee of the State
Department^
Mr.s. Bruxauer. Xo, sir; he has not.
Senator Tydixgs. He lias not ?
Mrs. Bruxauer. No, sir.
Senator Tydixos. Of course. Dr. Brunauer, you realize that the
terms of the resolution are that we are to investigate people who have
been employed in the State Department,
Mrs. Bruxauer. Yes, sir.
Senator TYmxGs. "We will be very glad, however, to have your
husband's testimon}^, but it will be strictly extracurricular, because
our mission and our charge from the Senate consists only of investi-
gatirig persons against whom charges are heard who now" are or have
been employees of the State De])artment.
\ ou are sure that youi- husband never has been an employee of the
State Department ?
]\rrs. Bruxauer. I am sure of that, sir, but may I say that one of
tlie main reasons for asking that my husband be heard at a time
convenient to the committee is that the charges that were made against
him have been used as part of the evidence against me, and I am and
have been an employee of the State Department.
Sei'.ator Tydixgs. I understand.
Senator Hickexlooper. I want to ask three short questions that I
overlooked.
AVhat is your salary with the State Department?
Mrs. Bruxauer. My salary at the present time is $9,800. I am at
the top of the GS-14 scale.
Senator Hickexlooper. 1 believe you covered your employment.
Mrs. Bruxauer. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. AVho is vour inunediate superior?
^ Mi-s. Bruxauer. Mr. (Mun-les Thompson, Director of the UNESCO
Jvelations staff.
Senator Hukexlooper. Is that Charles A. Thompson?
Mrs. Bruxauer. Yes. sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. And vour husbaiul is with the Navv now,
is he? " . ^
310 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mrs Brunauer. My husband is Chief Technical Achninistrator of
Explosives Kesearch and Development in the Bureau of Ordnance ot
^ 'sen'SiIor Tydings. By the way, Dr. Brunauer, I have received word
since this hearing started that a letter is on the way from Admiral
Standley and from someone else, presumably commending you anc^
vour patriotism, from the tone of the note I got. I am sorry I do not
have the letter. I hope it will arrive before the hearing is over m
which event I will give it to the press. If it arrives late I will put it
in the record, with the committee's approval, and give it to the press
^ I^have received several communications and telegrams and phone
calls and so on asking that this in substance be read to the committee.
This letter is dated March 22, 1950, on the stationery of the American
Association of University Women, National Headquarters, 1631 i
Street NW., Washington 6, D. C.
My Dear Mr. Tydings : The news reports have carried statements attributed
to Senator McCarthy regarding the relationship of Mrs. Esther Caukm Bru-
nauer ?o he American Association of University Women, which are entirely
erroneous I be? to take this opportunity of presenting the facts to the commit-
tee wMch is investigating Senator McCarthy's charges, and request that this
statement be incorporated in full in the records of the committee.
SeTator McCarthy is reported to have said that Mrs. Brunauer was for many
years executive secretary of the American Association ot University Women,
•xml further tlnit?he was instrumental in "committing this orgaiuzation to the
swpoitof vartous front enterprises, particularly in the so-called consumer
field." Briefly, the facts are as follows: (A more detailed statement is ap-
^Tnfdl Mrs. Brunauer was appointed secretary to the association's committee
on international relations, and she continued as assoc ate in international edu-
pifinn and relations until she left our staff on March 7, 1..44.
As the international relations staff member, Mrs. Brunauer prepared study
guWes and other materials for the use of the ^-^^''^'^^^ ^^^"^^l^^;
wi-;e carried out the internaticnal relations program of the association. FoUcies
relatin- to that proi^ram were laid down by the national committee on interna-
ionaM-e at ons the board of directors, and the convention of the association.
Mr^ Brunauer, as a professional member of the staff, did no make policie.s.
At no time did Mrs. Brunauer have any connection with the association's con-
sumer program. She was never executive secretary of the American Association
of Uni?eStv Women. And further, the accusation that the A.AUW m its cmi-
suiner program supported "front" activities i.s absolutely untrue, as the appended
''^"''BliSueK'^ecord with the American Association of University Women
was marked by personal and professional integrity, devotion to the public good
r.d lovaltv to the Government of the United States. Her techniques w-ere those
of the scholar, al)solutely impartial and objective in evaluating all facts ger-
mane to an international problem.
I have known Mrs. Brunaiun- intimately since I became general director of the
American Association of Univer.sity Women in 1929. I l^'^.^"^, "^y.^" ^ef "l"^ "^^^
express anv sentiment which could be regarded as even faintly disloyal to the
Government of the United States or sympathetic to the ideology of communism,
n.)r has anv action of hers carried such implication. As a citizen and as an
oflicial I know her to be devoted to the highest ideals of American democracy,
and Iliave the utmost confidence in her integrity and loyalty.
As Judge Dorothy Kenvon so well pointed out, the record of any individual
should be judged as a whole, and not on the basis of isolated bits of evidence
lifted out of context. I trust that your committee will grant Mrs. Brunauer the
opportunity to place her full record before you. I am confident that a fair
examination of her activities will ••onVince you that she is not only a loyal citizen
but a valual)le public servant. ,^ /-, ^i 4.
May I add that the irresponsible attacks made by Senator McCarthy are not
only' injuring the iiidividuals concerned; groundless accusations made by a Mem-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 311
b«'r (if the Senate and publicized fioni coast to coast are bound to lessen the
respect of citizens foi- tlieir hijihest legislative body.
Kespectfully youis,
Kathryn McHale, Octwral Director.
Appended hereto is a statement of various activities of the American
Association of University Women whicli. unless the connnittee desires,
I will put in the record without further reading, as exhibit 57.
I would like at this time, before deferring to my colleagues again,
to read a letter from the Honorable Seth "\V. Richardson. By the way,
this is written on the stationery of the United States Civil Service
Connnission,
Dear Senator Ttdings : I liave your letter of the 22d.
I regret that the all-inclusive terms of the directive of the President under date
of March 13, 1948, in my opinion, prevent me from disclosing to anyone not
connected with the operation of the loyalty program the contents of any report,
record, or tile relative to the loyalty of employees.
May I suggest that if you should desire to pursue the matter further, you
address your inquiry to the President.
I have the pleasure to be
Very truly yours,
Seth W. Richardson,
Chairman, Loi/alty Review Board.
I regret to inform this committee that I also have a letter from
Secretary of State Acheson couched in practically the same language,
which came to me this morning, which I would also like to read into
the record.
Department of State,
Wa shin (/ton, March 27, 1950.
Dear Senator Tydings : In your letter of March 22, 1950, you request that the
subconunittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee acting under Senate
Resolution 2;]1 be permitted to examine the files of the Department of State
concerning the nine persons mentioned by Senator McCarthy in open hearing
before the sul)Committee and the hO persons against whom charges were made
by Senator McCarthy in a speech on the Senate floor on February 20, 1950.
In view of the nature of the investigation and the terms of the resolution, the
files which you request would appear to be the loyalty and security files of the
Department of State concerning these individuals. The action of the Depart-
ment in response to your request is therefore governed by the President's
directive of March 13, 194S, which provides as follows :
"The efficient and just administration of the employee-loyalty program, under
Executive Order No. 9835 of March 21, 1947, re(iuires that reports, records, and
files relative to the program be preserved in strict confidence. This is necessary
in the interest of our national security and welfare, to preserve the confidential
character and sources of information furnished, and to protect Government
personnel against the dissemination of unfounded or disproved allegations. It
is necessary also in order to insure the fair and just disposition of loyalty cases.
"For these reasons, and in accordance with the long-established policy that
reports rendered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other investigative
agencies of the executive branch are to be regarded as confidential, all reports,
records, and files relative to the loyalty of employees or prospective employees
(including reports of such investigative agencies) .shall be maintained in con-
fidence, and shall not be transmitted or disclosed except as required in the
effi( lent conduct of business.
■'Any subpena or demand or request for information or files of the nature
described, received from sources other than those persons in the executive
branch of the Government who are entitled thereto by reason of their official
duties, shall be respectfully declined, on the basis of this directive, and the
subpena or demand or other request shall be referred to the Office of the Presi-
dent for su'-h resijonse as the President may determine to be in the public
intei-est in the particular case. There shall he no relaxation of the provisions
of this dii-ective except with my express authority."
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 21
312 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY rXVESTIGATION
This Department must, therefore, refer this request to the Office of the Presi.^
dent for such response as the President may determine to be in tlie public
interest.
Sincerely yours,
Dean Achbson.
Are there any questions, Senator Green, of the witness?
Senator Green. No.
Senator McMahon. I have one question. Dr. Brunauer, I was
particuhirly interested in a letter wliich you received from Senator
Ball.
Mrs. Brunauer. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahon. Has your association with Senator Ball been
over some period?
Mrs. Brunauer, Yes, sir; since 1943.
Senator McMahon. I believe you referred to him as a nei<!;hbor?
]\Irs. Brunauer. He is also a neighbor, but we discovered the fact
that the Balls lived near us after we had made public contact. The
acquaintance began in 19-18, when Senator Ball, together with Sena-
tors Hatch, Burton, and Hale, presented the popularly called "B2H2'^
resolution on international organization. The American Association
of University Women for a generation had supported and urged inter-
national organization, so I got into contact with Senator Ball and held
a number of conferences about his proposal, and from that time on
we have known the Balls, though our personal friendship came a little
later. We have been personally acquainted since about — I don't know
exactly when w^e started our personal contacts.
Senator jMcMaiion. Those contacts have been rather frequently
through the years?
Mrs. Brunauer. Yes, through our being at the Balls' home and
their visiting at our home. They live about three blocks from us.
Senator McINIahon. You put only part of this letter in the record.
Mrs. Brunauer. I would be glad to put it all in the record.
Senator McMaiion. I think it would be well if you would put it all
in the record. Will you read it?
Mrs. Brunauer (reading) :
Re Esther and Stephen Brunauer.
My Dear Senator Tydings. I was considerably startled to read that Mr. and
Mrs. Brunauer had been accused of Communist leanings and disloyalty before
your subcommittee.
As you nuay perhaps recall, I helped as a member of the Senate Appropria-
tions Committee in the Eightieth Congress to initiate investigations which I
believe assisted the State Department in eliminating eniiihtyees who had demfsn-
strated Communist leanings or were shown to be poor security risks. I am as
anxious as anyone to rid our Government of any employees whose loyalty is
doubtful. H(»wever, erroneous accusations, even though made in good faith,
luirt that ob.iective more than they lielp it.
I am convinced the accusations against the Brunauers are completely erroneous.
I first met tlie Brunauers in 1943, and Mrs. Ball and I have known both of
them intimately since l!>4a. We live only a few blocks apart liere in Vv^ashington
and have spent many evenirigs together. Our conversations inevitably have
dealt at length with politics, with international problems and issues, and with
the so-called cold war.
In all of our many hours of conversation, neither Esther nor Stephen has ever
i-evealed the slightest indication of ( oinmnnist attitudes. On the contrary, both
of them are most strongly opposed to the ideology and practices of communism.
As you know, Stephen Brunauer was born in Hungary and spent his y<nith there.
Many of his boyhood friends liave been victims of Communist dictatorship. He
is perliaps the most violently anti-Communist person I know.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 313
I have no hesitation in vouching for the complete loyalty of Stephen and Elsther
Brnnaner to the United States and to our way of life.
AVith best regards
Yiiurs sincerely,
JOSEIPH H. Balx.
Senator McMajion. Thank yon very mnch.
Another letter was jnst handed to me. It is a letter from Senator
Benton. May I read that at this point, sir?
Senator Tydings. You certainly may.
Senator McMahon (reading) :
In response to an appeal I have received from Mrs. Esther Brunauer, I am
glad to attest to the fact that I knew her well while I served as Assistant Secre-
tary of State. Indeed she worked closely with me, and played a most important
role in all of the early developments which led to the formation of the United
Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. She gave me guid-
ance and counsel on the negotiations and policy questions upon which I leaned
heavily. I saw her a great deal and there was not only no remote indication of
any pro-Communist leanings but, on the contrary, I remember the vigor with
wliich Mrs. Brunauer espoused policies for UNESCO diametrically opposed to
those of the U. S. S. R. and its satellites.
I found Mrs. Brunauer to be a most admirable public servant, of the highest
character— devoted to her work, intelligent, industrious, persistent, hard-work-
ing and courageous. Further, I never saw anything about her to indicate that
she was other than discreet, or other than thoroughly loyal to the United States.
As with Ambassador Jessup, to which I referred on the floor of the Senate
on Wednesday, I feel that the charges against Mrs. Brunauer— as well as those
against Haldore Hanson, who also worked closely with me when I served from
194.5 through 1947 as Assistant Secretary of State— are indeed irresponsible.
William Benton,
United States Senate.
Senator HicKENLooPER.^r. Brnnaner, the letters which have been
read, and the list of letters which you read in connection with your
statement, did you ask these people to write those letters in your
behalf ?
Mrs. Brunauer. Yes, sir, and I asked them to send them to me so
that I could file them, because I was afraid that if they came in singly
to the chairman it would give the appearance of something I had no
intention whatever of doing, which was to put on a pressure campaign.
These letters are furnished in no sense as pressure but simply as a
testimony of people who worked with me and know me. Naturally I
had to ask them to describe my character, to let you know the sort
of person I am, and they have been read in that light, sir.
Senator Tydings. You will excuse me while I make this announce-
ment.
I have been asked by members of the press frequently during the
morning if I had received a letter from Dr. Bronk, the president of
the Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
In view of the fact that this has gotten in the press I think it will be
fair for me to read the letter so there won't be any misinterpretation
of it:
The Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore 18, Md., March 21,, 1950.
Dear Senator Tydings : Senator McCarthy's recent charges against Owen Lat-
timore are a matter of serious concern to me and to the university in which Mr.
Lattimore holds a responsible position. As you know, Mr. Lattimore is in
Afgiianisfan on a mission for thy United Nations and is, therefore, not in a
position to answer the charges.
314 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTTGATION
The latest information I have from the United Nations headquarters is that
he will leave Afghanistan about March 27. With perfect travel conditions he
should be in this country by the 1st of April, but it is probably unsafe to antici-
pate his return until some time toward the end of the first week in April.
I am sure that you will agree with me that both the national interest and
simple justice require that Mr. Lattimore be given the earliest possible oppor-
tunity to appear before your committee. I hope that he will be permitted to do
so immediately upon his return.
Yours sincerely,
Detley W. Bronk,
Of course ^Ye will oive Dr. Lattimore an opportunity when he does
get back to familiarize himself with what is going on here, and a
chance to be heard.
Without objection, the committee will stand in recess until 3 : 30
this afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 12 noon, the committee recessed until 3:30 p. m.
of the same day.)
AFTER RECESS
(The hearing was resumed at the expiration of the recess, at 3 : 30
p. m., Senator Millard E. Tydings, chairman of the subcommittee.)
Present : As previously noted, plus Senator Lodge.
Senator Tydings. Before going on with the witnesses the chairman
would like to make two announcements.
I have received word that Mr. Owen Lattimore, who was mentioned
in some of the open hearings here as one of the accused, is on his way
back to the United States ; that it is estimated he will arrive here either
on the 31st of March or the 1st of ApriL -i . rr
After consultation with the committee, «-e have set April 4, iues-
day, as the tentative date to hear Mr. Lattlnore in this room. In the
event, after Mr. Lattimore returns, he would like a day or so more to
absorb the evidence that has been stated against him, the committtee
will, of course, give him that time. But we are setting April 4 ten-
tatively as the date to hear Mr. Lattimore, .
The second announcement is as follows, that any person desiring to
ask any of the persons who are accused any question winch is perti-
nent to this inquiry, if he will submit in writing the question he desires
to have put to the witness, the committee will ascertain whether the
questions are relevant and pertinent, and if so, the coinmittee will ask
the questions, or such member of the committee as is requested will
ask the question of the witness. The same right will be given to wit-
nesses to ask questions through the medium of the committee ot per-
sons who have accused them of acts or Communist leanings, of the
fact that they are Communists or not. We will take their questions
in the same category.
We are very olad to have with us this afternoon Attorney (jenerai
McGrath and Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, head of the FBI. Which of you
gentlemen prefers to testify first ?
Attorney General McGrath. I should prefer to make my statement
first, Mr. Chairman. ^ , ^ i ^ xi
Senator Tydings. General McGrath, in vicav of the fact that the
committee has the policy of swearing all witnesses who come before
it. I would be grateful if you would rise while I administer the oath.
Do you solemnly promise and declare that the evidence you shall
give in the pending matter before this committee shall be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 315
Attorney General McGrath, I do.
Senator Tydings. Take a seat, General. Yon may proceed in your
own way, and at yonr request no (questions will be asked until you have
read your statement. Proceed, sir.
STATEMENT OF HON. J. HOWARD McGRATH, ATTORNEY GENERAL
Attorney General McGrath. Mr. Chairman and members of the
subconnnittee, I appreciate the opportunity of appearing before yonr
comuiit(ee today, together with the Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, in order to discuss with you a serious problem that has
arisen in tlie course of the investigation that you are conducting pur-
suant to Senate Resolution 231. There has been a great deal of talk
about the production before your committee of loyalty and investiga-
tive hies relating to the persons against whom Senator McCarthy has
brouglit charges of disloj^alty. I think that it is well that we should
discuss this matter together at this time in the interest of clarifying
some of the issues.
I need not remind you that it is only a matter of months since I
myself was a Member of that great body of which this committee is
a pai't, the United States Senate. Having had the privilege of serving
in the Senate, as well as in the executive branch. I am fully aware and
indeed extremely sensible of the degree of cooperation that must exist
between the legislative and executive branches of the Government if
we are to make our tripartite system of government work.
Cooperation, however, is but one facet of the key to the solution of
our problem. If our tripartite system is to work each branch must
also carefully avoid encroaching upon the prerogatives of the other.
This is such a basic principle that it was recognized as early as the
administration of our first President. On February 22 last, the very
day on which the Senate agreed to the resolution under which this
committee is proceeding, the Farewell xlddress of President Washing-
ton was read in the Senate Chamber. I call your attention to one para-
graph of that Address, wdiich appears on page 2158 of the Congres-
sional Record of February 22, and which to me aptly states the prin-
ciples by wliich we must be governed. President Washington stated :
It is important likewise, that the habits of thinking in a free country should
inspire caution in those intrusted with its administration, to confine themselves
within their respective constitutional spheres, avoiding in the exercise of the
powers of one department, to encroach upon another. The spirit of encroach-
ment tends to consolidate the powers of all the departments in one, and thus to
create, whatever the form of government, a real despotism. * * * jf^ ju ^j^q
opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of tlie constitutional
powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the
way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpa-
tion ; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the
customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent
must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient
benefit which the use can at any time yield.
President Washington was speaking from personal experience with
the very problem we now have before us. namely, a request by con-
gressional committee for the production of docitments which in the
opinion of the executive branch must be held confidential in the public
interest. The problem, you see, is as old as our Government itself.
In March of 1792. the House of Representatives adopted a resolu-
tion establishing a committee to inquire into the causes of the failure
316 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
of the expedition under Maj, Gen. St. Clair, and empowering that
committee to call for such papers and records as might be necessary
to assist the committee in its inquiries. The House based its right to
investigate on its conti'ol over the expenditure of public money. When
the committee asked the President for papers relating to the campaign,
President Washington called a meeting of his Cabinet. Present were
Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State; Alexander Hamilton, Secretary
of the Treasury; Henry Knox. Secretary of War; and Edmond Ran-
dolph, the Attorney General. The President stated that he had called
his Cabinet together because this was the first demand on the Executive
for papers within his control and he desired that insofar as the action
taken would constitute a precedent, it should be rightly conducted.
President Washington readily admitted that he had no doubt of the
propriety of what the House was doing, but he did conceive that there
might be papers of so secret a nature that they ought not be given up.
The President and his Cabinet came to a unanimous conclusion as
follows :
First, that the House was an inquest, and therefore might institute inquiries.
Second, that it might call for papers generally. Third, that the Executive ought
to communicate such papers as the public good would permit, and ought to re-
fuse those, the disclosure of which would injure the public.
The precedent there set by President Washington and his Cabinet
was followed in 1796 when he refused to comply with a resolution of
the House of Representatives which requested him to lay before the
House a copy of the instructions to the United States Minister who
negotiated a treaty with Great Britain, together with the correspond-
ence and documents relating to that treaty. In declining to comply,
President Washington stated :
As it is essential to the due administration of the Government that the bound-
jsries fixed l>y the Constitution between the various departments should be pre-
served, a just regard to the Constitution and to the duties of my office * * *
forbids a compliance with your request.
It was because of such experiences that President Washington felt
called upon to refer, in his Farewell Address, to the importance of
maintaining the independence of our separate branches of govern-
ment. Later, President Jefferson refused to allow two members of his
Cabinet to supply documents in the trial of Aaron Burr. In 1852,
President Monroe declined to comply with the request of the House of
Representatives to transmit to the House certain documents relating
to the conduct of naval officers. In 1833, President Jackson refused
to comply with a Senate request that he communicate to it a copy of a
paper reporting to have been read by him to the heads of the executive
departments relating to the removal of the deposits of public money
from the Bank of the United States. In 1886, President Cleveland
supjDorted his Attorney General's refusal to comply with a. Senate
resolution calling for documents and papers relating to the removal
of a district attorney.
Similarl}^ in 1843, a resolution of the House of Representatives
called upon the Secretary of War to communicate to the House the
reports made to the War Department by Lieutenant Colonel Hitch-
cock relative to the affairs of the Cherokee Indians, together with all
information communicated by him concerning the frauds which he
had been charged to investigate. The Secretary of War advised the
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 317
House that he could not communicate information which Colonel
Hitchcock had obtained in confidence, because it would be grossly un-
just to the persons who had given the information. The House, how-
ever, claimed the right to demand from the Executive and heads of
departments such information as may be in their possession relating
to subjects of deliberations of the House. President Tyler, in a mes-
sage dated January 31, 1843, said in part :
And, although information comes through a proper channel to an executive
ollicer, it may oi'ten be of a character to forbid its being made puldic. The ofRcer
charged with a confidential inquiry, and who reports its result under the pledge
of conlldeuce which his appointment implies, ought not to be exi)osed individually
to the resentment of those whose conduct may be impugned by the information
he collects. The knowledge that such is to he the consequence will inevitably
])revent the performances of duties of that character, and thus the Government
will be deprived of an important means of investigating the conduct of its agents.
President Tyler also declined to comply with a resolution of the
House of Representatives which called upon him and the heads of
departments to furnish information regarding such members of the
Twenty-sixth and Twenty-seventh Congresses as had applied for
office in the executive branch. In so refusing. President Tyler stated:
Applications for office are in their very nature confidential, and if the reasons
assigned' for such applications or the names of the applicants were communi-
cated, not only would such implied confidence be wantonly violated but, in
4iddition, it is quite obvious that a mass of vague, incoherent, and personal
matter would be made public at a vast consumption of time, money, and trouble
without accomplishing or tending in any manner to accomplish, as it appears
to me. any useful object connected with a sound and constitutional adminis-
tration of the Government in any of its branches.
In my judgment, a compliance with the resolution which has been trans-
mitted to me would be a surrender of duties and powers which the Constitution
has conferred exclusively on the Executive ; and, therefore, such compliance
cannot be made by me nor by the heads of departments by my direction.
These are only a few of the precedents to be found in the consti-
tutional history of our Government : many more could be referred to.
Althouo-h I have mentioned only a few of the precedents, I might
add that almost every President has found it necessary at some time
during his administration to decline, for reasons of public policy, to
furnish confidential papers to congressional committees. The courts
have recognized this constitutional prerogative of the Chief Execu-
tive, and the great constitutiona] scholars uniformly agree that it is
for the President to determine what papers and information in the
executive branch must be retained in confidence in the public interest.
William Howard Taft. following his term as President and prior
to his api)ointment as Chief Justice, sunmiarized the situation suc-
cinctly and accurately when he wrote in his book The Chief Magis-
trate :
The President is required by the Constitution from time to time to give to
Congress information on the state of the Union, and to reconuuend for its con-
sideration such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient, but this
docs not enable Congress or either House of Congress to elicit from him con-
fidential information which he has acquired for the purpose of enabling him
to discharge his constitutional duties, if he does not deem the disclosure of
.such information prudent or in the public interest.
It is against this backgroimd, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, that we must consider President Truman's directive of
March 13, 1948, concerning the confidential nature of loyalty files.
318 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTV^ESTIGATION
Against this same background we must consider this committee's
request for the production of such files.
In his directive, the President stated :
The efficient and just administratiou of the employee-loyalty program, under
Executive Order No. 9835 of March 21, 1947, requires that reports, records, and
files relative to the program be preserved in strict confidence. This is necessary
in the interest of our n;itional security and welfare, to preserve the confidential
character and sources of information furnished, and to protect Government i>er-
sonnel against the dissemination of unfounded or disproved allegations. It is
necessary also in order to insure the fair and just disposition of loyalty cases.
For these i-easons, and in accordnnce with the long-established policy that
reports rendered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other investigative
agencies of the executive branch are to be regarded as confidential, all reports,
records, and files relative to the loyalty of employees or i^rospective employees
(including reports of such investigative agencies), shall be maintained in con-
fidence, and shall not be transmitted or disclosed except as required in the
efficient conduct of business.
At the time of issuing this directive, the President specifically' re-
ferred to some of the precedents that I have mentioned this afternoon
and called particular attention to the sound reasons of public policy
requiring the maintenance of the confidential status of loyalty files.
The President referred to an opinion rendered by Attorney General
Jackson at a time when, at the direction of President Koosevelt, he
declined to furnish certain reports of the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation to the House Committee on Naval Affairs. Attorney General
Jackson wrote as follows :
Disclosure of the reports could not do otherwise than seriously prejudice law
enforcement. Counsel for a defendant or prospective defendant could have no
greater lielp than to know how much or how little information the Government
has, and what witnesses or sources of information it can rely upon. This is
exactly what these repoits are intended to contain.
Disclosure of the reports at this particular time wouhl also prejudice the na-
tional defense and be of aid and comfort to the very subversive elements against
which you wish to protect the country. For this reason, we have made extraor-
dinary efforts to see that the results of counterespionage activities and intel-
ligence activities of this Department involving those elements are kept within
the fewest possible hands. A catalog of persons under investigation or suspicion,
and what we know about them, would be of inestimable service to foreign agen-
cies, and information which could be so used cannot be too closely guarded.
Moreover, disclosure of the reports would be of serious prejudice to the
future usefulness of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As you probably
know, much of this information is given in confidence and can only be obtained
upon pledge not to disclose its sources. A disclosure of the sources would em-
barrass informants — sometimes in their employment, sometimes in their social
relations, and in extreme cases might even endanger their lives. We regard
the keeping of faith with confidential informants as an indispensable condition
of future efficiency.
Disclosure of information contained in the reports might also be the grossest
kind of injustice to innocent individuals. Investigative reports include leads
and suspicions, and sometimes even the statements of malicious or misinformed
people. Elven though later and more complete reports exonerate the individuals,
the use of particular or selected reports might constitute the grossest injustice,
and we all know that a correction never catches up with an accusation.
With respect to files which this committee has requested their dis-
closure would, it seems to me, seriously impair the effectiveness of the
employee-loyalty program. It would subject the persons in question
to a type of double jeopardy which is contrary to sound concepts of
good govermnent, fairness, and justice. It would also make it ex-
tremely difficult, if not impossible, for the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation to perform its investigative duties. The Federal Bureau of
STATK DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 319
Investi.L^ation conducts nil investigations under the employee-loyalty
program. Loyalty files, therefore, are for all practical purposes" FBI
files. Mv. Hoover is here to f>-ive you his views. He has held these
views for many years, views of the damaoing effect that would be
caused by the disclosure of such files. I know of no one t)etter quali-
fied to speak on this subject. I am in thorough accord with his views
in every respect.
It is my opinion, members of the connnittee, for the reasons stated,
that loyalty and investigative files of the Department of Justice
should be preserved in strict confidence.
Mr. Chairman, over the week end I gave much thouglit to the fact
that we are all here united in a connnon effort. There are times Mdieii
Ave seem to be falling victims to ancient techniques of divide and con-
quer. I had thought of making a plea to this committee to permit a
sane and logical approach to the very delicate and difficult problems
with which we are faced. However, when I picked up the New^ York
Times of this morning, I found that Mr. Henry L. Stimson, our
former Secretary- of State and War, has said everything that I pos-
sibly could say on that subject, and certainly with more eloquence than
I could ever bring to my command. I would like at this time, Mr.
Chairman, with your permission, to place in the record of this com-
mittee this very fine statement of Mr. Stimson, with which I associate
myself com])letely.
Senator Tydixgs. General McGrath, the committee would be very
much obliged to you if you would read it into the record, if you do
not mind. I think many of us might have missed it. I have missed it
myself. So long as we are on one phase of the matter, it might be a
good idea to make the record complete.
Attorney General McGrath (reading) :
The present charges against the Department of State have not in my view
deserved much attention. But the very widespread notice they have received
prompts me to make certain comments.
First, this is most emphatically not the proper way to insure loyalty of Gov-
ernment employees. If that had been the real purpose of the accuser, he would
have used the fully developed and tested procedure of the executive branch of
the Government, under which charges are investigated and weighed by men
of both parties and unimpeachable integrity. Any constructive result which
may eventuate from the present charges would have been achieved far more
surely and effectively by use of the existing procedures. The fact that the
accuser has wholly ignored this well-established method indicates that his inter-
est is of a different character.
Second, no matter what else may occur, the present charges have already
spattered mud upon individuals of the highest integrity, and in the present state
of the world the denial cannot always overtake the accusation. It should by
now be wholly clear that indiscriminate accusations of this sort are doubly of-
fensive ; they damage the innocent and they help protect the guilty. For, if the
accuser is so stupid as to connect a man like Ambassador Jessup with com-
munism, are not all such accusations made suspect?
Third, and more important by far, the method of the present charges directly
and dangerously impedes the conduct of the foreign affairs of our Government.
It creates abroad a feeling that we are frightened and suspicious of each other ;
it diverts our attention, at home, from the genuine and pressing problems of our
foreign affairs; it requires of many hiuh officials that they desert their proper
duties in order to prepare and deliver such extensive replies as that of Mr.
Jessup. Not one of these effects would have resulted from a disinterested study
of the loyalty of any suspected State Department employee; each of them is the
direct result of the manner in which these charges have been made.
Fourth, it seems to me quite clear that the real motive of the accuser in this
case is to cast discredit upon the Secretary of State of the United States. This
320 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
man is not trying to get rid of known Communists in the State Department ; he is
hoping against hope that he will find some. Fortunately, the Secretary of State
needs no defense from me. No one who knows his extraordinary record of able
and disinterested public service can believe that he is in any danger from these
little men. It is already obvious that in any test of personal contidence the men
of honor, in both parties, will choose to stand with the Secretary.
But there is more at stake in this matter than the rise or fall of individuals.
What is at stake is the effective conduct of our foreign policy.
Every Secretary of State, second only to his President, and alone among ap-
pointive officers of the Government, stands before the world as the representa-
tive of the United States of America. No man who holds this oflice can fail to
feel the extraordinary responsibility he carries for service to the country and
its peace. No man has a greater right to ask the sympathetic support and the
cooperation of his fellow-citizens, and none is more properly exempt from the
ordinary trials of politics. The man who seeks to gain political advantage from
personal attack on a Secretary of State is a man who seeks political advantage
from damage to his country.
The American Government, led by the President and the Secretary of State, is
currently engaged in a major effort to give leadership tu the country in a time of
changing international conditions and grave world tension. This effort will
require as part of our democratic process widespread and earnest public con-
sideration of the great problems now before us, so that the ultimate decision
will surely reflect the basic steadiness and faith of our people. In such public
consideration there is always room for honest dilTerences, but now, as for many
years past, the formulation of foreign policy most urgently demands an adjourn-
ment of mere partisanship.
This is no time to let the noisy antics of a few upset the steady purpose of our
country or distract our leaders from their proper tasks. This is rather a time
for stern rebuke of such antics and outspoken support of the distinguished public
servants against whom they are directed.
Henry L. Stimson.
Huntington, L. I., March 24, 1950.
Senator Tydings. Thank you, General.
Have you any questions, Senator Green ?
Senator Green. No questions.
Senator Tydings. Senator Hickenlooper, have you any questions?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes ; I would like to ask a few questions.
General McGrath, you have made it clear that you in your authority
over your Department will not give this subcommittee access to the
loyalty and investigative files in the specific list of names that have
already been requested.
Attorney General McGratii. I am prevented from doing so by the
President's Executive order. I speak in this regard for myself. The
President has not directed me to turn over the files, and only on a
Presidential direction would I do so.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am referring to j^our statement. I do
not want to labor this point, but I am merely stating my conclusions.
On page 5, near the bottom, and it is all through there, through several
pages, you refer to these precedents on wdiich refusal has been made,
and I take it now that that is your position.
Attorney General McGratii. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you take the position, General McGrath,
that the turning over of these files to a subcommittee of the Senate
which has made no suggestion that under any circumtsances it would
attempt to make any part of these files public is considered a substan-
tial risk, that the integrity involved is such that the risk would be
great of surreptitious disclosure of the contents of those files?
Attorney General McGrath. The risk can be one of degree, de-
pending on the type of committee, of course. The thing that is im-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 321
portant iy to not break the principle, because when the principle is
broken for one committee there is no way that you can refuse other
connnittees of the Congress. The executive offices of the Government
are not in a position to judii'e between the inteirrities of members of
varying connnittees that may be appointed by the Congress from time
to time.
Senator IIickkxlooper. Do you know how many clerks and other
minor officials have access to these confidential files in the Department
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or agents or others who are
emi^loyees?
Attorney (Teneral ]\Io(tRatii. I will say this. Mr. Hoover is here
and he can answer that question, but I will say this to the Senators,
that even the toj) officers of the Department have very rarely, if at all,
ever seen the files, the raw files, of the Bureau of Investigation.
When we wan.t information from those files we request it of the Bureau
and it is given to us in memorandum file, and we never go near the raw
files because he hold them in such sacred trust.
Senator Hickexloofer. There are, nevertheless, people in your De-
partment who can have, if occasion demands it in your judgment,
access to those files ?
Attorney General McGrath. Anyone can have excess to the files
that Mr. Hoover will permit to see the files or the Attorney General
may direct that they be seen.
Senator Hickexluopek. Mr. Hoover is subordinate to you in the
Department of Justice, is he not?
Attorney General McGrath. Yes, he is.
Senator Hickexl ooper. Therefore, your mders to him would be
controlling in his official actions, would they not?
Attorney General McGrath. I don't think I would give Mr. Hoover
any orders. I think we Avould counsel together and I am sure we
would come to the same conclusions.
Senator Hickexloopp:r. I understand your relationships are very
cordial. I am asking a question with regard to the technical flow,
the chain of command. If you issue an order in your official capacity
to him in his, it would be his duty as a subordinate Department within
j-our Department to obey that oi'der, would it not ?
Attorney General McGrath. I believe it would be, and I believe
Mr. Hoover Avould obey it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have no doubt he would.
Xow then, may I ask you this : Do j^ou consider the turning over of
certain specific files for confidential information, without any proposi-
tion of making those files public, to a subcommittee of, for instance,
the Foi-eign Ilelations Connnittee of the Senate, to be a hazard and a
risk of publicity of those files that exceeds the hazard and risk of
publicity of subordinate employees in the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation or in other departments of your Depai'tment which might have
access to tliem ?
Attorney General McGrath. I am not going to pass judgment on
the integrity of this committee or any other committee of Congress. I
say that there is great risk involved in breaking the principle that
these files should not be made available.
Senator Hickexlooper. General McGrath, let my ask you this
question : Do you know whether or not confidential investigative files
322 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION
have ever been turned over for access to congressional committees and
for examination by conirressional committees ?
Attorney General McGrath. I think I may say with certainty
that the raw files have never been turned over. There have from
time to time been submitted to committees reports prepared by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation indicating the information that may
be contained in the files.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you aware whether or not the Judi-
ciary Committee of the Senate has for a number of years requested
and received investigative reports, especially in the case of Federal
judges, from the Federal Bureau of Investigation ?
Attorney General McGrath. It does with the authorization of the
President and the approval of the Attorney General. That is quite
a different situation. When a man presents himself for the favor
of a Presidential appointment to the judiciary of the United States,
we feel that he should be willing that that be done, and that no dam-
age can come to him. He should be willing to have the committee
which passes on his qualifications for this lifetime job see his file.
In that instance an exception is made and the chairman of the Judi-
ciary Committee is permitted to see a summary of the file as prepared
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, not the raw file. Never the
raw file.
Senator Tydings. Do I understand you to say that in the case of
these judges the raw file is not turned over, only a summary of what
is in the tile ?
Attorney General McGrath. That is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. In pursuing that just a step further, by the
"raw file" I take it you mean the file containing the actual names
and identification, for instance, of all informants; in other words,
the complete background of all infonnation.
Attorney General McGrath. I mean by the "raw file"' everything
that the Department has on the subject of an investigation goes into the
file — the notes of the interviewers, statements that are made by those
that are interviewed, exhibits, all such material as that goes into what
we call the raw file. These raw files in some instances run into many
volumes and into many filing cabinets.
Senator Hickenlooper. But in the summary of these files, which
may or may not contain actual names of informants, for instance, all
of the niformation in the raw file is presumably digested for the in-
formation of those who examine the cligest and the report.
Attorney General McGrath. It is evaluated, yes, and put into a
narrative form.
Senator Hickenlooper. And do you know whether Appropriations
Committees of the House and Senate have on occasion been given
access to the investigative files of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ?
Attorney General McGrath. Not to my knowledge. I have no
knowledge that that is so.
Senator Hickenlooper. General McGrath, I notice in your state-
ment that there runs through it consistently in the precedents "resist-
ing the turning over of investigative files or summaries of these files.''
By the way, I take it that your objection would go just tlie same to
turning over the summarization of the files, as is customarily done,
for instance, for the Judiciary Commiiee. Your objection would go
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 323
just the same to tnrnin<j over a snmmai-ization of the files by the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation to this subconniiitee ?
xVttorney General McGrath. I think the situation is different here
than it is in the case of the Judiciary Committee considering' the life
appointment of a Fedei-al judge. My objection runs to turning over
a summary of the files.
Senator HicKEXLoorKR. I say this without any declaration one
way or the other, but it is entirely possible that there are occasions
when the ver}^ lifeblood of this country depends upon certain infor-
mation which may be acquired in pi'oper places, as well as the lifetime
a]>]>ointment of a judge.
Attorney General McGratii. Such a situation could arise and the
President lias the power to make an exception if he sees fit to do it.
I was going to suggest that we are probably covering some ground
that may be the subject of the Director's testimony, and while I am
merely suggesting to you that Mr. Hoover be permitted to make his
statement and I shall be glad to answer any questions after that, I
only make that suggestion in the interest of probably saving some
time* as he in discussing the procedures of his Department may have
the answers to some of these questions.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have just a few other questions, but then
other members of the committee may want to question the General, and
I do not want to take an undue amount of time at this time.
Senator Tydikgs. Proceed in any way you wish, but I would like
to sa}^ Mr. Hoover will testify immediately following General Mc-
Grath, and many of the technical things Mr. Hoover could perhaps
answer in more detailed fashion than General McGrath. "Whatever
way you wish to proceed will be proper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Especially with reference to the matter I
was mentioning a moment ago, about the confidential nature of the
receipt of information in these files, at the bottom of page 8 you again
emphasize as follows :
With respect to files which this-committee has requested, their disclosure would,
it seems to me, seriously impair the effectiveness of the employee loyalty
program.
Attorney General McGrath. That is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. I merely emphasize that because so much
of the objection to this has been bottomed on the fact that this sub-
committee is going to take the files and disclose what is in the files.
Attorney General McGrath. This connnittee has requested access
to the raw files and it has requested the right of its staff members to
go into its files, and that we very strongly object to.
Senator Hickenlooper. May I ask 3^ou this: If the subcommittee
modified its request and said, ''We want to have delivered to us for
our examination the customary and standard summarization of the
raw files, such as is ordinarily made up by the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation for these various groups,'' would that change the picture
any?
Attorney General McGrath. It doesn't to my mind. I would like
you to direct that question to Mr. Hoover after he finishes his state-
ment.
Senator Hickenlooper. The Federal Bureau of Investigation is
not a constitutional department, isn't -that true? It was, that is,
324 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOlSr
created by an act of Congress? It has a longer history than that,
but it is now operating as a resuU of legishitive recognition?
Attorney General McGrath. It is part of the executive branch of
the Government.
Senator Hickenlooper. And it gets its authority as a result of stat-
ute at the present time ?
Attorney General McGrath. The same way that the Department of
Justice gets its authority. It was created by an act of Congress.
Senator Hickenlooper. CoiJd the Congress abolish the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and its activities, do you believe?
Attorney General McGrath. Yes, it could, and it could abolish the
Department of Justice if it wishes to.
Senator Hickenlooper. Could it abolish the Civil Service Commis-
sion by an act of Congress ?
Attorney General McGrath. Yes, it could.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you hold that the Congress can direct
the duties and the activities of departments and agencies which it has
the authority to set up ?
Attorney General McGrath. Congress can make the laws 'that
govern the executive agencies. The President administers those laws.
Senator Hickenlooper. And, for instance, 1 take it that you agree
that Congress in setting up an agency, or a department, even though
Congress may elect to put that department under the executive branch
of Government for convenience of administration or for other pur-
poses, has the right, in the law that sets up that department, to pre-
scribe the duties of that department which it creates ?
Attorney General McGrath. It can prescribe them within the limits
of the Constitution. If it creates an executive agency it must leave
it to the President to administer that agency. It cannot keep it within
the legislative branch. If the Congress wished to create a Bureau of
Investigation that was part of the legislative branch of Government,
I suppose it could do that, if it would justify its needs as an aid to
the functions of the legislative branch. It has not seen fit to do that,
however. It has created an independent agency in the executive
branch, and therefore, under the Constitution the power of administra-
tion passes on to the President.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you consider that Congress in setting
up an agency of government can require that agency to make reports
to Congress periodically?
Attorney General McGrath. It can go to some extent. It cannot
go to the extent which is indicated here by your request for files of this
kind. I think that would be decided by the courts to bo, an encroach-
ment upon the executive function. I think such an attemi)t would be
struck down.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe that Congress could create
an investigative agency and in the act creating it say that it shall
investigate and inquire into certain activities of individuals and busi-
nesses and make perodic reports to tlie Congress, meanwhile putting
that agency in the executive department for administrative purposes?
Attorney General McGrath. No. If it puts it in the executive
brancli, then it cannot require it to give its repoits to the Congress
unless the President sees fit to permit it. If the Congress wishes an
agency of that kind, it can establish it as part of the legislative branch
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATION 325
of <2:overnnient. and tluMi (lie Executive lias no control over it what-
soever.
Senator Hickeni-ooper. Then I take it that the reports of the Immi-
p:ration Service and of the Federal Communications Commission and
all of the rest of the agencies of o-overnment that are required by law
to make ])eriodic reports to the Congress are being made only at the
sufferance of the President, according to yonr view?
Attorney General McCikatii. Tlie President could make a finding
that it was not in the public interest in a j^articnlar instance to make
those reports availal)le and prevent them from being made. He woukl
have to make that finding, however. It is not reasonable to suppose
that a President is goin.g to make a finding- in matters of that kind.
He has to reach the conclusion that the making of a particuhir report
is or is not in the public interest.
I may remind the members of the committee that the Congress itself
is pretty jealous of its prerogatives. Only 2 weel:s ago one of the
Federal courts issued a subpena to the House of Representatives to
produce the minutes of a meeting of a committee of the House of Rep-
resentatives, and the committe politely refused to submit to the sub-
peua, and sent word to the court that the judicial branch of the Govern-
ment had no control over the legislative branch, and indeed I am sure
the committee of the House of Representatives was correct.
Senator Hickkxt.oopkr. Well, I don't care to argue that point, par-
ticularly. I call your attention to the fact that these Federal agencies
that we have been referring to have been created by the Congress and
their duties have been prescribed by the Congress. The Congress was
not created by this Federal court, and it does not get its authority nor
its power from the Federal court.
Attorney General McGrath. Once Congress conceives them, and
brings them into being, they take on a different character. Once Con-
gress is through with the law creating them, they then pass to the
control of the Executive, and they are from thenceforth part of the
executive branch of the Government, which is quite independent of
the legislative branch.
Senator Hickenlooper. I suppose that the legal interpretation of
that would have to rest with the courts an^^way, and I do not care to
burden you with further discussion on this matter.
Attorney General McGratii. I think the courts have been passing
on that for 150 years, and there isn't a dissent that I know of.
Senator Hickexlooper. I think that there is very excellent argu-
ment that does not quite sustain your position, but then there is argu-
ment that can be used to sustain it also.
It is a close question, and I think this particular question has never
been squarely passed on by the courts. But I merely wanted to get
the position of your Department firmly fixed as to your Department's
rejection of the request of this subcominittee for a delivery of either
the raw files or, wanting that, the summarized files, which are not
so-called raw files of the Department.
1 believe that that is all the questions I have.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator ]\Ic]Mahon, have you any questions?
Senator McMaiiox'. 1 have a question or two for the Attorney Gen-
eral, but I would prefer to ask him after Mr. Hoover finishes his
testimony.
326 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Will you remain with us until Mr. Hoover fin-
ishes his testimony, Mr. McGrath ?
Attorney General McGrath. I certainly will.
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge, have you any questions?
Senator Lodge. Yes, I have one.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Senator Lodge. Have tlie raw files ever been made available to a
court ?
Attorney General McGrath. In the Coplon case. I think perhaps
Mr. Hoover can answer that. No request has ever come to me since
I have been Attorney General for a raw file, but Mr. Hoover has had
25 years' or more experience in these matters, and he probably would
be able to answer your question.
Senator Lodge. I wondered if there was any inconsistency between
their making the raw file available to the court and not making it avail-
able to the Congress.
Attorney General McGrath. If it was made available in the Coplon
trial, and I am not sure that it was, it would have been done with the
consent of the President via the Attorney General. I happen to know
there were considerable differences of opinion as to whether the
Government should have made as many files available in that case as it
did. Whether it was the complete raw file or not, I don't know.
Senator Lodge. Your statement applies only, does it not, to FBI
files, and not to State Department files or Civil Service files?
Attorney General McGrath. Oh, yes, Senator. I have nothing to
do with the files of the other departments, except that we would object
to your securing those files if they contained our FBI reports, which
I think they do, because the FBI is the agency that does all of the
investigating for the loyalty program. We would have no objection,
of course, to your obtaining the personnel files of any department.
We have no objection to your obtaining the Civil Service Commission
files on employees, so long as those files contain no part of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's work.
Senator Lodge. Thank you. That is all.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Hoover, will voii rise and hold up your right
hand?
Do 3^ou solemnly promise that the evidence you shall give in this
case as outlined in Senate Resolution 2;>1 sliall be the truth, the Avhole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Hoover. I do.
Senator Tydings. Take a seat, sir.
Before you begin testifying, Mr. Hoover, I want to take this occa-
sion to thank both Attorney General McGratli and you, sir, for accept-
ing my invitation to come up here today and give your personal view-
points on the matter that is pending before this committee.
Senator Hickenloopkr. Mr. Chairman, just before Mr. Hoover
testifies, I was handed a memorandum at the door as I came in from
Senator IMcCarthy's oftk'e. It is as follows, on his stationery :
MEMORANDUM
To : Soiiator Bourke Hickenlooper.
Fi'om : Senator Joe McCarthy.
I would appreciate it very much if you would inform .1. Edgar Hoover that I
deeply legret that I shall he luiahle to hear his testimony this afternoon because
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 327
of the fact that I am completely and inescapably tied up with the preparation of
material wliieh I expect to present on the Senate floor tomorrow.
1 am siire that Mr. Hoover will understand that my absence under the circum-
stances does not even remotely indicate any lack of interest in his testimony. I
shall obtain Ids testimony at the earliest possible moment for careful study.
Will you also inform Mr. Hoover that I shall greatly appreciate it if he will
have one of his asents available when I address the Senate tomorrow so that I
may turn over to him documents in the Lattimore case which I consider of
some importance. Thank you.
Joe McCarthy.
Mr. Hoover. That request will be complied with.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Hoover, will you proceed in your own way?
Wo will not interrupt you.
STATEMENT OF HON. J. EDGAR HOOVEE, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL
BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Mr, Hoover. In the 26 years during which I have been privileged to
serve as Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, I have al-
ways maintained the view that if we were to fully discharge the serious
responsibilities imposed upon us, the confidential character of our hies
must be inviolate.
A cardinal principle of success for any agency having a responsi-
bilit}^ for investigations is its ability to secure information. To do
that, it must be able to maintain confidences. Any person furnishing
information must have the security of knowing that when he fur-
nishes information on a confidential basis, he will not at a later date
find that confidence broken. When that occurs, the abilitj^ of the in-
vestigative agency to discharge its responsibilities in the future is
materially lessened.
The public record clearly proves that the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation, because it does maintain confidences, has been able to develop
valuable sources of information which have a direct bearing on the
internal security of the Xation. I need refer only to the 'Government
witnesses who testified in the trial of the 11 Communists leaders in
New York last summer. Seven of these witnesses risked their lives as
undercover employees of the FBI.
The question of opening the files of the FBI involves a grave matter
of principle. In taking the position that the files of the FBI should
remain inviolate, I would not, of course, presume to discuss files other
than those of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
These files contain complaints, allegations, facts, and statements of
all i)ersons interviewed. Depending upon the puri)ose of the investi-
gation, j)articidarly in security cases, they contain, not only back-
ground data on the individual but details of his private life which
bear upon the investigation. In these files also are the identities of
our confidential sources of information and full details of investiga-
tive techniques. In short, they consist of a rumiing account of all that
transpires.
A file is maintained in each case becaiise the FBI has received in-
formation, allegations, or a complaint which if proven (-(mies within
the s])here of our responsibility, in pursuance of eithei' congressional
or Executive directives. After the investigation is completed, when
indicated by Department procedure or judgment, a summai-y of the
facts developed is furnished to the Do]iartment cf Justice or Unjted
08970—50 — pt. 1 22
328 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTVESTIGATION
States attorneys. In other types of investigations, the reports of
special agents are submitted to the interested agency of the Govern-
ment. Details and information dealing with administrative opera-
tions and confidential sources of information remain in our hies. The
contents of these files were never intended to be disclosed and, unless
we drastically change or circumscribe our procedures, they should not
be disclosed.
The question of divulging contents of the files of agencies of gov-
ernment is not a new one. When confronted with the question of
divulging the files of an executive department of the Government in
1909, the late President Theodore Roosevelt said :
Some of these facts * * * wei'e iii\'en to the Government under the seal
of secrecy and cannot be divulged and I will see to it that the word of this Gov-
ernment to the individual is kept sacred.
The disclosure of the contents of the files of the FBI would reveal
confidential procedures and techniques. If spread upon the record,
criminals, foreign agents, subversives, and others would be forewarned
and would seek methods to carry out their activities by avoiding de-
tection and thus defeat the very ])urposes for vrhich the FBI was
created. Each exception undermines this principle, establishes a
precedent, and would result in a complete collapse of a traditional pol-
icy which has proven its soundness.
A disclosure of FBI reports would reveal the identity of confidential
sources of information and, if it did not place the lives of such persons
in actual jeopardy, it would certainly ruin their future value and
effectiveness.
The disclosure of FBI reports would make otherwise patriotic citi-
zens reluctant to furnish information. Already, as a result of some
unfortunate disclosures of our files in court proceedings, our special
agents frequently are being told by persons from whom they seek in-
formation tliat they will decline to he intervieAved for fear the infor-
mation will be misused by some agency other than the FBI.
In the conduct of official investigations, information of a highly
restricted nature having a direct bearing upon national security often
finds its way into the files, which, if disclosed, would be of considerable
value to a foreign power. Increasingly, we have observed efforts of
a foreign power to seek intimate personal details concerning many of
our leaders in government and industry. They should not be aided
by having these details made public for their use and advantage,
thereby crippling the important work of the FBI.
So far, I have directed my remarks against a disclosure of FBI
files on security grounds. There are other compelling reasons why
the files of the FBI should remain inviolate. For the want of a more
apt comparison, our files can be compared to the notes of a newspaper
reporter before he has culled through the printable material from the
unprintable. The files do not consist of proven information alone.
The files nnist be viewed as a whole. One re})ort may allege crimes
of a most despicable type, and the truth or falsity of these charges
may not emerge until several reports are studied," further investiga-
tion made, and the wheat separated from the chaff.
I, for one, would want no part of an investigative organization
which had the power of discretion to decide what information would
be .reported and what would be omitted. An item of information
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 329
■whicli a[)pears unimportant today may provide the solution of a case
Avlien considered witli information received at a later date, or it may
later establish the innocence of the accused.
Should a o-iven file be disclosed, the issue would be a far broader
■one than concerns the subject of the investiaation. Names of per-
sons who bv force of circumstance entered into the inA'estigation might
well be innocent of any wrong. To publicize their names, without the
ex))lanation of their associations, Avould be a grave injustice. Even
though tliey were given an opportunity to later give theii- explanation,
the fact remains that truth seldom, if ever, catches up with charges.
T Avould not want to be a party to any action which would smear
innocent individuals for the rest'^of their lives. We cannot disregard
the fundamental principles of common decency and the application of
basic American rights of fair play in the administration of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
The FBI has tlie obligation, v, ithin the scope of Federal law, not
only to protect the rights, lives, and property of our people, but also
to protect the confidential relationship of the individual when he
patriotically serves his Government by providing information essen-
tial to our security.
FBI reports set forth all details secured from a witness. If those
details were disclosed, they could become subject to misinterpretation,
they could be quoted out of context, or they could be used to thwart
truth, distort half-truths, and misrepresent facts. The raw material,
the allegations, the details of associations, and compilation of infor-
mation in FBI files must be considered as a whole. They are of value
to an investigator in the discharge of his duty. These files were
never intended to be used in any other manner and the public interest
would not be served by the disclosure of their contents.
In taking this stand, I want to reiterate a principle is involved. I
Avould take this same stand before the Attorney General, as I already
have, or before any other body. The fact that I have great respect,
confidence, and a desire to be of assistance to a committee of distin-
guished Senators, however, in no way detracts from a principle. I
say this because I do not want any misinterpretation of my remarks,
nor do I want it said that this and other committees of Congress do
not have my respect and confidence. I would, however, be derelict
to my duty, untrue to my conscience, and unworthy of my trust if I
took any other position.
Senator Tydings. Thank you, Mr. Hoover.
Senator Green ?
Senator Green. Mr. Hoover, there has been a good deal of evidence,
although no direct statement, to the effect that the process of screen-
ing these respective individuals is entirely inadequate. Will you give
the committee a description of what screening is done from the
bottom up?
]Mr. Hoover. Do you mean in these loyalty cases ? Are you referring
to those ?
Senator Green. Yes.
Mr. Hoover. In the loyalty cases the procedure which is followed
is for the Civil Service Conmiission to send to us various loyalty
forms of the employees of the Government. Those forms are first
searched against the name files of the FBI, and if in the name check
there is found any reference to subversive actitivies, or activities of a
330 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION
disloyal character, that loyalty form is returned to the Civil Service
Commission with the notation that an investigation has bee.i opened.
If there has been no disloyalty information developed from that check,
the notation is made "No disloyal data— FBI files.
In the first oroiip of cases, those upon which we find evidence ot
subversive activities, we initiate a full field investigation A case is
sent out to our appropriate offices, and information is developed as
to his background and the allegations which are or may already be
in the files of the FBI. Those reports are sent m to the Bureau and
are there reviewed. i ■ ci +t. ^
The report as you see it in the Bureau, the working hie or the raw
file, will contain the identity of all informants, the source of the infor-
mation, and the method by which it was received The report is theii
dio-ested, and transmitted to the Civil Service Commission with ad-
ministrative details and confidential sources remaining m our files.
In the cases where informants are willing to appear and testify,
their identities are set forth. In cases where they do not wish to have
their identities disclosed, they are designated by a symbol.
I may say for your benefit, Senator Green, that that procedure ot
. not disclosing the informant was not my decision, it was the decision
of the Presidential Loyalty Keview Board, which decided that tlie
identities would be kept confidential in those cases m which the inform-
ant desired that there was anything to be kept m such conhdeiice.
The reports upon a particular case go to the Civil Service Commis-
sion They in turn, I understand, refer them to the agency of the
Government in which the employee is at the time assigned, and that
agency will review those reports and the Loyalty Board will m due
time have a hearing and accord the employee the opportunity to be
present with counsel and to answer such questions ancl charges as the
Board may prefer. If they desire any agent of the Federal Bureau
of Investio-ation to appear at those hearings to testify as to matters
of which the agent may have first-hand knowledge, and not hearsay
information, agents apJDear and testify. i ^i, t> •
Then the employee, if he is found to be disloyal under the Presi-
dential directive, has a right of appeal to the Presidential Loyalty
Board. That is a very general statement. There are a lot o± minor
steps I have omitted for purposes of brevity.
Senator Green. That is a rather elaborate course of screening.
Mr. Hoover. Yes; I would say it is a rather elaborate course ot
screening. , . , ^ ^ .,
Senator Green. Is it a course which you would say was easily
adopted? . , ,, , ,,
Mr Hoover. I think it was the most practical program that could
be adopted at the time it was adopted. Maybe there are a few kmks
in the program that could be ironed out. The President has at all
times been studying that. I know very recently he requested the
Attorney General and myself to offer any suggestions or views that
would be of assistance toward improving or tightening that program.
We have given earnest consideration to that. I think all m all it was
a very fair procedure. r. . /-. xi
In the early stages of the loyalty program. Senator Green, there
was a great hue and cry on the part of some of these pseudo liberals
that it was a so-called "thought control" or "thought policing. It
STATE DEPARTMENT EjVIPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\'ESTIGATION 331
has been found after checking,' over 2,000,000 loyalty forms that there
liave been very few abuses, if any, that have actually taken place,
either in the investigating or the hearings that have been i-eported, and
in the investigations where there was some minor slip, corrective meas-
ures have been, of course, taken.
I think it has worked very well and I think that is the consensus
of the better thinking members of the press who have had an oppor-
tunity to view it and observe it first hand.
Senator Careen. I thank you very much for that statement, be-
cause 1 think it will restore confidence on the part of a great many
people where it has been somewhat shaken.
Senator Tydings. Senator Hickenlooper?
Senator Hickenlooper. I notice again in your statement, as I
noticed in the Attorney General's statement, a repeated and con-
tinued emphasis upon the opening of files for public disclosure. It
has never been my thought as a member of this conniiittee, and I
have heard no mention on the part of the subcommittee, that any of
these fik'S were to be opened by this committee for public disclosure.
Also, the question of so-called raw files has come up in the Attorney
General's statement.
As you stated a moment ago, I believe that you either symbolize
or give reference by number to the source of information on the part
of those people who do not like to have their names disclosed.
Mr. Hoo\t:r. That is correct, and when we submit that report to
the Civil Service Commission in the loyalty cases it is a summary of
the investigation by the Bureau.
Senator Hickenlooper. A great many of your reports adequately
serve the purpose when they are in fact summaries of all the infor-
mation which you have gathered about an individual is that not the
case?
Mr. HooM^R. I would assume that that is the case. We have had
very few complaints about it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you aware of loyalty files that havf
been made available to individual Members of Congress or to Con-
gressional committees of either the House or the Senate?
Mr. Hoover. By whom ?
Senator Hickenlooper. FBI reports or files.
]Mr. Hoo^T.R. By whom ? Just a minute. Who made the files avail-
able to Members of Congress? Not anybody in the FBI ever made
them available.
Senator Hickenlooper. I did not ask about the individual. I said,
are you aware of any occasions when FBI investigative files have been
made available by anybody to congressional committees or to indi-
vidual Members of Congress?
Mr. Hoover. I am not aware of any loyalty reports being made
available to any committee by any agency or any individual in the
Government, because there is a direct Presidential directive prohibit-
ing it. I know insofar as the Federal Bureau of Investigation is con-
cerned, no confidential reports of the Bureau have ever been made
available to anybody.
Senator Hickenlooper. What is the situation about the Senate Ju-
diciary Committee in connection with the investigation of Federal
judges?
332 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOJST
Mr. Hoover. In connection with the Senate Judiciary Committee^
there is again a so-called summarization of a file. The raw file is
not made available to the connnittee, by reason of the fact as the At-
torney General has explained this afternoon, that there is a difi'erent
principle involved in making available to a committee passing on the
qualifications, for confirmation, of a man to a judicial post than there
is involved in this over-all problem of internal security.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you consider that problem more im-
portant than the question of making available information to a com-
mittee that is trying to investigate alleged subversive activities which
may go to the heart of the national defense or our whole national
security ?
Mr. Hoover. I am not endeavoring to evaluate which is the most
important or which is the least important, Senator. I am stating to
you that as Director of the Bureau, in the years I have been Director
I have consistently urged the Department not to yield access to these
raw working files or to the summaries in tlie internal-security cases,
I can be overruled in that opinion by the Attorney General or the
President. Up to the present time the Attorneys General have sup-
ported that and the various Presidents have supported that position.
I think there is a great difference between an active file; a file that is
in question before this committee upon which this committee was seek-
ing access to the records is an active working file in current investiga-
tion. I do not think that file should be made available to .yon.
Senator Hickenlooper. In the event this committee made it clear
that what the committee was seeking was an accurate summarization
of the active working file, rather than the active working file itself
Senator Green. May I draw my distinguished colleague's atten-
tion to the fact that we were directed to obtain by subpena, if neces-
sary, and examine the complete loyalty and employment files and
records of (xovernment employees in the Department of State, and so
forth? Nothing was said about summaries.
Senator Hickenlooper. Getting back to the question that I was ask-
ing you, Mr. Hoover ■
Mr. HooAHER. I will answer the question, Senator, that I would cer-
tainly recommend to the Attorney General that any summarization not
be made available to the committee in an active internal security case,,
for the very reason that even though we summarize tlie file, the person
reading that summary could very readily draw certain conclusions and
deductions therefrom as to where the information might have been ob-
tained. It might be to the embarrassment of informants, and again it
is a matter of principle and one of degree. I have the utmost respect
for this committee and for its integrity, but if we yield in this one
case we break a precedent that will plague the Department and cer-
tainly, I think, materially interfere with the efficient operation of the
FBI in future years to come. Other committees will ask for it. It is
entirely within the realm of possibility, maybe not probability, that
there might be a committee in which we would not have the same con-
fidence we have in this committee. There have to be certain principles
set and adhered to or the floodgates will be opened.
Senator Hickenlooper. May I ask you, Mr. Hoover, a question I
asked the Attorney General, which he said j^ou were better qualified to
answer, and I believe that is true. How many clerks and stenographic
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 333
])ersoiiiiel and other people have access to the information, or at least
substantial parts of the information, tluit are contained in these files,
by way of compilation?
Mr. HoovEK. I would say. Senator, that there would be ])robably not
more than half a dozen. That would be a maximum number, a half
dozen employees of the Bureau who would have access to the entire,
whole workino' file. There are many clerks who will file certain papers
into a certain file and will make an index card, but the file is restricted
to requests from a particular supervisor or supervisors who are super-
vising- that case, and from the Assistant Director in charge of that
division and myself. The file is not allowed to be examined by any
clerk or em[)loyee just for the purpose of curiosity.
I ma}' also say. Senator, that each one of those employees of the
Bureau has been thoroughly investigated as to their integrity, their
loyalty, and as to their security risk, and we have never had a leak
from those files. I don't mean to infer that any committee on the Hill
or any of its staff may not be as good a security risk as our employees,
but I do not know whether they have been investigated, I do not know
whether they have been checked as thoroughly as our people, and
again, as I say, the danger of a leak from the Bureau — and I do not
say it is beyond the possibility of a leak in an organization that has
10.000 employees, but to date we have never had that occur to us.
Senator Hickenlooper. I might suggest, Mr. Hoover, that there are
at least two or three members of this committee, I think, that have had
access to a great many files. The Senator from Connecticut and I
have had access to many files of the Atomic Energy Commission that
are investigative files. I believe the Senator from ^laryland has had
access to certain files and information, and I do not believe any of us
as a result of that have leaked any information. I do not know about
Senator Green or Senator Lodge.
Senator Tydings. Just for the record in case there is a leak, the
Senator from Maryland has not read any of these summaries, pur-
posely.
Mr. Hoover. I want to make it very clear that I am not insinuating
any lack of security on the part of this committee. As I tried to treat
the point in my statement, it is a matter of principle. If we yield in
this particular request of this committee, which probably has members
equally as secure as any high officials in Government, you are setting
a precedent and opening a floodgate that is going to plague the Depart-
ment of Justice and materially interfere with the security work of the
FBI.
Senator Hickenlooper. I can understand your zeal, Mr. Hoover, in
the inviolate protection of your files and your investigative procedures.
But I do want to observe that this committee has been specifically
charged with investigating certain allegations and charges. It is
beyond my conception as to how this committee can investigate the
subject matter of the individuals charged, in their own interest and
in the interest of the public, now that the charges have been made,
if we are denied and have the door shut in our faces on information,
pro or con, which is officially in the hands of the Government, but
which we cannot see and which we cannot use in evaliuiting the merits
or the demerits of this investigation. That is the impasse to which
we seem to have come, and I would be the last one — I am not perhaps
334 STATE DEPARTAIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
the last one ; I do not mean to discredit anyone else. There are a great
many other people that would defend the integrity of your files and
the integrity of your investigative system to the utmost. I am per-
fectlv willing to do that. But I am anxious for someone to tell me
how I can discharge my responsibilities as a member of this subcom-
mittee when I do not have access to information in the hands of the
Government upon which to make up my own independent judgment
as to the merits or the demerits of these charges. That is the impasse
that confronts me as a member of this committee, and I personally feel
that there is not only no intention, but no possibility, of any disclosure
of specific information in any of these files that would be made by this
subcommittee unless and until full consultation and agreement with
the proper authorities had been later had that such disclosure was all
right.
Mr. Hoover. I agree with you in that conclusion. On the first I
cannot give you any assistance, as to how to break that impasse.
Senator Hickenlooper. I sadly agree that you cannot give me any
assistance on that.
Senator Tydings. I am going to defer to my colleagues in asking
questions and save mine until the last, but I would like to ask you one
question about something you have touched on with reference to
judges.
I would assume that one reason these summaries of the FBI files
are made known in the case of an applicant for appointment to be a
United States judge, wliether it be for one of the lower United States
courts or the highest, would be predicated on the fact that once he
has assumed office, he cannot be gotten off the bench except by death,
retirement, or impeachment, whereas in the case of all other indi-
viduals who work for the Government who are not elected, they can
be discharged or released without that situation requiring impeach-
ment. Is that one of the reasons, in your opinion, for this exception to
what might be called the strictness of the FBI in not disclosing the
files?
Mr. Hoover. I think the Attorney General can answer that prob-
ably better than I.
Attorney General McGrath. It goes beyond that. The applicant
for the job knows in advance that the FBI is going to make an investi-
gation and the results of that investigation are going to be made
known to proper officials. He is in a much different position when
he seeks that position than is the non-innocent or innocent employee
who is suddenly subjected to an investigation of his personal affairs
without any desire on his part so to be investigated. I think that
makes a big difference.
Senator Tydings. Furthermore, the judge sits with the power of
life and death in many cases of the citizens of the comnmnity, and I
am reminded that after the Punic Wars, when Solon was commissioned
to write the laws for ancient Greece, for the first time he gave the
people the right to vote only for the judges who would sit upon their
crimes and misdemeanors, for the reason that that is one thing above
all others that must have every security thrown about it, and if people
elect their own judges, obviously they must have confidence in their
integrity, and that was the reason that was done.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 335
Attorney General McGrath. May 1 say to you that the record of
the Federal Bureau of Investiaation and the l)ei)artnient with respect
to prosecaiticMi of all those auaiust whom suHicient evidence has been
secured is a sjilendid one, but this is not the time to discuss that
undertakinc:. There are facts built up from day to day that this
connnittee is not aware of as a whole, and it may be before j^ou con-
clude the work of this committee I should like to come back and review
with you everything that has been (h)ne in this field by the Department
of Justice, because I think it is a splendid record. That record is so
oood that if any Member of the United States Senate thinks there are
a lot of spies running around the United States, if he will tell us their
names and a little information, we will soon bring them to justice.
Senator Tydixgs. Thank you.
Senator McMahon?
Senator McMaiion. When was the loyalty program commenced,
Mr. Hoover?
Mr. Hoover. In 1947, I think.
Senator McMaiiox. And under it all of the 2,000,000 employees of
the Government have been checked?
Mr. Hoover. About 2,700,000 now, I think ; that is, all of them have
had a name check against the files of the Bureau. Of course, they have
not been investigated unless some indication of disloyalty was present.
Senator Mc]\Iahon. Can you tell us by whom this loyalty program
was initiated?
Mr. Hoo\'ER. Originally the President named a committee, headed
by Mr. Vanech. Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Jus-
tice, and upon that committee was Secretary of the Navy Sullivan and
Under Secretary of the Treasury Foley and representatives of various
other branches of the Government, who conferred at great length and
made recommendations to the President as to the procedures to be fol-
lowed in this particular program. Then there was a consultation with
the appropriate committees of the Hous.e for the granting of the ap-
propriations on it.
Senator McMaiiox. I remember there was about a 4 months' delay
before the money was appropriated after the program was formulated,
if I am not mistaken.
Mr. Hoover. I think that is correct. The committees of the Con-
gress gave it very careful study before the money was appropriated. I
appeared before several of them on the House side.
Senator McMahox. Mr. Attorney General, you have just stated
you do not consider it appropriate at this time to give us a review of
the Department's Avoi'k. I shall defer to your opinion as to its suita-
bility at this time. It does seem to me, however, that since it is in
this connnittee that charges have been made which have tended to
shake confidence in the diligence of the Govermiient's pursuit of wrong-
doers, that it woidd be proper for you to briefly review some of the
activities of the Department. I have in mind the 11 Communists in
New York: I have in mind the successful prosecution of Alger Hiss;
I have further in mind the prosecution of Mr. Bridges. I do not
know whether that case is successfully concluded. And also of those
persons who were in contempt of the committees of Congress for re-
fusing to answer questions concerning their communistic affiliations.
I do not wish to press you on it, but those thoughts do occur to me,
336 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
and it did seem appropriate to me that this was a phice and a time in
which proper reference to them could be made. However, if you feel
that you wish to come back again, I do not press it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I might say for the benefit
of the Attorney General that there are a number of questions collateral
perhaps to his statement today that I would like to discuss with him.
I refrained from asking those questions because his statement was con-
fined to a certain limited area, and if the matter is to be opened up I
merely wanted to say that I would have a great many questions to ask.
Attorney General McGrath. Senator Hickenlooper, that is exactly
what I meant when I said I didn't think that it was appropriate today.
We are here to discuss one question, the (][uestion of these files. But
there is a very splendid story that ought to be known, because I think
it would give confidence to the Members of Congress, I think it would
give confidence to the public at large.
I may say that there is no instance in which the Federal Bureau of
Investigation has completed a report involving disloyalty or subver-
siveness and referred it to the Attorney (general where court action
has not been instituted. And you may add to those you suggested
that it was Mr. Hoover's organization that got the leads which re-
sulted in the capture and arrest and conviction of Mr. Fuchs. Today
we were successful in the prostH'ution of the Dennis case. We have
a splendid record, and I think the countr}^ is entitled to know it, but
I do not believe that while we are here to discuss this question of rec-
ords that I ought to impose on the committee to talk about these
matters, and I would like to come back at some future time and talk
to the committee about what has been accomplished and to answer
any questions that Senator Hickenlooper may have with respect to
these matters.
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge, have you some questions ?
Senator Lodge. Yes. There is one point that I think ought to be
definitely elucidated for the record. Let me say I think you made
a very convincing exposition of your reasons foi' not setting a prec-
edent, and for what you describe as a matter of principle. I think
I heard you say that these raw files had not been made available to
anybody. I think I am quoting you correctly.
Mr. Hoover. That is correct.
Senator Lodge. That prompts me to ask the question. Has the raw
file not been made available to the courts in certain cases?
Mr. Hoover. There has been one instance last year where certain
very limited portions of the raw file were made available to the court
in the Coplon case. Certain re]:)orts were sealed for examination by
the judge in the last trial in New York City in the Crubichev and
Coplon case. In the trial in the District of Columbia there was in-
troduced into that trial certain copies of reports that had been for-
warded to the Department of Justice, and abstracts had been made
from them by Judith Coplon, and were found in her possession at
the time we arrested her in New York City.
That again showed the evil of making certain portions of that
available to the court, because in those files, just 1 or 2 reports taken
out of a file of maybe 5,000 re[X)rts, there were mentioned the names
of certain individuals. The president of a New England univerisity
was mentioned, and there were other very prominent people men-
tioned, upon whom there was cast an aspersion of subversive activities
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATTON 337
Avliich had never been established or verified by the FBI, because we
Avere not investio;ating that particular subject. Those reports were
introduced in the court at the direct ruling of the judge who presided,
fludge -Keeves in that case, and it was over the objection of the Attor-
ney General and the Department of Justice representatives. That
is the only case I know of.
Senator LoixiE. The Attorney General did not make the raw file
available?
]Mr. HoovKR. He did not make the whole file available. He made
available only the reports which Miss Coplon made reference to in the
abstract sli))s. That occured in the District of Columbia case. In the
New York case there was made available for the judge certain reports,
as you know, and sealed for the judge, for the examination of certain
information obtained by wire tapping, in order that the judge might
determine whether tliat evidence had been used to develop the case.
The judge ruled it had not been.
Senator Lodge. Did you approve of those two instances ?
Mr. Hoover. I did not.
Attorney General McCtratii. May I say that the decision in the
Coplon case had to be made by the Attorney General as to either pro-
ducing those files or dismissing the case against her, and against Mr.
Hoover's recommendation, the Attorney General, who is to proceed
with the case, made information from the file available under such
restrictions as. we could secure from the court.
Senator Lodge. Is it true that when those files were made available
the7v' were made available for public disclosure?
Mr. Hoover. The portions of the reports that were made available
in XcAv York City were sealed. Judge Ryan presided in this case —
tliose reports were sealed, and he examined them in chambers. He did
have some discussion, I think, with both the prosecuting Lmited States
attorney and defense counsel. They were not made available in open
court. The particular portions were sealed for the examination of the
court.
Senator Lodge. Were not parts of the raw file put in in the Wash-
ington trial?
Mr. Hoover. There were portions of the raw material that had been
used in the Washington trial that were printed in the papers. On the
excerpts that were made the court ruled that the whole report from
which she had abstracted information had to be introduced for the
information of the court.
Senator Lodge, That was the only part that was available?
Mr. Hoover. The raw files in thatVase I think ran to 1(),()()0 or 12,000
pages, and all that was produced was some 2G reports, to my recol-
lection.
Senator Tydings. If you will allow me to pursue one or-two ques-
tions, in your prepared remarks, on page 2, I see this sentence in the
middle of the second paragraph :
A file is maintained in each case because tlie FBI has received information
allegations, or a complaint which if proven comes within the sphere of our
responsibility, in pursuance of either congressional or Executive directives.
Then this :
After the investigation is completed, when indicated by Department procedure
or judgment, a summary of the facts developed is furnished to the Department
of Justice and to United States attorneys.
338 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
In other words, I imagine when yon think yon have completed a file
and have made out a case that violates any of the laws of onr country,
that file is then sent by you automatically to the Attorney General or
the United States attorneys, wherever the jurisdiction may lie, for
proper action by the courts.
Mr. Hoo^^R. Not the raw file. There is what is called a summary
report made from the raw file, and there will be withheld from that
report the sources and other confidential information that we do not
desire to disclose.
Senator Tydings. I did not mean to say the raw file. What I
meant to say, you say "We have completed the case ; the evidence is
there, and we send the summary for you to work with."
Mr. Hoover. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. You do not need to answer this unless you want
to, l)ut I can see no harm in it. I would assume that if you have not
sent a file forwai'd in any particular case, it would be for the reason
that the case itself does not show such a conclusive state that you could
forward it to the proper agencies for legal action.
Mr. Hoover. That would be, I would say. Senator in about 98 or 99
percent correct ; for this reason I reserve the 2 percent : There are
cases which we bring to conclusion in which we may have direct
evidence of a violation of law, but for purposes of caiTj'ing on further
inciuiries to identify other members of the ring it is not forwarded at
that time. I recall the days of the Duquesne case at the beginning of
the last World War in New York City, where we had one or two men at
the very beginning that we were certain had violated the espionage
statutes. We held that case back for 18 months. AYlien we went to
trial we had 38 defendants, all of whom were convicted.
Senator Tydings. So that, except for the excejition that you first
enumerated, in each case where you feel you have gathered sufficient
evidence you forward it then to the proper legal authorities for such
action as is necessary.
Mr. Hoo\T.R. That is correct. Senator.
Senator Tydings. And there would be no completed case in your
files showing a breach of any of the Govei'nment's laws except for the
reason you have given, that you would withhold it.
Mr. Hooat=:r. That would be correct.
Senator T^tungs. Thank you very much, Mr. Hoover.
Senator McMahon. There is one additional question I would like
to ask.
Mr. Hoover, on the first page of your statement you say, at the bot-
tom :
The question of opening the tiles of the FBI involves n iTave matter of prin-
ciple. In taking the position that the tiles of the FHI shoulrl remain inviolate. I
would not. of course, presume to discuss files other than those of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
I assume that your feeling, however, would go to the files of other
Government departments that contain your reports?
Mr. Hoo\T5R. We have a very definite understanding with the other
governm.ental agencies that no reports of the FBI which are sent to
them, whether it be loyalty reports or reports on security of the War,
Navy, Interior, or Treasury, can be released by that agency upon re-
quest from any source without first clearing with the Federal Bureau
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 339
of Investigation, iind if there is any (luestion in my mind as to the
l)ropriety of it, I submit it to the Attorney GeneraL
Senator McATahox. That clears that up.
Senator HicivKNr.oorEK. Just one question that occurred to me that
I do not think I quite foUow up. I woukl like to ask Mr. Hoover this
question. AVe were discussing the case of the Judiciary Committee of
the Senate receivino; summaries on Federal judijes. Are you aware of
any other instances where summaries developed by the FBI have been
turned over to other conunittees of Congress i
Mr. Hoover. In the atomic-energy cases that has been done by rea-
son of the very unusual, and I think very satisfactory, procedure
Avhich was worked out for having a joint conmiittee of Congress
created by Congress, having very definite responsibility for the check-
ing of the activities of the Atomic Energy Commission. In that
instance the Attorney General approved the requests that were made
for making available to the Joint Connnittee on Atomic Energy the
sunnnary lejiorts in some of those cases. In each instance, however,
they inquire of the Bureau as to whether there is any reason why this
report should not be released at that ])artieular time. There may be
a current investigation going on, in which event we would not want it
released.
Senator Hickenlooper. In those cases it is my understanding in
connection with the Atomic Energy Commission that the FBI claims
no supervision or dominion over any files once the file that is in the
Atomic Energy Commission has actually gone into the custody of the
Atomic Energy Commission.
Mr, Hoover. We do not claim full supervision over the file. We do
claim a right to be advised if any portion of the file which they have
received from the Federal Bureau of Investigation is to be made
available.
Semitor Hickenlooper. I see.
Do you know of any other committee. of Congress which has been
given access to summary files developed by the Federal Bureau of
Investigation other than the Atomic Energy Commission?
Mr. Ht)ovf:R. I think in the case of the Committee on Expenditures
last year or the year before, headed by Senator Ferguson, there were
certain files made available to that committee at the direction of the
Attorney General in connection with the Kansas City election-fraud
causes. That is the onlv other instance I can recall that any files were
made available. They have not been made available to the Appro-
priations Committees of either House of Congress.
Senator Hickexlooper. Or any other committee of tlie House or
Senate?
Mr. H'jovER. So far as my knowledge goes, no.
Senator Hickexlooper. That you know of.
Senator TvniX(;s. I would like to thank you. General McGratli. and
you, Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, both for coming up before us at our invi-
tation and conferring on the matter before us.
In the event the chairman may be absent for several days this week.
I have designated Senator Green to act as chairman so as not to
delav the work of the connnittee.
(Whereupon, at 5 : 10 p. m., a recess was taken until 10 : 30 a. m. of
the following day, Tuesday. March 28, 1950.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
TUESDAY. MARCH 28, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee ox Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under S. Res. 231,
Washington^ D. C.
The subcommittee met. pursuant to adjournment on March 27, 1950,
at 10: 30 a. m. in room 318 Senate Office Building, Senator Theodore
Francis Green, acting chairman, presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings, Green ( acting chairman of the subcom-
mittee), McMahon, Hickenlooper, and Lodge.
Also present : Senators Connally (chairman of the full committee) ,.
Wiley, and Tobey.
Senator Green. Come to order, please.
Is ^Ir. Hanson here ?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. Mr. Hanson, please stand. You are Haldore
Hanson ? •
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir. ^
Senator Green. Hold up your right hand. Do you solenmly swear
that the testimony you will give in this hearing before this committee
will be the truth, the whole truth, and iiQthing but the truth, so help
you God ?
Mr. Hanson. Yes. sir.
Senator Green. Mr. Hanson, you have asked to come here. I sup-
l)ose it is in repl}' to certain charges that have been made against you
by Senator McCarthy at the hearing on March 13.
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. You may proceed in your own way to answer what
you think is relevant.
STATEMENT OF HALDORE HANSON
Mr. Hanson. I have a few character statements, sir, which I
would prefer to read first, and then I will be glad to answer any ques-
tions of the connnittee.
Senator Green. Very well; proceed.
Mr. Hanson. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to appear
before your conmiittee.
On ^larch 13 Senator McCarthy testified before this committee that
I had pro-Communist proclivities and that I was a man with a mis-
sion to communize the world. He even compared a book I once wrote
with Hitler's Mein Kampf.
341
342 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr Chairman, communism is the nastiest word in the American
vocabukrrtXj'. In this country the word Communist stands tor
Li Xidual who IS a sneak, a thief, a liar a traitor. It makes no
Meience whether you qualify the word anc say -'l^^^^^^l^Z-
munist or has an affinity for communism, or has pro-Communist pio
c v ies They all mean that he is the dirtiest, lowest type of man
I deeply resLt this attack upon my loyalty. I wish to state now,
unde oath that I am not a Communist. I have never been a Com-
mst I have never belonged to an organization cited by the Attor-
evcfenera as being a Communist-front organization. I have never
SS as-'lteS with an espionage agent of a foreign power I
havrnever advocated the Communist form of governnient anywheie
at any time, for any people. I have never committed any act which
^^f Si5;S^?S^^^-^arthy will say d^ectly ^at he has
reS^!^fEi41i^l!i^MX^^^
fay S without^the benefit of congressional immunity, I assure Inm that
he will be called upon to answer to me m a court of justice at the ear-
liest possible moment, . i „ xu^f t
On what does Senator McCarthy base this serious charge that I
have pro-Communist proclivities and that I have a mission to com-
munize the world? Does he base these charges on evidence that I am
a mrbe of the Communist Party? Does he chum tx) have evidence
Uiit I have been associated with organizations which have been desig-
nated by the Attorney General as Communist fronts? Does he have
anv evidence that I have followed the Commumst Rirty line m its
Zish adherence to the needs of SoViet foreign policy dunng the
nnst 11 vears« Surely a man with a mission to communize the \\oilcl
^;Sld have performed some overt service for the Communist Party
durino- this period. The reason Senator McCarthy does not have this
evi^clence is because it does not exist. I am conficlent that an investiga-
tion of my political philosophy and my moral character will convince
you ?hat bith compare favorably with those of any loyal American
who is conscious of his duties of citizenship and is striving to live hon-
orably in his community. ivTor^o,.fiiv'«
An examination of my record will disprove Senator McCai thy s
accusations. That record has been ex^immed by the Government
through a comprehensive FBI investigation completed m 1948 under
the President's Government-wide loyalty procedures. My activities
in China as well as in the United States were covered and my wi'itings
were reviewed. Senator McCarthy produced no new facts before this
committee which were not available to those investigators. In ±act
he produced nothing that I hadn't put m a public library After the
FBI investigation, I was given a complete clearance by the JJepait-
'" In the course of these investigations, I made available to the officers
concerned not only a full file of my public writings but even a personal
diary which I had kept during the entire period that I was with the
Chinese Communists. . , ^ • n ^^ i i^,r
Mv Chairman, I wholeheartedly believe m the President s loyalty
niocram, and I want to help in every possible way to maintain the
)ubTic"s confidence in the loyalty of its servants.
STATE DEPART.MENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IX\ESTIGATIOX 343
I believe that subversives can be ferreted out of the Government
by the quiet, sober, thorouoh methods now used by the FBI. The kind
of public denunciation, labelino;. and hate-inonoerino- with which
we are now dealing- is alien to the traditions of the United States and
more closely resembles the purges of another political system.
^Ii'. Chaiiman, let me tell you what the impact was on me when my
picture suddeidy appeared in the newspapers under the caption "Red.
in State I)ei)artment."
On Marcli 1.'5. without any warning or opjxjrtunity to present my
side of the case, 1 was called out of a meeting in the State Department
and told that Senatoi- McCarthy had namecl me to this committee as
one of the cases which he.claimed would prove his charge that there
were Connnunists in the State Department.
I spent the rest of that day and practically all of the following day
answering queries from the ])ress and radio.
By the third day, I acquired a false feeling of optimism that came
from reading and listening to viewpoints that coincided with my own.
Many editorials said Senator ]\IcCarthy had not proved his case.
So did many columnists and connnentators. Telegrams and letters
from my personal friends told me it was ridiculous. Colleagues in
the State Department told me not to worry about it. I thought that
by the end of the week it would be forgotten, hoping that reasonable
people who read the newspapers would know the charges were not
true.
That was the ]:)oint at which I got my second shock. I went to see
an elderly neighbor about helping me with some fencing on a farm
I own in Virginia. He is a man I have known for 5 years. He has
helped me many times.
He told me that the day before he had been standing at his mail box
when several other neighbors stopped by. One said, "Could you be-
lieve it, that we have had a Russian spy living in our neighborhood
all these years and didn't know it."
I went on to the home of the man who has been feeding my cattle
this winter. He lives about 4 miles from me. He said he had been
asked by a number of persons in Leesburg, the county seat, whether
he intended to keep on working for that Communist.
From a housewife in the village near my farm. ^Nfrs. Hanson got
word of a petition being circulated, calling my family undesirable and
asking us to get out of the community. 1 have since verified this re-
port from several sources. And, as I reported to the chairman in my
request for this hearing, I understand the petition has now been Avith-
drawn. because a lawyer advised the circulator of the petition not to
continue his activities.
My latest information of this kind, which I did not state in my let-
ter to the chairman, concerns a meeting of a country agricultural com-
mittee at Leesburgh at which a Vir-ginia State official from Rich-
mond, in the })resence of a number of fai'mers, denounced the growing
n\nnber of (^ommunists in Government and named me as one of them.
As far as T know, he had never heard of me until Senator McCarthy's
char<res.
Ml". Chairman, I do not recount these facts to aj^peal for sympathy.
The farming connnunity in which I live consists of no more than 50
families. It is noted for its active clun-ch and PTA. It is a good
68970— 50— pt. 1 — —23
344 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
American community. I want you to know what is happening in this
one community. It may be happening in other connnunities across
the land. I learned one thing from these experiences. To many
loyal Americans, who have read the assertions about Communists
still in the Government, any American whose name appears in the
newspapers charged with being a Communist is guilty until proved
innocent. You have probably heard the story, Mr. Chairman, about the
juror who was asked what his opinion was about the guilt or innocence
of the defendant. He said, "Of course he's guilty. Why else would
he be here?"
I deeply resent the action of a United States Senator, shielded by
his congressional immunity, who makes charges without investigation,
and thus starts a ground swell of hate.
Senator McCarthy recommended to this committee tliat it examine
my background and philosophj^ I would like to submit fuller in-
formation on this subject than Senator McCarthy was able to quote
from the Department of State Register.
My Norwegian grandparents came to this country about 1870 and
settled in the little town of Sparta, Wis., a little over 100 miles from
Senator McCarthy's home town. The family home there is still occu-
pied by Hansons. My various uncles, cousins, and nephews, includ-
ing Thompsons, Olsons, and Lundquists, are scattered in many towns
of Wisconsin.
My father and mother settled in the neighboring State of Minne-
sota, where I was born in the iron-mining town of Virginia, Minn.,
the second of five children. I went to public school in Duluth, Minn.
I was active in the YMCA at the age of 10. I went to YMCA sum-
mer camps and was president of the Hi-Y Club during my high-school
years. From the age of 12 I was a Boy Scout. I became an Eagle
Scout ; I served as a Boy Scout camp counselor, and served as Scout-
master during my first year of college. I was active in the Presb\-
terian Church, of which all my immediate family were members. My
father was a Sunday-school superintendent.
During my senior year in high school I was awarded a summer in
Europe as a result of an essay contest sponsored by a boys' maga-
zine. The award included only my travel expenses from New York
City to Europe and back to New York. I recall I went through a
period of some uncertainty, when I was unable to raise the necessary
travel costs to New York, but a neighbor, an architect for the United
States Steel Corp., arranged for me to travel down the Great Lakes
and back on one of the company's ore boats. 1 was then able to spend
several inonths visiting in European homes, principally in Scandi-
navia.
I attended Duluth Junior College for 1 year and Carleton College
at Northfield, Minn., for 3 years. By means of scholarships, a job
waiting on table, and loans, I was able to finish my college education
during the depression. I might say my family was trying to help
three children through college at the same time. That is the reason
this impressed me. I majored in history and political science. I
was a debater and on the track squad. I was elected to Phi Beta
Kappa.
Carleton College for 40 years has maintained an affiliation with a
Chinese high school, called Carleton-in-China, located in Shansi Prov-
STATE DEPAKTAIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVEFTir.ATIOX 345
ince. I suppose it was through hearing about this school that I be-
came interested in China. Before I decided to go there, I talked it
over with an old newspa])ernian, fieff Jones, of the Minneai)olis Star,
and with Dr. Walter Judd, who was then doing medical research at
^Mayo Clinic. He was on furlough from his missionary work in China.
Both encouraged me. After graduation in 10;U. I borrowed a small
amount of money and made my way to Peiping, China.
At first I lived with a retired Chinese Minister of Finance, work-
ing as a secretary and teaching in a YJNICA college. I might say that
this retired official had a son who was my classmate in college. I had
entertained his son in my home and it was a return courtesy. I studied
Chinese, That year the Japanese Army was already holding maneu-
vers along the railroads east of Peiping, under an old treaty right,
and there were a number of shooting incidents involving Japanese
and Chinese.
^ly second year in Peiping I held several teaching positions and
began free-lance writing for publications in Shanghai. I spent the
Avinter and summer vacations traveling through 14 Cliinese provinces
and writing articles for magazines in China. During that year the
Japanese Army smashed the Chinese Government authority over the
customs service in North China by sending gangs of thugs to beat up
the Chinese railroad guards. I wrote a number of stories on that and
one magazine article.
My third year I taught English at Central China College, one of
the 13 Christian colleges in China. I worked simultaneously as a
"string" correspondent for the Associated Press and Avrote editorials
for the Hankow Herald. That was the year that Chiang Kai-shek
was kidnaped, a truce was reached in the civil war, and the Chinese
Communists agreed to fight against the Japanese under the leadership
of Chiang Kai-shek,
I have recently looked over my writing files for the 3 years 193i to
1937. Those were the years immediately preceding the invasion.
There are some 600 pages of articles, mostly contributed to publica-
tions in China. I was preoccupied with two subjects: One was the
menace of Japanese invasion; the other was the appalling social
jn-oblems of China. I wrote articles about Chiang Kai-shek's military
j)repai'ation. about the railroad network for defense, and about the
Japanese battle over the customs. I also wrote about famines, flood
control, the opium trade, the land tax. and experiments with new
crops. I find I Avas quite interested in agriculture at that time, al-
though I had no previous experience with farming. T find in that
file no article about the Chinese Communists or conmuniism.
Then came the war. Wlien the invasion began on Jrily 7, 1937, it
was no surprise. Our small American comnninity in China had wit-
nessed years of Japanese Army arrogance, bullying, and deceit. No
normal American in China in 1937 could avoid a feeling of bitterness
toward Japan and an eagerness for successful Chinese resistance.
That was tlie big political issue. It was the main topic of conversa-
tion. It was the principal story for newspapermen.
Two weeks before the war started I returned to Peiping, hoping to
be around when the shooting started. For those 2 weeks I assisted a
Japanese resistance magazine, and did feature writing for the Peiking
Chronicle. I was out at the Marco l*olo Bridge on the morning of tho
346 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
incident. I was assigned thereafter as a f"^^-^;"^^^^^^^!?;^;^^!;^^^^^^
the Associated Press, and covered ahnost every front m Onna dniing
the followinof year and a half. ^ ^ t^ • . i i.
I returned to the United States in January 19: 9. Dunng that year
I 4as married to Bernice Bro..i of Chicago who ^-^\been a fe lo^^
student in college and later had served as a teacher at Caileton-in-
ri n We now have two children : A daughter, 4, and a son, age 1
I rejoiiied the Associated Press at Chicago in 1939, on the day tha
Hitler invaded Poland, and served as a staff wnter and eclitor unti
Z-ly after Pearl HaAor. During this per.od I ^^uched Frenclwnu
German at the Berlitz School in Chicago, liopnig that the AP ^Nould
send me into the European war zone. h^nnened this
In February 1942, I entered the Government It happened tnis
way • The AP assigned me to cover a meeting ot the American Hi.-
Sal Associatioirin Chicago during the Christmas hohday season
1941 I encountered a number of professors who had lived in China.
This was about 3 weeks after Pearl Harbor They told me that both
the State Department and the Coordinator ot lutormation were look-
1^^ for peop e with China background. I wrote to both to find what
fey weie okring. 1 found that the State Department was pnmarily
nterested in someone to recruit civilian advisers for the Chinese Gov-
emmei t, and wanted a person with a current knowledge of conditions
in we' China where General Chiang Kai-shek was making his war
basr I, of course, had just come back from that area approximately
sTears before. I was\dred by the Department to nndertake that
assignment. I would like to submit, as an exhibit, a list of the jobs 1
have since held in the Department and the work I have done.
Senator Green. Do you wish to submit it now '(
Mr Hanson. I wish to put it in the record, sir
Inc'identally, Mr. Chairman, Senator McCarthy did read you from
the State Department Biographical Register the official statement of
my work in the State Department. This is an amplihcation indicating
the kind of work involved. . ...■.-..
Senator Green. Were there any discrepancies m his list (
Mr Hanson. There is always a discrepancy, sir, between the official
State* Department Register, which is based upon personnel actions,
and the dates under which a man actually entered on duty on a ]ob.
There is no other discrepancy-wait a minute; I will take that back
There were several minor misquotations, but they are not relevant to
this particular point. .
The important thing is, sir, that personnel actions requires a matter
of months when a man is assigned to a new job. and I am giving you
the dates on which I actually entered on duty on each job, and he was
crivino- you the date on which the Civil Service Commission recorded
that action. ^ x^ ^^ ^ it
Without going into details about my State Department work 1
should like to correct a few false impressions given by Senator Mc-
^'in Vbscussing my work with the Far East branch of the Public
Affairs Overseas Program Staff in 1947-48, he implied tMt m this
capacity I was responsible for political policies. That staff on Avhich
I worked was entirely concerned with the Department s far eastern
information program, not with. formulation of policies.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 347
Let lue ;ukl tliai tluriiii>' my 8 years in the Deparlinent 1 have never
been assianed to the Hureau of Fai- Eastei'n Atl'airs, Avhicli is respon-
sible for our political policies in that area; nor have 1 ever held a
])()sitioii which involved any responsibility for such policies or in
which my advice on such policies was asked.
Also, in discussino- my present work with the Interim Office of Tech-
nical Cooperation and Development, Senator McCarthy quoted from
the dej^artmental announcement of the creation of this onice a set of
responsibilities which he said were those of my division. He was
quotino-, however, the responsibilities of the officer director, a position
now iilled by a Class 1 Foreif^n Service Officer, and to be filled under
the new leaislation now before Con^jress by an Administrator ap-
pointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.
Senator McCarth}^ then read another set of responsibilities which in
actuality are those of not one but three Assistant Secretaries of State
for the various regional bureaus — that is. Assistant Secretaries Butter-
Avorth, jNIcGhee, and Miller^ — and concluded, "This is all to be done
by the unit to which Hanson has been assigned as Chief."
1 appreciate the promotion, but my role is actually of a more humble
nature.
Senator Greex. Do j^ou wish to deny that categorically or only by
inference ?
Mr. Hanson. I most emphatically do deny it directly and cate-
gorically.
Mr. Chairman, my only major private interest today, outside of the
Department of State, is the management of a 270-acre cattle farm in
Loudoun County, Va., which I bought in 1945. Last year I fattened
60 head of cattle and produced approximately 100 hogs. I have spent
from 40 to 60 days a year during the last 4 years, including most week
ends and all my vacations, working on this farm, putting up new
fences, repairing buildings, and helping with the animals. I live
there with my family 7 or 8 months of the year and commute to
Washington.
My wife has been in the real-estate business here in Washington,
between having babies, and her earnings helped to pay for a new silo
and two cattle ponds at the farm.
If I have any "mission," other than trying to do a good job at my
work, it is to make that a model farm which will pay back the sub-
stantial amount invested in new buildings and fences.
I should now like, Mr. Chairman, to take up some of the specific
items which Senator McCarthj^ cited as evidence.
I take first his reference to my newspaper dispatches which were
smuggled out of guerrila territory by arrangement with Chinese Com-
munist couriers.
Senator Green. It says in my copy "by arrangement with Chinese
Communist generals." Is that incorrect?
Mv. Hanson. Of course the actual smuggling was done by couriers
for the Chinese Communists.
Senator McCarthy neglects to state that I was with the Communist
Ai-niy l)y assignment as a war correspondent of the Associated Press,
that this was during the Japanese invasion of China; that at the time
the Chinese Communists had signed a truce with Chiang Kai-shek and
were fighting against the Japanese under the supreme command of
Chiang Kai-shek.
f
348 STATE DEPARTMExVT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Mr. Hanson, let's get this straight right there. At
the time you were assigned by the Associated Press to cover the work
of tiie Chinese Communist armies, to amplify your statement were
the Chinese Communist Armies exclusively under the direction of
Chiang Kai-shek?
Mr. Hanson, Yes, sir
Senator Tydings. Were there any Chinese Communist armies that
were not under his leadership '^
Mr, Hanson, Not to my knowdedge.
Senator Tydings. Were all the Chinese Communist armies that you
served with under the direction of Chiang Kai-shek ?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir.
As a reporter, I found that the Chinese Communists were putting
up a good fight against the Japanese, and I wrote about them as I saw
them.
Now, it is grossly misleading to take objective journalistic reports
about the Chinese Communists in 1938, at the time of a united front
with Chiang Kai-shek against Japan, and to deduce from them my
attitude toward the Chinese Connnunists, 11 years later, in the midst
of a cold war between the democracies and world communism.
I hesitate to draw such a comparison, but Senator McCarthy could
conclude with equal logic that Winston Churchill is guilty of pro-
Communist proclivities going back to 1943 because back in November
1943 he said :
That monstrous juggernaut engine of German might and tyranny lias been
beaten and broken, outfought and outmaneuvered by Russian valor, generalship,
and science.
Senator Tydings. I would like to say that so far Mr. Churchill is
not one of the men we are set up to investigate.
Senator McMahon. We had better wait and see.
Mr. Hanson. There is no question, Mr. Chairman, in my mind
that since VJ-day the Chinese Communists have been guided by their
joint interests with the international Communist movement.
Incidentally, Senator McCarthy stated under oath that I had spent
2 years with the Chinese Communists. Actually, as my book shows,
it was 4 months.
Senator Tydings. Did you spend any other time than the 4 months
you have related with the Chinese Communist Armies?
Mr. Hanson. No, sir. I have never associated with nor been in
contact with any Chinese Communists other than wliat was related in
my book.
Senator Tydings. Then the sole time you were with them was the
time you were assigned to be with them by the Associated Press?
Mr. Hanson. That is correct. In 1934-37, when I was a free agent
writing about China, I never visited the Communists and never wrote
an article about them.
Senator Tydings. Werfi there any other writers assigned by the
Associated Press or working with the Chinese Communists at that
particular time?
Mr. Hanson. I can't verify this at the particular moment, sir, but
throughout the 8 yeai'S of the China War every regular correspondent
of the New York Times and tlie New York Herald Tribune as well
as the Associated Press visited at some time with the Chinese Commu-
nist armies.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 349
Senator Tydixgs. Did you liavo an oiiportnnity to read some of tlie
reports that these other correspondents you have designated made for
their associations?
Mr. IIaxsox. Yes, sir.
Senator Tvdixgs. In wliat respect, if any, were yours substantially
ditf'erent from theirs?
Mr. Hanson. Only in that I believe I was the only correspondent
■who entered the area east of the Pekin-Hankow Railioad, and covered
a Communist military movement that others did not have an oppor-
tunity to see.
Senator Tydings. Leaving aside the difference in area, were these
re})orts substantially alike?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Hanson. Senator McCarthy also concluded that the mere fact
I was able to travel with Chinese Communists troops was evidence that
I was pro-Communist. I went to Chinese Communist territory be-
cause I was ordered there by Associated Press and also because as a
good ncAvspaperman I wanted to go where the news was. It makes
no more sense to say that I w^as pro-Communist because I spent 4
months behind the Chinese Comnnmist lines than to say that I was
pro- Japanese because I spent 11 months behind the Japanese lines.
Senator Tydings. When did you spend those 11 months behind the
Japanese lines?
Mr. Hanson. From August 1937 to July 1938.
Senator Tydings. So that both the time you were behind the Com-
munist lines for 4 months and the 11 months you were behind the
Japanese lines you were on assignment from the Associated Press, and
this assignment was before we were in the war ?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir.
I might add that I also spent several months behind Chiang Kai-
shek's lines. ,
I find that I am coming to that in my text. I was later cleared by
Chiang Kai-shek's Army Intelligence for an assignment at his general
staff headquarters, living in the same hotel with the staff.
If there had been anything pro-Communist about those dispatches
of mine, I am sure my own AP superiors would have been the first
to protest. I looked in my AP file for that period and found a letter
from my New York office elated November 30, 1938. It is signed
by John Evans, chief of the AP foreign service. It reads in part:
I send you my own and others' compliments on the guerrilla stories. The at-
tached clipping shows how a half dozen of your stories were dovetailed to make
two long stories in the Sunday Service. You linow that iMcDaiiiel —
another AP correspondent —
had a hand in shaping up your notes and messages.
The stories were used widely and attracted such attention that Reader's
Digest asked to reprint them. * * *
The page from Time magazine is another proof of general Interest in the
human narrative you pulUMJ out of interior China. The world is somewhat
tirt'd ipf war communiques but it welcomes a fresh view of life behind the lines
and the lilood and iron that carries on the war.
I received a further letter from the Associated Press Office in New
York dated December 13, 1938. It was signed by the general man-
ager. Mr. Kent Cooper. Mr. Cooper described the arrangements with
350 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOX
Reader's Di^eiit for piiblishiiio- some of my stories on the guerrillas
and concluded : "]\Iay I add my personal congratulations to you on
the excellence of your work in this connection?"
Now, the book about which Senator McCarthy spoke is entitled
"Humane Endeavor, the Story of tlie China War." It is a book of
380 pages, published in the fall of 1939 by Farrar & Rinehart.
It was my first and, so far, my only book. It was published when
I was 27 years old. It is not a great book. It did not sell very well.
I consoled myself at the time that its publication was almost simul-
taneous with Hitler's invasion of Poland, a fact which focused at-
tention on Europe.
The book attempted to give a balanced picture of the China war. I
devoted 12 chapters to my experiences with the Japanese Army, 9
chapters to my experiences w^ith the Communist guerrillas, and 10
chapters to the military and economic effort of Chiang Kai-shek's
Nationalist forces.
But I don't believe the excerpts chosen by Senator McCarthy give
a balanced picture of my book.
For example, Senator McCarthy used the following characteriza-
tions in an attempt to show my pro-Communist feelings. These are
each a phrase pulled out of the text to describe an individual, and each
of the ones I am going to read are Communist leaders, whether gen-
erals or otherwise :
General Ho Lung :
He is a living picture of Rhett Butler from the pages of Gone With the
Wind.
General P'eng Teh-huai : A "most rigid disciplinarian" and "the
most persistent student of world affairs."
Mao Tse-tung :
The least pretentious man in Yenan and the most admired.
And for the group of leaders :
My attitude toward Communist China's leaders was a mixture of respect for
their i^ersonal integrity and a resentment of their suspiciousness. They im-
pressed me as a group of hard-headed straight-shooting realists.
Incidentally, that was a misquotation by Senator McCarthy. What
I wrote, and he can check this in the book, was "hard-headed, hard-
shooting realists." There is quite a difference in the connotation of
that midwestern colloquialism.
If the committee will turn to the section of the book devoted to
Chiang Kai-shek's government and armies, it will find even more
favorable references to Nationalist leaders.
For example, I referred to "the progress toward honest government
which Chiang Kai-shek is promoting in China." And here are some
other such references :
Chang Chun, governor of Chiang Kai-shek's Avar base :
"A reputation for integrity, diplomacy, and absolute loyalty."
Madame Chiang Kai-shek : After I had described her war orphan-
ages I said :
Such a development is extraordinni'y in China where people have so long
been indifferent to the welfare of the lower classes. The credit must go to the
Madamissimo and her American ideas of philanthropy.
STATE DEPAHTME^•T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATIOX 351
Dr. F. C. Yen, Chiang Kai-shek's Minister of Health:
As fearless a crusader aj-ainst quackery as Dr. :\Iniris Fislilicin of the Ameri-
can Medical Association Journal.
Dr. Wong Wen-hao, Chiang Kai-sliek"s Director of Eoonontics:
"An able executive and an excellent judge of men. '■' * *" 1 said of
him, ''One of Wong's first acts in office was to insinuate into Govern-
ment an able group of professors from Peiping and Tiensin. This
little clique of nonpartisans included Dr. T. F. Tsiang, recent Am-
bassador to Russia," and, I might add here, the present representative
of Chiang Kai-shek at Lake Success, bearing the brunt up there :
Dr. Hu yiiili. Ambassador to the United States, and a score of scientific experts
in enyineeriug, mining-, and agriculture. The scientists of this group now form
a 1 train trust for the Ministry of lOeouomics. * * «
Mr, Chairman, this book is a report of vrhat I saw. what I was told,
and what I recorded as accurately as I could at the time.
Xo author is a competent witness regarding his own book. I think
it is pertinent what the newspapers and book reviewers had to say
about this book at the time of its publication. Surely, if this book
had been biased, some reviewer would have said that it was pro-
Communist, or that "here is a man with a mission to communize the
world."
I have about 100 clippings, the kind of thing that a first author gen-
erally keeps in a scrapbook in his attic. I will skip mere literary
criticism and give you the comments which will help you to judge my
objectivity.
The Associated Press. September 10, 1939, signed by John Selby.
He is the regular AP book reviewer:
Hanson is that priceless thing, a good and objective reporter. * * * He
comes to some reasonable conclusions about the fracas in the East, now over-
shadowed by the geographically nearer drama on the European stage. * * *
The autlior has, first, an eye for tlie colorful fact. He has sympathy witliout
sentimentality.
Turning now to the Philadelphia Inquirer, December 13, 1939, a
review signed by Mr. Alexander Kendrick, whom I do not know :
All the other books on the Chinese war, and there have been many, have simply
kept tiiH seat warm for Mr. Hanson, who was the Associated Press correspondent
in North China from the time of the Marco Polo bridge "incident" in 1987 until
a few months ago. Hanson's news accounts, as any copyreader knows, have
been a model of unbiased understanding and vivid reporting. Now, reading his
book, the fir.st full and comprehensive account of the long war, it is easy to see
why he made such an execellent job of things.
May I state, Mr, Chairman, it is somewhat embarrassing for me to
go back to these old accounts and read things that are in praise of me,
but I think they are equally pertinent in view of the things that have
gone before.
Senator Ty'dikgs, We can stand it if you can.
Senator McMahon, You can also increase your modesty by the fact
that you said the book did not sell very well.
Mr, Haxsox. The Herald, Durham, X. C, December 17, 1939 :
Haldore Hanson's new book on the Sino-.Tapanese conflict does not preach
any doctrines ; it does not seek to warn us of any danger wliicb might come to
us out of the Chinese nightmare. His job is a piece of straight reporting, like
his newspaper work for the Associated Press, and he has done it well.
352 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
The News and Courier, Charleston, S. C, January 7, 1940 :
By far the best of the personal-experience stories that has come out of the
China war is Humane Endeavor by Haldore Hanson. * * * Hanson, although,
frankly critical of Japan and sympathetic toward China, nevertheless reveals
China's vast military impotency ; the treachery of some grafting generals, and
the lack of support given to the Chinese Communist Army — which all writers
seem to agree has the best military record of any combatant unit on the Chinese
side.
I think that is worth rereading, Mr. Chairman. It bears upon the
earlier discussion of the writings of other correspondents. Let's just
go back and reread :
Hanson, although frankly critical of Japan and sympathetic toward China,
nevertheless reveals China's vast military impotency ; the treachery of some
grafting generals, and the lack of support given to the Chinese Communist
Army — which all writers seem to agree has the best military record of any com-
batant unit on the Chinese side.
Now, the Chicago Tribune, December 13, 1939 :
Just at the time when Russia's excursion into western imperialism is indirectly
spotlighting the Chinese-Japanese stalemate, Haldore Hanson, a young war
correspondent, gives us an exciting three dimensional panorama of that eastern
conflict.
Hanson went to Japan and China in 11)34 as a steerage passenger, found friends
among the natives, ate their food, learned their language, eventually taught their
children. When war came he understood the strangely dissimilar philosophies
that had so much to do with shaping its course. * * * He was first to get
into the guerrilla territory. Free-lance newspaper work had given him a back-
ground of information about China and Japan that lends authenticity to his
reports.
That is all I shall read of those reviews.
In commenting on the book. Senator McCarthy used partial quota-
tion from it as a basis for the statement that "this young man has a
criminal record in China where he was arrested, not by the Commu-
nists, but by the anti-Communists."
Let me state for this record, I have never been arrested by anti-
Communist officials of the Chinese Government. I have never been
arrested by any other kind of officials of the Chinese Government.
]My only arrests in China were by Japanese Army military police, when
I tried to investigate atrocities.
Senator McCarthy's false statement that I was arrested by anti-
Communist officials is based on a careless quotation from page 349
of my book. I was talking about actions which threatened Chinese
unity and might lead to a reopening of the civil war in the midst of
(he Japanese invasion. This passage in my book, which he read,
reads as follows :
Anti-Red oflicials within the Goverimient were taking every possible oppor-
tunity for indirect attacks upon the Comnmnists. Local police made raids in
a dozen cities upon book shops that handled Communist publications. Leaders
of the Communist youth corps were arrested by militai-y officers at Hankow. I
myself was the victim of one of these incidents and found that local officials
were the instigators.
That is what Senator McCarthy read to this committee, but the
very next sentence goes on to explain what the incident was. It reads :
When I arrived in Sian from guerrilla territory and told the police that I
was proceeding to the Communist headquarters at Yenan, my American passport
was seized and held for 9 days.
Let me add that after my passj^ort was returned to me by direction
of the Chinese Foreign Office, the official who seized my passport gave
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\EST1GAT10N 353
an official dinner in my honor attended by other lii<rh officials at Sian
and he issued a public ajioloo:}".
Senator Tydincjs. Mr. Hanson, before Ave leave that, in that incident
where your passport was held up, you were not incarcerated, were
you ?
Mr. Haxson. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Your passport was bein<^ examined and your
credentials looked into?
Mr. Hanson. That is correct; yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. Were you told that you could not leave the city,
or put under military or civilian oiuird i
Mr. Hanson. No, sir.
Senator Titdings. Was your freedom in any way restricted?
Mr. Hanson. Wait a minute. You asked if I was put under civilian
guard. There was a man who followed me during the period that
I was in Siam. I will say that as a newspaperman, on every front
that I have ever gone to in wartime I have been followed by an agent
of somebody. I am not saying this of myself but of every newspaper-
man.
Senator Tydings. I mean, were your movements circumscribed in
any way.
^Ir. Hanson. Xo, sir.
Whatever the circmnstances of this detention of my passport, one
would expect that a United States Senator would at least read these
two or three sentences twice and perhaps make inquiry about them,
before publicly branding an American citizen as a criminal.
Mr. Chairman, I have noted in Senator McCarthy's statement be-
fore this committee numerous errors in quoting from documents. I
am not talking about his opinions; I am talking about actual misquo-
tations where the document was in his hands and what he said to the
committee was not in the text of what he had. I mean textual mis-
quotations. In my expin-iences with a press association, if a reporter
made one factual error, he was required to ex])lain the circumstances
to the city editor. If the error was of a character which might be
libelous, the bureau chief was required to report to New York on the
circumstances. One libelous error could ruin a newspaperman. If
Senator McCarthy were a newspaperman, he would almost certainly
be fired for writing the story he gave this committee.
Senator ^McCarthy cites three other writing activities which he
believes will show that I am '"a man with a mission to communize the
world." They are :
1. That I was a contributor to Pacific Affairs.
2. That I wrote for the magazine Amerasia.
fJ. That I Avas running a Communist magazine in Peiping when the
Japanese-Chinese war broke out.
There were only a few American magazines devoted to far eastern
affairs when I was writing about China. Among those few, one was
Pacific Affairs, put out by the Institute of Pacific Relations, and an-
other was Amerasia. What was more natural than that I should offer
articles for sale to these magazines? I may say I was ])aid for them.
I sold two to Pacific Affairs and two to Amerasia. The Amerasia
articles were chapters from my book, adapted for magazine use.
354 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy has phiyed up the association of these maga-
zines with a doubtful character or two, and has played down their
connection with eminently respectable American citizens. And hav-
ing in this manner associated the magazines with communism, or dis-
loyalty, or illegality, he has tied me to the same stump by pointing
out that I sold articles to those magazines.
When I sold my few articles to Pacific Affairs and Amerasia they
v/ere eminently respectable journals, dealing with far eastern mat-
ters, and they carried articles by leading scholars on far eastern
affairs. Pacific Affairs still does. Amerasia is dead. But that is
beside the point. The point is that if we have got to the point m
America where writers must assume responsibility for the political
opinions, the morals, and the public activities which all of the editors
or owners, or stockholders or writers that magazines may hold or later
develop, then we have traveled far indeed from those basic principles
upon which this country was founded. For my part, I do not believe
that we have reached this point. I believe that base and loose charges
of this sort, and those who prefer them, will receive the scorn and
contempt of the American people that they deserve.
In connection with my Amerasia writings. Senator McCarthy stated
that Philip Jaffe, the editor, was "arrested, indicted, and found guilty
of having been in illegal possession of several hundred secret docu-
ments from the State, Navy, War, and other Government Department
files." The arrest of Mr.'Jaffe took place G years after I sold two
articles to him.
Senator Tydings. Right there. Mr. Hanson, you had no connection
with Mr. Jaffe in the theft of these articles, if he did steal them?
Mr. Hanson. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. You were not charged with stealing them i
Mr. Hanson. No, sir. ^ , , , .,
Let me say one further word about Senator McCarthy's charge that
I ''was running a Communist maaazine in Peiping when the Japanese-
Chinese war broke out." The Senator apparently is referring to a
Chinese maoazine devoted to resistance against Japan. The name of
the maaazine was Democracy. It appeared twice a month for 3
months^ in the spring of 1937. My name was on the board of editors
for two issues and I attended one board meeting. On the board of
editors were four professors from Yen-Ching University, one of the
13 Christian colleges in China, three newspaper writers, and one social
welfare worker at the Peiping Union Medical College, the Rockefeller
Foundation institution. Not one of these, to my knowledge, was a
Communist. One that I know of, however, was a member of Chiang
Kai-shek's executive committee in the Nationalist Party. The aim ot
the mao-azine was to promote a united front against Japanese inva-
sion ; and, with all due respect to Senator McCarthy, I submit that that
was a laudable effort.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion may I say I am a young man. i am
not a national fio;ure. My friends and associates are not national
figures. I have tried to bring the best testimonial that is at my
dTsposal — my own story of mv life and what I have stood for.
I am a loyal American and I believe that I am entitled to have this
committee say so. I deeply appreciate its attention. But the cor-
rective action of this committee cannot attain the same headlines,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 355
reach the same people, or fully counteract the suspicions and hatreds
which Senator McCarthy's charges liave unleashed. Congressional
nnnninity may protect him from lawsuit, but it will not save him
from moral accountability.
Senator Gkf.kx. Have you finished?
Mr. Hanson, you are willing to answer questions of any members
of the committee, I assume?
Mr. Haxsox. Yes, sir.
Senator Greex. I regret that Senator Tydings was not here at the
opening. Have you any questions to ask. Senator^
Senator Tydixgs. None.
Senator (treex. Senator Hickennlooper ?
Senator Hickexixioper. Yes, I have some questions.
I would like to say again in this case, just to keep the record straight,
Mr. Chairman, that 1 do not consider any questioning of this witiiess'
or participation here, to be in the nature of a genuine investigation'
and 111 the interest of the witness himself and in the interest of an
investigation I again call attention to the fact that we do not have
access to all of the information which the Government has in its;
possession m connection with this case. That information undoubt-
edly would be illuminating and might entirely change the course of
any questions that I might ask.
But in view of this curtain of refusal to have access to this informa-
tion that confronts us, I can only explore certain things here in order
to get answers to the questions.
I have made some notes on this statement as we have gone through it.
Mr. Hanson, first, just exactly what is vour job with the State
Department now ?
Mr. Hansox. For the past 18 months I have been executive director
of the Interdepartmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural Co-
operation. It IS a committee which spends about $3,000,000 a year
providing technical advisers to other governments and bringing their
technicians to the United States for training. Recently, under the
order read to this committee by Senator McCarthy, the work of my
committee and the staff which I direct have been transferred from the
Assistant Sec'retary for Public Affairs to the Assistant Secretary for
Economic Affairs in preparation for the point 4 program. What we
are doing is a forerunner in a very small way of the types of thin^rs
that are proposed under point 4. ' ^
Senator Hickenlooper. And what will your job be under this new
arrangement?
Mr. Haxsox\ Since the interim organization is only now char^^ed
with drawing up materials for presentation to the Congress, I caimot
say for sure. As the title in the announcement indicates, "Chief of
Projects Staff," I would describe it somewhat as supervisor of the
activities which it has been decided to carry out. There is a division
which IS responsible for economic analysis and the determination of
polic}'.
Senator Hickexxooper. Are you over that division ?
Mr. Hanson. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you have charge of that division ?
Mr. Hansox. No. There is another division that supervises the
transfer of funds to other agencies and sees that they carrv out that
]ob well. *^
356 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you connected with that division ?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you head of that division ?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you have any other duties ?
Mr. Hanson. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you prepare or develop or pass on
policies that are brought up for recommendation to any other depart-
ments or the Congress ?
Mr. Hanson. 1 am member of a staff which prepares papers for
an interdepartmental committee on point 4. I have not myself had
time to work on point 4.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you have authority to Avork on point 4?
Mr. Hanson. Oh, yes, sir; yes, sir. I have worked all last year
on the United Nations side of point 4. I was out of the country during
most of the year attending United Nations meetings.
At the moment I am engaged more or less full time in working on
the direction of our present activities abroad, and I have been con-
sulted on the preparation of the budget of point 4, which is coming
down to the Congress.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you described fully the complete
extent of your duties or assignments, either at the present time or under
the new arrangement that is now proposed, as you understand them ?
Mr. Hanson. I believe so ; yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. I want to go through the mimeographed
statement that I was furnished, made by Senator McCarthy here some
days ago in connection with your matter. Do you have a copy of that
statement ?
JNIr. Hanson. I do not, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. I just have the mimeographed statement.
I do not have the transcript. I will read the statement that I want to
ask you about. The statement is as follows, from Senator McCarthy :
Hanson's appointment is not made by the I'residpnt but by the State Depart-
ment and is not subject to any Senate contirmatitm.
Is that a correct statement?
Mr. Hanson. That is correct ; yes, sir.
Is it pertinent for me to add, sir, that there is an official to be
appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate who will per-
form t]ie duties that Senator McCarthy read to this committee, but
that is not I?
Senator Hickenlooper. Will you be subordinate to that official?
Mr. Hanson. I will ; yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. On page 5 of this mimeographed state-
ment— I am sorry I will have to refer to that in order to identify it
because I do not have the transcript and I went through this hurriedly
this morning so I may have missed several things that I should give
you an opportunity to answer — is an alleged quotation fi'om your book,
chapter 2o, entitled "Political Utopia on Mt. Wut'Ai" — I hope you
will correct my Chinese pronunciation, if necessary. In describing a
meeting with an American Major Carlson, here is what he had to say :
We stayed up till midnight exchanging notes on guerrilla armies, the farm
unions, and the progress of the war. I was particularly interested in the Com-
munist leaders whom Carlson had just visited and whom I was al)out to meet.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 357
Mild Tst'-tniis, the head of the Coniinunist Party, Carlson tharacterizeil as "Ihe
iiiMst sclllcss man I ever met, a social dreamer, a genius living 50 years ahead
of his time." And Chu Teh, commandci' in chief of the Eiiihth Route Army, was
"the prince of genei-als. a man with the humility of Lincoln, the tenacity of
Grant, and the kindliness of Kohert E. Lee."
That conversation, I take it, did actually take place with Major
Carlson?
Mr. Haxson, Yes, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did you adopt that philosophy with regard
to those Chinese generals mentioned as your own philosophy? Did
you believe that to be true at that time?
Mr. Hansox. Let me say first, sir ; that that is a description rather
than a philosophy. I cannot speak now of what my views were in
10;>S when I wrote that, but it is my recollection from my one or two
meetings with Chu Teh, the military commander, that he was humble,
that he was tenacious, and that he was kindly. I don't think I myself
would have picked those particular phrases to describe him.
Senator Hickexlooper. May I ask you this, then. Did that con-
versation with Major Carlson lead you to adopt, or convince you, or
lead you to lean toward, that idea about these men ?
Mr. Haxsox. I can't say what influence it had at the time. I don't
think my meeting with Carlson one night in the course of a war would
great]}' influence my thinking on any subject.
Senator Hickexlooper. Still on the same page, Senator McCarthy
states as follows. This is page 5 :
On page 349 he —
meaning Hanson —
condemns the right-wing groups in the Chinese Government for "fighting against
the democratic revolution as proposed hy Mao Tse-tung and the Communists."
Xow, I have been unable to get a copy of your book.
Mr. Haxsox. I will be glad to make one available to you, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. I will be glad to see it.
Senator (treex. May I offer you a copy of the book?
Senator Hickexlooper. You have been far more successful than I
have, Senator. I would like to know the magic of your touch.
Senator Greex. I would like to share my success with you.
Senator Hickexlooper. You are always generous in sharing mate-
rial things.
Let me say my failure to get your book is no criticism one way or the
other. I have tried to get it and have not been able to locate one.
May I read a little further, now that I have the book? This is the
beginning of the first full paragraph on page 349 :
The expulsion of Wang Ch'ing-wei cleared the Chinese of any further talk
about surrender, l)ut it did not eliminate the fundamental source of fricti(m
between the Nationalists and the Communists. Right-wing gi'oups in the Chinese
Government still insist on a one-party adndnistration. They are fighting against
the democratic revolution as propo.sed hy Mao T.se-tung and the Conmuinists.
P>en the minor privileges given to the Communists are strongly opposed by the
old guard (tf the Nationalist Party.
I have read the full paragraph. I do not know what else is con-
tained on the page.
But what I want to ask j'ou is. Do you believe that the Communist
movement in China under Mao Tse-tung is a democratic movement
as we understand it?
358 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Hanson. Let nie commence first
Senator Hickenlooper. May I say, did you believe it at that time?
If you did, do you still believe it now? Say whatever you want to say
about it.
Mr. Hanson. By coincidence, Senator, I have a letter in my hand
which includes a copy of an article in the Manchester Guardian, pub-
lished last week. The article is written by a man who lived in China
at the time I did. I don't ever recall meeting him, although I know
his name. His name is Michael Lindsay. He writes to the Man-
chester Guardian about Senator McCarthy's charges about me. He
reports here something that I never heard before. It says, and I am
quoting this from the Manchester Guardian :
I visited tlie Communist headquarters at Wut'Ai in 1938 soon after Mr. Hanson
had passed through, and was told that rehitions had become ratlier strained
because of several heated arguments In which Mr. Hanson had maintained that
the American type of democracy was greatly superior to the Comnmnist type.
Now, let me go on and add : Mao Tse-tung was using the term
"democracy'' or "new democracy" as the general description of the
Communist program in China. I did not put it in quotation marks;
]:)erhaps I should have. At least in 1950 as I loolv back perhaps I
should have. It was the common term in newspapers of the day that
Mao Tse-Tung was talking about a Commonist t3"]:)e of democracy.
I devoted an entire chapter in the book because I thought it was of
value to American readers to find out what he meant by the term
"democracy." You will find it in there, for he explained at length
what his ideas of democracy are.
Senator Hickenlooper. I refer again to this statement, and I quote
it again, which as I read the paragraph— and I might get a dift^rent
connotation if I get the entire chapter — has no indication that you
were referring at all to the Communist attitude, but that it is purely
your conclusions and your own statement. It is as follows :
They are fighting against the democratic revolution as proposed by Mao Tse-
tung and the Conmuinists.
Now, the only question I am asking, and I think you are a little
better source of authority about what your attitudes are than some-
body who is writing for the Manchester Guardian is, did you believe
at that time that the Communist movement was a democratic move-
ment as we understand a democratic movement?
Mr. Hanson. No sir, and I think if you will look at the chapter
in which I go at length into what the Chinese definition of democracy
is, you will find I put it right out in the open for anybody in a public
library to read. There is nothing secretive about the term "democ-
racy" as applied to communism. I did not think then, and I do not
think now, and 1 have quoted you one outside source who is no personal
friend who said that my ideas of American democracy were different
from the Commiuiists', and I tiiought they were superior.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am concerned with your views as to
what you believe and not what somebody else's views of what you be-
lieve may be. I want to hurry over this, because I want to give you
opportunity to make a statement about these various quotatioiis. That
is my purpose.
Mr. Haxson. Could T go back for a moment, Senator, to the pre-
pared statement that I read, in which I pointed out that the greatest
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTICATION 359
danger to the defense of ChM!;i ^vas (lie hazard of a reopening of
the civil war in the face of tlie Jajianese invasion; that 1, as most of
the reviewers of my book commented, was partial to tlic Chinese canse.
1 wanted to see them win the war against Japan. In the face of that
I was critical, in 1938, of those Chinese officials nnder Chiang Kai-shek
who were hamstringing the elforts of the Chinese Communists to carry
on a united front through Chiang Kai-shek.
Senator (iijekx. Mr. Hanson, the language you used was ''the
democracy as pro])osed by the C!ommunist leaders", >vas it not ^
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir. The Senator quoted me correctly.
Senator Hickenlooper. Further on page 6 of this mimeographed
statement is a statement with regard to the seizure of your passport —
that e})isode. I quote :
I finally used the 8th Route Army radio to communicate with the Chinese For-
eiirn Oltice and secured an order for the return of the passport. The man respon-
.sihle for this ille^ral action was Gov. Chiang Ting-wen, one of the most rabid
anti-Ked officials in China.
I understood you to say in your original statement that the Japanese
had taken this passport.
Mr. Hanson. Xo, sir; no, sir.
Senator Tydings. He said that the Chinese did.
Senator Hickenlooper. I just inquired about the matter.
I want to go through these specific references that were made in
your book in this statement, because I have no other references.
There is a statement here at the bottom of page 7, and I quote from
Senator McCarthy's statement :
In this connection I might say that he very fraidily points out that the
Communists do not tolerate anyone who is not completely on their side.
That statement, I take it, was made in reference to your being with
the Communist forces ?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper, Do you have a' comment on that?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir. I spent 1 full day reading my book trj'ing
to find that statement that Senator McCarthy refers to but does not
quote, and I did not find it anvwhere in the book. So I went tlirono-h
111 . • ^
all ot my nnlgazme articles of 11)30, and I finally found the quotation
which a Member of the House of Repre.'-entatives had quoted in 194T
out of context in making some charges against me. The statement is
found in Pacific Affairs, September 1938. It says :
Since the emphasis of all propaganda is anti-Japanese —
writing now about the Central Guerrilla Headquarters —
the .scapegoat of China's problems is no longer the landlord but the Chinese
trader, or Lan chien, a phrase ai)plied to any ('hinese who works for the Japa-
nese Government, sells Japanese merchandise, smokes opium, or refusi-s to coop-
erate in the struggle against Japan. The guerrillas do not tolerate neutrality.
A man is either for them or against them.
I was writing about the Chinese pr()})aganda campaign in central
Ho{)eh, in which the .o:uei-i-i]las were seizing the ]n'operty of anv Chi-
nese landowner who had coojjerated with the Japanese* and had not
supported the Chinese guerrillas. It had nothing whatever to do
with those who were newspapermen writing about communi-m or
nationalism or any other ism.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 24
360 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydixgs. How do you designate Avhat you have just read,
so I can come back to it?
Mr. Hansox. It is a quotation from Pacific Affairs, September
1938, page 290.
Senator McMahon. Who was that Congressman?
Mr. Hanson. Representative Busbey, of Illinois.
Senator McMahon. He is an "ex''; isn't he?
Mr. Hanson. Yes.
Senator Green. How manv years ago was that?
Mr. Hanson. That was in 1947.
Senator Hickenlooper. On page 295 there is a statement — I have
not found it here in the book yet — ''Should this book ever fall into
Communists hands, I must record that these two lonely men made
excellent company during my 3 weeks in Yenan."' I am not certain
of the names of tliese men. Do you recall the two that are referred to ?
Mr. Hanson. I cannot give you the exact quotation, but I can tell
you the circumstances.
The Chinese Conmiunists had living in their political capital two
foreigners. They were the only two foreigners who were permitted
to live there. All others were transient newspapermen like myself.
One was a German general from the First World War who went out
and joined the Chinese Communists, helped to direct their civil war,
and was broken in rank for mistakes that he made. He was a complete
outcast in Yenan. Nobody would talk to him. He was naturally
glad if some outsider came along with whom he could have a duck
dinner and talk.
The other was an American medical man whose background I do not
know. He would not give us his name. I know he was from New
York City. He used only a Chinese name. I believe it was Ma Hai
Di ; at any rate, Ma was the name under which he went.
These two men were, I should say, of no respect among the Chinese
Communists, and when I was shut up in my hotel for approximately
10 clays — the Chinese Communists w^ere holding a meeting of some
kind after I got to Yenan, and, rather than let any inquisitive for-
eigner find out what they were doing, I was kept in my hotel room
during that period. The only time I was allowed to go out was to a
restaurant, where these two outcasts joined me. I found their com-
pany congenial, and I said so.
Senator Hickenlooper. Further, on page 9 in Senator McCarthy's
statement is this quotation :
Some recent visitors to Yenan have spread a report tliat the academies are
supported by Russian rubles — a thin piece of gossip. I was told by several Chinese
leaders, including Mao Tse-tung, that the largest cuntributors came from Ameri-
can sympathizers in New York.
"V^^iat about that statement ? Have you canvassed that ?
Mr. Hanson. One of the principal news stories of that time was an
attempt to track down what was the actual Russian relationship to
the Chinese Communists. At the time that I wrote this book I had
been on almost every front on which Chinese Communist soldiers were
operating, and I had been to their political headquarters; I had been
to their field headquarters, Avhere tliey were directing some of the
guerrilla governments. In that time I had never found a Russian.
STATE DEPART]MEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 361
I had never found a piece of Russian equipment. There were only
American guns that were comino; tlirouirh Chiano: Kai-shek to the
Chinese Conununists or the Japanese eciuipment that they cai)tured,
or h:)eally manufactured Chinese weai)ons. I found no evidence of
any outside financial support for the Chinese Conununists except from
ChianfT Kai-shek, and this one quotation which, to my surprise, I had
no prior information and no subsequent information on. Mao said
they were receivlnjj; money from a group in New York. I know no
more information about it than what I stated. I assume it is some-
thing quite secretive, if Communists in New York ai-e sending money,
and I think it is significant to report to the American people if Chinese
Connnunists say they are receiving money from New York.
Senator Hickexlooper. But you did conclude that the rumors that
the academies are supported by Russian rubles were a thin piece of
gossip?
Mr. Haxsox. Yes, sir. I will say I was somewhat emotional about
it, because some of the Chinese leaders who were fighting with the
Communists kept up this kind of insinuation against the Communists
in the midst of the Japanese invasion.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you have any comment on the quotation
from page 308. contained on page 9 of Senator McCarthy's statement,
as follows : This is quoted from your book, I believe :
My attitude toward Coinmunist China's leaders was a mixture of respect for
tlieir personal integrity and a resentment of their suspiciousness. They im-
pressed me as a group of hard-headed, straiglit-shooting realists.
I know that you commented on that statement in your original state-
ment, but I would like to amplify that just a little by asking you if you
became convinced that they were earnest people, not connected with
^iloscow, and trying to do a humanitarian job.
Mr. Haxsox'. I became convinced, sir, that they were doing an
honest job of fighting the Japanese, which was the main event of the
period that I was writing in China.
Now let me comment on the word ''integrity," which has puzzled me
somewhat because it appears in this book as an adjective describing
in one place a Japanese, in another place a Communist, and in a third
place one of Chiang Kai-shek's officials. I assume what was in my
mind was that against the background of corruption and instability
and traitorism that characterized so many Chinese war lords whom
Chiang Kai-shek drove out, the kind of corruption that had per-
sisted in China for a hundred years, against that background a few
officials were showing up who' were honest and hard working and
devoted to the national interests, and I think the Chinese Communists
at the period I am writing of them here, in alliance with Chiang Kai-
shek, were showing that kind of devotion to the national interest.
The correction that I made, of course, Mr. Hickenlooper, was that
I had not said "straight-shooting i-ealists." which has a certain moral
applaud in it. and that is what Mr. McCarthy quoted to you. btit I
said "hard-shooting realists," and I am afraid some subsequent history
has verified that.
Senator Hickexlooper. There is a statement at the top of page 10.
I do not know what page of the book it is found on. Perhaps yo-"
362 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
have checked it. It is a quotation alleged to be from the bool as
follows. This is Senator McCarthy speaking :
After an interview with Mao Tse-tung, he — referring to Hanson^
states :
"I left with the feeling that he was the least pretentions man in Yenan and the
most admired. He is a completely selfless man."
Is that still your opinion of Mao Tse-tnng?
Mr. Hansox. I can't say, since I have not seen him since 1938,
whether he is pretentions today. 1 can't say whether he is admired,
because obviously I am talkino; about other people's opinions, not my
own. I can't even say today wlielher he is a selfless man, because I
haven't seen him. I think that this reflects in general an article that
appeared only a week ago Sunday in the Washington Post, a long
story written by three Associated Press correspondents wlio were asked
to give a summary of the present position of Mao Tse-tung in China,
and his general characteristics. I was quite surprised to see many of
the qualities that I described in him 12 years ago repeated in that
story. At least three correspondents stated they were writing from
their own experiences as Associated Press correspondents.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you know, at the time you wrote,
wliether or not Mao Tse-tung and some of the other Chniese Com-
munist leaders had been in Moscow, or were in Moscow for indoctrina-
tion in the Communist schools there ?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir. I think I gave ;ome of the first informa-
tion to the American public on tiie number of Chinese Communists
who had been to Moscow. Mao Tse-tung had not been. He made his
first trip to Moscow somewhat after I was there, and I gather his
recent trip to Moscow, which was in the newspapers, was an addi-
tional triji, but my book gives iho information. In fact, I commented
in the book, Mr. Hickenlooper, that the number of Chinese Commu-
nists who had been trained in Moscow was surprisingly small, and
that the positions to which they had advanced in Chinese communism
were particularly surprising because the Chinese Connnunist leaders
distrusted most of those who had come back from Moscow. This is
irrelevant to the point we were talking about, but it is all in my book.
Senator Hickenlooper. A statement here on page 10, and this is
quoting Senator McCarthy, says :
Following is Hanson's description of how the Reds took over. T quote froiu
page 102 : "Whenever a village was occnpied for the first time, the Reds arrested
the landlords and tax collectors, held a public trilmnal. executed a few, and
intimidated the others, then redistributed the land as fairly as possible."
Did you quote that in your book with your approval of those
procedures ?
Mr. Hanson. The comment I would like to make is on a group of
three paragraphs. Senator McCarthy took from my book a quotation
about 1933, when the Chinese Communists were fighting against
Cliiang Kai-shek. He put it in this testimony alongside of another
(H'otation in 1938, wlien I had been observing the Chinese Communists
fighting the civil war, and it leaves you with the impression that those
cwo were written in juxtaposition. They were in periods completely
unrelated to each other.
Senator TrniNrxS. Will you mark that page. Senator Hickenlooper,
so I can refer back to it again?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 363
Senator Hickexlooper. Page 102.
I have. 1 think, jnst two more questions, Mr. Cliairniun.
.V ({notation from the bottom of page o2 is as follo\\s, quoting Sen-
ator ^IcCarthy :
On page 32 of his book, Hanson justifies "The Chinese Comuiunists chopping
oft" the heads of landlords — all of which is true — because of hungry farmers."
Now, I tliink I should read tliese several sentences here, and you
may read others if 1 cU) not cover it sullicienlly. This is the first full
paragraph beginning at the middle of l)age 32, quoting from the book :
I have often wondered whether it is possible to apply static critera of good
and evil in Judging such a desperate siluation. The outspoken YMCA orator,
Sherwood Eddy, has horrified audiences all over the world by his description of
the (liinese Comuuuiis.s choiiping olV the heads of la::d'nrds — all of w'hich is
true. But I wonder if ilr. Eddy would express the same moral indignation if he
liad met some of those hungry farmers in Kiangsi, the stuff that Cliinese com-
munism was made of.
I think the connotation here — and I would like to have your com-
ment on it — was that you were in accord with the summary action of
the Chinese Comnnmists in chopping off the heads of landlords. I
just want you to comment on it, is all.
Mr. Haxsox. I think, Mr. Chairman, that you are entitled to draw
that conclusion in one interpretation of what I wrote. I puzzled over
this paragrai)h when I reread the book. I had not seen it for 11 years.
1 think I can say what I thought I was writing about then. There are
situations in this world where two forces, both of them evil, collide,
and it is a matter of choosing between the least of the two evils. I
was expressing my doubt that there was complete moral justification
on one side and complete lack of moral justification on the other.
If you do not mind, Senator, I will read a couple more sentences just
beyond that which may help.
Senator Hickexlooper. Read anything you want lo read. Go
ahead !
Mr. Hax^son. I said :
These men were not hungry through any act of God. It was a man-made
famine. There were no good years and had yeai's, no ups and downs. Some fami-
lies had been hungry for three generations.
The reason I happened to put this section in my book, I went down
to that region after Chiang Kai-shek had driven out the Comnuinists
and was conducting what he called the reconstruction of the region. I
wrote some very enthusiastic articles about that reconstruction. I
wrote about the health work, the schools, the efforts to reduce the in-
terest rates on debts for the Chinese farmers, the new laws on recUicing
rent, all of which was getting at the one point that the Chinese farmer
is interested in, which is hoAv he can fill his rice bowl.
The Chinese farmer has no interest in communism, nationalism,
democracy, patriotism, or any other ism. Ho is prinuirily interested
in a desperate struggle for life and how can he fill his rice bowl, and I
am not surprised that in all of the writing I have done about the
Chinese farmer I should have been somewhat sympathetic with this
group who were preyed upon by the (yOnununists and who saw one
thing — how to take care of the api)alling situations that were causing
hunger and hardship in their families.
364 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. Then you were committed at that time to
tlie theory that that was an agrarian revohition and not a revokition
supported and inspired through Moscow stimulation of one kind or
auotlier ^
Mr. Hansox. Senator, there was an agrarian revohition going on
in China since 1860. Tlie Communists did not invent it ; the Chinese
were fighting an agrarian revohition for the last 90 years. The Com-
munists have exploited it. There is not question about that.
Senator Hickenlooper. Bv the Communists, do you mean Mao
Tse-tung?
Mr. Hanson, Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. He has exploited the agrarian revolution?
Mr. Hanson. I think so ; yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. That gets me down to this situation : Do you
believe that the so-called revolution, the leadersliip and the authority
controlling it, beginning with the leadership of Mao Tse-tung, is a
Communist Marxist inspired revolution, leaving out the people who
follow the armies and all that, but talking about solely the leadership
and the programing of this revolution ? Do you believe it is a Com-
munist Marxist revolution now, and that the leaders are Communist,
Marxist, cooperators with Moscow, or do you believe that it is still an
agrarian movement so far as its leadership and the planning and the
control of the organization ?
Mr. Hanson. Senator, I believe now it is.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is Avhat i
Mr. Hanson. I believe now that it is directed by Moscow and the-
International Communist movement, and I wrote in 1938 in this book
that we are speaking of the following quotation from Mao Tse-tung,
wliich I thought was significant, because others had said that the
Chinese Communists were not real Communists. Senator, there were
writers in 1938 who told the American public that the Chinese Com-
munists were not real Communists; they were just agrarian reformers.
I think any fair reading of my book will show over and over again
that I pointed out that he had Marxist translations of all of the prin-
cipal Russian works; that they had had people trained in Moscow;
they used a hammer and sickle iiag which I was the first to photograph
and send back to American newspapers, and so on. There is nothing
concealed in this book about the Communist nature of the Chinese
Communists.
I would like to read this quotation from Mao Tse-tung which
bears directly on the seeming contradiction that I understand your
questions are getting at:
On page 308 of the book — I am quoting Mao Tse-Tung:
The Chinese Communist Party —
he began — •
has not ceased to be Communist. Our final goal is unchanged, but the forces of
revolution have recently shifted, and we must alter our program accordingly.
Ten years ago the chief enemy of the Chinese masses was the village landlord
and money lender ; in other words, the forces of feudalism * * * bu^ grad-
ually the danger of Japanese invasion overshadowed the evils of Chinese
feudalism —
and then he goes on to explain their resistance against Japan.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\ ESTIGATIOX 365
Senator HicKENLOt)PER. Let me ask you this: Did you siii)poil the
theory at the ck)se of the Japanese pliase of the war, and shoi-tly after
tliat, that^ there shoukl be a coalition government in China between
Ohianij Kai-sliek or the Kuomintan<!: frroups and the Communists,
and that the Communist representatives should be taken into the
(lovernment of China ?
Mr. IIaxsox. Senator, I have never liad any position in tlie State
Dej^artment that required me to have an opinion on the political poli-
cies toward China. In fact
Senator HicKKxroorF.R. I ask you the question, not that you are
olhcial. necessarily, but you spent some time in China and wrote a
book on China, and I think you know a lot about it.
Senator Gri:ex. He had not finished his sentence.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am just trying to get my question an-
swered.
Senator Green. He was answering it and he was interrupted in the
middle.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am very used to interruptions, so they
don't bother me.
Mr. Hansox. I was merely going to say, Senator, that during the
]^eriod that I worked on China cultural relations during the war and
the Information program with China during 19;57-88, I was sub-
ordinate to the policies laid down by the Secretary of State. I w^as told
what the official political policies of the State Department were and
that is what we carried out in conducting our action program.
As to the specific question you asked about 1946. I have never seen
the documents which General Marshall was given. I have never
seen the premises under which his mission was undertaken, and frankly
I have never fully understood the assumptions that were made in
undertaking that mission.
Senator Hickex'looper. Maybe I can make my question a little
clearer. I wasn't asking about General Marshall's attitude or any-
body else's attitude: I was asking about your attitude and position as a
result of your experience in China and your writing. AVhat was your
attitude about the matter at that time, 1946, let's say ^ Should, in your
opinion, at that time, the Communists have been taken into a coali-
tion government with Chiang Kai-shek's government? That is my
question.
Mr. Hanson. The big question in China at the period that General
Marshall's mission went to China was whether the Chinese Commu-
nists in their previous assertion that they wanted to develo]) Cliina
in a peaceful coalition were sincere or whether the outbreak of a
sporadic civil war in 1945—46 indicated that they had already aban-
doned any previous statement that they had made and were ready for
an all-out drive to take over China.
I don't know; I don't think anvone but those who were giving it
full-time attention know^s enough of the facts to judge whether ii
was a 50-50 chance that General Marshall was going on, or whether
there was a likelihood at that time that a peaceful Chinese Govern-
ment and peaceful progress could have come out of such a situation.
Senator Hickenlooper. Again may I ask, did you have any inde-
pendent personal oj^iuion as to what should have been done on that
Lne in 1946 ? If so, I shall be glad to have you express it.
366 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Haj^son. I can't recall, sir. I stated in my formal statement
here that since VJ-day it has been evident that the Chinese Com-
munists have been guided in their actions by the international Com-
munist movement.
Senator Hickenlooper. In other words, you can't recall whether
you had any position in your own mind as to what should have been
done by way of a coalition government at that tiane, or not ?
Mr. Hanson. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. I will preface this question to you, Mr.
Hanson, by stating that were you here testifying on belialf of the
State Department I would not ask you, in your official capacity, to
express a personal opinion which might diverge from the position of
the State Department.
You are here at your own request, testifying on these matters,
therefore I feel justified in asking you this question, and I would like
to have your personal opinion, irrespective of that fact that you are
employed by the State Department now. That is, are you in agree-
ment with the position as announced by the State Department and the
Oovernment, and what has been interpreted by many people to be an
abandonment of the Nationalist Government of China so far as active
support is concerned, and the apparent willingness to see all of China
taken over by the Communists?
Senator McMaiion. Before that question is answered, I would like
to know the purpose of it. Is that a question to test his loyalty to the
Government for which he is working?
Senator Hickenlooper. The purpose of it is to secure an answer.
Senator McMahon. I presume so. But I would like to see some
relevancy demonstrated, although I realize that it certainly is not a
test that can be applied in committee procedure.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think there are many things involved. I
am merely exploring Mr. Hanson's attitude toward the whole complex
Chinese situation there, and I think it is very pertinent for him to
express his attitude. As I said, I would not have asked him the ques-
tion had he been here as an official representative of the State Depart-
ment expressing State Department policy. Inasmuch as he is here at
his own request, and has volunteered to testify, I feel justified in asking
the question.
Senator Green. He is here at his own request, but he is here to refute
the charges that have been made against him. That is a distinction.
Senator Hickenlooper. So I would renew my question, Mr. Hanson.
Mr. Hanson. I do not mind answering the question. I do not think
I have any comment to make that is of any expert value to this com-
mittee. I have found in my 8 years in the State Department that any
policy of the State Department is based upon an enormous amount of
evidence and enormous reading of documents and enormous numbers
of meetings, and I have frequentl}' found when I have not been in on
those documents and those meetings and have subsequently seen the
evidence on which a policy was based that I understood it where I had
not previously.
I liave not been concerned with China policy or with any communi-
cations from China for the past year and a half. I have seen none of
the documents on which our present policy is based. Under such
circumstances, toward China or toward any other region of the world
STATE DEPARTIMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOiSr 367
1 am w illiiio- (o believe that the officers of the Department who are
responsible and who are beino- directed by the Secretary of State to
assemble the evidence have done a good job. Bej^ond tliat I have no
indepentlent judgment on the matter.
Senator Hickexlooi'ek. In other words, your position is that you
follow the polic}^ that is laid down.
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickp:xloopi:r. I will say now, Mr. Hanson, that one of
the reasons I asked you that question is that if you are placed, either
now or later, in a position of recommending policy and formulating
programs, your particular attitude, which is bound to be reflected in
reconnnendations that you would make, would become very imj)ortant
indeed as to our future actions and so on in the Orient. That is one of
ihe puiposes that I sought to serve in asking you that question.
Mr. Hanson. Could I comment further. Senator, that if I were later
put in a position of recommending policy or advising on polic}-, I
assume I would be given access to all of the pertinent documents, and
I am sufficiently independent in judgment that I would make up my
own mind at that time. At the present time that is not my responsi-
bilit}'. I do not have the facts and I am therefore willing to defer to
those who do and who know more than I do about it.-
Senator Hickenlooper. I think that is all. Thank you, Mr. Hanson.
Senator Green. Senator McMahon, do you have any questions?
Senator McMahon. The charge has been that there are 250 card-
carrying Communists in the State Department; 57 on another occa-
sion, and 81 on another occasion. I take it that you do not come within
any one of those three figures ?
Mr. Hanson. I was not in the 81, I am informed by the Depai't-
ment officers who determined who the individuals were. As to the 205
I have no way of knowing. Senator McCarthy submitted no list of
205.
Senator McMapion. Of course, the committee does not know that
either.
In other words, you are not a card-carrying Communist, and never
have been.
Mr. Hansotst. No, sir.
Senator McMahon. That is all.
Senator Green. Senator Lodge, do you have any questions?
Senator Lodge. Mr. Hanson, from December 1941 to 1945 were you
in this country all the time ?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. You were working for the State Department ?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. Is that the only Government agency for which you
ever worked ?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. You had no connection with the Army, Navy, or
Air Force ?
Mr. Hanson. No, sir.
Senator Lodge. Do I understand you to say that you were the sub-
ject of a very thorough examination by the FBI?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. And they without any reservations whatever cleared
you?
3(58 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Hanson. You understand, Mr. Lodge, the FBI does not clear,
but on the basis of the FBI report the State Department cleared me
both for loyalty and security.
Senator Lodge. So you are cleared for top secret information?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir. It is my understandino; also that I could not
be in my present job if that had not been reviewed by the Civil Service
Loyalty Review Board more than a year and a half ago, although I
have seen no direct report of what action they took.
Senator Lodge. You believe that you have been cleared by the FBI,
by the Civil Service Loyalty Board, and by the State Department
itself?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir ; subject to the comment I just made, that the
FBI expresses no findings. It submits the full investigative report.
Senator Lodge. That is all.
All right ; thank you.
Senator Green. Senator Tydings ?
Senator Tydings. Mr. Hanson, I would like you to turn to the para-
graph in Pacific Affairs for December 1938 so we may have it in one
place in the record, and read, if you have it, what Senator McCarthy
took out of this paragraph, and then I would like you to read the whole
paragraph, immediately thereafter. Can you do that ?
Mr. Hanson. It will take me a moment to find the quotation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to read two paragraphs from the article.
T had not previously looked this up. I see there are two paragraphs
that are quite pertinent to this misquotation.
Senator Tydings. Are you quoting Senator McCarthy or your own
artiVlp, ?
Mr. Hanson. I will quote first my own article and then what
Senator McCarthy said about the article, or I can give it to you
reversed, if that is the way the committee would like it.
Senator Tydings. I would like for you to have it reversed, because
that is the way it came to the committee. Take your time and do it
accurately.
Mr. Hanson. I am quoting Senator McCarthy, on page 195 of the
committee record :
In this connection I might say that he —
referring to Hanson —
very frankly points out that the Communists do not tolerate anyone who is not
completely on their side. This is what Hanson himself said — they do not
tolerate anyone who is not completely on their side.
Senator Tydings. That was one of the charges against you, I be-
lieve. Now read the whole paragraph as you read it from Pacific
Affairs.
Mr. Hanson. The passage from Pacific Affairs, page 290 — I do not
see the date on it
Senator Tydings. December 1938.
Mr. Hanson. Thank you. It reads as follows :
Despite the fourth purpose — revolutionary force — there is not a word about
communism in the school books, magazines, posters, slogans, or speeches.
I am writing, Mr. Chairman, about a visit to the guerrilla head-
quarters.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 369
At public meetings the Kuomintang flag was always displayed with a Commu-
nist haimner and sickle emblem, but 1 never heard communism mentioned in masg
propaganda.
Naturally the iM)litical leaders, trained in the anti-Japanese academy, are
familiar with the writings of Marx and Lenin, and have not abandoned their
hopes for a Socialist Republic in the distant future. But there is not the
slightest evidence of immediate revolutionary plans.
Since the emphasis of all propaganda is anti-Japanese, the scapegoat for
China's troubles is no longer the landlord but the Chinese trader or Lan chien,
a phrase applied to any Chinese who works for a Japanese Government, sells
Japanese merchandise, smokes opium, or refuses to cooperate in the struggle
against Japan.
And here is the sentence you wanted :
The guerrillas do not tolerate neutrality. A man is either for or against them.
Even the Kuomintang representative who attended the conference of guerrilla
leaders during January 10-15, 1938, blamed the 10 years of civil war upon the
traders.
Senator Tydixos. Tliat is all ri<iht. Xow stop right there. Can you
locate in Senator ^McCarthy's testimony the reference to Major Carl-
son, and Avill you take out of the paragraph that contains his reference
what Senator McCarthy said, and then read the whole paragraph?
Here is the book, if you want it.
Mr. Hanson. In the transcript of the hearing before this commit-
tee, on page 189, Senator McCarthy stated :
In chapter 23, entitled "Political Utopia on Mount Wut'Al'," in describing a
meetin.LT with an American Major Carlson, here is what he had to say :
'•We stayed up till midnight exchanging notes on guerrilla armies, the farm
unions, and the progress of the war. I was particularly interested in the Com-
munist leaders whom Carlson had just visited and whom I was about to meet.
Mao Tse-Tung, the head of the Communist Party, Carlson characterized as
'the most selfless man I ever met, a .social dreamer, a genius living 50 years ahead
of his time.' And Chu Teh"—
still quoting from Hanson — says —
"And Chu Teh, commander in chief of the Eighth Route Army was 'the prince
of generals, a man with the humility of Lincoln, the tenacity of Grant, and the
kindliness of Robert E. Lee.' "
Senator Tydixgs. Xow read it in the book.
Mr. H.\NS0N. The book states :
"We stayed up till midnight exchanging notes on guerilla armies, the farm
unions, and the progress of the wai\ I was particularly interested in the Com-
munist leaders whom Carlson had just visited and whom I was about to meet.
Mao Tse-Tung, the head of the Communist Party, Carlson characterized as
Senator Tydixgs. Now.you are quoting Carlson ? I want you to tell
me when you have finishi'd quoting Carlson.
Mr. Hansox (Continuing) :
"the most selfless man I ever met, a social dreamer, a genius living 50 years
ahead of his time."
That is the end of the quote from Carlson, and then I continue :
And Chu Teh, commander in chief of the Eighth Route Army was "the prince
of genei'als, a man with the humility of Lincoln, the tenacity of Grant, and the
kindliness of Robert E. Lee."
Senator Tydix(;s. Then both of those statements were made to you
by Major Carlson ?
Mr. Haxsox"^. Yes, sir.
370 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. You obviously could not have made them your-
self because you had never seen these men. You were just on your
Avay to see them.
Mr. Hanson, Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. So the connotation in the transcript is that you
made that description, but the connotation in the book shows that you
are simply quoting Major Carlson.
Senator Hicklenlooper. I thought I pointed that out very clearly
when I read this and asked for his comment.
Senator Tydings. A little emphasis won't hurt on this particular
thing.
AVho is Major Carlson ?
Mr. Hanson. Major Carlson Avas at that time assistant United States-
naval attache in China.
Senator Tydings. Was he a regular officer in the United States
Navy?
Mr. Hanson. He was in the Marine Corps ; yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Was he afterward in charge of "Carlson's Raid-
ers," who made one of the first attacks of the war on one of the islands
in the Pacific ?
Mr. Hanson. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. This is the same man who led "Carlson's Raiders"
on Makin, I believe.
So that the whole quotation is not your quotation but the quotation
of Major Carlson, who was telling you of his estimation of these
gentlemen, and you reported what his estimation was?
Mr. Hanson. That is right.
Senator Tydings. Had you at that time ever seen the two men to
whom the quotation refers?
Mr. Hanson. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. You had not?
Mr. Hanson. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. That is all.
Senator Green. Are there any further questions?
Senator Hickenlooper. Just to be sure that the chairman does
not understand that I was attempting to say that ]\Ir. Hanson had
said all this, I call his attention to the fact that I called attention to-
the Carlson quotations, and the only question I asked him was, did he
later come to that opinion himself?
Senator Tydings. The only object I had in asking these questions-
is that I got the definite opinion from Senator McCarthy's testimony
that there were the words of the witness, and not the words of Major
Carlson, and I wanted to clear that up be3"ond peradventure of doubt
at one place in the record, for future reference.
Senator Green. Are there any further questions or observations?
Senator McMahon. I will save those.
Mr. Louisell. Mr. Chairman, the exhibit to which Mr. Hanson
referred concerning his statement of duties with the Department of
State, 1942 to date, is available.
Senator Green. Will you give your name and so forth for the
record ?
Mr. Lotns'ELL. David W. Louisell, counsel for Mr. Hanson.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 371
In case the text of Mr. ITansoii's letter to the chairman of this
<*oininittoc has not ah-eady been phiced in the record, we wonkl like
also to submit tliat.
Senator Green. If there is no objection. They are received as
exhibits 58 and 50.
Senator Hickexloopeh. i'on are a local \Yashine;ton attorney?
Mr. LoursELL. That is correct.
Senator IIkkexloopek. You are not connected with the Govern-
ment t
iNIr. Lot isell. Xo. sir.
Senator Green. Is there anything further? If not, the committee
stands adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 1*2:35 p. m., the hearing was adjourned, to recon-
vene on Wednesday, April 5, 1950, at 10 : 30 a. m.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 5, 1950
United States Sena-i-e,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Sl'BCOMMITTEE APPOINTED UnDER SeNATE RESOLUTION 231,
Washington^ I). C.
Tlie subcommittee met. pursuant to adjournment on March 28, 1950,
at 10: 30 a. m.. in the Caucus Room, room 318, Senate Office Building,
Senator Millard E. Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) pre-
siding.
Present : Senators T^xlings, Green, McMahon, Hickenlooper, and
Lodge.
Senator Ttdings. The committee will come to order. Because we
liave asked the Avhole State Department Loyalty Board to be here;
and, because we have asked ^Ir. Seth Richardson to be here at 11: 30,
to explain the procedures of his Board, I would like to start promptly,
even though the full subcommittee has not come in, in order that these
gentlemen may return to their work and Mr. Richardson may keep
an engagement which lie has for the forepart of the afternoon.
Before proceeding with the matter, I would like to say that this
meeting this morning is called for the purpose of acquainting the
committee and the public with the procedures that are in effect in
passing on employees in the State Department, either for employ-
ment or after they are employed ; what steps are taken from time to
time and — how it is done — -to check the loyalty of the employees of
the State Department.
We are devoting this morning primarily to procedures, to find out
whether those procedures are adequate, and whether the gentlemen
who may testify have any recommendations to make, either in the
form of legislation, or any other form which will make the procedures
for the checking of loyalty cases of em])loyees in the Government more
effective than they are now, so that when you do testify, please keep
such thought in mind for the information of the connnittee.
Xow, I understand that it would be in the interest of orderly pro-
cedure if the first Avitness were to be Mr. Nicholson, who I believe is
in charge of this particular operation in the State Department.
Mr. Xicholson, will you hold \\\) your right hand.
Do you solemnly promise that all the evidence _you shall give in
the matter pending before this committee shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Nicholson. I do.
373
374 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
TESTIMONY OF DONALD L. NICHOLSON, CHIEF OF THE DIVISION
OF SECURITY, DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Senator Tydings. Give us first your name and occupation, as well
as your age.
Mr. Nicholson. Mr. Chairman, my name is Donald L. Nicholson,
44 years of age, I am presently Chief of the Division of Security of
the Department of State.
Senator Tydings. Where do you live, Mr. Nicholson ?
Mr. Nicholson. Chevy Chase, Md.
Senator Tydings, How long have you had this position ?
Mr. Nicholson. Since June 1948.
Senator Tydings. What did you do prior to that ?
Mr. Nicholson. Well, prior to that, let me go back and give you
considerable of my background
Senator Tydings. Just a brief account, not extensive, so we will
have some understanding of your experience.
Mr. Nicholson. I have an A. B. degree from Bucknell University,
and an LL. B. degree from George Washington University. After
graduating from George Washington, I accepted a position in the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and worked with the FBI until ■
Senator Tydings. Were you an FBI agent at one time?
Mr. Nicholson. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. How long has it been since you left the FBI?
Mr. Nicholson. I left the FBI in November of 1935.
Senator Tydings. How long were you with the FBI ?
Mr. Nicholson. From August of 1931 until November of 1935.
Senator Tydings. So you served there approximately 14 years
Mr. Nicholson. No, sir; until 1935.
Senator Tydings. How long would that be, 4 years ?
Mr. Nicholson. A little over 4 years.
Senator Tydings. And in the course of that experience, did you
have occasion to get statments in reference to individuals who were
under investigation by the FBI ?
Mr. Nicholson. Oh, yes.
Senator Tydings. Did you have occasion to notice the procedures
practiced by the FBI ?
Mr. Nicholson. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. I suppose from that experience, you have used a
great deal of the same technique and procedure in the State Depart-
ment ?
Mr. Nicholson. That is correct. _
Senator Tydings. I think you have qualified yourself sufficiently so,
if you have a written statement, you may proceed to give it to us.
Mr. Nicholson. Mr. Chairman, I have no written statement, but
I do iiave and would like to present the over-all program from the
charts which are exhibited to my left, and photostats.
Senator Tydings. Before you do that, there is one other question
that ought to be in the record. • «> • i q^ ^
How long has this particular program been m ettect m the btate
Department? .
Mr. Nicholson. The program I will discuss this morning was
established in the Department of State in 1947. •
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 375
Senator Tydings. What time in 1947?
Mr. XiciioLSON. In the summer months of 1947.
Senator Tydixgs. How did it come about ^ Was it done by legisla-
tion or otherwise?
Mr. Nicholson. Partially by letjislation — well, not legishition, but
the President's Executive Order 9So5, which established the Presi-
dent's loyalty program.
Senator Tydixgs. So that this loyalty program was set up by Exec-
utive order of President Truman in the summer of 1947?
Mr. Nicholson. That is quite true.
Senator Tydings. There was no program prior to that time, com-
parable to this?
Mr. Nicholson. Tliat is correct, sir.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. Nicholson. From the chart, I would like to present the loyalty
and security program in the Department of State as it exists today.
The charts, as I previously stated, are to my left — the large chart.
The members of the committee and of the press have copies of the
photographs of the chart.
I would like to start with the chart that is exhibited now, showing
the chain of command for personnel security in the Department of
State. You will notice that Mr. Peurifoy, the Deputy Under
Secretary
Senator Tydings. Let me interrupt you long enough to say, when
you discuss each one of these charts, will you say, "I hand this one to
the reporter for the record," so the record will show what chart you
are discussing.
]Mark that first one as exhibit 60.
Mr. Nicholson. The first chart which has been introduced as ex-
hibit 60 reflects at the top that the command of the security and loy-
alty program is under the direction of Mr. Peurifoy, who is Deputy
Under Secretary of State for Administration.
Directly under Mr. Peurifoy is Mr. Boykin, who is Chief Director
of the Office of Consular Affairs. Within the Office of Consular Affairs
there are several divisions, one of which is the Division of Security,
of which I am Chief.
Senator Tydings. So, you come under Mr. Boykin.
Mr. Nicholson. That is right.
Senator Tydings. What is tlie title of your office?
Mr. Nicholson. Division of Security.
Senator Tydings. All right ; go ahead.
]Mr. Nicholson. Which is one of the divisions under Mr. Boykin's
supervision.
As we move down the triangle to the operating staff, the Division of
Security shows myself as Chief. For the purposes of this particular
program, it is broken down into three branches which are significant
liere. First is the Investigation Branch which is headed by Travis
Fletcher, who has been an investigator of security work in the Federal
Government for well over 20 years; the Evaluation Branch, which
is crewed by sj^ecially trained evaluators of the current fronts. Com-
munist-front organizations. Communist Party lines, meaning and sig-
nificance of membership in organizations, the changes in the Commu-
nist line, and the whole areas that go to make up an evaluation of that
sort of information. That is headed by Mr. Joseph W. Emshey.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 25
376 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
The other branch you will notice is the Foreign Service and Do-
mestic Security Branch, which is under Mr. Merrill Blevins, and under
that is our physical security, the document control in our Washing-
ton office, and' foreign missions; so that these three branches are the
heart, so to speak, of the loyalty security program.
Senator Tydings. Mark the next exhibit as B.
Mr, Nicholson. You will note one other point : That the large arrow
on the left shows that on February 18, 1947, Secretary of State Mar-
shall delegated to Mr. Peurifoy full authority for and responsibility
to carry out the loyalty security program of the Department.
As we move then to the next chart
Senator Tydings. Which is 61.
Mr. Nicholson. Which is exhibit 61, you will notice the chart is
headed "Enforcing the President's loyalty program."
Now, this chart, we must bear in mind, applies to employees who
were enrolled prior to October 1, 1917, which was the cut-off date as
established by the Seth Richardson Loyalty Eeview Board. Those
were persons who were employees of the De])artnient of State, and
that is the processing that is given them by the
Senator Tydings. By the State Department Loyalty Board?
Mr. .Nicholson. Yes, sir: and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Nicholson. You will notice on the left, the wedges with little
round tops indicate employees who were on the rolls of the Depart-
ment of State as of the effective date of October 1, 1947, As of that
time, biographic sketches on all of the employees, fingerprint records
of all the employees were forwarded to the FBI for a check. In
processing, in the FBI, if the information came back that they had
no disloyalty data on those persons, they were moved over into the
cleared area. If the FBI had any information which raised any ques-
tion, questions of their loyalty, the FBI conducted a full field investi-
gation to run out all of the information pertaining to the allegations
or the information which they had. That full FBI investigation then
was submitted to the State Department Loyalty and Security Board.
Now, of that Board, the chairman, Mr. Conrad Snow, is here. He
is here todav, and will discuss this in more detail; that is, the opera-
tions of the Board.
Those cases were considered by the Board, the Loyalty and Secu-
rity Board of the Department of State, which would submit to Mr.
Penrifoy their recommendations for action.
Mr. Peurifoy then either followed their recommendation, either for
dismissal or for clearance, and if it was for separation the employees
had a right, under the Executive order, of appeal to the Secretary ; and
if tlie separation was upheld by the Secretary, had the right to appeal
to the Loyalty Review Board of the Civil Service Commission.
Senator Tydings. That is the Board that Mr. Richardson handles?
Mr. Nicholson. That is the Seth Richardson board.
Senator Tydings, All right; go on,
Mr, Nicholson, If the individual, after consideration by the De-
partment of State Board, was thouglit to be cleared, or the recom-
mendation was to clear him, that report and that decision is post-
audited by the Seth Richardson Board of tlie Civil S-^rvice Commission
before they go up into the large circle marked "Cleared."
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVE?TIGATIOX 377
That does not mean that once the employees have p;one thi-ough this
l)roee(Iui'e they are cleared forevermore.
We have in onr OAvn Department, in my own division, a constant
screenino- and checking of our employees, over and above this immedi-
ate processing, so that if we see that, or have information that, any-
thing has gone wrong, or is going wrong, we have a complete investi-
gative staflP to run those ont and thus keep a constant check on our
own })eople.
Senator Tydings. So, if you get a report or a rumor or an allega-
tion, or circumstances unusual enough, there is a recheck and it is
run down until they are cleared again.
Mr. XicHOLsoN. That is true.
Senator Tydings. And in the event you find that a man on a recheck
probably should be separated, he has the right to go back to the Seth
Richardson Loyalty Review Board?
Mr. XicHOLsoN. If on our recheck we find that information indi-
cates that the person may be disloyal, that information will be turned
over to tlie FBI for a complete loyalty investigation and it then would
take this processing again.
Senator Tydings. I see.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have him elucidate
a little bit more on this procedure that is followed, after the person
has been cleared and he or she is in the Department.
The original clearing, we will say, takes 3 or 6 weeks, whatever it is,
and then a long haul begins of work in the Department.
Mr. Nicholson. That is right.
Senator Lodge. Which, of course, is the important phase of it.
Nobody can do any harm while he is being considered. No damage
can be done until after they are in.
j\Ir. Nicholson. That is right.
Senator Lodge. Now exactly — do you just sit back and Avait for in-
formation on people, or for people to come in and tell you things, or
do you have an accurate supervision
Mv. Nicholson. No, Senator. We have an accurate recheck. We
do. of course, get tips and information from persons within the De-
partment that something may be wrong ; but we have an accurate pro-
gressive program on a recheck basis.
I would hesitate frankly in a public hearing to disclose all of the
techniques we use.
Senator Lodge. I do not want you to do that.
Mr. Nicholson. But it it an accurate and active progi-am. It is not
sitting back and being smug, but on security, it is moving things, and
to be sure that things are relatively safe.
Senator Lodge. Tell me as much as you can now. I realize tliat
some of these things have to be secret. I think the moi'e details you
can give the public about what you do, about after the people are in,
the more reassuring it will be.
Mr, Nicholson. What we do is, if persons for instance are going
into a code room, or in a sensitive area, we recheck everyb'jdv that goes
into the code room. As persons change jobs, we recheck the persons,
if they are going into higher positions, and things of that nature. We
have a constant check on the documents, so that if anybody becomes
careless with documents we know about it. We inve-^tigate the indi-
vidual, not only for carelessness, but as to what actually he does take.
378 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
to determine whether he does not take documents, and we check as to
why he is careless with documents and jack hnn up on that, and quite
frequently 20 so far as to suspend persons and reprimand them and
thiuffs of that nature, when they are careless with documents.
We frequently reinvestigate on our own, when we get information
from within or without the Department that persons are associated
with people that do not look right, and we have a constant •
Senator Lodge. Outside of office hours ^
Mr. Nicholson. Yes, sir; and we have a constantly moving pro-
gram covering all of those things.
Senator Lodge. When they get a code, for instance
Mr. Nicholson. Get one?
Senator Lodge. When someone gets a code — —
Mr Nicholson. No one handles codes, as such, Senator. It is not
that type of an operation. We have a certain form of control over
what we call top-secret decuments and there are signed receipts for
the documents, and it is a document control.
Senator Lodge. Thank you. c • 1 i
Senator Tydings. Go ahead. Mr. Nicholson. Have you fauished
with exhibit 61 now? If so, take the next and call it exhibit 62.
Mr. Nicholson. Looking at exhibit 62, then, which is entitled
"Screening of Civil-Service Applicants," we must remember that our
previous chart showed the incumbents, the processing of mcumbenrs
who were on the rolls of the Department as of October 1, 194 (.
Senator Tydings. These are for new people coming m since Oc-
tober 1947. . . .„ ,r
Mr Nicholson. Now, we are moving into that specitic area, Mi.
Chairman. You will notice on the chart that the left part of the
chart is entitled "Security Screening." The applicants are designated
on the left, and before an a])plicaut comes into the Department, tliey
are completely investigated bv our own investigative stall ; and cer-
tain other applicants by law kre investigated by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation. That applies particularly to the Internationa iln-
formation and Education Exchange program in whicli there is a
specific provision of Congress that they be investigated by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation prior to appointment. v ^ ^i
Now, after those investigations are conducted on the applicants, the
reports are evaluated in the Evaluation Branch of the Division of
Security. Applicants who are investigated on the strength of seeking
employment with the Department, if there is anything m their record
that we do not like, we disapprove them as an applicant, and there
is- no right of appeal because they are not employees and they are dis-
approved for employment in the Department.
Now, if in our security evaluation the applicant is approved for em-
ployment, he or she is then enrolled as an employee.
That is where you come then to the large l)lack line up and down
the chart. , i ,
Senator Tydings. And then they go through the same processing
that thev went through on chart 61?
Mr. Nicholson. That is quite true.
Senator Titjings. From the beginning to end ?
Mr. Nicholson. That is true. i i 1 f
Senator Tydings. So that the new employee, after lie has had what
you might call preliminary screening and security clearance, must
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 379
then <:■(> thi'oiiijli the whole process that tlie old employee had to go
throuiili who was on the roll prior to October 1047?
Mr. Xiciioi-sox. That is quite true.
I would like to iviake this exce})tion to that: AVe consider it more
than a preliminary screening; it is a full-blown investigation. We
know those peo))le when we bring them in, but as you say, it is quite
true that after they come in, then the President's loyalty program
comes into effect, and they go through the same procedure.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydixgs. Yes, Senator.
Senator Lodge. A good deal has been made of the distinction
between checkinir someone for lovalty and checking someone for the
question of whether or not they are a bad security risk. Some people
may be perfectly loyal, but, for some reason or other, they are not
good security risks.
Xow, as I oathered. you endeavor to cover both aspects thoroughly ;
is that right '?
Mr. Nicholson. That is quite true.
Senator Lodge. You are aware of that distinction?
Mr. NiciioLSox. Yes, indeed ; yes, indeed.
Senator Hickexlooper. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Senator Tydixgs. Yes.
Senator Hickexlooper. I notice on your chart that you go through
the Department investigation and evaluation, and if the employee
clears that, he is then enrolled as an employee.
Mr. NicHOLSox. That is right.
Senator Hickexlooper. Then thereafter the FBI investigation
takes place.
Mr. Xiciiolson. Well, it may not be an investigation. Senator Hick-
enlooper. It may be tins processing under the loyalty program
Senator Hickexlooper. I am just reading from the chart. It says
"FBI full field investiofation*" — after he becomes an employee.
INIr. Nicholson. That is where, in checking under the President's
loyalty program, there is information that the FBI may feel is such
that the loyalty investigation should be made.
Now those,- 1 can assure you, are very, very few in number.
Senator Hickexlooper. Then, in fact, unless something comes up
in either your investigation or other information that you get. there
is no full field FBI investigation of employees after thej become
employees of your Department.
Mr. NiciioLsox, That is quite true. However, they are checked
under the President's loyalty program, with the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Senator Hickexlooper. Is that check made before they become
employees, or afterward?
Mr. NiciioLsox. That is made afterward.
Senator Hickexlooper. The ]>oint I am trying to reach is this: As
to why it is not in the interest of efhciency and proper operation to
have them checked first, before they actually acquire the rights of
employees? There is a difference between an employee and an appli-
cant, in my judgment.
Mr. Nicholson. I quite agree with you.
Senator Hickexlooper. And you can either disapprove or reject
emplovmient of an applicant, much easier than you can discharge a
380 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
person after he becomes an employee, because then the I'ig^itsof appeal
and degree of proof probably changes a little bit, and yonr latitude is
cut down considerably, is it not ?
Mr Nicholson. I quite agree. , ,
Senator HrcKENLOOPER. iSid it just occurs to ine tha even though
the cases may be comparatively few, that even the file check with the
FBI and others should be done before the applicant actually ripens
into an employee with certain rights surrounding him.
Mr Nicholson. Well, the reason for that is that there are certain
ad^lni^We difficulties involved m it. Th^Bl -^-y^^^^^
check desire to have a fingerprint record, ^ow, it ib vei> ditticuit
?o1et a fingerprint record before the employee reports tor fl^ty J a
fingerprint chirt as the applicants are scattered all over the United
States • and it is quite difficult to get fingerprint charts.
Seiiatm HiCKENLOOPER. Now, do you do tins, Mr. Nicholson-I
realize that there may be some very pertinent ^^-^^J^j" ^^^^
practical to have a full field investigation by the FBI of e ei> appi
cant for a job, many applicants, there are no Pl^^^^^^^.l^v vou 'iu t do
is not a question of their security risks, or their M^^t^ yo ]i| do
not need them— but is there any reason, or do you, I should sa} , ask loi
an FBI file check on applicanti for jobs during the course of your con-
sideration and before they become employees^
Mr. Nicholson. No, we do not. v 1 1 i i ^l.-p,i1 nnrl
Senator Hickenlooper. Would that not probably be helpful and
miffht, in a few cases turn up things _ i i^ -i.^,.v
Mr Nicholson. It may be, but it would require then a double check
of The FBI after we obtain the fingerprints, and under our mvestiga-
dons! we ai-e quite sure of people when we enroll them as employees.
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead, Mr. Nicholson.
Mr Nicholson. The chart on the screening ot civil-service api i-
cants,' as Senator Hickenlooper pointed out, there may be m very laie
""se'naLr Tyoi^os:!^^ us clear that up a little. I think it will save
^" After a man is cleared through security screening and become^ an
ei^loyee, you get his biographic sketch and his fingerprints and then
you have an FBI record check.
Mr. Nicholson. That IS correct. • .^^,.,.Tof=nr.
Senator Tydings. If that record check, or any other mfoimabon
shows that this man should receive further «""^^^""f '/ !^^;^,t fIi
makes a full field investigation ; but there is a record check by the I^ BI
in every case, regardless.
Mr. Nicholson. That is quite true.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead. ^i • • ^i „f i,, fhA
Mr Nicholson. The other distinction then, on this, is that m the
event\a Ml FBI investigation is made, that investigation goes to t e
av Sei" ice Commission Regional Loyalty Board, ^'^ther than o the
Department of State loyalty and security board, for ^ cMe™^^^^^^^
of the case ; and, after their determination, of course, it is postauditecl
bv the Seth Richardson board. . „ ,, ^11
* Senator Tydings. So that in the case where there is an FBI ^^ 1 held
investigation, the Civil Service Commission Loyalty Board, that is, the
Regional Board, goes over that and makes a finding?
STATE DEPAHTAIEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATION 381
Mr. Nicholson-. That is correct.
Senator Tydixgs. But that finding is not permanent until the Cen-
tral Board liere m Washington also goes over the matter and approves
or disai)pr()ves it?
Mr. Nicholson. That is quite true.
Senator Ttdings. Go ahead.
:Mr. Nicholson. Then, the next chart, exhibit 63, is entitled "Screen-
nm Non-Civd Service and Foreign Service Applicants."
On this, the distinction is made between civil service emplo3^ees
and 'or applicants for civil service positions, and non-civil-service
applicants. The procedure up to the black center line is exactly the
same, where we do our own investigation and screening.
Senator Ttdings. We are on chart 63 now, are we not?
Mr. Nicholson. That is right.
Senator Tydings. Mark that, so we do not get confused.
What you are saying now applies to chart 63.
Mr. Nicholson. That is right, non-civil-service.
Now. since these individuals are not civil service employees, not un-
der the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission, in the
event the FBI should conduct a full field investigation after they are on
the rolls, that report goes to the State Department lovalty and security
board for a determination, rather than to the Civil'Service Regional
Loyalty Board. That is our own responsibilitv, because these people
are non-civil-service people, they are not under the rules and re^-ula-
tions of the Civil Service Commission.
However, after our board makes the determination as to
Senator Tydings. Does that go up as high as Ambassadors and
Ministers ?
Mr. Nicholson. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. It would take all the Foreign Service people from
Ambassadors down to — how low, clerks ?
Mr. Nicholson. Down to the clerks.
Senator Tytjings. In foreign embassies?
Mr. Nicholson. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Nicholson. After Mr. Peurifov makes the final decision, if the
decision is to separate the individual, the individual has the rio-ht of
appeal to the Secretary, and to the Civil Service Lovalty Review
Board because it is still a loyalty case, even though they are iiot under
tlie civil service regulations then.
If the decision is to clear an individual, tliat decision is postaudited
by tlie Civil Service Loyalty Review Board, or the Seth Richardson
board.
Senator Tydings. So that in cases where that is called into question
and the individual is deemed unsafe as a risk, let us say, he has the
right of a postaudit examination by the Seth Richardson appeals
board < ' ^
Mr. Nicholson. That is right.
Senator Tydings. So, the procedure after it gets goinjr, is prettv
mucli the same? = <= & i j
Mr. Nicholson. That is right.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
., ^^l^J'^^'^io^^^^- There are other various technical distinctions on
tlie different types of people.
382 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Mark the next exhibit 64.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr, Chairman?
Senator Tydings. Go ahead. Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. The Department investigation preliminary
to hiring a person, I think you said a moment ago, you believe is
quite tliorougli and you are pretty well satisfied when people become
an em])loyee.
Mr. Nicholson. That is right.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, may 1 ask you if the only reason for
the FBI getting into this at any time later, is because of the legal
requirements? In otlier words, if it were not for the legal require-
ment, woidd you consider your own investigative method sufficient ?
Mr, Nicholson. If it was not for the President's loyalty order?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
Mr. Nicholson, Yes; I think we would.
Senator Hickenlooper. You w^ould not have the FBI investigate
them at all, you would use your own investigative agency?
Mr. Nicholson. That is quite true.
However, we would in any event check with the FBI at some time,
either before or after employment to be sure we had their information.
Senator Hickenlooper. Again, the only point I am getting to is —
it would seem to me that before these people acquire the rights of
emi^loyees, and there are very definite rights that employees get when
they become employees, it would seem to me it would be wise to have
at least a file check of the FBI on them before they finally are hired,
rather than to wait until they are hired and then have the file check.
That appeals to me at the moment, at least.
Mr. Nicholson. If it was not for administrative difficulties, it would
be worth while ; although, as I say, the instances where we do not know
about something and the FBI does, are very, very few.
Senator Hickenlooper. It would seem to me the administrative dif-
ficulties would be no greater prior to the employment of the individ-
ual, than afterward.
Mr. Nicholson. Oh, yes, because the individuals, prior to employ-
ment, prior to reporting for duty, are scattered all over the United
States ; but, when they report for duty, they come, practically all, to
Washington where we can get their fingerprints and perform all the
administrative functions.
Senator Tydings. One question more. How many of these non-
civil-service and Foreign Service applicants have to be confirmed by
the Senate?
Mr. Nicholson. I am sorry. Senator, I cannot answer that.
Senator Tydings. There would be Ambassadors, Ministers, con-
sular agents, consuls, and all the, you might call it, higher echelons
of management and so on in the foreign field, that liave to come to the
Senate, would they not, as a broad proposition?
Mr. Nicholson. That is right.
Senator Tydings. So, in addition to what everybody may do in
this particular field, at least in the higher echelons they would also
have to go before a Senate committee who could ask any questions
they desired.
Mv. Nicholson. That is quite true.
Senator Tydings. Thank you. Proceed, Mr. Nicholson.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 383
Mr. XiciioLsox. We will move on to the next chart, "which we will
identify as exliibit 04, which is a chart showiiio; tlie technique for
eliniinatinj; security risks.
We have, as I have ])ointed out. this constant checkin*^ of our em-
ployees. AVe obtain information by tele]ihone. from letters, from per-
sons within the Department, from ])ersons outside of the Department,
and on the basis of that information con(hict investigations by our
own investigative stall'. Tha.t information goes to the Evaluation
Brancli. where it is evaluated. Il may be cleared there. If it indicates
that it is malicious gossip, that sort of complaint, we close it and drop
it there. If it looks like there may be something to it, it is submitted
to our State Department loyalty and security board for their deter-
mination.
Senator Tydixgs. AVliat chart are you on now?
Mr. XicnoLSOX. This is 64. "Eliminating Security Risks."
Senator Ttdixgs. Go ahead.
Mr. XicHOLSox. I might point out also that in this process, if we
at any time obtain information tending to indicate that there may be
information which would come under the President's loyalty program,
we would discontinue in the Department our investigation, and turn
the information we have over to the FBI to conduct the loyalty inves-
tigation under the President's loyalty program.
Then, any separation under this, of course, since it is not internal,
within-the-Department operation, the separation is subject to appeal
only to the Secretary of State, and there is no outside appeal such as
we have in the loyalty cases.
The next chart, which we will mark as exhibit 65, is a chart en-
titled "Composition of Loyalty and Security Board."
Gen. Conrad Snow, who is here with us today, will go into more
detail on this subject.
I would like to point out just a few of the high lights on it.
At the consideration of a case, there is selected from the panel,
three members. They are designated, with Conrad Snow in the mid-
dle, in the background of the picture ; there is the executive secretary
of the board, or legal officer of the board; the court reporter; the em-
ployee, Avho may be represented by counsel; and one witness in the
room at a time wlio may testify either for or against the witness or
the emijloyee; and Conrad Snow, I am sure, will discuss in more detail
the operations.
Senator Tydixgs. Are the examinations held under oath when the
employee testifies, or does he testify without being sworn?
Mr. XicHOLsox. Could I check on that?
General Sxow. Under oath.
Senator Tydixgs. Under oath?
Mr. XicHOLSoN. Under oath.
Senator Tydixgs. All right, go ahead.
Mr. NiCHOLsox. We will move then, to the next exhibit, which will
be marked "06."
Senator Tydix'^gs. Exhibit 66.
Mr. XicHOLSoN. This is another composite chart showing all the
action within the Department under the loyalty and security prograni.
You will notice on the left the "reports fi-om Security Division,"
which may be our own reports, or they may be FBI reports, and which
384 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
go into the loyalty and secnrity board, which is re])resented by three
individuals. The clearance then is a recommended action to Mr.
Piierifoy. If it is a loyalty case, the post audit follows by the Seth
Richardson Board and the individual employee moves into the cleared
category.
Now, the board has, if they prefer charges against the individual,
the individual has a right to reply in writing or request a hearing,
which we depict here, with the employee indicated as such, being repre-
sented by counsel, and calling their own witnesses, testifying in their
own behalf and introducing exhibits, and having the right to obtain
and correct a copy of the transcript.
The recommendation from the board then goes to Mr. Peurifoy.
If it is a recommendation to clear, it is postaudited by the Loyalty
Review Board, by the Civil Service Commission: if it is a security
recommendation for termination or separation, the employee has a
right to appeal to the Secretary; if it is a termination under the law
of the program, the employee has the right, suliject to a])peal to the
Secretary, if the decision to separate is upheld, the employee has a
right to appear and be heard by the Civil Service Loyalty Review
Board, or the Seth Richardson board.
Senator Tyuings. Thank you, Mr. Nicholson; and while we may
have some questions, I do not want to cut anybody oif, I will say that
we are going to hear next from the Loyalty Board itself, so any ques-
tions we might ask Mr. Nicholson ought to be predicated on the fact
that we will soon hear the Loyalty Board.
Senator McMaiion. I do have a couple of questions, if I may ask
them now. Senator Tydings.
Senator Tydinos. All right.
Senator McMahon. You would be what is termed "Chief
Investigator"?
Mr. Nicholson. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahon. Have you done your duty?
Mr. Nicholson. Yes, sir; I feel that I have.
Senator McMahon. Are there 205 card-carrying Communists in
the State Department ?
Mr. Nicholson. There are not.
Senator McMahon. Are there any card-carrying Communists in
the State Department, as far as you know ?
]Mr. Nicholson. As far as we know, there is no card-carrying Com-
munist in the State Department. If there were, they would be termi-
nated by noon.
Senator McMahon. Thank you.
Senator TydtnCxS. Take your seat again, please, Mr. Nicholson.
Senator HicKENLOorER. Mr. Nicholson, since this investigative pro-
cedure started, I believe, in 1947
Mr. Nicholson. That is right; yes, sir. We had a small investi-
gative statf prior to that. Senator Hickenlooper, but the program, as
a composite unit, started in 1947.
Senator Hickenlooper. You investigate or pass on the questions of
loyalty or security risks of persons that we send as our representatives
to the ITnited Nations ; or do you ?
Mr. Nicholson. To the Ignited Nations?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 385
jNIr. NiciiOLSOx. I am not sure I quite understand your question.
y<)u mean, to the international organization^
Senator Hickexloui'kk. Either to the international organization,
or that represents the United States in international organizations
of the United Nations.
Mr. XiCHOLsox. Those persons who represent the United States,
we do check; those persons who are employed by the international
organization, we do not.
Senator Hickexlooper. That is, those American citizens who are
employed by the United Nations, itself, you do not check?
Ml. Nicholson. That is right.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know whether they are checked by
any agency of our Government?
Air. Nicholson. No, sir; I am sorry; I do not know that ansAver,
Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, when you check individuals who
represent the United States in organizations attached to the United
Nations, what kind of a check do you give there?
Mr. Nicholson. Well, generally, since they are not becoming em-
ployees, we do not conduct as complete an investigation as we do for
an employee. We round up, in those cases, all of the information
within the files of the Government, and make inquiries if need be,
as an investigative technique.
Senator Hickenlooper. You have had considerable experience, Mr.
Nicholson, in investigative procedures, I think; and I would like to
ask if it appeared in the file of an individual that this individual had
at \arious times belonged to 15 or 25 organizations that had been at
least later, or at some time during their activity, declared to be a Com-
nuniist-front or subversive organiziitioii by an oiHcial body such as
the House Un-American x^ctivities Committee, or the California in-
vestigative committee, or the New York investigation, or investiga-
tions of that kind — would that raise any question in your mind indicat-
ing that they should be looked into a little bit for an explanation ?
Mr. Nicholson. I think what we would certainly have to look at is
the nature of the association with the organizations, the date of the
association, the participation in the activities of the association, and
the com])lexion really of the association at the time.
Senator Hickenlooper. How would you make such an investiga-
tion, roughly ? What would be your general procedure?
IMr. NiciiOLsoN. By and large, it would be a research situation, to
determine the history of the organization, the internal struggles with-
in the organization— it is quite common that a lot of the organizations
were started as good organizations, and became infiltrated, some of
them.
Senator Htckenloopfr. Isn't that the characteristic of the usual
Connnunist-f ront organization ?
Mr. Nicholson. That is right.
Senator Hickenlooper. They started with the name of a great
many people, who were perfectly loyal, and became captured by the
Comnumists?
Mr. Nicholson. That is right, and. of course, there are those organi-
zations where there were attempts to infiltrate, and Avhich have had
serious internal struggles.
386 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. In your investio-ation, under such circum-
stances where an individual was reputed to be a member, or there was
evidence that this individual had been a member of a very substantial
number of these organizations from time to time, would you consider
it a part of good investigative procedure to talk to the individual in-
volved about it, to get that individual's reactions?
Mr. NiCHOLSOisr. Not necessarily. I think it would be a matter of
going back and getting the background of the association with the
organizations, the tenor of the organization at the time of the associa-
tion, and the participation of the individual in the association at the
time.
Senator Hickenlooper. Would there be any better source of
getting an understanding of that, than to talk to the individual him-
self, about it, and get his views and explanation as to why he per-
mitted himself to be associated with these groups?
Mr. Nicholson. Well, if the groups — or, if the association was
before an infiltration or before the group was taken over, the associa-
tion really would not mean a great deal.
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, how could you — I think that that
is a perfectly sound statement, but how could you tell the individual
was not still associated with the organization, after it had been taken
over — better than ask the individual himself?
IVIr. Nicholson. Well, by and large, I think the investigation would
disclose present activities, or activities over the past years of the
individual.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, I take it you feel it would not be
important to at least call the individual in and say, "What is the
situation with regard to these memberships?"
JMr. Nicholson. I think it would depend entirely, Senator, on —
as I have attempted to point out — the time factor in it, the nature of
the organization, and the time of the membership, or the sponsoring
of the organization; and, it is hard, really, to generalize on any par-
ticular situation of circumstances, or any particular set of circum-
stances. I think you have to consider each individual case on its
individual merits.
Senator Hickenlooper. It would seem to me to be utterly routine
and essential that if some question is cast about an individual because
of repeated memberships in a subversive or allegedly subversive or-
ganization or organizations, that you M^ould call the individual in,
or go to see the individual and say, "What about this? Here is what
this shows. What do you have to say about it ?"
Mr. Nicholson. Well, I hate to be repetitive, but I think we still
go back to — when did it happen, what was the nature of it at the time,
what has been the individual's activity since that time, and — if some-
one was. for instance, a member of the Washington Book Shop many
years ago, and was a member in order to buy books and records at a
discount, and discontinued any activity. I don't think it will be nec-
essary, if we knew" those facts, to talk with the individual to determine
why he was a member of the Washington Book Shop, or to determine
whether he has or has not been active in it or a member of it since
1940, or something, because our investigation shows that
Senator Hickenlooper. That, of course, grants that your investi-
gation gives you conclusive proof that those facts exist, but I am not
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 387
ooing to continue this any longer, because we Avould get the same
answers and I will make the same statements, but it woukl seem to
nic tliat it would bo one of the first things that any investigator
would do, if circumstances of that kind came up, for a person under
consideration — to la,y the facts doMn very frankly before the indi-
vidual and say, "You know best whether you have been involved in
that, or whether you have been active. What are the circumstances r'
Mv. NiciioLSox. Well, I think it depends on how much you know
about it, what is the nature, the timing, and a lot of elements really
that go into that, Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. The purpose of my question is to lind out
how nuicli investigative work you do in original sources to actually
find out, whether you rely on collateral information or whether you
go directly to the person involved, which would seem to me to be the
direct and best way.
Mr. XiciioLsox. We do both, depending on the circumstances of
the case.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, since 1947, when this program was
set up, how many people have been separated from the State Depart-
ment on the basis of disloyalty, we will say ?
!Mr. Nicholson. I do not have any statistics with me on that, on
the loyalty statistics. I am sure that General SnoAv has them.
I can say this, and this is entirely from memory and I think this
figure has been given to Congress before — that since January 1, lO-tT,
we have separated 21J2 individuals from the De])artment of State on
whom there was some question of security or loyalty. That does not
mean that we knew they were disloyal, or knew they were security
risks. The}' may have left before it was resolved, they may have
been under investigation at the time they resigned, but there were
202, if I remember, relj'ing on memory, and I think that is pretty
accurate — there were 202 who left the De]:)artnient v.diere there was
some question of their security at the timethey left.
Senator Hickexlooper. Hoav long have you headed the Security
De])artment that you now head?
Mr. Nicholson. Since June 1948.
Senator Hickenlooper. During that time, had you, in your ca-
pacity as Director, or head of the Department, made findings recom-
mending that various individuals are bad security risks, and that they
should be separated i
Mr. Nicholson. Well ; no, sir. We don't make
Senator Hickenlooper. I will withdraw that. I should not have
said that. I don't know what your authority is but have you made
recommendations that in your judgment and in that of your De-
j)artment individuals are bad security risks?
Mr. Nicholson. Recommendations, as such, we do not make in that
nature; because our procedure is such that where there is inforunition
concerning an individual who is an employee, that information is
submitted to the Loyalty and Security Board, and they make their
recommendation to Mr. Peurifoy.
Senator Hickexeooper. So that your Department makes no recom-
mendations at all in that connection?
Mr. Nicholson. Well, that is quite true, with this exception : That
on applicants we do. On applicants we make our own decision en-
tirely.
388 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Oil emploj^ees, tliey are submitted to the Loyalty and Security
Board for their recommendation, to Mr. Peurifoy.
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, do you make any recommendations
that a person should be cleared ?
Mr. Nicholson. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. You do not make recommendations that
a person should not be cleared ; is that correct ?
Mr. Nicholson. That is right.
Now, wait — on employees, if we conduct a security investigation,
we either clear that individual on the basis of that investigation as
being unfounded, or if we feel that there may be something to it, and
the employee possibly should be heard on it, we then send it to the
Loyalty and Security Board for their handling.
Now, on loyalty cases entirely, those go to the Loyalty and Security
Board, and those are FBI investigations that go to the Loj^alty and
Security Board, so really it goes in channels to the Loyalty and Se-
curity Board.
Senator Hickenlooper. When the information on an individual has
come to its final conclusion in your Department, you either clear the
individual or recommend clearance, or you transfer the file with that
recommendation to the
Mr. Nicholson. Loyalty and Security Board.
Senator Hickenlooper. Loyalty and Security Board (
Mr. Nicholson. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, then, in transferring that file with-
out recommendation for clearance to the Loyalty and Security
Board, do you say in effect — there may be reason why this person
might be a security risk, therefore we are passing it on to you?
Mr. Nicholson. No; we say that th.ere are certain unresolved
questions in this that we feel you, as the Loyalty and Security Board,
as a judicious, well-founded, and competent body should look at and
make your recommendation to Mr. Peurifoy.
Senator Hickenlooper. How many individuals, if you recall, have,
let us say, civil-service applicants, who had been actually enrolled as
employees after your investigation, have been later discharged either
on the basis of bad security risk, after such enrollment as employees —
within your experience?
Mr. Nicholson. You mean under this program. Senator?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. In other words, after you have in-
vestigated them and put them on as employees, then they go through
the Loyalty investigation program, and how many have been separated
after that point?
Mr. Nicholson. To my knowledge, there have been none. I am sure
there have not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Who, in the Department, in connection with
the investigation of these employees, vvdio does make recommenda-
tions, or are any made? Does the Loyalty and Security Board make
recommendations ?
Mr. Nicholson. Oh, yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. And those recommendations go to
Mr. Nicholson. To Mr. Peurifoy.
Senator Hickenlooper. Go to Mr. Peurifoy ?
Mr. Nicholson. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. And then, after Mr. Peurifoy's decision,
STATE DEPAHTMKXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 389
if it is adverse to the employee, that employee can appeal to the Secre-
tary; is that correct?
Mr, Nicholson. That is correct, and if it is nndor the President's
k)yalty program, in other words, if it is a disloyal decision, he has a
right to appeal also to the Seth Richardson Board.
Senator Hickenlooper. As a matter of fact, in your specific De-
partment you have no autliority to deny clearance to an individual?
]Mr. XiciioLSON. Or to an api)iicant ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I mean, not deny clearance, because if you
don't grant it, you would be in effect denying it temporarily, but you
can grant clearance ; is that right ?
Mr. Nicholson. That is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. Your Department has authority to grant
the clearance if the individual is found worthy of it?
Mr. Nicholson. That is right.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, if something is developed in the in-
formation that you have at hand which prevents you in your judg-
ment from giving clearance, then I understand that you do not make
any reconnnendation that clearance be denied, you merely pass the
Hie on ; is that rig'ht ?
Mr. Nicholson. That is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. For the evaluation of the Loyalty and Se-
curity Clearance Board?
Mr. Nicholson. That is right.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think that is all for the moment, Senator.
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge ?
Senator Lodge. When was the last time that someone was separated
from the service as a result of your procedures ?
Mr, Nicholson. Speaking, I take it. Senator Lodge, of an em-
ployee ?
Senator Lodge, AVho else would there be ?
]\Ir, Nicholson. I prefer to let General Snow answer that. 1 am
not sure of the date on it.
Senator Lodge. Roughly, w'as it a month ago, 2 months ago, 3
months ago?
Mr. Nicholson, I think in about December 1949,
General Snow. I don't have the date of separation from the service,
if that is the question.
Senator Lodge. I was wondering what was the last time someone
was sejjarated. I think you can probably get that.
Mr. Nicholson. I don't have the dates.
Senator Lodge. You can get that, can you not ?
Mr. Nicholson. Oh, yes.
Senator Lodge, How many people have been processed altogether
by your procedure?
Mr. Nicholson. The employees?
Senator Lodge. Who else is there?
Mr. Nicholson. There are the applicants.
There is a procedure in regard to the applicants, too. Senator.
Senator Lodge. Prospective employees?
Mr. Nicholson. Well, there have been, all told, roughly, about 17,-
000 employees processed. We investigate around 5,000 applicants a
year, so that would be o years, well, 2 yeais actually, so it would, in the
whole program, be roughly 27,000 persons.
390 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. Now, you say that 202 people who were employees
have been separated ?
Mr. Nicholson. Well, they left the Department, Senator.
Senator Lodge. They are not there any more ?
Mr. Nicholson. That is correct.
Senator Lodge. Of the five-thonsand-odd applicants that you have a
year, how many of them get in '(
Mr. Nicholson. Well, that is a rather hard question, because they
are not all disapproved for security reasons. Some are disapproved
for character and suitability reasons by the personnel people ; some of
them take other jobs, but it runs that we appoint roughly one-half of
the persons we investigate.
Senator Lodge. You appoint about half of them ?
Mr. Nicholson. That is right.
That does not mean that the other half are bad peopk , because some
may have gotten jobs some place else, or a number of things could
enter into the picture.
Senator Lodge. I think it will be very useful to have a box score, an
accurate box score furnished for the record, of what has been done. It
has been going on about 3 years, with this procedure.
Mr. Nicholson. Yes.
Senator Lodge. I would like to know what you have accomplished,
how many you have processed, how many you have let in, how many
you have kept out, how many have been separated, and for what i-ea-
sons. I would like to have that.
Now, the State Department has contact with people, on a brief basis,
people coming in to lecture, coming in as per diem consultants or Ad-
visory Board members. How do you process those people ?
Mr. Nicholson. Generally, we do not, because they come in, and
they are not em])loyees. They come to lecture, and they do not handle
our documents, do not handle classified information
Senator Lodge. There is no reason for it?
Mr. Nicholson. There is no reason for it. •
If they are coming in to work, or to have access to documents — yes;
we check them.
Senator Lodge. If they are going to have access to papers ?
Mr. Nicholson. Access to classified documents, or coming into work,
then we do.
Senator Lodge. And the procedures are sufficiently rigid so that
someone coming in as a consultant or a lecturer could not informally
get access to documents ?
Mr. Nicholson. No.
Senator Lodge. Unless he had been cleared?
Mr. Nicholson. That is right, and that is through the physical con-
trol of documents as distinguished from the person himself.
Senator Lodge. That is formal ?
Mr. Nicholson. Oh, yes ! indeed.
Senator Lodge. Thank you.
Senator Tydings. Tliank you, Mr. Nicholson.
I will ask General Snow now if he will take the stand.
Before you do, General, will you raise your right hand, please ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 391
Do you solemnly swear that the ev'idence yon shall give in this
matter ])eiKlin<i- hefore the eonmiittee shall be the truth, the whole truth
and nothino-hut the truth, so help \-ou (rod?
Citneral iSxow. 1 do.
STATEMENT OF GEN. CONRAD E. SNOW, CHAIEMAN. LOYALTY AND
SECURITY BOARD, DEPARTMENT OE STATE
Senator Tydings. State your name, age, and place of residence.
C;rneral Sxow. Conrad E. Snow. (JO, and my })lace of residence is
Ai-lin<iton, Va.
Senator Tydixgs. "Where are you from, General?
(leneral Sxoav. Ecxdiester, N. H.
Senator Tydixgs. How do you happen to be called "General ?"
(reneral Sxow. Because I was made so durintv the last war.
Senator Tydixgs. You served in the last war and earned that rank.
General Sx-^ow. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. Plow long have you been connected with the State
Department ?
General Sx'ow. Since August of 1946.
Senator Tydix^gs. What was your first job*?
General Sxgav. In the State Department?
Senator Tydixgs. Yes.
General Snow. I have been continuously legal assistant to the
Le<;al Adviser, or Legal Service Office of the State Department.
S:Miator Tydixgs. How long did you stay there, and what job did
you go to?
General Snow. I have been in that position ever since 1946.
Senator Ttdix'gs. The work you are about to describe is sort of
extracurricular to the work j^ou originallj' undertook when you orig-
inally came in the State Department?
General Snow. Entirely extracurricular.
Senator Tydixgs. When did you start in your position as the
Chairman of the State Department Loyalty Board?
General Snow. In 1947.
Senator Tydix^gs. At the instigation of the program ?
General Snow\ Yes.
Senator Tydings. You have been with it ever since?
General Sx'cav. Yes, sir; continuously.
Senator Tydings. You have with you this morning the whole
Board.
Before 3'ou testify, some of these gentlemen might want to return
to their work, but I wanted the members of the committee to see
the Board, and I wonder if you would introduce each and have them
stand up as you introduce them, and they can take their seats again —
before you start to testify.
General Snow. It will be a pleasure.
Mr. Theodore Acliilles, Mr. Willard F. Barber, John O. Bell, George
Hayden Raynor, Mr, David A. Robertson, Mr. John W. Sipes, Mr.
William P. Snow; and Mr. Arthur G. Stevens, Mr. Chairman, is in
Europe.
I have one more introduction I would like to make. I would like
to introduce Mr. Allen B. Moreland. the Legal Officer of the Board.
«S!»70— .50 — pt. 1 26
392 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
(Those named arose briefly, a7id were reseated in the hearing room.)
Senator Tydings. Now, all these genelemen are employees of the
State Department, are they not?
General Snow. They are, sir.
Senator Tydings. And they, like yonrself, have other duties be-
sides this duty they are engaged on today ?
General Snow. That is right, sir.
Senator Tydings. And they have been designated from their re-
spective positions to assemble at your call to proceed with whatever
matter is before the Loyalty Board?
General Snow. Right, sir.
Senator Tydings. How long have these employees been in the State
Department — for a long while, as a general rule?
General Snow. Yes, sir.
I have with me some biogi'aphical notes which I would like to make
a part of this record here today.
Senator Tydings. For all of them ?
General Snow. For all of them.
Senator Tydings. That will be inserted in the record as exhibit 67,
and that will save a lot of questioning, because it will be there.
General, I think you have qualified yourself pretty well.
Now, go ahead with any statement you care to make.
General Snow. Thank you, sir.
Senator Tydings. And I will ask Mr. Nicholson, if he has not yet
left, to remain in case we need him for some additional questioning.
Mr. Nicholson. I will be glad to, sir.
Senator Tydings. All right, proceed. General.
General Snow. Mr. Chairman, the Loyalty Security Board of the
Department of State of which I am chairman is the organ of the
Department to which are referred all reports from the FBI of full
field investigations of Department employees, for determination as
to loyalty and security risk. Its decisions are post-audited by the
Loyalty Review Board of the Civil Service Commission, of which Mr.
Seth W. Richardson is chairman, and to tliat Review Board go appeals
from adverse decisions of the Loyalty Security Board. Both Boards
are part of the President's loyalty program, initiated on March 21,
1947, by Executive Order 9835.
The purpose of Executive Order 9835, was stated to be : To assure
(a) that persons employed in the Federal service are of complete and
unswerving loyalty to tlie United States: (Jj) that the United States
afford maximum j^rotection against infiltration of disloyal persons
into the ranks of its emploj'ees; and, at the same time, (c) that there
be given equal protection to the loyal employees of the United States
from unfounded accusations of disloyalty.
The Executive order itself stated the standard for the removal from
employment of an employee on grounds relating to loyalty, which
must be applied by both Boards. It is —
that, on all the evidence, reasonable grounds exist for belief that the person
involved is disloyal to the Government of the United States.
The Executive order sets forth various activities and associations,
which, if present, may be considered in connection with the determi-
nation of disloyalty. They are :
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 393
(a) Sabotage or espionage— or knowingly associating with spies
or saboteurs;
(b) Treason or sedition — or advocacy thereof;
(<?) Advocacy of revoUition, or of force or violence to alter the
constitutional form of government of the United States;
{d) Intentional unauthorized disclosure of documents or informa-
tion of a confidential or nonpublic character obtained as a result of
employment by the Government of the United States;
(e) Performance of duties, or otherwise acting so as to serve the
interests of another govermnent in preference to the interests of the
United States;
(/) Membership in, affiliation with, or sympathetic association with
any organization or group of persons, which has been designated by
the Attorney General as totalitarian, Fascist. Connnunist, or subver-
sive, or as having adopted a policy of advocating or ap])roving vio-
lence, either to deny to other persons their rights under the Constitu-
tion, or to seek to alter the forni of government of the United States.
Some of these activities, were we to find them would by th.eir very
definition necessarily in\olve disloyalty to the United States — as
to wit espionage, treason, sedition, revohition. Some of the associa-
tions, on the other hand, are only evidence on the issue of disloyalty.
The President, for instance, in a statement to the press of November 14,
lUiT, said with reference to the Attorney General's list: "Membership
in an organization is simply one piece of evidence which may or may
not be helpful in arriving at a conclusion as to the action which is to
be taken in a particular case.*' This was reaffirmed by the Attorney
General, who added that : "Guilt by association has never been one
of the principles of American jurisprudence."
"What the President said, however, and what the Attorney General
said, is not applicable to membership in the Communist Party. Under
section 9A of the Hatch Act, of August 21, 19o9, it is unlawful for any
Federal employee to have membership iu' any organization advocat-
ing the overthrow of the constitutional forni of Government of the
United States. On February 5, 1943, under Executive Order 9300, 4
years before Executive Order 9835, the Department of Justice dis-
seminated among Government agencies a list of organizations which
were subversive under the terms of the Hatch Act. This list included
the Communist Party of the U. S. A. This was reaffirmed by the
Attorney General on May 27, 1948. Accordingly, were the Loyalty
Security Board to find in the Department of State a member of the
Connnunist Party, his membership would be not merely evidence of
disloAalty; the dismissal of that employee would be mandatory.
Acting under Executive Order 9885, after appro])riate investiga-
tion, the Attorney General, on November 24, 1947, transmitted to the
Loyalty Review Board a list of oiganizations which was disseminated
\(> the Department on December 4. 1947. An additional list was dis-
seminated on Afay 28, 1948; and on September 21, 1948, the Attorney
General furnished a consolidated list which contained the names of
all the organizations previously designated, and segregated into cate-
gories as totalitarian. Fascist, Communist, subversive, advocating
force or violence to deny others their constitutional rights, or seeking
ro alter the form of Government of the Ignited States by unconstitu-
tional means. Tho.se lists include all the so-called front organizations.
394 STATE DEPyVRTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
crenerally designed to trap the unwary liberal-minded individual, and
not all by any means either infiltrated or controlled by Communists
from the outset of their existence. I mention this ^particularly because
in considering membership in, affiliation with, or sympathetic asso-
ciation with such organizations the boards have to take judicial notice
of the fact that the characterization of these organizations by the At-
torney General was first publicized to the employees of the Depart-
ment,' in some cases on November 24, 1947, in other cases on May 28,
1948. Membership or other association with these organizations in the
late thirties and early forties has therefore to be considered with some
circumspection as evidence of disloyalty or of security risk.
The i^roblem of the State Department in implementing the Presi-
dent's loyalty program was facilitated by the fact that the Secretary
of State has been granted by Congress, in the so-called McCarran
rider of the Seventy-ninth Congress, and repeatedly in subsequent
appropriation acts, the power in his absolute discretion to terminate
employment whenever he shall deem such determination necessary or
advisable in the interest of the United States. This power of summary
dismissal is the basis of the right of the Secretary to dismiss on account
of security risk, without having to resort to a determination, that on
all the evidence reasonable grounds exist for belief that the employee
ib disloyal.
Acting in accordance with this power of summary dismissal, and
5 months before the organization of the Loyalty Keview Board, the
Secretary of State, General Marshall, on July 9, 1947, appointed a
Personnel Security Board, of wliicli I was appointed Chairman, and
Maynard Barnes and Darrell St. Claire members. Both of those
hitter gentlemen have since left the Department, but only after a con-
siderable service on the Board. The Secretary also designated four
categories of employees as security risks, to wit :
(a) A person engaging in, supporting, or advocating treason, sub-
version, or sedition, oi' who is a member of. affiliated with, or in sym-
pathetic association witH the Communist, Nazi, or Fascist Party, or of
any party which seeks to alter the form of government of the United
States by unconstitutional means, or a person who consistently believes
in or supports the ideologies and policies of such a party.
(6) A person wlio is engaged in espionage, or who is acting directly
or indirectly under the instructions of a foreign government, or who
deliberately performs his duties or otherwise acts to serve the interest
of another government in preference to the interests of the United
States.
(c) A person who has knowingly divulged classified information
without authority and with the knowledge or belief that it will be
transmitted to agents of a foreign government, or who is so consist-
ently irresponsible in the handling of classified information as to
com}>el the conclusion of extreme lack of care or judgment.
And finally, (d), A person who has habitual or close association
with persons known or believed to be in categories (a) or (h) to an
extent which would justify the conclusions that he might, through
such association, divulge such classified information without authority.
Under these security principles of the Department of State, adopted
in 1947, it will be seen that the Personnel Security Board had to apply
a standard nnich stricter than that prescribed for the loyalty progTam,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION 395
^£\- 7^) ^.';»'"^^'"i;'^ts were proscribed as security risks, or persons
P^ n i.''; ' "' '■' '^Ttf' ^^'-<^^^^^o^ -ith the'Conununis?
nnVl -^.'ol • /i'l""'^^."'^^'' l^^:l'«^'^fl i^^ or supported tlie ideoloiries
and po uMes of the Connnunisr Party, but even persons wlio had
habi ual or ck>se association with such persons, so as to just fy he
com-h.s.on that tliey nn.irht vohmtarily or involuntarily divulge class -
hed information witliout authoritv ui^e ciassi
r^m-^iTvn"-^*' ^°'^'^r' ^""^^^^^ ^^^ P^'^ i^to effect on December
1 ., 194< b> the i^^suance by the Loyalty Review Board, under Seth W
K.chardson as Chairman of five directives, one requiring the estab-'
li.hment of departmental loyalty boards, and four reaudating he
niitial hearings, and the determinations by the boards ami the matter
.|t .npeals trom their decisions. The State Department promptly
lollowed suit, bv adopting the loyalty standards of ExecutL oS
.'^...) and transforming the Personnel Security Board, of which I
ZZJ^'^^t^\^^l' ^\^- «^^"^^, "^^^^^ibership, into 'the Loyalty Security
I oanl. MUh tlie functions of applying both the loyalty standards of
^i'.tT^'^Ti ''"^ order and the security principles of the Department of
Tppy today '''"'' -Standards that have applied ever since and
The Loyalty Security Board is not an investigatory body
It performs a judicial function, and the basis for action on its part
IS always a report from the FBL The FBI, in its name check of all
the employees of the State Department, has found itself in possession
of certain derogatory information regarding an employee, and has
consequently coiiducted a full field investigation and submitted its
report to the Department. The report ig exceedingly comi^lete in
most cases. It covers the life history of the employee, from his colle<Te
■days and. in some cases higli-school days to the present. Everyone
wlio remembers the employee, and many who don't h.as been con-
tacted—neighbors, teachers, friends, enemies, and associates Every-
thing they say IS put down, whether it bears on loyalty or security
Most of the information is imparted to the FBI agent in confidence'
and the greater part of the a\ itnesses refuse to sign statements or to
appear before a loyalty board. Many of the witnesses are anonymous
to the board, and are designated in the report simi)ly by letters and
numbers, with some suggestion either that their reliability is unknown'
•or that they have hitherto been found to be reliable. The <>ood "-s
reported as fully as the bad. The report, of course, particuhirlv in
tJie tield of association with other persons, contains derogatory in-
formation regarding these other persons, with supporting testimony
Ihe reports are completely objective; they make no attempt to eval-
uate the information, derogatory or otherwise, and draw no conclu-
sions on the evidence.
Those FBI reports are submitted to the Loyalty Security Board in
triplicate, and are at once passed to a panel of three out of the nine
members of the Board selected by the legal officers of the Board on
the basis of availability. Each member of the panel reads the report
by himself, and makes up his own mind as to the action indicated
Ihen a meeting of the panel is held, and, under the Regulations of
tlie Loyalty Review Board, the Board may come to any one of four
conclusions :
396 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
(a) It may conclude that in some respect the FBI report is incom-
plete and refer the report back to the FBI for further investigation ;.
(b) It may direct a written interrogatory to the employee, but may
not nuestioniiim otherwise, under the regulations;
r f may make a finding clearly favorable to the employee Be-
cause of the full nature of the FBI reports this is possible in a large
nroportion of the cases; ,. , . i r, 4-;^^+^
^ (d) It may propose removal action which is done by a notice to
the employee in writing stating the charges m factual detail The
emDlovee either in writing or orally, is informed of the names of all
TeCganizat^ns with whkh he is accused of having been connected,
and ot^all persons with whom he is charged with associating
In case the panel decides to make charges of disloyalty or of seciirity
risk the employee is entitled to reply in writing or to have an admin-
istrative hearing, at which he may appear pei;sonally, be representee
by counsel of his'own choosing, and present evKlence If a hearing s
required, no one is present beside the Board, its legal officei the
stenoo-r, 3her, the employee, his counsel, and the witness who is testi-
fy'ng" A coinplete transcript is made of the hearing and is addecl to
tiie file in the case. The Board is required and makes every effort to
coiKluct the hearing with fairness, impartiality, and cooperativeness.
It is an administrative hearing, not a prosecution.
After the hearing, the panel meets m executive session to decide the
case The regulations require that in its determination it shall state
merely the ac^tion taken-it does not ^^-^^y^^'-^^^'^^^^^^^
•iction may be either (a) to clear the employee, (5) that on a 1 the
ev deuce, reasonable gimmds exist for belief that the person is disloyal
or ') ti recommend dismissal as a security risk If f ^ de^^sion is
adverse, the employee has an appeal to the Secretary of State oi to a
person desio-nated by him. The Board has never been reversed on
Cpea E^^erv decision of the Board goes to Mr. Peurifoy, Deputy
UiS Secretary for Administration, for further actiom The Admin-
istrative Office has never failed to execute an adverse decision of the
Board.
"senator TymNOS. That is a pratty good record you have made there,
"senator Lodge. How many of those decisions were there ?
General Snow. May I give the statistics later? I have them fox
you.
Senator Lodge. All right
Senator l^ODGE. Ail rignr. . ^. i i ^-Pfi.o "RnorrT
General Snow. Every loyalty determination bv a panel of the Boaicl
goes from the administrative office to the Loyalty Review Boai-d ot
the Civil Service Commission for post audit. The Review Board
permits itself any one of four actions :
(^)It may affinn the determination of the Loyaltv Security Board.
(h) In case the Loyaltv Secuiity Board has decided the case with-
out preferring charges it may remand the case for charges and a
^'("wn case the Loyaltv Security Board has decided the case with-
out interrogation, it may remand the case for an interrogatory.
{d) It may hold a hearing itself and either affirm or reverse the
decision of the Loyalty Security Board
Since 1947, as of March 1, 10.50, the Loyalty Security Board ot the
State Department has determined 246 loyalty cases; 109 of the cases
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 397
liave been postaiidited by the Lo^-alty Review Board. Out of the 199
cases postaudited, three cases hcwe been remanded for an interroga-
tory, one case has been remanded for a hearing, and no oases have
been reversed. The Board has hekl 30 loyalty hearings. Of the 246
loyalty cases it has fonnd 2 employees to be security risks; and 5
have resigned with charges pending. Does that answer your ques-
tion ?
I have served continuously an Chairman of the Board, and have
participated as a member of the panel in 85 percent of the cases. I
have sat on most of the hearings. I have tried to give every case
my most careful and judicial consideration; I am sure that the other
members of the Board have done likewise. If there are any Connnu-
nists in the State Department, rlie Loyalty Security Board is unin-
formed of their existence.
It would not be appropriate for me to discuss the individual cases
mentioned by Senator McCarthy, in view of the fact that the Presi-
dent has committed the entire list to the Loyalty Review Board for
a rereview. Any discussion by me or by my Board of individual
cases would presume, I think, on this funrtion of the Loyalty Review
Board.
Senator Ttdixgs. General Snow, I apologize for asking you this
question, but due to the interest that the people of the United States
have in this whole proceeding, perhaps, would you mind telling the
committee what is your normal or present political affiliation?
General Sxow. I am a Republican, sir, and have been for life.
Senator HrcKEXLOcrER. I again suggest, Mr. Chairman, that every
lime a Republican is shown to be in Government it is a credit to Gov-
ernment.
Senator Tydtngs. I say it is a gi-eat credit to the Government's
broad vision that in work of this kind a Republican of General Snow's
eminence and transparent judicial and reflective ability has been put
in charge of a delicate operation like this, and I want to compliment
whoever appointed him for selecting a man of his eminence and
great qualifications.
General Sxow. This is the end of my statement.
Senator Ty.dings. Senator Hickenlooper?
Senator Hickenlooper. General Snow, you have given statistics
i)i the last ])aragraph of your statement which I was somewhat inter-
ested in and wanted to ask you about. But does your Board confine
itself only to the questions of loyalty involved in an employee, or
do you go further and consider the question of security risks based
on other categories than pure loyalty?
General Sxow. AVe cover both loyalty and security risks. Obvi-
ously any disloyal person would be a security risk without more, but
we also cover the question of security risk by itself without dis-
loyalty.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. For instance, a person addicted to
liabitual drunkenness and bad associations, of a sufficient degree, if
you considered that a security risk, that would be under your
jurisdiction?
General Sxoav. Technically that would come within our jurisdiction
and we do give the matter consideration.
398 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Spnator HlCKENLOOPEr.. I merely use that as an illustration There
are "the? categories of risk perhaps that do not involve mtentional
'^'tlmSi Snow. That is true, and also may I be permitted to say
that™ e.; a« easier ways of.getting rid of a V^-^-^^^^^^^^
for employment tl.nbo«jenngo^^^^^
ruSuiSi:ri^™;ioy>s w^^^ .•- ■•f^ru? m^u » ^ b^s
tive office to that fact and he is taken care of without having to Dotner
^"£,ra?o?S^K^rpU" SeJyrMcCarran rider and other pro-
visions of law you can separate an individual or discharge him for
no reason at all.
le^Xr 'ZLx— !^1n your loyalty heanngs, the person
now whom charges may be made is called in, as you have described
K?;rbu S it a fact that in many cases people who allegedly give
ciero-atoiT information about an individual are not available foi
^^G^elS^.'S'a^^l rule Uiey are not available for testi-
^"^ Senator Hickenlooper. So that in your inquiries or formal in-
aunTe;"S you are unable to determine whether or not hese
rJ H le who crive derocratory information are telling the truth or not.
^ S^wal Snow. We\a^^^^ do the best we can with the files before
""'senator Hickenlooper. So that in the face of f ^P^^-'lhe^S;
tion let us assume— this may be an extreme case, but just toi the sake
of c eveloph'- it let us assume-that the tile is replete with derogatory
niSi?Sonl.ained from specified information f-- ^ ^^^ ^i
individuals at)out the person charged and that that ^ *«"^f l^'^^^^^^
thp surface- that is, as contained in the file, looks pretty bad, but at
e ?hne S'the hearino- of this individual you are unable to produce
ai^^ Jthe iiidhdralsreither because they have given their mtonna-
tin undei- a pledge of secrecy or otherwise, you are unable to produce
mv of the individuals who gave this allegedly derogatory information
tWh! your hearing do you completely disregard the information
in the file because you cannot produce the witnesses ^
General Snow. By no means. Senator. • xi,iq
Senator Hiokenlooper. What is your lY^^^e^dm^ m that ?
General Snow. Our procedure is entirely one-sided ihe only eM
del^e that is normallyVroduced at «- 1-armg is evid^^^^^^^^^
the employee. The Government presents no case, oidmaiiiy. y^lf^
he rZlations we invite those few individuals who have given testi-
monv ad iKwe indicated a willing-ness to appear before the Board
ToTi^pe'^but they rarely do appear. But as a matter otherwise ti.ai
that\^-e present no ^^^^l^^^^^^' ,,^ ^f ^-i^^Tluirfi^^^^
in our possession is part ot tne pioceeuin^, .mu - ,,,,,„irl
the force that it would appear to warrant— that the hie itseli would
ain^eaiTo warrant. We consider the file as part of the case. We do
""sSr Hk~X. In other words, in considering this case
you do not take the position that simply because the employee appeals
STATE DEPARTISIEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 399
aiul oives tlio only aniriniitivo tcHtimony which I think from a human
standpoint wouhl be self-serving so far as he is concerned, you do not
consider tliat because the only verbal evidence that comes in before
your Board is favorable to the employee and his side of the case, that
that is your entire evidence?
General Snow. Oh, not at all ; no, sir.
Senator HickkxL(30per. And you take the evidence in the file and
Aveigli it for whatever it is worth, based upon your judgment and ex-
l)ei-ience in the past and whatever sensible reliance you think you
should put on it. is that correct?
General Sxow. Correct.
Senator Hickexlooper. Now let's take a case of this kind. Suppose
an employee's file has been sent forward to your Board for review.
You have^ a hearing, and there is considerable doubt raised as to the
desirability of this employee, either as a security risk or on the question
of loyalty, either one. There is a doubt, but that doubt is about 50-50.
You c'ouid resolve it either way. Do you give the employee the benefit
of doubt ?
General Sxow. No. "We give the Government the benefit of the
doubt.
Senator Hickexlooper. I am awfully glad to hear you say that.
General Sxow. I can refer you to rule 393.32 in the State Depart-
ment Kegulations and Procedures, of which I shall be glad to make a
copy available to the committee. If a reasonable doiibt exists as to
whether the person falls into one of the categories listed in section
393.1 the Department will be given the benefit of the doubt and the
person will be deemed a security risk.
Senator Hickexlooper. But that is in the question of a reasonable
doubt. I am talking about the matter of where you may say, "Well,
this may not rise to the full value of a reasonable doubt as legally in-
terpreted, but still we can't be to sure that this fellow is affirmatively-
all right."
General Sxow. Are you talking about disloyalty or a security risk?
Senator Hickexlooper. I am talking about security risks or dis-
loyalty, either category.
General Sxow. Disloyalty comes under a different modus operandi.
Senator Hickexlooper. I understand there is a requirement on
disloyalty for more specific proof.
General Sxow. Under disloyalty, the standard for the removal from
employment is all the evidence — all the evidence — indicates resonable
ground exists for belief that the person involved is disloyal. Now we
have to consider, under that head, all the evidence, and find, if we
recommend removal, that there is reasonable grounds for belief that
the person involved is disloyal.
That is a judicial function which is diflicidt but which has to be
performed.
Senator Hickexlooper. But on that reference to "judicial"' do
you use that in the general sense of a sound judgment, or do you at-
tempt to follow legal procedures?
General Sxow. I don't know whether it is judicial or judicious.
I mean judicial in the sense that it is the function of a court. We con-
sider ourselves to be a court. We do not, however, follow all the rules
of evidence, if that is what you mean by a "judicial procedure."
400 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. That is wliat I was asking, whether you
attempted to liold your hearings on the basis
General Snow. No. They can ]^nt in all the hearsay testimony
they want. It is mostly hearsaj' tliat we have against them.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
I believe that you have covered tliis in your statement, but I want
to merely ask you about it. The term "guilt by association" has
been used a great deal, a term which, it appears to me, is not approach-
ing exactly the full problem we have facing us. I think the term is
much better "risk by association," especially in the security risk cases.
General Snow. That is right.
Senator Hickenlooper. Complete guilt often is impossible to prove,
and yet there is often evidence of definite risk involved coming from
association. Is that not true?
General Snow. That's right. Guilt is a term more apj:)licable to
tlie accusation of disloyalty than security risk. Security risk is some-
thing that may be quite guiltless, as a matter of fact.
Senator Hickeneooper. From a loyalty standpoint?
General Snow. From a loyalty standpoint and from any reasonable
standpoint. A man may be quite loyal and not be guilty of anything.
Senator Hickenlooper. Tliere is a distinction between loyalty and
risk, very definitely.
General SN0W^ Disloyalty is a state of mind, and security risk is
a fact. A man is a security risk or he isn't in accordance with whether
or not there is danger of his giving away classified information. That
is all there is to security risk.
Senator Hickenlooper. On page 3 of your statement you refer
there to "association."
General Snow. Yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. I do not like to take the time to read all of
that paragraph, but I will read part of it :
N'ot only Coinmnnists were pi'oserihed as security risks, or persons affiliated
with, or in sympathetic association with the Communist Party, or who consist-
ently believed in or supported the ideologies and policies of the Communist
Party, but even persons who had habitual or close association with sucli persons,
so as to justify the ccniclusion that they might voluntarily or involuntarily divulge
classified information without authority.
I would appreciate it very much if you would amplify what the
degree of association has to be. I realize it is a rather twilight zone,
perhaps, but what general attitude does your Board take on associa-
tion? Is association on one or two occasions considered to be signifi-
cant, or does the association have to be on a dozen or 25 occasions?
Does it have to be over a period of a week or 80 days or 6 months?
In other words, what is the scope, the reasonable scope, that delimits
the category of association to the point where risk may be involved?
General Snow. By definition the association has to be such as to
justify the conclusion that the employee might voluntarily or involun-
tarily divulge classified information. That is the fundamental basis
of a judgment.
Now, to apply that basis, the fundamental question is, What is the
nature of the association ?
Senator Hickenlooper, It is that field that I am trying to explore.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 401
General Snow. It is that field that I am exploring for you. Is the
association a normal association, for instance in line of duty? We
have a great many cases where there has been association with known
Conununists and that association is normal because it has been in line
ol" duty. Thev are delegated or directed to associate with those people.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think that is fully understandable, where
they are doing a job, doing what they are told to do in keeping with
their work.
General Snow. Also we have cases where, in times past, they have
associated with their own superiors, who have been castigated in a
report as subjects of suspicion, who are no longer in the Department
in question or are with some other dei)artment of the Government.
Senator Hickenlooper. Let's pursue that a moment. If they have
been in close association with their superiors, who have been separated
because of their activities, and if they have continued that association,
does that raise a question ?
General Snow. There is your point. It would raise a question,
unless the contiiuumce of the association was apparently perfectly
normal — meeting on the street, meeting in the office, casual or other-
wise, is not subject to criticism. What we are looking for in the matter
of association is the kind of association that might lead to disclosure
of classified information, because that is the fundamental purpose of
the inquiry, to find out whether the employee is or is not a security
risk. AVe are not prosecuting the employee for something he has done.
We are trying to find out whether or not he is a security risk, and
the matter of association must be regarded from that light.
Senator Hickenlooper. I want to ask you the same question that
I asked Mr. Nicholson, whether or not you consider that evidence of
membership in a substantial number of organizations declared to be
subversive by either the Attorney General or other official bodies —
let's say membership in 10, 15, or 25 organizations of that kind— -would
raise a question of that person's associations and security risk that
should be examined into.
General Snow. Were the Board to find memb-iship in a large
number of organizations listed on the xVttorney GeneraFs list, we
would normally either submit an interrogatory to the person, to find
out what his explanation was for such membersliip, or we would
prefer charges and hold a hearing. That would be the normal
procedure.
However, there might be cases in which on all the evidence it was
]jerfectly clear that association with those organizations, such as spon-
sorship of dinners, parades, letters to the public, and one thing or
another, or letterheads on which their name appeared as sponsors
but which did not indicate membership, might be safely disregarded
insofar as either interrogatories or hearings are concerned. It all
de]iends on the nature of the association, and we must not forget
that what we have to look at is the whole file in every case. We are
not looking at just a derogatory piece of information standing by
itself, and nothing more. We have the whole file before us for con-
sideration, and we make our determination as to what to do on the
whole file, not on a single isolated circumstance that the party back
in 1940 or 1941 or 1943 was sponsor of a lot of things that had to do
402 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
with this institution which in 1947 was dechired to be subversive by
the Attorney General. .
Senator Hickenlooper. Wonkln"t it be a matter ot niterest to
you to find out whether the individual were still a member of those
organizations ?
General Snow. I said that if he was a member, that would be one
thing. The question is, however, whether the evidence you are con-
sidering is evidence of membership or evidence of having beeii ap-
proached by the organization to lend one's name to some activity of
the organization. There is a sharp distinction between the two thmgs.
I think in the case of membership I would liave to say to you, Senator^
that if we found the person was a member of the organization we
w^ould issue at least interrogatories.
Senator Hickenlooper. It w^ould seein to me, General, a person
appearing as a sponsor of an organization, or as an adviser for the
organization, would be pretty much of an indication that that person
was supporting the organization and advancing its purposes and
activities. .
General Snow. It depends again on what you have in the file. You
can judge pretty well by the rest of the file whether that person is
supporting that organization or not. If there is nothing else in the
file derogatory except the fact that he lent his name in 1941 to sponsor-
ing a parade that was initiated by an organization declared to be sub-
versive in 1947, you are going pretty far to think that that is evidence
of disloyalty or security risk.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, I think there are cases— isolated
cases— where that would apply, but it would seem to me that if it
occurred in case after case after case
General Snow. It doesn't. Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think there is some evidence that it has
occurred— that it would be a matter that would at least raise a flag of
warning to make inquiry?
General Snow. You are quite right as to that.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am just interested in the procedure end
of this, and what you people feel to be some kind of a trail to
be explored.
(xeneral Snow. You are quite right. Senator, that it would raise a
flag of warning, and vou are quite right to indicate the importance of
the matter. The Board has in very many cases directed interrogatories
to the employee to determine the "reason for membership in one of the
Attorney General's organizations. That is common procedure for the
Board.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, but it would seem to me to accentuate
itself if that same person appeared repeatedly and over a period of a
number of years— let's say 5, 6, 7 or 8 years— as the sponsor or the
supporter of successive organizations which in turn successively are
declared to be subversive.
General Snow. Your assumptions are perfectly sound. It might m
any given case, however, be overccnie by the (ther evideiK-e in the
file. Just bear in mind that we always have the whole file to consider,
not just that fact that you mention.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think all my questions have been
answered.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 403
Senator Tydixgs. Let me say. General Snow, Mr. Setli W. Richard-
son, who is here at my invitation today to testify, tells me he has a very
important enoagement at 1 o'clock, and I would like to ask the com-
mittee whether it would be a<2:reeable to them to ask (leneral Snow and
t lie Board to remain a little while and let Mr, Richardson testify at this
1 ime, so he can leave and keep his engagement.
Senator Green. I have one question to ask which I think can be
answered ''Yes'' or "No." I don't know that it will be.
I want to congratulate General Snow in the first instance on his
very clear description of the functions of the Loyalty Security Board.
Having taken such an active part in its functions throughout its whole
existence, and having no doubt made modifications in the procedure
during that period of time, and being able to make other moclifications
under the Executive order, I should like to ask whether there is any
legislation that could be enacted which would in any way help either
the Loyalty Security Board or the whole process of screening to pro-
tect our country against either disloyalty or security risk.
General SnoV. No, sir; I have no particular recommendation. I
might say that the Board has no power of subpena and no process by
which we can make witnesses appear. If it should be desirable that
we actually put in evidence on behalf of the Government, the power of
subpena Mould be useful.
Senator Gkeex. What is your opinion? Would it be desirable?
Would that help you in your work?
General Snow. Not to a large extent. I think we are quite satisfied
with the situation as it is.
Senator Tydixgs. I understand Senator Lodge has only one ques-
tion, and maybe we can let General Snow go before we call Mr, Richard-
son.
Senator Lodge. Let me say that I think you have made a very il-
luminating statement. I noted in your statement here, "The Loyalty
Security Board is not an investigatory body." Of course that is true,
but you are in a very good position to have an opinion on the effective-
ness of the investigatory procedure, and I would like to know whether
you think there is a real follow-through insofar as this checking for
security and loyalty is concerned.
(Teneral Snow. In my opinion, Senator, there is.
Senator Lodge. The operation is constantly being policed, in your
view?
(ieneral Snoav. In my view that is right. Of course, I am not par-
ticularly familiar with the methods they use to follow up, but the
results seem to justify the means.
Senator Lodge. Would you say that was true insofar as investiga-
tions here in the L^nited States were concerned and investigations
abroad are concerned, both?
(ieneral Sxoav. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. You feel that the set-up overseas is just as effective
and just as rugged as what we have here in the United States?
Xjeneral Snow. I am afraid I am not very competent to judge of the
system overseas because I haven't been overseas during my term of
duty, and I don't know just what the system is, but I know we have
results from overseas which are comparable to the results from within
the Department.
404 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. Thank you very much.
Senator Tydings. I understand Senator McMahon has only a ques-
tion or two. 1 /-.
Senator McMaiion. I just want to clear up one thing, General. Un
page 4 of your statement you say this :
Every loyalty de-^ermination by a panel of the Board goes from the adminis-
trative officer to tLe Loyalty Review Board of the Civil Service Commission for
postaudit.
Now, on page 5 you say :
Since 1947, as of March 1, 1950, the Loyalty Security Board of the State
Department has determined 246 loyalty cases. One hundred and ninety-nine of
the cases have been postaudited by the Loyalty Review Board.
There seems to be a contradiction there.
General Snow. It is not a real contradiction. Senator. I think the
Loyalty Review Board has simply not got around to the other cases.
Senator McMaiion. Maybe they have resigned.
General Snow. They do not post-audit some cases. Some of the
cases are explained in that manner; yes. There are several cases
where the employees has suosequently resigned and therefore the case
has not been post-audited, but there are other cases, and Mr. Richard-
son can answer better than I can which have not yet been covered by
the Board. ■ ^ i v
Senator McMahon. Where did you do your Army service, General '.
General Snow. First World War or Second ?
Senator McMahon. Both. r ■, n ^xr • ^
General Snow. I did my Army service in the First World War with
the Field Artillery in France. I did my Army service in the Second
World War in Washington with the Signal Corps.
Senator McMahon. Are you a member of any veterans' organiza-
tion? . X • J?
General Snow. I was a member of the American Legion tor some
time. In fact, I was commander of a post at one time. I am not at
present a member.
Senator McMahon. I want to congratulate you. General, on the way
you have gone about your work.
General Snow. Thank you.
Senator McMahon. There are those who would like, aparently,
to put into effect in this country the same kind of procedures that Arch-
bishop Stepanik and Cardinal Mindszenty suffered under. I guess
you do not agree with that.
General Snow. You are correct. n , i j:
Senator Tydings. General Snow, I want to express the thanks ot
all of the committee, I am sure, to you and to the members of the Board
for coming up here this morning, but to you particularly for your very
full and complete explanation of the procedures in your Department.
All of you gentlemen are excused, if you desire to retire.
Senator Lodge. ]\Ir. Chairman, before we go on with the next wit-
ness I would like to set down now my desire that in executive sessipn
we hear all of those who were directly charged with the follow-through
on this program and tlie dav-to-dav policing of the operation, and the
way in which it is policed.' I would like to have all those men come
up before us so that we have a chance to look at them and talk to
them.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 405
Senator Tydings. Ho^v mawy would that be?
Senator Loimjk. Whatever the number is that is actively and directly
conchicting (he follow-throut>h.
Senator Tvdixgs. I will ask that be done in executive session as
soon as it is convenient, Senator Lodge.
You gentlemen are excused. 1 ask Mr. Seth >\'. Kichardson if he
will come to the stand.
Do vou solemnlv promise that the evidence vou shall <>ive in this
matter pending before the committee shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. RiciiARDsox. I do.
STATEMENT OF HON. SETH W. RICHAEDSON, CHAIRMAN, CIVIL
SERVICE LOYALTY REVIEW BOARD
Senator Tydixgs. Mr. Richardson, just before you read your state-
ment, you are an attornev in AVashington at the present time?
Mr. Richardson. That is true.
Senator Tydings. Prior to that were you in the service of the
Government ?
Mr. Richardson. That's right.
Senator Tydings. I believe yon ^vere Assistant Attorney General —
is that the correct title — at one time?
]Mr. Richardson. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. When was that?
Mr. Richardson. During the Hoover administration.
Senator Tydings. You served the full time during the Hoover
administration?
Mr. Richardson. And a short time with General Cummings, who
succeeded General ^Mitchell.
Senator Tydings. What branch of judicial administration did you
have charge of?
Mr. Richardson. Lands; Indian Aifairs.
Senator Tydings. State your age, Mr. Richardson.
]Mr. Richardson. Seventy.
Senator Typings. I can't believe it. You are too good a golfer to
be 70 3^ears old.
We are very glad to have you. If you will read your statement, we
will appreciate it.
^Ir. Richardson. I submit the statement, INIr. Senator, purely in
the interest of brevity. Personally I should very much like to tell
about the loyalty program extemporaneously.
Executive Order 1)88.5, promulgated by the President on March 21.
1047, is the basis for the existing employee-loyalty program. Under
this order, general directions were given by the President for the ini-
tiation of a loyalty check of all incumbents or applicants in the execu-
tive department. Under the direction of this order, the Civil Service
Commission appointed the Loyalty Review Board. This Board was
organized in November 1947, and thereu]:»on formulated the necessary
rules and procedures to carry the Executive order into effect. It has
been operating under those rules and regulations ever since, and is
now so operating.
I can only attempt, in this short time, to sketch the outline of the
program thus inaugurated.
406 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
The entire loyalty check is based upon the initial examination by
thP FBI S the emp^^^^^ or applicant file, and that nivestigation ni
the ™insta!^e by thJ FBI is f ollo.ed by a field investigation when
and if the FBI deems further investigation is necessary.
There have been establislied in each o^^he departments of th^^^^^^^^
ernment loyalty boards appointed by the head of the Department
wCe cutv it is to take charge of loyalty matters for the particidar
Demrtm^^^^ The report frSn the FBI, in a case where there has
Si field investigat\on, comes to that board. .^^ ^oard ex^
if If there are derogatory elements present, the bo^iid then issues
a letter of Inu-ges to the employee, giving him the right to answer, to
anDear in person, with witnesses and an attorney, for a hearing
Tn that heaiing'the lovalty review board of the Department considers
the FBI report. It discloses to the employee the factual charges made
in that report in detail, but it does not disclose to the employee the e^i-
Lit al Surce from which confidential information comes Such in-
formation as exists in the FBI report as is not confidential is open
to the employee in connection with the hearing. i • i ^4=
The en pkV>.ee has opportunity to offer witnesses He is advisecl of
what the dia -ges are against him. He is assured tluit he will no be
7i h ed on anv charge that is not presented to him He is permitted to
offe? witnesses, to appear by attorney, and the boards are directed
hi even of a dispute in testimony to take into consideration that the
employee has not been given an opportunity to confront the eviden-
fill qnmve of the charae against him. n t tj;
Vt t rconcli^Son of^uch a hearing that board makes a finding. If
th; fin in<?is favorable, that ends it so far as the board is concerned.
But if it s'unfavorable, then a right of appeal is given to the employee
ap eal o the head of the Department, where he has a new hearing anc
a new decision is made. If that decision is favorable to him, that
^''senator Green. Mav I interrupt for a question? What proportion
""'li: mcu^.:^t:^L take that in my stride, Senator, please.
IS^^^^S.'^^"o the head of the Department ^ he
passes on it. If he finds favorably and reverses the decision below
tliaHs he end of it. But if he finds that the decision below was right
anlmkes an unfavorable determination, then the employee is given
an appeal to the Board of wliich I am a member
Those procedures are with reference to employees. Wit letei.
ence to applicants, the Civil Service Commission has createcl a sys-
tem of reUoual boards, and those regional boards receive the FBI le-
port and proceed to hLidle it and dispose of it m the same genera
way as T have illustrated, and from their decision there is an appeal
to tlie Lovaltv Review Board. , -i ,i t. •
''l wan?\o make vou clearly appreciate the fact that un i the Presi
dent% Executive order was promulgated no employee had any light
to anv hearing of any kind on any charge before any Department, so
hat tlie initialion of the right to hearings came from tl^e P;-esident s
Executive order, and if the order should be withdrawn and the loya ly
pio<n-am ended, no employee today would have any right to any
heanng of any kind as a condition of his discharge.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 407
Now, the Loj'alty Review Board is iiuule up of about 25 or 26 mem-
bers, 4 of whom are in Hawaii. They are picked from the whole coun-
try. We have three or four on the Pacilic coast, three or four in
New York, two or three in Boston, three or four in Washing^ton,
some in Fk)rida, Louisiana, Kansas, Oliio, Illinois, so that there have
been drawn into the Board men from all over the United States.
Senator Tydings. On a nonpartisan basis?
^Ir. Richardson. I suppose so. About 10 or 12 of them are lawyei-s.
I should say half a dozen are educators, and the balance are men
from business walks of life. Fortunately most of us are well along
in years, probably because it gives us a little more time to devote to
an activity of this sort.
As to the political make-up of the Board, I think they are about
evenly divided, but I can't speak on it, because actually I can put my
linger only on two sources.
One member of the Board asked me whether belonging to the
Loyalty Board would prevent him from serving as a Republican judge
in his district in the election. I judged from that that he was a Re-
publican. The other is the very distinguished Dr. JSIeta Glass, who is
a sister of Carter Glass and lives in Virginia, and I assume from that
that she is a Democrat. But those are the only two ones that I would
want to be sure were either Republican or Democrat.
The I^oyalty Review Board has fmictioned from the start very
largely as an appellate group, taking appeals that come through from
the lower boards. At the same time we have an audit procedure. Oar
staff is made uj) of a number of experienced examiners and they audit
every single case determined in the loyalt}' program.
I do r.ot want to make that any broader that it is, because that audit
is primarily procedural and is intended to assure us that the regula-
tions which we have adopted and the rules that we have laid down
are being followed in the carrjang through of this loyalty program;
that the proper notices are given to the employee; that the employee
is given a proper hearing; that the employee is given his copy of
the transcript ; that the employee is given his notice of appeal. We
want to be sure that all of those things are complied with, because in
ihis loyalty program there are about 160 boards, so they could easily
get all confused if there wasn't an audit system.
Senator Hickexlooper. How manv are there on each board, Mr.
Richardson?
]\Ir. RicHARDsox. I can't tell you. Some departments have three;
some departments have eight or nine. In the Post Office Department
they have, I think, five. That is entirely up to the head of the depart-
ment, how mau}^ people he wants to assign to his local board.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you have any idea at all what the total
number is of all the 160 boards?
Mr. RiciTARDsox. Xo. I wouldn't even make a guess. I have never
figured it out, and it would be just a guess. I should say you might
say an average of four would probably be nearly right. •
Senator Hicnexlooper. Thank you.
Mr. RiciiARDSox. Now this post-audit, however, may bring up at
any time a situation in a given case which seems to be so unusual,
so out of line, so out of acco)-d with what the record seems to be, that
the examiner will suggest that a panel of our Board take that case and
give it careful initial consideration.
6S970 — 50 — pt. 1 27
408 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
The moment a panel engages in that activity, the panel has all the
powe? kneeds to take careM that case. It can upon such a hearing,
Xm the lower finding: it can send a case back tor additional pio-
etoetlow or it cant if it wants to, resolve itself ij^o a tna^ boai^
and make a brand new hearing de novo in the ^^^f • ^^ f ^i^^/^^^^^ "^^'^
part to the largest extent the review is a true po&t-audit i e\ lew.
^ Now the operations of the Board are under the panel system. A
panel o'fthre members is usually appointed and to those members a
case is assigned and that panel completes the work of the Boaid m
that Jase ancUhe decision of that panel is the decision of the Board,
althoS^h^^^^^^^ a power reserved to the entire Board under certain
naiTOW circumstances to resolve itself into a committee of the whole
and reconsider a case that has been determined by a panel
During the Board's activities it has considered, I would think
several hundred cases. And every member of the Board ha. been
involved n the various panels with reference to those cases We
ave conf^ ed our consideration wholly to the matter of employees
o apXcant,, and the moment a person is no longer an employee
or an applicant our procedure has stopped immediately because,
you see oir recommendation is to separate the man from the service,
and if he is not in the service the proceeding becomes moot.
Except with reference to certain veteran appeals, where the veteran
as a matter of right has a right to a review of his ca^se by the C vil
8erv ce cLnmissfon, and where the determination of the appeal is
final all of the recommendations of the Loyalty Review Board are
a Iv sory. But I feel frank to say to you that there has not been a case
where a recommendation of the Loyaky Review Board has not been
followed by the respective department.
It may be interesting to you to observe that the ^PPf^V'^'tlw
come to us are cases which have developed an adverse finding below
bec?iuse you would not get any appeal unless there was an employee
who had been adversely judged belo\y. T».,now "RnnrH'^,
It may be of interest to observe that the Loy^ilty ^^^^^'l^.^^o^^^^^^
record is about 50-50 on reversals of those cases. Despite the fact that
he boa« below may have found a man disloyal, or evidence ^ndicating
disloyalty, the Board's record is about 50 percent of reversals of hose
cases! The standard on which we operate was told you by the chair-
nan of the State Department's loyalty board-whether on all the
e^'dence reasonable grounds exist for the belief that the employee is
"^'senator Hickenlooper. Do you refer in your statement, Mr^
Richardson, to the number on this 50 percent reversal-that is, how
mn V eases have come before you and how many have been reversed?
Mr. RiciiAKDSO^. I do not have it here I con d very easily ascertain
it-definite figures from my assistant, Mr. Meloy, who is here. The
fio-nres do not ai^pear in my statement. .
"senator Hickenlooper. Could you get those figures and give us the
''"Mr.^RiCHARDSON. Mr. Meloy, how many cases have come by appeal
to the Lovalty Board of Review? -, j.^ „„i
Ml L vwRENCE V. Meloy. We have restored 124 people after appeal.
Tl^re have been dismissed as a result of an ineligible determination
182 in the program.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 409
Senator Tydinos. Mr. Richardson, ri<>ht there you are talking about
the entire Government, not the State Department.
Mr. KicuAKDSOX. Yes; the entii-e Government.
Senator Tydinos. General Snow, as far as you have heard him
testify, testified that so far as his Board, your findings have been
practically the same as his all the way through. That is correct, is it
not?
Mr. RicHAKDsoN. I do not thiid^ that we have reversed a case in the
State Department. I am not sure how many may have been sent back
for supplementary attention.
Senator McMaiion. He gives a figure.
Mr. Richardson. Now, here is an interesting thing, too. The FBI
Jias considered nearly 3,000,000 files. More than 10,000 of those cases
have been given a field investigation by the FBI. Not one single case,
or evidence directing toward a case, of espionage has been disclosed
in tliat record. All of these cases that we have had have had to do with
this question of association, affiliation, membership with organizations
which have been certified by the Attorney General to be subversive.
I may say, outside of this written statement, I cannot believe that
you could have 3,000,000 targets for a widespread attempt to secure
subversive agencies in the Government without some of them having
clay feet, but I say it is an extraordinary thing that not one single
sellable of evidence has been found by the FBI, eflicient as they a.e,
indicating that a particular case involves the question of es])ionage.
The Jud}' Coplon case did not come under the loyalty program. The
other cases that have been illustrated in the press all existed prior to
the loyalty program.
Senator HiCKENLf)OPER. A great many people do separate them-
selves voluntarilj" prior to taking any appeal, do they not?
^h\ Richardson. This is not in the statement. I have been asked
the question, "Is this program any good, in view of the fact that out of
all these millions, only a very few have been separated from the
service?"
I have no stock answer to it. When we started this program, Sen-
ator, there was an immense increase in the percentage of resignations
from the Government service. What that means I don't know. Very
likely many of those resignations were entirely in good faith; but
many of them may have felt that an FBI investigation was not a good
atmosphere for them.
Senator Hickenlooper. So they got out rather than face the music.
Mr. Richardson. Second, Senator, it may easily be that there were
groups of individiuils who would have come into the service who felt
they did not care to undergo an FBI investigation before they got in,
and we were relieved from that. That is a guess, too.
The third is the question of the morale of the Government service
by reason of this FBI investigation. The charge has been bruited
abroad that the morale of the Government was being broken down.
The exact oi)p()site is true. It must have been a very great relief to the
3,000,000 employees to discover that there were less than one-twentieth
of 1 percent that the FBI could find anything wa^ong with.
Fourth, as to the future : I have found no evidence whatever of any
resistance or objection or recalcitrance on the part of the employees
of the Government in carrying through this program. We have had
410 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION
the cooperation, Senator, of the FBI, of the Civil Service Commission,
of the Department of Jnstice, of every head of a department, to make
this program work and not one word of criticism or suggestion or
influence has come out of the White House to direct our attention, it
the tiling does not work, it seems to me that it lies right on our front
door if such a program can be made to work.
Senator Green. In that connection may I ask you the question i
asked of General Snow, whether you had any recommendations to
make as to helpful legislation to make the program better
Mr. Richardson. I think the only way you can make the program
better is to get better men enforcing it.
Senator Green. That cannot be done by legislation.
Mr. EicHARDsoN. And, except for my own personal modesty, you
will go a long way before you improve on the personnel ot the l^oyalty
and Review Board. .•,■,. n^
Now I come to something that I want to make clear to you. Un
March 28 the President, by letter, requested the Loyalty Review Board
to arranf^e for a complete and detailed review, as soon as possible, ot
the cases in which charges of disloyalty had been made to this sub-
committee This review the President asks be made to cover all cases
heretofore reviewed by the Board in its regular loyalty prograin as
well as reports of all lovaltv investigations made by the Mil, the hies
of the State Department, the files of the Civil Service Commission,
any evidence produced before the committee or any evidence called to
our attention eitlier by the committee or by anyone else interested m
the work of the committee. . , . -r^ ■, r^ ^i --p i ^
The President, of course, created this Board. Consequently it he
asks us to review he had the power to ask us. The Board, m a formal
meeting, unanimously agreed to review every one of these cases.
Now requests have already been made of this committee and of
«Pmtor McCarthy for a complete list of the cases m which charges
^l^heenn^X The Department of State the FBI, the Civil Service
Commission, have already been requested to furnish to our Board
everything they have got with reference to these individuals contained
"'senator' Hickenlooper. Mr. Richardson, may I interrupt there?
A list of all the person named by Senator McCarthy privately and
publicly to this committee is attached to the subpena that was served
^'^Mr.^RicHARDSON. Yes. We asked the committee for it. It has not
yet been forthcoming. . t . .. i,^,i +^
Senator Hickenlooper. But you did receive the list attached to
the subpena which was served on you.
Mr. RicHAKDsoN. Not only that, but we got a list to conhrm that
list from the State Department.
Senator Hickenlooper. So you have the hst.
Mr. Richardson. So we have a list. But until we get a certihcate
from this committee that it is the true list, we are taking it for gi-anted
that it is correct. I assume it is, Senator.
Senator Ttdings. Mr. Richardson, I will be glad to give you a cer-
tificate, and I think your request is a proper one, but I would like to
say that the list you have, without the certificate, is an accurate list
of" all the persons named by Senator McCartliy.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 411
Senator McMahon. I wonder about that. Named by Senator Mc-
Carthy when and where?
Senator Tyuings. These are the 81 persons in the Senate and the 9
persons he designated publicly, and that is all we have, against whom
anv charges have been heard.
Mr. KiCHARDSOx. And the President's letter to us is confined to
those cases on which charges have been made before the committee.
Senator McMahon. These do not include the 205 card-carrying
Connnunists who are known to the Secretary of State to be card-carry-
ing Connnunists, as of Wlieeling, W. Va., according to Senator Mc-
Carthy's statement?
Senator Tydings. I would say to my colleagiie, and also to Mr.
Eichardson, that the committee has not yet received the names or the
evidence of any card-cai-rying Communist from any source, including
Senator McCarthy, up to the present time. We have not received any
evidence of any card-carrying Conniuniists now in the State Depart-
ment, up to the present time.
Senator McMahon. Thank you. Senator.
Mr. KicHARDSON. We have transmitted currently to this committee
and to Senator McCarthy a request to advise us of any additional
testimony available, and as soon as we get these records and files,
which will come in to us, as soon as we complete our trial brief of a
particular case, a panel will be appointed. That record will be turned
over to the panel ; the panel will investigate. If the panel concludes
that it is necessary to have a hearing, the panel will notify the em-
ployee involved, give him an opportunity to appear in person and by
his attorney and be heard ; })ermit any witnesses who have relevant
testimony on the question of disloyalty to appear before that panel
in the particular case.
Those hearings will be private. No one will be permitted to be
present except people who are involved in and interested in the
proceedings, and the report which the panel will make will ultimately
be forwarded to the President for such use as he may want to make
of it.
So far as we can, we propose that our work on this review shall
follow the seasoned procedui-e which we have developed for 2i/2
years under this loyalty program. It will only cover disloyalty, be-
cause the President has indicated to us that the authorization to this
committee is confined to disloyalty, and he desires the review which
we are to make to apply to disloyalty, as distinguished from security.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Richardson, could I just put this sentence in?
The exact words of the resolution read that we are to investigate
charges of employees in the State Department now or formerly em-
ployed who are charged with disloyalty, and nothing else. You are
correct in your assumption.
Mr. Richardson. We have in our loyalty board program a group
of current cases of employees that are involved in this loyalty pro-
gram. The Board feels strongly that those individuals ought not to
be left hanging (jn the string while we endeavor to comply with the
request of the President, and we propose to handle our current work-
load of pending cases so that those employees may haA^e an expeditious
answer to the question involved in their appeals. Subject to that, the
board is entirely willing to give the request of the President all pos-
sible precedence.
412 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
One final thing: We would like to have the fullest cooperation from
this committee and from Senator McCarthy in endeavoring to bring
into this file that is to be reviewed every element of evidence with
reference to disloyalty that is available. We will do everything we
can to cret it. We will fix the time for presenting them as reasonably
as we can, always keeping in mind that the report that we make has
got to be reasonably expeditious.
That is all I have, Senator. -, ^ t, i. ^ ^^
Senator Tydings. Mr. Richardson, I would like to say to you now,
subject to the approval of the committee— and I am sure the committee
will approve it-that every bit of testimony, every document every-
thing, any evidence of any kind, manner, shape or form that this
committee has or which it may obtain in the future, will unless I am
overruled by the committee-and I don't think I will be-be made
available to you or to your investigators if you will give me a letter
indicating to whom I shall turn it over. , . . ^ „
I would like to say this, that some of this evidence, of course, is a
single piece of paper, perhaps, or a book or whatever it may be. We
would appreciate its being examined in our room rather than taken
away so that the committee can have all of its evidence at hand it
it wants to look into it. ,t /-n • ^.i i. i-u^t-
Senator Hickenlooper. I might suggest, Mr. Chairman, that that
ought to be a two-way street. We ought to have access to whatever
evidence Mr. Richardson has. . ^ ttt 1 +
Senator TymNGS. It ought to be a three-way street. We ought
to have access to all the evidence Mr. McCarthy has.
Senator Hickenlooper. I agree with that. I have no objection to
furnishincT Mr. Richardson's group with what evidence we have, but
1 think bf the same token he ought to furnish us with what evidence
he has, because we are charged by the Senate with making formal
findings, and I think we ought to have access to it.
Mr Rich ardson. That little problem I leave m your laps.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Richardson, unless there are some questions
by the members of the committee
Senator Hickenlooper. I have several, yes.
Senator Tydings. Senator Hickenlooper. , ^ ^ y.,^
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Richardson I wan to get a littJe
clearer understanding of the procedure which you will follow m these
matters. You sav you have 160 boards over the United States i
Mr. Richardson. That's right.
Senator Hickenlooper. And they will average about four membeis,
so that is about 600 people, roughly— perhaps more ?
And they examine into the loyalty charges that may properly come
before them under the loyalty program in the various departments.
Is that correct ?
Mr. Richardson. That is right.
Senator Hickenlooper. How many members are there on the loy-
alty board of which you are chairman; that is, the top loyalty board,
the final appeal board?
Mr. Richardson. Twenty-six currently. , -,• . i-
Senator Hickenlooper. Do vou have other members subordinate to
your board that are not specifically assigned to special departments
as members of boards? I understand you have a staff.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 413
Mr. Richardson. "We have none wlio are board members, but we
have a staff headed by a very efficient jxeneral executive secretary, a
irroup of examiners, stenog^i'aphers, and the like.
Senator Hickexlooper. About how many are on that staff?
Mr. EiCHARDSoisr. About 30.
Senator Hickexlooper. And do the 160 boards have a staff?
Mr. RiciiARDSox. My information is that each department has
assigned to a board a le^al officer who aids them and assists them in
the handlins of their work.
Senator Hickexlooper. In the review of these cases I was wonder-
ing about the size of your establishment. I noted a question as you
wei-e ffoino: throuoh as to that. About how lono; a time do you think it
would take to canvass these cases? Let's say there are, well, just for
the sake of illustration, 115 of them — 80 plus 26 plus 9.
Mr. RicHARDSOx. I wish I could answer your question, Senator. I
can't.
Senator Hickexlooper. Could you give me any kind of estimate?
Mr. RicHARDSox. Xo. Some of these cases, by reason of the limita-
tions of the file, will be disposed of at a rate of two or three or four a
day by a competent panel. There will be other cases here that are
going to take a week or two.
Senator Hickexlooper. In your procedure, how do you do ? Do you
submit the file to the staff to recommend to the panel?
Mr. RicHARDSOx. I fix the panel, and then the office sends to that
panel the file involved in a particular case.
Senator Hickexlooper. That would be the FBI investigating file
and other information that you have collected ?
]Mr. RicHARDSox". That's right.
Senator Hickexooper. Then that file goes to the staff for review and
recommendation to the panel, does it ? Or just what happens ?
Mr. RiCHARDSox. Xo, The only thing the staff does is to digest it
and make an assisting memorandum to the panel as to where they will
find the various testimony.
Senator Hickexlooper. But the staff does review this for the bene-
fit of the panel, to expedite their work ?
Mr. RicHARDSOx^. But with no recommendations of any kind. That
is in some cases. Senator. There are many cases in which the panel it-
self makes its own complete investigation without any assistance from
the examiner at all.
Senator Hickexlooper. But the staff does not undertake to recom-
mend to the panel either way.
Mr. RiCH.VRDsox. Well, there is this qualification. If a staff auditor
is auditing a case for regularity and anything comes up which seems
to him out of line, he is authorized and directed by me to communicate
with me, so that if necessary a panel can take that out of his hands and
make the examination.
Senator Hickexlooper. Yes. Wliat I am getting at is, I would
think that would be in the normal course of their duties, but your staff
does not make a final recommendation that this case be approved or
denied. That is the responsibility of the panel, after the staff has
reviewed the file and whatever evidentiary matter there may be in
there.
Mr. RicHARDsox. That's right.
414 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenloopek. Do your 160 boards follow that same pro-
cedure out in the field in the various departments ?
Mr. RiciiAKDSON. I don't understand how they could.
Senator Hickenloopek. What do they do in the case of a loyalty
matter that may be in the jurisdiction of one of these 160 boards?
Mr. Richardson. Well, suppose you are the board. A case comes
in to you. A messenger delivers to you a file, say 6 inches thick, in the
case of John Smith. A similar file, or if there isn't a copy of it that
file, is then circulated among the members of your board, and you
examine it to ascertain, first, whether there is a substantial derogatory
element in that file. If there isn't, it is the dut}' of the board to say
so, close the file, and send it back.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then it is the same procedure followed in
the field with these boards where their particular jurisdiction is in-
volved that is followed by your board. The wdiole file is sent for their
review?
Mr. Richardson. No; it isn't the same, because the duty of the
agency board is to take that file and digest it on the merits. But when
that file comes to us, with a favorable finding below, it is only audited,
and the audit is for the purpose of ascertaining whether regularity has
been followed, and it is only the very occasional case where a panel
of our board enters into a determination, or a redetermination, of a
question of merit, which has been determined by the lower board.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. And then in the field, if they come
to a conchision, they refer their conclusion back to you?
Mr. Richardson. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Let's use the term, "one of your 160 boards."
That is the only way I know to refer to it.
Mr. Richardson. Call it agency board and you have it.
Senator Hickenlooper. That has jurisdiction over this matter.
When they come to a conclusion, that board, then the board forwards
its conclusions to you.
Mr. Richardson. With the file.
Senator Hickenlooper. With the file. It returns the file and
forwards the conclusion to you.
Mr. Richardson. That's right.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now did I understand you to say that in
certain cases the department head can overrule the finding of your
loyalty board ?
Mr. Richardson. No. The department head can overrule the find-
ing of his own board.
Senator Hickenlooper. But not of your board ?
Mr. Richardson. Oh, no.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I merely want to indicate, as
a result of a very clear explanation of this, that we have some 600
people in the United States who are members of these loyalty boards,
together with 30 or 40 staff members over there, all of whom have
access to these FBI reports, yet we are denied — five members of the
Senate are denied — looking at the FBI reports on these cases, and I
think it is a very, very significant thing. In other words, these files
are sent all over the United States ; the}' are given to 160 loyalty boards
and their members, and they are subject to the examination and specific
determination and development of derogatory information by clerks
STATE DEPARTlMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 415
in the departments, yet five members of a subcommittee who want to
examine them in secrecy and in confidence, if yon please, because I
have never advocated makino- them public, to make u}) our own minds
on conclusions we are directed by the Senate to make, are denied access
to the reports in the various files.
Senator Tydixgs. I think it is only proper to say, about these re-
fjional and central boards, that so far as I have been able to learn, there
has never been a leak out of any of them yet.
Mr. RiciiARDSOx. Well, they are all human.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Richardson, before you leave I would like you
to know that the only evidence we have has been presented openly by
Senator ]\[cCarthy, with certain exhibits that are in the record, with
one possible exception, where the chairman was handed a small lot
of evidence on a matter. That is, all of the matter that we have before
us has been told publicly either on the Senate floor or before this
committee. There has been no evidence given to us of any consequence,
at least, in executive session. We only had one meeting in executive
session with Senator McCarthy, and we got no new evidence out of
that. We discussed some other matters. So when you get the record
and the exhibits you will have all the evidence up to now, with one
possible exception, which the committee has.
Senator Green, have you any questions ?
Senator Green. I just want to draw my distinguished colleague's
attention to the fact that it is a little inaccurate to say that all these
160 boards had all these records. Each one of these records goes to
only one board, which is very different.
Senator HicKEXLOorER. If there is any question about that, what I
mean was, all these people, six or seven hundred of them, which is
more than all the Members of the House of Representatives and all the
Members of the Senate put together, have access to FBI and depart-
mental investigative loyalty files, whether it is 1 or whether it is 50.
Senator Green. Tlie question, as I understand it, isn't between the
number of people who have access to it ; it is a question of whether
the legislative branch shall submit these things to the executive branch
and vice versa.
Senator Tydings. I would imagine, with the exception of the Re-
publican judge. Judge Richardson, referred to a while ago, none of the
people who are on these boards is in active politics, either, and that
ought to make a little difference.
Mr. Richardson. We are in something oi a novel position because
we have received an application from the Library of Congress, which
is a congressional body, asking if we won't take charge of their loyalty
cases too, and I raise the ver}' distinct question that so far, at least, we
were not considering anything but executive employees.
But in view of the fact that our findings are purely advisory, if it
would help the situation at all we would take on the Library too.
Since then I understand the Army pro^ioses to use us.
I might put this in, because I like to have it known. None of the
people who serve on this board is paid except when he works, and
when they do not work it does not cost anything. And if this vrork-
load grows, as I think it will, they are going to be DP's in the first
sense of the word.
416 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Well, of course, we have never had any loyalty
investigation for the large number of employees of the legislative
establishment. We have thousands of them here on both sides of tiie
Capitol, and so far as I know there has never been any loyalty check
on them, and it might be not unfair to say that we might want to put
our own house in order before we go searching around other houses
of the Government.
Mr. Richardson. I want to thank you very much for coming up.
I apologize for keeping you a little longer than I intended, ihank
vou for your very comprehensive report.
" The committee will stand in recess until 10: 30 tomorrow morning.
(Whereupon, at 1 : 05 p. m., a recess was taken until the following
day, Thursday, April 6, 1950, at 10: 30 a. m.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1950
Unijted States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under S. Res., 231,
Washington, D. C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment on April 5, 19qP,
at 10 : 30 a. m., in room 318, Senate Office Building, Senator Millard E.
Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senator Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee), Green,
McMahon, Hickenlooper, and Lodge.
Also present : Senators Connally (chairman of the full committee),
Lucas. Tobey, McCarthy, Mundt, and Knowland.
Senator Tydings. The conmiittee will please come to order.
We have set aside today in order to give Dr. Owen Lattimore, who
has been accused by Senator McCarthy, with certain others, I think
it was "of being an unsafe risk,'' and in other ways — a chance to come
here and testify in his own defense, or in his own behalf.
Dr. Lattimore is here with counsel and we will proceed.
Doctor, if you will rise and hold up your right hand and be sworn.
Do you solemnly promise and swear that the testimony you shall
give in the matter pending before this committee shall be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Dr. Lattimore. I do pledge and so swear, so help me God.
TESTIMONY OF DR. OWEN LATTIMOEE, ACCOMPANIED BY ABE
FORTAS AND PAUL PORTER, OF COUNSEL
Senator Tydings. Take a seat. Doctor.
Now, Doctor, you may proceed in your own way to read or speak
extemporaneously.
You may proceed from now on.
Dr. Lattimore. Thank you. Senator.
May I read without interruption ?
Senator Tydings. You may, sir ; and then, of coui"se, we will have the
right to question you afterward.
Dr. Lattimore. Surelv.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead, sir.
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, and members of the subconnnittee,
I wish to express to you my appreciation for this opportunity to reply
to the statements about me which have been made by Senator Joseph
McCarthy, of Wisconsin. The Senator has in eli'ect accused me of
disloyalty and treason. He made these accusations when I was in
Afglianistan. and I did not hear of them until some days after they
were first made.
417
418 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION
Senator Tydixgs. Just a moment. There is a rather large crowd in
the room today, and I know you want to hear the witness, and I know
the television and radio people would like to hear the witness. The
Chair will appreciate it if those in the room will desist from audible
conversation, and as little movement as possible, so as to not interrupt
the proceedings.
Go ahead. Doctor.
Dr. Lattimore. The technique used by the Senator in making these
charges is apparently typical. He first announced at a press con-
ference that he had discovered "the top Russian espionage agent in
the United States." At this time he withheld my name. But later,
after the drama of his announcement was intensified by delay, he
whispered my name to a group of newspapermen, with full laiowledge
that it would be bandied about by rumoi' and gossip and eventually
published. I say to you that this was unworthy of a Senator or an
American.
As I shall show in detail, McCarthy's charges are untrue. As soon
as I heard of the substance of the charges I denounced them for what
they were: base and contemptible lies. In fact, as I recall, on several
occasions I used somewhat more colorful words.
Gentlemen, I want you to know that it is most distasteful to me to
use language concerning a United States Senator which, to say the
least, is disrespectful. To me, the honor and responsibility of Ameri-
can citizenship carry with them an obligation to respect the high
office of a jNIember of the United States Senate. But that office, the
position of United States Senator, likewise carries with it a re-
sponsibility which this man Joseph ^McCarthy has flagrantly violatecL
As a citizen who holds no official position, it is my right and duty to
list these violations which are illustrated by the Senator's conduct in
my own case.
He has violated it by impairing the effectiveness of the United States
Government in its relations with its friends and allies, and by making
the Government of the United States an object of suspicion in the
eyes of the auti-Conmiunist world, and undoubtedly the laughing stock
of the Communist governments.
He has violated it by instituting a reign of terror among officials
and employees in the United States GoA^ernment. no one of whom can
be sure of safetv from attack by the machine gun of irresponsible
publicity in Joseph McCarthy's hands.
He hns without authorization used secret documents obtained from
official Government files.
He has vilified citizens of the United States and accused them of
high ci-ime, without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves.
He has refused to submit alleged documentary evidence to a duly
constituted committee of the Senate.
He has invited disrespect to himself and his high office by refusing
to live up to his word. Twace on the floor of the Senate he stated that
any charges that he made under the cloak of immunity, he would re-
peat in another place so that their falseness could be tested in a court
of the United States. He said that if he should fail to do this he
would resign. He has been called to repeat his charges so that they
could be tested in a court action. He has failed to do so. And he has
not resigned.
,^TATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 419
Gentlemen, I speak to you as a private citizen. I owe no obligation
lo anvone except mv country and my conscience. I have spent my
life in the study of the ])roblems of the Far East, and, as an author
iind journalist, in writing about those problems as I saw them. I have
written 11 books, and literally hundreds of newspaper and magazine
articles. Too few people in this country hnve realized the importance
of the Far East — of China. Mongolia. Tibet, India. Pakistan, Af-
ghanistan. These areas of the world seem to most Americans to be
merely places in a travel book. I have been trying all of m}^ life
to arouse interest in this area and to spread knowledge of it in this
country.
Xow, suddenly, this Nation is beginning to awaken to the fact
that the Far East may be a center of the political crisis in which we
find oui-selves. That is a hopeful development. From this awaken-
ing, public debate is bound to result; and through public debate, the
Nation should be able to evolve policies toward China and the Far
East which we will carry out in the same spirit of patriotic nonparti-
sanshi]) which has. until recently, distinguished our conduct of foreign
afl'airs in Europe.
But before this essential public debate on China policy can take
place, there are some things that have to be cleared awaj^
Fiist, it is possible for people, including officials of the United
States Government, to oppose further aid to the Nationalist Govern-
ment of China without being disloyal to the United States, or
pro-Connnunist.
Second, persons, including officials, who opposed further aid to
the Nationalist Government — or who advocated a reducticm of that
aid. after the end of the war with Japan, were not necessarily disloyal
to the United States or pro-Communist.
Third, citizens of the United States, including State Department
officials engaged on far eastern work, are presumptively loyal and
devoted to their country.
Fourth, persons who are engaging in violent propaganda for all-
out aid to the Nationalist Government in Formosa and to Generalis-
simo Chiang Kai-shek, do not have a monopoly of opposition to com-
munism. Some of these people are undoubtedly sincere; but none
of them is entitled to assert his views by vilification and personal
abuse of others, or by unfounded attacks upon officials of the United
States Government.
Now it is obvious that Senator McCarthy and I differ on each of
these ))oints. Judging from his unquestioning accejitance and exten-
sive use of the propaganda of the so-called China lobby, he is at
least its willing tool. The Senator seems to feel that everyone is
disloyal whose opinions do not agree with those of himself and the
China lobby with respect to total and complete commitment of the
United States to the Nationalist Government of China. Some of
his denunciations are understandable only on the theory that he be-
lieves that anyone is disloyal whose opinions on China policy during
the last 0 or 10 years parallel or support those of the Government
of the United States. In the latter category the Senator would have
to include Gen. George C. Marshall. General Stilwell, and presumably
the various Secretaries of State, Messrs. Hull, Stettinius, Byrnes, and
Acheson.
420 STATE DEPi^RTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
In fact, I wonder a bit how a man so young as Joseph McCarthy,
whose acquaintance with national and international ^^f ^J^^J^^ ?\'S'
can have become such a great expert on the difficult and complex piob-
em of China and the Far East. My wonder on this score increased
when I read his speech on the Senate floor. Some of his material is
Trom Chinese and Kussian sources. Or perhaps I should say that some
of his exotic material on Mongolia appears to trace back to some Rus-
sian source of distinctly low caliber.
I did not know that the Senator was a linguist But really, the
material that the Senator read is so badly V^^n\'''hl';^.t Tn^irrTl e
that I am sure that I should not like to place the blame for it on the
earned Senator. Indeed, I fear that the sound and fury come from
iTe p of McCarthy, but that there is an Edgar Bergen in the wood-
pile. And I fear that this Edgar Bergen is neither kindly nor dis-
"'iTanf event, the Senator has stated that he will stand or fall on my
case I hope that this will turn out to be true, because I shall show
Sat his charges against me are so empty and baseless tha the Senator
w^l fall, and'f all flat on his face. I trust that the Senator's prpmi e
that he will retire from the arena if his charges against me fail is
not a insincere as his twice-repeated pi^mise to resign if he should fa
to repeat his libelous accusations in a forum which would expose him
to suit. I hope the Senator will in fact lay his machine gun down.
He is too reckless, careless, and irresponsible to have a license to use it.
In fact it is somewhat difficult to pin down the Senator's accusation^,
against me. He first mentioned me on March 13 m a fteinen before
this subcommittee. At that time, according to Seiiator McCaithy I
was merely a humble fellow who was ]ust "pro-Communist. The
pecific charges in support of Uiis included ]ust about tl^^ sa^^^ tlnnfs
that appeared in McCarthy's final summation on the floor of the Senate
^"0n''March'21, McCarthy told a press conference that an unnamed
man connected with the State Department was-I quote: The top
Russian espionage agent in the United States. .
Subsequently, McCarthy identified me as this top espionage agent m
a meeting attended by various persons. If the Senators will excuse
me I shall not give them the details of this meeting because it has a
bearing upon an action for libel which I propose to discuss with my
attorneys at the earliest possible moment.
Ifc is significant to note that my eminent position as ' the top espion-
age agent" was apparently an afterthought. Whe.i McCarthy first
made his sensational charges on February 20 m which he said tliat
there are 57 Communists in the State Department and 205 bad security
risks-not one of which he has produced-he apparently did not have
me in mind, directly or indirectly. Indeed, he referred to three
cases-No. 1 No. 2, and No. 81, as "the big three." These cases, as the
Senator described them, did not relate to me. Subsequently, he re-
ferred to Mrs. Brunauer as "the most important case xVs 1 believe
the Senators will agree, Mrs. Brunauer has completely demonstrated
that McCarthy's charges against her were characteristically untrue.
Mv eminence, therefore, as the top Soviet espionable agent, dawned
upon the Senator rather late in his crusade. It didn't last very long.
I was pretty quickly demoted from the position of big fish to relatively
small fry.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 421
In his major broadside on the Senate floor on March 80, the Senator,
quite understandably, showed that he was getting a bad case of weak
knees. In that speech the worst charge that he falsely made against
me was that 1 was "one of the top Connnunist agents in this country.''
You will note that I was merely one among many; and that I was no
longer guilty of espionage. Indeed, he suggested that maybe the
best way to describe me was as a "bad policy risk"; and the poor fellow
ended up on page 444() of the record by saying that "I fear in the case
of Lattimore, I may have perhaps placed too much stress on the ques-
tion of whether or not he has been an espionage agent."
Now, I can understand wh}^ the Senator wants to weasel, particu-
larly in view of his brave — but I fear insincere — statements that he
would stand or fall on my case and that he would repeat his state-
ments in an unprivileged forum or w^ould resign. But I think that
I would be the instrument of a great service to this country if the
Senator should resign, and I want to deal with each of his charges.
At the outset, however, I should like to make clear just what my
connections with the State Department and the Ignited States Gov-
ernment have been. The fact is that I have, and have had, no connec-
tion with the Department, and the Department does not consult me
and has not consulted me, except as follows :
(1) I was appointed by the President as a member of the Pauley
reparations mission to Japan and served in this capacity for 3 or 4
months, beginning October 15, 1945. Although this was a White House
mission, I was paid by the State Department for my services.
{•2) I particijiated in a 2-day ])anel discussion of China problems
at the State Department in October of 1949. The members of this
panel included about 25 or 30 specialists from universities, business,
and public life. Among them were Gen. George C. Marshall, Harold
Stassen. and John D. Kockefeller III. It was while this conference
was in preparation that I wrote a memorandum, at the specific request
of the State Department, giving my views — there should be a correc-
tion there. I should say, giving my views on the far-eastern policy in
general, including the China policy.
(3) On June 5, 1 lectured on Japanese problems at the State Depart-
ment. It is my understanding that this was one of a series of lectures
to State Department personnel presented by persons of various points
of view. Other than this, I have never been a consultant for the State
Department or on its payroll.
I do not have a desk in the State Department. I do not have a
1(4ephone there. I do not have — and never have had — access to State
Department files. The Senator must know that these statements of his
are untrue, but it is typical of him that the last time he repeated this
silly charge he phrased it in a way that Avould do credit to the most
devious of Connnunist propagandists. This is what he said on page
4447 of the Congi-essional Record:
Whether or not the Secretary of State will ever admit that Lattimore has a desk
in the State Department is comparatively unimportant.
Now, gentlemen, I suggest that kind of language is not made in
Wisconsin.
Apart from those listed above, my only employment record with
the Federal Government is that during the war, from 1942 to 1945,
I was first Deputy Director of Pacific Operations and then a con-
sultant, for the Office of War Information.
422 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
With the stated exceptions, I have held no positions in the United
States Government.
In July 11)41 I was appointed as political adviser to Generalissimo
Chiang Kai-shek. I was appointed by the Generalissimo upon recom-
mendation of President Roosevelt. At the end of the 6 months' period
for which I was appointed, the Generalissimo urged me to accept reap-
pointment for 1 year. In February liM-i I returned to the United
States, then went back to Chungking, and about the end of 1942 offered
my resignation. Tlie Generalissimo graciously refused to accept my
resignation formaliv, but asked me to consider mvself on indefinite
leave.
Since one of Senator McCarthy's astonishing affidavits says that I
was sent back to the United States because the Generalissimo was dis-
pleased with me, I ask permission to file as part of the record a copy
of a letter from him to President Eoosevelt in 1942, expressing his
appreciation of my services in rather flattering terms.
Senator Tydings. It will be granted, but we prefer to have it read
now, unless j^ou would like to read it later.
Dr. Latiimoke. Surely I will read it now.
It is dated Chungking, January 12, 1942 :
Dear Mr. President : I am happy to have the opportniiity afforded by Mr.
Lattiniore's return to America on a short visit to send yon a word of greeting
and to thank yon for recommending him as my political adviser.
Mr. Lattimore has fnlly measnred np to onr expectations and has entirely
justitied yonr choice. You nnerringly detected the right man to select to act as
a counselor at a time when decisions which will affect the whole world for genera-
tions to come are in the balance. He has not only a wide knowledge of our lan-
guage, history, and geography; he has, in ;iddition, an invaluable understau'liug
of onr contemporary political affairs. His absolute integrity is manifest in every-
tliing that he does or says, and I never have the slightest doubt that any sugges-
tion that he may make is based upon a genuine desire to assist China to the
utmost of his power.
The rest of the letter. Senator, refers to otlier matters. May I omit
reading them
Senator Tydings. If you wish. The whole letter wnll be put in as
exliibit (58, but you may read the part that bears on this controversy.
Dr. LAT'riMORE. I also file a cordial letter from Madame Chiang in
1944 asking me to be their house guest.
This is dated Chungking, Szechuan, April 28, 1944 :
Dear Mr. LATXixroRE : I sent you a letter soon after my return from America,
but as I liave not heard from you I do not know whether it reached you. There-
fore, I am asking General Hearn to take this letter to America and mail it from
there.
I understand that there is a possibility of your coming with Vice President
Wallace. If that information is correct — and I hope it i.s — I should be very
happy if you will be our house guest during your visit to Chungking.
With all good wishes to Mrs. Lattimore as well as yourself.
Yours sincerely,
Mey Li Soong Chiang.
I shall hereafter refer to the Senator's great, but undeserved com-
pliment concerning the degree of my influence on State Department
policy.
But at this point, I want to deal with Senator McCarthy's charge
that I am the top Russian espionage agent in this country. As I have
said, the Senator has backed away from this accusation and would
probably prefer that it be forgotten. But I don't want it to be for-
STATE DEPARTMENT EiMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 423
ootten that the Senator made the char<>e. It is an accusation of a base
crime, tlie crime of obtaining and sui)i)lyini>- seci-et information to a
foreign nation. In his entire 4-lionr speiH'h, in which he has dredji'ed
up and slung- at me all the mud that he could accumulate from all
sources, however polluted, JMcCarthy does not recite a single act or
circumstance which even on its face su})])orts this vile accusation.
The nearest he comes to any attem])t sjiecitically to cliai'ae me with
l)eing a Soviet agent is to refer to a trip that I made to Point Barrow,
Alaska, in May of 1949. He says that I had two cameras with me on
tliat trip, and that I have a room in Baltimore devoted to "special
photographic equipment." Then he adds, with sinister implications —
I quote — that —
It would be very interesting to linow wliere the pictures are today whicli Latti-
more took with those two cameras.
NoAv. Senators, I did go to Point Barrov:. I went there as alternate
for the president of Johns Hopkins University, to attend a meeting of
the Arctic Eesearch Laboratory AdA'isory Board. The purpose of
the meeting was to discuss research work being done there by various
universities under Xavy grant. As I recall, one of the projects winch
1 studied and rei)orted on wliile I was there, concerned the archeologi-
cal and dendrochronological research which was under w^ay. The
jninutes of this rather academic meeting at Point Barrow are not clas-
sified. I otfer a copy of them for the record.
Senator Tydixgs. Without objection, the}' may be printed in the
record, as exhibit 69.
]May I seize this o])portunity to ask if Dr. Isaiah Bowman was then
pi-esident of Johns Hojikins?
Dr. Lattimore. Xo, sir ; he had already retired and Dr. Bronk had
become president.
Gentlemen, I confess that I had a camera, just one. Senator INIc-
Carthy says everybody else had two. I took a lot of pictures. I didn't
get around to developing them until Senator ]McCarthy made his
charges. The pictures and the negatives and Kodachrome slides are
right here and I am glad to let you have them, I offer them for the
committee files. They are all intact, and none of them has been sent
to Russia or g'iven to secret agents.
Senator Tydixgs, They will be made a part of the files.
Dr. Lattimore. I hope that you will enjoy the pictures of Eskimo
children, dog sleds, huts lined with whale ribs, natural beauties, and
sunsets. If any of you have any suggestions as to how I can be a
better amateur photographer I would appreciate your letting me know.
Incidentally, the special photographic equipment that I have in my
house is an ordinary dub pliotographer's darkroom in which my son
and I develop our pictures when we have the time.
Now another story that Senator McCarthy tells goes back 14 years,
to 1980. The Senator says that he has an affidavit from a former Red
general. This Red general says that he talked to another Red general
in 1935 or 1936. The second Red general told the first Red general
that they were getting good intelligence reports about IMongolia and
the Far East through the Institute of Pacific Relations which, the
second Red general said, the Soviet Intelligence had taken over
through Communists in the United States. All of this occurred, you
will note, in 1935 or 1936.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 28
424 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy has refused to make this affidavit available to
my lawyers, and I have not seen it. But on the basis of the Senator's
statements concerning the affidavit, I confess that I am completely
bewildered as to what he means to show by it. The only reference to
me in the alleged conversation between the two Red generals is the
following : After reciting that the Soviet Intelligence had taken over
the Institute of Pacific Relations through Communists in the United
States, the affidavit states — and I quote — that —
In connection with this, the Red general particularly mentioned Owen Latti-
more.
Now, if this is intended to be a charge that in 1936 I was a Com-
munist, it is obviously false. I was not a Communist then ; I was not
and have not been a Communist at any other time, and I am not a Com-
munist now. But you don't have to take my word for this as of 1936.
On page 4446 of the record Senator McCarthy himself quotes an-
other one of his own informants, as saying that in 1936, I "was not
yet a Communist."
Now I suggest that the Senator can't have it both ways. He and
his informants should make up their minds whether I was or was not
a Communist in 1936.
The only relevant part of the charge — if any of it is relevant — is
the insinuation that the Institute of Pacific Relations was, in 1936,
a tool of Soviet Intelligence. In 1936 I was editor of the institute's
magazine Pacific Ali'airs and resided in Peking, China. It was my
job to accept or reject articles for publication in the magazine and
to do the usual type of editorial work.
Gentlemen, I shall not take your time now to repudiate in detail
the attacks on the Institute of Pacific Relations which Senator Mc-
Carthy repeats. I shall content myself with saying at this point that
the American Institute is a research and educational organization
wliicli a recent Rockefeller Foundation report called "the most im-
portant single source of independent studies of the problems of the
Pacific area and the Far East." Gerard Swope, honorary president of
International General Electric, recently succeeded the late Ray Lyman
Wilbur, Hoover's Secretary of the Interior, as chairman of the Amer-
ican Insttiute of Pacific Relations. Among its trustees are Gen.
George Marshall; W. R. Herod, of International General Electric;
and C. K. Gamble, director. Standard Vacuum Oil Co.
You may wonder why there has been this vicious attack upon the
institute and upon everyone who has ever been connected with it. If
McCarthy had exercised even common prudence, lie could have found
out the reasons, and he would have known that he was being used as
the simple dupe of a group of fanatical ])ersons who have been tlior-
oughly discredited. The attack upon the institute, its trustees, and
officials, including me, has been going on for many years.
The basis of the attack was, first, that the institute and I and others
were pro-Japanese imperialists; and later that we were pro-Commu-
nist. The assault took the form of floods of propaganda, including
dozens of articles, some of which were vv'ritten under false names and
some of which are reproduced in Senator McCarthj^'s speech of
March 30.
Some of the material used in the cain]:)aign was distributed to
Members of the Congress by William J. Goodwin, wdio is registered
STATE DEPARTMENT EJVIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 425
both as a lobbyist and as an a.gent of a foreign power, namely, the
Nationalist (lovernment of China. According to his registration, Mr.
Goodwin receives $-25,000 a year for his services. There is a correc-
tion there, INIr. Chairman. He is connected with more than one
branch of the Chinese (lovernment, and his total compensation ap-
pears to be $3(),0()0 a year, plus some expenses.
Senator Tydixgs. The correction will be made a part of the record.
Dr. Lattimore. The attack on the institute culminated in an ell'ort
in 1045, by a man named Kohlberg, to seize control of the institute.
He was defeated in a proxy fight, receiving only 66 votes from the
2,000 members of the institute.
At the time of this fight the institute was defended by many of its
distinguished members, trustees, and officers, including Edward Em-
bree, Sumner Welles. W. W. Waymack, Arthur H. Dean, Kobert
Gordon Sproul. and Ray Lyman Wilbur. I have here a mimeo-
graphed publication on the details of this fight, prepared by the insti-
tute, which I should like to file with the committee as part of this
record.
Senator Tydixgs. The record will be filed as exhibit 70.
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Kohlberg and his allies were thoroughly dis-
credited. However, they did not thereafter relent in their campaign,
but they made no progress. The institute continues to include among
its active members, trustees, and officers some of the most distin-
guished luimes in the country. It continues to receive the financial
support of the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. And it con-
tinues its essential work in the study of far-eastern problems.
It is easy to undei-stand the joy of Kohlberg and his associates when
they found tlie willing hands and innocent mind of Joseph McCarth}^
It is easy to imagine their pleasure when they observe a United States
Senator creating an international sensation b}^ regurgitating their
own fantastic and discredited venom.
I have prepared and I file with the committee an analysis of the
McCarthy charges showing in parallel columns their virtiuil identity
with the Kohlberg charges. Incidentally, the Senator — without nam-
ing Kohlberg — refers to him on page 4460 of the Congressional Rec-
ord as a good American member of the institute — presumably in con-
trast to General Marshall, Gerard Swope, Arthur Dean, and former
Ambassador O'Neal.
Senator Tydixos. Do you wish that excerpt read now, or do you
prefer to have it filed ?
Dr. Lattimore. I think, just filed, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. It will be filed as exhibit 71 in the record.
Dr. Lattimore. As I have said, however. I shall not take the time
to defend the Institute of Pacific Affairs. I hope that this committee
will hear more from Ambassador Jessup about it, and from its active
officers. I merely tell you as a scholar and an American, that if this
particularly vicious revival of an old and disreputable attack injures
this great organization, if it is injured, the Nation will lose one of
its few sources of research concerning a vital part of the world in
which our national interest is in peril, and about which we know too
little.
There is, however, one other insinuation specifically relating to me
in connection with the institute that I should like to answer. That
is a statement to tlie effect that in 1936 I was in Moscow "obviously
426 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
receiving instructions from the Soviet Government concerning the
line which the Institute of Pacific Relations ought to follow." The
conunittee will remember that, according to one of Senator McCarthy's
informants, in the year 1936, 1 was at least not yet a Communist !
Now the facts are these: In 1936 I was, as I have stated, resident
in Peking, China, as editor of the institute's magazine. I was return-
ing to the United States, and planned to stop off in various countries.
E. C. Carter, secretary general of the Institute, was in Moscow, where
he was attempting — an attempt that in the long run proved fruitless —
to persuade the Pussians to take part in the research and discussions
of the Institute of Pacific Relations with something that approached
the give and take that prevailed among most of the national groups
and which made the institute a valuable and constructive interna-
tional forum. As I recall, Mr. Carter suggested that I stop off' in
Moscow.
At the time, the institute's magazine Pacific Affairs, of which I was
then editor, had just published an article which included an uncom-
plimental personal reference to Stalin. I soon found out that the Rus-
sians considered this a high crime and misdemeanor and were angry
with me for publishing what they referred to as a Trotskyist version
of events in China. At the same time, I had a particular reason for
being more than usually disjileased with them because they had just
pul)lished a review of one of my books in which it was insinuated that
I was a Japanese agent.
During the same visit I took part, by invitation, in a group discus-
sion of academic research workers on the social and economic structure
of China. One of Senator McCarthy's informants, Freda Utley, was
present. Whatever her politics, she was then clearly working for the
Russians. The discussion was hardly a success. The interpreting was
bad. I could not understand what the Russians were trying to say,
and I did not make myself popular when I quoted a book about China
by an ex-Communist.
I later delivered to the Soviet Academy of Sciences a lecture on the
Far East which I repeated in two cities in Holland and again in
London and which was then published in the journal of the Royal
Institute of International Affairs in London.
I also talked in Moscow with Ambassador William C. Bullitt about
why I thought my interpretation of the situation in Inner Mongolia
was right, and the Soviet interpretation wrong. He exclaimed that the
Soviet Foreign Office ought to know that, and at his suggestion he then
took me to see a Soviet Vice Commisar of Foreign Affairs, whose name
I forget, to whom I spoke my piece, in Ambassador Bullit's presence
and at his request.
You may remember, gentlemen, that it was just about this time that
Mr. Roy Howard of Scripps-Howard and United Press had recently
been in Moscow, where he interviewed Stalin.
These things, then, are the charges made by Senator McCarthy which
have any possible relationshi]> to his charge that I am or was an espion-
age agent — a charge about which I think even he is uncomfortable. I
come now to a variety of other allegations which I suppose are intended
to show that I have collaborated with or supported the interests of
communism or the Soviet Union.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 427
First, the Senator refers to an affidavit from someone who was once
an editor in China, statin*; that I was a leader in several pro-Russian
student u]n-isin<2-s in China. This is fantastic and untrue. 1 cannot
even ima<:ine anything that I ever did or said which might conceivably
have suggested this even to a perverted mind. This was in the period
when 1 had close contacts Avitli Mongol nationalists who were anti-
Communist and also critical of the Chinese Government. Because of
these contacts, neither pro-Russian nor pro-Kuomintang Chinese stu-
dents were seeking my company.
I have here a letter from Nelson T. Johnson who was our Ambassador
to China.
Mr. (^hairman, the next paragraph I have here summarizes the let-
ter. Will you accept the summary for the moment, or should I read
the letter in full, as well?
Senator Tydixgs. What is the date of the letter, Doctor?
Dr. LATTi:AroRE. April 3. 19r)0.
Senator Tydings. And by whom is it signed ?
Di". Lattimcre. Xelson T. Johnson.
Senator Lodge. I would like to have it read.
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge would like to have it read. Please
read it.
Dr. LATTiivtoRE (reading) :
Dear Lattimore : I have your letter of Apiil 2 in regard to the oharse that you
were "a leader in several pro-Rnssian student uprisings in China." I was resi-
dent in Peliing I think throughout the whole of the period between 1930 and 1937
and I recall your presence in Peking very clearly. At the moment, I do not
remember how much of that period you were actually in Peking, but I know that
you and your family had a home there f(u- most of that time and that my wife
and I enjoyed the hospitality of your home and that you were both frequently in
our home. I recall very clearly that this period coincided with the invasion of
Manchuria by .Japan and I remember long conversations with you at various
times about your work and the travels that you made into Mongolia and into
Manchuria, for you were at that time working on tlie manuscript of a book which
was to be published under the title of "Inner Asian Frontiers of China.'' I was
in a position at Peking in those days, being chief of the American diplomatic
mission to China, where if there had been any report of complaint in regard to
your activities among the Chinese of a political or seditious character, I would
have been informed. I am sure that any information of that kind would have
made an impression upon me and that I would not have forgotten it.
I am surprised to learn that you have been cliarged with having been a leader
in .several pro-Russian student uprisings in China during that period. I do
not remember ever having heard of anything of that kind. I do not recall ever
having heard that you were a participant in student troubles of any kind. On
the contrary, it is my recollection that througliout this period your interests
were in the research which you were living in Peking for the purpose of carry-
ing out among the Mongols and the peoples of ilanchuria, and tliat your work
had nothing whatever to do with student movements.
With kindest personal regards, I am,
Very truly yours,
Nelson T. Johnson.
Senator TYnixos. May I see that letter just a minute; thank you.
Senator Lodge. What was the date of the letter ?
Senator Tydixgs. It was April 3, 1950.
Dr. Lattimore. I have here, also, a letter from T. L. Yuan to my
attorneys, Arnold, Fortas & Porter. Dr. Yuan, who was then the
director of the Chinese National Library, states that he recalls the
strikes and demonstrations by Chinese students in December 1935, and
that it is absurd to say that I was the instigator of Chinese student
428 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
strikes. I also have a letter to the same general effect from Col.
William Mayer, who was then military attache, United States Em-
bassy in China.
I ask permission to file these letters with the committee.
Senator Ttdings. I think you had better read those exhibits, too,^
if they are not too long. I think you will throw light on the contro-
versy here and we will all want to hear them, and it will save reading
them in private.
Senator Lodge. Will you identify the T. L. Yuan?
Dr. Lattimore. At that time he was director of the Chinese Na-
tional Library in Peiping, which is the equivalent of the Congressional
Library here.
Senator Lodge. Has he an affiliation with the Nationalist Govern-
ment ?
Dr. Lattimore. The library was supported, as I recall, partly
No ; the building was partly from a grant by the Rockefeller Foun-
dation; but the main support of the library came from the Chinese
Government ; that is, the Kuomintang Government.
Senator TI'dings. While the doctor is getting a little breathing
spell, Mr. Fortas, would you, as counsel, like to read that record for
him ? It will be all right.
Mr. FoRTAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is a letter to Arnold, Fortas & Porter, Ring Building, Washing-
ton, D. C—
Dear Sirs —
and it is on the letterhead of the National Librarj^ of Peiping, Peiping^
China.
Senator Tydings. What is the date?
Mr. FoRTAs. April 3, 1950.
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead.
Mr. FoRTAs (reading) :
My attention has been called to one of Senator McCarthy's charges against Dr.
Lattimore that the latter had instigated Chinese student demonstrations in
December 1935. Since yon are acting as Dr. Lattimore's attorney, I beg to
give you the following statement for your reference :
The strikes and demonstrations by Chinese students in December 1935 were
spontaneous manifestations against the autonomy of north China as engineered
by Japanese militarists. The strikes were started in Peiping on December 9,
1935, and spread rapidly to other cities. Their slogans, if I remember cor-
rectly, included declarations of war against Japan and mobilization of every
soldier for national resistance.
In that particular year Dr. Lattimore lived at .33 Ta Yuan Fu Hutung at
Peiping serving as the editor of Pacific Affairs. In my capacity as director of
the National Library of Peiping, I had many common interests with Dr. Latti-
more and I saw him quite often. To the best of my knowledge, he was at that
time engaged in the study of inner Asian problems and of the Mongolian lan-
guage. Such being the case, it is absurd to say that he was the instigator of
Chinese students' strikes.
The Japanese once charged that our student demonstratiims were led by
American missionary institutions and agitated by American missionaries. This
charge was, of course without any foundation. ■■■ Even if it wei'e true. Dr. Latti-
more had never been connected with any missionary institutions, a fact which
was well known to his many friends in China.
Hoping the above information will be found helpful.
Very sincerely yours,
T. L. Yuan.
Senator Ttdings. I hope that Dr. Lattimore had some association,
at least, with some of the missionaries.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 429
Dr. Lattimore. I remember, Senator, lecturing on inner Mongolia
to tlie greatest of all mission institutions, the Yen Chen University,
at about that time.
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead, Doctor.
Dr. Lattimore. I also have a letter to the same general effect from
Col. William Mayer
Mr. FoRTAS. Shall I read that, Senator?
Senator Tydixgs. Read it, please. You may read it for Dr. Latti-
more.
^Nfr. FoRTAS. It is on the letterhead of Headquarters First Army,
Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Governors Island, New
York 4, N. Y. It is dated April 8, 1950.
Mr. Owen Lattimore,
Wnlter- Tlives Page School of International Relations, the Johns Hopkins
Universitij, Baltimore 18, Md.
Dear Owen : Your letter of April 2 just reached me. As far as I can remem-
ber I have never head mention that you had any connection with the student
agitation that was going on in Peking in the 1930's. There ^^as certainly noth-
ing in the local press and there was never a discussion of your name in connec-
tion with this activity. One point you might consider, if there ever had been
the mention of your name in connection with the students tliat fact would have
shown up in the Embassy and attach'^ reports to Washington. I do not believe
there are any such reports.
.Tust for the record, I was away to Siam a few months in 1930 in connection
with famine relief and in 19.31 in Mongolia, also Manchuria and again in 1932
I was an observer at the iinpleasantness in Shanghai, and then took a trip up
the Yangtze Gorges. Despite tliese trips, however, I believe I most certainly
woiild liave lieard of any rumors linking your name with the student agitation.
Isabel sends her best to you and Eleanor.
Sincerely,
William Mayer,
Colonel, General Staff Corps,
Assistant Chief of Staff Cf-2.
Senator Tydings. Doctor, at any time you would like to rest for a
minute, your statement is long, so do not hesitate to ask for it.
Dr. Lattimore. Thank you very much. Senator.
Second, Senator McCarthy refers to a trip that I made with Philip
J. Jaffe and T. A. Bisson to Yenan. I made such a trip. Some
time in 1987 when I was residing in Peking, Mr. Bisson and Mr. Jaffe
called on me. I had known Bisson slightly as a far-eastern student,
when he was working for, I believe, the Foreign Policy Association
in New York City. I had never before met Jaffe, but I knew of him as
the sponsor of a new magazine, Amerasia, of which I had become a
board member. I also knew that he was a wealthy manufacturer of
Christmas cards. He wanted to make a trip to Yenan, and he and
Bisson wanted me to accompany them because of my knowledge of the
area and the language. I was quite interested in going.
The Communists had taken over that area only about a year be-
fore. Several newspaper men had got in and every newspaper man
in China was trying to get in. It was the biggest news story in China
and all ]>apers in Europe and America were eating it up. I had
never liad any contacts with any Communists in China and I felt that
this trip might enable me to round out my knowledge of the country.
L^nfortunately, when we arrived in Yenan the Communists had set
up a public-relations system so that I was unable to secure direct or
fresh news. It is true, as Senator McCarthy says, that Agnes Smedley
was there at the time. So was Nym Wales, the wife of Edgar Snow.
They were there when we arrived and remained there after we left.
430 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOlSr
There is one additional matter in the McCarthy statement which
might possibly be construed as an attempt to connect me with the im-
proper procuring or sending of information to the Soviet Union. It
IS an attempt to connect me with the Amerasia case. You will recall
that in 1945 some of the people connected with that magazine, as well
as John Service and Andrew Eoth, were arrested on charges relating
to the unlawful procurement and possession of Government documents.
Service and Iloth were not indicted.
I had been on the board of Amerasia from its founding in 1937 until
1941 when I resigned. I was never active as a board member. I con-
sented to go on the board largely because I wanted to show that
Pacific Affairs, the magazine of which I wns editor, did not object to,
but welcomed other periodicals in the same field.
It will be noted that I had no connection witli Amerasia after 1941,
4 years before the arrests in the case that Senator McCarthy mentions.
Nevertheless, the Senator attempts on the most flimsy and trans-
parent basis to insinuate, without saying so, that I had some con-
nection with the Amerasia arrests in 1945. He refers to an affidavit
which he has refused to supply to the effect that the night before
Service, Roth and four codefendants in the Amerasia case were ar-
rested, both Service and Roth were at my house.
The person or persons who made the alleged state)nents to the Sen-
ator are reported Ijy him to have stated that they were present at my
house at the time; that Roth, Service and I "spent a great deal of
time by themselves, discussing certain papers or manuscripts," and
that tlieir actions seemed strange at the time. One of these persons
was reported to have said that I subsequently told him that the three
of us "had been declassifying secret documents."
This is one of those fancifnl distortions that has a remote but per-
verted relationship to fact. On the Sunday prior to the arrests in
the Amerasia case, Mr. Service and Mr. Roth were at my house. I
arranged a small picnic at which, as I recall, we ate hamburgers which
I cooked on the open fire. There were present, in addition to Roth
and Service, Miss Rose Yardumian, now married and livincf, I be-
lieve, in England; Prof. Malcolm C. Moos of the Johns Hopkins
University and his fiancee; and Prof. George F. Carter of the Johns
Ho])kins TTniversity and his wife. Nothing whatever strange was
going on. Roth had brought with him the galley proofs of his forth-
coming book. Dilemma in Japan, and asked me to read them. The
material for this book had all been cleared by United States Navy
security officers.
The papers or manuscript that the three of us Avere discussing,
then, were nothing but the galley or script of a young author who
wanted to get my opinion of his work. There were no Government
docnments involved, nothing was classified or declassified, and there
was absolutely nothing unusual about the entire matter. The alle-
gation that I stated that we were declassifying secret documents is
as absurd as it is untrue.
Professor Moos has supplied me with a memorandum stating his
recollection of the events of that picnic, and I ask leave to file this
memorandum as part of this record.
Senator Tydtnos. That will be done. Do you want to read it ? Who
is the memorandum from?
STATE DEPAKTMEJXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 431
Dr. Laitimore. From Prof. Malcolm C. Moos, of the Johns Hopkins
University.
Senator Tyuixgs. Go ahead, Mr. Fortas, and read it.
Mr. FoKTAs. This is a memorandum on the covering note of trans-
mittal. The note of transmittal is on the letterhead of The Johns
Hopkins University, Department of Political Science, dated April
April 5, 1950, addressed to Mr. Owen Lattimore :
Dear Owen : Enclosed is a meiuorandum which states my recollections of the
picnic at your home on June 3, 194.").
Sincerely yours,
Malcolm Moos.
The memorandum is heailed "Memorandum from ISIalcolm Moos
provided at the request of Owen Lattimore."
In response to your request, the following is my recollection of the events
of Sunday, .lune 3, 1945, at your house :
Mr. Lattimore had met my fiancee and me on the Johns Hopkins campus one day
either late in May or early in .June and asked us to come out to his home for a pic-
nic on Sunday, June 3. At the time I had known Mr. Lattimore approximately
6 months, during which time I had been associated with him as a colleague at
the Johns Hopkins University. We arrived at the Lattimore home about 11
o'clock Sunday morning. When we were introduced to Mr. Service and Lieuten-
ant Koth they were out in front of the Lattimore house working on some galley
proofs. I did not examine the galley proofs, but Lieutenant Roth told me they
were the galleys for a book he had written on Japan. He also told me that the
book was to l)e publi.shed by Little, Brown Co., of Boston. Insofar as I am able
to reconstruct the day I believe Koth and Service spent a good part of it working
on the galleys. We spent the day quite informally enjoying the grounds about
the home and looking at various objects the Lattimores had collected in their
travels.
Dr. George Carter, his wife, and their two children arrived shortly after we
did. The only time everyone present (there was also a young woman present
whose name I do not recall) was together was around 2 o'clock when we all
gathered in the woods a short distance from the Lattimore house to roast ham-
burgers over an open fire. Following the picnic, Roth and Service went back
to reading galleys, and I recall Mr. Lattimore going out in back of his home with
a scythe to cut down some weeds. I remember chatting with him for some time
while he was engaged in this chore.
My wife and I do not recall seeing any documents during the day. but do
remember that Roth and Service were preoccupied much of the time with galley
proofs.
Late in the afternoon either (ieorge Carter, Mrs. Lattimore, or I called a cab
from Towson, and somewhere around 4 : 30 or Tt p. m. the Carters with their two
children, and my fiancee, and I left the Lattimoi-e home. Roth and Service
wore still there at the time we left. In Towson my fiancee and I took a street-
car for Baltimore and said good-by to the Carters.
Dr. Latti^iore. Third, Senator McCarthy tries to prove my Red
taint by connectinjr me with Henry Wallace. He alleges that I ac-
companied Henry Wallace on a trip through the Far East in 1944; he
insinuates that I had something to do with an alleged report that the
then Vice President made upon his return from the trip ; and he says
that Mr. Wallace recommended to President Roosevelt in 1941 that
my name be sugge.'^ted to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek as his politi-
cal adA'iser. The facts are these :
I first met IVIr. Wallace in 1942 when, as the Generalissimo's adviser,
I took General Hsiung Shih-hui. head of the Chinese Military Mis-
sion, to call on him as Vice President. I do not recall meeting him
again until 1944, the year when I was appointed to Mr. Wallace's
mission to Siberia and China in my oflicial capacity as representative
of the Office of War Information.
432 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Ttdings. That is Colonel Donovan's old outfit; was it not?
Dr. Lattimore. That was after Colonel Donovan's original outfit
had been divided into OWI and OSS.
Senator Tydings. I remember now.
Dr. Lattimore. I had no cloak and no dagger, sir.
Throughout the mission, not being a member of the diplomatic
service, I was quite properly excluded from high-level interviews and
discussions, except on one occasion when I served as supplementary
interpreter.
I did not know about tlie existence of a Wallace report until it was
mentioned in the newspapers, and certainly was not consulted about it.
I returned from the mission, as other members of the mission can
testify, convinced that Mr. Wallace was not a man I would support
politically. I opposed his candidacy for the Presidency.
My apointment as adviser to Chiang Kai-shek was in 1941. I did
not then know Mr. Wallace and do not believe he recommended me.
I believe that President Koosevelt consulted the late Isaiah Bowman,
president of the Johns Plopkins University, whose opinion he valued
highly.
Fourth, Senator McCarthy bases his charge that I am a Comnm-
nist sympatliizer on the fact that I was listed as a sponsor of a con-
ference called by the Maryland Association for Democratic Rights.
I confess that I remember nothing about this. I checked, however,
with our local library, and I discover the following facts :
The conference was in 1940, not 1944 — 3 years before Senator Mc-
Carthy says its parent organization was declared subversive. It was
held in Emmanuel Church, Baltimore, under the chairmanship of
Rev. Theodore P. Ferris, the highly respected Episcopal clergyman
of that church, who had asked me to sponsor it. A long list of
sponsors included William F. Cochran, Dr. Gertrude Bussey, Mrs.
Henry Corner, Dr. Jonas Friedenwald, Mr. Sidney Hollander, and
many other substantial citizens of Baltimore. I did not attend the
conference and had no further connection with the organization. Ac-
cording to the records in the Enoch Pratt Free Library it held another
conference in January 1941, after which it seems to have died.
I offer for your files a photostat of the program of the meeting which
I sponsored.
Senator Ttdikgs. May I see that? Just pause a moment, if you
will.
Senator Lodge. What was the reason for having this conference?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't even remember. Senator. As I say, I had
to look back in the files.
Senator Tydings. Was that your only contact with this organiza-
tion ?
Dr. Lattimore, Absolutely my only contact.
Senator Tydings. You never were present on any other occasion,
except this one in the church ?
Dr. Lattimore, No, sir ; I sponsored it at the invitation of a friend
who asked me to sponsor it.
Senator Tydings, It will be filed in the record, as exhibit 72, unless
the committee has some other questions.
Doctor, you may proceed,
Dr, Lattimore. Fifth, Senator McCarthy also mentions a secret
letter which he says I wrote to my "boss," Joseph Barnes, when I
STATE DEPARTME]S"T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 433
Avorked for the Office of War Information, dealing with Chinese per-
sonnel in the New York office. Barnes was not my boss. We were
exact eqnals, he being Deputy Director of the Overseas Branch of the
OWI in charge of Atlantic operations while I had an equivalent title,
in charge of Pacific operations, in the San Francisco office.
I do not recall writing a letter on the subject of Chinese personnel,
but I maj' well have written one. At this time many delicate questions
arose in connection with our foreign-born personnel. We afforded fa-
cilities to Allied governments to send out their own broadcasts, under
their own names, but we also employed foreign-born personnel for
Voice of America broadcasts, and we maintained a strict watch to see
that these latter programs were under complete American control, not
influenced by the politics of the home countries of those who worked
for us as language experts.
This meant that they could not be in the pay of their own govern-
ments and at the same time act as the Voice of America. All of the
Chinese employed by me in San Francisco, where we had a Chinese
staff of 10 or 12 people, naturally had Kuomintang sympathies, or were
Nationalist in their views, and our relations with the Chinese Con-
sulate and Information Service were cordial — but we had to make
sure with the Chinese, as we did with other nationalities, that they
were only in our pay.
If I wrote the letter from which Mr. McCarthy has read quota-
tions— which, if we can judge from his other quotations, are probably
out of context — it was written in the knowledge that Mr. Barnes thor-
oughly understood this underlying principle and that it was therefore
not necessary to spell it out.
I may well have been worried about Chinese personnel at this time.
I was aware of rival factions seeking to organize the Chinese in Amer-
ica under the control of rival cliques within the Kuomintang. Nat-
urally, this raised delicate questions for me, as all Chinese were aware
of my recent close relations to Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek.
The Chinese in our San Francisco office, like all other personnel,
were under close supervision. In New York I remember a Mr. Chew
Hong, whom Senator McCarthy mentions, because he had served in the
American Army — on a language-teaching mission in Assam, if I
remember rightly. I placed great reliance on Dr. Chi, an older man.
I had known him in China where he was, as Senator McCarthy has
said, an important figure in his own province. I had also known his
son, during the early L930's in New York, and in 1941 and 1942 in
Chungldng, where he held a high position in the Bank of China and
was very much in the confidence of Dr. H. H. Kung, then Chinese
Minister of Finance.
I have had no contact with either Dr. Chi or his son since the end of
the war when Dr. Chi returned to China. I have heard that he re-
mained in Peking, like most other university professors, after the
Communists took over. I have also heard that his son has taken serv-
ice under the new Communist-controlled government, like many other
high officials formerly in the Kuomintang government.
I do not recall sending suggestions to New York to hire or fire
any specific personnel, and I have been unable to obtain access to this
letter. Senator McCarthy boasts of the fact, despite his use of the
letter, that it is still classified as secret.
434 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I do recall the New China Daily News of New York. I understand
that it is now a fellow-traveling paper of the Communist government
in Pekin. At that time, however, it was not Communist,^ and the
name "New China"' had no significance at all. All kinds of restaurants
and other Chinese enterprises in America are called New China.
I have here two letters from Philip E. Lilienthal, who was in charge
of the Chinese desk in San Francisco, and Claude A. Buss, who suc-
ceeded me at San Francisco, describing my policy in handling Chinese
personnel. I offer these for the record.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Fortas, do you wish to read them?
Mr. Fortas. I shall. Senator.
Senator Tydtngs. Go ahead.
Mr. Fortas. This letter, addressed to me, is dated March 31, 1950,
from Palo Alto, Calif. :
Mr. Abe Forta.s,
Ring Biiihlinff, Washinf/ton, D. C.
Dear Mr. Fortas : Mrs. Eleanor Lattimore has invited me to tell yon of my
i-eaction to Senator McCarth.v's charge that Owen Lattimore songlit, while Direc-
tor of the Oftice of War Information in San Francisco during the war, to secure
the dismissal of employees who were in sympathy witli Generalissimo Chiang
Kai-shek. I have not yet seen a published report of Senator McCarthy's remarlis
that gives his precise language. It may nevertheless, be helpful to offer the
following information, which is based on my experience while Chief of the Chinese
Division in the San Francisco Office of War Information (OWI).
When Mr. Lattimore hired me as Chief of the Chinese Division in the San
Francisco OWI, he did so on the explicit understanding that I would participate
in the national effort to support the Chinese Government in its resistance to the
common enemy, Japan. There was only one Chinese Government, and its head was
Chiang Kai-shek. At no time did Mr. Lattimore — or anyone else in the San
Francisco office — offer the slightest grounds for questioning the sincerity of his
interest in strengtliening the legal Government of China.
As Chief of the Cliinese Division, I alone was responsible for employing and
dismissing members within the Division. As far as I can recall now, only one
Chinese member of the Division was dismissed between the time that I joined
the OWI (.January 194.3) and the time that Mr. Lattimore departed for Wash-
ington. That individual was dismissed for two reasons: lack of ability, and re-
fusal to adapt his personal life to the needs of the office. I do not Iielieve that
Mr. Lattimore was consulted before or after this man's dismissal ; in any case,
he was discharged on my initiative. The political views of members of the
Cliinese Division were at no time of interest to persons in authority over them;
"security" was the proper province of other, qualified agencies of the Govern-
jnent, aiul it was assumed that unfit persons would not receive "clearance"
by these agencies.
While he was in charge of the San Francisco office of the OWI, Mr. Lattimore
made earnest and continuing efforts to work in close cooperation with repre-
sentatives of the Chinese Government. He encouraged me to maintain informal
contact with oflicials of the consulate general of China in San Francisco and to
discuss our activities with them as far as security regulations would allow.
On several occasions ]\Ir. Lattimore invited Dr. Yui Ming, who was at that time
head of the local Chinese News Service (an official agency of the Chinese Ministry
of Information in Chungking), to attend OWI policy meetings. This privilege
was extended, I 'believe, because of Dr. Yui's ability — ability which the Chinese
Government recognized by subsequently promoting him to positions of increasing
responsibility. On several occasions Dr. Yiii expressed to me his confidence in
INIi'. Lattimore's sagacity, and his satisfaction that Mr. Lattimore, rather than
someone with less understanding of the needs of the Chinese Government, was
in charge of the OWI in San Francisco.
Please feel free to make whatever use you wish of the foregoing statements.
Sincerely yours,
Philip Eugene Lilienthal.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 435
The next letter is from Claude A. Buss, professor of history at Stan-
ford University, dated April 1, 1950, and addressed to me :
yiv. Ai:k Foutas.
I'lir Rhtij Building, Washington, D. C.
.My Dear IMr. Fortas : I am easier to place on the record some impressions
which I have iraiiied about ^Ir. Owen Lattimore during an association which
has continued for ahnost I'O years.
Thn)ugh conver.sations with him, and througii careful study of his books and
articles, 1 respect him as one of our most profound and original American
thinkers about the situation in Asia. Whether he has seen tit to support or
criticize any particular aspect of our policy in the Far East, I have always noted
that tills attitude has stennned from his fundamental regard for our national
welfare aiul our national interest. Wlienever I have disagreed with him, I have
never doubted the sincerity of his conviction that his ideas were best for the
United States.
I liked to think that I worked closely with him in the Ofiice of War Informa-
tion. When I succeeded him as director of the San Francisco office, I found the
office permeated with a spirit of contributing whatever we could to the winning
of the war. We all — British, Chinese, and Americans — cooperated against a
common enemy. No one was more jealous of American rights — wherever threat-
ened— than Mr. Lattimore. Our broadcasts to China were dedicated to the help
of our ally and it was deemed essential to stiffen the morale of the armies of the
Kuomintang under Chiang Kai-shek. Most of our Chinese employees were natu-
rally sympathetic with the Kuomintang, and the Chinese consid general and the
head of the official Kuo Min News Agency were always accorded both the most
cordial welcome at our office and the most liberal use of our facilities.
I hope that a careful study will be made of our policies and directives, because
they will show an unswerving loyaiLy to the cause of American victory. The
fundamental contribution which we could make — as we saw it at that time — was
to strengthen the sources of power in China and to add to them, for our own
sakes, with every means at our command.
Very sincerely yours,
Claude A. Erss,
Professor of History.
Dr. Lattimore. Xow, gentlemen, I believe that I have dealt with
each and every one of the specific charges that Senator McCarthy has
made against me relating to my alleged actions and activities. I have
not, liowever, specifically discussed the Senator's statement that a
witness will. testify that I was a member of the Communist Party, a
member over whom they had disciplinary powers. The Senator says
that this alleged witness is trusted by the Department of Justice and
has been used as a Government witness; that this witness has been a
member of the Communist Party for a number of years; and that it is
part of his work to distinguish between party members and fellow
travelers.
I do not know the name of tliis alleged witness. With full and com-
plete realization of the serious implications and consequences of what
I am to say, having in mind the advice of counsel that a member of the
Communist Party may presumably decline, on constitutional grounds,
to state whether he is or has been a member of the Communist Party ;
realizing the possibility that pei^jured or mistaken testimony may be
used for purposes of entrapment — whether innocently or not : I rnake
to vou on my solemn oath the following statement :
I am not and never have been a member of the Communist Party.
T have never been affiliated or associated with the Communist Party.
I have never believed in the principles of communism nor subscribed
to nor advocated the Communist or Soviet form of government either
within the United States, in China, in the Far East, or anvwhere in
the world. I have never consciously or deliberately advocated or
436 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
participated in promoting the cause of communism anywhere in the
'' For many years, the situation in the Far East has been such that no
person could study its problems without undertaking to acqiiamt him-
self as thoroughly as possible with the facts about the Communist
position and plans in the various countries of that area. I have made
it mv business, both as a scholar and as a journalist to accumulate as
mucii information on this as possible, and the results of my studies
have all been published. t .- n i. i j.
For years, I have been doing my very best realistically to evaluate
the position and prospects of the Communists m Asia I have pub-
licly stated the weaknesses of their position as I saw them, aiid also
the points that added to their strength and that I feared would enable
them to make progress with the people of Asia t 1.0..0
I have tried to avoid wishful thinking and self-delusion. I have
tried as emphatically as I could, to warn the people of this Nation
that the Communist threat in China and other countries of the l^ar
East is very real indeed; that some of their appeals to the peop e ot
Asia are profound. I have tried to point out that it is our task it
we are to stem the advance of communism, to make an appeal to the
people of Asia which is not merely equal to that of the Communists,
but so far greater that these people would have no doubt as to who
are their true friends. . 1 • i t u i
For the purpose of acquiring the information u]wn which 1 based
my studies and conclusions, I talked and corresponded with mtormecl
people all over the world, without regard to whether they were Com-
munists, anti-Communists, politicians, or scholars. Since the middle
thirties, communications even with scholars in Cominunist countries
have been more and more cut off. All the more for that reason, like
any other student who is worth his salt in this field, I have eagerly
seized upon every opportunity to obtain information through chinks
and crevasses in the wall of 'fear and suppression that communism
builds around its informed people. For instance, while I was on the
Pauley reparations mission to Japan in 1945 I made an eftort to see
some Japanese Communists because I thought their future activity
in Jai)anese politics was going to be important and succeeded m see-
ing Tokuda, one of their two top men. In 1947 I made aii attempt to
get to Outer Mongolia but was completely baffled. 'Way back m 1936,
when I was about to return to China, I even paid a call on Earl Brow-
der, hoping I might open up a lead to information about the (^hmese
Communists. , . „ ^i • t- • i i
During the war, of course, on the instructions of Chiang Kai-shek,
I had several conversations with Chou En-lai. None of these contacts,
or attempted contacts, however, provided me with access to perinanent
or reliable information from within the iron curtain m which each
individual Communist wraps himself. . ■„ ,, 1-1
I believe that the obvious refusal of Communists all oyer the world
to supply information except through their own controlled press and
publications extends to all scholars and research workers from the
non-Communist world. It is possible, however, that m my particular
case the barriers have been strictly maintained and tightly policed.
For many years, I have been the subject of the usual type ot Com-
munist abuse and hostile Soviet action. I have been m Moscow only
once This was in 1936 on the visit that I have described. At this
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 437
lime I was given a transit visa. In 1!);]T I was denied a transit visa
even alt]ion<>h I merely wislied to take my family out of China via
the Trans-8iberian. In i;)47, as I have related, my request for per-
mission to visit Outer Mono-olju was igiiored.
In 1!)4(; a newspaper friend of mine was refused permission to take
with him into Russia a copy of Solution in Asia — one of the books
that Senator McCarthy says is so pro-Comnnniist that it proves that
J am a Soviet aij^ent.
In April 1J)49, a Soviet maijazine, Voprosy Istorii, published an
aiticle called American Falsitiers on the Policy of the U. S. A. in
Relation to the Chinese Revolution of 1025-^27.' Senator McCarthy,
Avith his vast knowledge of Russian, should know that I was honored
by being listed as one of the chief falsifiers. The article referred to
me as a "learned lackey of imperialism.''
The Daily Worker, in a review of my book Situation in Asia—
which the learned Senator apparently believes is Communist propa-
ganda—says that I go "completely off the beam'' in my effort to explain
political and social forces in Asia. The Daily Worker says that my
.■.l)])roacIi to American-Soviet relationships "obscures the truth."
In an article published by the State Social and Economic Press of
Moscow m 1985 there is a phrase denouncing me which Senator Mc-
Carthy unaccountably failed to use. The Soviet spokesman in that
article said that "Mr. Lattimore's scholasticism is siiniLar to Hamlet's
madness."
I do not mean by this to belittle Senator McCarthy's talent for
extreme statement distortion. His characterization of my writings,
his summaries and quotations, are sufficiently perverse and twistedlo
mjike my Communist critics green with envy. Rather than prolong
this statement by a discussion of the Senators distortions, however I
have prepared three documents which I should like to file as part of
the record. I will enumerate these first, if I may, Senator.
First, appraisals of my views by distinguished scholars who have
read my books and articles, which perhaps the learned Senator
McCarthy considered unnecessary.
Second, statements by various other persons wdio are familiar with
me and my opinions.
Third, a meager sample of the distorted and inaccurate quotations
of my works m which Senator McCarthy freely indulges.
Fourth, a few quotations from my owii writings.
Those will be rather long, Senator, and rather than read them I
offer them for the record.
Senator Tydixgs. Without objection, thev will be inserted in the
record without reading, as exhibit 7:5.
Dr Lattimore. As a matter of fact, gentlemen, I am not unaccus-
tomed to yigoi-ous and even violent criticism of my works and views
Ihe tact IS that my comments and interpretations have always been
so independent that I have in my time been criticized by Chinese
Japanese, Germans, Russians, and Mongols, as well as by intemperate
American writers. The criticisms run all the w^ay from calliiw me
an arch-imperialist to calling me a Red. But I assure von that none
or this criticism has prevented me from writing the truth as I see it
And not even Senator McCarthy's criticism will prevent me from
stating the tacts and my views with all the honestv and vigor of which
1 am capable. I feel that this is peculiarly my obligation at this time,
438 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
and the oblifjation of every other student and specialist wlio has the
Nation's interest at heart.
We face a crisis in Asia as well as m Europe. Our policy— or
rather our lack of a united policv and of a strong, determined push
to effectuate that policy— has resulted in the loss of China to the
Communists, at least for the time being.
No man can state with absolute assurance Avhat the future holds
with respect to China. Various alternatives are apparent: First,
some people still tliink it is conceivable that the Nationalist Govern-
ment in Formosa may reconquer China from the Communists. Sec-
ond it is possible that a middle-of-the-road or democratic group m
Chiiia not necessarilv part of the Nationalist Government— those
whom General Marshall rightly called "a splendid group of men"— can
still maintain their strong position in the confidence of the Chinese
people unless we drive them completely into the hands of the Com-
munists. Third, it is possible that the Chinese Communists will es-
tablish a regime which is Communist but substantially independent
of the Soviet Union— what people loosely call Titoism. Fourth, it is
possible that the Chinese Communist Government will be drawai more
and more completely into the orbit of the Soviet Union and will become
r> satellite state.
There is one thing, and ])erhaps only one thing, that is perfectly
clear. That is, that the fourth possibility— namely, complete and abso-
lute absorption in fact of China by the Soviet Union— would be an
unrelieved catastrophe for the United States and for the Chinese
people. That means that our national policy must be to do evervthmg
that we can to bring about one of the otlier possibilities that I have
stated ; namely, to assist the Nationalist Government to reconquer
China ; to preserve China's independence of the Soviet Union even at
the distasteful price of accepting a government of independent Chinese
Communists; or to encourage the survival of the strong but unor-
ganized middle group in China— not necessarily connected with the
Nationalist Government— which might still be able to limit the power
of the Communists and keep China on a road at least parallel to
democracv in its internal life and its relations with the outside world.
It is, of course, not inevitable that the Government of the United
States should sharply and completely choose one of these alternatives
to the complete exclusion of the others. It is possible that policies
might be adopted which would be based upon the encouragement of
all three of these developments to checkmate the Soviet Union. This
would, of course, require a nice and judicious decision as to the relative
extent to which we would distribute assistance and encouragement m
the three channels. .
Now, gentlemen, as I have said, I know of nothing that would be
more helpful to our Nation and our Government than full and free
debate on this most difficult and vitally important problem. I would
myself exclude the first alternative altogether. It is my view that
the Nationalist Government in Formosa cannot hope to recapture
China, and that the large commitment of United States resources m
the Formosa adventure w-ould not merely be wasteful but would be
of positive assistance to the Soviet Union because it would make it
possible and perhaps inevitable for the Chinese Communists to mvite
increased participation of the Soviet Union in the conflict.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 439
Let me illustrate this. As tlie air assaults increase, with United
States ])lanes launched by the Nationalist forces from Formosa upon
the mainland of China, there is danger — if it is not already a fact — -
that the Chinese Connnunist Government with the backing of many
of the Chinese people, will invite the Soviet Union to establish air
bases and to engage actively in the air war. I personally believe that
if the Soviet Union establishes air bases in China they will not be
dismantled when the Nationalist forces are defeated. To me this is
an a])palling prospect. To me, this would make it probable if not
certain that the die is cast — that the Chinese Government and the
Chinese people will be subordinated to the Soviet Union for a long
time to come.
Accordingly it is my view that the major American effort must be in
one of the other two directions; namely, to encourage a nationalism,
even if it is Communist nationalisln, capable of standing up to the
Soviet Union and maintaining independence in its dealings with us,
or to encourage in eveiy possible way the conditions that will make
possible the survival of a so-called third force, a democratic group
within China, that can change the character of the government. It
seems to me that our long-term objective should clearly be the latter,
to build up conditions that favor a democratic group, including such
elements of tlie Kuomintang as may be available and suitable. But it
may be that in the short run, while working at this long-term objec-
tive, our first objective will iiave to be to avoid closing the trap on the
Chinese so that they feel they have no alternative but Eussia — even
if it means temj)()ri;>:ing with Titoism.
Now, gentlemen, my analysis of this may be partly or wholly wrong.
But if anybody says that it is disloyal or un-American, he is a fool
or a knave. But it is exactly this analysis which, I am sure, has pro-
voked the current attack in which I have been called tliese preDosterous
and villainous names that have been uttered by Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy, without, I am sure, knowing what he is about,
has been and is the instrument or the dupe of a bitter and implacable
and fanatical group of people Avho will not tolerate any discussion
of China which is not based upon absolute, total, and complete sup-
port of the Nationalist Government in Formosa. They do not hesi-
tate at — they even insist on — policies that potential allies of ours in
India, Indonesia, Pakistan, and other countries will call ruthless im-
perialism. Their conclusion — that is. that the United States should
put all of its eggs in the Nationalist Government's basket — may be
right or wrong. I think it's wrong.
But I am su)e that the n.iethods of that faction of these people who
are McCarthy's Edgar Bergen are wrong — as wrong as wrong can
be. Their methods are to intimidate persons like me and even officials
of the United States Government from expressing views that are
contrary to their own. Their weapon of intimidation is McCarthy's
machine gun: namely, accusation of disloyalty and traitorious con-
duct. I got a certain amount of wry amusement out of the fact that
some of these people are acknowledged ex-Connnunists. Perhaps
that status gives them a special right to criticize those of us who
do not happen to be Communists, ex or otherwise. Certainly, it pio-
vides them Avitli ideal training and unique skill for the kind of cam-
paign of viliiication and distortion that tlie so-called diina lobby is
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 29
440 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
conducting through the instrumentality of the Senator from
Wisconsin. . ^. . ,. . ,
I do not, by what I have said, want to indicate a feehng of despair
about the possibility of democratic success in China. I think I know
the Chinese people" reasonably well. I have not only great attection
but o-reat admiration for them. Despite the relatively backward
state of their countrv, the Chinese people have a strong and rugged
sense of individualism and democracy. If they accept the restraints
and repressions of communism, it will be because they feel that they
have no alternative for national and individual survival. It they
accent the iron dominion of world-wide communism, it will be because
w-e, the democratic nations and peoples of the world, have failed.
It will be because we, by reason of ignorance or incompetence, have
rot presented them with an effective choice. . -i i •
To date, that is exactlv what has happened. We have failed in
China. Senator McCarthy does me the honor of saying that I am
the architect of this policv which has failed. Let me point out that
even if this were so, it would not be disloyalty. It would mean that
I am a poor architect. The fact of the matter, however, is quite the
contrary- . . . , tt -^u i c^. +
The fact is that I have never held a position m the United htates
Government in which I could make policy. The fact is that I have
been very little consulted by those who do make policy— before Pearl
Harbor, during the war, or since the war. I think I can fairly claim—
with great regret— that I am the least consulted man of all those who
have a public reputation in this country as specialists on the Far East.
Senator McCarthy has stated that United States Far Eastern policy,
and especially China policy, has followed my recommendations step
for step." The record shows the exact opposite to be true. Before the
war, I was in favor of a much tougher policy toward Japan than the
State Department was willing to follow. During the war, I warned
that we must be prepared for a period of very rapid change throughout
Asia. No attention was paid to this warning. The last chapters of
mv book, Solution in Asia, published in 1945, a few months before the
end of the war, are a crowded catalog of unaccepted recommendations.
Since the war, my recommendations have had equally little mtluence
on the State Department. The most i-ecent example of this is my
memorandum of last August to the State Dei^rtment committee
headed by Ambassador Jessup, whom Senator McCarthy has called
«a Lattimore front." In this I warned that we cannot expect to suc-
ceed with little Chiang-Kai-sheks where we failed with the^big Chiang
Kai-shek. But we are still supporting a little Chiang Kai-shek in
South Korea and we have since taken on another one m Indochina.
I warned that we cannot coerce China by cutting off trade ; but by our
feeble attitude toward the blockade of Shanghai we have allowed trade
to be virtually cut off. I warned that by indecision m recognizing the
facts of life in China we were heading for another set-back m A.sia
without even the compensating advantage of hampering Kussia^s
ability to maneuver in Europe. That is exactly what has happened.
I warned that reliance on Japan as an instrument of American pohcy
is a bad bet, but Japan is still our most risky bet m Asia. 1 7«™ed
that countries in the Far East must not be made to suspect that the
real aim of the United States is to use them against Russia, but all of
them are now convinced that this is just what our real aim is.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 441
^ly reconimenclations ma}'- be right or wrono;. I may be accused of
liavino^ given bad advice by anyone who disagrees with my opinions.
AVhat I cannot bo accused of is advice tliat has influenced the policy of
tlu' United States in the Far East. I wish that I had in fact had moi-e
iiifhience. If T had, I think that the Comnnniists woukl not now con-
trol China.
The very fcnnidation of my views toward China is a firm belief that
the United States and the democratic nations of the world — if they
are willing to abandon the mistaken policies of the past and face the
])roblems of China and the Far East realistically — can help to bring
about the establishment of strong democratic governments in the Far
East that will work harmoniously with the western powers. Despite
Senator JNIcCarthy, my books and articles witness that my basic be-
liefs are the absolute antithesis of the ]\Iair^ist doctrine. The Com-
inunist line applied to Asia may be easily summed up : Capitalism is
in decay and, because it is in decay, the' European empires are fall-
ing apart; capitalist nations in Europe and America are incapable
of any nonimjjerialist relation with these former colonies which can,
therefore, look for hope only to the Soviet Union.
In my view, this is nonsense. I believe that both capitalism and
political democracy have immense vitality and adaptability. If they
fail to survive, I believe it will be because of dogmatic or uninformed
men who insist on policies of coercion, repression, and inequality — ii(;t
becau.se of inherent defects in capitalism and democracy.
But I want to em])hasize with all my heart that we ourselves, if we
are so foolish as to destroy our own democracy, can make the Marxist
dream come true. We ourselves can cause the decay of capitalism
and democracy. The sure may to do this is to permit the destruction
of the basic wellspring from which capitalism and democracy derive
their vitality : namely, freedom of research, freedom of speech, and
freedom for men stoutly to maintain their diverse opinions.
I say to you, gentlemen, that the sure way to destroy freedom of
speech and the free expression of ideas. and views is to attach to that
freedom the penalty of abuse and villification. If the people of this
country can differ with the so-called China lobby or with Senator
McCarthy only at the risk of the abuse to which I have been sub-
jected, freedom will not long survive. If officials of our government
cannot consult people of diverse views without exposing themselves
to the kind of attack that Senator McCarthy has visited tipon officers
of the State Department, our governmentarpolicy will necessarily be
sterile. It is only from a diversity of views freely expressed and
strongly advocated that sound policy is distilled. He who contributes
to the destruction of this process is either a fool or an enemy of his
country. Let Senator McCarthy take note of this.
Xow. gentlemen, I shall be glad to answer any questions that you
may care to ask. "^
Senator Tydings. Ladies and gentlemen, I will have to request you
m hue with the rules of the Senate, please not to make any demon-
strations either pro or con about any proceedings before the committee.
I will ask that we take a recess for 2 minutes to give everybody a
chance to rise while the committee confers.
(A brief recess was taken.)
Senator Tydikgs. The committee will come to order.
442 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IKVESTIGATION
Mr Fortas, before Dr. Lattimore left the room I noticed at the con-
chision of his mimeographed remarks that there are several excerpts
from letters included with this exhibit which reflect the views ot out-
standing scholars and experts, and so on. I suppose you want those
incorporated in the record immediately following Dr. l^attimores
testimony. ,,.-,. ,i .c -n» t „++;
Mr Fortas. Senator, those were offered m the course ot Dr. l^atti-
more's remarks, and they were received in evidence and are now m the
record. , . £ i
Senator Ttdings. There is nothing more that you want ot a docu-
mentary nature put in the record than has already been put m i
Mr. Fortas. That is correct, sir.
Senator Ttdings. We will relax a moment until Dr. l^attimore re-
turns. He will be in in a minute or two.
The committee will come to order. Please be seated, those who
'SenatorGreen, have you any questions to ask the witness?
Senator Green. I have no questions to ask the witness, but i have
one suggestion to make. Toward the end of his stateinent, when he
summarized the Communist line as applied to Asia, he should make it
clear so that it can't be misquoted, that he is stating the Communist
lii.e— that which starts with '^Capitalism is in decay, and because
it is in decay * '■" *•" I «m afraid that summary will be quoted
as your summary, Dr. Lattimore, and if you would put m the words
"//is that Capitalism * * =^" or something like that in your state-
ment, I think it would prevent that distortion of the statement.
Dr Lattimore. Thank you very much indeed. In view of the^knid
of dirty tricks that have been used in quoting from my books, i thmH
I should take that precaution.
Senator Green. Yes ; but you ought not to make it easy.
Senator Tydings. Senator McMahon, have you any questions i
Senator McMahon. No questions. I may have some later.
Senator Tydings. Senator .Hick-ulooper?
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, again, as I have said before,
I have had no opportunity to independently investigate this matter.
I have no conclusions one way or the other based upon any preconcep-
tion of this matter. I do assume that an investigation is an mvesti-
oation and that inquiries should be made into various fields for the
clarification of any things that have been said, and I therefore have
some questions to ask Dr. Lattimore. I have a few questions of my
own that have occurred to me since I have seen his statement, and
then I asked Senator McCarthy if he had any questions which he
thought should be asked of Dr. Lattimore, and he said he did, and
furnrshed me some questions, so at a later time I will submit those
questions on behalf of Senator McCarthy as a matter of exploring
certain fields that have been covered, or referred to.
Dr Lattimore, in connection with your studies and your lifeioug
associations in the Orient and other places m the world, I take it tliat
vou have come up against Communist movements and Communist
agitation at various places. Is that true? I mean, would you say
that vou have ? . ^1-1^.1*-
Dr Lattimore, I am not suggesting one way or the other on that
any implication, but you have come in contact with Communist ac-
tivities?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 443
Dr. Lattimore. Senator, the Avay I would put it is this: I have
worked lu countries and situations where communism and Com-
minusts were present. I was alwavs in the position of dealino- either
primarily or exclusively with those who were in opposition to the Com-
munists, because, owing to the conspiratorial nature of the way in
wJiich C ommunists operate, it was alwavs exceedingly difficult for me
to get into touch with the Communists at all.
Senator Hickexlooper. From your associations with these o-roups
or your independent investigation, then, I take it that you hSve be-
come familiar with the methods— that is to some degree, at least-
used by the Communists in their activities. "Would vou say that that
is a fair statement^
Dr. Lattimore. I have become familiar to this extent, that in non-
( ominunist territiory I have seen Communist propaganda, and I have
been able to know what the Communists were advocating at any par-
ticular moment. But the only time in Asia, apart from Asiatic
-Kussia, that I have been m a territory controlled bv Communists, so
that I could see them actually operating, was on that short trip to
1 enan m 1937.
Senator Hickenlooper. What is your opinion as to the methods
tliat coimnunism, as controlled from Moscow, operates in its attempt
to cret into positions of power in other countries? I mean is it, to
make tliat more clear, perhaps, necessarily militarv occupation,' by
mhUration, is it by propaganda, is it by conspiracy? What would
you say is your impression as to the means and methods which com-
munism has been using, communism as directed from Moscow and
stimulated from Moscow, for the advawement of its purposes ?
Dr. Lattimore. In my experience, which is primarily in China,
Seiuitor. the Communists certainly had a good deal of success in
getting at student groups in the various Chinese universities. But
my experience over the years in China and Mongolia indicates that in
general their attempts at infiltration were prettv unsuccessful, and
that the mam factor in the triumph of communism in China was not
tlie skill or wilmess of the Chinese Communists but rather the al-
most unbelievably gross mistakes of those who previously held power
m China. . i j f
Senator Hickenlooper. A\^ithin your experience, has it come to
your knowledge or your belief in China that Kussia has been attempt-
ing for a number of years to extend Communist influence in Chhia,
whetlier it is Inner or Outer Mongolia or anv one of the other prov-
inces of Chinese territory ?
Dr. Lattimore. Senator, you don't need to ask an expert whether
the Kussians were interested in the progress and eventual triumph of
communism anywhere in Asia. The record in China is a rather mixed
one, and appears to indicate that in the 192()'s there was a great deal
of direct Russian activity, Russian agents, followed by a period in the
193U"s when, largely for geographical reasons, there was very poor
liaison between the Russians and the Chinese Communists, and the
Chinese Communists developed methods of their own. which were
larg(^ly simply capitalizing on the mistakes of their opponents; and
that now, since the civil war in China and since the Communists
have a common frontier with Russia, there is a steadily increasino-
effectiveness of Russian and Chinese liaison. ^
444 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickeklooper. Is it your opinion that the leaders of the
Communist movement in China today, that is the leaders of the Com-
nmnist Army and the leaders of the Comnuuiist Government as it
has been set up in China, are basically-that is, among th^e jho
control the movement at the top— Moscow inspired or Moscow
^^ DrL^TTiMORE. There is no doubt whatever that the top leaders and
far down below the top leaders in the Chinese Communists are de-
voted loyally to Moscow. A great many, m tact I think the topmost,
leaders of the Chinese Communists do not happen to be Moscow
trained, but they are nonetheless deeply loyal to Moscow
Senator Hickenlooper. How long has this been the situation m the
Communist movement in China? ■ •^
Dr. Lattimore. Do you mean how long have they been primarily
devoted to Russia? , . , . ,i m • „
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, how long has it been since the Chinese
Communist leaders have followed the Moscow party line, either
through lovalty, devotion, or training? ^ ^M.-AaA
Dr. Lattimore. Senator, you are getting into questions of detailed
Communist expertese, expertness on the Communist question where i
must confess my qualifications do not ciirry me. I have never special-
ized in Communist doctrine. My work has been primarily field woi k
in which I was basking my own opinions on observation ot situations
and men acting in situations. +;.„f t o,^
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Lattimore, may I assure you that 1 am
not approaching this from any assumption that you are or that you
are not sympathetic with any political movement.
Dr. Lattimore. It is not a question of sympathy. Senator, it is a
question of knowledge. , ,
Senator Hickenlooper. I am asking you as a man ^yho has devoted
a crreat deal of his life to the Orient, and who I think has a great deal
of^cumulative knowledge about Oriental situations, and I am concerned
in this question with how long has the general Communist movement
in China that ripened into the guerrilla warfare or oi-ganized warfare
been led bv those who are completely loyal to, or follow, the Moscow
partv line? Did it begin about 1936? Did it begin m the 1920 s?
Did 'it begin in the 1940's, so far as information that you may have
picked up is concerned? • • ^i ^ tv/t t^o«
Dr LvTTiMORE. My general understanding, sir, is that Mao ise-
tuno- the present boss of party matters among the Chinese Communists,
onlv really came to top control about 1937; that is, that prior
to that there were a great many factional disputes among the Chinese
Communists themselves; that since then he has been, and so tar. as i
can see, since then the liaison of thinking, at least, between the Chinese
Communists and Russians has been pretty close, as close as it could be
Senator Hickenlooper. So that he, at least, as the leader, the present
leader and the leader since about 1936 of this Communist activity m
China, has been completely in sympathy with the Moscow-dominated
Communist movement ? Would you say that that is the general belief
in China? . , i i v <• «
Dr L\TTiM0RE. I would say that that is the general belief among
American experts on China. I haven't been in China since 1944— no,
1945_so I am not closely in touch with the development of current
thinking among the Chinese in China.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 445
Senator HicKENLoorKR. Would you say that when you were in
China at tliat time, the hist time, either 1944 or 1945, that that was
the current belief, let's say on the street, for want of a better term,
about the leader of the Chinese Connnunist movement?
Dr. Lattimore. When I was last in China talking with Chinese,
Avho, of course, were non-Connnunist and anti-Connnnnist Chinese,
the general assumption was that the top leadership of the Chinese
Connnunists would keep in step with the Russians, but that factions
might develop which would be hostile to the close Russian line.
Senator HiCKEXLOorER. Was that at the time Mr. Wallace, who was
then Vice President, was over on his mission?
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Wallace was over there during the war, and
certaijdy I should say that was the prevailing belief among top Chi-
nese in Chungking.
Senator Hickexlooper. That was the time that you were assigned
to him as a member of the OWI in your official capacity ; is that
correct ?
Dr. Lattimore. That is right, but I cannot speak authoritatively
on that, since I was not present at his topdevel interviews with Chi-
nese personnel.
Senator Hickexlooper. That leads me to this question. Dr. Latti-
more. Do you believe that at that time, or did you believe at that
time, that the so-called Communist movement in China was simply
an agrarian revolution for the purpose of redistributing the land in
China, or did you believe at that time, and do you thiiik, that there
was ample evidence to indicate, that it was a Communist movement
in complete sympathy with the communism as directed from Moscow?
I am talking about the Russian-dominated communism.
Dr. Lattimore. Senator, I have never believed, nor have I been
able to find in my writings anywhere that I stated, that Chinese com-
munism was merely agrarian radicalism. In a book that I published
in 1932, I believe I recall offhand that I dismissed the Chinese Com-
munists as being mainly something like the Peiping rebellion of a
century ago, but soon after that I rapidly began to modify my opinion.
What I have said about the Chinese Communists repeatedly is that
the agrarian problem was the main problem in China, and "the Chi-
nese Communists were profiting by exploiting it, but I have never
been guilty of the kind of political oversimplification that I can quote
here from one of Mr. McCarthy's— Senator McCarthy's— informants ;
one of Senator McCarthy's experts on communism appears to be Miss
Freda Utley, and I quote from her book, China at War, published in
1939, page 254 :
Moreover, the Chinese rommunist Party long ago abandoned the dream of
establishing its own dictatorship. Now that its social basis is amongst the
peasants of the mast backward provinces in China, and anrongst the middle-class
yonth and the liberal reformers, its aim has genuinely become social and political
reform along capitalist and democratic lines. The Chinese Communists have
become radicals in the English nineteenth-century meaning of the word.
That is one of Senator McCarthy's Communist experts.
Senator Hickexlooper. I would like to ask you this, whether ur
not it was not apparent in China and other places that it was the
desire of the Connnunist Party to create the impression, by way of
lulling the rest of the world into security, perhaps, that'this 'was
simply an a.grarian revolution, and that it was not a Moscow-dictated
446 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
revolution. Wouldn't vou say that that was a part of the Commu-
nist propaganda, to create that impression in order to minimize the
so-cnlled dano-er of Communist expansion?
mi.Jr^^. It may ^vell haVe been, Senator, but I never con-
cerned myself primarily \vith that. What always struck ine as typi-
cal and important in dealino- ^vith political situations m China was
that these problems existed which the Communists were exploiting.
My belief was that the Kuomintano: was in a much better position to
de"al with the same problems, and that if only the Kuommtang would
put in some comj^aratively modest and mild reforms it would com-
pletely take the steam out of the Chinese Communists, and that is
what not oiilv I. but so far as 1 know every American expert attached
to various parts of the Chinese Government was always urging over
^^'Se'nator Hickenlooper. AVhat reforms did you advocate that the
Kuomintang put into elfect and failed to put into effect that the Com-
munists put into effect in the territories which they took ovei m
Dr' Lattimore. One of the obvious reforms which has been men-
tioned in a number of books was that the Nationalist Government
itself passed a law limiting land rent to Sa/. perceii • It never
enforced this law. Rents were being collected at the rate of 00, <0,
and even more percent.
Senator Tydings. Of the capital?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir; of the annual crop.
In a number of areas into which the Communists mhltrated all
that thev did at first was not to expropriate land, but merely to
enforce the land law which the Government did not enforce, and 1 and
others pointed out to people in the Chinese Government that they
simply could not afford to let this kind of thing go on, that Jhey must
o-et o-oing with reforms that would actually extend into the lite ot
the people, and not simply remain on paper at Chungking
Senator Hickenlooper. Then is it a fact that whe.i the Commu-
nists came into control of the territory in China they reduced taxes and
enlarged the liberties of the people? . ,^,.,.;f^v,,
Dr Lattimore. Senator, I have never been m a Chinese teiiitory
at the moment that the Communists came m and took over. Judging
froui the literature of the subject, they have practiced varying meth-
ods at various times. At times they have adopted simply reduction ot
rent, and at other times they have resorted to outright expropriation
You must alwavs expect a Communist to act with a certain amount ot
opportunism in things like that. It depends on how much they think
they can get away with at the moment. . ^ ^ .-.^
Senato? Hickenlooper. Now the Russian Government, or the
Soviet, either is in the process of negotiation or has i^egotiated, rights
in several of the specific ports in the territory of China ; that is, conti-
nental China, is that correct?
Dr. Lattimore. So I understand, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. And these negotiations have been carried
on with the in-esent so-called Chinese Communist government. Does
that indicate to you that Russia, or the Soviet government, is moving
into a comparatively permanent establishment or seizing a permanent
hold on the economy of the Communist government m China?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 447
Dr. Lattimore. As I indicated in my statement, Senator, wherever
the Russians aet a foothold of that kind I tliink tliey are extremely
riulikely to be dislodged easily. I therefore think that it is a o-reat
tra<j,edy that they are able to make those advances nntler the cover of
a popular feelino- in China, which the Chinese Connnunists are able
lo exploit, that this is necessary in order to defend China from the
assanhs of American-supplied planes and the navy of Chiang
Kai-shek.
Senator HiCKENLOorER. Is it your view, as a result of yonr ex-
])erieiice in China, that the Chinese Comnnniist revolution was suc-
cessful as a result of the Chinese people themselves, or as a result
of Ivussian support in one way or another of the Chinese cause?
Dr. Lattimore. I tliink. Senator, that I have more than once made
it clear in i)rint that I do not think that the triumph of the Commu-
liists in China was due to either of those processes, primarily; tliat is,
it was not due to the Chinese people electing to follow the Commu-
nists, nor was it due to the Russians. It was in the main a negative
])henomenon, that the people became so totally disillusioned and dis-
gusted with the Kuomintang government that they backed away from
it and in backing away from it foiuid themselves in the arms of the
Communists.
Senator ITickexlooper. Now, Dr. Lattimore, did you support in
1945 and 1046 or 1947 the theory that a coalition government should
be formed in China, and that Communist representatives should be
taken into the (xovernment in important offices along with officers of
tlie so-called Chinese Xationalist (xovernment?
Dr. LATTi^roRE. I did, sir. In that respect I very closely followed
and agreed with the opinions formed by General Marshall, summar-
ized in his report to the President of January 1947.
If I may summarize, it appears to me that General JNIarshall went
out to China and, with the (juick eye of the magnificent strategic anal-
yst that he is, he understood that he was in a situation in which salva-
tion was impossible and salvage w^as all that could be hoped for.
He therefore endeavored to salvage as much of the situation as he
thought was possible with the resources of the National (xovernment
and the sup]X)rt of the United States Government. I do not think
any man could have done an abler job. I am very sorry that he failed.
Incidentally, I supported him wholeheartedly in his policy at that time
when the Communists were vilifying him as a crook and a double
dealer.
Senator Hickexlooper. And that was about the same recommenda-
tion that Mr. Henry Wallace made when he came back?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't know, sir, what recommendations Mr.
Wallace may have made when he came back. I do know that at that
time, or during the war years in Chungking and certainly about that
time, many Americans in our diplomatic and military service were
becoming alarmed about the situation in the National Government of
China. They were already afraid that the rot had gone on so far that
that Government would not be able to capture the imagination of the
people at the end of the war. They were already making warnings;
you can read some of those warnings clearly set down in the State De-
partment's white paper. I am terribly sorry that they were right, but
the fact is that they were right. They were intelligence officers doing
448 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
exactly what the military and diplomatic services required of them,
namely, finding out wliat\he score was, instead of indulging m wishful
thinking, and some of them I regret to say have been politically cruci-
fied for doing an honest job of work.
Senator Hickenlooper. It was at about this time that Secretary
Marshall made his trip over there and his recommendations that the
United States becan to withdraw its aid from Nationalist China.
Wasn't it about that time— that is, that it began to lessen is aid and
began the policy of completely pulling out of China, which eventuated
here a few months ago ?
Dr. Lattimore. As I recall. Senator, General Marshall went out at
the end of 1945 after the war was already over. He began to negotiate
on a basis of compromise and reform that would not only keep the
National Government in power but strengthen its power. So far as
I recall, there was no sudden cutting ofi' of aid to Chiang Kai-shek.
Senator Hickenlooper. Wasn't there a period of about 10 months
when it was our announced policy that we would not further aid the
National Government of China, aiid then we changed it and for a time
sent in some trickles of supplies to Nationalist China ?
Dr. Lattimore. As I recall. Senator, there was a period of about 10
months in which there was a cessation of issuing export licenses, which
was not called an embargo, from the United States, but during the
same period very large supplies of American equipment were made
available from dumps in the Pacific islands, India, and so forth. These
included especially motor vehicles which were of great value to the
Chinese Government, and according to the testimony of our top mili-
tary representatives in China, the Nationalist armies were never
defeated for lack of ammunition or supplies.
Senator Hickenlooper. And during this period the Chinese Com-
munists had had turned over to them the captured Japanese supplies
which the Russians had captured upon the surrender of the Japanese
troops up in Manchuokuo, or those territories, is that correct?
Dr. Lattimore. There are two aspects to that question. Senator.
One is that of course the Russians turned over supplies. At the same
time, all supplies surrendered to Americans inside the Great Wall were
turned over to the Chinese Government, and I seem to recall a state-
ment by General Marshall to the effect that the Japanese arms which
we supplied exceeded in quantity those which the Russians supplied. _
Moreover, the Russians seemed for once to have been fairly clever m
Manchuria; that is, instead of indulging in the cruder kind of Com-
munist tactics, they turned over their arms largely simply to the village
people. The National Government then made one
Senator Hickenlooper. May I ask
Dr. Lattimore. Of its usual mistakes. It trusted these people, and
they lined up with the Communists.
Senator Hickenlooper. Isn't it a fact that the Russians had a policy
of organizing revolutionary groups in villages under leaders, turn-
ino- over the arms and equipment so that those revolutionary groups
would go out from those small villages and territories and capture
some more territory ? • nr
Dr. Lattimore. I do not know how they w^orked that m Man-
churia, Senator. The Russian policy, I should think, would be in
some cases simply to distribute arms and cause confusion, and in
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 449
Other cases to distribute arms in a more organized way. One can cer-
tainly exi)ect tlie Russians to do everything they could to capitalize
on tJie situation.
Senator Hickenlooper. At about what time did vou first become
couvinoed that it was futile for us to continue aid to Chiang Kai-shek
or the Aationahst Government of Cliina, and that we should pull out«
JJr. L/ArriMORE. I think, Senator, that as early as 1945, the end of
the Avar with Japan, I was very much afraid that a resort to civil war
on the part of the Nationalist Government in order to restore unified
control over China would end in disaster and end in a more Com-
munist situation rather than a less Communist situation.
Senator Hickexlooper. ''Eesort to civil war"— would you amplify
that a little bit ? You said "a resort to civil war by the Nationalist
Government of China." Do you mean organization of revoltino-
groups within China? °
Dr. Lati'imors. No; I mean the insistance that all armed forces in
China must surrender to the National Government without neo-otia-
tion; that all the people everywhere in the part of China libe^'rated
from Japanese control must submit to the orders of the National Gov-
ernment mstead of being allowed to elect their representatives to the
National Government, and so on,
I was very much afraid that any authoritarian attitude of that kind
would start driving people into the arms of the Communists
Senator HicKEXLO(^PER. Were you familiar with the at least alleged
attitude of ( hiang Kai-shek that you could not do business with the
Communists, you couldn't trust tliem, and if they ixot their heads into
the tent the camel would soon be clear in and take "the tent over?
i have never met Chiang Kai-shek. I don't know what his personal
attituc e is, but it is generally reported that that has been his firm
attitude, that the Communists cannot be trusted, that there can be no
dealing with the Communists because they do not deal on a basis of
keeping their word or keeping their promises, and that it was futile
and fatal to China to attempt to deal with the Communists and take
thein into the Government. Were you familiar with that attitude ?
Dr. Lattimore. I wasn't Chiang Kai-shek's political adviser for a
year and a half for nothing. Senator, and I was thoroughly^familiar
with that attitude and I agreed with him. I didn't think that it would
be possible to settle anything in China by getting the generalissimo
and the top Communists into one room and writing out an agi-eement
It seemed to me that the only thing that would strengthen the position
of the generalissimo was not an agreement of that kind, but goino- fo
the people of China with some kind of a program that would bono-
their support around behind him, instead of driving them into the
arms of the Communists. If he had had enough of the people on his
side, he could have negotiated with anvbody in perfect security. But
when his subordinates were committing excesses of corruption and
brutality that were driving people into the arms of the Communists
he was doomed. '
Senator Hick!:nlo;)Per. Weren't tliere excesses of brutality and
corruption on the part of the Communists recorded in China?
Dr. Lattimore. There were considerable excesses of brutality on .
the part of the Communists, and in varying periods and varyino-
geographical regions. I have mentioned something about that prob*^
450 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Jem in a book of mine published in 1944 called The Making of Modern
China. However, it seems to be the general opinion of American
observers that the Communists have been much freer of corruption
than the National Government, Both sides have resorted to massacre
and that kind of thing, but the Communist government has, by gen-
eral testimony, been more honest.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then let me get your opinion straight.
I understood you a while ago to say that you supported the policy of
bringing the Chinese Communists into the government along with
the Nationalists in a coalition government.
Dr. Lattimoee. Yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then I understood 3^ou to say that you
were familiar with Chiang Kai-shek's attitude that you could not do
business with the Communists, and that you supported that policy.
I think probabl}^ there is a very plausible explanation for it, but would
you amplif}^ that? How can you reconcile the two ideas?
Dr. Lattimore. The ]Doint is this. Senator, that up to the time that
I resigned as Chiang Kai-shek's political adviser, namely the end of
1942, there was still time for prelimiuaiy reforms. But by the time
that General Marshall was negotijiting in China most of the oppor-
tunity had been lost. Millions of people had already gone over to
the Communists. And if tlie Communists had the support of X
million people, you had to negotiate with them to that extent, not
because they were honest, not because they were Communists, but
because they had that amount of support, and from then on the only
way in which to salvage the situation was to get going in China some-
thing that had never existed before, but at least enough of the begin-
nings of parlimentary democracy so that the people could begin to
change their own leadership. That was the only way to get at the
people behind the Communists.
Senator Hickenlooper. And it became apparent to you at that
lime, did it not, that if Chiang's forces of government continued to
deteriorate, he would eventually be defeated in China, is that correct?
Dr. Lattimore. That is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. And a substantial factor in Chiang being
abe to sufetain himself at least during a certain period after the war
was the aid he was getting from America. Was that an important
factor ?
Dr. Lattimore. I think, Senator, that would be difficult to prove.
It could be argued that reliance on American support made the worst
of the people who surrounded Chiang Kai-shek unwilling to concede
reforms. There is also the fact that so many of the American-
equipped and American-trained forces surrendered to the Communists
en masse with their American arms, so I think it would be very diffi-
cult to argue that the factor of American support was what enabled
Chiang to survive as long as he did.
I mean, I think the American support was in the end destmictive
of him. rather than supportive of him.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, of course, we did finally pull cIcrt
out of active aid to China, and the policy was announced early this
spring or late in the winter of withdrawing su])port. Today would
you say that the mainland of China is quite completely under the
dominion and control of the Communist government of China?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 451
Dr. L ATTiMORE. I sliould say that today the mainland of China is
so completely under the control of the Connnunists that it will be im-
possible for Chianij; Kai-shek to come back from Formosa and recover
the mainland. There will, however, probably for years, continue to
be a certain amount of internal disturbance on the mainland of China,
but the possibility that that internal disturbance could be politically
caj)tuied by Chiang is not a good political bet.
Senator Hickenlooper. When did you conclude that the fall of
Chiang Kai-shek on the mainland of China was inevitable?
Dr. Lattimore. I shoidd say — I am trying to see how closely I can
date this — early in 1047, soon after General ISIarsliairs return from
China.
Senator Ttdixgs. I would like to know what the pleasure of the
connnittee is. It is now 1 o'clock. What would be your idea about
the continuance of the hearing?
Senator IMcMahon. Come back at 2 : 30.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator Green, is 2 : 30 satisfactory to you ?
Senator Greex. Entirely. I would also in that connection like to
ask whether this is an investigation of disloyalty ?
Senator Tydings. How about you, Dr. Lattimore? Would that
meet with your convenience?
Dr. Lattimore. Senator. I am completely at your disposal.
Senator Lodge. How long would you plan to run this afternoon?
Senator Ttdixgs. It avouM deT:end a good bit on how much the
committee wants to question Dr. Lattimore.
I would like to say this, that this committee is set up to investigate
disloyalty in the State Department. I take it that Dr. Lattimore has
never been an employee of the State Department, but he has had an
auxiliary connection Avith it and been paid by the State Department
while he was on a Presidential mission. For that reason I think we
should lean over backward lest we be charged, as we have, with not
wanting to bring in everything that is pertinent. But my colleagues
have the right to ask any questions they want. I have no more to do
with this committee than they have, but I would like to point out, if
I might, with all good will, that our primary mission here is to find
out whether' the charges made against Dr. Lattimore are true or false,
to wit, that he is the head Red spy in American and to wit, that
he is a Communist; and I think we ought to confine ourselves
more to that phase of it. That is what we were created to find
out, rather than to go into these opinions, which, if I may express my
own opinion, seem a bit extraneous to the inquiry. However, that is
just my opinion. I have no control over the questions.
I am going to suggest, therefore, that when we do meet we try to
get back on the ball a little bit more so that we can get through with
him.
While we aiv at it. Dr. Lattimore, Senator McCarthy told me yester-
day that he had some witnesses that he hopes to get before the com-
mittee. He said he is going to notify me Tuesday morning of the
names of these witnesses, so I may issue subpenas to bring them here.
I do not know whether these are witnesses who are going to appear
against you or someone else, but you are invited — you and your at-
torneys— to be present at all these hearings where we have these wit-
nesses, in case your name is involved.
452 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. For the purpose of your own plan, I would like to
say that I presume that Dr. Lattimore will be available for the next
few weeks for questioning in executive session. Is that not right?
Dr. Lattimore. I am entirely at the disposal of the committee,
Senator.
Senator Lodge. I think most of the cross-examination — in fact all
of the cross-examination — that I will want to do will be in executive
session. There will, however, be a few questions that I would like
to ask him today on the record, which will take only 3 or 4 minutes.
Senator Tydings. After we have concluded our hearings dealing
with those persons who have been openly accused and who obviously
ought to have a right to openly defend themselves, it is the hope of
the chairman that the committee will sustain him in the point of view
that we will have the remainder of our sessions in executive session.
However, if names are mentioned publicly, charged with any offense,
we feel we must give them the opportunity to deny these charges pub-
licly. But I think we have gone far enough in it now to know that
this is not the wisest way to make this inquiry, and after these people
who have been accused all have had their opportunity to file written
statements or to come personally before the committee in open session,
I am very hopeful that we can get along with our business by taking
the circus attitude away from this and go on with our real investiga-
tion of disloyalty in the State Department.
Senator Hickexlooper. Mr. Chairman, because there may be some
implied criticism of my questions
Senator Tydings. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Of Dr. Lattimore in what you said, I want
to call your attention to the fact that this is an investigation . I don't
approach Dr. Lattimore or any other witness with any predetermina-
tion for either side. But I do believe that as long as this issue has
been drawn, so long as certain allegations have been made, so long
as Dr. Lattimore is here, that it is not only in the interest of fairness
to him but to the whole investigation that he be given the fullest
opportunity to canvass any matters of allegations that either Senator
McCarthy has canvassed or that he has canvassed. It is in that spirit
that I am approaching him. I want to find his views.
Tlie allegation is made that he is an insidious fellow. I am not
approaching it from that standpoint or from any other standpoint.
But I think that bearing on that question very pertinently are his
views and opinions and the whole background. I think it is extremely
pertinent and it would be my opinion that Dr. Lattimore would wel-
come an opportunity to express himself on these things. I am happy
to give him an opportunity by way of questioning, and to also answer
questions in my own mind.
Senator Tydings. I would like to say to my colleague I implied
no criticism. It was really just an attempt, as I saw it, to get back
a little more on the beam. But every Senator is the keeper of his
own responsibilities under this resolution, and certainly I can be just
as wrong in my own opinions as any other member of the committee.
I stated it for whatever it is worth.
We will take a recess until 2 :30 this afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 1 : 05 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 : 30 p. m. of
the same day.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\^ESTIGATION 453
ArrERNOON SESSION
Senator Tydixgs. The committee will come to order.
While we wait for Senator Hickenlooper to return and continue
his examination of Dr. Lattimore, Senator McMahon, of Connecti-
cut, a member of tho conunittee. tells me he desires to ask one or two
questions.
Senator :\rcMahort?
Senator McMaiion. Dr. Lattimore, you mentioned, in the course
of your testimony, a n.ian named Kohlberg.
Dr. Lattijiore. K-o-h-l-b-e-r-";.
Senator ]\Ic]\Iahox. Who is Kohlberg?
Dr. Lattimore. Senator, I don't rightly know. He pretends to be
an expert on me. but I do not want to pretend to be an expert on him,
or his origin, previous history, and so on. All I know is that he is a
man that has had it in for the Institute of Pacific Relations for a
long time, has attacked it, and has, over the years, built up a long
story of allegations against me. and I found it curious and inter-
esting that in Senator McCarthy's charges, so many of the charges
were taken parallel, word for word from charges that Kohlberg had
made, that had proved to be wild allegations years ago.
Senator McMaiion. Have you ever met him?
Dr. Lattimore. Never met him, sir.
Senator McMahon. Have you any mutual acquaintances that you
know of ?
Dr. LATToroRE. Well, some of the people connected with the In-
stitute of Pacific Relations must have met him personally. I mean,
he was at one time a member of the Institute of Pacific Relations,
and he condui^ted tliis proxy fight in the Institute of Pacific Rela-
tions. So, other people connected with the institute must have met
him.
Senator ^r(\>L\.iiON. Well, as far as you know, has he been in
business in the Far East, has lie any far eastern interests?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, sir, as far as I know: he used to be an im-
porter of lace from the coast of China, That is an industry in China
in which chi.ld labor is very extensively employed, and it provided
a cheap conmiodity for importation into this country.
Senator M(']\L\iion. Does he live in China, or has he lived in
Chiiin^
Dr. LAn'T:\!OKE. I kncnv th'it lie has been on visits to China. I
doubt if he has ever lived in China. I doubt very much if he knows
a word of Chinese.
Senator McMahon. Now, who is this man Goodwin that you
talked about ?
Dr. La'itimork. He is a man, sir, vrho has connections with the
Chinese Nationalist Government — the — what is it. now — there is a
representation here of the National Resources Commission of the
Chinese Govei'ument ; and. there is also a Chinese Information
Service. He is connected with all of those.
Senator jNIcMahox. Is he a lawyer by profession, do you know?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't know, sir. .
Senator Mc^NLvuon. Have you ever met him ?
Dr. Lattsimore. No, not to my knowledge.
454 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McMahon. You made some point of the fact that he was
retained at a salary that you gave as twenty-some-odd-thousands, and
corrected it to 36,000.
Dr. Lattimore. That is right.
Senator McMaiton. What is his importance? Why do you refer
to him in your testimony ?
Dr. Lattimore. Because I understand that he is registered as a
lobbyist, connected with a foreign power, and therefore has to register
in that way ; and, I understand that he is connected with Kohlberg
and various other people who have been conducting this campaign
to secure all-out aid to General Chiang Kai-shek, and to accuse any-
body who doesn't support Chiang Kai-shek of being anti-Kuomintang,
and has distributed Kohlberg's material. This man Kohlberg gets
out a lot of mimeographed material, and Goodwin has been distribut-
ing it for him.
Senator MgMahq]^. How do you know that?
Dr. Lattimore. I have seen some of the material, sir.
Senator McMaiion. Well now, is that all the connection that you
can give us about Kohlberg and Mr. Goodwin with this business?
Do you know of any other connection that is evident, as far as you
are concerned? Are they around Washington, as far as you know?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't know whether Mr. Kohlberg maintains
offices here. I understand his residence is in Xew York. I think a
little inquiry might show that both he and Goodv\'in have been around,
while Senator McCarthy was preparing his material. I think it \\i\\
be interesting to look into that.
Senator McMaiiox. Is that a suspicion, or do you have some evi-
dence upon which you base that suggestion ?
Dr. Lattimore. I am simply very much interested in this extra-
ordinarily close parallel betw^een the Kohlberg charges and the Mc-
Carthy charges.
I presume that Mr. Goodwin, being a lobbyist for the Chinese Gov-
ernment, has some sort of headquarters here in Washington, and I
understand that they are at the Metropolitan Club, that he operates
from there.
Senator McIMahon. The Metropolitan
Dr. Lattimore. Metropolitan Club.
Senator McMahon. I am a member of that club.
Dr. Lattimore. That was stated in a story in the St. Louis Post
Dispatch.
Senator McMahon. Well, is it your feeling that Kohlberg and
Goodwin, I do not wish to j^ut words in your mouth, nor do I wish
to (IraAv deductions, but I want to get it clear — are you im^^lying that
Kohlberg is behind these charges against you ?
Dr. Lattimore. Kohlberg has been making charges against the
Institute of Pacific Relations for years. They very frequently
involve me.
Then these recent charges by Senator ]McCarthy, they not merely
hash over but even reproduce verbally the same charges, I have a
feeling that Kohlberg is in there trying to get Lattimore.
Senator MuMahon. Well now, if I felt that way, I would certainly
try to know^ everything that I could about Kohlberg, and frankly you
do not seem to have done very much investigating of his background
and his activities.
STATE DEPARTAIEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 455
Dr. Lattimore. Senator, several years ago lie published an attack
on me in a magazine called "Cliiiiese Monthly,'' published here in
A\'asiungton.
Senator McMaiiox. AMiat do you call that?
Dr. Latti.moke. Chinese Monthly, and I wrote to the editor of that
magazine, 1 have forgotten his name now, and asked for a chance to
put in a rejoinder, in which 1 })ointed out his inaccuracies, and so
iVn-th : but, that is the only step I have taken. I felt that I was a man
witli a perfectly clear and open record, and that if people were going
around making malicious charges of this kind, probably the most
dignitied thing to do was simplj^ to ignore them.
Senator Mc^Mahon. It might ba dignified, but it was not very
sensible.
Dr. Lathmore. Well, Senator. Kohlberg is a very wealthy man.
If he wants to make it a hobby to go after a man like me, he can alford
it. A num like myself cannot afford to put a lot of money into doing
the same kind of thing that he is trying to do to me.
Senator McMahox. Do you know anything about Kohlberg's rela-
tions with the present Nationalist Government of China ^
Dr. Lattimore. Well, I liave never heard that he has registered
as a lobbyist, or anything of that kind. He is a man of private means
and can aiford to do what he likes. I certain, judging by the tone of his
mimeograplied releases which go out over and over and over again all
the time, his fanatical support of the Nationalist Government
Senator McMahox. But. you know nothing of any relations that
he has with any Chinese officials?
Dr. Lattimore. I have no evidence, sir. As I say, I have not gone
into the matter.
Senator McMahox. Have you ever transmitted any intelligence
of any kind to any intelligence officers of the Soviet Government?
Dr. Lattimore. Never.
Senator McMaiigx. On any subject ?
Dr. Lattimore. On no subject.
Senator McMahox*. Has anyone ever identified, or been identified
to you as an officer of the Soviet Government's Intelligence Service,
or an agent of the Soviet Government ?
Dr. Lattimore. I have met memliers of the Soviet Government, for
instance, when I was on the trip with Vice President Wallace. Nat-
urally, Soviet officials were assigned to accompany the mission. I
had met people at the Soviet Embassy here. I went and called on
Ambassador Litvinov, for instance, when he was Ambassador here,
and I was adviser to the Generalissimo. I have met people, of course,
that I know were agents ; that is, employees or members of the Soviet
Government, and, of course, I always assume that anybody who is in
the em]doy of the Soviet Government is also within the ramifications
of the Soviet Intelligence Service.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator Hickenlooper, would you care to con-
tinue your examination?
Senator HirKEXLOOPER. Senator Lodge has to catch a plane, and I
would like for him to ask sucli fuiestions now as he may have.
Senator Tydix-gs. Senator Lodge ?
Senator Lodge. Can you tell us a little something about your biog-
raphy, education, where you were born, and so forth ?
68970— 50— pt. 1 30
456 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Dr. Lattimore. I was born, Senator, right here in Washington,
D. C. My parents went out to China in the year 1901. I was born in
1900. My parents went out in the year 1901 wlien I was less than a
year old.
My father was teaching in the Chinese Government Educational
Service, first in college, and then, universities. I remained in China
until I was about 12 years old, going on 13, and then my mother took
me and several other children to Switzerland. My father's idea was
that I should get a good start in French and German, and then come
on home for my high school and college education.
Those plans were interrupted by the First AVorld War. I hap-
pened to be caught in England on a summer's vacation when the war
broke out. Owing to that accident, I remained in England for 5 years,
while my mother took the other children back to China. So, I was in
school in England for 5 years.
Then, at the age of 19, I went back to China. I first went into a
business firm, one of the old-line British firms there. Then, I left
that and took a job for a year on a newspaper in Tientsin ; then, went
back into business, and I remained in business for another 5 or G years—
about 6 years.
1 got rather restless with the ordiiiarv treaty-port life in China. I
worked very hard to acquire the Chinese language, or to reacquire it.
1 had known it in my childhood, and I used to do a lot of trouble shoot-
ing for my firm, that is, up in the interior when things went wrong
there, I would go up and find out what
Senator Lodge. Wliat kind of firm was it, Dr. Lattimore?
Dr. Lattimore. We used to export from China wools, straw braid,
sheep casings, hogs' bristles, anything that China exported, and we
were agents for the importation of machinery, dyes, cotton goods,
anything that China imported.
Consequently, in the course of this work, especially as I specialized
in work in the interior, directly with the Chinese merchants, I got
a considerable down-to-earth knowledge of the way Chinese economics
worked.
I have often felt it to be a great advantage since, that when the-
oretical questions of Chinese economics come up, I always think back
to some particularly tough problem that I was assigned to by my firm,
and I i-emember how the problem worked, and what the men were like
that did it, and so on.
Senator Tydings. Doctor, will you speak a little louder, please, be-
cause some of the newspapermen tell me they are having a little
difficulty following you.
Dr. Lattimore. Surely.
Finally, as the result of this work, one time I got up to the end
of the railway where the caravans were coming down from central
Asia with wool. There was a civil war on, and my assignment was
to maneuver the trainload of wool through a Chinese civil war, which
I eventually managed to do. But, I was most interested in seeing —
these camels came all the way dow^n from central Asia, 1,200 or 1,500
miles, and there the camels met by the side of this modern railway
siding and unloaded and I thought — this is terrific, this is the end
of the modern railways, where the modern way is meeting with the
Marco Polo age and I thought about that, and our agents over there
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 457
didn't know anything jibout it, they simply took it over from the
caravans.
It was becoming obvious to me at that time tliat the whole nature
of business of the Chinese was going to change, and I talked about
it with the people of my firm, but they were carrying on the old way,
and they were not interested in innovations much, so I resigned from
tlio firm and I went upon my own, into the interior.
I went up, hired some camels and traveled with the caravans, like
a caravan man, smack through Mongolia to Chinese central Asia. I
liad just been married. I was not sure about getting into central
Asia, this was a closed province then, so I didn't take my wife on
that part of the trip.
Sure enough, I was arrested when I got to the frontier, and first I
was accused of being a Japanese agent by the border guards, and then
some very bright fellow noticed my beard and said "No," that I was
a Russian agent. So, it took me a couple of weeks to talk my way out
of jail there, and get into the province and talk to the governor, and
he was fine. I sent for my wife and she came around through Siberia
and joined me.
Incidentally, the Russians gave her a transit visa to go and join
her husband, but when I got to the frontier and asked for a visa
to go to the railhead and meet her, I was refused. That was my first
refusal of a visa from the Soviets, and the consequeiice was that my
wife had to travel -tOO miles by sled in a February blizzard, from
the end of the railhead to where I was, to the Chinese border where
I was at the time.
vSenator Lodge. What 3'ear was that?
Dr. Lattimore. That was in 1926. We were in Sinkiang in 1927.
Senator Lodge. How much time were you in China, after the end
of World War II?
Dr. Lattimore. After World War II ?
Senator Lodge. Yes; how much time did you spend in China, say,
from 1945 to tiie present time? How much time have von been in
China?
Dr. Lattimore. Practically none at all, sir. When I was in Japan
on the reparations mission, in the winter of 1945, I went over with
some of the other members of the mission, very briefly, and spent a
day or two in Shanghai, and a day or two in Peking,'just about the
31st of December and Xew Year's Day, 1946. I have not been in
China since.
Senator Lodge. So you have had no opportunity to observe the
Comnnmist army
Dr. Lattimore.^ P^xcept for that one brief trip, up to Yenan, that I
told about, in 1937, 1 have never been in a district that was beinc- run
by the Communists. I havo never witnessed a district being taken
over by the Communists. I have no first-hand knowledge.
Senator Lodge. In your prepared statement, on page 36, you say
this — and I quote :
As tlie air nssjuilrs incrc-i-e, with I'liit^'d States planes launched by Nationalist
forces from Formosa upon the mainland of China —
It is true, is it not, that that is precisely the situation, what is being
done at the present time?
458 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Dr. Lattimore. I am sorry to say, that is precisely wliat is being
done. The effect is to back the Chinese up against the Russian frontier
and provide a situation in which the Communists in tlie Government
can cover up tlie whole business of bringing in Russian airmen, and
so forth, by saying to the people, "We have got to do this to stop this
awful bombing."
Senator LoDCiE. In view of the fact that these United States planes
are being used to attack the mainland of China, you say "there is
danger — if it is not already a fact — that the Chinese Government,
M-ith the backing of many of the Chinese people, will invite the Soviet
Union to establish air bases and to engage actively in the air war."
You think it is just a danger, or do you think it has actuall}- hap-
pened ?
Dr. Lattimore. I say it may be a fact, sir. The reason I put it
that way is, just as I was leaving for Afghanistan at the beginning
of March, reports Avere beginning to come through of the Russian
bases being established at Shanghai. Even in the short time since
I have been back, although I have not had much time to read the
papers, I did see a brief dispatch from the Nationalist side saying that
a couple of their planes had been shot down off Shanghai, and that they
were sure, bj^ the maneuvering of the planes, that they must have been
flown by the Russian fliers. Tliat is as definite as it is. but I tliink you
may be on the edge of a revelation that that is the fact.
Senator Lodge. If the Russians establisli air 1 ases in Shanghai
and other places in China, is it not a fair guess that they will stay
there for a long, long time ?
Dr. Lattimore. So I said in ni}" statement, sir.
Senator Lodge. Where Avere you during World War I ?
Dr. Lattimore. In England, sir.
Senator Lodge. As a student?
Dr. Latti3iore. As a schoolboy, from the age of 15 to 19.
Senator Lodge. Were vour father and mother born in the United
States?
Dr. Lattimore. My father and mother were born also either in
Washington or very close to it.
Senator Lodge. Well, next Aveek I am going to probably want to
cross-examine a^ou in executive session, and I understand you Avill be
available for that ?
Dr. Lattimore. Surely, sir.
Senator Lodge. Thank you.
Senator Tydings. Before Senator Hickenlooper begins. Senator
McMahon advises me that he has one question, or some more, that he
AA^ould like to ask.
Senator McMaitox. It is just this question: If Mr. Kohlberg is
in the room, I wish he would stand up and identify himself.
Senator Tydings. If Mr. Kohlberg is in the room, will he kindly
stand ? If he is standing, Avill he hold up his hand so that he can
be identified?
(There Avas no such person identified.)
Senator McMaiion. Is Mr. GoodAA'in in the room?
Senator Tydings. If Mr. Goodwin is in the room, Avill he please
stand, and if he is standing Avill he hold up his hand so that he can
be identified.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 459
T take it that neither of the gentlemen are in the room, or if they
are. the}' are incognito.
Senator Mc^Mahon. That is all ; thank you.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator Hickenlooper ?
Senator Hickexloopf.k. Dr. Lattimore, we will pursue a little fnr-
tlier the questions I was asking you just before we adjourned for lunch.
I believe you advocated that we get out of Korea. If I pursue the
question, it is to get an answer for the record rather than to have a
nod of the head, which the reporter cannot get.
Dr. Lattimore. I was wondering if you were going to elaborate
that question. Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. No. I will ask you if you are not advo-
cating, and did not advocate in the memorandum to the State Depart-
ment in October that we should get out of Korea.
Dr. LATriaiORE. Yes. As I remember, the way I phrased it in that
memorandum was that we should disentangle ourselves as quickly as
possible from Korea. I believe that to be necessary because, unfor-
tunately, things have so developed in Korea that it is now being run
by a very small and apparently unpopular and arrogant clique, so
that we are in the position of backing, as I have also said, a little
Chiang Kai-shek.
The accounts that I have seen from Korea, I mean press accounts,
and speaking with people who are back from Korea, would indicate
that we are there in a position which is, I think, untenable for a
democracy. That is, we are backing an inefficient police state against
the ruthless and efficient police state of the Kussians in North Korea.
I am afraid that if that situation goes on, it will only mean a cumula-
tive loss of prestige for us, and a very dangerous advertisement for us
in the rest of Asia.
Mr. FoRTAS. Mv. Chairman, and Senator Hickenlooper, if you will
excuse me, perhaps we should offer the memorandum that has been
referred to, for the record.
vSenator Hickenlooper. All I have is the newspaper clipping that
I tore out.
Senator Tydings. How long is the memorandum ?
Mr. F( RTAS.' It is quite long. Senator, about eight and a half pages.
Senator Ttdings. Unless somebody wants to hear it read
Mr. FoRTAs. It will be put in the record, please, sir'^
Senator Tydings. It may be put in the rfecord in this place in the
examination.
(The memorandum is as folloAvs :)
Memoraxdum — United States Policy in the Far East
(By Owen Lattimore)
(Snhmitted to the Honorable Philip C. Jessup, Mr. Raymond Fosdick. and Jlr.
Everett Case, in response to Mr. Jessup's request of August 18, 1949)
In clearing the way for a fresh approacli to the jiroblems of United States
policy in the F'ar East, sevei'al negative statements can usefuUy he made.
1. The type of policy represented by supi)oi-t for Chiang Kai-shek does more
harm than good to the interests of the United States, and no modification of this
policy seems promising. Chiang Kai-shek was a unique figure in Asia. He is
now fading into a kind of eclipse that is regrettably damaging to the prestige
ol the United States, because the United States supported him. His eclipse does
not even leave behind the moral prestige of a goo<l but losing fight in defense of a
460 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
weak cause. On the contrary, he put up the worst possible fight in defense of a
cause that was originally strong and should have won. The kind of policy that
failed in support of so great a figure as Chiang Kai-shek cannot possibly succeed
if it is applied to a scattering of "Little Chiang Kai-sheks" in China or elsewhere
2 China cannot be economically coerced by such measures as cutting off trade.
Nothing could be more dangerous for the American interest than to underesti-
mate the ability of the Chinese Communists to achieve the minimum level of
economic stability that will make their regime politically secure. Sound policy
should allow for a cautious overestimate of the ability of the Chinese Communists
in this respect, and avoid a rash underestimate.
3 It is not possible to make Japan a satisfactory instrument of American
policy There are two alternatives in Japan. The first alternative is to keep
Japan alive by means of American "blood transfusions" of raw materials and
credits Under this alternative, Japan can be made to put on the surface
appearance of a strong ally; but the reality will be an overcommitment of
American resources to a distant and vulnerable region. Under the second alter-
native Japan can keep itself alive by coming to terms, economically and politi-
cally with its neighbors in Asia, principally China. Under this alternative,
Japan cannot serve as a trusted American ally. Its own interests will compel
it to balance and bargain between what it can get out of Asia and what it can
get out of America. . . . ^ t„„
4 South Korea is more of a liability than an asset to the interests and policy
of the United States. It is doubtful how long the present regime in South Korea
can be kept alive, and the mere effort to keep it alive is a bad advertisement,
which continually draws attention to a band of little and inferior Chiang Kai-
sheks who are tlie scorn of (he Comnuinists and have lost the respect of demo-
cratic and would-be democratic groups and movements throughout Asia.
5. The colonial and quasi-colonial countries of southeast Asia cannot be forced
to grant priorities to the economic and military recovery of Europe, at the
expense of their own economic and political interests. In this region as a
whole there is a rapid development of combined political and military resistance
to coercion which can be indefinitely sustained by lf>cal resources. On the
other hand, attempts at reconquest by Eurojiean countries are so expensive that
they defeat their own ultimate purpose, which is the strengthening of the
country attempting the reconquest. The situation can now be handled only by
convincing the Nationalist leaders in those countries that any sacrifices they
are asked to make are matched by sacrifices made by their former or titular
rulers, and are not designed to give priority to the interests of these rulers, but
to bring joint benefits both to the ruling countries and to the colonial country,
on terms that satisfy the colonial aspiration to equality.
6 The United States cannot assume that Russia will move in to take over
direct conti-ol in China, and will thus be subjec-ted to heavy strategic and
economic strains. It is dangerous to assume that there will be a diversion and
commitment of Russian resources in Asia which will limit Russia's ability to
maneuver in Europe. Recent developments in the Far Eeast have been favorable
to Russia, but not in a way that lessens the resources that Russia can deploy
toward Europe. Policy toward Russia and policy toward the Far East meet
at the point where such a move as the imposition of an economic cordon .sanitaire
around China is considered. Such a move would increase Chinese dependence
on Russia ; but it would probably not make it necessary for Russia to undertake
a large-scale program in China. The Russians would get credit in Asia, multi-
plied by propaganda, for any grants they might make to China, but would
probably not have to make grants large enough to distort or strain their own
resources. It would be possible, therefore, if the mistake is made of waiting
for the Chinese Communists to come "hat in hand" to ask for American terms,
for United States policy to encounter anotl'er set-back in Asia, without even
the compensating advantage of hampering Russia's ability to apply pressure in
Europe. . . . A •
The foregoing statements define negative aspects of the situation in Asia,
limiting the freedom of maneuver of United States policy. Within these imita-
tions, it seems advisable that a number of positive objectives should be defined.
1 Policy in the Far East and policy toward Russia have a bearing on each
other. It" certainly cannot yet be said, however, that armed warfare against
communism in the Far East, on a scale involving a major commitment of Ameri-
can resources, has become either unavoidable or positively desirable. Nor can
it be said with any assurance that, in the event of an armed conflict undertaken
STATE DEPARTMENT ElMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 461
for the purpose of forcing Russia back froui Europe, the Near East would be an
optiniuni field of operation.
There are still two alternatives before us — a relatively long i)eace, or a rapid
approach toward war. If there is to be war, it can only be won by defeating
Russia — not northern Korean, or Viet Nam. or even China. Soiind policy should
therefore avoid premature or excessive strategic deployment in the Far East.
If there is to be a long peace, the primary factor in making peace possible will
be a stabilization of relations between the United States and Russia. Sound
policy should, therefore, maintain a maximum flexibility. If and when negotiated
and mutually acceptable agreements with Russia become possible, American
policy in the Far East should be in a position to contribute to Russo-American
negotiations. It should not be so mired down in local situations that direct
American-Russian negtiations are actually hampered.
2. .Any new departures in United ^ates policy in the Far East must be able
to fend off any accusation of "appeasement" of local or Russian communism.
In view of the effectiveness of the Russian issue as a weapon in in-fighting in
American party politics, it would seenT that the advice of experts on domestic
politics should be coordinated with the opinions of those who are consulted
on foreign policy.
The dilemma is simple, but not easy to solve; but unless it can be solved no
successful United States policy in the Far East is possible. Any United States
policy that is interpreted in various countries in the Far East as pressure applied
for the purpose of creating a league against Russia will merely increase the
ability of those countries to bargain with both the United States and Russia. It
will also increase the identification, in those countries, between local nationalism
and local communism. On the other hand, any proposed United States policy in
the Far East that is attacked in America itself as a bid for better relations with
Russia runs the danger of being defeated
3. The success of United States policy in the Far East will be measured largely
by the contribution that it makes to the recovery of economic relations between
the Far East and Europe. This recovery will be possible only if the assent and
good will of the far-eastern countries are won. Assent and real cooperation,
in turn, can only be won if the representatives of the far-eastern countries, in-
cluding those that are still technically the subjects of European countries, are
convinced that they have as direct access to the highest American authorities as
do the European representatives, and if they are convinced that their economic
needs and political standards are not being given a second priority, lower than
that of the European countries involved in the same negotiations.
The two test cases in southeast Asia, on which the leaders of various nationalist
movements will rate the difference between what can be attained through friendly
association with representatives of the United States and what can be attained
through outright defiance of a European country which has strong economic sup-
port from the United States are Indonesia and the Viet Nam regime under Ho
Chi-minh.
If the negotiJitions between Dutch and Indonesians, brought about largely
through benevolent United States pressure, eventuate in a settlement which
seems, in Indonesia, to contain too much of hope deferred, while the resistance
in Indochina under Ho Chi-minh achieves more and more of hope fulfilled, the
results through southeast Asia will be adverse to the United States interest.
Heavy and primary United States commitments in western Europe made it
difficult to bear constantly in mind that when the Dutch-Indonesian negotiations
are consummated, the satisfaction or dissatisfaction of popular opinion in In-
donesia will have wider reprecussions than the satisfaction or <lissatisfaction of
Dutch public opinion. Ft is a fact, nevertheless, that Indonesian opinion is more
difficult to satisfy than Dutch opinion, and it is also a fact that the repercussions
will be more serious if Indonesian opinion is not satisfied than if Dutch opinion
is not satisfiecl. These facts mark an important difference between prewar and
postwar colonial Asia. They are facts that American public opinion has by no
means fully accepted ; but they are also facts that are critical for the formula-
tion of an over-all United States policy in Asia.
4. The foregoing considerations indicate that the ma.ior aim of United States
policy in the Far East should be to convince tiie countries of the Far East that
they can get along well with the Ignited States and with the countries of western
Europe. They must be persuaded that they can get along well because of the
mutual benefits to themselves, to the United States, and to western Europe.
They must not be made to suspect that the real aim of the United States is an
ulterior aim of using them against Russia.
462 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
To Tint it in another way, the aim of the United States policy should be to
enable"^ L comitHes ofTSe Far East to do without Russia to the maximum
extot Thi^ S a much more modest aid than insistence on and organization of
hostility to Russia; but it is an attainable aim and tlie other is not.
A few suggestions for implementation are appended. , „ t^ ,. ^-^^^
^ Cmiferences with the independent governments of the Far East on he
bnss of helping them to build their own eeononnes. to revive then tiade with
Em'ope and t" expand their trade with us. Emphasis on posit ve steps that can
be taken No negative conditions, such as prohibitions of trade with Russia or
Communist China : no conditions that could be interpreted as American regulation
'^^t^^^'^^S.na a refusal to be bound by protocol, with legitim^
naTionalist leaders in countries whose full political aspirations have not been
"^1 '¥he"uniterSs™should not allow any European country, in its relations
with a V country in the Far East, to state openly or to imply by propaganda that
Us DolcvTs "backed by the United States." European representatives, in
nioUat'ng with tl7e repi^sentatives of countries in Asia, should be discouraged
from stating or implying that they are authoritative interpreters of United States
pol cy 01 i^iin^edLVies wim whom the United States cannot be approache^^^
4 It should be made clear that if there is delay or difficulty m estabUshmg
relations between the United States and Coinnninist<-ontrolled coun ries uc
as China, the trouble comes from the Communist side and not from the United
^^f^'lt'^shmild be made clear that friendly and beneficial relations with the
UnlVed States depend essentially on the inherent friendliness or unfriendliness
of the natTon concerned and not on the formalities of diplomatic recognition.
In order to facilitate the contrast between countries which are on friendly terms
with the United States and countries which are not, the number of countries
formally recognized by the United States should be increased.
As a first step, the United States should accept the list of countries recom-
mended for adniission to the United Nations by Mr. Trygve Lie. Secretary-Gen-
ei-al of the United Nations. In the first place, it would at this time be a good move
for the United States to accept witli good will an initiative from the Secretariat
of the United Nations. In the second place, the list is on balance more favorable
to the United States than to the Soviet Union. In the third place, and with
particular reference to the Far East, the move would bring withm the scope
of United States diplomatic activity the Mongolian Peoples Republic (Outei
Mongolia), an increasingly important potential listening-post country ui the
^6.^ The United States should disembarrass itself as quickly as possible of its
entanglements in South Korea.
Senator Htckenloopek. Dr. Lattimore, are you aware ^Yllether or
not the State Department takes that same attitude to^yard the futility
of our continued occupation of Korea, or aid to Korea ?
Dr. Lattoiore. Senator, I am not in the confidence of the State De-
partment. I believe that according to recent stories in the press, an
appropriation lias been voted for continued aid and support to the
Government of South Korea, but as I recall, that was about or during
the time I went to Afghanistan and I have not kept up on the details.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you aware of the fact that the State
Department represents, at least to Congress, that Korea has made the
greatest progress of any similar period in its history, and is well along
the road toward the establishment of a reliable self-government m
K^orea '
Dr L\TTiM0RE. If that is true. Senator, I am delighted to hear it.
I am afraid that I should require a great deal of concrete evidence to
make me believe it. I am speaking simply off the cuft. 1 am still
convinced that the existing government of South Korea has a very poor
survival value. , . . » .-, ,
Senator Hickenlgoper. Do you think that it is worse, trom that
standpoint, than the north Korean area ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EAIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 463
Dr. La'itimore. Probably not, Senator. "What I am thinking of is
tliat tlie Russians can get away with supporting the kind of govern-
ment tliey liave in north Korea; but, a government like ours, a nation
like ours which absolutely must })r()gress with the feeling of democratic
support among peoples in Asia, simply cannot afford to tag itself with a
corrupt dictatorial government in Korea, or any other country in
Asia.
Senator Hickenloopp:r. Let us assume that the United States pulled
out of Korea completely, disassociated itself with South Korea com-
pletely. How long do you think it would be before the Communists
Avould completely communize all of the Peninsula of Korea?
Dr. Lattimore. I think it would be a matter of weeks, Senator; but
I think that it would be better for us to disentangle ourselves while
we can do so with an appearance of having made a policy decision of
our own. rather than to eventually have the government of South
Korea run out, as the government of Chiang Kai-shek has been run
out of China.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do 3'ou believe we should now recognize
the Communist regime in China as the official government of China?
Dr. Lattimore. If I may, Senator, I will go back to my memo-
randum to the State Department on that subject:
It should be made clear that if there is delay or difflcnlty in establishing rela-
tions between the United States and Communist-controlled countries, such as
China, the trouble comes from the Connnunist side and not from the United
States side.
It should be made clear that friendly and beneficial relations
Senator Hickexlooper. Pardon me at that point. May I ask you
to explain whether you mean that we should make it clear to the coun-
tries over there that we woidd like to recognize Communist China?
Dr. Lattimore. I think we should. Senator — that we should make
it clear that our wish is to have friendly relations with nations and
peoples. If the governments of those nations, out of political fanati-
cism or hostility, refuse it, that means that those nations and peoples
lose the benefit of association with this country; and, in my opinion,
no country can have anything but benefit by associating with us, and,
therefore, if.they are denied those benefits by action of their own gov-
ernment, then we have a clear case in which the interests of people
and government diverge.
Senator Hickexlooper. By the same token, then, do you believe
that we could get, from our standpoint, nothing but benefit from asso-
ciation with a recognition of Communist China, that is, the actual
Government of China ?
Dr. Lattimore. One of the basic elements in our relationships with
China, Senator, is that they can put no compulsion on us. There is
nothing that M-e have to have from China.
Senator Hickexlooper. We have some several thousand internees
over there that they will not turn over to us. They have jailed our
consular officials in Communist China, refused to let our ships have
access to their ])orts, and it seems to me they are pnttinir a lot of com-
pulsion on it. in one way or another.
Dr. Lattimore. Senator, you are speaking of a matter of immediate
difficulties. I am speaking of the long-term relationships between
countries, and what I mean is that the inherent nature of our relation-
464 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
ship with China is such that, if they want to get the benefit of trading
with ns, they then liave to offer the conditions that make that possible.
Now,' it may well be that it is the desire of the Chinese Communist
Government at the present time to prevent American recognition
Senator Hickenlooper. You also, I believe, indicate that we should
pull out of Japan, because our activities there are at least either futile
or have very transitory benefits.
Dr. Lattimore. Oh, no, Senator. To say that would be to miscon-
strue my feeling about Japan. . rn i. •
Senator Hickenlooper. I don't want to misconstrue it. ihat is
why I asked. I got that impression from your report to the State
Department, and I would be glad to have you comment on it.
Dr. Lattimore. No. I am sure that the relations between Japan
and the United States could be mutually beneficial. What I have
repeatedly emphasized, not only in this memorandum to the Depart-
ment of State but also in my most recent book, "Situation in Asia,
is that we cannot expect to have a successful policy of making Japan
an instrument of American policy, because I think that the Japanese
are in a position where they can work the see-saw against us, between
us and Russia, and will do so.
Senator Hickexlooper. Well then, what is your advocacy, so tar
as continuance in Japan, or our withdrawal from participation in
Ja])anese administration there, is concerned?
Dr. Lattimore. I feel that, in the long run. Ja]ian will have to sur-
vive economicallv, not only by having relations with the United States
but by reentering the economic life of Asia, which is where Japan
belongs. Japan,^ no longer being an imperial country, can no longer
dictate its economic relations with the rest of Asia by the bayonet.
Therefore, the Japanese will have to make trade agreements with
other countries in Asia on terms that are acceptable to those other
countries as well as to Japan.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you in agreement that our policies in
Jaj^ian up until now have been successful ?
Dr. Lattimore. I think our policies up to now have, in large
measure, been successful. I think particularly the early job that
was done by General IMacArthur in the extremely delicate business
of taking over and disarming Japan was brilliant. I think that our
policy of land reform has been a good policy and has been successful.
There are many things that I would criticize in detail, but I think
the general conce]-)t of our policy has been good. ^
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, you say that it is up to the Chinese
Communists, or Chinese Communist Government, to make conditions
that would be at least of a friendlv nature to be in receipt of benefits
from the United States? Did I understand you to say that a moment
ago? ,
Dr. Lattimore. If the Chinese Government wants to have the
Chinese people have the economic benefits of trade with the United
States, then it is not only a question of providing for trade under
conditions that show a fair profit to the xVmerican trader, but it is
also up to them to provide conditions that the American trader will
regarcl as politically tolerable. _ • i ,i
Senator Hickenlooper. How do you reconcile that with the state-
ment in your recommendation to the State Department— your memo-
randum entitled "Submitted to the Honorable Philip C. Jessup, Mr.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 465
Kaynioiid Fosdick," ami so forth — the statement in al)out, I would
!>ay. the first tliird of that statement, in whieli you stated, according to
the quotation in the newspai)ers of April 4, 1950, as follows:
It would be possible, tlierefore. if the mistake is made of waiting for the
( 'hinese Communists to come, hat in-hand, to ask American terms.
Xow, to me that connotes a mistake if the Chinese came to us, and
attempted to lay down, or to offer conditions, or something of that
kind.
Dr. Lattimore. Oh, no. Senator. That was not my meaning.
Senator I[tckexlooper. I do not mean to take it out of context, but
I refer to the general sentiment your expressed there.
Dr. Lattimore, ]My sentiment, general sentiment, is that I have
heard people say that China is so weak, economically, that we can take
a very rough line, a very tough line; that all we have to do is wait and
tlie Chinese will have to come to us, hat in hand, and ask for recogni-
tion on our terms; and, in this memorandum I give the warning that
1 do not think — that I do think that Communist China is probably
economicalh' strong enough so that it cannot be coerced, and if we
simply wait, the Communists will not come to us, hat in hand.
Senator PTickexlooper. A^'ith regard to Formosa, do you think that
we should pull out of any affirmative aid or completely discontinue any
affirmative aid to Formosa as the Nationalist Chinese Government
headquarters? I mean, should we completely disassociate ourselves
with Formosa, Avith the exception x>f fnaybe some food under the
Marshall plan, or something like that ?
Dr. LATTt:\iORE. With that exception of food; yes, I think any
question of continuing military aid in order to enable the present
government there to keep up its existence, as a rump government,
would be a terrible mistake, and in this case I am not thinking primar-
ily or only of China, I am thinking of the sensitivity of the entire
continent and islands of Asia,
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you refer to the government of Chiang
Kai-shek on Formosa as a rump government? It is still the officially
recognized government by the United States, is it not — the Republic
of China ?
Dr. IvATTi^EORE. It is Still the officially recognized government.
Senator Hickexlooper. And there are some 8,000,000 people on the
island of Formosa, are there not ?
Dr. Lattoiore. There are some 8,000,000 people on the island of
Formosa, and on certain pages which I cannot recall at the moment,
of the Department of State's white paper on China, there is a ghastly
descripton of how the Xationalist Government plundered and looted
Formosa, and shot down ])eople in the streets, and so forth, making it
clear why that government in Formosa now rests on a sidlen and
disaffected people.
"We must not make the mistake of thinking that the Chiang Kai-
shek government on Formosa is backed by 8,000,000 people who are
capable of carrying him back to the mainland and watching him on a
successful come-back.
Senator IIickexlooper. But, one of the thoughts that stimulated my
questions is that I believe that Formosa has more popidation thap
Australia, and therefore to say that a government which has the
sovereignty, regardless of the opinions in the white paper, with Avhich
466 STATE DEPARTMENT EAIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
many people disagree, and many of their conclnsions are disagreed
with
Dr. Lattimore. That is right. -, ^ .i
Senator Hickenlooper. Bnt to say that a government that has the
sovereignty over more than 8,000,000 people is a rnmp government 19
probably— I mean it is a statement that I can hardly go along^with,
in view of the fact that it is still the recognized government of China,
recognized by the United States.
Dr. Lattimore. Senator, there are some differences here, ilie
Government of Australia is not a government which has retreated
to Australia with its 8,000,000 people. The Government of Australia
is homogeneous with the people of Australia, and grew out ot th&
people of Australia. The important thing about the Government ot
Australia is that it is not a government over Australia, it is a Govern-
ment of Australia, that has grown out of the people.
In the case of Formosa, you have a Chinese Government which has
retreated to the island of Formosa, and practically nobody in the
present Government of China is a Formosan, or speaks any ot the
dialects that are current in Formosa. In the eyes of the Formosan
people, it is an alien government, and it is the government which
cruelly plundered them and shot them down in the streets m the hrst
davs of alleged liberation from Japan.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, it is your position that i^ormosa
actually, is not actually a part of China?
Dr. Lattimore. Far from it, sfr. My position would be niuch better
expressed by saying that Formosa is much more a part of China than
is the o-overnment which is now trying to claim Formosa.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, do you take it that the people of
Formosa are sympathetic to the Communists in China and desire to
communize the island of Formosa?
Dr Lattimore. I doubt it very much. Senator. 1 think that the
prevailino- feeling amonff the Formosan Chinese is that they are Chi-
nese and that their dest'inv and future lies with China. I am quite
sure that up to quite recently, the Formosans look on communism with
horror- but, they are having forced on them the same situation that
was forced on other Chinese— that conditions are made so cruel tor
them, their government is so harsh and totalitarian that they cannot
believe any propaganda that the Communists can be worse and there-
fore they are being backed into the arms of the Communists, as was
the rest of China. ^. . n r., . n ^ n
Senator Hickenlooper. Now. if the United States pulls out all
semblance of support for the Nationalist Government of China m
Formosa, how long do you think it would be before Formosa would
be completelv Communist-controlled?
Dr Lattimore. I think the present government m Formosa would
then end, in the words of T. S. Elliott "not with a bang, hut with a
whimper," and Formosa would then be with the rest of China and
suffer the same fate, which mav be protty grim.
Senator Hickenlooper. So that, under your ideas and view ot this
thino- the inevitable path that we have to take is to reconcile ourselves
to the complete dominion of continental China by the Communists,
the abandonment of Korea to the Communists, and to accept the in-
evitable result of the communizing of Formosa— is that a fair state-
ment ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 467
If it is not, I would be glad to have you put it in any other terms.
Dr. LAT'riMciKE. I think, Senator, that China, a very big country,
and Korea, a very small country, are both in the same position as
regards the United States. They are part of the whole of Asia which
can no longer'be controlled from overseas bj^ foreign powers picking
out nominees and saying. "You will now rule this country for us, and
if anyboily objects to being ruled by you, we will give you the nuini-
tions with which to shoot them down."
If we attempt any such policy, we push them further under the
control of the Russians, and we know how ruthless the Russians are.
Nevertheless, by reason I think of mistakes, and mistakes against
which 1 warned, in American policy, we have backed them thus far
into the arms of the Russians, and as a consequence we have taken a
licking in that part of the world, and I do not think that pouring
millions of dollars into either Korea, or Formosa, is going to change
the situation, I think it will lead merely to a further loss of our
prestige. I think we have to back otf, and consider how we can again
get into touch with those countries, no longer on terms of defeat, but
on terms of new negotiations in which the relationship, if it is to be
hostile, and those people do not want to be hostile to us, in which the
relationship if it is to be hostile then, that is a disadvantage forced
upon them by the fanaticism of their new rules.
Senator Hickenloopek. Do you believe that we have any prestige
left in China as a residt of the events that have gone on in the last
year or so, and the announced policy of the State Department made
last this winter, and by "prestige" I do not mean isolated individuals
that may think well of us, but I mean prestige in the general terms,
maybe they call it "face" in China, or something like that.
Dr. Lattimore. Prestige, Senator, in the sense of any belief that
our policy, if pushed harder might yet succeed ; no. That is bankrupt.
Prestige, in another, in a deeper sense; yes.
I think that over the past century, there has been built up in China,
among the Chinese people, not among the officials, not among the gov-
erning class, a fund of real aifection for and belief in the United
States, that has not yet been destroyed, even by the China lobby.
Senator HiCKENLOOPER. Now, with regard to Korea, is it not a fact
that the Korean Government and officials Avere elected in a United
Nations-stipervised election, in what might be called a free election,
that is, under the terms prescribed by the United Nations — South
Korea ?
Dr. Latttmore. Now, in South Korea ; yes. In South Korea there
have been elections conducted, after the country had been put very
firmly in the grip of a police force, the inner corps of which was
the former Japanese police. The methods of that police force are
extremely cruel and terroristic and I do not believe that if this police
force, vrhich su])ports Syngman Rhee, were deprived of external aid,
it wotdd be able to keep its control over the people very long.
Senator IIickenlooper. Manifestly, at the time of our going into
Korea it was necessary to preserve law and order, was it not, rather
than to risk chaos and sdl the disturbances that come with a conquer-
ing, so that a ])olice force had to be set up of some kind, and some kind
of an organization foi- law and order before orderly elections could
be held ( Is that a fair assmnption ?
468 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATIOX
Dr. Lattimore. Senator. I do not want to give any impression of
what I believe, becanse I do not believe that American policy in Korea
has been wilfully or in any way viciously mistaken. Nevertheless, we
do have to look"back on the fact that our record in Korea, since the
end of the war, has been a catalog of misfortunes. Unfortunately, at
the end of the war Korea was at the end of the line. There has not yet
been prepared tlie necessary people for civil government, and adminis-
tration, for an interim government of the country.
We landed there with combat divisions, instead of divisions that had
been prepared for the occupation. The people rose up and started to
take over, and to welcome the Americans, but the Japanese radioed
out to the Americans, and presented an alarming picture of disorder,
and received orders from the incoming Americans to maintain law and
order in Korea, which they did, including the shooting down of some
Koreans, and the result was that the very unfortunate impression was
created in Korea that we thought of them as inherently a subject
people, either they must be ruled by the Japanese or they must be ruled
by us, and then after getting in there we installed an interim govern-
ment. We did the best we could. There was a lot of shuffling and
changing of people, and we vetoed some people and tried to get the
best in the government that we could, but it didn't work out very well.
Things have gone from bad to worse. I think the fundamental niis-
take there was the mistake that I had warned against in my book just
before the end of the war. Solution in Asia, pointing out that in a
number of these countries there were bound to be disorders anyhow as
the control situation changed, so that they could not be ruled in an
orderly way by military forces as they had been before. They would
be obviously immature, and obviously if they took over power them-
selves, there would be a lot of trouble.
There was a choice between evils, and I think it would have been
]ess — there would have been less lawlessness and disorder if they had
been allowed to take over themselves, and I think we made a mistake
in being too paternalistic in taking over Korea.
Senator Higkenlooper. Now, Dr. Lattimore, a Russian program or
Communist program has been consistently, for a number of years, for
the defeat of the Nationalist Government in China, and political
dominion of communism on the continent of China, that is true, is it
not?
Dr. Lattimore. I assume so, Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. On their declarations and their statements
and conferences, and so forth, and from the declarations of their
public people, the Communists— the program of the Russians now, and
I take it from public documents or published documents I should say,
the problem of the Communists now is to drive the Americans out of
southern Korea. , . .
Do you agree that that is probably one of their objectives— have the
United States withdraw from southern Korea ?
Dr. Lattimore. I am sure the Russians would— will rejoice and will
take all the propaganda advantage they can, as soon as Korea becomes
definitely untenable and we withdraw.
How far they may go in putting in agents and means to hasten our
Mdthdrawal, I don't know. I presume they are trying to get away
with anything they can get away with. I think the basic thing is that
the situation in itself is untenable for us.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 469
Senator HicKEXLOorER. And it is also a part of the Communist
policy to take over Formosa, is it not ?
Dr. Lattjmuke. I would put it tliis way: I do not think that there
could be any government in China, Communist or otlierwise, that
could afford not to claim that P'ormosa is a part of China. The gov-
enuuent now in power lmpi)ens to be a Conununist government and
they are so churning, but the significant thing here is not the govern-
ment : the significant thing here is that the people of China consider the
])eople of Foi-mosa as a part of the people of China. The people of
Formosa consider themselves as part of the people of China, and I
think we must be very careful to dilferentiate between the people of
China. avIio are overwhelmingly non-Communist, very few of whom
have been converted to comnuniism. and the Communists who are
running the country, who are a very small but a very disciplined group.
Senator HicKEXLOorER. Dr. Lattimore, I want to refer to some
statements made by Senator Knowdand on the floor of the Senate last
niglit. in which he introduced into the record a letter headed "Com-
munist Party of New^ York State,*' dated March 1, 1949, "To all
sections and countries:"
Dkar Comrades : Enclosed please find program for action on China policy, as
voted upon by a united front action conference on China, held in New York on
January 29. 1949.
I am reading from page 4930 of the Record.
AVe are sure that you will find this material not only informative but helpful
in planning actions on Cliina in your communities.
A special outline has also been issued by the National Education Committee on
Conununist Policy in China. This can be secured through orders from our
district education department. The outline can be used as the basis for dis-
cussion in your sections and branches.
Any inquiries in relation to further activity can be i-eceived by writing to the
Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy, at 111 West Forty-second Street,
New York City.
Comradely yours,
May Miller,
Assistant Organizing Secretary.
Then Senator Knowland quoted from that program adopted there
some paragraphs as follows: This is what he quoted from the
program :
Program for action on China policy as suggested by the Action Conference on
China Policy, New York City, January 29, 1949.
2. Demand a new China policy.
A. An end to all forms of American intervention in China and of plans to aid
any elements and remnants of the Kuomintang.
B. Preparation by our (lovernment to recognize the government which the
people of China are now establishing.
C. Planning now by our authorities for genuine and self-respecting coopera-
tion with the people's government in China, including normal and friendly trade
relations free of any political condition.s.
Xow, Dr. Lattimore, I will be very interested in having you tell
me how that differs in almost any detail from the program which
you have outlined for China and for Formosa and for Korea. Bear
:n mind tliat I am not alleging any support on your part for the Com-
muni.st Party. That isn't the point. But I do say that as I read
this and as I understand your answers to the question, there is a
remarkable coincidence of similarity between the very program which
you advocate for China and the program which the Communists advo-
vate for China. 1 will be glad to have you discuss it.
470 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Dr Lattimore. Senator, if my warnings had been followed I think
that this bad situation need never have arisen. The fact is that the
position on Formosa is untenable. We are going to have to give it up.
To have to oive it up in circumstances in which the Communists m
every little partv Communist committee in New York State or any
other State will crow and triumph over us and say, "Boys, we did it,
is going to be very, very humiliating, and I wish we had not got our-
selves into that position. , , • . . ^
Senator HicKENLOorER. Now I want to go back just a moment to
vour answers to some questions that Senator McMahon asked you a
moment ago, in which vou stated, as I understand it, that you believed
that there was indication or reason to believe that Senator McCarthy
mWU have got his information from Mr. Kohlberg or Mr (joodwin,
or something to that effect, because of the similarity of Mr. Kohlberg s
approach to you and Senator McCarthy's approach to you. Am I rea-
sonably correct in that?
Dr. Lattimore. Surely. , , j. a 4.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is it any more unreasonable tor Senator
McCarthy or anyone else to question your attitude on the theory .
when there is a great similaritv between what you have advocated
for China and Korea and Formosa and what the Communists have
advocated? In other words, if this is guilt by association, is it not a
two-way street?
In other words, if it is fair to vou to assur.ie— and I have never
met Mr. Kohlbero- in mv life that I know of, and I don't know who he
is_by the similaritv of his actions to what you interpret to be Senator
McCarthy's actions— if that is a fair assumption— then what is wrong
with an assumption based upon the similarity of your position to that
of the Communist positon in Asia and Korea and Formosa?
Dr Lattiimore. Senator, there is this slight difference: I warned
Pgainst this Formosa situation, this whole China situation. I did not
want it to come up. I suggested everything that I could of that would
prevent it from comino- up. Then it has come up, and the Communists
are now saving the things against it which I warned of. This Kohl-
ber^v-McCarthy thing is something else. Kohlberg says it hrst, and
McCarthy theii repeats the same words, with the same intentiom
Senator Hickenlooper. I believe the record shows that the Com-
munists were advocating a pattern of action as far back as 19-29 along
this o-eneral line in China, the infiltration, capture, and all these things
thatliave come about, so there is a historical position of the Commu-
nist Party, I believe. I am not prepared at this moment to document
it, but it is here in the record some place.
Dr. Lattimore, there has come into my possession at this time wiiat
is alleo-ed to be a copy of a letter from you to Mr. Joseph Barnes,
written supposedlv from 111 Sutter Street, San Francisco, Cjilif., on
June 15, 1943, and supposed to be signed by you as Director ot Pacihc
Operations. As I sav, this is a copy. There is no official stamp on this
letter. It has tlie tlie word "Secret" marked at the top. In the sup-
posed copy of this letter, in the first paragraph, is a reason given
for marking the communication "Secret." I expect to make this letter
available for the records of the committee, and if it is a letter that you
have written, then I can show you a secret document, if it is officially
secret. If it is not a letter that you have written, then the "Secret"
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 471
mark on it is spurious. Therefore I, not desiring to make public any
matter tliat mialit be still ofticially secret — and I have no knowledge
whether it is still officially secret — if it is genuine or not, am going to
liand you this letter and tell you that it came into my possession as an
alleged copy of a letter Avhich you wrote at that time.
I would like to ask you to read it and then tell me whether or not
it is a copy of a letter which you wrote.
Dr. Lattimore. Should I read it aloud first?
Senator Hickexlooper. Xo. That is the reason I am giving it to
you to '^ead, because I didn't want to make it public if it is a secret
document.
(A brief intermission was had to permit Dr. Lattimore to read the
comnuniication referred to.)
Senator Tydings. The commitee will come to order.
Mr. FoKTAS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, in
view of the peculiar situation that is here presented, as counsel for
Mv. Lattimore I would like your permission to make a brief state-
ment about this document.
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. FoRTAS. This document is presented here as a secret docmiient.
I do not know whether it is officially clasified as secret. It is my
recollection that Senator McCarthy referred to this same document
m his statement on the Senate floor 'on :\rarch 30, and in his statement
referred to this document as secret in a way that indicates that it
is classified secret.
Mr. Lattimore tells me that he will be able to identify it as a letter
he has written.
Senator Tydixgs. That he will be able to, or does ?
Mr. FoRTAS. That he does identify it as a letter that he has written,
and he will so state under oath.
I now state to the committee that it is Mr. Lattimore's desire that
consistently with Government regulations this letter be made public,
and on behalf of Mr. Latimore I respectfully request that the com-
mittee take whatever action is necessary to secure the declassification
of this document if it is classified, and to make it public, so as to avoid
any possible ihiplication that there is anything in this letter which
Mv. Lattimore does not desire the press and the public to see.
Xow, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, in making that request and in
making the statement that I have just made, we do not yield any point
that we have made, and which is referred to in Mr. Lattimore's state-
ment, with respect to the use of this letter by Senator McCarthy on
the Senate floor, presumably without securing its declassification.
Senator Tydings-. Mr. Fortas, so that we may understand exactly
what you are proposing. Dr. Lattimore desires that this letter be made
public?
Mr. FoRTAS. That is correct, sir.
Senator Tydings. His only reluctance to make it public so far as
he controls the situation is, he does not want to violate the classifica-
tion rules and regulations and laws?
Mr. FoRTAs. That is correct, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. That is the only objection he Avould have to mak-
ing it public now?
Mr. FoRTAs. Yes, sir.
68070— 50— pt. 1 31
472 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. I think, therefore, that the linrden of whether it
is a cLassified document or is not a chissified document should be
first borne and solved by whoever offers it. As Senator Hickenlooper
has it, I take it for granted he got it from somebody else, so I will
have to ask him if he will not declassify it, if that is possible, or it it
is not classified to establish that fact, so that we can admit it into
evidence and give Dr. Lattimore the benefit of the letter i± he desires
it made public. .
Dr Lattimore. I identify this as a letter written by me, and i wish
to have it put on the record, especially since it will niiilce clear the
fact that the quotations given from it by Senator McCarthy were
distorted and tendentious.
Senator Hickexlooper. Uy purpose in suggesting this letter to you,
Dr Lattimore, is that I personally feel that, inasmuch as the letter
was referred to, the entire letter should, if properly eligible to be made
public be put in the record. I do not want to violate an existing
legal secret classification. That is why I said, if you wrote it voii
had already seen it, so it was no secret to you, and you had classihed
it. If you did not write it, then the "secret" mark was a spurious mark
and would have no effect.
But now that we do not know, :SIr. Chairman, and 1 do not know,
whether this is still classified a secret document, do you recall whether
vou classified this "secret" under the existing authority at that time,
or whether you classified it in your official capacity as ^'secret," or was
that merelv a personal classification?
Senator "Green. Mr. Chairman, as one of the committee, it seems to
me I am justified in asking that examination based on this document
be deferred until it is declassified and we know what we are talking
about. Why should we sit here and hear this colloquy between these
two f^entlenien when we do not know what they are talking about?
Se^iator Tydings. The chairman, if he may, wants to try to accord
to any of his colleagues here every right that is possible, and not to
infringe on the right of examination. I am not going to make any
rulino-'^on it unless I am required to by the committee. However, for
whatever it is worth, I do not believe we should create an atmosphere
of mystery about a document that Dr. Lattimore is desirous of having
made public. I think we should withhold it until he comes back
attain, and in the meantime find out if we can make it public, before
w'e pursue this line of testimony, which I am fearful will only create
rumors and suspicions that may do the Government on one hand,
or this committee, or Dr. Lattimore, some injustice.
So I request my colleagues— I shall not make any ruling on this— to
abide by that observation. Then we can get Dr. Lattimore back and
make it all public, and then everybody, including the people of
America, will know what is in this document.
Senator McMahon. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Senator Hicken-
looper a question? Senator, as you see it now, who has the power to
declassify this document? Is it in the State Department?
Senator Hickenlooper. I presume whoever is the successor in
interest to the OWL
Senator McMahon. The State Department, I believe, took over tlie
OWL I guess the date of the letter would not be a secret. Wliat is
the date of the letter ?
STATE DEPARTAIEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXWESTIGATION 473
Senator TTickexlooper. June 15. 1948.
Senator ^NK'Mahon. How extensive were Senator ]\IcCartliy's quotes
from that letter?
Senator Hickenlooper. I don't recall.
Dr. Laitl-vlore. Faiily extensive.
Senator Greex. And incorrect?
Dr. Lattimore. And incorrect.
Senator Tydixgs. Gentlemen of the connnittee, in the interest of
fairness, if Senator Hiekenlooper will let me read the letter I will
take the responsibility of declassifyino: it right now.
Dr. Lattimori':. Thank 3'ou, Senator.
Senator Tydix^gs. I think if part of it, if it is declassified, has been
uttered on the Senator floor, that affects the integrity or the standing
of the charges made against this wit, that both he and the public are
entitled to have it all made public, so that no false inference can be
drawn from having given just a part of the document.
Senator Hickexlooper. I may say that the chairman may read it,
?o far as I am concerned, or any member of the committee may read
it, but I would suggest before the chairman undertakes the responsi-
bility of declassifying a matter that is legally classified that he ought
to think it over a little bit.
Senator Tydix^gs. I think that might have been a wise observation
if it nacl not been declassified on the floor of the Senate without per-
mission, to the detriment of the present man who stands accused of a
very heinous offense.
Senator Greex. jNIay I ask the Senator who put the stamp of "secret''
on it? Did he, or the person who gave it to him, or the State Depart-
ment, or who? It may not have to be declassified.
Senator Hickexlooper. I think Dr. Lattimore is the one who classi-
fied it "secret."' I personally think that so long as the letter was re-
ferred to on the floor of the Senate the whole letter ouffht to be in the
record eventually, but I think it ought to be properly declassified.
Senator Tyoixos. Unless I am overruled, I am going to ask IMr.
Fortas to read this letter in its entirety. I now ask for a vote of the
connnittee. If part of it has been put in, I Avant it all in.
Mr. Fortas: Senator, I will be glad to do it at your request, but you
are going to have to help keep me out of jail if I do it.
Senator Tydixgs. I will read it myself, so that I will be the one that
goes to jail.
Mr. Fortas. I will be glad to do it as your agent.
Senator McMaiiox. Mr. Chairman, may I ask Dr. Lattimore a ques-
tion ?
Doctor, it is apparent already, froui just reading a few paragraphs,
that you have classified this as secret.
Dr. Lattimore. That is right.
Spuator McMahox. It was written on June 15, 1943, about events
then existing at that time.
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, sir.
Senator ]\IcMaiiox. During the wartime period. I take it that
what is described there is dead and gxme except as it indicates your
attitude at tlie time. In your opinion does this prejudice the interest:
of tlie United States, to have it public at this time?
Dr. Latti.voke. Not in the slightest. In fact. Senator, I thir.k
It is to the interest of the United States that it should be made publico
474 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Let me read it, and I will take the responsibility.
Senator McMahon. I want to make very certain that the commit-
tee does not, in its anxiety to fjet the evidence out, give any aid and
comfoit to people who should not have it.
As I quickly look at it, it seems to be about past events and things
which would not be of any assistance to anybody else. It is all right
with me, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Green. I won't vote. I didn't have a chance to read it.
How did you vote, Senator ?
Senator Hickenloopek. I am utterly neutral.
Senator TydincxS. Mr. Fortas, you may read it at my request and
as an agent of the connnittee.
Mr. FoRTAS. The address on this letter is "111 Sutter Street, San
Francisco, Calif."
Senator Tydings. I would like to say before you read it that I have
no knowledge of what is in it; I diet not hear Senator McCarthy's
speech on the floor ; I don't know whether it hel])s Mr. Lattimore or
Avhether it hurts him, but I do not believe that it is fair play to have
a part of a document read anywhere in a trial as serious as this is,
in a hearing as serious as this is, without putting the whole thing in
so that no false conclusions can be drawn therefrom, and for that
reason, even though it may be stretching the law a bit, as the events
are all over and are now 8 years old, I cannot see M'here the interests
of the Government can be hurt in the slightest, and I think this hear-
ing is more important, perhaps, than any indirect injury that might
come from the reading of whatever may be in its dealing with events
of 8 years ago. So please proceed with it.
Mr. Fortas (reading) :
111 SuTTEK Street,
San Francisco, Calit., June 15, 1943.
Mr. Joseph Barnes.
Office of War Information,
224 West Fifty-seventh Street,
New York, N. Y.
Dear Joe : In your capacity as a member of our Personnel Security Committee
there are certain tilings which you ought to know about Chinese personnel. It
is a delicate matter for me to tell you about these things because of my recent
official connection with Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. For that reason I am
marking this communication secret.
When we recently reduced the number of our Chinese staff in New York it
was quite obvious tlmt there was going to be trouble and that this trouble would
take the form of accusations against the remaining personnel. The fact is that
certain of tlie personnel with wliose services we dispensed had connections out-
side the office. This leads directly into the main question. It is extremely
important from the point of view of security that intelligence information should
not leak out of our office through our Chinese personnel. It is an open secret
in Washington that tlie security of various Chinese agencies there is deplorable.
Any pipeline from our office to any of those agencies is not a pipeline but
practically an open conduit.
However, it is not only a question of Chinese Government agencies. There is
also a well-organized and well-financed organization among the Chinese in this
country connected with .Wang Ching-wei, the Japanese puppet. This can be
traced back to the history of the Chinese revoluti(m as a whole. To present it
in the fewest possible words: f?un Yat-sen was largely financed for many years
by Chinese living abroad. Not only Sun Yat-sen but Wang Ching-wei had close
■connections among the overseas Chinese. However much he is a traitor now. the
fact must be recognized that Wang Ching-wei is a veteran of Chinese politics
with connections which he has nourished for many years among Chinese com-
munities abroad, including those in the United States.
STATE DKPART.MENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 475
on' ti;rc<Ls? of 'r'fn'.'/.I'l..^' K^'i^"^^ '^^^^"'^ exclusively from a few localities
on tiie coast of CI una, practically every one of which is now occunied bv the
Japanese. Thus these Chinese in America have both fan.ily conSions and
o 'l;";tf''r;;iiM"'r'' '■■ • ""•"^' ^"^ ^'""^^-^^ ''' ^be Japanese, and because
or Jii.., uai.s ot political organizm- work Wans? Ching-wei knows all of these
connections and can apply pressure through them
,„9" tlit^ other side there is a special oi-ganization witliin the Kuom-intan^ or
polS ?ndZ-;fi .';"■'•' at Chungking which is charged wiu"mainSng
political and tinancial connections with Chinese overseas This overseas hn-
Hh/lf "^'';^ '^'''-''^''^ knowledge of the Chinese communities in Zerica and
H in everf rblnnf "'"■ ■ ''^a"' ''^''V '^ ''''^ ^"^^^^^ ^^^Ai^'t going oiever?
a> ine\ei J Chinatown in America between the Wang Ching-wei agents and
s ' blelo one^;;r,?o""^^-- I' '""'' '^ remembered that while^re Kifomintang
h^ \uVrt?Tf^ .In P"^"•'^^^^'''•^«^''l Po^tioal party among Chinese residenti
Ins ,l!i, fnnv.i. J' M P^^i-t.^' winch "owns" the Chinese Government and is
tnus able to make use of Chinese Government agencies
■ifl?i|!.'}i'/' -n'"'"'' '''''' ""'"^i"^'"s Chinese in America who are politically un-
afiiliated. There are, of course, Communists but they have neither the monev
;):>n,rn V^'^^^"i,t'*i^" ^f ^^" ^^^-^"^ Ching-wei and Kuomintang groups The
genuinely unaffiliated Chinese are a curious compound product of Chinese pol^
tics and American environment. They tend to be intensely loyal to China as a
country without conceiving that the Kuom-intang or any other political organ
ization has a monopoly right to control of theii- thoughts and ac ions They
demamlfJtiem' 'tT^' ''^' '^ 'r^""''' ^^"^^^'^^ ^'^^--^^l not to have 't
S <Wn /. n ^7 '''''' 1-elnctant to support a regimented series of causes
h -inci iT s,n^ o ffn ""^^^^o^'^l^'-^ • I'l^e Americans, they often give moral and
hnancial support to a scattered number of causes, some of which may even
conflict with each other to a certain extent
tJi'm^rn^lin<?'^!r^" *^A ^^^''^"^ Ching-wei organizing group and the Kuomin-
w! ?3 / ^ "P ''} An:.erica cannot be fought out in the open. Both sides
ts ?n d ;/, . '■"""f .",' ^'''" °2f '^-*"'*"'^ publicity. Each is anxious to bring into
u^ to L Px3I// the unaffiliated Chinese as possible. Each is also anxious
not to be exposed as an "un-American" organization or a foreign political group
working on American soil. Both of them accordingly find it very gooS a?t?cs
not only to cover up themselves but to put pressure on those Whom they ai^
n nn'!f.«'' ^^"1"^ ""^"' ^^^''' '-"^'^•^' ^^ ^^^'^'"^^ unaffiliated Chinese of being Com-
Hin?it nnfs nl''" *'''' ''^^.^^^^''^tion which covers up the accuser at the same time
tnat it puts pressure on the accused
is?be''Nl?fM?"*f'^''-V'V''"^''-"^..P'''"*^ ^^ t^^ unaffiliated Chinese In America
Hnn ?>f , S "''' ^^'^^ ^^^^ '"^ '^^''' ^o^'J^- T'lii'^ i« controlled by an organiza-
tion of laundrymen. I understand that the shareholders number two or three
tlr^''aSoTll^'Z\T'.''''' '"^ ''!:'' ''''''''' "^ "^^ newspaper. The esseS
thing about these laundrymen is that in the nature of their business thev are
independent small-business men. This means that thev are on the one hand
fairly well insilred against Communist theology, since the small-business man
of whatever nationality is likely to be a man who had made his wav bv his
own initiative and enterprise and is therefore extremely suspicious of coilectivist
economic theories. On the other hand, these Chinese Lall busi lei prStors
are reluctant o submit themselves unquestioningly to the control of the vestel
n nfan.^ ""tIS' N^T.^,'"^"" n^-f" £'""'" ^" association with the domina'u S
mintang. The New China Daily News would probably not come under much
fn Wv-''^ '* "^.f" ""* '°-' '^" ^^'"^ '''''' '^ '•'^ ^"^ ^f ^"^ '^^«t edited Chinese pa irs
in America with a growing circulation. It does not need to be subsidized or
supported by a patron, like many, perhaps the ma.Tority, of Chinese papei-s It
pays dividends on its own merits. A number of Chinese language papers in
America receive subsidies from the Kuomintang. At least two an.FTrhaps
'y'f'JTr..'"^"''""' ^'■«™ ^^'^ ^^'-^"^ Ching-wei group. One or wo others
tiace back to the group within the Kuomingtang which was at one time headed
f.'^nl t/"^ S" "r-"^'."- ^ l^'-^^^^'- "f the right-wing faction withiif the Kur^,^!^
rang. The Hu Ilan-min group, though <mce regarded as right-wing conserva-
tnes. are now regarded in China as "old-fashioned liberals-'-liberal so to ^Tak
short of the New Deal. They are le.ss bitterly involved in (liiStown mS
than the Wang Ching-wei and Ku.>mintang groups. The two lat er wh c n re
engaged in handing out carefully colored ne'ws and doctored e 1 oria o Lies
Dniiv v^^^ 'T-^T ""^ '""'^ ^"^^"^ ^" ^^ unaffiliated paper like the New Ch na'
Daily News which, so to speak, flaunts its sins by being so readable that lie
Chinese public in America buys it for its own sake. eau.ioie mat rne
476 STATE DEPARTMExXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
politics of Chinese living ont ot ^^na These ^^ninee^ ^^^^^.^^^
{o the chariot wheels of Moscow ; ^"t ^^^ 7, 'Vai-rofleu willing to snpport parts
totalitarian -^--"^at^on witTim Ch ^^^ 1,^. -^
of the program athocated bj ^^^^.,V"^''f.p, ,,,„„„ l^^in^ out of China that it is not
much a pait of the patteniot politics fUne^sem^^ p,ogram of
uncommon to find wealthy men <^ven " " o'^^^^j^^' ^'^ iSstance, conspicu-
the Chinese Communists •i\yli''^ti-'o n p For such pi'.-si^^ and independ-
ous in Malaya before the t/^^ /^^ S.ngapoie^ For such V^^^^^^^^^ , , ^,
^SlTtli^SdA^ot/t^^
JJiTaJLcJ^i^^a^^llo;' ile^^^^ Chinese abroad at the
same time that it demands tl^ir A--- -;^'S;;^^,ent small-business man,
In the specific setting of ^^"f'-i^f:j\is the mc^^^p^n lent ^^^^^^
ill! H^SHS^^^^^^
••X^d^^M M^ '^'S^^^H^Zor^r^TYor.. omce. conform excellently
to theS re iremeuts. Mr. Chi I have known for many yeai^. U t,l Ms
fnn!i vpstates were occupied bv the Japanese, he was a wealthy landloid. He
ei nlovee of an American Government agency, there will be no difficul y with
eStCmenf no irresponsible playing with Chinese politics, and no leakage to
^"Th?!'et?ntfon?f"both men is therefore a guaranty to the secrecy and security
of the wm^ of the OWI as well as a guaranty of the confident fulfil ment of
dfreTiver I m4e vou not to be high-pressured into getting rid of either man
T I'm w That both men mav be suhiected to attacks. Given time to work on it
coZd und.Xl^ trace' such attacks to their origin and give you the^faU
flefiils I doubt whether tlie Pei-sonnel Security Ccmimittee of 0\\i wouin
be able to rac-e S attacks, rooted in the intricacies of Chinese factiona
polit s to the r ;oun.e: but T should not like to see us placed m a position
here af?er getting rid of people now attacked, we would be forced to hii;e
pe^ le who would actually be the nominee of factions not under our controL
T is ftn- this reason that I have written this long letter to urge you to lepoit
to our Personnel Security Committee the necessity f.u- exercising pronounced
n gnosticism when anv of our Chinese personnel are attacked.
^In the meantime I am doing my best to check over our Chinese personnel m
San Francisco.
STATE depart:mext employee loyalty investigation 477
Once more I ur^e you to observe the strictest confidence in acting on this
letter, because in certain quarters it misht be considered that I am under a
moral oblijiation to see tliat ()\VI is staffed with Chinese who talie their orders
from some source other tlian the American Government.
Y'ours,
Owen Lattimore,
Director, Pacific Operations.
Senator Tydixgs. I hope before you leave tliis letter, Dr. Lattimore,
tliat you will put in the record what the charo-e was on the Senate floor
made by Senator McCarthy and then put that part of the letter which
you say was not correctly portrayed in its relations on the Senate
floor, directly following it, whenever it is convenient for 3^ou to do that
today.
Dr. Lattimore. Thank you, Senator. I was going to ask for per-
mission to do that. I have here before me only some notes from what
Senator ^McCarthy said on the floor, and not the full text of what he
said, but even from these condensed notes I can quote the following
to show the extreme distortion with which this letter was presented:
I quote ; and I am only quoting what is in direct quotes.
Senator Tydixgs. You mean you are quoting Senator McCarthy
now ?
Dr. Lattimore. I am quoting Senator McCarthy now :
* * * fraud and misrepresentation in his intended deception of his superior.
Another quote :
* * * an excellent example of the far-flung Communist discipline so much
insisted upon by Lenin.
Another quote :
O. L. urged strictest secrecy in getting rid of any Chinese wlio are loyal to our
ally Chiang Kai-shek, and the recruiting of personnel solely from the share-
holders of the Communist X'ew China Daily News.
Xow, Senator, I happen to know something about this subject be-
cause for many years, having been interested in recent Chinese po-
litical history, I had become aware of the importance in modern
development of the Kuomintang, of the overseas Chinese, That is a
subject which even to this day is inadequately documented.
I mention a special Chinese organization — may I have the letter? —
within the Kuomintang or Chinese Nationalist Party at Chungking
which is charged with maintaining political and financial connections
with Chinese overseas. I knew something about this because I used
to share a dugout in Chungking with the man who was the head of it,
and in the pre-Pearl Harbor days in Chungking, where we were
sometimes in dugouts for 12 hours a day, there was a lot of con-
versation.
I knew something about the Wang Ching-wei organization in this
country because one of its strongholds was in the San Francisco Bay
area, where I was living.
I was aware of the possibility of trouble through our Chinese per-
sonnel because thei-e had been similar troiible with foreign or foreign-
born personnel of OWL Our principle was that everything going
out over the air as \'oice of America or in print as material distributed
by OWI must be absolutely and beyond a doubt the Voice of America.
We had anot'her principle. In dealing with foreign countries we
nuist deal with those countries as allies. For example, in dealing with
478 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTT INVESTIGATION
Great Britain, we V^^--^ (^'^'^l^^^^ ^:\^ Conl
'"mlt we put out broadcasts and other material praising theEusskn
K.iS So if 1 £ave a decision one way, people won d say, Ah
fe Vs stili woHdng for Chiang Kai-shek." If I gave a election the^
itln'f 1 he thev wonkl sav, "He has turned aganist C hiang Kai-shek.
''&^ow T^dd m^Vo' make quite clear one or two minor points hex..
T wiote 'it would be rash to say that there are no Commumsts con-
LXlwitl^rC China Dail/News." I wrote t^-t because i was
my duty not to give a blanket endorsement.to any ^:!^^-^lfl''^^ ^^J^^
thnt T Guaranteed it had no Communists m it. Ihat is ot a piece
.^dSenZ McCarthy has misrepresente.1 this-with m^^^^^^^^
flvit "we need to avoid recruiting any Chinese Communists, ana i
was mTkino it cleaTthat by recommending Chinese of a certain kind
TwaTnot ^^^^^^^^^ thJt all of them of that kind were free from
LriunTsm They must still go through the regular security check
that everybody went through before we hired them.
Senator Green. How was that misrepresented ^
Dr L.^TmoL. The quote here is "the recruiting of personnel solely
from'the shareholders of the Communist New China Daily News
S^natoi Tydings. And what does your letter say, precisely, on that
point ?
Dr Lattimore. My letter says :
?r;L°S"cSe ,i^?„To"t o7cS""%l.e.e Chinese a,e f.. ftom being fed
to the chariot wheels of Moscow. « » ■
Senator Ttmnos. You went on to say prior to tliat however, that
thev we?e sinall-business men, and therefore less ikely to be Com-
mi^iisrand theVefore you qualified it by saying that perhaps there
"'gr'£:~E. I Sieved that to be a good place to look for per-
sonneirb ™was in no position to give a blanket endorsement to people
^ SeLr^T^NOS. I think the letter and the statements of the Sen-
atoi pretty well take care of each other, and we can study it when we
(TPt around to it in the committee.
^ Semator HiCKENEOOPER. Mr. Chainnan, this is a inat^er I forgot to
clarify when this hearing started this afternoon at 2: 30. At th^
mirnincr's hearings, when I began to interrogate Dr. Lattimore, I said
Tat I expected to a'sk him some questions which had occurred to me as
a resulTof all this publicity, aAd then I expected to ask him some
STATE DEPARTMENT E:MPL0YEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION 479
questions because I had asked Senator JNIcCarthy if there were any
questions that he wouhl specifically like for me to ask Dr. Lattimore.
I did receive a communication from one of Senator ]McCartln''s aides
this morning, just before I came to the meeting, and we discussed
certain things that T understood at that time to be in the nature of a
request by Senator McCarthy that I ask certain specific questions.
Unfortunately, I apparentl}' completely misund.erstood Senator INIc-
Carthy, because at the close of the hearing at noon today he came to
me and said that he had not submitted any specific questions to me to
ask for him, that he did not want me to ask specific questions on his
behalf, that he had not been accorded the opportunity to ask the ques-
tions himself; therefore he could not adopt the device of asking his
questions through a member of the committee.
I am sorry that I misunderstood the situation. I want to assure
you, Mr. Chairman, and everybody else, that I have not asked any
specific questions that were requested by Senator jNIcCarthy for me
to ask. All the questions I have asked are questions that have occurred
naturally to me as a result of reading the various allegations that have
been made; and I want to make it clear that I have not asked, and
shall not ask, at least under present circumstances, until I am specif-
ically asked to propound any questions generated by Senator McCarthy
himself.
I have another question or two.
Senator Tytjings. I would like to say right in that connection that
this matter of cross-examination came up in the committee in executive
meeting, and it was considered there as to whether or not it would be
fair to let Senator McCarthy cross-examine the witnesses. The com-
mittee had in mind, in saying that Senator McCarthy should ask his
questions through the members of the committee, this thought: That
the most entitled persons in all of these proceedings to have a fair
deal are those, even if they are guilty, who are accused of the heinous
offense of treason, near treason, disloyalty, or espionage. Inasmuch
as the Avitnesses accused by these people who have been publicly named
had no chance to interrogate those who accused them, it seemed to us
in line with the sixth amendment to the Constitution, which we call
the Bill of Rights, which entitles every person accused of a heinous
offense to be confronted with the witnesses against him, that the
accused should at least have no disadvantage in the matter, and, there-
fore, as they had had no chance to interrogate Senator McCarthy —
for example, on the very thing just read — to point out immediately,
at the time, the difference between his uttered remarks and the docu-
ment itself, that if we gave Senator McCarthy the right, they had
had no right to cross-examine him either in person or b}^ counsel, and
it would be a most unfair and a Cardinal Mindszenty proceeding, and
one of the things that has revolted America lately has been the convic-
tion of numerous religious prelates and some American businessmen
under methods similar to that which I have just described, which we
are trying to keep out of this committee.
We want to be fair to Senator McCarthy. We want to be fair to the
accused. And we do not feel that we can extend to Senator McCarthy
a right which has been denied the persons accused by him of various
heinous offenses, and, for that reason, the method that was adopted
was voted on in the committee.
480 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenloopp:r. Mr. Cliairmaii, I might just amplify what
I said a moment ago. I have no hesitancy in asking any questions
that a member of the Senate might want to submit to me to ask. I am
perfectly willing. I have asked two or three questions in the last
several clays that various members of the Senate have submitted to be
asked, and I have no hesitancy about that. If I do ask questions that
have been specifically submitted to me, I want to make it clear that
they are questions I have been asked to ask.
Senator Tydings. The press has asked for copies of this letter.
There is only one. If the press will designate someone who will be
responsible for the letter so copies can be made of it, and return it to
the reporter, thej^ may have it..
Senator Hickenloopek. I just want to say, any member of the Sen-
ate that wants a legitimate question asked, or a question that is ap-
ropos to the advancement of this hearing, I am perfectly willing to
ask it as an individual.
Senator Green. Instead of asking you to ask a question, may I ask
a question?
Senator Hickenlooper. You may ask it.
Senator Green. When you explain that Senator McCarthy did not
authorize you to ask questions, did you mean that to refer particularly
to this letter Avhich has just been read?
Senator Hickenlooper. No. Senator McCarthy did not ask me to
put this letter in the record. The letter came into my possession. I
said awhile ago part of the letter had been referred to. I had the
letter in my possession. If it were a genuine copy, I thought the
entire letter ought to be put in the record.
Senator Green. You mean Senator McCarthy did not give you his
copy of the letter ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I did not say that. But I did say that
Senator McCarthy did not ask me to put this letter in the record.
Senator Green. He just gave it to you?
Senator Hickenlooper. No. As a' matter of fact. Senator Green,
he did not give it to me, and it happens to be, I think, just a little
beyond your province to ask questions about that, but the fact is
Senator McCarthy did not give me this letter.
Senator Green. I won't ask any more.
Senator Tvdings. We don't want to get to examining each other
here. We have enough work to do without that.
Senator Hickenlooper. I don't know whether this letter came from
Senator McCarthy or not, but he is not the one who gave it to me.
1 will assure vou of that.
Now, Mr. Lattimore, Dr. Chi, referred to in this letter, whom you
referred to as your friend, is he in China uoav, so far as you know?
Dr. Latti3iore. Yes. He w^ent back to China, Senator, after the end
of the war ; I forget exactly when, whether it was right after or shortly
after. He then became a professor at one of the universities in Peking,
which were then, of course, controlled by the Nationalist Government,
and after the Communists took over at Peking he, like the majority of
university professors, remained there.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is he an editor of the New China Daily
News in China, in one of the cities of China?
Dr. Lattimore. Not to my knowledge. Senator.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 481
Senator Hickenloopek. Is it his son that is now waitin<; liopefully
to he recoiiiiizcd as tlie Chinese representative to the United Nations
on behalf of the Conuniuiisl <j;overnnient of China?
Dr. L.vrriMORE. So I have heard. Senator. His son. whom I had
known first in Xew York in the early 1930's, when he had jnst fin-
islied liis orachiate work at Cohnnbia. hiter went back to China — I am
lint (luite sure when — and entered tlie service of the Government in
Chuii<j:kino:. I then saw him when I was in Chungking again in 1941
and in 1942. Mr. Chi at that time had a higli position in the Bank
of China and also, as I recall, on the Currency Stabilization Board.
His family, his father and Dr. H. H. Kung, the Minister of Finance,
were old friends, and Dr. Chi was treated as an extremely confidential
financial subordinate by Dr. Kung.
Senator Hickexlooper. Now. l3r. Lattimore. I am asking vou now
specific questions that were handed to me by a Member of Congress
during the noon hour.
Senator Tydixgs. Do yon care to identify him ? It is not necessary.
Senator Hickexlooper. I think it is completely irrelevant to iden-
tify Avho it is. It is a Member of Congress who handed me these
questions during the noon hour. He is interested in securing an
answer to them, and I told him I would be glad to ask you the ques-
tions. These are not specifically my questions.
Question : Do you know who recommended you or who was i-espon-
sible for your appointment on the Presidential mission to China when
you went ovei- there as an adviser to Chiang Kai-shek?
Dr. L.vTTnioRE. In 1941. sir?
Senator Hickexlooper. I believe that is correct. The date isn't
here, but I believe that is what is referred to.
Dr. L ATTi^ioRE. So far as I know. Senator, what happened was that
Chiang Kai-shek asked President Roosevelt to nominate somebody
who could be an American adviser. I was called over to Washington
and told that my name was being considered.
Senator Hickex'^looper. Who called you over?
Dr. LATTnroRE. The telephone message came from Mr. Lauchlin
Currie, in the executive offices of <:he President, to the Johns Hopkins
University, a.nd I came over here and. in the first instance, I saw Mr.
Currie. Who suggested my name to Mr. Currie or to the President,
or however it came up, I don't know. Perhaps I was a little bit vain-
glorious in merely assuming that I was well enough known so that my
name would naturally come up when a question of an expert on China
was considered.
I was asked if I cared to name anybody with whom the President
might consult, and I named Admiral Yarnell — Admiral H. E. Yar-
nell — and President Isaiah Bowman, of the Johns Hopkins.
Senator Hickexlooper. When Vice President AVallace made his
tri]) to China you were head of tlie OWI in China at that time; were
yon ?
Dr. LATTmoRE. No. Senator. At that time — let's see; that Avas
1944 — I had come back from San Francisco and, as I recall, I had
resumed my work at the Johns Hopkins, but was coming over to
Washington once or twice a week as a consultant to OWI.
Senatoi- Hickexlooper. And as consultant to OAVI where did yon
meet ? AVhere were their headquarters?
482 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Dr. Lattimore. In flie Eaihvay Retirement Board Building here
in Washington, D. C.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know who suggested your name
to be assigned to Mr. Wallace on liis trip to Cliina?
Dr Lattimore. I don't know, sir, of my own knowledge, in the
introduction to the book that I^Ir. Wallace wrote about that mission
he says, or implies, that it was President Roosevelt.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Lattimore, what were the circum-
stances of your assignment by the United Nations to the recent
Afghanistan trip that you just returned from? , , , -^
Dr. Lattimore. I was called up from New 1 ork by the Economic
Division of the United Nations nnd asked
S-nator Hickenlooper. Who heads that division?
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. David Owen, who is one of the Assistant
Secretaries to Mr. Tryg\^e Lie.
Senator Ttdings. Of the United Nations?
Dr. Lattimore. Of the United Nations.
Senator Hickenlooper. Had you been consulted prior to this
call from New York by the State Department or anybody m it as
to whether you would be available?
Dr. Lattimore. No, Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. In addition to the memorandum of August
1949, which was the memorandum to Dr. Jessup and others that we
referred to, in the State Department, what other memoranda^ or re-
ports have you submitted to the State Department or any divisions ot
the State Department in the past?
Dr. Lattimore. I can't recall submitting any. Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. And outside of the consultations and ac-
tivities that you mentioned in your formal statement this morning,
have you had other consulations with the Secretary of State or any
of his subordinates with regard to Far Eastern Affairs and American
policy in the Far East? -, . ^ .
Dr Lvttimore. The only Secretary of State that I ever met was
Mr Hull I remember it must have been about 1939 or 1940 I came
ovei- with one or two other people from Baltimore— I think only one,
Pi-of Arthur Lovejoy of the Johns Hopkins University— after ask-
ino- for an appointment with Mr. Hull to urge that we take steps to
diminish or cut off the flow of supplies of strategic value to Japan.
Except for that occasion, I have not met any of the Secretaries ot
State
Semxtor Hickenlooper. You have never met Mr. Acheson?_
Dr. Lattimore. No, Senator. I wish I had. I admire him very
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know who the present Director
of Far Eastern Affairs is in the State Department ?
Dr Lvttimore. It seems to me there was a statement m the paper
the other day that Mr. Walton Butterworth had been he^d of that,
but was now assigned to a Japan mission, and that^Mr Dean Rusk
had been appointed-no, wait a minute. Mr. Rusk I midei|tand has
been appointed Under Secretary responsible for the Far East, and
you are asking about China, are you, Senator, specihcally i
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, China.
Dr. LArriMORE. The China desk ? I am not sure.
STATE DEPARTMENT E.MPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 483
Senator Hickexloopi.r. Do you know Mr. Butter\yoi-tli?
Dr. La'itimoki:. I have met him, I think, once.
Senator HiCKKXLcoPKK. Do you know Mi'. Dean Kusk?
Dr. Latti:m()re. 1 luive met Mr. Dean Kusk. In fact I was on a
panel with liim in P]nUulelj)]iia a month or two ago.
Senator Hickkxlooper. That ends the questions that have been sug-
gested to me by this ^Member of Cono-ress.
I woukl like to ask you, Mr. Latt'imore, if your formal statement
of tins morning, which you have read, had been submitted by you to
or seen or ])articipated in by any member of the State Department
or any employee of the State Department.
Dr. Lattimore. Xo.
Senator Tydixgs. Or any member of the committee ?
Dr. Lattimore. Nor any member of the committee.
Senator Tydixgs. I mean this conunittee.
Senator Hickexlooper. Last night, in the session of the Senate,
and I think I can give you the exact quotation— well, I believe I have
a copy of what is alleged to be a direct quotation from the Record •
I won t take time to find it— it is in the Record here, but I am reading
from a copy of a news release issued by Senator Karl Mundt this
nionimg and in this news release there is a quote of what he said on
tlie floor of the Senate last night. He said :
There is a simple formula available t(> Owen Lattimoi-e fo cU^ar his name aii'l
prove his mnocence. All he iieerls to do is to ask the investisating committee to
Ml the I resident in his nehaif to r^^lease his files so that as an American citizen
whose reputation has lieen attacked before the committee he can be siven the
hTrhP n«!! nf Vh^'^'i' ""T^ ".'J'^ iV'""'^'^' demonstrating his ability to clear his name
in tiie use or the facts m the files.
That statement was made last night on the floor of the Senate bv
benator Mundt I ask you if you have any objection to, not the pub-
Jicity of these files; nobody has ever asked to make the files public— I
ask vou if you have any objection at all, Mr. Lattimore, to the five
members of this subcommittee having full and complete access to the
tiles of information which have been or may be in existence in either
the State Department, the FBI, or the Civil Service Commission with
regard to any historical background or information on you.
Dr. Lattimore Mr. Senator, so far as I as an individual am con-
cerned, my record is open and clean. I do not mind any form of fair
investigation that helps me to prove that my name is clean and honor-
able. On the other hand I am not a member of the Government and as
an individual I do not think it would be fair for me ask for special
treatment differing m any way from that which is accorded to other
individuals by the regular procedures of this Government
Senator Hickexlooper. I merely ask you if vou, as an individual
and divorcing yourself from any possible technical questions involved
ex minf H ^' i-elease of files, would have any objection to such an
examination, at least without the intention at the time of the exam-
nation of making any of those files public property. Do you have any
objection to such an examination by the committee ?
T ihoi^Tr'"''''-! ^'^^^^^t^^' you realize that in replying to this question
1 shall not be replying as a disinterested person to a theoretical ques-
nf'^'iv fif"' "" ''?7 ?"'^' "^terested person. In my case, the opening
of m^ files would show me to be a completelv honorable American
citizen, even an American citizen with some modest reason for pride
484 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
But I feel that if I were to ask for that, I should be asking for a
favor, and that I refuse to do.
Senator Hickenlooper. That is all. ^ j „„
Sena or Ttdings. Dr. Lattimore, your case has been designated as
the No 1 case, finallv, in the charges made by Senator McCarthy. You
have been called, substantially, 1 think if not ^-^.f /^.^^"^^'^f ^ ^^^
top Red spy agent in America. We have been told that it we had
access to certain files that this wouid be shown.
I think as chairman of this committee that I owe it to you and to
the con ry to tell you that four of thefive members of tl^^s eomniittee,
in trprelence of Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI had a
complete summary of vour file made available to them Mi. HooAe.
Mm elf prepared those data. It was quite lengthy. And at the con-
clusion of the reading of that summary in great de ail, it was the
nfveial opinion of all of the members of the committee present, anc
a others in the room, of which there were two more, that theie was
noth ' n hat file to show that you were a Commnmst or had ever
eP^M Communist or that vou Avere in any way connected with any
es^nag^Zm^^ or cliarg.s, so that the FBI file puts you com-
iiletelv up to this moment, at least, m the clear.
^Senatol- Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman. T want to uuike the record
clear that I have not been afforded an opportunity—— -rr- u.,.
Senator TvmNGS. I have already arranged tor Senator H cken-
loopTi- who was absent-let me make my .statement if you will-the
1 vv we went to the Departmei:t of Justice to see this file to see it
imself, aga n with me, some day next week, where he wdl have the
sal^e information that was made available to the other four members
''^* kluTiih^'ipt you. You have been taking the whole afternoon,
an^ he cm ™ asked any questions at all. It is getting on
?o 5 o'clock I would like to proceed. There have been lots of times
when I would have liked to have asked questions.
Senator Hickenlooper. May I say that I was absent T <lid not
know about the meeting to look at these files I hope o be aWe to
^ee them I tried to see them this week. It seems that I-ai!1 not
now be able to see them until next week. I can come to no conclu-
sZs about them, and this is the first time that I have received an
affirmative assurance as to the conclusions about that meeting
Senator TvmNGS. I would like to say this nuht there, tliat I would
not have made this statement had not my colleague. Senator Henry
c'borLocTge. Jr., of Massachusetts, after he had seen the fie, on the
floor of the Unit Jd States Senate, in a public speech, made the state,
ment that up to now none of the charg(^ had been proved as true. 1
think therefore, coming from a Republican member of this commit-
tee, a'very distinguished and an able and honest and P^^triotu- mem^
ber of this committee, the chairman can likewise now a> ad himself
of breaking the silence which already has been liroken.
Dr Lattimore, are you familiar with the fact that in the House ot
Representatives recently, by a vote of the House ot Representa Lives,
aid for Korea was denied ? , , . , i ^i -
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, Senator; I had heard that. . t .t i
Senator Tydings. Bv a vote, 1 think, of 102 to 101 and I hmk
the date was January iO. That would, more or less, while not being
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 485
a specific part of the mechanics you recommend, be tantamount to
the same end, only takiuij: it rather abruptly; would it not?
Dr. L.vrTotoRE. Yes; it woidti, Senator. But I didn't tell them
to do it.
Senator Tydings. I mioht like to analyze that vote for you — not
that it is important, but those v.-ho voted for aid were 170 Demo-
crats and 21 Republicans; tliose Mho voted against aid were 01 Demo-
crats and 130 Republicans and 1 member of the American Labor Party,
nuiking 192 to 191. Of course, later on, at the instance of the Presi-
dent, as you know, that action was reconsidered and the aid was voted.
Rut I can't help but draw the conclusion, from some of the questions
asked here, that our investigation is going to have to extend over to
the House of Representatives before we get through.
Have you seen any fact produced in the charges, which I assume
you have read, made by Senator McCarthy, aside fi-om allegations,
wliich the committee could more fully exaniine to show that you have
any espionage connections with the Russians?
Di-. LvTTnroRE. I think T have covered them all. Senator.
Senator Tydixgs. Are you familiar with the fact that a great many
of the people who favor a strong policy in China opposed a strong pol-
icy in western Europe, such as tho Marshall plan when it was voted on?
Dr. LvTTiMORE. I am very much aware of that. Senator.
Senator Tydixos. That is all.
Senator McMahon?
Dr. Lattimore. INIight I add, Senator, that I myself have always
been very strongly in favor of the iMarshi^ll plan in Eurojie.
Senator Ttdixgs. I understand that your philosophy is that if a
test is to come, our resources must be husbanded so that with other
areas that are able to contribute to the ultimate struggle, these areas
will be kept close to us, and be available to throw their weight with
us into the decisiye battle, and your philosophy is that that is western
Europe, and if we spread ourselves too thin we will become so mired
down that we won't have the resources ultimately to fight the great
battle Ayhich we may be called upon to fight for the preservation of
liberty and democracy and our western civilization. Is that a o-eneral
summary of your point of view ? "^
Dr. Lattimore. That is a general summary to which I should like
to add one very important thing; namely, that I believe that the re-
coyery and the strengthening of Europe requires a reintegration of
the interests, and very especially the economic interests, of Europe
and Asia, which, in the circumstances, will have to be a three-way
integration brought about by Amei-ican, European, and Asian cooper-
ation. I need hardly say that the Russians and all Communists very
strongly oppose this idea ; nevertheless, I feel that it is to the common
interest of ourselves and Europe and Asia to build such an integration.
Senator Ttdixgs. Senator McMahon has some questions.
Senator MrAfAHox. Dr. Lattimore, in the period of 19:59 and 191-0,
when the Russian and German Governments were in alliance, there
was a movement in this country. Communist-inspired, to attack the
Alhes on the ground that it was an imperialistic war. When Russia
was attacked, the Daily Worker and the Communist Party were very
much embarrassed because they had to change horses in the midst of
the stream.
486 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I would like to ask you whether, between the outbreak of the war
in Poland and the attack on Russia, you were— well, let me put it this
way • If you had an opinion and made it public, what was it ':
Dr Lattimore. My opinion in those years. Senator was that a very
bad error had been made when the French, British, and Russians
failed to get together in front of the Hitler menace leading to the
Hitler-Stalin agreement. I nevertheless felt that in the, course of
time the aggression of the Germans would bring all three together
^^ITyou remember, those were very confused times. It was the
period when everybody was talking about the ''phony war, the sit-
down" war. TheVe was the period when the Russians attacked 1^ in-
land At that time I was on the Committee of the League of Nations
Union in Baltimore and we voted to make ourselves ad hoc into a com-
mittee to raise funds which were called Fighting Funds for Finland
I was a member of the committee that voted that way. ihat is, i
condemned Russian aggression against Finlancl, not as a questjon of
advocacy but as a question of a political scientist's analysis. I believecl,
unlike the Communists, that the situation which was being created
by the Nazis was going to result in virtually a world alliance against
them
Senator McMahon. Doctor, do I interpret your answer to mean
that you did not participate in that party line thinking during 19o9
and 1940?
Dr. Lattimore. Definitely, Senator.
Senator McMahon. I have no other questions. _
Senator Tydings. The committee will stand m recess until 11
o'clock Tuesday, when it will meet in executive session. 1 will asU:
you. Doctor, tohold yourself available.
(Whereupon, at 4: 55 p. m., the committee adjourned, to meet m
open session upon the call of the Chair.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
THURSDAY, APRIL 20, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington^ D. C-
The subcommittee met. pursuant to adjournment on April 6, 1950,
at 10 : 30 a. m., in room 3t8, Senate Office Buildino-, Senator Millard
E. Ty dings (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Ty dings, Green, McMahon, Hickenlooper, and
Lodge.
Also present: Senators Connally (chairman), and Wiley (member
of the full committee) ; Ferguson, Wherry, Knowland, McCarthy,
Mundt ; Mr, Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel to the subcommittee.
Senator Tydings. There is a very large cro^Yd here. We are trying
to accommodate everyone who wants to attend these hearings, but I
would like to admonish everyone please to desist from audible con-
versation and likewise from movement unless it is necessary. The
press will want to get the statements of the witnesses and all of the
interrogation, and unless we have enough quiet it is going to be dif-
ficult for all of the men who represent the news agencies to get the
answere and to get the questions. So I hope that we will all try to
abide by the request of the Chair.
We are ready to proceed. We have before us Mr. Louis F. Budenz,
who has come to the committee in response to a subpena issued by the
committee to testify in the matter that is now pending before us.
Mr. Budenz, if you will stand and raise your right hand, I will swear
you.
Do you solemnly promise and declare that the testimony you shall
give in the matter pending before this committee shall be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir ; I do.
Senator Tydings. Take a seat, please.
Give your full name.
TESTIMONY OF LOUIS F. BUDENZ, TUCKAHOE, N. Y.
Mr. Budenz. Louis Francis Budenz.
Senator Tydings. Your age?
Mr. Bundez. Fifty-eight.
Senator Tydings. Your post-office address?
Mr. Budenz. Tuckalioe, X. Y.
Senator Tydings. And your present occupation?
487
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 32
488 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BuDENZ. Assistant professor of economics at Forclliam Univer-
^^ Senator Tydings. We will ask Mr. IMor^van to interrogate you, after
which members of the committee will have the opportunity, but it
occurs to me that you might like to proceed in your own way to make
some statement before Mr. Morgan begins his interrogation.
Go ahead, Mr. Budenz. „ . . , i u
Mr BuDFNZ Since I appear before the committee under subpena
as a reluctant if not unwilling witness, I do think a statement would be
in order. The statement I have to make is to be, hrst ot all, my con-
nection with the Communist conspiracy in the United States and the
instructions and directives I received officially as a member of that
conspiracy and in a leading position in that conspiracy. , ,. ,
Secondly, a summary of the evidence that I shall present ; ancl, third,
n statement that this evidence can be corroborated, m my opinion.
First of all, on the first point, I would like to state that for 10 years,
from 1035 to 1945, I was a member of thg Communist Party of the
United States. For a few months I was secretly a member, until Earl
Browder returned from Moscow, when it was decided that I should
be onlv a member. I became labor editor of the Daily Worker, editor
of the(\)mmunist paj^er the Middle West Record, and then managing
editor of the Dailv Worker, which is the official organ of the Commu-
nist Party in the United States. I became also at that time president
of the publication— of the corporation, rather— which was vested with
the control of the publication. ., -r-r • ^
In addition to that I was a member of the Trade Union Commission
in Illinois and New York on various occasions of the Communist
Party, and a member of the National Trade Union Commission.
In my position as managing editor of the Communist Party speci-
fically i attended a number of meetings of the Politburo, or what is
now known as the Nationnl Board, of the Communist Party. This
was considered necessary to keep me advised with the various seg-
ments of the Communist conspiracy and how they were operating.
Senator Tydings. Will you name that board again?
INIr. Budenz. It is the Politburo, technically, based on the Politburo
in INIoscow, but known today as the National Board of the Communist
Party. , -, ■, i.i
Senator TydtnCxS. Right there, has it ever had any other names than
the two that vou have mentioned? -r> v •
Mr. Budenz. Yes, Senator. It was also known as the Political
Committee of the Communist Party, the National Board of the Com-
munist Political Association, and the National Board of the Com-
munist Party, so far as I can recall.
This is the dominant board in the Communist organization, although
the Communist Party, being organized on a strictly espionage and
conspiratorial basis, has various rings which are not associated
always with each other, and has a secret committee which is m touch
with"the Communist International representative. That committee is
composed of such men as Alexander Trachtenberg; Robert William
Weiner, the secret ^'nancial agent of the Communist International ; the
late Joseph Brodskv, the attorney: Alexander Bittelman, chiet
theoretician of the Communist Party, an illegal alien here, as are a
number of these gentlemen : and-otliers, so that the Communist Party
is set up on not a democratic basis but a conspiratorial basis.
STATE DEPAHT-MKXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION 489
However, in this i)ictiire the Politburo played a considerable part
in receiving- insti-iictioiis and in ofivino- directions.
In addition to my attendance at tlie Politbnro from time to time
Senator Tvdixos. From wliom does the Politburo receive in-
structions?
Mr. HuDKXz. The Politburo receives its instructions from the Com-
munist Intermitional representatives, who receive them from Moscow.
From time to time I attended the Politburo meetings, althouah j
did not attend all of them. I was not a member of the Politburorbut
was called ni)stairs to Avhat we call the ninth floor in the building at
35 East Twelfth Street, which is the headquarters of the Communist
Party. In addition to this official connection, it being requisite on
me to attend certain of these meetings in order to understand what
was occurring within the Connnunist movement, I also received direct
instructions, well almost hourly, as a matter of fact, but certainly
every day, from the liaison officer connected with the Politburo. We
iiad a liaison officer appointed who gave me instructions from day to
day and in addition to that kept refreshing me on a list of about a
fh()U.-<and names which I was compelled to keep in mv mind as to their
various attitudes toward the party, the various shifts and chanaes,
whether a man had turned a traitor or whether he had not, and things
of that sort. This list was not put down in writing because of the
fact that it might be disclosed, consequently I was compelled to keep
It in my mmd, and this representative of the political bureau, the
i ohtburo, kept refreshing my mind on this list of names. In that
May I could examine a copy of the Daily Worker or any information
or receive information intelligently.
The representatives of the political bureau to the Daily W^orker dur-
ing various years were in turn successively Alexander Bittelman, the
chief theoretician of the party, illegal alien, long resident of the United
States: William Z. Foster; iLugene Dennis; and Jack Stachel. Jack
Stachei is perhaps the most powerful member of the political bureau
having assigned to him constant contact with the Communist Inter-
national ap})aratus, however the word may come or howe\er the orders
and directives may be received.
During the latter part of my association with the Daily Worker in
tact during a considerable part. Jack Stachel having come out from
the uiuiergrcHind where he had been hidden for quite a while during
the Hitler-Stalm period, became the liaison man with the Daily Work"^
er and was so until the time that I left in October 1945. Therefore a«
managing editor of the Daily Worker I received these instructions of-
licially as to what to do, as to the attitude to take on individuals, and
as to other matters connected with the efficiency of the Communist or-
ganization m this country, includino- from time to time its infiltration
into various organizations and other kev spots in this country
In connection with this infiltration, "l would like to state that de-
tailed names were not always supplied me, but the general picture or
large-sized names were given to me where it would guide me, but the
names of small fry, if you wish to call them that, of those who were
iimitrating on a small basis, were ke])t secret by men like Eugene Den-
! i""^' t^"" was specifically, as I know, among other activities, infiltratincr
the Office of Strategic Services, and other men of that character, thos?
vested with the responsibility of immediate infiltration. Therefore it
490 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
IS what we might call the large-sized names or people who stand out
who were given to me, or who were active, or who m some other way
were significant. . -> • ^ 4.-
Therefore these instructions and recommendations and mtormation
came to me in my official capacity as managing editor of the Daily
In this connection, although I do not wish to develop this testi-
mony myself. Senator, I would like to give a brief summary of my
^VhaUs'to say, among the cells organized was a cell in tlie Institute
of Pacific Relations. This was an organization, not a Communist
organization, founded by the Young Men^s Christian Association, it
I am correctly informed. .
Senator Tydings. Mr. Budenz, in order to clear up any misunder-
standincr, are you referring now to the cell as not being a Communistic
organization, or the Institute of Pacific Relations not being a Com-
munist organization? . „-r> -n^
Mr. BuSenz. The cell was Communist, but the Institute of Pacifac
Relations was not a Communist organization. , , ^ t ^ i
Senator Tydings. I was sure that was what you meant, but 1 wanted
to make that clear on the record. -pu.f.^^nnl
Mr. Budenz. It is somewhat the same as the Uj^ted Electiical,
Radio, and Machine Workers Union, composed of 500,000 patriotic
Americans, but who have been directed and guided and misled by a
crroup of Communists who held 95 percent of the offices. A\hile^the
Institute of Pacific Relations I will not say had 95 percent of its
offices in the hands of Communists, I will say it was successfully in-
filtrated by the Communists, and it was to a large measure mtiltratecl
and controlled during a period by them. , . ^ .1 ^ • i ,„
Senator Tydings. Would vou fix when you think that period ^^as
that vou think it was controlled by the Communists ?
Mr Budenz. I would like to testify. Senator, only on what came
to my knowledge in the party. I don't want to engage in speculation
so that I would sav that I knew of this in 1936, from then on. That
doesn't mean that I knew the various episodes then; it does mean that
1 knew, for instance, Frederick Vanderbilt Field, a Communist whom
I knew first as Comrade Spencer; and then lat^r on as Mr. -bield,
that he was one of the sources of infiltration He became Secretary
of the American Council of the Institute of Pacific Affairs, and to
my knowledge reported to the Politburo. I have been there when
he reported. Therefore he was one of the agencies of infiltration.
With him was associated Philip Jaffe; though he was not imme-
diately in the Institute of Pacific Relations, he was connected with
Mr. Field surreptitiously in China Today. That w-as an open Com-
munist publication which advocated a Red China. China Today was
edited, at least to my knowledge, by Ml^ Field under the name of Mr
Spencer at the very same time that as Frederick Vanderbilt Field he
was operating in the Institute of Pacific Relations as Secretary of the
American Branch. . , ,, -r ^-^ . £ t> r.;f\^
Mr. Jaffe was not officially connected with the Institute of Pacific
Relations, but made many contacts there according to the official re-
ports made to me. Mr. Jaffe was editor, by the way , of China 1 oda>
at one time under the surreptitious name of Philips, but it 1 recall
correctly he later put his own name there.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 491
Around the Institute of Pacific Relations also was established the
niao-azme Anierasia, of which Mr. Jaffe became editor, and which also
Avas designed to influence Pacific affairs. Mr. Jaffe and Mr. Field,
I might tell this committee directly, to my knowledge are solely
esjiionage agents— Frederick Vanderbilt Field and Philip Jaffe.
In this cell there was also Owen Lattimore. This I know from
reports received in the Politburo, and given to me officially as man-
aging editor of the Daily Worker. Mv, Lattimore, when I first
learned this in 1937, was connected with the publications of the In-
stitute of Pacific Affairs. In a specific meeting to which I refer, Mr
Lattimore was commended by Frederick Vanderbilt Field and Earl
Browder for the fact that he had been responsible for the placino- of
a number of Communist writers in the organs of the Institute of*Pa-
cific Affairs, of which he was then the editor. Among these writers
reported to me, although that may not have been in 1937, was James S.
Allen, for instance, representative of the Communist International in
the Phihppmes. who also became foreign editor of the Daily Worker.
James S. Allen wrote for Pacific Affairs during the editorship of Mr.
Lattimore. I could name a number of other Communists, but I shall'
perhaps defer that until later.
In 1937. then, at a meeting called by Earl Browder, it was brought
forward that M'e were now under instructions to name the Chinese
Communists or represent them no longer as Red Communists, but we
iiad formerly played them up as being the spearhead of the revolution,
with their Soviet Army, the Red army, and the like. But we were
to begin to represent them, as Earl Browder said, as "North Dakota
nonpartisan leaguers."
Field Avas present at that meeting and made a report at which he
commended Mr. Lattimore's zeal in seeing that Communists were
placed as writers in Pacific Affairs, and that this had been particu-
larly noted during this last year, 1936 and 1937. Mr. Browder also
referred to that, and it was agreed that Mr. Lattimore should be given
general direction of organizing the writers and influencing the writers
in i-epresentmg the Chinese Communists as agrarian reformers or
as JNorth Dakota nonpartisan leaguers.
Senator Tydixgs. Was Mr. Lattimore present at the meeting where
•this occurred?
Mr. BuDExz. Oh. no, sir. He Avas not there.
Senator Green. Do you knoAv Mr. Lattimore?
Mr. BuDENz. Do you mean personally?
Senator Green. Yes.
Mr. BuDENz. I do not.
Senator Green. Have you eA-er seen Mr. Lattimore ?
Mr. BuDENz. No, sir; I have not. As a matter of .fact, however, I
did not see Mr. Alger Hiss, either, and I knew him to be a Commu-
nist and so testified before the House Committee on Un-American
Actmties.
Senator Green. But you are not reasoning that ev^eryone you have
never seen and never heard may be a Communist. Is that your ar-
gument? "^
Mr. BuDENZ. No, sir; that is not.
Senator Green. All right, sir; go ahead.
492
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr BUDENZ. In regard to another event that I could testify to I
in 1943 at a regular meeting of the political bureau, at which Mi.. ■
Bromle'r was present and others whom I could name it was again
Sicially reporJed that Mr. I^ttinioi^ throi^^ M. ^.e^^^^-^-^v d
rJd fj;rr:p;:r^s^;nW was t^ be a cl^ange of line on
nMnl Kai-shek This is one of those complicated incidents which
S m-ld in Com^^^ Hne development and I shall have t. exphun
that in more detail than I perhaps shou d do in my summary How-
^:^?;ilcHn Col^l^^ium^ l^e^e(o=^ and I shall have t. expla.1
that in more detail than I perhaps shou d do in my s^"^^-;;ry- Ho-
ever I would say that there it was decided that the 1 ne ^^ as to attack
Chhmg Kai-shek: that, as a matter of fact. -^ ^'^^ ^f ^^''"^^
to be p^it in one of the organs of the Institute o 1 -'l^;^; ^^^^.^^^^^^^^^^^^
lid so appear, by T. A. Bisson, declaring that Nationahst China
Chiang Kai-shek: that, as a matter of tact. ^^ ^''^^f "^^^2^
to be mit in one of the organs of the Institute ot Pacific Relations; and
t dX^am^ar, by T. ATBIssou, declaring th^Nanona^t^hma was
feudal China, and Red China was democratic Ch na. \f '^^^ ^he samt
.:...„ i.^„,„..„,. ^,. ^vrlpv tn o-Pt instructions, cabled to Moscow latei.
time however, in order to get instructions, cabled to Moscow laiei.
afte'- on e discussion of this matter, and received an article back bv
one named Rogoff, which attacked the appeasers m China, as it called
kid directed it Against Chiang Kai-shek, although I am not certain
hat le nientioned^Chiang Kai-shek by name. 1 have not had the
o u ortunitv to examine the article since. It was an important arte e
bee use later Rogoff denied the article and m addition to that said he
was mfsi^present^ed, and in addition to that Harriet Lucy Moore, m the
Institute if Pacific Relations, said that there had been a mistake made,
^^rrmi^S'o? SS what happened, accoi^ng to the in^n^on
received by us, was that from that time on we did go after Chiang Ivai-
shd in thJidea of a coalition government. The coalition government
w^. a device used by the Communists always to slaughter those whom
^ev brought into the coalition, and Moscow had some difficulty in
ad'iing the Communists to oppose Chiang Kai-shek, but a the same
time to'idvise the public that we were still for Chiang Kai-shek, be-
c iise they had to plead the coalition government, and coalition mea.is
Jhat you do not denounce publicly the person you -}^^-^^^;^^,
That has occurred many times, and with opportunity I could pi ese^it
to he committee documentary evidence t^hat this has occurred many
thnes in Communist policies, where this difhculty has arisen, of Mos-
cow advising you how to act yourself, and at the same time to pu
forward a public policy of praise for a certain group with whom >ou
are cooperatine: only to destroy them. i , t i a^ i i
In addition To that, in 1944 I shall be able to state tl^at Jack St ache ,
at the time Mr. Lattimore went to China as an adviser to A^ice 1 lesi-
fen Hei 1 y Wallace-and by the way, Mr. AVallace^ trip ^^^s followed
with veTV great care and detail by the Communist Party-that at^ldiat
time Jack Stachel advised me to consider Owen Lat imore as a Com-
mmiist which to me meant, because that was our me hod of ch^cussing
Siese matters, to treat as authoritive anything that he would say or
^"^A'ain in 1945, Senator, there arose the Amerasia case, the stealing
of documents from Washington by Mr. Jaffe. I can say that, because
he pleaded guilty and was fined $2,500.
Senator Tydings. In what year was that? j . -i ^«
Mr BuDENz. 1945. I don't want to go mto too much detail on
this but I would like to state that there was consternation on the
ninth floor of the Communist headquarters at the time of these raids
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY L\\ ESTIGATION 493
on Anierasia, tliat the first decision was to represent Mr. Jaife and
us associates as Nazi-Japanese agents; that is, for the time beincr,
l.ut that that was thrown overboard the next day. It was tliere re-
ported that some of the defendants, at least— I remember the names
ot, well. 1 thmlc perhaps the names of these defendants had better be
mentioned m executive session, unless tlie Senators feel otherwise,
tor this reason : I mean to say 1 am perfectly willing to mention them,
but 1 think that maybe m justice to the Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion that slioiild not be done. ^
Senator Tydixgs. Just hesitate a moment.
I conferred with the members of the committee, and you may crive
any names you want m executive session, and if I am wrong in stadng
the position of the committee I hope any member will correct me
it at any tnne you feel that there is any part of your testimony that
you should deliver, for reasons that you deem wise, in executive ses-
sion, you may tell us and we will arrange for that sort of hearing,
or you may testify in tlie open, as you see fit. Is that satisfactory to
alJ the members ol the committee ^.
Senator Hickenlooper. No ; not necessarily, Mr. Chairman. I feel
tiiat It this witness bases his request for mentioning names in execu-
ive session on tlie ground that to mention them publicly would
hamper the normal operation of present activities of the P^deral
liureau ot Investigation, that we should consider that. If it is only
a matter of this witness" own personal preference, I think he should
mention them m public. But if there is some overriding public in-
terest that in his niiiid demands that they be mentioned in private,
tiien 1 am willing to consider it.
Senator Tydixgs. That was what I intended to sav. However I
l>robabIy did not express it as clearly as the Senator from Iowa. Tliat
was tlie purport of what I intended to say.
Senator Green would like to be heard on this matter.
Senator Greex. I would like to ask the witness first whether he has
given these names to the FBI.
Mr. BuDEXz. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. All of them {
Mr. BiDEx?. Yes, sir.
The reason that I mentioned this is not because of any personal
preference The reason is because, well, I think in executive session
I could better explain the position of certain of these gentlemen
Senator Greex. Have you also given to the FBI all the evidence
you have against each?
Mr. BuDEXz. I am not certain of that. Senator.
Senat4)r Greex. You should.
Mr. BuDEXz. I should, but the point is, I have given more time
Senator to the FBI than any man in the United States. Sometimes I
give 18 hours a week. I do not mean that I shouldn't do better than
that. I am trying to make amends for some of the things I did but
there is just a physical limit to what I can do. I have been so occu])ied
with prosecutions— you understand. Senator, in the prosecution of the
II Communist leaders I devoted every day that I had a holiday, in-
cluding my Avhole Christmas holiday, to the Government representa-
tives and to the FBI. Well. I mean, I can't give the FBI everythincr
1 know because of the physical limitations. That is, I sliall jVive tS
tiiem, before I shall make anything public, all the information I have.
494 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Green. Do I understand that yon have some evidence
against some of these persons wliich you have not given to the 1^ 131 i
^'llif B^^ENZ. Yes, sir; there is. And that is only due to physical
"senator Green. Yes. Then I think you are not in a position to give
it to the committee for the same reason, is that not so i ... , y
Mr BuDENZ. I think that is correct— well, to the committee^ i
would have to consider very seriously. You see, m giving evidence a
man has to give some consideration to the circumstances and the tac.s
surrounding them, and that is another matter involved here that 1
want to think over very carefully, exactly what I can honestly say
about these defendants. . , .. ^ ,i v^.^^ ;-p
Senator Green. Why do you suggest givmg it to the committee it
you haven't and do not propose to give it to the FBI i
Mr BuDENZ. Oh, Senator, I only meant to give to the committee
those facts which the committee thinks in good conscience I can give it.
That is to say, I do not intend to give to the committee, unless they
insist upon it, evidence which I have not given to the h Bi.
Senator Green. Then you do not propose of your own yohtion to
give to the FBI all the evidence you plan to give to the committee (
Mr Budenz. Oh, ves ; I do. I intend to give to the FBI everything,
and have to the best of my ability given to them every bit of mtorma-
lion As I say, if I may put it that way, I really do not know of any
man— of course the FBI may— who has given so much time to the
Government agencies as I have. That is to say, sometimes, although
this is not normal, I have given 18 hours a week. I gave all last year
every holiday that I had to assisting the Government m the trial ot
the 11 Communist leaders, and there are other matters ot that kind
which I do not wish to detail to take up your time. .
Senator Green. The reason I asked these questions is because i
attached a condition to my consent to the action of the committee, and
it is that you give to the FBI all the evidence that you propose to
oive to the committee. rr^-, , ■, i
"" Mr. BiTDENz. I will be glad to do that. Senator. That has always
been mv attitude. Senator. -, -, p x- ^ i «
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge has asked for time to make a
^ Senator Lodge. In view of this interruption, T would like to repeat
my conviction, which I have often expressed before, that these public
pTOceedin-s in all Drobability hamper our investigative agencies and
certainly in.iure the American position abroad, and m the tuture i
ho])e that this and all similar investigations will be energetically car-
ried on behind closed doors, and that is where I will ask my questions.
It is obviously impossible to make a determination here as to what—
that is, a certain determination as to what— it is that you can say in
public and what it is that you must say in private, insofar as the best
interests of the United States are concerned, so we ought to do this
in private and then come out with our conclusions m public, m my
^^™nator Tydings. We will have an executive meeting of this com-
mittee at 10:30 a.m. in room G-23 in the Capitol. It will be very
proper for any member of the committee to make a motion about
STATE DEPARTMENT E.MPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 495
future hearings at that time for the consideration of the full com-
mittee.
Proceed, sir.
Mr. BuDENZ. Continuing, Senator, it Avas there reported by Jack
Stachel that Mr. Lattimore had been in touch with some of the de-
fendants, or they had been in touch with him, and that he had been
of service in the Amerasia case. That is a summary of my evidence.
Now, in addition to that, however, I would like to say that up until
1940 or '41 — of course when I say it is a summary of my evidence, it
isn't the full body of it. In 1940 or '41, up until 1940 or '41, the Polit-
buro of the Communist Party issued throughout the country on onion-
skin documents which were official documents sent to the national
committee members, and also I can't say to my knowledge, but to my
best information, officially received, sent to iSIoscow. These Politburo
meetings were full of the whole discussions which were conducted.
They were on onionskin paper and were sent to a common center
through a mail drop and distributed to the members of the national
committee. I recall that very specifically in Chicago, for example,
wliere we received them through Morris Childs, representative of the
Communist Party there.
These documents in the discussions on the Far East referred to
various people in the party by their initials, because otherwise they
would be disclosed, and in those documents in the discussion of Mr.
Lattimore his name appeared under the initial "L" or "XL." I was
so advised by Jack Stachel in the office in New York and as a matter
of fact, these onionskin papers were considered so confidential that
we were forbidden to burn them. We had to tear them up in small
pieces and destroy them through the toilet. Then later we were or-
dered to give them to a common center.
As a matter of fact, much of the Communist devices are carried on
through these onionskin instructions, which constantly are carried
forward. The reason burning is forbidden is that it would create at-
tention and would leave embers.
However, I do wish to state that on these reports to the Politburo,
some of which may be available, 'though I don't know where they
would be— there is the initial "L" or "XL" on far eastern affairs,
which refers to Mr. Lattimore. We were so advised and instructed
for our information.
The third thing I would like to bring to the attention of the com-
mittee is that with due diligence and investigation — and I am just
making this as a recommendation, not in any way passing comment
on the investigation, I think you understand — corroborative evidence
can be obtained. I would recommend to this committee that they sub-
pena Frederick Vanderbilt Field, all of his financial accounts and all
of his records. I accuse him here as a Soviet espionage agent who
used money to influence the Institute of Pacific Relations.
When I say I accuse him, Senator, I have not all the facts. I accuse
him on the basis of information stated by Mr. Field in reports. I
recommend that Philip Jaffe be subpenaed, and that Jack Stachel
be subpenaed, and perhaps Earl Biowder, but certainly Jack Stachel,
as the man who is the center of all these instructions and activities,
and as the man who gave me direct instructions in these cases.
496 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
It niiiy be that as Communists they will not corroborate fully my
evidence, but one thing can be elicited from them, and that is a great
number of facts which will support strongly what I have to say.
In addition to that I am sure, although this was confined, Senator,
to a very small group — we must understand the Communist con-
spiracy, namely that it is not a democratic body, operating through
rings and subconnnittees. Although this was confined to a small
group, I am sure there are other witnesses that can be obtained that
will testify on this matter.
Then, in addition to that, I have not the time to present, although
certainly I wish to appreciate the courtesy of the committee in per-
mitting me to appear on Thursday rather than Monday; I have not
had the opportunity to examine the many documents that I can present
to this committee in what I consider to be corroboration. The commit-
tee may think otherwise, but that is my thought.
I would like to have the privilege of about 2 weeks to present this
documentary evidence, in order that it w^ill be done properly. I
would be very glad to do that, and to present to the committee docu-
mentary evidence which will take me time to assemble.
However, I do wish to present, in corroboration of my testimony,
an article by a man who is an expert on the Far East, the Rsverend
James F. Kearney, of the Society of Jesus, in his article on Dis-
aster In China appearing in the Columbia, the official organ of the
Knights of Columbus, in September 11)41). In this article Father
Kearney declares, "There are those who believe, though, that no
Americans deserve more credit for the Russian triumph in the Sino-
American disaster than Owen Lattimore and a small group of his
followers.'' But Father Kearney doesn't make this charge. He ex-
amines Mr. Lattimore's record and his declarations and his activities
to support it.
I wish to present this to the committee as the first corroborative
evidence.
Senator Green. May I ask you whether you have given the FBI
these documents, submitted them to them, which you propose to submit
to the committee ?
Mr. BuDENZ. I think that I have, Senator.
Senator Green. Don't you know whether you have or not?
Mr. BuDENz. Well, Senator, I have cooperated with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation to the utmost of my ability.
Senator Green. For a long time. You told us that before.
Mr. BuDENZ. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. I want to know whether you submitted these docu-
ments to the FBI.
Mr. BuDENz. My impression is that I have.
Senator Green. Don't you know ?
Mr. BuDENz. I know that I have called their attention to this docu-
ment and to the next one I intend to present.
Senator Green. You spoke about documents it would take you 2
weeks to prepare.
Mr. Bfdenz. Those documents, I have not had an opportunity to
present those.
Senator Green. Have you given the same advice to the FBI that
you have kindl}^ given this committee as to whom we ought to inves-
tigate?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 497
Mr. BuDENz. Well, the FBI knows pretty well that I think Frederick
Viuulerbilt Field should be investigated.
Senator (treex. That is not my question.
Mr. BuDEXZ. I misunderstand.
Senator Green. :My question is, have you given the FBI the same
advice that vou have given this committee?
Mr. BuDEXz. I don't know that I have. I am not certain of that.
That is to sav, after all, as I say, there is a physical limitation to how
manv conferences I can have with the FBI. I gave to the FBI every-
thing tliey ask of me, and in addition to that, of course, from time to
time I have to check on the information.
Senator Gkeex. Don't you think it is the duty of a good American
citizen to notify the FBI when you have suspicions, based on evidence,
and to supply "them with the evidence? Don't you think that is the
dutv of everv good American citizen?
Mr. BroExzr Well. Senator, if you will examine the hours I spent
Avith the FBI giving them information from the first 3 days of Notre
Dame until the present day, I will say, unless the record can be chal-
lenired successfully, that no American has given so many hours to the
FbI, and at all houi-s of the day and night, and at any time, as I have.
I will say. Senator, that I believe every bit of information should
be given to"^ the FBI, but there is a physical limitation, particularly
when you have to have a responsible position and have to check care-
fully on what a^ou present to them.
Senator Greex. If you think this evidence is so important that this
committee should investigate it thoroughly within '2 weeks, don't you
think you should have brought it to the attention of the FBI?
Mr. BuDEXz. As I go forward I wish to assure you. Senator, that
I shall give every document to the FBI.
Senator Greex. I am not asking about what you are going to do
in the future. I am asking about your conduct in the past. Don't
you think it was your duty to bring it to the attention of the FBI?
Mr. BtTJEXz. I do think "it was my duty, but I also Icnow that physi-
cally I have certain limitations.
Senator (jreex. We all have.
Mr. Bt:t)exz. And I contend that 18 hours a Aveek of the time of a
person with the FBI— and I do not want to represent that that is a
jegular thing, and I contend that every week holiday and my whole
Christmas holidays and all other times'l can be reached, I give to the
FBI, or I mean to government agencies. I cannot see how I can do
more. I am ready to give to the FBI every bit of documentary evi-
dence I have, and that has been my attitude alwavs. In fact, I try as
hard as I can always to give the FBI materials first of all. In fact,
that is my general practice.
Senator Greex. Then if I may summarize your testimony, it is that
you have not given this documentary evidence to the FBI, and you
have not given tliem the advice y<>i' have given us.
Mr. BuDEXz. Well, Senator, I believe that that may be in part tech-
nically correct, but I would like you to consider tluit on these docu-
ments I have called them to the attention of the FBI. Whether I have
physically handed them over to them I do not know. I have called
them to their attention.
498 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
In regard to the recommendations I made about Frederick Vander-
bilt Field and Philip Jaffe and Mr. Stachel, well, I did not know
whether that was essential. I give them information ; I didn t know
it was essential to make recommendations to them.
Senator Tydings. Proceed with your statement, :Mr. Budenz. Go
1 n p *i f I
Mr. Budenz. I would like to also present as the first part of the cor-
roborative evidence, though by no means that which I shall eventually
present to the committee, the New Masses of October 1937.
Senator Tydings. You know that magazine well, as I believe i can
identify it. That is a Communist magazine, is it not ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. u v i i
Senator Tydings. Is that an official organ of the party, or published
independently bv Communists? , ^ i .
Mr. Budenz. That is officially under the control ot the party,
although it has a separate organization, but it reports regularly to
the Politburo and is financed in part by the party. As a matter ot
fact, it is completely controlled by the party. It, by the way, is not
in existence anv more. They have changed it over to a new magazine.
But the New Masses was the Communist Party publication for the
intellectual and professional classes. ivr t ^ i
This is an account of the trip of Mr. Lattimore, Mr. Jatte, and
Mr. Bisson to Red China, written by Mr. Philip J. Jaffe, and at the
end w^e have a commendation here of what happened by Miss Agnes
Smedley, whom I know from her ow^n admission to me nearly— let s
see— 30* years ago, when she was married to Eoi, the Indian Commu-
nist leader, as a Soviet spy, and Miss Agnes Smedley ends up here—
I have further confirmatory evidence of that, through the reports ot
the late Harry Dennis and others, but Miss Smedley herself acknowl-
edo-ed that to me when she was married to Roi, the Indian Communist
lea'cler, under circumstances which I could not divulge, but^she con-
cludes, at the end of this statement of the trip of Philip Jaffe, Owen
Latimore, and T. A. Bisson, with what it meant to the Chinese Com-
munists, and Mr. Jaffe publishes it here in the New Masses.
I also wish further to present the article which was the subject of
discussion in the Politburo in 1943 by Mr. T. A. Bisson— Bisson or
Bisson, I have heard it pronounced both ways— on China s part m
the coalition war, and this is the organ, by the way, of the American
Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations, in which you shall find
that he asserts that Nationalist China is feudal China and Red China
is democratic China. . ., , <.
Later on, as I have stated, I would like the privilege, because ot
the shortness of the time, to present a considerable analysis of docu-
ments further bearing on this matter, documents which I could not
get access to in the brief time before me.
In conclusion on this statement, Senator, I wish to say very strongly
that I am a lay figure in this matter. I am under subpena, and I have
no interest whatsoever in a partisan way in this controversy. Indeed,
I would appeal for a bipartisan, strongly l>ip-rtisrn. policy against
communism. That is mv position and has always been my position,
and it is in that capacity that I appear here, unwilling, reluctant,
statino- again that I stand for a strong bipartisan policy against com-
munism, which is the greatest danger that the United States has ever
confronted in its history.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 499
I know that because I could, if the committee had time, but they
liaven't, produce documentary evidence of Stalin's intention to conquer
the United States. That may seem absurd, and it may seem foreign
from this investigation, but I Avonld like to point out that Stalin
is constantly hailed — I have this : "Long live the leader of the working
people of the world, Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin." This is the organ
of the Cominform. coming into our country, among many of the
other seditious publications, advising the Communists how they shall
proceed. I do not bring that into this discussion in order to color
my testimony otherwise. I just bring it before the committee to
indicate my own attitude, namely, that this evidence could be multi-
plied a thousandfold in the declarations by Stalin that they are
expecting the world October, whereby the world Soviet dictatorship
sliall be established. That is their complete, undeviating policy, even
though they clothe it from time to time under changes in tactics.
There are many documentary Connnunist sources that would con-
firm this association. It is solely, then, in the effort to combat this
determination by Stalin to conquer the United States and establish
the world Soviet dictatorship that I come before this committee,
and for which I stand.
Senator Tydixgs Mv. Budenz, your exhibits will be put into the
record innnediatelv following your testimony. Will the clerk mark
thein ''Exhibit 7V' '-Exhibit" 75," and "Exhibit 70" in the order in
which they were presented, so they can be quickly identified in the
record ?
Have you finished, sir ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. I just wanted to ask one question.
In your last statement, and I think in the first statement you made
also, you stated that you gave this testimony reluctantly. I think
you said that.
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. Did you give it to Senator McCarthy reluctantly?
Mr. Budenz. I did not speak to Senator McCarthy at all.
Senator Green. I didn't ask you whether you spoke to him. But
did you furnish him the information reluctantly?
]\Ir. Budenz. I surely did, ver}^ reluctantly. As a matter of fact,
I appear everywhere; I call upon anyone who has to be associated
Mith me in any prosecution from Judge ISIcGoey up and down as
to whether I do not appear everywhere reluctantly, not because I do
not wish to cooperate with the Government but because I have ap-
peared so frequently that I believe there should be a halt at some
time to my public appearances.
Senator Green. Yes. But you intimated that you only gave this
because you were subpenaed.
^Ir. Bi DENz. That is correct.
Senator Green. Senator McCarthy didn't subpena you, did he?
Mr. Budenz. No, sir, he did not. However, Senator McCarthy does
not know, so far as I know, up to this minute, of my testimony. He
niay, through friends whom I have talked to, but I have not given
to Senator McCarthy my testimony, for the simple reason that I am
not associated with Senator ^McCarthy. As a matter of fact, I am
a nonpartisan person.
500 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Green. But you knew that lie liad the information from
some source, did vou not ^ , , . -tt i i i t
Mr. BuDENZ. Oh, yes, sir; I knew he had it. He had only, as I
should call it, very fragmentary information.
Senator Green.' Was that given reluctantly too (
Mr. Budenz. 1 didn't give it. It was presented to me m part, it
was o-iven very reluctantly, and certainly I stated that I only give this
testimony when compelled to do so under subpena on a nonpartisan
basis Tliat has been my position for 5 years, and it shall continue
to be' Senator, because I can't make a speech here on my views now,
but I assure you this is not pleasing to me for many reasons.
Senator Green. I understand that.
Senator TYmNOs. Now I think the procedure that we agreed upon
tentatively was to turn the witness over to Mr. Morgan, counsel. A\ hen
he has concluded, the members of the committee may ask any questions
^'mi-^ MORGAN. Mr. Budenz, your testimony thus far has been con-
cerned, as I recall, with primarily four situations occurring m 19-x,
^^fow^beLre go\nt^ I would like for you again, at this point,
to indicate the ?xacr date, if you recall it. that you went into the Com-
mujiist Party, and the exact date you left the party
Mr' Budenz. I joined the party in August 1935, because of then-
Peoples' Front policy. I am not going to plead any apologie^, but i
dkl Accept at full value, you may recall it m 193o, the Seventh Con-
<Tress, and they stated that they were going to cooperate with demo-
?ratii organizations throughout the world, and that seemed to me
to be a very remarkable change. ^ ■, ^i .
I found, soon, it was not ; but I do not want to plead that as an ex-
cuse, because immediately I was compelled to make an oath to Stalm.
Therefore, I knew what I was doing.
I was convinced that the Soviet Union was the banner bearer of the
future progress of mankind. That was the reason I joined the Com-
''' Just a moment— T wanted to explain this, because that was in Au-
o-nst 19:]5 but I was instructed to remain under cover, that is to^say,
without open affiliation, until Earl Browder had returned from Mos-
cow When he returned, it was then decided, and Gerhart Lisler joined
in, and his voice was very powerful, in agreeing with me, I should be
an open Commmiist, and this was announced m the Daily A^ orker on
Octobsr 2, 1985. I remained in the party just exactly 10 years, until
October 11, 1945. ^ • • . i i foe fo
Mr M(iRG\N. The testimony that you are giving today relates to
the knowledge gathered by you during this 10-year period m the
party, is that correct? .^ ^ i
Mr Budenz. That is all I can testify to. Counsel.
Mr. Morgan. You are not presuming, therefore, to p^e us any
evidence with res])ect to the activities of anyone after October 11, lJ4o ?
Mr. Budenz. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Is that correct? . ^ , n . t
Mr Budenz. Except that I just confirmed it. I thought I was priv-
ileged to do so, to do that by Father Kearney's article which does go
beyond that period. However I, from my own knowledge, unofficial
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 501
kn()wle(l<2:e of tlie (.•liiU'iutoi- presented, cannot testify to events be-
yond 19;;") — I cannot.
]Mr. jMokoan. Now, thus far in your statement, Mr. Hudenz, you
ha\e been jrivino: quite naturally, as I understand it, your undei'stand-
in^\ your impression by reason of tlie position, and it was a hi<j:h-level
position which you held in the Comnuuiist Party.
At this point, by way of e.xplainino- my line of interrogation, 1
would like to distintruish carefully, as we "o along here, between that
which you know of your own knowledge, and that concerning which
you have been told.
I would like to begin, initially, with what appears to be our proper
starting ])oint here, 1937, and ask you if that was the first time that
you ever heard of Owen Lattimore.
Mr. BiDEXz. It is the first time I heard of him in an official capacity,
yes, sir. 1 have heard him mentioned by individuals, but never in an
official capacity.
Mr. MoKOAx. At this meeting to which vou refer, in 1937, will vou
tell us when the meeting was held'^
Mr. BuDEXz. You mean the month?
Mr. Morgan'. As nearly as you can.
Mr. BroEXZ. Well, 1 cannot recall the month. It seems to me to be
in October, but that may be wrong. The reason I recall that time was —
Browder discussed with me, just before the meeting, my going to Chi-
cago, and I went there in November; but it could have been, since
that discussion existed over a number of months, it could have been
earlier. I will just have to speak of a period. I can't remember
dates that well.
Mr. Morgan. In your testimony, you characterized, and correct me
if I am wrong, this meeting as "a conspiracy designed to efl'ect this
new line," is that correct (
Mr. BuDEXz. Yes, sir. The Communist Party is purely and ex-
clusively a conspiracy, not a political party in any sense of the word.
Its only reason for existence is to engao;e in recruiting people for espi-
onage work, and for what they call diversive activities, namely, in-
fluencing Government, public opinion agencies, and the like. That
is all the Communist Party is designed for ; and, it is organized on that
basis.
You have, first of all
Mr. MoRGAX. I understand that, Mr. Budenz. What I mean in that
comiection is this; as I remeniber your testimony, and I do want to
be corrected if I am wrong, this meeting in 1937 I believe you char-
acterized as a conspiracy designed to influence policy relative to China.
Is that correct?
Mr. BiDEXz. That is correct, and we had specific instructions wdiich,
by the way, are much broader than I have indicated, that the assign-
ment to the American Communist Party was to see that America
acquiesced in a Red China and a Red Poland. I can bring to the
connnittee evidence of this.
As a matter of fact. Earl Browder dissolved the Connnunist Party
and formed the Communist Political Association in May 1944, and
in doing so explained to the National Committee that he did so under
instructions in order to make America believe that communism was
ceasing to be a factor in the scene and that thereby they could obtain
acquiescence by America in a Red China and a Red Poland.
502 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION'
Those were the two chief assignments given the American Com-
mun St Party. We were told, and by the way the Commnnist docii-
Zs said tli for many years China is a key, not -^^y^^^^lX^ct
cf the Pacific, I am not making a literal quote, Senatois, but i can
show documents to that effect-not only the key to the conq-
Pacific, but largely a key to the conquest of the world, with its millions
of people who can be pressed into armed service
Mr. Morgan. Back to our original chain of thought the « M
Budenz • Conceding, for the purposes of our discussion here that that
was th; conspiracy: as you s^ggk-is the J-^ToH of yom^ tes^rmony
that Mr. Lattimore was in this conspiracy that was set up m lJ6i, at
^^"MirBuDfiz. Yes, sir. Mr. Lattimore can be placed in that con-
^^Mr?'^IoRGAN. Was Mr. Lattimore present at that meeting?
Mr. Budenz. No, sir; he was not present. ,,:^,-„pp
Mr. Morgan. And, upon what information, or i^on what eMdeiice,
do you base the conclusion that you have made, that , Mr. Lattimore
despite the fact that he was not there, was a part of this conspiracy?
Mi Budenz. Upon the official reports of Frederick Janderbilt
Field whom I know, by official documents, to be associated with Mi.
Lattimore n a verv close caoacity, Mr. Field being secretary of he
imeTk' n bmnch of the Institute of Pacific Kelations, and Mr. Latti-
more beino- editor of its publication ; and by the fact that this was part
of a series^'of instructions and directions given me, as time went on, m
regard to Mr. Lattimore. • ^ . .-u- -la^r
Mr. Morgan. Now, limiting ourselves at this point to this 19o
meetincr, your feeling that Mr. Lattimore was a part^of this so-called
cinspkacy was based on what Frederick Vanclerbilt Field told you, is
i^Ir Budenz. His report, not to me, but to a group called together
bv Earl Browder in which Earl Browder agreed, likewise, m his ]udg-
nient and he, Browder, was head of that conspiracy at that time-
that is to say, as a Communist— they referred to Lattimore.
Mr Morgan. Mr. Budenz, I would like to call your attention, it i
niav at this point, to an article which you wrote, I believe, and which
appears in the March 19, 1949, edition of Collier's magazine. Do you
recall the article ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. . .
Mr Morgan. I believe this same meeting is the one to which you
refer on page 48 of that article, and if I may, I would like to read
here one paragraph, and ask your observation concerning it, referring
to this meeting. You say :
We are agreed that the change could not be effected immediately, since our
recent emphasis had been on the "revolutionary aspect of the Chinese Soviet.
Then Field outlined an alternative, we could work through legitimate Far East
organizations and writers that were recognized as oriental authorities, lieid
einphasized the use of the Institute of Pacific Relations. This is not a Com-
munist organization, but Field later succeeded in becoming Secretary of it^s
American Council. Also chosen were the American League Against War and
Fascism and Friends of the Chinese People, the latter a Rod-front organization.
Their publications Fight and China Today were to be used in the design.
Now, as I read that statement here, and if I am wrong please correct
me, it appears that you were outlining a program to be consummated
in the future, is that correct?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA'ESTIGATION 503
Mr. BuDENZ. Not necessarily in the future ; to be begun, but to be
used as soon as events took place.
Now. I could consult the Daily Worker, I could give you the various
changes in the line, I mean, it will take time — that is why I want to
present these documents to you — it will take tiuie to show you how
this gradually was elt'ected. That is to say, you have to gather men
together: you have to perfect an organization; you have to deluge
America, as was the fact, with the information.
Now this
Mr. Morgan. What I am referring to
Mr. BuDENZ. Am I oif the subject? I thought I was answering
your question.
Mr. Morgan. I want you to have every opportunity to explain your
answer, but what I liave in mind here is, as I understand the facts —
at this meeting in 1937, there was a projected plan of action, is that
correct ?
Mr. BuDEXz. That is correct ; yes, sir.
Mr. ^loRGAx. A conspiracy designed to accomplish a certain ob-
jective with respect to China, is that correct?
Mr. BuDEXz. That is correct ; yes, sir.
Mr. ]\IoRGAx. How was Mr. Lattimore properly in the conspiracy,
at that point, if he was not ])resent at this meeting, and the plan and
project was to be in the future ? That is my question.
^Ir. BiDEXz. A^"ell. lie is in the cons])iracy because right along, he
is officially referred to as being a member of the conspiracy, and he
was associated in an intimate caj^acity with the man making the re-
port. I think that we shall find that they called each other by their
fiist names, and other things of that character.
Mr. MoRciAX. Did Mr. Field tell you that Mr. Lattimore, at this
j)oint. would be used in the future? Just what did he tell you, Mr.
Budenz. at this meeting?
Mr. BrnEXz. It was agreed that Mr. Lattimore. because of his
position, which had to be very safely safeguarded, by the way, would
be enabled to influence writers and others on this question; and, it
was a long-time program, which I outlined as indicated, to some
degi'ee. in that article. Of course that is a magazine article, and
every woi'd is not chosen carefully, but every word is indicated there.
As a matter of fact, it was carried forward, and revived from time
to time, and came into full bloom about 1948 or 1944, as I recall.
But. there was this campaign, and it followed from this meeting
because Ave had other reports on this, reports on this to which I did
not refer because of the fact that I cannot always locate them in
the same way that I can this meeting, by time and by place.
Mr. M(tR(;.\x. Now, in order to get this picture, and I think it is
very significant for our purposes — at this 1937 meeting, which ap-
parentty is the springboard for this entire situation, I would like for
you to again indicate to us, as specifically as you can, whether any-
one t(jld you at that time that Mr. Lattimore was a member of
the Conununist Party, or whether you were told that Mr. Lattimore
would be used, by Mr. Field, in order to accomplish their objective.
Can you help us on that? I think there is some confusion on that
score.
Mr. BuDENz. Yes, sir ; I can.
68970 — 50— pt. 1 .33
504 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr Lattimore was referred, of course yon understand the Com-
munists do not go around telling each other, "This man is a member
of the Communist Party." Mr. Lattimore was referred to as a
Communist by Mr. BroWder and by Mr. Field, m regard to the
work that he had done in placing Communist writers, and that is a
matter of public record, in the various organs of the Institute ot
Pacific Relations; but specifically, Pacific Affairs, of which he was
editor, and they had noted that he had done good work m that re-
spect especially recently, and he was referred to by Mr. Browder,
General Secretary of the Communist Party, as a Communist.
Now in this respect, there are Communist Party members, those
who are smaller people, and out-and-out Communists under dis-
^^ The% Communists under discipline, since 1969 or 1940, since the
Hitler-Stalin Pact, are ordered not to have any vestige of member-
ship about them, except in exceptional instances where the Politburo
decides otherwise, and therefore the expression "as a Communist
or "under Communist discipline" means m fact the same as being a
Communist Party member. . .i . t r i ,
Mr Morgan. Yon just made a statement, not that I did not grasp
it but about which I would like for you to comment on further. You
saV there is documentary evidence of Mr. Lattimore's placing of Com-
nnmists in key positions in certain publications ; is that correct ?
Mr BuDENZ. Not the act, itself; I said— documentary evidence m
the form of names of these Communists in considerable numbers, m
the articles in the Pacific Affairs, and I will mention one more,
althou'di I don't know whether he wrote just prior to 1937, but at the
time Mr. Lattimore was there, and that is James S. Allen, former
Communist International representative to the Philippines, and later
on, foreign editor of the Daily Worker.
I mentioned him specifically because his name comes immediately
to mind. There were many others.
Mr. Morgan. For our benefit, and for our record, let us see it we
can get a little better impression of this 1937 meeting. This was a
meeting at which these leaders in the Communist movement in this
country gathered together for the purpose of outlining a plan to influ-
ence policy with respect to Asia. Now, at that meeting, will you give
us some idea of how that was carried on ? Would each member sug-
gest ideas as to how he expected to accomplish that objective, and then
3'ou finally
Mr. BuDENZ. No, sir; that isn't the way Communist meetings are
carried out.
Mr. Morgan. Give us an idea.
Mr. BuDENZ. Communist meeting decisions are largely to find out
how you stand on a proposition, see if you are going to carry it out
fully. The report is already prepared in advance, just like the Com-
munist trials are prepared in advance. That is to say, Earl Browder
opened the meeting— of course, I can't give you all the details, this is
quite a while ago
Mr. ]\Iorgan. Thirteen years ago.
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. It made an impression upon me, however,
because it Avas when he got the message that the Chinese Reds, who
we always had pictured as our ideal revolutionists, were nothing but
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATTON 505
North Dakota Nonpartisan Leaguers, our agrarian reformers, as Mr.
iirowcler said.
Now, in this meeting Mr. Browder opened up, as he would when he
was the Jeacler of the organization, by reporting that this was now
iiecessary. Mi-, lirowder was generally a very abrupt man in his
instructions of that character. He had called together not the official
i^oiitburo, that doesn't make any difference in the Communist Party,
he had called together these people whom I remember iust now, J
Peters and Fenicci Marini, or Fred Brown— these were the secret
leaders for the Communist International, and the late Harry Cannes,
^''^^!^/y'^^, an authority on China, a very extensive authority on China
and Larl Bristol, myself, and some others.
At any rate Mr. Browder opened up by asserting that this was now
tlie policy, and that we would have to develop
Mr. Morgan. May I interrupt ?
K.^^v/'^^''!' /""T ^^'^\}^''- F^^^^^' ^^^^o had already talked to Mr.
iii o^^ der, went further. The mam meaning of our meeting there was
to participate m the discussion so each could receive instruSions from
Mr. Browder and ]\ir. Field.
Mr. Morgan That, I understand, Mr. Budenz. I understand that
he me was set, and was merely accepted by this meeting, consistent
^\ itli party discipline.
fiJ^'"'^ f i''l? "' '"'i''"^ ^^l'''"^' ^^^^ ^h^^= that these party leaders, did
the^ or did they not at that meeting plan the means by which thev
inmiilr'''''^ °''^ predetermined policy? That is what I have
\f ^ nn?'^^''^- ^^ "^"l they never -o into details. I mean to say, that
It lb not a Communist practice. They merely assign the undertaking
to some individual, some Communist responsible is assigned to that
KvMk FieM «"^^-^^^^ this work to Mr. Lattimore, to be contacted
. Now, the thing is that that is a common Communist practice. This
IS not novel. The Communists do not outline all of the steps to be
taken. They leave those steps to the initiative, to the men who ai-
assigned; and, m addition, they leave it to the executive instructions
and contacts )vliich are established later with the Politburo members
bec-aiise except m imusual circumstances, it would take too much time,'
and that is not the Communist way of proceedino-
Mr. Morgan. I notice, Mr. Budenz, that in "this article in which
''Th^Afp.*'«l 7p' Tn^^' ^^'f ''^''^) ^^'' '"'^ticle is entitled, incidentally,
pjp f \' f f/-^""^ ^^'"'^' ^'^^ ^'""''^ "^^^^^ "« reference there what-
e^ er to 31r. Lattimore.
Is there any explanation for that ?
Mr. Budenz. There is certainly an explanation, and that is. that
I AAas not permitted to make the reference. That is, I doirt meai-
there was a censorship, don't misunderstand me. I mean to say tint
a great numl^r of names, including Mr. Lattimore's,Ure ?n mv
or.-gmal rough draft. As a matter of fact, Mr. Lattimore is direct v
so far as I could, referred to there, bv mentioning all thrcLmnun "st
writers ^vho wrote for tlie Pacific Atl'airs. «^oimnunist
vJ'ih'/-''^Y'^ Kearney recognized Mr. Lattimore immediately. He
put that in his general resume of Mr. Lattimore's career in The Co
n.mb.a. In other words, in my original article, I mean the rouoh
506 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
cli-ift which I conferred with the Collier's editorial board on, and by
the way I had to confer a lon^r time on that ai-ticle for weeks-
Mr. Simore's name was included, among others, but ColUei;^^ chd no
wish to do it I agreed with that, for a snnple reason : Betoie i lett
the plrty^Senatorrthe Communist Party-and this is something ha
evervonJ should know-aoreed that after that period of 1945 that
'Ttlf ?he cold war beginning, all concealed Communists should sue
Lyone who accused them of being Communists, sue t-J. ±- jbeh
is Alexander Trachtenberg, who made ^h^ i.^P^^' J.f^^^\-^ ^f^^l^^
not necessarily for the purpose of winning the libel suit, it is to bleecl
whie anyone who dares ti accuse anyone of being a Communist so
tii^^^^^^^^^^^ be shut up." And, as a matter of fact, that became the
^'""you must understand that before that, the exact opposite was the
policv you were forbidden to sue for libel on the ground of being a
F^. mmiiist because it was considered that the case would cast a
de'rada on i"e Communist Party. With the cold war on they
loTew the Communist Party was going to be degraded anyway, m the
bbc mind, so it was agreed to shut up, and this plan was verj
successf I those who mig^it speak in organs, or in the press or over
t le n dio of concealed Communists- that the concealed Communists^
as a mat er of dutv, were to sue them for libel, and we Inive a veiy
^tr k ng c^^^^^^^ Mrs. McCullough, the.wife of t^- fcUtor of Time inaga-
zine, who, even if she wins the case, is going to lose $55,000 iiom the
^^t:! lhat^:S considered by nie when the Colliers f^^^^^
the representative of it, dealt with me, and deleted not only Mi. Latti-
more's name, but a number of others from this article.
Mr FORTAS. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt tor a moment
There came into my possession this morning, some documents deal-
in - wtrtrssubWt I hastily wrote out some questions relating to
l^fsrd<^^u lent ,ind I now hand them in and ask that they be asked
of this witness, in accordance with the committee's previously an-
"'s^lrSiNGS. Would you like for Mr. Morgan to ask them?
Mr. FoRTAs. If you please, sir.
Senator Tydings. At this point .• , ;4^ \u-
Mr. FoRTAS. At this point, I think these are pertinent, if Mi.
Morgan will ask. , at -n.,^i^,w i Avmilrl
Mr. Morgan. Before asking these questions Mr ^/^^^"f;. A ^^^
like to ask you what you said in that article about Mr Lattimoie.
M Bude'^z. The only thing I said there was the -Terence which
is in there, to the infiltration of the-so f ar as I ^'^.^^.^^^j^-^^^^^''^"
Eed writei's into the organs of t^^ I^l^t^t^l^^^^P^^^'J^^^f.l^^^^^^^ ,
Mr. Morgan. Did you refer, m this article, to Mr. Lattimoie as a
Communist, or someone carrying out this program ? .
Mr. BuDENz. Oh, no, no, no ■ ^ ^
Mr Morgan. What did you say about him m the article
Mr BuDENZ. I iust referred to him as the editor during that period
This walT the first rough draft of the article which we discussed
'tr'M^.'5S.^-t to the request of the Chairman, I show you
this document, Mr. Budenz
Mr. Budenz. Yes.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 507
Mr. Morgan. A dociiment consistiiior of .22 paj>:es-
Seiiator IIickknloopkr. !Mr. Cliaiiniaii, in keeping with the past
custom in this hearinir. where questions or documents or even exhibits
'nave been ofiered for, or are being ]>ut into the record, I think the
committee members are entitled to see what these questions are, in
advance.
1 do not liave any objection to any questions that I know of, but we
liave followed that custom, and I see no reason for not following it
still.
Senator Ty'dings. As I understand it, the exhibit is not being put in
the record at this point, it is simply being tendered to the witness for
tlie purposes of identification. Later on, if it is offered for the record,
I think the committee might want to see it before it is made a part
of the record.
However, in this proceeding, there is a rather wide latitude of
opinon, and all sorts of latitude with the normal rules of evidence,
and the chairman does not want to take an arbitrary position, either
on one side or the other
I\fr. FoRTAS. Mr. Chairman, will you indulge me?
In all fairness, I should say that these documents came to me in
the mail this morning, but did not come from Collier's magazine. I
think I owe it to the magazine to state that.
Senator Ttdings. We will give Mr. Budenz time to look over the
document, and identify it before the questioning proceeds. That is
the point of tendering it to him.
Mr. BuDExz. This is not, as a matter of fact, first of all. Senator,
this is not the original outline to which I referred, or discussed with
Collier's, but nevertheless this refreshes my memory. That is to say,
this does say:
Two men of fllstiiiction wiio have seen eye to eye with Mr. Field for a long
time in regard to China, and who have enjoyed close personal relations with
him are Owen Lattimore, anthor of Solution in Asia, and .Joseph Barnes, former
foreign editor of tlie New York Herald Tribune and now editor of the leftist
New Y'ork Star. As a Communist, I have read the names of Messrs. Lattimore
and Barnes frequently referred to in reports by Mr. Field, and also in the most
complimentary manner. They have been devoted adherents of the "Poor Chinese
agrarian reformer" theory.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Budenz, I don't want to stop you from testi-
fying, but I understand the document was submitted to you first for
the pur])oses of identification, and we are getting it into the record
without the committee seeing it, which Senator Hickenlooper does not
want done.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I raise the question about
this document, I am only asking
Senator Ty'dings. I don't know how to iiile. You say that has
been the ride. You want to see it. I am trying to meet your point
of view. It is difficult for me to tell what you want us to do.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I said a moment ago that
it had been a custom in these hearings that documents and questions,
es])ecially if there have been a series of questions submitted, be given
to the committee members for their examination.
I see no reason to vary that rule at this moment
Senator Tydings. That is exactly what I am trying to do. Mr.
Budenz is not to read it into the record before the committee has
seen it, in accordance with the recjuest that you just made.
508 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOX
Go ahead.
Mr. Morgan. May I clear this up. First for identification, that is,
of a document presented to us by counsel for ^Ir. Lattimore. Mr.
Budenz, I show you a document consisting of 22 pages and ask you
whether this is n'ot your original draft of the Collier's article which
appeared in the March 19, 1949, issue of that magazine.
Mr. Budenz. It is the original draft, but there was a rough draft
before, which I took personallv and discussed— there have been, as a
matter of fact, about 6 or 10\-evisions of that article. There were
rather
Mr. Morgan. Will you turn to pages 13 and 14, and read into the
record the two paragi'aphs which mention Mr. Lattimore, and are
marked with black pencil.
jNIr. Budenz. Thirteen and fourteen?
Senator Tydings. Just a minute. Before you do that, I would like
to ask any member of the committee, before it is read into the record,
if he would like to see the document so that we will have a uniform
procedure.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes: I would like very much to see the
document, and also state, in keeping with past objections that have
been raised here by some of the members, that if part of that document
goes in, the whole document goes in.
Senator Tydings. The whole will be put in, if a part is read; but
I understand, for the purposes of this interrogation, while it will
all be offered, there are certain parts that will be used for interroga-
tion. , 1 • Q
Would you like to look over my -shoulder, while I am reading this «
(There was a conference off the record.)
Senator Tydings. Without objection, the whole article will be put
in the record, and counsel will continue with his interrogation.
(The document above referred to was thereupon marked ''Exhibit
77'' and will be found in the files of the committee. )
]Mr. Morgan. Let the article be identified for the record, please.
Senator Tydings. It has been requested that tlie article be identi-
iied, marked as the proper exhibit number, and the date of it will be
given and any other characteristics. Please identify it so that we can
all follow the interrogation. . . ^r ^r
Will you do that, Mr. Budenz; or will you do it, Mr. Morgan, m
your own way ? ■, , . r- j
' Mr. Morgan. I think Mr. Budenz might read the items referred
to on pages 13 and 14.
Mr. Budenz. There is no date of identification.
Senator Tydings. Wliatisthat?
Mr. Budenz. There is no date.
Senator Tydings. What was it written for?
Mr. Budenz. This was written as one of several original drafts tor
Collier's magazine.
Senator Tydings. And when was it offered ?
Mr. Budenz. As a matter of fact, I want to say on this. Senator,
that this was first a rough outline or draft which I went down and
discussed. Then I sent this. It was intended that this would be very
severely edited, and it was presented in that manner. It was not the
final publication by any means. However, I may state that I have
read this since.
STATE DEPAHTxMKXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 509
Senator Tydings. Let me ask you, what was the date at the time
you wrote tliat article, approximately?
Mr. BuDEXz. Tliat 1 cairt recall, because it draffijecl on, I tell you
it was, approximately, on this Red Menace in China article I had the
lontrest discussion. It took weeks. I think it started back in 1949 and
went on into 1950, now, let me say. Is that correct ? Yes ; I think that
is correct.
Senator Tydixgs. Now, is this the first draft you wrote and took
down or the second draft?
^^r. BuDExz. This is the first draft I left at Collier's.
Senator Ttdixgs. That is it.
Mr. BuDENZ, I did have a rough draft of it made which we dis-
cussed first. In that I had Mr. Lattimore's name, and it was agreed
that in regard to certain things it should be left out. Nevertheless,
I felt that I should present as much material as I had, and I presented
this to Collier's.
Senator Tydixgs. In other words, to sum up, in 1949 and perhaps
extending over into 1950, testifying from recollection, after you had
discussed this matter for some weeks with the editors of Collier's
magazine and had brought in some rough notes originally for the
purpose of discussion, you went back home and prepared this article
and
Mr. BuDEXz. Xo, sir; this was prepared earlier than these extended
discussions.
Senator Tydixgs. Oh, this was prepared the first thing
Mr. BuDEXz. That is right ; very hurriedly prepared.
Senator Tyuix^gs. And you took this down as a basis for the article,
and you have written it in a general sort of a way ?
Mr. BuDENz. Yes.
Senator Tydixgs. And left it with Collier's magazine for their
perusal and further conference if necessary?
Mr, BuDEXZ. We had first an original conference, which I have out-
lined. We had, secondly, this thing presented for editorial discussion,
and then several other issues and copies were prepared. As a matter
of fact, it was rewritten four or five times.
Senator Tydixgs. But this is the first one ?
Mr. BuDEXz. This was the first left with Collier's.
Senator Tydixgs. I think we have properly identified it. Go ahead,
Mr. Morgan, with your interrogation.
Mr. Morgan, If you will turn to pages 13 and 14, Mr. Budenz, and
read that portion of the article relating to Mr. Lattimore, and so that
everything you have said about him is comprehended by the com-
mittee, read it all.
Mr. BuDEX^z (reading) :
Two men of distinction wlio have seen eye to eye with Mr. Field for a long
time in regard to China, and who have enjoyed close personal relations with hira
are Owen Lattimore, anthf)r of Solution in Asia, and Joseph Barnes, former
foreign editor of the New York Herald Tribune and now editor of the leftist
New York Star. As a Communist, I have heard the names of Messrs. Lattimore
and Barnes frequently referred to in reports by Mr. Field, and always in the
most complimentary manner. They have Ix'en devoted adherents of the "poor
Chine.se Communist agrarian reformer" theor.v.
It is somewhat startling, nevertheless, to discover Mr. Lattimore as a specific
endorser of Dilemma in Japan by Lt. Andiew Roth.
Senator ^NIcMahon. I cannot hear him.
510 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Read that again.
Mr. BuDENz (repeating) :
Tt is somewhat startling, nevertheless, to disc-over Mr. Lattimore as a si>ecifie
en 10 ei'o DUemma in jfpan by Lt. Andrew Koth. Indeed, Mr Lattunore hads
Mr. Roth as representing "the younger school of American experts.
Mr. Morgan. Were these the only references-and I am continuing
the counsers qnestions^were these the only references to Mr. l.atti-
more in this manuscript? ^ , , -^ ^ t^i,^^^
Mr BuDENZ. Well, I would have to look through it to see. ihere
is a rou^h— no, not to Mr. Lattimore directly on the question ot his—
of the Communists in the Pacific affairs while he was editor, but he is
"""Semto?' Tydings. Was this the only time that his name was
"^Mr.^BuDENZ. It seems to be. Senator. I wouldn't say for sure,
^' Seiia?rT^iNGS. We can correct it later if it proves erroneous.
You have very little time to look it over.
Mr. BuDENZ. Yes, sir. i j o„,.
Senator Tydings. But, from your quick summary, you would say
these are the only times.
Go ahead, Mr. Morgan. . .^^;^4.
Mr Morgan. Do you recall a conference concerning the manuscript
for the Colliers article with Mr. Leonard Parris, who was then the
associateeditor of Colliers? tvt., -p.,^,mc
Mr. BuDENz. No, I don't recall specifically, I remember Mi . Pan is
^"mT Morgan. Not recalling the conference, you would not recall, I
presume, whether a stenographer was or was not present at the coher-
ence with Mr. Parris?
Mr. BuDENz. I would not, no. -^^^^o
Mr Fortas. I beg your pardon, Mr. Morgan. I believe the witness
^aid he did recall a conference at which Mr. Parris was present.
Mr Bttdenz. Oh, ves, I do recall such a conference ; yes, I do.
Mr Morgan. Do you recall whether the conference was transcribed
by a stenographer o'r whether a stenographer was presents
Mr. BuDENZ. There may have been. I can't recall it definitely. 1
had many, many conferences on this article.
Mr. Morgan. I have been handed, Mr. Chairman-and I want to
make it very clear that I haven't seen this material before at all— i
have in my hand a document which purports to be a transcription of
your conversation with Mr. Parris.
Mr. BuDENZ. Yes, sir. . i f^„„ f«
Mr. Morgan. And I read certain questions and answers relating to
Mr. Lattimore which appear on pages 2 and 3 of that document, the
questions being asked , it- j. -e „ii t fl.inlr
Senator TTmNGS. Just let me interrupt you. First of all, I thmk
the witness would have no way of identifying that document.
Mr. Morgan. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that it would be impossible
to identify it through this witness.
Senator TvmNGS. All right. Then before you pursue it, let the
committee have it for a moment, and then we will come back to your
question.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 511
Mr. FoRTAS. Mr. Cliairnmn, nui^' I say tliat those questions end np
by askino- the Avitness whether he recalls the questions and answers.
This is a cnstoniary way, as I recall, of refreshing' a witness' recollec-
tion.
Senator Tydixgs. We will fret around to that, but we are not at that
point yet, Mr. Fortas.
Senator Hickexloopek. Mv. Chairman, I think tlie procedure is
beinw a little confused here. We have decided that neither Mr. Latti-
more nor Mr. ^IcCarthy would be permitted to ask any questions, and
apjiarently counsel for Mr. Lattiniore is violating that rule. I be-
lieve that the proper method of presentation of any questions he has
to ask is to present them to the committee and to be asked through
counsel, as has been quite consistently agreed by the committee, and
I object to this procedure unless we change our line of conduct of this
hearing.
Senator Tydixgs. ^Mr. Fortas, I do not want to get into whether
this is ])roper or improper, but it would help the committee to proceed
Avith dispatch if you would have questions asked through counsel or
members of the committee. I understand, however, that this is not
a question. It was a suggestion, but even so, it might be misconstrued,
and we do not want any misconstruction.
jNIr. Fortas. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard very briefly on that ?
It was my understanding that counsel for Mr. Lattimore was at libert}^
to hand to the committee questions to be asked of the witness.
Senator Tydixgs. That is correct.
Mr. Fortas. And that is precisely what I have done. I regret my
interruptions if they have been excessive, but it was merely for the
purpose of facilitating the asking of these questions which I have
handed up in due couree, and you recognize, Mr. Chairman and the
other members of the committee too, that this method of cross-exami-
nation, if it can be called such, is an extremely difficult one for counsel
who is trying to represent a client, and I am trying to proceed here
pursuant to the committee's rules. I respectfully press my request
that the questions submitted to the committee which are pertinent to
this inquiry and pertinent to this witness' testimony be asked of this
witness at this time.
Senator Tydix'gs. Well, Mr. Fortas, we will be very glad to ask any
questions from time to time that you want asked if you will send them
up to the committee, and I think we are all agreed on the procedure,
so I really do not see any need of laboring fhe matter. I think we
can go on from here. We will just take a little silence for a moment.
Engage in conversation if you want to. Take a recess for 30 seconds
while we look at this. If anybody wants to stand up and sit down
again, go ahead and do it.
(The connnittee took a short recess.)
Senator Tydixgs. Please come to order. I suppose, Mr. ISIorgan,
you will want the entire transcript put in the record, and it will be
done without objection of the connnittee. and you may proceed with
your interrogation.
Mr. Morgax'. ]\Ir. Chairman, I want to make quite clear that these
questions are indicated here, I am necessarily asking them as they are
presented to me because I do not want to change them in one way
or another.
512 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Now I have in mv hand a docnment which purports to be a trans-
cription of vonr conversation with Mr. Paris, and I read certani
m.estions and answers relating to Mr. Lattimore whicli ^W^^ ^
paoes 2 and 3 of that docnment, the questions b?ing asked by Mi. Fans
and the answers being given by you.
Now, let us see, :Mr Chairman. If I am to read those questions and
answers pursuant to the request of Mr. Lattimore's counsel, I will
need this document. . . ^ ^ i i „
Senator Tydings. Let Mr. Budenz liave it a minute to mark places
so he will know what you are referring to, then you can proceed.
Mr. Budenz. Well, in the first place .
Senator Tyt)Ixgs. Don't testify on it yet. Just f amihanze yourself
witli it and wait until the question is asked.
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. , ,i 4.
Senator Tydings. Then you can testify at any length you want.
Mr Budenz. What is your request, Mr. Counsel ?
Senator Ty'dings. Hand the document back a minute.
Mr. Budenz. That you ask
Senator Tydings. Do you want it back?
Mr. Morgan. I have to ask this question.
Mr Budenz. Oh, I thought you had the notes on it. i am sorry.
I tliink I appreciate what you want. I just want to be sure.
^Ir Morgan. I am on page 2 now, Mr. Budenz, Paris ostensibly
doing the questioning. The answers are apparently attributed to you :
Question • You tell about Browder saying that the followers of Mao Tse Tung
had to be preseuted in a new light. It's easy to see that this was an idea the
Communisfs llad to push. Don't show that they invented this idea, show that
they fostered it.
OneS •'^ Yof havf done one thing here that I think is not good. By inference
vou implied tliat Joe Barnes and Lattimore are not Communists exactly but are
fellow travelers. You say the Communists supposedly endorsed Roosevelt.
aZwIv I think probably what we ought to do is to eave out those names
entirely. Perhaps we can rephrase it some way. I said it merely to show that
thev would add meat to what I was saying. _ „„„i„
Ouestion From our standpoint it seems that you were damning these people
Tliism ght put us in an embarrassing legalistic position. We have no particular
reain to sinear Lattimore. The same thing applies to that thing about Roose-
velt on page 5. Whv did you use the word "supposedly .'
Answer It was only because from time to time they were -"l^Portmg Bro^wder
inferentially. Thev didn't come out and say they were for Roosevelt. Their
a^S'ments were for Roosevelt but their candidate was Browder. The Commu-
nist Sipport of Roosevelt was not an actual support but only a way of winning
the p?ople over that were undecided.
Question. On page 7 you say "This idea of the 'upstan. ling Chmese Commu-
nists, the great agrarian reformers,' was peddled everywhere f^'^^^ ,thf f me
on" You haven't given a single instance that it was peddled or that the idea
was planted by the Communists. Give at least one instance, or more than one if
'^Tnswer. Lattimore and Barnes became champions of some of these ideas as
*' QuSom°You're not saying that they acted as Communist agents in any way?
Answer. No.
Question. That ought to be quite clear.
Answer. Oh, yes.
Those apparently are the portions of the question and answer state-
ment given here that were to be called to your attention.
]Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 513
Mv. MoKGAx. Question by counsel for Mr. Lattimore: It is my
understanding that at the time of this conference you did not chiim
that Mr. Lattimore acted as a Communist agent in any way, and that
is still your view ?
Mr. BuDKxz. Xo, sir. I was very well aware, especially with Mr.
Parris* peculiar que^;tions which indicated to me that he might have
a particular viewpoint, that I was to answer in such a way as to avoid
Comnuinist attack through libel, such as I know was their policy.
Consequently, this was not a discussion under oath. This was a
discussion of an article, and I think that I have indicated quite well
there that Mr. Lattimore and Mr. Barnes were involved in this cam-
paign. Consequently, I don't recall specifically this wording, by the
way, Senator, because I had conference after conference on this matter,
but even granted that this was correct, that is my explanation; that
is to say, I am always conscious over the telephone with whomever
I talk, especially when they ask me peculiar questions, to answer
them in such a way as wnll not involve me in those difficulties which
1 know the Communists will be very delighted to involve me in.
Mr. Morgan. Further question : As a matter of fact, Mr. Lattimore
states that he never referred to Chinese Communists as agrarian re-
formers or in any terms that meant the same thing. Can you tell us
any specific instance in which you claim Mr. Lattimore did refer to
the Chinese Comnnmists as agrarian reformers?
INIr. Bi DExz. "Well, I would have to have opportunity to check on
that, Mr. Counsel, but my statement against Mr. Lattimore is noi that
he personally stated this. He was always considered to be in a special
and delicate position. But that he was given the responsibility of or-
ganizing this campaign.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman
Mr. BuDENz. I may — I would like to have the privilege of sub-
mitting to this committee an analysis of Mr. Lattimore's writings ia
Time. I have not had the opportunity to do so.
Mr. MoRGAX'. ]\Ir. Chairman, this document is, of course — I was not
familiar with it, and I would like to request, apparently consistent with
the committee's wishes, that the entire question-and-answer statement
as we have it here we spread on the record at this point.
Senator Tydixgs. It will be put in the record at this point.
(The document referred to is as follows:)
BroExz Akticle Red Myths, Starring China
By Mr. Leonard Paris :
Question. The main problem, Jlr. Buflenz, was that we felt that your thesis
of this piece wasn't entirely proved. Let me tell you what I think of it: We
need more documentation on some of the things. On the second page you say
the whole idea of coalition goverimient was ctnicocted by Soviet Russia in order
to defe;it America in the Far East. I don't doubt that their support of coalition
government was a contributing factor, but who first suggested coalition govern-
ment?
Answer. The Conniuinists.
Question. Before it had been publicly mentioned anywhere else?
Answer. Yes.
Question. I think you ought to mention when and where and by whom coalition
government came to public attention.
Answer. It was the Communists who pushed it and made use of it. I will
get the authority for this.
514 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Question. On page 3, the sentence reading: 'J^^^^l^^^""!^^
tlieir own declaration," etc., you quote "a sort of Non-I aitisan Leaguei.
'^i;;^^Ss'=es from Browder That is to say J^^o^/^^^^r in
who used that phrase. It was "^^d ^or '^^\f -^\™%°VS,t Jtnt^rS^^
China are different. However, I will get authority for that statement, i usea
M- hppanse it was nushed bv the Communist Party. . •/, „<.„
Sion Here is an example of the sort of thing that needs more inci den s
and histances On page 4 the sentence which reads "At every turn of history
fl^^P Chinese Coinmnnists, etc." I think it would be well for all readers if you
Ifve Xe examX of ?1 at, other than just the pact between Russia and China
y7u\4SllSg about the soviet nonaggression pact. We need more examples
to support that.
qSou.' Y.f ;^abi;;S'Browder saying that the followers of Mao Tse Tung
had to be presented in a new light. Ifs easy to see that this was an idea the
Communists had to push. Don't show that they invented this idea, show that
they fostered it.
Querttoii. You'liavt done one thing here that I think is not good. By inference
vou implied that Joe Barnes and Lattimore are not Communists exactly but aie
fellow travelers. You say that Communists supposedly endorsed Roosevelt >
Answer. I think probably what we ought to do is to leave out those names
entirely. Perhaps we can rephrase it some way. I said it merely to show that
thev would add meat to what I was saying.
Question From our standpoint it seems that you were damning these people.
This might' put us in an embarrassing legalistic position, fe have no particu-
lar reason to smear Lattimore. The same thing applies to^ that thing about
Roosevelt on Page 5. Whv did ou use the word "supposedly .■• ,. „ ^
Answer. It was only because from time to time they were supporting Browder
inferentially. They didn't come out and say they were for K^osevelt_ Then
arguments were for Roosevelt but their candidate was Browder. Th^ Com-
munist support of Roosevelt was not an actual support but only a way ot wm-
liinsr the people over that were undecided.
Question On page 7 you say "This idea of the 'upstanding Chinese Com-
inunsS he great Agrarian Reformers.' was peddled everywhere from that
time on " You haven't given a single instances that it was peddled or that the
i^rlSi was plaSedly the Communists. Give at least one instance, or more than
""''Insweif Lattimore and Barnes became champions of some of these ideas as
^"oueiTt^oiryou're not saying that they acted as Communist agents in any
way ?
Answer. No.
Question. That ought to be quite clear.
Answer <^1}; y^^_- ^. jjigtory of coalition governments was that
rSsH took ovL S-emmlv We need concrete instances, and examples very
m K-rmm^effeSi^. Sey must also be complete enough so that they can be
quicklv identffied and so that the reader can see that they are true.
oShm 'on pa'^rm'-On^December 7 last, it was discovered in Washington
'" Answet'l have to check on that. This was pointed to by the New York
^'Suesdr Sn'pao-e 11 there is a dubious slam on the unions. "A special
sec^roXr''.^s''?nt o\at to the C<.mmunists. to be pushed m unions and^m
t-verv occupation where sympathizers were engaged, etc. It sounds as thou^n
fields.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTS^ESTIGATTON 515
Question. '•Arr.ingemeiits were made whereby the legs of book reviewers were
to be pulled so tliut those works which gave a break to the Chinese Couiuiunists
would receive favorable notices," etc. We need an instance of this. Make the
article iinii h ni<ire efl'ective by getting an actual case.
Answer. In previous articles, my statements were specific; then they were
made very general.
Question. Any documeutation?
Answer. No. I can't prove it legally. That's why I use a general phrase-
ology.
Question. Best thing to do is leave it out.
Answer. The trouble is I did have a host of specific examples and then had
to take tliem out.
Question. On the Amerasia case, refresh most of our readers as to what actu-
ally happened. Did the defendants get off without any difficulties? How did it
work out?
Answer. Jaflfe was fined and one other defendant, Larson (I have to check
up on this) got a small suspended sentence. Nobody went to jail. Mitchell was.
not given punishment of any kind.
Question. Can you indicate how Communist pressure was exerted?
Answer. I'll make an effort to check this. This is pretty well known. That's
why I didn't go into it.
Question. But people forget details. The actual outcome of the case should
be stated and the detinite piirt that the Conuiuuiists played.
Answer. Definitely. I should tell more of what these documents contain.
The plans of Chiang Kai-shek's army and the economic plans of the Chinese Gov-
ernment were in those papers.
Question. On bottom of page IG. "In his address Mr. John Carter Vincent
indicated Nationalist China as a place unsound to invest private or public capi-
tal." You're not trying to imply that this was a Communist idea, are you?
Hasn't it been pretty well demonstrated that Nationalist China was unsound?
Answer. The State Department was supporting Nationalist China,
(.jiestion. Tlie point is Mr. Vincent s qu; tes on Nationalist China may or may
not have been the result of the Conununist lie.
Answer. I'll have to link it more closely. It was accepted in the Far East
division. I'll bring you more information on this.
(,}uestion. If iMr. Carter's advice were taken, yon claim there would be an
awful fiasco. Isn't there any possibility that part of the trouble in China is
tliH Chinese (iovernment itself?
Answer. Surely.
Question. Never in any part of the article was it admitted that Chiang Kai-
shek's government was weak and corrupt. You're trying to show the Conununist
influence.
Answer. Let me take hold of that. I'll present more examples of Communist
activity and show how the activity played its part.
Question. We' shouldn't try to convincp our readers that Chi;iiig Kai-shek
was all white and that Communist propaganda led to what happened over there.
Answer. As a matter of self-defense, America was completely unaware of what
was taking place in China.
Question. You have to prove that General Carlson was a party liner — back
it up.
Answer. He was such a striking example. He was a Communist many years.
I can be stronger. I can give you instances. I can show you who was associati'd
witii liim on this committee.
(^Hiestion. On page 21: "It was out of all these pressures, Moscow-directed,
that President Roosevelt was persuaded to amend oiu* solenni pledge of China's
integrity made at Cairo to the Y'alta i)roniise that Soviet Russia would get
Outer ^longolia and even a chance at Manchuria, etc." Mosrow-directed pres-
sures were not solely responsible; that is putting it a little too broadly.
Answer. It shouldn't be solely.
Questi(iii. ""It is fi-om such creation of coiifusion in the Ameiican mind that
we have promised aid to China and not given it in the measure it was pledged.'""
You were referring to the New York Times editorial, I presume. Show actual
fgiu-es.
Answer. I'm glad you raised this about Roosevelt. I can tell more in this-
piece. The reason I don't go more into the Communist activities is brcause J
don't want to sound repetitious of some of the other articles. The methods used
by the Communists have a somewhat similar tone. The tactics descri'ted sound'
like it happened before.
516 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
nnP^Hon On these things, the more instances you can show to bear out what
yo2 say or what your thesis'is, the better it will be. It has to '^e more than nis
[mpHed or inferred. Make it as definite as you can possibly make it without
^"'xir^S^^Thet is a terrific iob in writing this. I know certain connecting
Sat y°'u suggest I will Enlarge the information on the Chiang phraseology.
Mr BuDENZ. Mr. Chairman, am I privileged to make a statement
about Mr. Roosevelt, since Mr. Roosevelt's name lias been pnt m liere^
Senator Tydings. Surely. If you don't mmd, unless it lias some-
thhi^ to do with Mr. Lattimore's disloyalty m the^State Department,
if w? get off into Roosevelt here we are going to be pretty far aheld.
I do not want to preclude you. However, I am going to ask you to
trv not to go into something that is totally unrelated. .
Mr BuDENz. No; I only wanted to say that there^was an implica-
tion here that I was addressing myself against Mr. Roosevelt. I was
only addressing against the Communists. There was no reflection on
Mr!^ Roosevelt whatever. i tvt ivyr „„,.
Senator Tydings. That is all right. Go ahead, Mr. Morgan.
Mr MoRG.N. Now, for purposes of clarification, Mr. Budenz, I shall
leave'this 1987 meeting for a time and pick up a matter which you
ef erred to briefly in vour statement there about documents bearing
certain initials during the years 1940 and 1941 As I r^ca 1 those
initials were "L" and "XL" and if I am ^oi^r^^t/«\|;!^Y;1t4^^^^^^^^
those were the— shall we say— code designations for jVIi. Lattimoie,
is that correct ? Is that your testimony ?
Mr Budenz. Yes, sir. , -, . -, 4.
Mr. Morgan. Now, can you amplify a little about what documents
these were? From what did they come, the documents you retei to^
Mr Budenz. These documents were at official proceedings ot the
Politburo. They used to get them out by the wholesale, that is to say,
Im St e?ery word spoken, the whole conspiracy was exposed m these
doci mients and they were sent to a maildrop in Chicago. When I was
n C^ caio a^editor of the Mid-West Daily Record thev were sent to
a nia d?op in Chicago and there given to Morris Childs, a leader of
he national committee. He then gave tlieiTi to the_ members o^ die
committee who were there, that is to say, William L. Palteison, Lee
Sxro, myself, and perhaps one or two others representing the
na ic^ml committe'e in Chicago. We read these documents for our
formation as to what was happen ng m the po itical bureau and foi
our guidance on party people, initials were put m, and m that con-
nection as I have said, Lattimore^s name m the discussions on the Far
F SraDDeared Is "L" or "XL." They used " Y" with your first initial
fiS othrtMngs like that with different other names. I remember-
well, I think perhaps I need not go into too wide an area of conyersa^
t ons which were unofficial in character, butj do know that this w.
the official report of the political bureau on this matter-I mean on all
matters, and it was very detailed. i i„„ ;..
Mr. Morgan. Are any of these documents, to your knowledge, m
^"^MrBuDENZ. Well, I would not know. The point of the matter is
Ave had strict instructions to destroy them all. , , , -
Mr Morgan. How do vou know, Mr. Budenz, that the character
"L" or "XL" was the designation for Mr. Lattimore ?
STATE DEPARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOX 517
Mr. BuDEXz. That Avas told me by Jack Stachel on one of my visits
to New York and, as a matter of fact, on several occasions.
Mr. Morgan. That was somethin*^ told to you; is that right?
Mr. BuDENz. That is right, but ]Mr. Stachel, who is the man in
charge of the conspiratorial apparatus of the party, in his contact
with the Communist International and the like.
Mr. MoRGAx. Now, let us go to the 1943 meeting to which you have
referred. This was a full meeting of the national committee; is that
coi-rect ?
Mr. BuDEXz. No, sir. This was a meeting of the Politburo, which
is very small in number.
Mr. Morgan. But it is called the national board; is that correct?
Mr. BuDENz. That is right, but, as a matter of fact, to this Polit-
buro meeting there came a number of other people. I mean, Tracten-
berg is not supposed to be a member of the Politburo for legal reasons
because he is connected with the International Library of Publishers
and he would be linked up legally, so he comes but he is not a member.
At this meeting — well, Earl Browder was present: I remember that;
and Stachel and Robert William Weiner. I remember Weiner because
he didn't always appear at these meetings. Perhaps I could remem-
ber others, but I remember them ; and also Frederick Vanderbilt Field.
Mr. 3I0RGAX. Now, from this meeting
Mr. BuDEXz. It may be at this meeting that Pliilip Jaffe was present.
He came to a few meetings through the years with Field, but it is
very difficult to place him because he played no part except a very
passive one in those meetings.
Mr. jNIorgan. Now, how did Mv. Lattimore's name figure in this
meeting ?
Mr. BuDENz. This had to do with the fact that Mr. Field reported,
as I understand it, that he had seen Mr. Lattimore. He may have
communicated with him, but to the best of my recollection and
memory — and it is very strong — ^is that he had seen him and that Mr.
Lattimore had said that the apparatus had reported that there was
a change of attitude toward Chiang Kai-sliek; that we were going to
be more hostile to Chiang Kai-shek. There was a discussion on the
matter in Avhich Browder did not seem surprised at this development
but stated that we must know exactly the emphasis because Browder
apparently had information that our emphasis was going to be on
the coalition government with the idea of strengthening the Commu-
nists, eventually to scuttle Chiang Kai-shek. So far as I remember it,
it was agreed that an article should be published in one of the articles
of the Pacific Institute of Relations along this line as a beginning,
and that article did appear through T. A. Bisson or Jaffe.
Now. the Far Eastern Institute, whom I represented here, which
attacks Nationalist China, as I recall — I haven't had a chance to read
this article; that is, I haven't been able to read it thoroughly — attacks
Nationalist China as feudal China, and Red China is proclaimed as
the real China.
Now the substance of that meeting was that Mr. Lattimore should
have direct contact with Mr. Field. Now, we had this in the case of
the Hitler-Stalin pact, so this is not something abnormal. In the
Hitler-Stalin pact period the Comnuuiists first came out for the lib-
eration of Poland, although the Red armies were beginning to invade
Poland, and they received very sliarj) instructions to change, so they
518 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
fhPn attacked the Polish leaders as betraying their people So the
was raised as to its empnasis, anu J^ reauested to ask
way, after this meeting That is, finally .^^^.;;;\^^^\'^2 '^i',, i,,ouoh
'°TheThin^i"fS"s'cond"m;/ed'chians Kai-sl>ek by implication. It
co^Wed1he'ap;:aser. in the Kuo,nint.,Jg Howe^r snbs^-^^^^
when the American press became ^™»^«'' .^^' ■ ^°8°tt ^^^^^^
intpi-nreted and we received very specific instructions tnat ^e ""« '
:IJ f,iteS?:t;r,,ictnre o* .f .-^™. -«-«-; y--/^-JS
rtltm:?etTa ^rfP ^^i^^Vlo^rbrFreder-ici. Field; is that
^Mr^BuDENZ And Browder and Stachel; that i^- «i%«P<'rtJ'as
by Field, Stiie comments to IVIr. Lattimore, in an official way, were
%?;■ Mo:;r" Rn;.'"Tl,ank you. That, is what I "-ted to know
We CO ne now to the last of the iiieetings. «>« rf^"4 f XtiveTo
tliat meeting was it again a report that was made to }0U relatne to
''m^'bTenz No That wa. not at a meeting. That wa. Mr
St'a'che/^oTam'^^down every day }^^::,^^^^S
;re:^,Tzrro7n:Ta,r :™; theiT'dZment'L^^
o exmni. e them for the line at that moment and also ™>rj^^^" ,7,t
were forbidden to keep a list of these X^^W liad o , u tS
they miglit be *"ken out b>- someone^ T^^^^^^^^
rt?o,;rthir;'e^?o;i:'irw::i;tt?connert^
^Mr Mu^^AN. Now, going back. Mr. Budenz. ^V^ ^^^^^^^ ^
believe you have presently with publishers a book, is that collect.
Mr. BuDENZ. Yes, sir. ,„ u i.»
Mr. MoEG.AN. AVliat is the title of the boolv <
Mr. BuDENz. Men Without Faces.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYaLTY INVESTIGATION 519
Mr. MoROAX. Aiirl who publishes it?
Mr. BuDExz. Harper c^ Bros.
Mr. Morgan. What theine have you developed in this book?
Mr. BuDExz. Well, the name suggests the theme. The name is not
arbitrary. It is because of the fact that we were forbidden to photo-
o-ra})!! most of the leaders of the Conmnmist Party — that is, Biddleman,
Tractenberg, or the secret heads of the Communist Party — we had a
rule we were forbidden to photograph them. That is why the name
of the book, because it indicates the Soviet fifth colunni in this coun-
try. The book exposes the Soviet fifth column in this country. I
know, because I am in it.
Mr. MoRGAx. Do you develop in this book this picture which you
are giving us today, this picture about the 1937 and the 1943 and the
1941 incidents?
Mr. BuDExz. Xo, sir; I do not.
Mr. MoRGAX. Do you refer to Mr. Lattimore in this book?
Mr. BuDExz. No, sir; I did not, and there is a specific reason, be-
cause if I were to refer to Mr. Lattimore I would be in the same pe-
culiar situation I was in the Wallace situation. In fact, the Wallace
situation was the cause of my not putting Mr. Lattimore in this book.
The only time that I put Mr. Lattimore in the book was to identify
Mr. John S. Service.
Mr. MoRGAx. What was that?
Mr. BuDEXz. Mr. John S. Service. Service. And because I made
a slight error of fact about Mr. Service, saying that he had advised
Mr. Wallace, I corrected that to say "advised Mr. Wallace in the Gov-
ernment with Owen J. Lattimore.*' That is being made because of
the error. Xow, the thing
Senator Tydixgs. Would you repeat that last sentence ?
JNIr. BuDEXz. I said Mr. Service had advised Mr. Wallace in the
Government with Mr. Lattimore. This I had in mind. Mr. Service
was really in China and INIr. Service was referred to in the Commu-
nist discussions as Mr. Lattimore's pupil, but the thing is I had no
information with regard to Mr. Service's political afliliations. There-
fore, in order to identify Mr. Service accurately, since I said he had
advised ^Nlr. Wallace, and he wasn't an adviser technically to Mr. Wal-
lace, I had in mind that he was in China when the Wallace mission
Avas, and I quoted Mr. Lattimore's name. However, in another book
which I am writing Mr. Lattimore is very prominent.
Mr. MoRGAX. Mr. Biidenz. when was the first time that you ever, to
any oflicial agency of this Government, mentioned the name of Owen
Lattimore as having any connections of the kind which you are pre-
senting to us today?
Mr. BuDEXz. I didn't catch the question. Counsel.
Mr. MoRGAx. The question is. When was the first time that you
ever mentioned to a representative of this Government, whether of
one branch or the other, anything concerning Mr. Owen Lattimore in
the same connection with which you are speaking about him today ?
Mr. BuDEXz. AVell, I didn't disclose any of these events to the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investigation until very recently.
Senator Tydixgs. May I ask how recently, if I do not interrupt
counsel i
Mr. BuDEXz. Well, I think, Senator, it was a couple of days after
this committee had gone to the FBI.
68970 — 50— pt. 1 34
520 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. It was after our committee had been given the
suimnary of the file, which you learned about through the press,
that vou went down to the FBI? . ^-^yj , ,
Mr^BuDENZ. That is right I h%^ that practice with the W
when there was a concentrated case I «P«^V^7^^:f, ^^Vi'ti.e practice
it not only in this case but in other cases, bo that was the practice. ^
Senator Tydings. All right. . , i •, H..f thp first time
Mr Morgan. That means, as I understand it, that the tirst time
tha^ you ga?eTnformation to'an agency of the Government^concernmg
Mr. Lattfmore was in March of this year; is that correct
Mr BuDENz. Well, that is my impression. That is my lemem
brance, at least in such detail, and the reason is-I would like to ex^
nan that The reason is because that has been my practice. That
fs to say in regard to even the 11 Communist leaders, while I gave
generaHnformltion on them, the concentrated information was not
^"Mr'£GAN' Now, if I may ask the question, how soon after you
left he pai'y in October of 1/45 did you have your hrst contact with
an officiJl agent of the Government concerning Communist matters^
Mr BuDENz Well, for G months I asked to be relieved of that mat-
ter mtiricouircolect myself, but finally, after 6 months the FBI
eiiisentatives came to my name, and for 3 days, and partly nights,
r a'?^^ '^^^^^^^^^ ^"^^'^^t of information, especially upon
events sucl as Miss Elizabeth Bentley and Goulas, and things of that
Xaracroif which I was questioned I -sponc^ed to ques^^^^^^^
Mr. Morgan. I presume, then, that would be early m IJlb, is that
correct ?
S S=n. K,^mTSlather from the testimony this morning,
MfBudenz, that Mr. Lattimore V^y^^^J^V^-^'^^^^-^-^-
ing this objective that you have referred to m ^^^l^tion China polic^e^^^
Mr BuiENz. That is what I state; yes sir S«meot these reports
I reieived while working with Frederick Vanderbilt Field, Bhilip
Jaffe and oTher Communists in the Institute of Pacific Kelations
Mr Morg N. Now, I should like to ask, that being true, why fi-om
earlv'in 1916^ ntil March of 1950, a period of 4 years, why during
all that period did you not call to the attention of some Government
aienJy-^md y^ manifestly were in contact vnth agents-somethmg
about this man that played this prominent role ^
Mr BuDENz. For the simple Aason that there are a number of o her
people that I have not been able to c^U to the attention of the U^^
eminent yet; that is to sav, I have been cooperating with the J^Bi
Txtens vefy, bnt largely in the case of prosecutions, and that has taken
a Lood b t of my Sme. In the time that we dealt together I have
IJ^o^^^llio^ltions of the FBI at ^-at lengtlu As a ma t.r ^^^^
fact that is one reason I was compiling this list of 400 concealed Com-
munistras if I may use the term, Senator, my last will and testament
r he United States on all I know of the Communist movement
because there are so many people whom I have not been able to identify
to the FBI with regard to their activities. , ,^^ ,
Senator TvmNGS. You are going to turn those 400 names over to
the FBI?
Mr. BuDENz. I am doing niat now seriatim.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 521
Senator Tyoixgs. They are not necessarily employees of the Gov-
ernment?
Mr. BuDENZ. 1 wonld say,' Senator, that none of the people in this
list are employees of the Government. I have taken them up in the
public field first.
Senator Tydixgs. Yes. The reason I ask you that. I was interested
in one of the <j!:reat papei-s of America as being- in this 400. I take it
most of the 400 were not employees of the State Department, but we
are interested in communism all over the world. I am interested in
it, and I am very glad you are turning it over to the FBI, because it
is a very important thing to do, but I did not want the impression to
prevairthat it had anything to do with our investigation of the State
Department.
Mr. Bi^'DKXz. It has taken soriie time, because I have to b? careful
with each nanie, as to how I know them and the like. ^Sh' impression
is that I have already turned over to the FBI -200 of these names, and
am continuing to do so. and. incidentally, you are correct in your
interpretation.
Senator Tvdixos. Then the article that you purported to Avrite about
me was not correct ?
Mr. BiDEXz. Well, if I said that, it was incorrect.
Mr. MoKGAX. Continuing, Mr. Budenz, I have in my hand here a
photostatic copy of page 12 of the Daily Worker for Ai^ril 29, 1949.
Under the caption there on this page, under the caption "'Books,*' there
is what purports to be an analysis or an estimate of Mr. Lattimore's
book. Situation in Asia, and I am going to ask if the chairman Avill
permit that Mr. Budenz read that — it may be a little long — because
this is the analysis apparently made by the Daily Worker of this book
which has played such a part in oin- discussions here. If there is no
objection, I siiould like Mr. Budenz to read it.
Senator Tydixgs. I can see nothing wrong with it. It is from the
l)a})er that Mr. Budenz was the editor of. Mark it with an exhibit
number, however, so it can be identified. Will the stenographer make
sure to identify it?
(The document above referred to was thereupon marked for identi-
fication as exhibit 78.)
Senator Ty^dixgs. Go ahead.
Mr. BuDKXz. The date of this article was April 29, 1949. And I
hesitate to testify on things after I left the party because I am not
fully conversant. However, I will do the best I can, Senator, from
my be«;t knowledge.
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead, sir. Read it carefully and slowly and
in your own way.
Mr. BuDEXz. "Situation in Asia criticizes United States Govern-
ment policy in Far East.""
I will rej)eat that. "'Situation in Asia criticizes United States Gov-
ernment policy in Far East."
Senator Tydixgs. That is the title of the book. Situation in Asia?
Ml'. BuDEXz. That is the title of the review of Mr. Lattimore's book.
Incidentally, I might say, so j^ou won't think this is a partisan issue,
that Professor Lattimore has severely criticized the administration
in the Nation — I can give you the address — in reviewing the AVhite
Paper, as ruthlessly imperialistic as a Republican.
522 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. You don't mean from that last remark that Mr.
Lattimore and the Republicans are in the same boat ?
Mr BuDENZ. No. No. I say he tries to put the admmistration m
the same boat as the Eepublicans. That was described by me by this
heading here, "Situation in Asia criticizes United States Government
policy in Far East." . -. ^ ^ • x
Now, this is by David Carpenter, a man whom I know, a Communist
whom I know.
Owen Lattimore's Situation in Asia is extremely critical of our Government'^
nolicies in that immense area of colonial and semicolonial peoples. He shows
Uiat our Government has done nothing but alienate the people's forces seeking
"'Samli^tJKriJ^t^'director of the Walter Hines Page School of Foreign
Relations at Johns Hopkins University, points out that our dependence on the
Kuomintang has served only to make the United States hated by the Chinese
oeople He contrasts, to our disadvantage, the reliance on the unpopular impe-
•ialistic agent Svngman Rhee and the maintenance of United States occupation
iioops miouth Korea with the ^vithdrawal of Soviet troops, and the establish-
merit of a native neoples government in North Korea.
Hefhowrcleam that the efforts by the United States Government to make
TTn-m a maior bastion against the Soviet Union must end m failure.
Lnino?e proposes that our Government in its alliances with dictatorial cor-
rupt antipeoile's forces in Asia-Lattimore proposes that our Government end
its alliances —
I misread that —
end its alliances with dictatorial, corrupt, antipeople's forces in Asia He
u?<'es that we stop intervention in the affairs of the col.uiial and semicolonial
^untries. He asks that we aid the peoples of Asia to ac-hieve national mde-
,e dence. All this is to the good as far as it goes. But La'^^'^^'■^?,•?f .^Z;
letelv off the beam in his efforts to explain the relationship of political and
socifa forces in Asia and their impact on world affairs, and as long as we fail
to recognize the realitv of these relations, so long will we be unable to help m the
•ichieveinent of those aims that Lattimore proposes. . , . , t „
In the tirst place, Lattimore argues that the colonial and semi-colomal peoples
struogling for national independence are developing a third force tliat seeks
t< remain equi-distant from American and Russian power. He refuses to ad-
mit that the struggle is completely an anti-imperialist struggle to drive out the
An eiican British, French, and Dutch who are subjecting the native peoples to
superexploitation for their raw materials and as markets for capitalistic
^''ua'ttimore admits that the Asiatic colonial and semicolonial peoples are look-
ing to the Soviet Union for examples of how oppressed peoples achieve mdepend-
ence and are turning away fr.nn the United States be.-ause of its imperialist
nnl But he makes tliis a contest of tactics which the United States can change
]>v adopting new methods. , . , , . ^ <.„ ^v,^
lattimoiv refuses to see that the reason the colonial people turned to the
Soviet Unbui f.n- their example is precisely because of the overthrow of capital-
l.<,m and the estalilishment of socialism in that country. As Stahn points out—
They always have to quote from Stalin. This is in quotes :
"It is i.reciselv because the national-colonial revolution took place in our
countrv under the leadership of the proletariat under the banner of nationism
that piriah nations, slave nations, have, for the first time m the history of man-
kind arisen to the position of nations which are really free and really equal,
f herebv setting a contagious example for the oppressed nations of the whole world.
••This means that the October revolution"— now, that is the Bolshevik revo-
lution in Russia, if I may interpret that— "'This means that the October revolu-
tion has ushered in a new era. the era of colonial revolutions which are being
conducted in the oppressed countries of the world in alliance with the proletariat
and under the leadership of the proletariat."
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 523
That closes Stalin's quotation.
The core of the leadership in the cokmial struggle against iiuijerialisni and
the guaranty of the at-liievement of national independence lies in the growth and
the development of the native Conununist parties, springing out of the ex-
ploited native working classes, and leaving the exploited working class and the
(.ppressed peasant masses. That is why the imiierialists, under the leadei-ship
of the United States, direi-t their main lire against the destruction of these
native Comnuniist parties.
Secondly, Lattimore makes the mistake of assuming that the relationship
(•f the United States and the Soviet ITnion in Asia is that of a struggle for power.
Here he falls into the trap laid hy American imperialism, which w^ould like to
have the reality of its efforts to maintain its grasp of resources and manpower
<(f Asia.
This approach to American-Soviet relationships obscures the truth. The
Soviet l^niim is not seeking world prwer. When the colonial peoples look for
alliances with the Soviet I'nion, it is because they see in that socialist country
the true defender of their national aspirations. When the Soviet Union alines
itself with these peoples —
I hope I am not reading this too rapidly.
Senator Tydixgs. No. Go ahead.
Mr. BuDExz. (continues reading) :
it is not just a counteralliance to protect its own borders against the attack
of imperialism: it is fundamentally a defense of the national intei'est of the
peoples of these ojljjressed nations.
Because the peoples of the world recognize that an attack on the Soviet Union is
an attack on the defender of their own aspirations, because they see in such an
attack on their own efforts to break the hold of imperialism, they join with the
Soviet Union in a connnon friend against imperialism. They have already seen
how the peoples of the eastern European democracies were able to protect them-
selves from the encroachment of imperialism and to begin their own internal de-
velopment as the result of alliances with and protection by the Soviet Union.
In our ov.-n country, if we are to adopt the proposals Lattimoi-e makes for the
situation in Asia, it is necessary for us to loosen the hold of the imperialists on
our Government. Otherwise, our official policies will continue to be that of op-
pressing the colonial peoples in the interests of our monopoly capitalists.
Mr. MoRGAx. Mr. Budenz, in reference to that article — of course, it
speaks for itself and I do not want to presume to characterize it, but
in reading it, as I recall, there are in that review certain criticisms of
the book ; is that correct ?
Mr, J^JrDF.^z. Yes, sir ; that is correct.
Mr, Morgan. Now may I ask you, as having been editor of the
Daily Worker, was it ordinary or customary in revie^ys of books in the
Daily Worker to speak critically of one who is projecting, so it has
been stated here, a policy for the Soviet Union ?
]Mr. BuDEXz. Yes, sir, I can ex))lain to you that we had the ])olicy
in protecting people who are out beyond the party proper, to criticize
them with faint praise — that is to say, that is, to damn them with faint
praise — rather, to praise them with faint damns, is the way I want to
put it.
Now I can give to this connnittee examples of that, but I just will
have to have time. However, I would like to analyze this, not as a
member of the party but for just a moment out of my experience.
In tlie fii'st place, you Avill note tliat the whole emi)hasis here is on
the " 'Situation in Asia' criticizes United States Government policy in
the Far East," You will note Mr, Lattimore's premise of the immediate
action is approved. That is the important thing for Stalin. Commu-
nists don't go around saying, '*We are Commimists." They are push-
ing a certain line ; I mean the Communists out beyond the party. This
524 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
approves Mr. Lattimore's main premise, and it also comes as a con-
clusion of that where it says that what he is advocating, it toilowed
out, certain things will have to be done. ,, , . ^ •
What does it speak to Mr. Lattimore under all this extensive
verbiage? It speaks to two things: that he puts forward a third-
course idea, and, secondly, that he is still advocating capitalism m a
way. Now, the Dailv Worker knows that Mr. Lattimore m his posi-
tion can do nothing else but be with capitalism as such. They know
that this third force exists because it was discussed while I was m the
partv, that it is something which the Communists have proposed from
time to time ; they constantlv develop third forces. At the present
moment they understand that it is practically impossible— I am only
say that, not as a far eastern expert, Mr. Chairman, which 1 am
not, but merelv from the discussions withm the party before 1 lett^
that it is impossible to develop a third force in Asia at^the present
moment. That is to say, either you are going to be with Chiang Kai-
shek or you are going to be with the Reds. That is to say, you can t
take a neutral attitude.
Senator Tydings. I do not want to be with either one of them m
the situation right now.
Mr. BuDENZ. I could discuss that, but I do not choose to do so, but
it would only be my personal opinion^ and in that respect I wish to
refrain In any event, in analyzing this article we have this method
used by the Daily Worker on two men of distinction, men who are
adhering to their general policy and under our discipline, but who, if
they embrace them too closely, would simply be destroyed. Now, 1 can
give to the committee at the time granted examples of that out of my
experience on the Daily Worker. , <• ^ xi, ^ ^i,
Mr Morgan. As I gather vour testimony, then, the fact that there
was criticism here of the book does not alter in any way the conclu-
sions you have drawn or the opinions you have expressed concern-
ing it ?
Now, Mr. Lattimore, I believe
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you get an answer to that question ?
Mr. BuDENz. Oh, yes. , ^ . ■, , «
Senator Hickenlooper. He shook his head i . „ -, ,
Mr. BuDENz. Oh, I beg your pardon. I said, "No, sir, but very
faintly. Thank you. Senator. .^ , ,, -^ . ., ^ i,
Mr' Morgan. Dr. Lattimore testified, Mr. Budenz. that he partici-
pated in an organization which raised funds for Finland during the
Russo-Finnish war in 1940. Would that indicate to you that he was
a Communist sympathizer? _ ,-, • o mu ^ j '4-
Mr BuDENZ. That he was a Communist sympathizer ( i hat doesn t
indicate that he was a Communist sympathizer. You would not
necessarily have a Communist sympathizer connected with that, but
it would iiot indicate that he was not a Communist. I mean to say
that presence on that Finnish committee were not guaranties that men
were not members of the Communist Party. I don't know that this is
quite the thing to do. Senator, but there has been a very famous name
in the headines from time to time. I know of a specific exemption
given to a specific gentleman in this respect and to others. 1 don t
know about Mr. Lattimore's case.
STATE DEPARTME^'T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 525
Mr. MouoAX. Now, as a general proposition, would you say that
contributing to Finland durino; this i)eriod of the Rnsso-Finnish war
was oi- was not indicative of Connnunist sympathies?
Senator Tydings. You mean the Finnish-Russian war?
Mr. Morgan. Finnish-Russian war ; yes.
Mr. BuDEXz. 1 would say in <>eneral it was not indicative of Com-
nnmist sym])athies, but 1 would say, to my knowledge— and, as I say,
i know of at least one instance, maybe more, where exemptions were
granted to people who were in delicate positions to aid the Finnish
cami)aig)i. The pro])osition was put up: A few dollars to Finland,
what does that harm in the situation compared to protecting these
comrades?
Mr. Morgan. The fact that Mr. Lattimore may have aided the
Finns would not alter your conclusion in any respect?
]Mr. BuDENZ. It would not. That is to say, I don't want to be so
arbitraiT as that, I would give it consideration, but it would not
alter it, knowing what I know.
Mr. Morgan. Dr. Lattimore i-eferred in his testimony, I believe,
to the fact that he had and does support the Marshall plan. What
observation would you make with respect to that, Mr, Budenz, if any?
Mr. Budenz. Well, of course, now here I am testifying to events
after I left the party, and I hesitate to do that. Senator, but if my
general opinion out of my experience is desired, I shall give an answer.
That would not affect my judgment at all, considering his book. Situ-
ation in Asia, which I have only read very hastily, but I agree thor-
oughly with the World-Telegram, that Uncle Joe couldn't state it
any better than Mr. Lattimore has done in his Situation in Asia when
lie states that the Soviet Laiion is looked to — I don't want to give an
exact quote — with awe and wonder b}^ the Asiatic peoples, whereas
the United States is only regarded as the occasion for cannon fodder
for them. Xow that thing is just merely a popularized expression of
an attack on the imperialism by the Communists. Knowing that,
and knowing tliat the Communists do give exemptions to men who
are concealed, I would say that Mr, Lattimore — -of course, I can only
give my opinion here — could have been excused on the Marshall plan
in order to continue activities in the area to which he is assigned.
There have Ueen cases likewise of that to which I can refer if I am
given time.
Mr. Morgan. It is your testimony, therefore, that the fact that Dr.
Lattimore may support the Marshall plan has no necessary bearing on
M-hether he may or may not have been carrying out a policy sympathetic
to the Communists?
Mr. Budenz. If in his main line of assignment he continues to sup-
port the Stalinite policy, many things are exempted. Tliat, however,
does not indicate that I have any knowledge today of Mr. Lattimore's
position.
Mr. Morgan. I understand your testimony relates to prior to the
time you left the party in 1945 ?
Mr. Budenz. That is correct.
Mr. Morgan. It has been stated, Mr. Budenz, and the characteriza-
tion made with respect to Mr. Lattimore — at least in one instance —
that he was the top Soviet agent in this country. Do you care to make
any observation on that?
526 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr BUDENZ. Well, to my knoAYledge, that statement is teclinically
not accurate. I do not know, of course, the whole story, what other
evidenc^ there is, but, from my own knowledge, I would not say he
"Mr U^'TK^tatement has been made, I believe,. in substance
that Owen Lattimore is a Communist subject to Communist disciphne.
I will ask you if you have ever exercised discipline over him.
Mr BuDENz. I have participated in meetmgs of the Politburo which
have Exercised discipline over him, and to that extent was a Participant
in the discipline. Personally I have not exercised any such discipline
Mr Morgan. The discipline to which you are referring here, i
presume, is the discipline exercised over members ot the Communist
Party by party leaders; is that correct?
Mr. BuDENz. That is correct. , . , . i
Mr. Morgan. Now back to the statement that has been made
Senator Lodge. Now what was it? Let us have that elucidated,
^'^Mf BuDENZ Well, the discipline I referred to were these various
assignmeTts and instructions to which I pointed. That - --t c is-
cii)lme means; and also the fact that reports were made as to his atti-
tude from time to time. Now, once or twice-although, unfortunately,
today I can't recall the exact dates. I can on a subsequent appearance
before this committee if it is desired. It was indicated from time to
Time that Field and Lattimore did not fully agree on policies of some
kind or another-the carrying oiit of Poiic.if-b^^^^^^^^^^^^T;^^ '""fj
"That is the same way as with Harry Bridges with Ben Gokl and
Abraham Flaxer." You must understand that we criticized Com-
mm^sS^^-ight in the Daily Worker. We critized Abraham Flaxer
ii"lii in the Daily Worker.' We did it to cleanse the party of certain
aclions of Flaxei-. AVe criticized John Anderson by name. A\ e did
that in order to clear the party of certain acts of Anderson. In other
words, there was an appraisal made there of these reports.
Senator Tydings. That does not clarify the doubt m my mind.
Mr Morgan. Suppose vou ask the question. Senator.
Senator Lodge. I would like to know a specific instance when an
order or an instruction was given and carried out.
Mr BuDFNz Well, the order to represent the Chinese Communists
as acrrarian reformers was certainly carried out, according to reports
commg to me. It was carried out through the mobilization of writers
in that field. Yes, it was, but specifically I do not know because I did
not hear the detailed report on the matter.
Senator Lodge. Is that the most concrete and specific illustration
there is?
Mr BuDENz. That is the most concrete, yes, sir.
Mr MoRGVN. Mr. Budenz, rroins back to that observation concerning
Mr. Lattimore that has been' developed here. He has been character-
ized as a member of the Communist Party subject to Communist
discipline. I would Uke to ask you if you, of your own knowledge,
know that to be true. ^ , ^ . T»/r t j.^-
Jtir Budenz. That is to say, vou mean whether I met Mr. Lattimoie
in a Communist Partv meeting. I have known it of my official knowl-
ed<re represented to "me bv a man like Jack Stachel. Incidentally,
Senator Lodge, Jack Stachel is one of the disciplinarians of the Com-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION ' 527
numist Party, and when he designates a man I think you will find that
he lias authority to do so.
.Senator Lodge. Wliat happens if you don't do what you are told?
Mr. BuDEXz. Well, first of all, you take Harry Bridges; he didn't
always do what he was told. He was given a little time to think it over
because he was so valuable, and then he was brought into line.
Senator Lodge. He what?
Mr. BuDENZ. He was brouglit into line. If you don't do what you
are told you are expelled from the party. Now, this expnlsion from the
party, you understand, Senator, when it comes to concealed com-
munism, is never announced. At the time the party tried to blackmail
people by saying that they were Communists when they had denied
it before. They tried to do it with regard to Mike Quill of the Trans-
])ort Workers, and including the Maritime Workers, but as a rule no
case is made of that in the case of a concealed Communist. It would
impair the ability to carry on this type of work.
Mr. Morgan. Back to the question, Mr. Budenz — and I want to
explain why I regard it as significant. The statement has been made
concerning Dr. Lattimore, that he is a member of the Communist
Party subject to party discipline. Again, I would like to ask the
question : Do you, of your own knowledge, know that to be true?
Mr. BuDExz. All that I know I have presented to the committee. I
think they can judge themselves. I can say this: Senator Tydings
thinks not.
Senator Tydixgs. I would like to get your answer, yes or no. It is
a perfectly fair and proper question, and I think that the counsel is
entitled to have you testify directly to the point either one way or the
other.
Mr. BuDEX'z. Very well. I have no desire to evade. I just thought
this might be a legal question.
Senator Ty'dixgs. No.
Mr. BuDEXZ. The point is this : I would say — of course, the question
of personal knowledge is a legal question in a certain way — but I would
say, so far as meeting Mr. Lattimore, as seeing him in meetings, that
I have never done so, that I have never seen any vestige of his Com-
munist Party membership. What I have received is these official
reports which are quite binding and were binding on me as a member
of the Communist Party.
Senator Tydixgs. Well, I think you made a better explanation, and
I don't want to put words in your mouth and you can answer it either
way, but the question was the fair way. Do you, of 3^our own knowl-
edge, know, whatever the question was? Now, your answer is you
either do or you don't.
Mr. BuDEXz. Well, the question is what we mean by "personal
knowledge," Senator. If you mean — I do not — I have not seen Mr.
Lattimore in a Communist meeting; I have not met him as a Commu-
nist, I would say
Senator Tydix'gs. Well, let me put it to you this way : without rely-
ing on what you have been told, do you know, of your own knowledge,
whether it is yes or no ?
Mr. BuDEX'z. Oh, I can answer that readily.
Senator Tydix'gs. Yes.
Mr. BrDExz. Outside of what I was officially told by the Commu-
nist leaders, I do not know of Mr. Lattimore as a Communist.
528 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr Morgan Now one further point that I would like to have cleared
up for the assistance of our investigation here. You referred to cor-
roboration of your testimony here, I believe. Would you care to
amplify on what that corroboration might be ?
Mr BuDENZ. Well, of course, I can't tell what the character of the,
answers are going to be by Frederick Vanderbilt Field and Jack
Stachel and Philip Jaffe. -, , , .1 .i
Mr. Morgan. 1 believe you have indicated that those gentlemen
should be subpenaed. . _^ . ^ ti r
Mr. BuDENz. That is my stalwart opinion. For instance, I believe
that Mr. Field above all should be subpenaed, and also his hnancial
records, and any other records he might have still existing; but the
other men should be subpenaed also. Now, the thing is that here
we have, in my opinion, a very large problem for the United Myites.
In fact, if it didn't sound rather excessive, I would say one ot the
largest exposes that America has ever seen, and it lies m the hands
of these men. And in addition to that— although for the moment 1 am
not sure of it— since the matter was confined to sucli a small group ot
people, I am convinced that there are others who know better than
I do in the sense the Senator has asked me about some ot these matters.
Now I shall be pleased, insofar as I can, upon trying to refresh my
T-ecoUection, to submit certain names which I think might be helptul.
They may not be helpful, but I am convinced— I know there is cor-
robrative evidence in existence. , -, , -^^ n
Senator Tydings. I wonder if the counsel and the committee will
bear with me just a minute to follow a suggestion you have made
about Mr. Field and Mr. Stachel and some of the other names that 1
don't recall. From the background of your testimony, if these men
are summoned and sworn can we believe their testimony?
Mr BuDENz. Well, I would sav that they would be niclined to lie,
but. Senator, there are skillful— [laughter]— just a moment, but
there are skillful means of eliciting from them information, and
there have been . , • .
Senator Tydings. We would try that, but I would ]ust assume-
Mr BuDENz. No. No ; I do not assume they are going to come here
except as hostile witnesses. However, Mr. Field has m his hands a
crrent deal of information, records, and the like, which are valmible
to the Government of the United States and to the infiltration. iNow
I think vou can assume right from the very beginning that tiieir
inclination will be to lie, but as in the trial of the 11 Communists, a
great deal of information was elicited from them that was of yahie.
I believe that enough information will be elicited to lay the foundation
for further investigation. _ i^i 1 -4.
Mr. Morgan. Now this point is of more interest to me, although it
is of great interest to the committee. Apart from the subpenain,jr of
these witnesses you have mentioned, have you at this point, Mr.
Budenz, any suggestion for further developing our investigation^
If you think you should pass it on to the committee m executive ses-
sion, that is quite all right, but if you have any suggestions to give us
for developing this picture, we would Avelcome them and like to have
them.
Mr. Budenz. I would like to give the committee in executive session
to
several suggestions
'(-?»-^
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 529
Senator Tydixgs. Your Avish is respected, and we will call a meet-
in <r in executive session.
Mr. FoRTAS. Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt? I have liere a wit-
ness whom I suggest be called. This witness has to leave tonight, and
I was wondering if it was possible to put him on this afternoon.
This witness was head of counterintelligence and general intelligence
for General MacArthur during the war. I think that he can give
tliis connnittee some testimony that will be very valuable, and he has to
leave tonight. Can we put him on this afternoon?
Senator Tyoixos. That is all right, Mr. Fortas, but you have
already said that you want the witness summoned today under the
suggestion that yoii have outlined. I would like to have Mr. Budenz
continue so we can all cross-examine him first, but I would imagine
from what you have said and from what I have learned that this
witness will not consume a great deal of time; is that correct?
Mr. FoRTAS. Yes; that is correct.
Senator Tydixcjs. I would like to put it up to the committee and
to accommodate you. I think your request is a reasonable one, and
in an}- court of law under similar circumstances I believe it would
be hoiiored. So I would like to put it up to my fellow members here
and see if we cannot do that, get rid of your witness, and go on with
Mr. Budenz this afternoon.
Senator (Jreex. I suggest we defer it until lunch time.
Senator Tydixgs. Well, I have got to cancel some matters. This
matter takes 4 or 5 or 6 hours of my time a day, arranging for sub-
penas, correspondence, and what not, and I just have to have an hour
in the middle of the day.
Senator Greex'. It is not only taking 3'our time and Mr. Budenz'
time, but the time of some of the other members of the committee.
Senator Tydix^gs. Well, I would like to suggest that the witness be
called immediately after we reconvene at 2 : 30. Is there any objec-
tion from any member of the committee ?
Senator Hickexlooper. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I object to the tech-
nique of interfering with the continuity of this testimony until it is
completed, and I seriously urge the necessity in any orderly procedure
of completing ^Nlr. Budenz' testimony and then the committee meet-
ing to see whether it has other testimony that it desires to put on or
not, and I feel very strongly that this matter should go through to its
completion in an orderly fashion and not be interrupted and the hear-
ing put at cross purposes, so that we can get through with one thing
at a time.
Mr. FoRTAS. I beg your pardon, ISIr. Chairman, but the Senator
referred to my request as a technique. I oifer this brigadier general
of the United States Army, retired, as a witness here, and I shall
ask him to testify. He has told me that he must leave town tonight.
I assiune that the Senator does not challenge that statement.
Senator Tydix^gs. What is your position. Senator Lodge?
Senator Lodge. What has he got to do that is more important than
testifying liere on the protection of the United States against
conununism ?
Mr. FoRTAS. I do not know.
Senator Lodge. Why can't he stay over until tomorrow ?
Mr. Budexz. Senator, nuiy I as a witness under subpena, make a
suggestion ?
530 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Just a second.
Mr. BiiDENz. So far as that is concerned, Senator-
Senator Lodge. I would be Avilhng to have a night session with the
committee and let Mr. Budenz continue and then hear this witness
toniirht. . r^ • -, -i .i a -r>
Senator Tydings. Assuming that he is not finished then ? Because
I do not think Mr. Budenz is going to be finished for a couple ot
'Mr FoRTAS. Mr. Chairman, this entire testimony, in my judgment,
will take 15 or 20 minutes, and I should like to accommodate this gen-
tleman that came here of his own free will. . ^.^ ,
Senator Tydixgs. We will take a vote on it. How do you vote,
Senator Hickenlooper? _ . i tit -r. i w *■
Senator Hickexlooper. I vote to continue with Mr. Budenz testi-
mony until it is through, then I have no objection to other witnesses
that may be put on, in the judgment of the committee.
Senator Tydings. Senator Green. . . . i . i
Senator Green. I decline to vote at this time. It oiight to be taken
up with the committee in executive committee meeting.
Senator Tydings. They would like an answer here.
Senator Green. I know they would. ,
Senator Tydings. We could stay in executive meeting an hour and
o-et no lunch, if I am right. I don't see why we cannot make up our
minds— it is all open and above board— for whatever reasons we have,
which I believe will all be gcfod. Senator Lodge?
Senator Lodge. Well, I don't know enough to vote on this thing.
The facts have not been quite clear to me.
Senator Tydings. Senator McMnhon?
Senator McMahon. I will vote at 4 o clock. It seems to me that
bv that time the general can get a plane or after that get his testimony
in. I see him shaking his head. I assume he is the gentleman.
What is the generars deadline ?
Mr. FoRTAs. He has an 11 o'clock tram.
Senator McMahon. Eleven ox-lock tonight?
Mr. FoRTAS. Yes, sir. . i
Senator Tydings. We cannot sit that long. Many of us have en-
o-ao-ements. I have two to speak tonight for over a month s stancl-
fn^, and that is the reason I have called the meeting for tomorrow
^"^ Seiiat^or Lodge. We have received no notice, Mr. Chairman, and
I regret that very much. . , , ^i . ^i j.-
Senator TYmNGS. Well, I do too, because I instructed that the notice
be sent out, and it must be a misunderstanding. , . ^ j
Senator McMahon. MVe can take this up later this afternoon, l
don't share your pessimism, sir.
Senator Tydings. The committee will stand m recess.
Senator McMahon. Senator. I don't share your pessimism, sir.
Senator Tydings. I beg your pardon. .• .i •
Senator McMahon. We can probably determine this question this
afternoon. I think we can probably bring it up again.
Senator Tydings. The committee will stand m recess until 2 . 60, at
which time Mr. Budenz will go on the stand. In the meantime we
will take your proposition under advisement. on ^ ,„ ^-f
(AVliereupon, at 1 : 05 p. m., a recess was taken until 2: 30 p. m. oi
the same day.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 531
AFTERXOOX SESSION
Senator Tydixgs. The meeting will come to order.
Do 3'ou want to say soinothinji:, Mr. Fortas?
Mr/FoRTAs. Mr. Chairman, 1 would like respectfully to renew my
request that the hrigadier general of the United States Army, retired,
to whom I referred before the luncheon recess, be allowed to testify
this afternoon. He is hei-e as a volunteer, out of a sense of public duty,
and I ask that this committee extend to him the courtesy of hearing his
testimony this afternoon, so that he can leave town tonight.
Senator Tydixgs. Well, I have had no chance, Mr. Fortas, to discuss
it with any of the four other members of the committee during recess.
The coinmittee has heard the request from Mr. Fortas. I will be
glad to have your advice. I do not want to make any statement my-
self, until the committee gives me its opinion.
Senator Hickexlooper. Mr. Chairman, I shall not hesitate to give
you my opinion. It is the same as it was. If this request is granted,
then Senator McCarthy has an equal right to interpose witnesses in
between the beginning and the termination of other witnesses, and if
I supported this request, I would have to support a request of that
kind on the part of Senator McCarthy, which I have no intention of
doing; and, I think that the testimony of this witness should go for-
ward until completed.
Mr. Lattimore was permitted to go forward with his testimony com-
pletely, and without interruption until it was completed.
This witness should, when Mr. Lattimore takes the stand again, if
he does, he should be accorded the same privilege, and this general has,
if he is a retired general, has nothing that is so important, that is, any
more important unless it should be some acnte personal matter, than to
make himself subject to the convenience of this committee which, as
far as I am concerned, would be immediately following Mr. Budenz's
testimony.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator Green.
Senator Greex^. ISIr. Chairman. I move that he be given the privilege
of putting ou his testimony at 4 o'clock today.
Senator Tydixgs. Is there a second to the motion ?
Senator McMahox. Yes, I will second it.
Senator Tydixgs. Are you ready for a vote ?
Senator Lodge. No.
Senator Hickexlooper. I move a substitute to that, if we are dis-
cussing our business in the open.
Senator Lodge. I would like to
Senator Hickexlooper. I would like to make a substitute, so you
can have the issue before you. I move ihat the motion be amended
so that it reads that this witness, whoever his name is, he has not been
announced yot, may be permitted to testify at the conclusion of the
testimony of Mr. Budenz, in this open hearing. I do not refer to
executive testimony of Mr. Budenz.
Senator Lodc^e. Mr, Chairman, T presume that this witness has no
acute personal emergency, of life and death nature, that requires him
to be out of Washington tomorrow. If there had been such an emer-
gency, we would have been told about it, and I think we ought to
think very carefully before we start to interrupt presentations by
532 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
the insertion of witnesses, because if it is done for one, it will be done
for all Wien you once start doing it, the atmosphere ot chaos and
pandemonium that is all too Dravalent around here anyway is going
to o-et worse, and that is going to be bad for everybody, bad for the
disputants in this case, and bad for the national interest. ■
I am willing to have a night session. Let Mr. Budenz finish and
then put on this general; but, 1 cannot condone anything which is
going to increase the disorderly atmosphere of these proceedings
Senator Tydixgs. Gentlemen, we have a motion. We have had an
amendment, and it looks like it is two to two, but I will put the ques-
^^Tliose in favor of the amendment will signify by holding up their
(Senators Hickenlooper and Lodge raised their hands.)
Senator Tydings. Those opposed. , , . , , ,
(Senators Green and McMahon raised their hands.)
Senator Tydings. The Chair will vote with the minority and we
will not hear the general.
Go ahead with your testimony, Mr. Morgan.
Mr Morgan. To resume, Mr. Budenz : This morning, reference was
made to the fact that Mr. Lattimore has supported the Marsha U
plan, according to his testimony, contributed to the Fmnish-Kussian—
in the Finnish-Russian war. to the Finns
Senator McI^LmoN. By that announcement, you mean we will not
hear him until after the questioning is finished, but if that question-
ing should finish early, then we will hear him? T 1 4-
Senator Tydings. that is right, and 1 only did this because I do not
want to get into a vote where there are three on one side and two on
the other. I do not think it is good for the country.
Personally, I would like to have accommodated you. General, but
I don't think it would have been a good thing for this hearing.
Mr. FoRTAS. Mv. Chairman, there are no rights in these proceedings,
as I understand it. for counsel to obtain subpenas.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Fortas, we will be glad to subpena any wit-
nesses that vou ask us to subpena. .
Mv FoRTAS. This general is a completely volunteer witness. He
came here out of a sense of public duty. He was not communicated
with, in the first instance, by me or Uv. Lattimore or LIrs. Lattimore
or anvbodv on their behalf! I have asked the courtesy for this fine
o-eutleman, who lias so demonstrated his public spirit, to be able to
take the stand here for 15 minutes, and that has been denied to me.
I now ask for a recess for 2 or 3 minutes, so that I can confer with
him. I certainly do not, myself, want to ask the committee to subpena,
against his will, a gentleman who has shown that fine spirit, and a
gentleman of this caliber.
May I have a 2- or 3-minute recess?
Senator Tydings. I think your request is a fair one and without
objection, for 2 minutes we will give you a chance .
Senator HicKENLOorER. Mr. Chairman, I object to this kind ot
procedure. This meeting was called to hear the testimony of
Senator Tydings. Tlie'o])jection is sustained.
Senator Hickenlooper. Of Mr. Budenz.
Senator a^-DiNGS. You cannot confer. AVe cannot aive you any
chance at all. You will have to do the best you can, Mr. Fortas.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 533
Go ahead, Mr. Moiuaii.
Mr. MoHOAX. To resume, Mr. Budeuz : Reference was made earlier
this moriiin<r in your observations, when they were sohcited on Dr.
Lattimore's stateinent ooncernino; the fact that he had supported the
Marshall plan, had contributed to the Finns in the Finnish-Russian
war, and reference was also made to the book review in the Daily
AVorker relative to his book, and you expressed your observations on it.
I have one furtlier matter tliaf T would like for you to comment on,
ii vou care to.
In April of 1949, we are advised that a Soviet magazine called Mr.
Lattimore "a learned lackey of imperialism."
Now, I ask you if such a statement, appearing in a Soviet magazine,
would liave any relationship, in your opinion, to the matters concern-
ing which you testified today, or in any way affect your opinion?
Mr. BuDENz. Well, I would first have to see the article and examine
it very closely. This is something that comes out of the clear blue sky.
1 would have to see the article and examine it in order to understand
the circumstances which caused it, and the whole atmosphere around
it. Therefore, I would request that I be permitted to see the article
and to study it.
Mr. Morgan. Unfortunately, we do not have it here. You do not
care to make any observation from that statement?
Mr. BuDEXz. I do not care to make any observation, when I am out-
side the party, on an article which is so vague as that.
As a matter of fact, on any documents within the party today, I
would want the privilege of studying them for several days before
passing upon them, for this reason : That the Soviet tactics are such
that I would be wise to do that, to understand exactly what the cir-
cumstances were which caused such an observation, if it were made,
and what other observations were made.
]\Ir. Morgan. By reason of certain suggestions that have been made
in our record here, to possible parallels, Mr. Budenz, I would ask 3'ou
if you know of your own knowledge whether there is a parallel between
the writings of Dr. Lattimore and the Communist Party line relative
to the Far East?
Mr. BuDEXz, On that question, I would request from the committee
permission, which I intended to do, it may have been omitted in my
original statement — to submit a regular written analysis on this mat-
ter, and be subjected again to cross examination, if that is found neces-
sary. However, I am not in position today to go into this matter in
any extensive fashion.
Senator Ttdings. Dr. Budenz, as I understand it, you have not made
the analysis and have not it available right now.
Mr. BuDEXz. That is right.
Senator Tydings. So that you would want time to make such an
analysis, in the event the question is pressed?
^Ir. Budenz. That is right.
Senator Tydix'gs. Let me get to the point, and I will turn it back.
Mr. Budenz, Excuse me.
Senator Tydings. You do not have it available with you, or in any
place you can get it — already completed?
Mr. Budexz. That is right.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead, Mr. Morgan.
534 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, I believe that is all the questions I have
:it this particular point. ^ , . x 1^4; Mt^ Mnrri=;
Sena or Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman I wonder if Mr. Moiris,
assistant counsel, might be permitted to ask ^^meq^^^s^
Senator TvmNGS. I think the committee with the 01 e co^^^^^^^^^^^
niiless we are o-oing to bring m all our investigators that is a latnei
;u ^tion^birpr^ocedure, and^as far as I am concerned I think the coin-
mittee members should stav withm the purview of this thing, and
ouoht to rely on the witnesses and the questions through the commit-
tee^uembers and bv the chief counsel of our organization.
Senator Green, do you have anv questions (
Senator Green. Yes, I have a few questions to ask^ ,, -. t?
You this morning, Mr. Budenz, referred to Father James F.
Kearney ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes. . • j. 4.- 9
Senator Green. As the source of certain information «
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. , . ^ ^. ,
Senator Green. What was the information ?
MrB^ENZ. Oh, I introduced to the committee, the article-it is
an article on Mr. Lattimore.
Senator Green. Yes? , ,^ t ..•
Mr Budenz. An analysis of Mr. l^attimore. - ^ i in,
Seiiator Green. I mean, in addition to the ai^icle you introduced, do
^^ou have anv other information from Father Kearney^
" Mr Budenz. I have not, no, Senator. ■ 1 • • ,
SeJ;ato?GREEN. Do you know where Father Kearney got his m-
formation ?
Mr Budenz. I do not know, sir. . •. j; _
Senatoi CAREEN. Did he tell you, or did he not, that he got it from
Alfred Kohlberg, of New York?
Mr. Budenz. No, sir. ,^ t^ i 11 9
Senator Green. Do you know Mr. Kohlberg < ^ , , . ,
MrBuDENZ. Oh, yes; I know Mr. Kohlberg. I also know Arch-
bishop Yu Pin, Archbishop of Nanking. ^ , ,. ,
Senator Green. You have known him for a long time^
INIr. Budenz. Who ?
Senator Green. How long?
Mr. Budenz. Who do you mean ?
Senator Green. Kohlberg. 1 • <; ^ „
MrBuDENZ. Oh, Mr. Kohlberg? Yes, I have known him for some
time.
Senator Green. How long?
Mr. Budenz. Well, I should say a couple of years at least.
Senator Green. Is that all? . „ ,.
Mr Budenz. The first time I met Mr. Kohlberg, m my recollection,
• is when he came to ask me in regard to Communists m the Institute ot
Pacific Relations. Now, whenever that was, it isn't more than a couple
""* Senator Green. Is it before you left the Communist Party ?
Mr. Budenz. Oh, no. sir. Long after. In ^f'^.y^ei-y loiig after
Senator Green. Well, you were m agreement with Mr. Kohlbeig.-
Mr. Budenz. On what ?
Senator Green. On policies to pursue.
Mr. Budenz. Not necessarily.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 535
Senator Grekn. Xot necessaril}-, but were you?
Mr. BuDENZ. Xo, sir. I am not fully in agreement with Mr. Kohl-
berg, always.
Senator Green. Do you know what his interest in the matter is?
Mr. BuDENz. I have no idea.
Senator Green. He has an interest in it, you think?
Mr. Budexz. I have no idea.
Senator Green. You don't know ?
Mr. BuDENZ. Xo, sir; I don't know, Senator.
Senator Green. Well, this is a matter very near your heart, and
very near his, and a'ou have seen each other a good deal?
Mr. BuDENZ. I have only spoken to Mr. Kohlbeig, as I have to other
people who have represented themselves as being against commu-
nism— I have not inquired into his business or anything of that sort.
I have not adopted his views, necessarily.
Senator Green. Not necessarily; no.
Mr. Budenz. I have not adopted his views.
Senator Green. We don't necessarily have to adopt anyone's views,
but do your views coincide ?
J\Ir. Budenz. They do not ; no — not entirely.
Senator Green. Well, as to China ?
Mr. Budenz. As to China, yes ; but, Senator, I did not know it was
an offense in America to be opposed to communism in China, which
I am.
Senator Green. That has been brought up. The question of whether
you are or are not opposed to it in China is one of the questions I
thought you yourself raised in connection with Mr. Lattimore.
Mr. Budenz. I am opposed to communism in China, and so far as
Mr. Kohlberg professes to be, I am in agreement with him; but, I
disagree with him on many domestic policies in the United States. I
cannot go into all of those.
Senator Green. You have read his views on China ?
Mr. Budenz. What was that ?
Senator Green. You have learned his views on China?
]Mr. Budenz. Well, I have a general idea of his views on China. I
don't say that. I know them thoroughly; no.
Senator Green. Xot necessarily, but so far as you know you do
agree with them?
Mr. Budenz. Well, I agree in this respect: I agree that China
has been a terrific disaster, one of the greatest blows the United
States has ever received, and I do not know what Mr. Kohlberg thinks
about the recognition of Red China, but I suppose he opposes it. I
would think that the recognition of Red China would be one of the
greatest disasters in American history, because it would consoli-
date
Senator Green. You do agree
Mr. Budenz. Consolidate Stalin's control of thousands of men.
There is a reason for wdiy I stand for that. Mr. Kohlberg had no
influence on me.
I know that in 1934 the Communist Parties of China, the United
States, the Philippines, and America made an agreement which you
may find in popular form in the Daily Worker. I can bring it up
here later — that was, of 1934. to wipe American inij^erialism out of
the Pacific, and we were impressed. Senator, in the Communist move-
68970— 50— pt. 1 35
536 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
ment with the importance of a Eed China, to the defeat of the United
States iid the establishment of a workl mihtary dictatorship.
Sr kribeig had no influence on me in this respect, any more than
many other people I meet have effect upon me.
Senator Green. But, you have discussed it with him ^
Mr.BuDENz. Oh, yes; sure.
Senator Green. Lately ?
renar^^EBniS'^nection, ha.e you cU.ussed this Latti-
more case with him ?
Mr. Budenz. Not to any great extent ; no
Senator Green. You have discussed it with him (
Mr. Budenz. To some extent ; yes.
Spnn tor Green. '\\n^iat extent ? , o i. jj
mTbudenz Well, to tell you the truth, I can't say, Senator, for
this reason-that Mr Kohlberg is very busy, or was. and so was I
.nd I have not had a chance to go over the Lattimore case with him at
'ill in recent times, except in a very superhcial way.
kZlTc^Gu^Z And then, you have been over it with him before?
MrB^^z No I say-.^ this time you asked me about this
time-I hTvrnot been Jer the Lattimore case witli Mr. Kohlberg
'""tn^oJo^i^. You said you had been over it with him, had not
been in recent times, so the iJiference was that you had been over it
in more remote times, isn't that a correct inference \ ^^ ^ .
Mr. BuD^^NZ. I think not. I have not discussed Mr. Lattimore ex-
tensively with Mr. Kohlberg. vi i • 9
Senator Green. You have discussed him with him (
sina^oTteEN.'Do you know Mr. William Goodwin?
Mr Budenz. No, sir, I have no knowledge ot him.
Senator Green. Do you kno^v ^vho he is (
1\Tr Bttdvnz No, sir, not offhand. no
Senatoi Green. You never heard of him, as far as you know?
M,^ BudSz. I have heard his name in the public press, but I do
"t"'cWN. Do you know whether he has any interest in this
" Ml" Budenz. I have heard him represented, though I don't know
him Sena or, as being in some way connected with the Nationalist
China I don't know Mr. Goodwin, have never met him, never
talked with him, and have the very v^^g^^^^t k ea who ^e is
Senator Green. Have you discussed, in addition to discussing it
with Mr Kolilberg and Father Kearney-have you discussed this
"^'l^liNS^^Wdff discussed this matter with-in recent days-
with Mr. Morgan and Mr. INIorris.
Senator Green. Is that all?
Mr. Budenz. Well, with the FBI agents.
Senator Green. What is that? -^ .1 • i 1 fi.^f T al^o rlis-
Mr. Budenz. With the FBI agents. I think also that I also d s
cussed it for a moment with Mr. Kerste.i, who --s ormei4y Repie-
sentative Kersten, but that was very hurriedly. That is all i Have
talked to, so far as I know.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 537
Senator Gkeex, "Who does he represent?
Mr. BuDEXz. Well. I am not (juite sure. I know him from the
House Labor Conunittee. It may be that he is associated in some way
with Senator McCarthy, but I am not certain of that. That is, I
knew him ori<^inally, Senator, from the chairmanship of the House
Labor Relations Committee.
Senator (treex. And you say you may have discussed it with
Senator McCarthy, or he way have
j\Ir. BuDENZ. Oh, no, I have never discussed anything with Senator
McCarthy.
Senator Greex. "Who was with you and Mr. Kersten when you had
your discussion ?
Mr. BuDEXz. Mr. Kersten?
Senator Greex'. Yes.
Mr. Bldexz. "Well, the only persons I know, on one occasion Mr.
Morris was at my house with Mr. Kersten.
Senator Greex. You three?
Mr. BuDEx^z. Yes, sir.
Senator Greex. "\^^hen was that?
Mr. BuDEXz. "Well, that was in the last couple of days — the last
ct)uple of days. I knew IMr.^ Morris from anti-Communist activities,
the Naval Reserve, Litelligence Service, and many other activities,
so that he came out to my house and I received him.
Senator Greex. So far as you can recall, you have named all those
with whom you have discussed this Lattimore matter?
Mr. BuDExz. "Well, I think so. That is to say, I have refused con-
stantly to discuss it. I don't know what you have in mind, whether
you mean someone who asked me a question or had an extensive
discussion.
Senator Greex'. I mean even a short discussion.
Mr. BrDEXz. Yes. The only — if you wish me to retrace the whole
history, as far as I am concerned, I am prepared to do so.
Senator Green. Perhaps it would be profitable.
Mr. BuDEX'z. "V^ery good.
I got a letter from Senator McCarthy very late in this business.
I can give you the letter as a matter of fact, later today; I haven't
it with me. but the thing in that
Senator Greex'. AVill j^ou get it later and produce it?
Mr. BuDEXz. Oh, yes; by all means. I did not answer the letter,
because I have shunned appearances at hearings of this kind, and I
got a call from Dr. J. B. Matthews, and he asked me what I knew
about the Lattimore matter, and I said, "Whatever I have to say would
have to be under subpena in a nonpartisan way from the committee
itself.
Then, he asked me if I did have information, as a leader of the
Conmuinist Party, and I said I had such information as I would
furnish only under subpena. but I did not wish to do so.
Senator Greex. You said you would go into the matter in full
detail. Have you done it ?
Mr. BuDENz'. I think so.
Senator Greex. That is the whole story?
Mr. Budexz. Unless my memory is refreshened, if there are some
other people I don't recall — I had many peoj^le asking me questions.
538 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I had many people seeking information. I said to all of them, so
i'^r -m T Tpoall that I have nothing to say.
Now there iom^^^^^^ else that fhave had-I should say scores
of people were after me everywhere on the Fordham campus on the
street, and to all of them, so far as I can recall, I have said, I have
nothing to say." .
Now, it may be that I have missed someone. '
Senator Green. It must have been very annoying. I can under-
stand that. , .,. T J- 4: inn?
You told us this morning about compiling a hst o± 4UU?
^;^SEllS^^T;emember, you stated that ther. were no
^^■Zr^J^^tes S^t^n^cdon. I would be willing topresent
to the committee, and have volunt(^ered to, withm a couple of weeks,
ihe ames of all Government employees that I know of as Communists.
Now tie thing is. Senator, on this list, it was precisely to end, for
crood mv -iDPearances in these hearings that I prepared what I call
fny ks" witfand estament to the American people on the Cominunist
Party This completes the list of the concealed Communists I know.
The point of the matter is-I liave begun in the held «* Hollywood
the radio, the field of public opinion and the like, and I have not got
in fhp Government, insofar as I remember. v .
SenaVor gZk. This is what I understood you to say this morn-
iiw-ThaJ you were to classify them, to a certain extent, and this 400
wasofthoke outside of the Government? .,.+ fl.of ic hv
Mr. BuDENz. Well, if there are any m the Government, that is by
accident. • , i- 9
Senator Green. That was your intention i
^^rG:^W^^t^ the other classifications that you have
""mi-'Budenz. Hollvwood, and I have a very substantial classifica-
tion thei^ and a very impressive one, radio-this does not reflect
uDLthr;adio organizations, nor upon the movmg-picture industry
I would not want f on to get the impression that I am trying to create
{hi idea IhatTt is m^erwhelmingly that way, when I say it is impressive.
T nipiu to sav that there is to my mind, too many.
Ta 1, HoHywoocl ; No. 2, radio ; No. 3, other organs of public opinion,
in the professional classes and the like. „ i^^f ?
Senator Green. And the Government employees come last?
sJi^alTSEE^D^S'^ou think, in view of the fact that this com-
miurhas been informel to look into ^1- -lations of Coimmm^^^^^^
to the State Department, that that would have been the fiist thing
''''m:^^"i^or, this list was begun before the committee was
iu existence. , ^ c • -u 1 9
Senator Green. But, it was not finished*
Mr. BuDENz. No ; it was not.
Well, I have not iiad time since then to do this. t(x,,^^<i
Sen-itor Green. Why did you decide to do that last, mstead of fiist?
mT BUDENZ For two reasons: Fii-st of all, because with people m
thf Government you have to be more careful, because they are more
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 539
protected. As a matter of fact, the people in the Government who
are Communists, if tliere are such, I am making no charges at the
moment
Senator Greex. AVe have not found any evidence of any yet.
Mr. liUDENz. I sa}", I am making no charges at the moment, though
I may hiter, but the point is — I have not at the moment. Those Com-
nuniists, that are such, are very highly protected and in those cases,
I want to be absolutely certain. Of course, I want to be certain in all
instances, but in some instances, I know people very well as Com-
munists in these other fields.
Senator Greex. You would not like to base your testimony on
hearsay, in other words?
Mv. BuDEXz. That is not the point.
Senator Greex'. Is it not?
Mr. BuDEX'z. Well. I don't want to base it on hearsay, in the sense
of just an individual Communist telling me. I wish to base it upon
official communications to me, or my own knowledge of their asso-
ciation.
Senator Greex. I see, and so you are going to compile the rest of
these lists first, and end up with that ?
]\Ir. BuDExz, Tliat was my intention.
Senator Greex. I don't want to cliange your intention, don't mis-
understand me. I am just seeking information
Mr. BuDEXz. That is correct.
Senator Greex. Not giving advice. Now, this morning 3'ou stated
something that attracted my attention. I think, for your sake, we
ought to clear it up. That was in connection with your discussion
with the editors of Collier's about the article, and in explanation of
some apparent discrepancy, you stated, "Well, this was a conference.
It wasn't under oath."
Do you make a distinction between answers that are made seriously
and without oath, and those made under oath.
Mr. BuDExz. No, sir; but I do make this statement: Here was a
conference on my article. I know very well. Senator, that the Com-
munists have; a plan to harass and destroy a man by libel actions.
Wlien I received such peculiar questions from Mr. Parris, I immedi-
ately intended to shut him off. and as a matter of fact I am compelled
to do that repeatedly. People come to me wdth all sorts of questions.
I can't get rid of them.
In this case. I also was dealing with an article not yet completed,
and I do not distinguish between under oath and otherwise, except in
the sense that I cannot commit myself or permit myself to be attacked
by someone who tries to draw me out.
Senator Greex. You mean, under those circumstances, you are
willing to put tliem off by stating something that is not true?
Mr. BuDExz. Well. I would not say— "not true," but that doesn't
make the matter
Senator Greex. Wliat expression would vou prefer, having the same
meaning— "false" ? How would you put it? Put it in your own
words.
Mr. BuDExz. Well. I would say. Senator, this: That for me to say
I0 Mr. Parris that Mr. Lattimore was a Communist agent, in the way
that Mr. Parris was pressing me, would have been of no advantage
540 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
to the article, and would have, at the same time, have been a matter
of attack upon me.
Senator Green. Well, later in your testimony you stated that these
persons were not ex-Communists, but are still Communists, and if we
called them, we couldn't rely on their testimony, because they might
be telling the truth or might not be, didn't you ? , , ,
Mr. BuDENz. You mean, the Communists I asked to be brought be-
fore you?
Senator Green. Yes.
Mr. BuDENZ. Oh, yes; I said that these, as Communists, they are
not ex-Communists, they are Communists
Senator Green. Yes.
Mr. Budenz. They would do it on behalf of the cause.
Senator Green. But you think there is a distinction between the
ex-Communist and the Communist in that respect?
Mr. Budenz. Well, the public will have to judge that. I cannot
enter into that question. I can only say this, that the Communist
lies only for the cause, for the party. He may be a vei^ truthful per-
son otherwise. He will lie for the cause, and as a matter of fact
we have proof of such falsehoods. i c • •
Senator Green. I also understood you to say, well, your defanition
of a Communist was that he need not necessarily carry a card or be on
any list, but if he followed consistently the party line, he was a Com-
munist, and that when he ceased— couldn't cease to follow the party
line because then he would be disciplined and would cease to be a
Communist.
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir; under instruction, always, and under dis-
cipline always, but you must understand this. Senator, if I may ex-
plain that— where you have men in key and delicate positions, their
discipline is to follow what they are ordered to do. That is to say,
I am sure, and I don't want to reiterate this to any painful extent,
but I am sure that we will find out that maybe in many public matters
Mr. Hiss didn't follow the party line. , • , •
Senator Green. That is the second time you brought m his name.
What is your idea ? . . .
Mr. Budenz. The only reason I do. Senator, is because it is an il-
lustration which stands out, that is all. I have no particular reason
to mention it except for that reason.
Senator Green. Did you know him?
Mr. Budenz. I did not know him in a personal way. i knew ot
his association with the Washington cell, officially.
Senator Green. You have seen him? ^ ,. , , , ^, ^
Mr. Budenz. I have seen him; yes, sir; but I didn't remember that
at the time of my testimony before the House committee.
Senator Green. You testified there, did you not, that you had notj
Mr Budenz. Tliat is right. I later saw Mr. Hiss and recognized
that i had met liim under a false name, but didn't know him at the
time. It was only on one occasion.
Senator Green. Never mind. .
If the Communist line twists and turns, and you have given testi-
monv to that effect, it might cover a great number of people m the
different twists and turns, those who agreed with one policy, and
another group that agreed with another policy, and so on, and it
STATE DEPARTMEJS'T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTV^ESTIGATION 541
you judgre them by their temporary agreement with a particuhir policy
at a particular time, almost everyone would be a Communist who
had any opinion on Chinese alTairs.
Mr. BuDENz. No ; that isn't the way, Senator.
Senator Green. What is the way?
Mr. BuDENz. As a matter of fact, that is just exactly what the
Connnunist Party does. At one time during the Hitler-Stalin Pact,
we had thousands of pacifists, or propacifists that joined, even Nazis,
joining the Communist Party. Later on they all dropped out. There
IS a tremendous turnover in the Connnunist Party. The Communist
is the one who carries through steadily, under directions and instruc-
tions, whatever line, not only whatever line, but whatever discipline
is imposed upon him.
Senator Green. You claim that Mr. Lattimore's views on China
have changed in accordance with the change in the Communist line,
is that your point ?
Mr. BuDENz. I would not wish to be able to pass upon that until
I liave examined all of i\Ir. Lattimore's writings, as I have said.
Senator Green. How many of his books have you read ?
Mr. BuDEXZ. Very few, in a very fragmentary way. I am not in
a position to pass upon Mr. Lattimore's writings, except in a general
way, except on his last book Situation in Asia.
Senator Green. Then, he might not have followed the Communist
line in his previous books, I believe he has published 11.
Mr. Bin)Exz. That we can see when we analyze them, as far as
I am concerned.
Senator Green. If you think that one book shows he is a Com-
munist, because he is following the line, and the other books did not,
what would be the weight or balance of evidence?
Mr. BuDENZ. I woutd have to depend, of course, that is why I must
analyze the book, we cannot talk about this in such shorthand terms.
It seems to me, Senator, I would have to analyze the book.
Now as a matter of fact I have come hei'e before the committee
to testify to certain facts of my own knowledge, to the extent that I
have been informed of them ; so far as these other matters are con-
cerned, I have not had the opportunity to analyze them. I have
offered to analyze them and shall do so if the committee so desires.
Senator Green. How much of his published writings, I won't limit
it to books, have you read ?
Mr. BuDExz. Very few indeed.
Senator Green. How many ?
Mr. BuDExz. Well, that I cannot say, offhand.
Senator Greex. Have you read one book ?
Mr. BuDExz. I have read hurriedly Situation in Asia.
Senator Greex. Just looked it through '.
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.
Senator GREEX^ How many articles of his have you read ?
Mr. Budenz. Practically — well, now, I don't Imow that. I Avouldn't
be able to say.
Senator Greex. You have drawn deductions from those, what you
have got?
Mr. Budenz. I have drawn no deductions except from what I liave
learned and have been advised of. I do not need to draw deductions
from other sources, but in order that there will be corroboration of
542 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
what I said, I have vohmteered to present to the committee an
analysis of Mr. Lattimore's writings, in the light of my experience
as a Communist. ^
Senator Green. Would it make any difference to you, in your opin-
ion of Mr. Lattimore, if his writings showed that he had been opposed
to communism most of the time, or the Communist line, most of the
Mr BuDENZ. Now, Senator, we would have to look at these books.
I know certain facts. The Communist line is something that is very
interesting indeed. The Communist line has ditferent^ emphases,
different expressions, different treatments, and I am satisfied, because
of what I know from mv own knowledge, that an examination by me
of Mr. Lattimore's books, with my knowledge of how Communist
TDrocedure goes on, would show that he has been following the Com-
munist line, but I cannot make that assertion without having exam-
ined the books. , , . ^^^„
Senator Green. Then, you say you have never seen him, never
talked with him, never have had any communication with iiim— you
have read none of his books to speak of, none of his articles to speak of,
and it is based entirely on what someone has told you about him, is
^m"budenz. That is correct, but officially told me, as a matter of
more or less life and death in the Communist movement. These offi-
cial instructions, they are known and followed out. ^ . ^ ..
Senator Green. Since part of the Communist creed is to lie or
swear falsely in order to support their cause, how can you be sure
that some of your colleagues were not doing the same to you {
Mr Btidenz. There is one thing a Communist— this is a serious
matter. Senator, because we are analyzing the Communist movement—
about which America knows too little. The point of the matter is
that the Communist does never lie to his colleague in his report, be-
cause it is a matter of the most serious moment. This is a conspira-
torial organization
Senator Green. Yes. , „ -,, i -.i • ^^ ^• -4.
Mr BuDENz. In which the truth has to be followed withm the limits
of the Communist organization itself, and that is a fact that the re-
ports officially made bv the Communists to each other, are unfailingly
correct Where they engage in falsehood, and this is what Lenin has
said, is where they deceive people outside the Communist movement.
Senator Green. Suppose they suspect somebody mside of the C om-
munist movement— Communists sometimes desert the cause— suppose
they suspected that you were going to desert the cause
Mr. BuDENz. Yes, Senator?
Senator Green. Might they not lie to you ?
Mr. BuDENz. To me %
Senator Green. Yes. .
Mr BuDENS. Well, no, because this was not to me, this was to an
official meeting, and also, repeatedly in instructions to me over a long
period of time.
Senator Green. Well, some of it was to you, you got communica-
tions signed with code letters. _
Mr. BuDENZ. That was not the whole national committee, a member
of the national committee
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 543
Senator Greex. Yon don't tliink tliey would have lied to them?
Mr. BuDEXz. No; they "vvould not. As a matter of fact, the whole
essence of their conspiracy rests on their telling the truth to each
other. Otherwise, the conspiracy will collapse. There must not be,
within the conspiracy, there must not be any uncertainty. I think
tliat will be testifiecl to by everyone from within the Communist
movement.
Senator Greex. Then, you think that if a man were suspected of
followino- the Comnuniist line and supported some doctrine that was
opposed to the Connnunist line, he would be suspected
Mr. Bi-DEXZ. I didn't catch that last.
Senator Gkeex. Suppose for instance Mr. Lattimore was trusted,
and then Mr. Lattimore wrote an article favoring the Marshall plan,
and that is anathema, as I understand it, to the Communists — would
not that subject him to suspicion?
]Mr. BuDExz. Well, I cannot testify to that, that is since I left the
party, but as a matter of fact
Senator Greex. As an illustration.
Mr. Budexz. As a matter of fact, it might or it might not, according
to the instructions, because Mr. Lattimore is not openly a Communist.
What he says does not reflect upon the Communist movement. The
open Communist, if he were to come out for the Marshall plan, he
would be seriously disciplined, but a man who, because of his peculiar
position, has to take an attitude — that is a different matter.
Senator Greex. What form does their disciplinary action take?
Mr. Budexz. It takes the form of expulsion from the party, or
attacks upon you and your character and everything else, it depends
upon the individual. Generally, it is an expulsion from the party,
with an attack upon the party
Senator Greex. Under what circumstances can you resign?
]\rr. Budexz. There is a slogan within the party, "You are not per-
mitted to resign, you must be expelled."
Senator Greex. I think that is all I care to ask.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator Hickenlooper ?
Senator Hickex'looper. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of docu-
ments that I have sent for, that seem to be misplaced. I would like to
have those before me, before I question Mr. Budenz.
If someone else has any questions, and they could find those docu-
ments, I would appreciate it, if I were allowed to question him later.
They are in my office somewhere, and we are unable to locate tliem.
Senator Tydixgs. You want to pass, now?
Senator Hickexlooper. I would like to pass, at the moment.
Senator Greex. I have thought of another question I would like
to ask.
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead.
Senator Greex. Either in your testimony, or some other testimony
in one of these hearings, the charge was brought up against Mr. Latti-
more that he favored the recognition of the Communist Government
in China. Do you think that is evidence of his sympathy with com-
nnuiism ?
Mr. Budexz. Not necessarily, sir. It might be, but that is a matter
of public policy in America, and I do not regard that alone as evi-
dence of Communist membership. I think there are other people who
are not at all connected with the Communists that may have that view.
544 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I think they are thoronghlv mistaken. I think it is going to lead to
a terrific attack upon the iQnited States in which thousands of our
youn<r men are going to be destroyed, but there are others who have
otheiMDpinions. That is a matter of public debate. I certanily do not
say that anyone who stands for that is necessarily a Commnnist.
I think it will be a most serious thing, however. That is ]ust my
personal opinion, I might say, my private opinion, Senator, if I may,
because you know that the instructions of the Communist. Party, and
I can support this by document after document, from the official
Communist records, gave to the American party the assignment to
assure a Red China and a Red Poland in order to bring about the con-
quest of Europe and Asia, and the defeat of American imperialism,
namely, the United States.
That is the reason I say it, but that does not mean— pardon me, i
wanted to say that does not mean that everyone who stands for that
viewpoint, and disagrees with me, is therefore a Communist— no, sir.
Senator Green. Suppose a man said if the Communist Government
in China in fact proves its ability to govern China without serious do-
mestic resistance, that it should be admitted to the United Nations,
would you say that he was following the Communist line? ,, ,. ,
Mr BuDENz. No. I would not, necessarily ; although I would think
that he was falling for appeasement very badly, since that brought
about Munich, and other things of that character. That is to say,
I would think that of course— you see, there is one supposition m there,
Senator, I am not familiar with this statement, but there is one suppo-
sition I noted immediately : He said if the Communist regime was able
to do so and so— I don't know what it is
Senator Green. Govern China without serious domestic resistance.
Mr. Budenz. That is a terrible admission, that we are going to sur-
render the Chinese people to the secret police of the type which has put
15 or 20 million people in concentration camps in Soviet Russia. I
do not say that the gentleman who says that may not have other
arguments for his position, I am not engaging on a debate on this. _ I
say, however : No. 1, that does not necessarily make him a Communist,
no;' but, secondly, I think it does show that we do not realize, this
gentleman does not realize the seriousness of the situation confronting
the United States.
Senator Green. Well, the gentleman whom I quoted was not Mr.
Lattimore, that vou seemed to assume. It was Mr. Dulles.
Mr. BuDENZ. That is correct. That is to say— I didn't know it was
Mr. Dulles, incidentally, when I said "That is correct," but I wish to
say, regardless of whether it is Mr. Dulles or not, that America today
is in such position that if we recognize Red China, that hundreds of
thousands of our young men. Senator, are going to be sacrificed to
the Chinese paratroopers who will be fed better food, and used ta
attack the United States.
That is not a wild claim. I will be pre]iared to show this commit-
tee, not definite proof of that, I have no idea of the Soviet plans of
that, but definite proof that the Soviet Union stated repeatedly that
China is the key to the conquest of Asia and the establishment of the
Soviet world dictatorship, and again. Senator, I know that this Harry
Bridges moved across into Hawaii, infiltrated into Hawaii, to meet
withlhe Chinese Communists to drive imperialism out of the Pacific,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 545
and I will be able to show, by documents, I mean official documents,
statements indicating the importance of China to the defeat of Ameri-
can imperialism, namely, the United States.
Now, Mr. Dulles is an important man, but he could be mistaken,
and I feel very decisively that if that is a full opinion, then he is
mistaken.
Senator Greex. You are a very important man, or were, m the
Connnunist Party, and knew all the top-level people who were run-
i.ing the party, and yet— when it came to the recent Government case
in New York^ where there were 11 Communists convicted, you were
not called as a witness, were you ?
Mr. BuDEXz. Senator, I was the chief witness for the Government.
I don't like to put it that way. I was the first witness for the Govern-
ment, aiiel was on the stand 10 days. I hate to appear to present my-
s-elf in that fashion, Senator.
Senator Tydixgs. Lefs have order in the room; no demonstrations,
please.
Mr. BrDEXz. In addition, Senator, may I say just in explanation —
that I spent week after week. with Judge McGohey, and his staff, and
mv whole Christmas vacation on this case.
Indeed, I think that I can say with all due modesty, I did as much
as any man on that matter.
Senator Greex. Then, you have had your hand in.
I\ir. Bi'DExz. Yes, sir, pretty much in that case. Senator. I would
have preferred not to. If you will get in touch with Judge McGohey,
you will find I was just as reluctant to enter that case, as I was here,
and it took a lot of persuasion to get me there, but I did get in, finally.
Senator GiiEEX. That is all, thank you.
Senator Tydixgs. Do you have your documents. Senator?
Senator Hickexlooper. Not yet.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator McMahon?
Senator McMahox. ]\Ir. Chairman, like Senator Lodge, I have some
questions that I think in the best interests of the United States, should
be asked in executive session, and so I understand that Mr. Budenz is
coming back to see us in executive session.
Mr. BuDEXz. I will be delighted to, Senator.
Senator jVIcMahox. There are a few questions, perhaps, that could
be better asked in executive session.
Mr. BuDEXz. I will be glad to answer.
Senator Tydix'gs. Senator Lodge?
Senator Lodge. One question I would like to ask, although as I have
said, I intend to conduct my cross examination in executive session.
I would like to bring to the attention of everyone, bring their at-
tention back to the fact that the prime purpose of this investigation
was to ferret otit disloyal persons in the State Department, and not
to establish whether some man is right or some man is wrong, that
is why my attention was arrested by your statement that you had not
com])ieted the presentation which you intend to make some day on the
subject of communism in the Government,
Tiiis connnittee is primarily interested in the subject of commu-
nism in the Government, and not communism in Hollywood, or com-
munism in the newspaper business or communism in any other walk
of life, and I disagree with Senator Green. I would like for you to
546 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
cliange your modus operandi, and at once give a high priority to the
Comniunists in the Government.
I understand you to say you did not want hnn to change
Senator Green. No — I asked him to.
Senator Lodge. I misunderstood. I was going to ask hnn to get on
to this business of the Communists in the Government, because that is
what this committee is officially, and by specific terms of the resolu-
tion, charged with going into.
See what I mean ?
Mr. Budenz. If the chairman will permit me. I will volunteer to
have such names as I have, together with the occasions of how I know
them to be Communists, presented to this committee withm 2 weeks
at the latest.
Senator Lodge. Thank you.
Senator Tydings. Is that all. Senator ?
Senator Lodge. I intend to question Mr. Budenz later, m executive
session.
Senator Tydings. I mean now.
Senator Lodge. Now — yes.
Senator Tydings. Senator Hickenlooper? r^i •
Senator Hickenlooper. I think I will have to proceed, Mr. Chair-
man. The documents I have been searching for in my office seem to
be temporarily gone, so that I cannot use them at this time. I may-
use them later, if they show up.
I understand that it is your testimony, that what you have given
here today is confined to the period beginning with the time when
you joined the Communist Party, about 1935, and the time you left
the Communist Party in about 1945 ; is that correct.
Mr. Budenz. That is correct. Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, during that period of time, when you
first joined the Communist Party, did you immediately take on what
might be considered an important role in the Communist high command
in this country, or what was the level of your activity at the time you
joined the party? .
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. Well, of course, there is one high command
in the Communist Party, and that is the Communist International
representative, and he is run by Stalin. Don't let us mistake that. I
learned that very severely, but I might state that, taking into account
(hat fact, the fact of the matter is that I was made, in a very short time,
labor editor of the Daily Worker, and in general exemption to the
Communist practice, I was made a member of the national committee
within a year.
Senator Hickenlooper. I see.
Mr. Budenz. The reason for that was, you must understand that
for a number of years I had been in contact with the Communist Party,
sometimes in opposition and sometimes in what they called these united
fronts; they had a pretty good idea of my viewpoint and activities.
Well, I could give other reasons too, because at that time they were
trying to put forward this people's front, and they thought myself
and other people had a certain influence in the labor movement that
would help them. That is what Stachel told me.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you ever met Mr. Joseph Stalin ?
Mr. Budenz. No, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 547
Senator Hickenloopfr. Have you ever had any direct communica-
tions with Mr. Joseph Stalin?
Mr. BuDENz. No, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you believe Mr. Joseph Stalin is a Com-
munist ?
Mr. BuDENZ. "Well, I had to make an oath to him, of allegience, when
1 joined the party, and the oath said that "we will agree to follow you
wherever j'ou shall lead, the leader and teacher of the working people
of the world, under tlie Mai'X-Engels-Iienin and Stalin doctrine until
the triumph of comnnmism throughout the world."
That indicates to me that he is associated with communism.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am merely exploring your idea or knowl-
edge of who is a trusted and a high-level Conmiunist as a result of your
reliance upon partj'^ assurances, and I take it that you know Mr.
Stalin to be a Communist, and rely upon the fact that he is a Com-
munist through f)ublic statements in the newspapers and through the
statements and associations through the high party command^
Mr. BuDENz. More than that. We knew it through every book we
were compelled to read, through every article we were compelled to
write, through the statements tliat tlie line of the party is infallible
because Stalin gives it to us, and he can make no mistake whatsoever,
betw^een the fact that he is the leader of the working people of the
world — consider that, Senator — that the American working people,
under the Communist conception ; of course, this is a maligning of
the working people, because they get more following among other
groups. I must say, than among the working people, but we have
document after document proclaiming Stalin — in fact, at the Moscow
Conference of Intellectuals for Peace, I counted — because I get these
Communist documents by an indirect way — I counted 22 different
speakers who proclaimed Stalin to be the leader of the people of the
World and therefore his presence was pretty obvious to me.
Senator Hickenlooper. In other words, proof to you that Mr.
Stalin is a Communist is not dependent upon your ever having met
liini or talked to him personally?
Mr. Budenz. That is correct.
Senator Hickexlooper. Now, after you joined the party
Mr. Budenz. I didn't understand the direction of your question.
I thought your question had to do with Stalin's control of the party.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am, of course, obviously asking you
whether it is necessary for those who are in the inner sanctum of the
party, to be convinced that someone is a Communist only upon per-
sonal association and personal admission by that person to the one
so assuming?
Mr. Budenz. Particularly not in the Communist organization. The
normal American has no idea of what the Coimnunist organization is.
It is a gangster conspiratorial movement which, by the way, draws
in nongangsters. That is its greatest, I should say, danger — that is
to say, it is a movement in which there is absolute discipline. As a
matter of fact, it took me a whole year, when I got out of the party,
to reorganize myself from that sort of a concentration camp that
I was in, aiid here I was, in America, a native American, from four
generations of Americans.
Senator Hickenlooper, Have you at any time met Gromyko or
Molotov ?
548 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION"
Mr. BuDENz. I have not. . . • j i 4.
Senator Hickenlgoper. Is there any question m your mmd but
what they are Communists?
Mr. BuDENz. No. it-- a
Senator Hickenlgoper. You get that from Publicity and— - ^
Mr. BuDENz. We were compelled to read all of Mr. Molotov s
writing's. -i
Senator Hickenlgoper. You get that from publicity and assur-
ances from within the party that they are reliable Communists; is
that correct?
Mr. BuDENz. That is correct. , -. ^i
Senator Hickenlgoper. So I take it, it goes with a number of others
who are publicly accepted as Communists, that many of those you have
not seen personally, nor have had them admit to you personally that
thev are Communists, but you know they are, and accept them as such
because of the party knowledge that they are Commuiusts?
Mr Budenz. If you will permit me. Senator— that is correct; but
if you will permit me, in order to give why I was so eloquent on that
other matter, I will show you this document. , ^ .t i -^ • •
This is totally divorced from this hearing, but 1 think it is im-
portant. This is a picture of Joseph Stalin, the only picture ever
permitted on the front page of the official tbeoretical organ of the so-
called American party, Communist Party of the United States No
other picture has ever been permitted on that front page, but that
of their leader, Joseph Stalin. . i i i fi.^f
That is one indication of the complete control he has over that
organization. I wanted to explain why I went over, there, and gave
a rather oratorical dissertation. ^- -^ ^ ;^
Senator Hickenlgoper. After this first year's activity of yours m
the party, did you move on to other positions m the party, m the
next 10 years? ^^, ,.^ <• ^i c 4.
Mr BuDENZ. Yes. In November 1937 I became editor of tlie first
daily labor paper launched by the Communists; it was the Chicago
Daily Record. That was supposedly a people's front thing, but i
was editor and it was completely dominated and financed by the
Communists. As a matter of fact, in part it was financed by the
secret conspiratorial bund under Robert William Weiner, who came
into this country for conspiratorial purposes. The thing is after the
Middle West Daily Record folded up because of the Hitler-Stalm
pact, I came back to New York, but already it had been decided that
I be made managing editor of the Daily AVorker, and president o±
the corporation conducting that publication.
Comrade Browder, he was "C^omrade" Browder then, stated to me :
"The reason you are being appointed to this is because you have no
technical difficulties. You have not violated any passports, or have
any crimes against the United States on you, so you can defend the
Daily Worker better during this period." , • u 4.
I said "I hope the reason is because I also know something about
the newspaper business?" u x.
He said that was true, but the main reason is because you have no
technical difficulties." ^ i t^ -, ^xr i
I state that to illustrate why I was made editor of the Daily Worker.
Senator Hickenlgoper. Can you move on rapidly through the re-
maining years up to 1945, and outline your movements in the party i
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 549
Mr. BuDEXz. I was a member of the national committee for 9 years,
■6 of them openly and 3 secretly, for political purposes; and then I
was a member of various organizations — I have recounted that be-
fore— until October 1945, when I left the party.
Senator Hiokexlooper. Now, then, during that period, ^Slr. Budenz,
when did you first meet Mr. Foster and Mr. Bridges and Mr. Fields
I mean when did you first come in contact with those men that you
have referred to as being in these groups that met periodically?
ISIr. BuDEXz. Mr. William Z. Foster ?
Senator HicKEXLoorER. Yes.
Mr. BuDEXz. I have known him many years. In fact, I met him — ■
he came to see me in New York on his way to Moscow to become a
Conununist, and, veiy frankly, I said one thing — I said, "One thing
you sliould do. Bill, is never become a Communist." That is when he
was passing through, so I knew him since the time he made the trip
to Moscow and became a Comnumist over there in Moscow.
Senator Hickexlooper. I am not so concerned about the early days,
as the i)eriod of 10 years during whicli you were
Mr. Budex'z. I knew Mr. Foster all the time.
Senator Hickex'looper. Perhaps I can clear this
Mr. Budex'z. I don't understand your question.
Senator Hickexlooper. What I am trying to get at is this : After
you joined the party and began to move into the circles of the party
where decisions were discussed and programs were discussed for the
party, at what point did you begin to have association with Mr. Foster
and Mr. Bridges and Mr. Field ? I am ti-ying to get. frankly, trying
to get the continuity of their association with you during the time
that you were an important person in the party.
Mr. BuDEXZ. Mr. Foster I got to know immediately. Mr. Bridges
I got to know in 1936. I then knew him as Comrade Rossig, a mem-
ber of the national committee of the Communists.
Senator Hickex'looper. And Mr. Field ?
Mr. BuDExz. Mr Field I also — well, I think the fii-st time I met
him was in 1937, although I had heard of him.
Senator Hickex'looper. These others you have mentioned, when
was the first-time you began to associate together in the programs of
the Communist Party in this country? That is, I am trying to find
out just when you began this rather intimate association with these
men. and how long it continued, up until 1945.
Mr. BuDEX'z. I don't know what men you refer to.
Senator Hickexlooper. The men you referred to, such as Mr. Foster
and Mr. Field and Bridges, and the chief man, whose name I forget.
Mr. BuDExz. Eisler?
Senator Hickexlooper. No — Stachel.
Mr. Budexz. Oh! Stachel. I knew, right away — I knew him as
soon as I joined the party, and he just came back from Moscow from
the seventh congress, and I knew him immediately and associated
very closely with him. He is really the main man within the Com-
munist Party, so far as constant attention in America is concerned.
Of course, in addition, there is also a Communist International repre-
sentative, who, when I was there, was Gerhart Eisler, under the name
of Edwards.
Senator Hickexlooper. During this period from 1935 to 1945,
while you were in the party and while you were associated with these
550 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
men, and on the repeated occasions wliere they have talked over party
policy with yon, and party programs, and where they bronght reports,
for instance, of party activities here and in other parts of the world,
was there ever any occasion during that 10-year period when any of
those men, to your knowledge, ever falsified or lied about the party
programs, or individuals connected with the party, if it aifected the
Communist Party ? .
Mr BuDENz. Never. This is like a secret police system. It you ever
did that, just like the NKVD holds them up, I say, the NKVD holds
them up, because that is what they are reported to have over there in
Russia, they put one person to spving on another, and if they would
lie, ever, you would be held up ; in fact, there is a special committee
which watches your statements in every discussion to see if you have
any false statements therein, or any misrepresentations of the line.
Communist to Communist, because that is their basic morality, there
he must be truthful, there you must be upright, in a Communist sense,
you must be willing to sacrifice, or he must be willing to sacrifice
himself, die, or anything for the Communist cause.
When it comes to the people outside of the Communist cause, m
other camps, then Lenin tells us very frankly, "You must, as a matter
of Communist morality, when necessary, lie, perjure, and do other
thincrs."
Senator Hickenlooper. Let me ask von— during this period of 10
years, did you have occasions to be able to test, from time to time, the
truth in what those men reported, as Communists, to the high com-
mand of the Communist Party here? In other words, did you have
a chance to test their veracity, so far as it was concerned, m their
reports? , ^ . ..,
Mr. BuDENz. Repeatedly. I don't know that I can give you illus-
trations right now. I could give you illustrations if I had the time
to think it over. .
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, it leads me to this question, Mr.
Budenz : Your conclusions, and vour statements, and your testimony
today— are they based upon the unbroken line of experience that you
had with these men in their statements, so far as communism is con-
cerned, and does that experience lead you to rely upon the words you
got within the conspiracy ? i xi •
Mr. Btjdenz. That is correct. Just like m an army, the truth is
within themselves, so far as the facts are concerned. It is a part of
their artillery, amongst themselves. You are given these instruc-
tions, so that you will act the way they want you to act, and it must
be based on correct information, otherwise the whole army will sutler
for it. • f -o 1 J
Senator Hickenlooper. Let me now ask you this, Mr. Budenz, and
I want to confine this to the period while you were a member of the
party, and not later than October 1945, and it has something to do—
and 'l would not ask the question, had not some similar questions
been asked just a moment ago— I feel that this is a fragmentary
bit of information, but if an official Soviet publication, published m
Russia, praises and approves, or did— I am confining this to not later
than October 1045, and durins the period when you were a Commu-
, list— if an official Russian publication praises and approves the writ-
ing and analyses of certain situations involvino; Russia, would you
say that that' approval and that praise was with the full knowledge
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 551
Riul consent of the Enssian Government, tiilkinf!: about an official
Russian publication, that is, an oflicial newspaper or magazine?
Mr. BuDENz. Well, of course, I have never been in Soviet Russia.
1 can only state that fi-om the fact that 1 know the Russian Govern-
ment runs the Communist Party here as though it were a secret police
system, therefore there cannot be, in Soviet Russia, more freedom than
you have here. I mean to say, it must be intensified, they have police
power, and it is known that all the press are Government organs
Senator Hickenlooper. I think I shall not pursue that at the
moment, Mr. B'udenz, because that was one of the documents I have
been unable to locate this afternoon, that I wanted to show you here;
but I perhaps can discover it a little later. It has been mislaid some
place for the time being.
Now, I think you were asked a while ago the question about what you
had told the FBI. I take it from your answer that you have told, or
given ansAvers to the best of your ability to the FBI in all matters,
and to all questions which the FBI has asl^ed you.
Mr. BuDENz. Yes, sir. So much so that in the case this morning,
3 even put in a long-distance call to the FBI to tell them about some-
thing I had forgotten to tell them. Frankly, I think the Federal
Bureau of Investigation is one of the finest agencies of the American
(rovernment. I say that in all good faith, not because I am dealing
Avith the FBI, but because as a Communist and as a non-Communist I
h.ave observed the FBI. and in my opinion they are the finest, and I
therefore have sought to give them every bit of information I can.
I tell the FBI everything I possibly can think of to tell them, except
that, naturally, you understand. Senator, I have to do something else; I
have 14 hours a week of teaching, which means preparation; I have
other things I have to do, and therefore I have to take that into con-
sideration, but wherever I can, and particularly where a trial is up,
or some emergency, I have cast aside all other 'business, always, and
given to the FBI as.much of my undivided attention as I could.
Senator Hickexlooper. Xow, as a result of your membership in the
party, and your discussions within the party high command, in con-
nection with Mr. Lattimore, can you give us your estimate of his value
to the Communist Party, especially with reg'ard to the trends in Asia,
as you knew them, as a Conununist?
Mr. BuDExz. AYell, it seem to me that I should leave that in the
hands of the Senators, after I have told them the truth as I know it. I
think my own interi)retation would merely seem to be an attempt to
furnish the Senators more than I know. "^ I have told my story
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, let me ask you
Mr. BiDExz (continuing). So far as I know it. I think it can be
corrborated. I know it can. That is all I can do.
Senator Hickexlooper. Let me ask you this question: Wliile you
were a Communist, and during these years, and in connection with\he
discussions of Mr. Lattimore. was ]\l'r. Lattimore considered by those
that you discussed him with, as a valued agent, or a valued adjunct to
the Communist cause, especially in Asia?
Mv. BuDEXz. Yes, sir, he was. There are specific statements in that
respect by :Mr. Stachel. in that respect, and Mr. Browder, to that
effect.
68»70— 50 — i)t. 1 36
552 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. I believe you testified in your statemeiit,
or otherwise, that Mr. Lattimore was referred, in conmumications-
rpf erred to under the svmbol "L' ' or "XL" ?
Mr BuDENZ. That was a practice in regard to anyone under party
'^S;!r itrx^SS.'Sf i'- to refer to then, in communica-
^X:^!:j^r^ybody who was^in puWic life, cnjt of ^^^
also had a dash. We had to guess that, or go and get it Ihere was
not not even a letter in regard to a person who was, for instance,
a pei"c.i tliTt would be app^-oached in public life because, after all
the Con m m Lts can approach a person and that does not mean hat
personTa Communist/but the thing is, the Communists had ano her
kSn mind and that was not to disclose who was operating secretly
Therefore, all people who were non-Communists, so far-there was
a dTsh fvTr them, and you had to learn, yourself, who it was, but you
got it frmn the substance of the discussion, that generally gave you
'""semtorHKlKEKLOOPER. During the time you were a Communist,
and UP to the time you left in 1945, did you ever have any serious or
su^tantM reason to doubt that Mr. Lattimore was being used
knowindv by the Communist Party? j^„uf
mT Budenz. Well, I have told the picture here. I have no doubt.
Nothino- came to my attention beyond what I have said.
Senator Hickekloopee. How do yon know-or do you know of
..nv occasion when any reports were made to the effect that Dr. Lat-
; mo?e was the conduit through which information might have on
o(^asTonTbeen transmitted from Moscow to the party m this country,
or to members of the high command ? , . , -^ , . a rr...
Mr Budenz. Only in the situation to which I have referi^d That
is he one in 1943. I know, much more definitely, that Mr Field
and Mr JaSe are Soviet espionage agents, and I want to establish
?hat very firmly, because that is the beginning, m my opinion, of an
investlo-ation tliat would be of great value. , ^ i v fi.«
sSator Hickenlooper. Now, I think you also stated it was the
CommunLt Party line, while you were a member ot the party-that
ChhiTTas probablv the vital spot for conquest as an eventual attack
aoain^t the United 'States, or American imperialism f
'^Mr Budenz. That is correct. China was the mam-I will be able
to show you, I regret I didn't bring some of those documents here
ocHv but diina, ^throughout the Soviet history, has been one of ts
main CO ideratimis. A^Red China was one of the mam objectives
xTd instructions to the American party, which eveii Browder-it
Pven led h m to change its name-that we must win he acquiescence
irimer^^^^^^^^^ Red China and a Red Poland. That was dinned
into us over and over and over again, the importance of C una, its
iTeat reservoir of manpower was terrific, and you will be able to see
frniu documents in the Communist International magazine, in the
Int™? rJp^^^^^ correspondence, which is the official reportoria
ITZmoi the Communist International aiid m many other official
Communist statements, the importance of China.
As a matter of fact, so much is this the case that m the official greet-
ings-lXn't want to take up too much of your tinie but this is some.
Mncr that comes out of your question-in the official greetings to the
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 553
Seventli Congress, the Coniiniuiist Interiiatioiial, the China Commu-
nist Party irot the phice of lionor, and what is done in tlie face of
;ill this propaganchi that they were an agrarian reform group — they
say this: their whole hope is in the man of unlimited wisdom, un-
parallel courage, undying love and devotion to the working class, our
leader and teacher, the great Stalin.
In othei- words, they give their oath of allegiance to Stalin, and
that opens up the Seventh Congress of the International in Moscow
in 1035. That was done designedly, as the Communists always do,
to indicate the importance of the conquest of China.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, Mr. Budenz, would you say that the
eiforts in China, on the part of the Communists — would you say they
were of the highest priority in this world-conquest program, at least
during the period while you were a Communist ?
Mr. Budenz. They have always been of the highest priority, and
they became much more so after World War II. They became of
the highest priority when Russia opened up World War No. Ill
against the United States in 1945, because that is what is happening
right now. Stalin has said, "AVars are not declared today, they are
made,'* and he is waging a two-front war against us, and in that,
China was a big prize, it was the biggest prize, along with Poland — •
Poland and its coal, and China and its millions.
Senator Hickenlooper. Would you say that with the importance
of China in the Communist program being as great as it is, that the
Communists would assign their most able men to their activities in
connection with this Chinese revolution, and the whole China situa-
tion (
Mr. Budenz. They would, and they did.
For instance, they assigned Gerhart Eisler here, and he was an
expert on China, and he is one of the shrewdest members of the Com-
munist International, and is now organizing attacks upon us in Ger-
many.
Senator Hickenlooper. And then, one of the following results —
after the either capture or consolidation of China by the Communist
Party, an eventual target is the United States, is it not?
Mr. Budenz. That is the target.
Senator Hickenlooper. That comes along in the pattern, step by
step ?
Mr. Budenz. That is the target. All of this other is just merely
attaching the United States. That is exactly what we were instructed,
and what I stated when I left the party in 1945, that a creeping blitz-
kreig is being organized again in Europe and Asia to hurl those two
continents against the United States.
As a matter of fact. I refer again to this agreement in 1934, that that
is not the only conclusive evidence that we have of their intention to
drive the United States out of the Philippines, Hawaii, and out of
the Pacific.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know, in connection with our activi-
ties with the Communist high connnand, Mr. Budenz, whether or not
Mr. Lattimore was assigned to, or cooperated in. Communist organ-
izational activities on the west coast of the United States at any time?
Mr. Budenz. Well, that is where he was located during part of his
time to which I have referred.
554 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. And were those activities directed lai^ely
toward the orientation of articles in the Institute of Pacific Relations,
or one of its subsidiaries? , j-j-^„ ^4=
Mr BuDENZ Well, for a number of years he was the editor of
Pacific Affairs' one of 'its papers, and during that time he Communists
we?e ve7y generously presented as authors in that publication.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now I want to ask you
Mr. BuDENZ. That is, in generous numbers. ,,.,•_ _„ ^his
Senator Hickenlooper. Just to clarify my own thinking on tins
matter The Communist apparatus, as I understand from your testi-
now is generally divided-that is, so far as its personnel is con-
cer ed-into two ^classes. One is the Communist who could be i-e-
ferred to more or less publicly as a Communist; it doesn't make oo
much difference if they are publicly known as Comnmm^^^^^
other is the Communist supporter and aider and abettor who may be
in a pos ion where his identity with the Communist Party must be
SnceS and^any information of that must be avoided if possible.
^"m^ BuDENz' Well, I think I can best answer that by giving an
illustraS of a tree because that would tell all the categories of
communism. The rJots are underground which really rule the
paZ^thS would be Peters, Eisler, men of that character; Peters
the man who sent Whittaker Chambers down here to steal papers out
of the St^te Department, director of espionage for many years; Eisler
scores of enemy aliens in this country at the moment, who have been
here for .a number of years, have been here mstructmg the native
^^Xnte'runk of the tree The trunk is the open Party and^^^^^^
the men and women in the branches are the concealed Communists.
The'ap of instruction goes from the roots tV•-g^o'^t^e"^tb c^S
Dartv to the men and women m the branches. On the public stage
tC^are not Communists. Therefore you do have several categories
of Communists. You have the illegal aliens m here T^l^. f ^.^«;^, ^
bv Moscow and who really direct the party. That is the Kremlin
policy And an American may be in charge in the Phihppmes and in
Chiiia • he cannot be in charge in America, although he is concealed.
H oes not appear on the puElic stage Then you have the open Com-
munist, such as I was, such as Browder was, in order that the party
will appear to be a political party, which it is not.
Thirdly, you have the people who are walking across the public
stage as not^ Communists but who are Communists.. However they
allfall three of these groups, are all in this one conspiracy together
Does that answer your question, or did you want a different
^1ena?or- Hickenlooper. I think vou have ^^1^^-^^ .^V^J^^^^ Jj^
more detail than I was really asking for. I am glad to gf /*' ^™^^
I was trying to bring out is that there are persons of undoubted loy
altv to the Communfst cause whose name, are not earned on any of-
ficial roll of the Communist Party membership, or ^ ho are not so
ca led ?ard-carrying Coinmunists,'literally, but who render yeoman
service to the Communist Party with their identity secret and even
every attempt made to conceal a direct association.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LNVESTIGATIOX 555
Mr. BuDEXz. There are liuiulreds of examples of that, and I will
give you one personal illustration, the case of Dr. Norman Bethune,
tlie Canadian pliysician who died in China witli the Chinese Reds.
That is an appropriate illustration.
Dr. Bethune was known widely as a non-Communist. He was very
indiirnant whenever anyone proclaimed him to be a Communist, yet
when he died Earl Browder arose in a public meeting and said, "When
Dr. I>et]unie left for China the last request he made, because he was
going iuto a war area, was, when he died, if he did die, it should be an-
nounced that he was of the army of Stalin." There is one illustra-
tion. I could give you manj^ others.
Then there is Mr. Frederick Vanderbilt Field, who denied for a
long time that he was a Communist, yet now very openly rejoices in
the defeat of American imperialism in the Pacific, and as a Com-
munist writing in this official theoretical organ which is for the leaders
of the Connnunist Party, not for the rank and file. Therefore there
are those persons, and I could tell you many, who, after being secretly
Commrnist — well, in New Y(n-k we had the case of Dr. Bella Dodd,
wlio after many years' denying she was a Communist then came out
in the teachers' union, suddenly, as a Communist. There are others
of that type.
Seiuitor HicKExr.ooPER. Now may T ask you this question. Out of
your experience as a Communist, who does the most effective work for
the furtherance, the general furtherance, of the Communist cause, the
knoAvn Communist or the secret Communist who denies his member-
slii]) and about whom every cloak of removal or every method of re-
moval from tlie Communist Party is thrown?
Mr. BuDExz. Well, they are both important to the, conspiracy. I
want to tell you that. It is very important to the Communists to
have an open party, a legal party, although they are not. They are
a conspiracy and a fifth column. But in that respect the open Com-
niunist plays his part. But of course in the effectiveness of penetrating,
infiltrating, and being able to influence, the concealed influence is a
tremendous asset.
Senator Hickexlooper. And is the concealed Communist considered
moi-e imjiortant in the psychological direction of philosophy favorable
to the Communist Party or is the open Communist considered to be
more important along that line?
Mr. BuDEXz. Well, Senator, it is very hard to measure that. Each
have their part to play, although as I said, in the deception and con-
fusion of public opinion, necessarily the concealed Communist can play
a larger role. However, he needs'^the o])en Communist to Avork with
him, and therefore you can't measure the two. However, you must
understand that the Communist Party has as its purpose not merely
espionage. I hope I made that clear. 'l think that that is perhaps the
lesser of the two things we should consider, but what the Commiinists
call diversion or penetration, the influencing of public opinion, and
therefore the concealed Communist is of tremendous value.
Senator Hickexlooper. Mr. Budenz, is it a fair assertion to say
that the American ]~)eople have pitifully little knowledge of the insid-
ious and active work of the Communists in this country?
Mr. BuDEXz. Well, I think the American people have totally be-
littled the Communists because the American people think, thank
God, in democ-ratic terms, but they have to also add to that that they
I
556 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION"
think in terms of luimbers. The Comnmnists don't think In terms
of numbers at all. They want numbers, but they want discipline.
Stalin said, "We want cadres, military units, steeled units, people who-
will lie and steal, if you like." The Communists used to have a foi--
mula here : to make it all very brief, Browder used to belittle the party
himself. "We have a very small party, but our influence is nmch
oreater " The Communist counts his effectiveness by the places where
his followers are placed, by their influence over others.
I have o-iven you an example, the United Electrical and Radio and
Machine Workers' Union, 500,000 fine, patriotic Americans who were
persuaded by a group of about 5 percent Communists to adopt inany
resSons against the public policy of the United States, attacking
the Marshall plan, attacking many other things, at their Boston Con-
vention, that were for the good of America. , ^T -O 1 ..1
Senator Hickenlooper. Just two more questions, Mr. Biidenz, and
I shall finish— that is, two more themes, maybe three (pestions or so.
You are now an assistant professor at Foidham University, are you
not, or what is your rank there? . , -n. n,„„,
Mr BuDENz. I am assistant professor of economics at 1^ ordham.
Senator Hickenlooper. Prior to your acceptance or your appoint-
ment as assistant professor at Fordham University, did you make
disclosure to the officials of Fordham University of your Communist
background? i t i G^..<.fr.,.
Mr BuDENZ. I didn't have to make much disclosure, Senator .
Senator Hickenlooper. In other words, they were aware generaJly,
""^Mr'^BuDS-'Oh, yes, sir. Catholic authorities were thorouglily
aware of mv historv. I am not giving them as verifying my charac^
teT. Don't misunderstand me. But I am today, I am very proud to
sav, a member of the Catholic Church.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then. Mr. Budenz, it was wi h the know-
ledcre that you had been a Communist and that you had recanted or
foresworn and changed yom' beliefs-it was with that
knowledge, that vou were thereafter given this appointment a. assist-
ant professor at Fordham University ; is that correct i .
M BuDENz. Oh, yes, because the Catholic authorities appreciate
that some of their great leaders-and I am not comparing myself to
them-1 ke St. Paul^ who helped to stone Stephen, ike St. Augustine,
who was the enemy of the church for many years have been m other
camps That does not compare me to them, but I mean to say the
idea^of redmning yourself is important, and I am seeking to make
''''^:^^^^^^- I am in no way criticizing, you, but the
poii^I am trying to make is that Fordham University is a great and
^^S:^^^1S; Senator, I do not wish to use the prestige of
Fordham University to support my own character I ^, ^ 1^^^"^! o^^
mv own feet. The fact of the matter is, however, that at least 1 wa^
considered to be competent enough to teach young men economics and
labor-management relations. ,i , -^ •
Se'iator Hickenlooper. I only want to observe that it is a recom-
mendation at least in my mind for you that this great university would
Se fit, because I have some idea of their fundamental and patriotic
purposes, to put you on its staff.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 557
Now, one other question. You have been a witness for the Govern-
ment in certain prosecution trials involving Communists. I believe
you testified to tliat effect a moment ago.
IMr. BuDENZ. I have been, in m}^ opinion, too often a witness, but
I was unable (o avoid it. I say too often, because it is not tasteful to me.
Senator PItckenlooper. And as a witness for the Government in
certain Communist trials, therefore, you are bound to have been
vouched for by the Federal authorities when they put you on the
witness stand to testify in the prosecution of the case?
Mr. BuDENz. Senator, I hesitate to throw upon my shoulders all
of these commendations. I feel that perhaps it should be stated that
I was a witness for the Government against the 11 Communists. I am
not criticizing you.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am not commending you, Mr. Budenz. I
am neither commending you nor condemning you. I am calling atten-
tion to certain open facts, and merely as a result of your statement and
the knowledge that you were a witness sponsored by the Government
in the trial of certain Communist cases it is bound to follow that the
Government of the United States sponsored your integrity as a wit-
ness, when they saw fit to put you on the stand in support of the Gov-
ernment prosecution cases.
I am not asking you to comment on your own integrity nor upon
what that means. I am merely making the observation that there are
two instances where that sponsorship has become apparent.
I have no more questions.
Senator Tydings. Thank you, Senator Hickenlooper.
Mr. Budenz, will it suit you to come back here on Monday? Some
of the members of the committee find it impossible to be here tomor-
row. I would like to ask you a great many incidental questions, per-
haps, and probably most of them in executive session — maybe all of
them. I want to accommodate you as far as I can.
Mr. BuDExz. Well, Senator, do you think it could be Tuesdav ? I
will come back Monday. I am in the hands of the committee. I just
have to make certain arrangements in New York.
Senator Tydings. We wdl make it Tuesday morning at 10 : 30, or
let's make it 10 o'clock, and the meeting will be in room G-23, in the
Capitol. That is a small room off the Senate Chamber, and the ar-
rangements for it will have to be worked out. If you will be here
Tuesday at 10 o'clock we won't call on you until then. I have asked
you no questions, and I am going to defer my interrogation until
(hen in order to give this general a chance to go.
Senator Lodge. Before we hear the general, it is my understanding
that the vote of the committee was to hear Mr. Budenz in public
session, and I didn't think we had voted to hear anybody else in
I'ublic session.
Senator Tydixgs. You said yourself you had some questions you
wanted to ask him in executive session. "l am trying to accommodate
you. That is what you said.
Senator Lodge. I didn't say that at all. My recollection is that the
subcommittee voted to hear Mr. Budenz in public session today.
Senator Tydixgs. Yes.
Senator Lodge. I do not recall that we voted to hear anybody else
m public session today, or at any other time.
Senator Tydings. That is right.
558 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. If we hear this general, whose "»>™ Vlhrnm be
^;:sUtJ,^r"n;™roTJi'eL?r^^^^^^^^^^
"tn^?:r-T^:.^Z '/ tTunl" ^e^can hear the general. Mr. Fortas
y.QG vpniipt;tpfl the o-eneral. I will put it to a vote. , . .
iSoT^toE.^! just want to rinew my observation that it is going
to make very clifficii t the work of the investigative agencies who are
ch^gecl S policing the disloyalty program in the Governm^^^^^^^^^^^
it is going to continue to be injurious to the position of the United
Stated if we prolong these public PJ-^^^ings, and I just dmU^^^^^^^^
when we are ever going to stop; if any time Mr. l^oitas oi senator
McCarthv o? anvbody else wants to put on a witness in public hearing
rti'ey arelohig lo do'it, then those proceedings will have no ^^^^^
will never get down to the serious business of ferreting Communists
Tud disloyal persons out of the Government, and we will never give
rmerica/diplomacy the chance to go ahead with the ]ob of opposing
"SSo? T~"■m^^l^^^^^ an executive meeting of the commit-
tee at 10 • 30 a. m. We will conclude our open hearing here today, and
we (^11 then decide on what kind of hearings we would like to have.
I would like to have the general coine forward and be sworn
Mr Abe Fortas (of counsel to Mr. Owen Lattimore). I think that
it is a matter of plain fairness to permit some rebuttal, inadequate
"tnl'itoocS'i^verybo^^ says that, Mr. Fortas, there will be no
end to that, because then they can rebut you. .,«tirr,nnv vou
Senator TymNGS. Do you solemnly promise that the testimony you
shall give in this case pending before the committee shall be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God i
General Thorpe. I do, sir.
Senator TyraxGS. Take a seat, sir, and give us your full name
Senator Hickenlooper. In view of this procedure, I may say hat I
am informed that Senator McCarthy has a witness he would like to
bring on almost immediately m public session.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Give your full name, sir.
TESTIMONY OF BEIG. GEN. ELLIOTT R. THORPE, UNITED STATES
ARMY, RETIRED
General Thorpe. I am Brig. Gen. Elliott R. Thorpe, United States
Army, retired.
Senator Lodge. A little slower, please.
Senator Tydings. A little more clearly and a little more slowly, gen-
eral, if you will. ,
General Thorpe. May I read this statement <
Senaior Tydixgs. You may read it, before the microphone, so we can
bear vou. You are a tall man. . „ . . i^u„
Geneml Thorpe. Anv statements or expressions of opinion made by
me at this hearing in no way reflect the opinions or policies of the
Department of the Army and reflect only my own opinions.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 559
I have spent something more than Iialf my 32 years of Army service
doin,<r iiitollio-ence ^vork. the major poi-tion in the Pacific Ocean and
tlie Far East. I have done inteliiaenee work in Hawaii, the countries
of southeast Asia, Japan, Netiierlands Indies, and tlie Philippines.
Dnrinc: the wai-, I was Chief of Connterintelliii^ence and Civil Intelli-
o-ence on the staff of Gen. Doncrlas MacArthiir. My hist assignment
jn-ior to retiring; in December was as military attache at the American
Embassy in Ban<ikok. Siam.
At this point I believe I shonkl state I am not in possession of any
files connected witli my work, as they are, of course, in possession of
the Department of the Army and consequently are not available to
me, which I reg^ard as quite proper. I do believe, however, it is en-
tirelv proper for me to express my strong conviction, based on careful
examination, that Owen Lattimore is a loyal American citizen and
is in no way an agent of the Communist Party nor of the U. S. S. R.
I have had three occasions to look into Owen Lattimore's conduct
and loyalty. First in the early 1930's when I was examining the
affairs of the Institute of Pacific Relations. Second, when he visited
our theater of operation in 1944 and in 1946. Finally my last look at
Dr. Lattimore was in 1947 while in charge of procuring Russian
linguists for the Army.
to review these three instances, I should like first to mention the
Institute of Pacific Relations. It is my personal belief that this or-
ganization contains within its membership highly respectable citi-
zens interested in the Pacific Basin and the furthering of peace in
that part of the world. It also has associated with it educators inter-
ested in using its facilities in their educational work. Finally it has,
as have apparently all such organizations, the usual collection of in-
tellectual panhandlers and screwballs. From my limited examination
in recent years. I doubt the value of these latter characters to any
intelligence-seeking organization.
As an intelligence officer of some years' experience, it is my belief
that there is no information available to anv foreign govermnent
through the Institute of Pacific Relations that cannot be better had
through the Government Printing Office, the Coast and Geodetic Sur-
vey, or going and making a personal examination. In a country as
free of access as this, there are practicallv no places denied foreign
visitors other than a very few technical plants. I believe the Insti-
tute of Pacific Relations could profitably part with some of their
people, but I doubt the capacity of such people to do any serious hann
to the United States should they be so inclined.
To return to Dr. Lattimore, in examining the statements of the
protagonists of Xationalist China on Dr. Lattimore, I have never, in
my experience as an intelligence officer, heard a man so frequently
referred to as a Communist with so little basis in fact. It is my be-
lief based on careful examination that through the past 10 years Dr.
Lattimore's opinions on China have been the primary basis for this
accusation of disloyalty.
It should be borne in mind that there are no neutral views on China.
Interested persons are for the most part emotional and positive to an
extreme degree. Repeatedly I found people willing to call Lattimore
a Communist and then be unable to offer anything more in substantia-
tion than the belief that his opinions on China were pleasing to the
560 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Communists. When I had finished looking into this "^^n's loyaltj^
I found I had nothing but hearsay evidence, much of .^^ o^y^^^^i.^
vindictive in character. There is no question m my mmd that Di.
LTtimo/e has aroused a vigorous antipathy toward himself among
the friends of the Chinese Nationahst cause. , ■ , .
As for Dr. Lattimore's ability to act as a spy for a foreign govern-
ment unless he has had access to top-secret information of which
Iain not aware, regardless of his desires, I rate his capacity lor such
action so small as to be of no vahie. !„.,.,« Kapn .1
Based on my belief that Dr. Lattimore is and has always been a
loval citizen during the early days of our occupation of Japan, i asked
an^ received his afsistance in dcaUng with matters pertaining to the
U S S K. of a confidential nature. His assistance was of mateiial
value When in 1047 I again sought his assistance in acquiring and
training Russian linguists, he again gave valuable aid
For ine to say I know the innermost thoughts or all the^secret acts
of Owen Lattimore would be absurd. 1 can only say that were 1
called on to commit mv personal safety and that of my command on
information supplied bv Dr. Lattimore, I would do so with conh-
dence that he would always act as a loyal American citizen.
Senator Tydings. General, first of all give us a quick I'un-down by
years of your various Army assignments, starting witli^ say, IJ^^.
General Thorpe. Hawaii, the Philippines, Dutch East Indies 1
was in the Dutch East Indies when we were overtaken by the Jap-
anese. I got out of there and joined General Mac Arthur alter 1
escaped from the Japanese, wh.m the general came out of the islands,
and I stayed as his Chief of Counterintelligence and Civd Intelligence
until I returned home in 1946.
Senator Tydings. You were his what? ^ ^ -i t ^ ir
General Thorpe. Chief of Counterintelligence and Civil Intel li-
o;ence
Senator Tydings. In what geographic area was your field?
General Thorpe. The Pacific cheater.
Senator Tydings. The whole Pacific theater?
General Thorpe. Yes, sir; everything commanded by General Mac-
Senator Tydings. ^Yliat time did you become his Chief of Counter-
espionage, what year — 1941 ? „ , • i i • -n^ 1
General Thorpe. No; 1942; after he came out of the islands m h eb-
ruarv, 1942. . , , . .-, -,r.An i ^i
Se'nator Tydings. And you stayed with him until 1946, and then
came home ?
General Thorpe. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. What have you done since 1946 ^ o i 1
General Thorpe. I have commanded the Army Lauiruage School
Training at Monterey, Calif., and been military attache at Bangkok,
Si am
Senator Tydings. Where were you stationed in the Far East while
with General MacArthur?
General Thorpe. All the way from Australia to Japan. ^
Senator Tydings. Did you have a force of agents working under
you ?
General Thorpe. I did, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 561
Senator Tydings. How larg^i was that force, if you feel you can
tell us.
General Thorpe. I would rather not, sir.
Senator Tydings. Don't do it, then. Were there a considerable
number of them?
General Thorpe. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. Did you have occasion to put any of these agents
to investigating- Dr. Lattimore^
General Thorpe. I did.
Senator Tyi^tngs. Was the investigation continuous? That is, was
it off and on, or did you do it all at one time ?
General Thorpe. We did it tAvice, each time he came to the theater.
Senator Ty'dings. Was it a cursory or a thorough investigation?
General Thorpe. Sufficient so that I was willing^
Senator Tyt)ixgs. You have made a pretty broad statement here.
General Thorpe. So that I would allow him to see confidential
documents, and after all I have heard about these various
statements
Senator Tydings. Was the advice he gave you the kind of advice that
paid dividends eventually, or was it erroneous advice?
General Thorpe. It was good advice.
Senator Tydings. Did you find any point in his exposition to you
where it caused you to question his loyalty ?
General Thorpe. No, sir. In his aid to me I liad no occasion to
question his loyalty.
Senator Tydings. Did he sliow a partisanship for any other country
besides the United States?
General Thorpe. No, sir ; not to my knowledge.
Senator Tydings. Were his opinions based, in your judgment, upon
the welfare of this country, ratlier than foreign connnitments on other
•countries?
General Thorpe. I believe he was very earnest in aiding the United
States.
Senator Tydings. I have to apologize for leaving. I have an engage-
ment, as I said earlier in the day. I am going to leave my proxy with
Senator Green and. Senator Green, I ask you if you won't take the
chairmanship of the meeting in my absence.
Senator Green. Senator HickenlooiDer, have you any questions?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
General, you say you first met Mr. Lattimore in the early thirties?
General Thorpe. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickeni.ooper. Where were you stationed at the time you
first met Mr. Lattimore?
General Thorpe. Sir, I woukl like to correct that. The first time he
came to my attention was while I was responsible for investigating the
Institute of Pacific Relations in Hawaii.
Senator Hickenlooper. Why were you investigating the Institute
■of Pacific Relations in Hawaii?
General Thorpe. For the very reason that they were concerned about
liow effective they were as a subversive organization.
Senator Hickenlooper. And you had had some allegations that
there was a chance that it was a subversive organization?
General Thorpe. Oh, yes.
562 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. So you were investigatincr them. In your
hivestigation of the Institute of Pacific Relations, either then or later
did you find— and I am not asking yon about the organization itself
as a whole, there were individuals connected with the organization who
were considered to be subversive ? I may say to you that I may or may
not ask you who the individuals were. I am asking you for the fact.
General Thorpe. Subversive, having the capacity to do harm to the
country? Yes. I think I can recall— I an. sorry I cant t^ you his
name, but this was years ago; yes, there was one man m Hawaii at
the time this question came up, and I am not sure, but I believe that
was before Dr. Lattimore joined the institute. I have not rehearsed
this with anybody ; I have come here right out of the country.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you come to the conclusion, not neces-
sarily that the entire organization or its membership is subversive, but
that 'there was evidence of subversive activity withm the organiza-
General Thorpe. It wasn't so much subversive as chiseling. There
was more evidence that there were people— I think the description
"intellectual panhandlers" describes them, who go around m organi-
zations and make a living getting jobs in various capacities. 1 hen-
intentions may have been subversive but so far as ever producing
any evidence of subversive acts, I was not able to do that.
Senator Hickenlooper. You say that on a couple of occasions or
on two different occasions later, when Dr. Lattimore came out to the
Orient where you were— do you recall the years, approximately (
General Thorpe. That he'^came out? I think it was m 1944. 1 am
doing all this from memory. ^ -, , . ^ •
Senator Hickenlooper. That is all right. I don't expect you to give
exact dates. . , ^ , • jt. 4.\
General Thorpe. Around 1944, I think, and then again after the
end of the war with Japan. . t .i t i.-^ i.
Senator Hickenlooper. At the time you mvestigatecl the Institut^
of Pacific Eelations and first came into contact with Dr. Lattimore, did
you investigate him at that time? , - -r
" General Thorpe. I investigated the institute before I came m con-
tact with him. . -, ^ n . .-, . • ^- ^- o
Senator Hickenlooper. Was he included m that investigation i
General Thorpe. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then when he came out to the Orient the
first time, if you recall, in 1944, you investigated him again?
General Thorpe. Yes, sir. -, . -, • in^c
Senator Hickenlooper. And then the second time he came, m 194b,
you atrain investigated him. What was the occasion for those two
investigations? Were there allegations or charges or statements that
he might well be investigated ? i i • •
General Thorpe. Sir, there is no one neutral about opinions on
China. We have a great many people who were in our theater who
were very important Nationalists and they were known, and I say
their dislike for Dr. Lattimore was very earnest. He has certainly
earned their cordial dislike.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes; I can understand that. But were
there allegations made to you derogatory to Dr. Lattimore's purposes
in China, so far as our own policy was concerned, that caused you to
investigate him to see whether they were true or not ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 563
General Thorpe. Xo, sir. AVe investigated people that came out to
(ind out whether they were persons who could be trusted with confi-
dential documents. This was durino- the war. We trusted every-
body, but to make sure we checked them.
Senator Hickexlooi-kk. Did you develop your own information
there on the oround about Jiini ? "
General Thori-e. Most of it; yes, sir. Some of it from back here
m the States.
Senator Hickexlogper. That is, reports sent from liere in the United
States ^
General Thorpe. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you have access to any investigative
hies that might have been compiled Ijy the FBI or other departments
at the time of those investigations, or either of them?
General Thorpe. My theater, my field, has been the Pacific. My
recollection is that we did not turn over to the FBI investigation of
subversive activities beyond the continental limits until about 1939
1 believe. '
Senator Hickexlooper. Then in 19U and 194G, when you had these
two investigations of Dr. Lattimore
General Thorpe. At that time Mr. Hoover had representatives in my
section. The cooperation was very close.
Senator Hickenlooper. My question that I was asking you is
whether or not you had access, at the time you were investigatino- Dr
Lattimore, to any investigative files that might have been devefoped
m the United States. ^
General Thorpe. Yes, sir; I believe I did.
Senator Hickexlooper. You are not sure about that ?
General Thorpe. I never imagined I was going to be called on to
lansack my memory on this.
Senator Hickexlooper. You said a moment ago. General, that Dr
Lattimore was shown confidential documents. What kind of docu-
ments was he showai there by you ?
General Thorpe. Sir, I am a retired officer. I do not have those
ciocuments.
Senator Hi'ckexlooper. I am not asking you for the details Were
they secret, confidential, top secret, restricted, or what was their clas-
sification?
General Thorpe. Sir, I cannot tell.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did you have all kinds of documents of
various classifications?
General Thorpe. From top secret down to restricted; yes, sir
Senator Hickexlooper. To confidential and restricted «
General Ihorpe. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. Was Dr. Lattimore given access to these
about"?''"^^ "' connection with matters that you wanted to ask him
General Thorpe. Sir, I am sorry, I would have to sav tnithfully I
don't remember. ' •■
Senator Hickexlooper. I understood you to say he was shown con-
fidential documents.
General Thorpe. He could have had access to them. I am «ure he
must have seen some confidential messages in connection with his work
there that he was advising on.
564 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. He was there to advise you ?
General TiiORrE. He was advising me ; yes, sir
Senator HiCKENLooi-ER. And any document which would be neces-
sary for his information in order for him to advise you would be
iccessible to him ^
General Thorpe. He must have seen them. Yes, sir ; he must have
seen them, , . ^ ,^ ,^
Senator Hickenlooper. That would be whether they were re-
stricted, confidential, top secret, or secret?
General TnnRPE. That I can't remember. ,• ,i ^
Senator Hickenlooper. If it were necessary to show him the docu-
ment in order to get his advice, he was cleared for access to that docu-
111 611 1 .
General Thorpe. He was cleared for access to it.
Senator Hickenlooper. General Thorpe, you spent some time in
the Orient and in China and the places of that kind, and you are now
retired. I would like to ask you whether you favor the recognition
of Communist China.
General Thorpe. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. You do not? .
General Thorpe. I do not, sir. I would like to add, since you
asked the question, it is a personal opinion.
Senator Hickenlooper. It is purely a personal opinion.
General Thorpe. I cannot urge too strongly the seriousness ot com-
munism in the United States. That is why I am here.
Senator Hickenlooper. That is why we are here, too.
General Thorpe. Yes, sir; but I would like you to understand my
motive in coining here, sir. It is that of a loyal officer.
Senator McMahon. What was your answer?
General Thorpe. I would like to have you believe that I came here
as a loyal American officer deeply concerned with trying to stop com-
munism That is why I volunteered to come before this committee,
because I am concerned about communism, and communism should
be earnestly looked into. I am sure it is much greater than people
can realize. I have just come from a country where ■
Senator Green. This hearing is connected with an individual.
General Thorpe. Yes, sir. He asked my opinion about an indi-
vidual. . - .■ 0
Senator Green. Why did you come m that connection i
General Thorpe. Why did I come?
Senator Green. What is your purpose m asking to be heard i
General Thorpe. Sir, I came here because I am concerned as an
intelligence officer about a person. I am greatly concerned about
cutting off our sources of supply. I have stated my belief m regard
to Dr. Lattimore, and no one else, and I am concerned that people
who handle Communist documents, people who are seen with them,
if they are ooing to be accused of communism when they in my opinion
are not, it i" going to cut off what little bit we have left m the way of
information . , n • i i
Senator Hickenlooper. General Thorpe, I don t think anyone here
is questioning your loyalty in the slightest. That element is not enter-
ing into it, so far as I know.
General Thorpe. Thank you, sir. Senator Lodge thought I was-
highly improper in staying.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 565
Senator Lodge. I have said notliinjr at all.
General Tiiori'e. 1 mean before I made my statement.
Senator Lodge. You are putting words into my mouth. I have said
nothing. I hope to question you in a minute, but I haven't said any-
thing yet.
Senator Hickenlooper. General Thorpe, were you connected with
the preparation of an intelligence report in connection with a man
}iamed Norman shortly before you left China and came over to Japan
aiid came back over to the LTnited States, whose report was submitted
lo General Willoughb}'?
General Thorpe. Norman ? I don't recall the name.
Senator Hickexlooper. You don't recall a man by the name of E.
Herbert Norman ^
General Thorpe. Oh, yes; yes, sir. He is the Canadian repre-
sentative. Oh, yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. That is the fellow. Were you associated
with Mr. Norman in preparing a report that was transferred to Mr.
Willoughby shortly before you came back to the United States?
General Thorpe. Not that I know of. Dr. Norman was associated
with my section in SCAF Headquarters until he was appointed Ca-
riadian representative on the Far East Commission, that is correct, but
I don't remember ever making a report on him, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did he make a report which was filed with
you for transmittal to the proper channels on the political situation in
Asia ?
General Thorpe. Sir, not that •
Senator Hickenlooper. And with certain recommendations?
General Thorpe. Not to my knowledge : no, sir. That must have
been after I left.
Senator Hickexlooper. I am asking about shortly before you left.
General Thorpe. No, sir. So far as I recall, I do not remember that.
Senator Hickexlooper. I am not necessarily assuming such report
was made, but following up nn' question, a report which was submitted
to you and which you approved and transmitted on to General Wil-
loughby.
(jenei-al Thorpe. Not to my knowledge. I was not under General
Willoughby. I reported directly to the Chief of Staff, and did not
i'e])ort to Geneial Willoughby. I had no occasion to transmit reports
to him.
Senator Hickex'looper. Change my question to the transmission of
the repoi-t to the Chief of Staff on the political situation in Asia.
General Thorpe. Not that I recall. LiAsia? That I am sure I did
not. On something in Japan, I may have submitted a report at the
time we were investigating war criminals, but I am sure it was not while
1 was there.
Senator Hickexlooper. And was any report on either Japan or
China, which had been approved and transmitted by you, the subject
of controversy within the general headquarters in Japan? In other
words, were you called upon to explain or discuss the implications of
a political report which you had O. K.'d?
General Thorpe. No, sir. I am sure that someone has it confused,
and that must have been after I left, because, if you mean a report in
which there was disagreement in the staff, and I was called on to
defend the report, no, sir.
566 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. Something of that nature.
General THt)RPE. No sir. I am sure that they have me mixed up with
someone else in this. , „ n., ^i •
Senator Hickenlooper. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Green. Senator McMahon, have you any questions ?
Senator McMahon. What are you doing now? ,
General Thorpe. Sir, I just retired from the Army. I am trying to
o-et my home up in Rhode Island straightened out. That is all. 1 am
?ioht now trying to take care of my personal business. It is not a
mStter of life and death ; it is a matter of personal business. I had no
idea it would be so embarrassing.
Senator McMahon. Did you come up through the ranks i
General Thorpe. Yes, sir. • i , a
Senator McMahon. You went in as an enlisted man m what year «
General Thorpe. 1917. . . . * o
Senator McMahon. And then you stayed m the Army^
General Thorpe. Yes, sir. I came out of Rhode Island State College
into the Army and stayed in until I retired last year.
Senator McMahon. Wlien did you start intelligence work?
General Thorpe. I think at the Peace Conference m Pans after
World War I. ^ i . x .^•
Senator McMahon. Did I understand you to say that Lattimore was
a part of your organization? i . , , ^ t
General Thorpe. No, sir. He was an adviser, but he was i^ot— i
cannot say that he was— a part of the organization. He came oyer with
the Pauley Commission, and he was considered one of the best-
informed people on the subjects with which he wanted to deal, and
therefore we asked him for his advice. ^ .
Senator McMahon. General, you have heard Lattimore s views on
China expounded, have you not ? ^ ^ . , .
General Thorpe. Sir, I am not here to defend Dr. Lattimore s views.
I am merely here to state that it is my opinion that he is a loyal Ameri-
can citizen. I know him to be. . i , • i
Senator McMahon. Did you discuss those views with him when you
were engaged in woi-k with him ?
General Thorpe. In China, or about China?
Senator McMahon. Yes.
General Thorpe. Not particularly, because we were concentrating
on Japan, and at that particular time we were not interested m the
Chinese. We were interested in Russians and Japanese. So far as any
discussions of Dr. Lattimore's views on China, I am unable to offer
anything. . .
Senator McMaiion. General, I presume that the restrictions of your
trade are such, or the trade from which you retired, your occupation,
that you cannot go into details relative to the kinds of assignments
that Lattimore had.
General Thorpe. No, sir.
Senator McMahon. Would it be possible at some future meeting
of the committee in executive session for you to develop that matter?
General Thorpe. I am sorry, but I am a retired officer, and as such
I feel that that information should
Senator IVIcMahon. You would have to get a release from the Sec-
retary of Defense?
General Thorpe. Yes, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 567
8eimt()r McMahox. Or tlie SecrotaiT of War?
General Thokpe. Yes, sir. You understand m>' position?
Senator JNiVjNlAiioN. 1 do. I understand it perfectly. But I take
it if you were released by the Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary
of War, you then would be able to go into more detail with us concern-
ino- these transactions between you and Lattimore.
General Thorpe. Sir, I hope this is my final appeaiance here.
Senator ]McMahon. It occurs to me that since you have given such
a forthright opinion here, and you largely based it upon your con-
versations and your knowledge of his activities in the Far East, that
it would be most helpful in evaluating your testimony if we had a com-
plete exposition of the relationship that he bore to your organization.
That is my only purpose in suggesting that. Perhaps the other mem-
bers of the committee might think that it was a good idea to get a re-
lease for you bv the Secretary of Defense.
(jeneral Thorpe. I feel it would serve no useful purpose. You
know my opinions now. You can take them or discard them, according
to your judgment. Were I to take up your time for days on end, and
were I to go into detail here, I feel I would not be helpful to you.
Senator McMahon. That is all.
Senator Greex. Senator Lodge?
Senator Lodge. General, when did you write this statement ?
General Thorpe. Yesterday.
Senator Lodge. So you thought you w^ere going to appear today?
General Thorpe. I knew it. I came down here. I came all the way
from Minnesota to appear here.
Senator Lodge. I think it would have been courteous if we had
known about it, because it helps us, you know\ We have a job to do.
General Thorpe. I apologize sir.
Senator Lodge. Just a minute, sir. It takes some time to study these
matters and prepare yourself to ask intelligent questions and to do the
job that we are supposed to do.
When was this mimeographed ? Do you know?
General Thorpe. Yes, sir ; last night.
Senator Lodge. I think it is something somewhat less than frank to
have i)reparcd this yesterday and mimeographed it yesterday and the
first thing we know about it"is half-way through the morning.
Mr. FoRTAS. May I ask that that criticism be directed to me and
not to the general ? If you should have been advised to that effect, it
was my responsibility.
Senator Lodge. I am not undertaking to address it to anybody, but
I am interested in orderly procedure and I am interested in things
being done in an orderly and just, and as fair a manner as possible, and
I want to a\()id the atmosphere of chaos and the atmosphere of a circus,
and I want to get ferreted disloyal i)eople out of the State Department,
and I think this device, with all these movies and all this sort of thing,
is not tlie way to (xet disloyal people out of the State Department.
^yill you be available to be questioned in executive session?
General Thorpe. Sir, I don't live in Washington.
Seunloi- Lodge. Rhode Island isn't very far away. I go through
Ithode Island when I go to Boston. I go to and fro.
General Thorpe. I am not there yet. I haven't had a chance to go
to Rhode Island yet. If the committee Avould be good enough, and I
68970— 50— pt. 1 37
568 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
am sure you are going to be disappointed in my lack of information
when I come back here, if you want me to come. I came voluntarily
this time and, to be perfectly honest, it is expensive for me to come
here.
Senator Lodge. I think it would be preferable from your viewpoint,
as well as every other, to question you in executive session.
General Thorpe. Sir, I have no objection to this.
Senator Lodge, You would come if you were asked, would you not?
General Thorpe. Oh, sir, I am interested in anything that will help
further the cause of eliminating communism in the United States.
Senator Lodge. All right. Thank you very much.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, inasmuch as Mr. Fortfis has
assumed full responsibility, I would like to know whether Mr. Fortas
notified the chairman of this committee that the General would be
here ; if he did, when he notified the chairman of the committee and
what the circumstances are surrounding that. Apparently the gen-
eral was brought down here from Minnesota, or came down from
Minnesota, yesterday, prepared to testify today, and the first notice
I ever had was when the proposal was made this morning, and cer-
tainly I was laboring under the assurance that we would have only
the one witness today.
Mr. Fortas. Senator, if that was your understanding, it certainly
was not the understanding that I got. I got the understanding from
previous statements — perhaps they were statements of the chairman
alone — but from previous statements by this committee, by an au-
thorized source on this committee, that Mr. Budenz would be put on
the stand and that I, as counsel for Mr. Lattimore. would then have
an opportuiiity to produce such witnesses in rebuttal as might occur
to me. I know of no rule and no custom, with all apologies to
Senator Lodge
Senator Lodge. Wait a minute, Mr. Fortas.
Senator Green. One at a time, please.
Senator Lodge. Don't talk to me about rules and customs, Mr. For-
tas, because I am not a lawyer, and this is not a court and this is not
a legal proceeding. These are elected Senators representing the
people, and we are not a lawyer, and all I say is that if I am going
to clo my job thoroughly, it is only courteous to give me a chance to
know what is coming, so I can do a little home work. That is all I
said. I am not talking about law and custom.
Mr. Fortas. Senator, I was about to say that if there is a custom,
or if this committee now^ instructs me that it would prefer to have
any statements handed to it in advance, I shall of course comply. I
was not so advised previously.
Senator Hickenlcoper. Do ycni care to state, Mr. Fortas, in answer
to my question which I asked you a while ago, if you notified anybody
on this committee of the general's appearance today '^ If so, when
did you notify, and whom^
Mr. Fortas. My best recollection. Senator, is that several days ago
I mentioned to the chairman that I hoped that General Thorpe would
be here.
Senator PTtckexlooper. Did you notify the chairman or anybody on
yesterday or at any time when you knew that he Avould be here that he
would definitely be here today ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION 569
Mr. FoKTAS. 1 think I did, Senatoi-. I think I notified the chair-
juaii.
Senator Hickexlooper. You are a very intelligent and able man,
Mr. Fortas
Mr. FoRTAS. Thank yon.
Senator Hickexlooper. And tliis has only been a day or so, and it
would seem to me that your memory should serve you sharply in this
short time, and you could say definitely whether or not you did or
you didn't, because only 2 or 3 days has gone by.
Mr. FoRTAs. I appreciate the Senator's compliment, but I am telling
the Senator that I think that in a conversation with Senator Tydings
on yesterday I did tell him that the general was in town, and that I
would bring him to the hearing; and I will not be any more positive
than that, because I cannot be. I saw the Senator for about three-
quarters of a minute, or something thereabouts, in his office, and he
was in a great rush and saw me and quickly ushered me out the door.
Senator Hickexlooper. That was yesterday ?
General Thorpe. Yes.
Senator Hickexlooper. That is sufficient. Thank you.
Mr. FoRTAs. Xow, Mr. Cliairman, I should like to make a point of
inquiry here, if you are through with the general. Are you ?
Senator Greex'. Yes ; thank you very much.
Senator Hickexlooper. I wonder if counsel has any questions to
ask.
:Mr. MoRGAX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't believe I have
any questions.
:Mr. FoRTAS. Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a point here about
procedure, and it is an inquiry. It was my understanding, and I now
res]jectfully request, that Mr. Lattimore be given an opportunity to
appear m public session before this subcommittee in order to make such
re^ly to Mr. Budenz as he may see fit.
Senator Greex. Mr. Fortas, if you have received that information.
It is correct. We wdl afford Mr. Lattimore an opportunity to reply to
Mr. Budenz.
Mr. FoRTAs. Mr. Chairman, may I say we should like to have at
least 24 hours from this time to consider Mr. Budenz' remarks, and
for Mr. Lattimore to prepare himself ?
Senator Greex. As I understand it, there is no intention of havino-
any meeting before next Tuesday. '^
Mr. Fortas. That is fine, sir.
Second, ^Mr. Budenz in his testimony asked the committee to subpena
1 f/'f.^^^^'i^k V. Field. I should like to join in that request, and I
should like to state my reasons very briefly.
Some days ago there was a radio announcement, or a statement by
a radio commentator, to the effect that iNIr. Budenz would say that he
had received information from Mr. Field that Mr. Lattiniore was
connected with the Communist Partv. I thereupon traced Mr Field
to Las ^ egas, Xev. I do not know ]\Ir. Field. To this moment I have
not seen him. I told :\Ir. Field of the rumors, and asked him to send
me a letter as to whether the allegations were true of false. I should
Jiice at this moment to read the letters and offer them for the record
Senator Hickexlooper. :Mr. Chairman, I object. If we are goin<r to
get Mr. Field we will get him here under oath and he can give his own
testimony.
570 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Green. This matter will be taken up in executive session by
the committee — your request. xuv ^i 4-
Mr. FoRTAS. May I merely state, Mr. Chairman, that 1 beheve that
these letters are pertinent to the committee's consideration of whether
it will subpena Mr. Field?
Senator Green. We are not going to discuss it here publicly. 1 ou
can submit to the committee the letters. aij -^
Mr. FoRTAS. My third point is this : I have before me an athdavit
that I should like to offer for the record at this time.
Senator Green. What is the nature of it? • . n ^i
Mr. FoRTAS. I am sorry I do not have enough copies tor ail tlie
members of the committee. It is an affidavit by Bella V. Dodd, who
was a member of the Communist Party, a member of its national
committee. She was a member of the national committee from 1944
to 1948 She was expelled from the Communist Party m June 1949
after charges had been preferred against her on account of her
^^Senat^or Green. What request are you making in connection with
the affidavit? , n -itt 1 1 n +^
Mr. FoRTAS. I am offering it for the record. Would you like me to
Senator Green. We have no sworn witness to offer testimony, and
there is nothing to go in the record. . /r ^i.-
Mr. FoRTAS May I, on behalf of Mr. Lattimore, offer this as an
exhibit? , , , , i <?
Senator Lodge. Wliy can't you do that when he appears^
Mr. FoRTAS. This witness has not been subpenaed. 1 have no
right to subpena. <? -i? i ;„u v
Senator Green. You just requested a subpena for Frederick V.
Field. , ^ ,
Mr Fortas. That has not been granted.
Senator Green. It has not been refused, either.
Perhaps Mr. Lattimore, when he appears again, can present this
M^ Fortas. You prefer that procedure to my offering this now?
Senator Green. Certainly.
Mr Fortas. All right, Mr. Chairman. ^ ^ ,
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, by my silence I. do not
mean to give consent to the procedure. I think, if m the opinion of
the committee the witness is necessary, the witness should be sub-
^""Semtor Green. Certainly, but I say this affidavit can be presented
then and we can take it up at that time.
Ml FORT.S. Mr. Chairman, I know no better way of presenting
the facts with respect to a prospective witness to this committee
than by offering a statement or an affidavit, but I leave the matter
where it is.
Senator Green. Thank you.
Is there anything else ?
The meeting stands adjourned.
(Whireupon, at 5 p. m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene
in executive session at 10 a.' m. Tuesday, April 25, 1950, m room G-23,
U. S. CapitoL)
STATE DEPAKTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
SUBCOMMIITEE APPOINTED UnDER SeNATE RESOLUTION 231,
Washington^ D. C.
EXECUTI^^: session
The subcommittee met in executive session, pursuant to call, at
10 : 30 a. m., in room G-23, United States Capitol, Senator Millard E.
Tyding- (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) , Green,
McMahon, Hickenlooper, and Lodge.
Also present: Senators Connally, chairman of the full committee;
Mr. Louis F, Budenz ; and Mr. Edward Morgan, chief counsel for the
subcommittee.
(Following off-the-record discussion in regard to committee pro-
cedure. )
Senator Tydings. All right, let us proceed with Mr. Budenz.
(Mr. Budenz entered the room.)
Senator Lodge. Here is Mr. Budenz.
Mr. Budenz, you said in your testimony on April 20, and I quote :
In this cell was also Owen Lattimore. This I know from reports received in
the Politburo, and given to me ofticially as managing editor of the Daily Worker.
Now, are those reports available?
Mr. Budenz. Oh, no ; they are not. No communications or reports
of that character that come in are available. They rely purely on oral
transmission of instructions.
Senator Lodge. When you say a report is received at the Politburo,
that is a verbal report?
Mr. Budenz. Oh, yes. All reports are verbal except those that
come on onionskin, occasionally. That is Communist practice.
Senator Lodge. There are records or reports of any kind that could
be subpenaed and found?
Mr. Budenz. The only thing that could be subpenaed are certain
Communist leaders that I suggested, such as Jack Stachel; and, I
would also suggest subpenaing, although I am not sure of this, but
I wish to cooperate in it, a Manning Johnson, a Negro Communist
leader, who is now out of the party.
Senator Lodge. Let me ask you this question : In view of your pre-
vious statement that a Communist has no hestitation about perjuring
himself, what good does it do to get those men ?
571
572 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION"
Mr. BuDENZ. At the trial of the 11, Senator, I believe you will find
in the record that they were compelled to make admissions which were
very damaging to themselves. Now, I do not know that that can be
the case here, but I do hope that it can be. Certainly it did prove to
be the case there. There, you had the same situation exactly : The
only written documents you had there were the official pronounce-
ments of the Conmiunist' Party, and yet by oral evidence they were
convicted, and that is the only way you can convict Communists.
Senator Lodge. Later on, on Thursday, last Thursday, you said;'In
1944, Jack Stachel advised me to consider Lattimore as a Communist."
Now, what is the significance of that statement? Did he say that
to you — for what purpose did he say that to you ?
Mr. BuDENZ. That was in order tiiat I would be able, in case of a
liearing that Lattimore, any comment on Lattimore, or discussions on
Lattimore, to take his reports or statements as authoritative. We had
that understanding in regard to a great number of people in the Daily
Worker. That is what I was assigned to do, keep track, in order that,
when copy came to me, I would be able to handle situations properly.
Senator Lodge. That was made to you with the definite purpose,
a definite purpose and not just a casual remark ^
Mr. Budknz. That was an official, definite purpose. That, by the
way, was not only a definite purpose, I might call it a custom or rather
a, practice — "practice'' is a better word.
Senator Lodge. Now, you have referred, in your testimony the other
day, to other witnesses, and one of those, I gather from what you
just said. Manning Johnson
Mr. BTn:)ENz. V/ell, I am not certain that Manning Johnson will be
able to substantiate what I have said. I mentioned him for the rea-
son that among the Negro comrades the Pacific question was very
much more brought up than among other Communists. They were
given the responsibility, on a number of occasions, of handling the
Pacific questions, within a certain degree within the party, and it
may be he will be able to do it.
In addition to that, I have suggested the other witnesses.
Senator Lodge. Field, Jaffe, Browder, and Stachel?
Mr. BuDENz. That is correct; especially Stachel.
Senator Lodge. Who else ?
Mr. BuDENz. That is all for the moment.
Senator Lodge. All for the moment?
Mr. BuDENZ. I may be able to suggest more, ])efore this session is
over.
May I make a remark. Senator?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. BuDENz. This isn't arbitrary. I said my statement could be
corroborated, because I am certain that, while this is a small group that
knows about this, someone like Manning Johnson, or others, will also
know it. I am not certain that he is the man, but I have a gen-
eral impression he might be. He was a member of the national com-
mittee who was interested in the Pacific question and from time to
time was in touch with the Pacific question.
Now, one of the men that will be able to be of some help—at least,
in certain admissions I shall be able to show you in a minute— is
Frederick Vanderbilt Field. He will be a very reluctant and hostile
witness, although of course a man that will not perhaps show his hos-
STATE DEPARTMENT EiMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 573
tility ; but his 1oji*j: aoquairitance with Mr. Lattimore, and association,
M-ill enable you, I think, to elicit certain information from him.
Senator Lddgk. In the hearing the other day Senator Hickenlooper
made a point which I thoii<>ht was very important, and I wanted to
cite it to you, because it forms the basis for a question I want to
ask you.
Senator Hickenlooper said:
I am, of course, obviously asking you whether it is necessary for those who
are in the inner sanctum of the party to be convinced that someone is a Commu-
nist only upon pers<mal association and personal admission by that person
to the one so assuming.
To me, that is a significant point, because it indicates that in this
whole contemplation we are dealing with hearsay evidence, but there
are various degrees of hearsay evidence.
So far as liability is concerned, hearsay evidence, when official in
character and deliberately done, as you say this was, is much more
persuasive than just casual.
Xow, these statements you made were all made by these Communists
in this official capacity; is that right?
Mr. BuDEKz. That is correct. There was an official practice which
was carried out regularly; that is to say, in my specific instance, being
managmg editor of the Daily Worker— and, by the way, that is a life-
and-death matter. I want to assure you gentlemen this is no casual
matter for the managing editor of the Daily Worker. It is what I
would call a political life-and-death matter that he have no errors
in tlie publication in regard to the different individuals or in regard
to different issues. Consequently, you are constantly refreshed by
the liaison officer of the Politburo, who comes in every day and makes
<'hanges from time to time, personnel changes, but for the larger period
of time it was Jack Stachel. He is, by the way, the most powerful
member of the Political Bureau. He is the man, incidentally, closest
in touch with the Communist International "apparatus."
Senator Lodge. Pursuing that same line. Senator Hickenlooper then
said:
Let me ask you : During this period of 10 years, did you have occasion to be able
to test, from time to time, the truth in what those men reported as Communists
to the high command of the Communist Party here? In other words, did you have
■a chance to test their veracity, so far as it was concerned in their report?
And you gave this answer, Mr. Budenz :
Repeatedly. I don't know that I can give you illustrations right now. I
could give you illustrations if I had the time to think it over.
Well now, you have had a little time to think it over. Could you
give us illustrations proving the veracity of these Communists?
Mr. Budenz. This is just something that has occurred so frequently,
perhaps, I can't grasp it for the moment; but, as a matter of fact,
that was the whole center of their information.
r Avill give you one example. Mr. Alger Hiss is an example, and I
have to refer to him because he is so outstanding and is well known
but I would be able, upon reflection, to even furnish to the committee
in written form instance after instance, which would be the reason I
mentioned it in that fashion. I could take matters which are public
record, more than personal knowledge, incidents in which this would
be conformed.
574 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. It seems to me it is very pertinent to have any in-
formation that the witness can give which will shown that these asser-
tions by Communists in the past, on their own intmal organization,
have been accurate. I would like to request, Mr. Chairman, that Mr.
Budenz furnish us with illustrations of this veracity.
Mr Budenz. I will furnish you with a written report— which, o±
course, will still be under subpena— of a number of such instances.
Senator Lodge. Now, I asked you the other day if you could give a
specific illustration of when Lattimore received an instruction and car-
ried out an instruction which came to him from the Communist or-
ganization: and you stated that the most specific instance that you
could make was when he was instructed to portray the Chinese Com-
munists as agrarian reformers
Mr. Budenz. To direct it.
Senator Lodge. What?
Mr. Budenz. To direct that campaign.
There is another example I might give.
Senator Lodge. All right, go ahead. ■,- • .-u
Mr Budenz. That is in regard to the Communists writing in the
Pacific affairs. I brought a list here today and that is one ot the
reasons I requested an executive session, Senator; because it seemed
to me that it would not serve the public interest to be spreading the
names of all of these people all over the papers, and I believe that
you know my sentiments are rather in favor of trying to get into this
thing in executive sessions wherever possible. x m
nSw, the thing is that I have a list here. Of course, I could an-
swer your first question, if you wish it
Senator Lodge. I think that would be more orderly, it you did. i
would like, if you could say when, where, and how Lattimore received
these instructions, or this instruction. .
Mr Budenz. Well, now. Senator, here I am m executive session, 1
suppose, and in this respect I will have to mention the fact that neces-
sarily I did not follow Mr. Lattimore around. I only know that m
Political Bureau meetings, which I attended, I heard instructions
made that these things were going forward, and I saw visible evidences
of it going forward in the tremendous campaign which took place
in book after book on this subject. ^^ , ^ „ .^, ,,.
Now, that Mr. Lattimore personally had a conference with this
gentleman or that, I cannot tell you.
Senator Tydings. How was that?
Mr. Budenz. That he had a conference with this writer or that
one, I cannot tell you because I was not present.
Senator Tydings. I did not catch that.
Mr. Budenz. But, I have heard reports that this campaign was
proceeding, and that it bore full fruit about 1913.
Senator Lodge. Do you know, did any Communist worker tell you
that he told Lattimore to start this campaign? ^ a^i .
Mr. Budenz. Oh, yes ; that was the substance of this report, ihat
was why I was advised, not only that they had started
Senator Lodge. Who told you that ? , . .
Mr. Budenz. That was the report made m regard to this session
in 1037. This was Browder's report, and Field's report.
Senator Lodge. He told you that Lattimore had received these
instructions ?
STATE DEPARTME^v'T EAIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 575
Mr. BuDKXz. Yes; that he had received them — that is to say, first,
I was thiiikin<2; of the meetin^j when they said they were going to give
them to him. Later on there followed this report and others verifying
them, specifically Browder and Stachel confirmed that the instructions
were being carried out.
Senator Lodge. Did they say where they had given them, some-
body going to see him at his house, or were they given to him over the
telephone i
Mr. BuDENz. No, no.
Senator Lodoe. You don't know the procedure ?
Mr. Budexz. As a matter of fact. Senator, the Communists' reports
to the Politburo don't go into details of that character. They give
the general report on the campaign that is taking place, what is
happening, and a general resume of the situation.
Senator Lodge. So, you could not pin point all those details?
Mr. BuDENz. No ; I never so claimed.
Senator Lodge. I know.
I realize you have not. but I am just asking. I am not trying to say
that you claim that you could, but I was asking you whether you could.
Then, you think that he received the order, and then you believe
that he carried out the order. What makes you think he carried out
the order ?
Mr. Budenz. Well, that is the information which I received officially,
that he carried out the order, and was ])roceeding, the campaign was
proceeding, and Lattimore was participating in directing the cam-
paign. I saw it proceeding publicly and therefore I took it for granted.
Senator Lodge. By that, you mean you saw his books and magazines
and articles and speeches?
Mr. Budenz. Not his, but the books and magazine articles being used
publicly for this.
Senator Lodge. "What did you think was his connection with these
books and magazine articles? Do you think he furnished the
materials ?
Mr. BuDEXz. Not the materials necessarily, but directions. It is
common Communist practice to give directions to others in regards
to a thing.
Senator Tydings. I cannot hear you.
Mr. Budenz. That is a common Communist trait, to give directions
to others in regard to a campaign.
Senator Lodge. So, the people who were writing the speeches and
making the speeches, and writing the articles and books were Com-
munists?
Mr. Budenz, Quite a few^ of them were ; yes, Senator,
Senator Lodge. Otherwise, they would not have been ?
_ Mr. Budenz. One man I do not know to be a Communist was Har-
rison Foreman, but Communists have a way of getting people to also
write who are not Communists, on occasion. Harrison Foreman, so
far as I know, was not, but some of the others w^ere ; yes.
Senator Lodge, Because otherwise, is it not true the}' would not
have been responsive to Lattimore's directions?
Mr. Budenz, That is correct. They were Communists,
Senator Lodge, Because if they were Communists, by the same token
they probably follow the same policy, or would, anyway, whether they
got it from Lattimore or not.
576 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BuDENz. Not necessarily. There has to be a channel of com-
munication.
Senator Lodge. To tell them what to do ?
Mr. BuDENz. Of course. Today Eisler is very powerful in Ger-
many, because he knows all about America, and can direct a campaign
against us. He is the channel of communication there and always
cadres are developed. They develop people for special fields, or
specific fields. One man may be valuable in one field and another
man valuable in another field.
Senator Lodge. You mentioned this man Harrison Foreman as a
man who took the line that the Communists favored, although not
being a Communist himself.
Mr. BuDENZ. That is, I do not know that he is a Communist.
Senator Lodge. We all know there are cases of men Avho say the
things the Communists believe, without being a Communist them-
selves ; do we not ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. Many of them are influenced by Commu-
nists.
Senator Lodge. They may be dupes, may they not ?
Mr. Budenz. That is correct.
Senator Lodge. You do not think it is possible that Lattimore fell
in that category, or falls in that category, of not being a Communist
but being a man not skilled in the ways of the world, and had some-
thing suggested to him?
Mr, Budenz. I can only rely on the statements given to me, and
these statements are authoritative; and, following the channels that
Communists' communications follow, and to my understanding, or
rather to nry knowledge, have always been accurate.
Senator Lodge. I know you have a great reputation for accuracy.
Mr. Budenz. Not I. I say they have been accurate within the au-
thority; not my own accuracy. I mean their accuracy has been tested,
as I have said over and over again, within the party. It is essential
that this army of sedition, this army of destruction should be based
on facts. That is to say, it is an error of the most serious moment, if
facts are not stated, within the Communists themselves.
Senator Lodge. You would not know, then, from where you were
sitting, of anyone who had received a personal directive from Latti-
more ; would you ?
Mr. Budenz. I woidd not know ; no, sir.
Senator Lodge. In addition to directing this campaign to change
public opinion about China, is there any other major job that you
think he did?
Mr. Budenz. There is this one special thing that I can point to, and
that is the matter of getting Communists to infiltrate the Pacific
Affairs; that is the publication of which he was editor.
Senator Lodge. Getting jobs for them?
Mr. Budenz. Getting them to write. It was not jobs, it was influ-
ence— American businessmen and American professors and American
people of good will toward the Pacific in their way of thinking. Yoa
must remember this type Institute of Pacific Relations was founded
by the Young Men's Christian Association. Therefore, they had a
group of people the Communists were very eager to influence. I com-
piled a partial list. Here is my embarrassment, Senator : I am unaware
of whether this list is going to be given out, and while I was watching
STATE DEPARTME2s[T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 577
with interest the discussion here, this is one of the reasons I asked
for an executive session.
Senator Tydings. What do you mean "be given out" ?
Mr. BuDENZ. I mean, woukl it be made avaiUible for anyone?
Senator Greex. That is for the committee to decide.
Senator Tydings. Tlie committee will have to decide that.
Senator Green, We do not have to decide before we hear it,
Mr. Budenz. The reason for this is, Senator, that — No. 1, some of
these people may still be engaged in acrivities that would deserve fur-
ther scrutiny ; others ma}^ have broken with the party. In other words,
this is a heterogeneous group of people, so far as the present listing
is concerned.
Senator Tydings. They were writers on the paper?
Mr. Budenz. Repeatedly have written for the Institute of Pacitic
Affairs,
Mr. Morgan. One observation, Mr. Chairman : On this list, one of
the names is that of one of the other men who has been publicly charged
and has appeared before this committee. It seems to me that this list
presents a mechanical problem that the committee is going to have to
wrestle with right now because the list is of those writers whom Mr.
Budenz will identify as Communists that w^rote for this magazine at
the time that Mr, Lattimore was the editor of the magazine ; and as
I say, in that list, is one of the individuals who has been publicly
charged, and who has replied and appeared before our committee.
Senator Lodge. Was he one of the writers?
Mr. Morgan. That is right ; is it not, Mr, Budenz ?
Mr, Budenz, Yes.
Senator Lodge. May I ask, before going further — this is a list of
these writers and speakers that we have been referring to in the col-
loquy between you and myself, that is supposed to
Senator Tydings. Will you pardon me ?
Senator Lodge. Yes,
Senator Tydings. Delete the name of until the com-
mittee decides whether it ought to go in the record.
Senator Lodge. I want to relate this list Mr, Budenz has, to under-
stand what the significance of it may be. These are names, are they,
of men who were writers or speakers that were supposed to have taken
directives from Mr, Lattimore?
Mr. Budenz. Not necessarily directives ; these are writers or speak-
ers placed on the Pacific Affairs by Mr, Lattimore, who are Com-
munists,
Senator Lodge. I see. Let me ask you this : To go back to the first
category, have you got the names of writers and speakers that engaged
in this campaign to change American opinion on China, that you were
referring to ?
Mr, Budenz, I can furnish you with such a list.
Senator Lodge. I think we ought to get that list, because it may be
that in that list we will find a man who said he received a directive.
Senator Tydings. All right, I have no objection to getting the list.
Senator Lodge, This Mr. Harrison Foreman that you speak of, I
think we ought to get him and find out.
Senator Tydings. Do what ?
Senator Lodge. Get this Harrison Foreman whom Mr. Bundez
mentioned.
578 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BuDENZ. I can furnish you with the list of writers. I haven't
them with me today ; I didn't know it was pertinent.
Senator Lodge. And have the staff see if any of those men, what they
say in regard to the question of whether or not they were communicated
with by Mr. Lattimore, and if so, for what purpose.
Senator Green. Is it a list of names whom you know to be Com-
munists ?
Mr. BuDENZ. Well, now. Senator, the question now is again up—
that is to say, I know some of these people personally, face to face ;
others
Senator Green. I didn't say face to face ; I say, you know them to
be Communists.
Mr. BuDENZ. I have been advised officially that all these people
are Communists.
Senator Tydings. I had no chance to question you the other day,
Mr. Budenz.
I would like to ask you a few questions. How do you know that Mr.
Lattimore personally employed these people to whom you refer ?
Mr. Budenz. I only know it from the reports that came to me, that
he was doing that ; that is, the reports in the Political Bureau ; and,
the fact that in substantiation you shall find his name as editor.
Senator Lodge. In other words, you were told by what you believe
to be competent authority that that was to be the case.
Mr. Budenz. And also supported by the printed record, m this
sense that Mr. Lattimore's name, as editor, appears on the publication
in which these people write, and they increasingly wrote from 1936 on.
Senator Ttdings. But you have no concrete proof of your own that
Mr. Lattimore personally employed these people.
Mr. Budenz. Oh, no; no concrete proof. That is, I mean I have
never seen Mr. Lattimore do it, never seen the act of him doing it.
Senator Ttdings. But you were told that he did.
Mr. Budenz. I was told officially. Also, I say their names appear
in Pacific Affairs and they did appear there, and reference to the pub-
lication will show that they wrote repeatedly from 1936 on.
For instance, I will give you an illustration so that you will see
the point : Mr. James S. Allen, an open Communist, the Communist
International representative for the Philippines, and later on foreign
editor for the Daily Worker, who was well known as a Communist,
wrote Reconstruction and many other Communist pamphlets and
books, and his writings appeared at least four times, if I am correct,
in the period that Mr. Lattimore was editor.
Senator Ttdings. But, you don't know that Mr. Lattimore induced
him to write.
Mr. Budenz. Only that Mr. Lattimore was editor.
Senator Ttdings. You don't know who did induce him to write.
Mr. Budenz. I do not.
Senator Green. Do you know whether he wrote
Senator Ttdings. Let me finish. I had no questions at all the other
day.
Senator Green. All right.
Senator Ttdings. You never met Mr. Lattnnore yourself i
Mr. Budenz. No, sir; I did not. ^ .
Senator Ttdings. You have never been to the office ot publication i
Mr. Budenz. No, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 579
Senator Tydinos. You have read all these articles yourself?
Mr. BuDENz. Which articles?
Senator Tydings. The ones to which you are referring.
Mr. BuDENz. A long time ago I glanced through them.
Senator Ty-dixgs. I would not say when, but you have read them all ?
Mr. BuDEXz. A long time ago, yes. I wouldn't say all of them,
Senator, but
Senator Tydings. A great many?
Mr. BuDENz. That is taking in too much.
Senator Tit>ings. Were there any of the articles written by any
of the people you have denominated there that you did read?
Mr. BuDENz. There may have been.
Senator Tydings. I believe I quote you with substantial accuracy
when you said that "Jack Stachel said Lattimore was helpful" and
tliat he advised you to "consider Lattimore as a Communist"?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. I said that Stachel said to consider Latti-
more as a Communist in 1944, when he was with Mr. Wallace.
Senator Tydings. Were they, as near as you can recollect, his pre-
cise words ?
Mr. BuDENz. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. That Lattimore was "helpful" and that he said
for you to "treat Lattimore as a Communist"
Mr. BuDENz. Consider him
Senator Tydings. "Consider Lattimore as a Communist?"
IVlr. BuDENz. Yes, sir.
Wait just a minute about that "helpful."
I don't remember that phrase specifically, Senator. I remember
Jack Stachel said that Lattimore was helpful in the time of the
Amerasia case.
Senator Tydings. That is what I mean.
Mr. BuDENZ. Those are two separate occasions. You see, it may
have been that he used that phraseology also in 1944, but I have no
present recollection of it. ^\niat I recollect in 1944, we were discussincr
the Wallace visit to China, which was considered very important, and
that Mr. Stachel said to consider Lattimore as a Communist.
Senator Ty'dings. Yes, sir.
Mr. BuDENz. Xow, the other reference was on another occasion.
1 hat was in 1945.
Senator Tydings. Now, coming back to what Stachel said to you, is
It possible, m your belief, that an individual could have had a point
of view so m hue with the Communist point of view that the high com-
mand, knowing, reading his works, would assume it would be a e:ood
thing to treat him as a Communist ?
Mr. BuDENz, No, sir; that is not correct.
Senator Tydings. What would be your belief?
Mr. BuDENz. This was a regular formula used by Stachel to deal
with people who were in the Communist movement.
Senator Tydings. And he said for you to consider him as a Com-
munist?
Mr. BuDENz Yes, sir. He used that, by the way, that phraseology
on a number of occasions in regard to other people. That is, I was
compelJed to know, more or less, as a matter of fact not more or less,
but definitely these people.
580 STATE DEPARTMENT EAIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydtngs. Now, you also said that Lattimore was designated
as "XL," I think, or something pretty close to that'^
Mr. BuDENz. That is right.
Senator Tydings. As a Communist designation?
Mr. BuDENz. That is right. .
Senator Tydings. Did his signature appear opposite that designa-
tion? , . . . • £
Mr. BuDENZ. Oh no. This is onionskin instructions coming trom
the Politburo. • -, .-x t ^^- vi.
Senator Tydings. So, there was nothing to identity Lattimore with
the "XL" on the onionskin itself?
Mr. BuDENz. Only the instructions given us by the Politburo.
Senator Tydings. In what respect do you claim that Reverend
Kearney's article corroborates your accusations of Mr. Lattimore?
Mr. BuDENZ. Well, in the sense, as Father Kearney says that Mr.
Lattimore is the person most responsible for the disaster in Asia, and
he goes on to indicate Mr. Lattimore's views.
Senator Tydings. So that would be what Father Kearney would
say—that would accentuate rather than otherwise— it would be m
line with what you say. . , i ^
Now, would Father Kearney have any initmate knowledge to your
knowledge, that Mr. Lattimore was a Communist, that you did not
Mr. BuDENz. Oh, no, he would not have, not that I know, unless
he had something. He was a missionary in the Orient, I believe. In
fact, he is on his way back now. The only thing is that his analysis
of Mr Lattimore's views I thought strengthened my own declarations.
That is, I did not put it forward as absolutelv a mandatory thing,
but confirmatory.
Senator Tydings. I wanted it to show on the record.
Mr. BuDENZ. Thank you. • ti . • m^K
Senator Tydings. You resigned from the Communist Party m 1945,
I believe it was.
Mr. Budenz. October 1945. . tt j-j ^-
Senator Green. Excuse me. I asked that question. He did not
resicrn. A Communist was not allowed to resign. He was expelled.
Mr. Budenz. I am just using it as a general rough term— left the
party.
Senator Tydings. Separated from the party ^ , u t
Mr. Budenz. I didn't resign. I arranged carefully whereby i
wouldn't resign. In fact, my name is on the letterhead on tiie^date i
was received in the Catholic Church of St. Patrick's. I did that so
that I would not be framed. I might explain this to you, Senator.
Senator Tydings. That is not important.
Senator Green. I think it is very important.
Senator Tydings. You may ask it on your time.
In the approximate 5 years since 1945, did you report Owen Latti-
more to the FBI as a Communist, or a Communist agent^
Mr Budenz. I don't recall that I did. I may have. Senator, but
I don't recall: but, I might say that, Senator, just m regard to my
own actions there that I have not reported quite a few people because
I cannot possibly do it.
Senator Green. You have not what?
STATE DEPARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISWESTIGATION 581
Mr. BuDENz. Reported quite a few. That is the reason I decided
to make up this list of hundreds of names so that once and for all 1
can give the FBI all the names that I had.
Senator Green. Did you talk to a special agent of the State De-
partment in September 1047, about communism (
Mr. BuuKxz. I don't recall that.
Senator Greex. In Sei>tember 1947 did you talk to any special
agent — in 1947 — of the State Department?
Mr. BuDExz. I don't recall that. Senator.
Senator Tydixgs. Did you say, in that interview with this State
Department agent, that you were not prepared to pass judgment upon
the degree of Mr. Lattimore's association with the party, that you
thought he was a sympathizer but that you were unable to recall at
that time any incident which definitely indicated that he was a mem-
ber of the party?
Mr. BuDExz. Well, I do not recall that, but if I did, it was in a
telephone conversation, and I am very evasive on the telephone, and
with very good reason, as anyone who considers how the Communists
act, can understand. I have to be very careful. In fact, even in this
case I don't know whether the Senator really believes it or not, but
it is a fact, when Doctor Mathews called me up on this case on the
phone
Senator Tydix^gs. Who?
Mr. BuDEXz. Dr. J. B. Mathews, a well-known investigator, was in
charge of the Dies investigation
Senator McMahox. And who was a member of the party at one
time?
Mr. BuDEX^z. He says he was not. He was veiy close to them and
was placed with the responsibility of their most important Com-
munist front, the League Against War and Fascism, and broke with
them.
Senator Tydix^gs. He did talk to you, then.
Mr. BuDExz. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydix'gs. What was the time, was it approximately as you
recollect, about September?
Mr. BuDEX'z. Oh, no ; I am referring to another, to show you how
careful I am on the telephone.
Senator Tydixgs. Didn't you talk also to a special agent of the
State Department in 1947?
Mr. BuDEXz. Well, I cannot recollect that, but I would say that I
have had several telephone calls from the State Department repre-
sentatives, and I have always been very evasive because on the tele-
phone I do not give information. I was trying to show you. Senator,
that even in this case, the Senator INIcCarthy case, I was called by
Dr. J. B. Mathews, and he said to me that he had information
that I knew that Lattimore was a Communist. I simply said "What-
ever I have to say about Lattimore, I will only say before the com-
mittee, under subpena."
Senator Tydixgs. Would you therefore deny that you said in 1947,
to any representative of the State Department, that you could not
be called at that time, you could not recall any incident which definitely
would indicate that Lattimore was a member of the Communist Party ?
Mr. BuDExz. I won't deny it.
582 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATxOX
Senator Ttdings. You won't? ^i . i
Mr. BuDENZ. I would not deny it or affirm it, because on tlie tele-
phone 1 ; 1 1
Senator Ttdings. I am not talknig about on the telephone.
Mr BuDENz. Well, I am sure that the only time I ever talked with
a representative of the State Department, except m one specific case,
was on the telephone, and I did not give information on the tele-
Senator Ttdings. But, why would you not have said, rather than
"I do not recall at this time any instance which definitely indicates
that Lattimore was a member of the party," why would you not have
said, if you did not want to talk on the telephone, "I do not care to
discuss the matter on the telephone," or something else, other than
that affirmative statement that you didn't recall any instance which
definitely indicated that Lattimore was a member of the party (
Mr BuDENz. I just used that device, if that is the case.
Senator Ttdings. Would that put you in a position of making a
statement that midit not be true, or does it not ? , j t ^^ •
Mr BuDENZ. Not necessarily, sir. Maybe I had not had Lattimore
on my mind. You must understand. Senator, in regard to cases ot
this character, I had been very careful. That is to say, I do not make
assertions unless I check very carefully on the case, and m checking
up, know exactly what the facts are.
Senator Ttdings. But, in this case you had nothing to check up on
other than your conversation with Mr. Stachel, because he was the man
that had previously
Mr. BuDENz. Oh, yes; I may have had
Senator Ttdings. Excuse me, because I am directing myself par-
ticularly to the testimony that Mr. Stachel and some other people,
I think it was Stachel wlio said "You are to consider Lattimore as a
member of the party?"
Mr. Budenz. That is correct. . . .
Senator Ttdings. And you were outlined about more activities
there, and you were told that Lattimore was very helpful
Mr. Budenz. That is correct.
Senator Ttdings. You were also told that the movement was pro-
o-ressino- very favorably and you knew Lattimore was head of the
magazine. ' . . • i i u
Well, now, if you had all that information m your mmd, why would
you say, in September 1947, that you did not recall at that time any
incident which definitely indicated that Lattimore was a member of
the partv ?
Mr. BuDENz. I don't recall that statement, but if I made it, under
the circimistances. I made it on the telephone, and therefore was not
prepared, unless by very careful examination, which I always give, to
make statements that are definite.
Senator Ttdings. But, there is no record necessary for you to hx
your— no record you could look up bv research, you might say, m the
case I have in mind, if Stachel told you that orally— why would you
not have said, knowing this, knowing about Lattimore and knowing
about the writers and knowing that Stachel had told you to consider
Lattimore as a Communist, why would not you have said 'T would like
to talk about it with you, but privately," or 'T don"t care to discuss it.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOX 583
other than to make the affirmative statement that "I recall of no in-
stance now that would indicate that he, Lattimore, was a member of
the party"?
Mr. BuDENz. Well, in the first place, I have only given information
tuWy to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. That has been my rule.
Secondly, I do not know people who promiscuously call me on the
telephone and I have to be very careful.
Senator Tydings. I appreciate that, but what I am trying to get
at, Mr, Budenz, and I don't want to prolong it
Mr. Budenz. I understand.
Senator Tydings. I do not blame you for saying over the telephone,
"I don't care to discuss it," or I don't blame you for saying on the tele-
phone that, "This is something I might want to talk to you privately
about"; but, instead of picking one of the things that would have
protected the position you rightly wanted to protect, did you not say
at that time, "I am unable to recall at this time any incident which
definitely would indicate that Lattimore was a member of the party?"
And to convey the impression to your own Government, after you left
the Communist Party, that you had nothing in mind that would show
Lattimore was a member of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Budenz. I did not have the time or energy to check carefully
on the facts I had before me. I always do that, and I have made
that reply, incidentally, more than once, along similar lines.
Senator Green. I have put off my engagement for a half an hour
Senator Tydings. Is it your idea, Mr. Budenz
Senator Green. I will take my turn.
Senator Tydings. Is it the idea that Mr. Budenz will come back
tonight in open hearing, was that the proposition that was submitted
here ?
Senator McMahon. He has not added anything new.
Mr. Budenz. If I might say, I don't know what Senator Green has
in mind. I personally have nothing to add to my open hearing. I
have said my say. That is the only thing I have.
Senator Green. I haven't had the list. I want to ask
Senator Tydings. Well, we wijl try to come back this afternoon,
if it will suit the committee.
I am trying to accommodate everyone.
Senator McMahon. I have a lot of questions I want to ask Mr.
Budenz, that might be interesting to Mr. Budenz.
Senator Tydings. I suggest we meet at 3 o'clock this afternoon.
Senator Lodge. Let us get back, as soon as w^e get some lunch.
Senator Tydings. Let me pursue this one thing for five more min-
utes, and I will let you go.
You testified, I believe, I asked for all the places that you had
testified, Mr. Budenz, just simply to get chronological count, and I
am going to read them and if you find any error in them, stop tie.
On April 31, 1946, you testified in closed hearing, before the House
L"n- American Activities Committee.
On November 23, 1946. you testified before the House Un-Amer.'can
Activities Committee regarding the part every Communist in the
United States has as a fifth columnist.
On March 14. 1947. you testified before the House Labor Commit-
tee, on two union officials, and so forth.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1— — r.S
584 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
On June 15. 1916, you testified again, you were a Government wit-
ness in some deportation proceedings in New York, and I — I won't
take the time to read the list, but as you liave said yourself, you have
been called many, many times to testify, before a great many groups
and bodies of public figures, from which this is taken, and this list
comes on down to June 10, 19-19, I think that was the last before this
hearing opened up, and did you at any time say that Lattimore was
one of those who was a member of the Comnumist Party, or any Com-
mimist cell, or anything?
Mr. BuDENZ. No, sir; because there was no occasion to do so. I
coidd analyze each one of the hearings and explain that. Indeed, I
have always confined myself to the immediate matter at issue. For
example, in one of those hearings, to give an illustration, I was asked
about Harry Bridges. I knew about Harry Bridges, but I said to
Representative Thomas "Since the Government of the United States,
through a special commission, has exonerated Mr. Bridges, for the
time being, who aui I to damn him as being a Communist?"
And wdiy was that? Because I wouhi have been off again on a
new investigation, a new hearing, and new difficulties. The thing
is that there were just so many hearings that I could go to. You can
see
Senator Ttdings. I am not critical.
Mr. BuDENz. Am I answering?
Senator Ttdixgs. I am askir.g the questions for the record, because
somebody will say ''Why didn't you ask that?"
Mr. BuDENz. Senator, I am not feeling at all that you are critical.
I just want to make it as explanatory as possible, that I always con-
fine myself to the matters at issue.
Senator Tydings. Well, the committee has been pretty patient.
You will remember that when Senator McCarthy appeared before
us this morning, I promised that when the committee was all here,
I would lay his request before you again that he be allowed to in-
terrogate the witnesses.
Senator Green. Is that all you have to say?
Senator Tydings. But, I want a vote on it because I promised him
I would give him a vote on it, and the reason before, that we haven't
done it, you will remember, was because the witnesses who were ac-
cused had no right or chance to cross examine the man who was
accusing him, and we thought inasnuich as that right was absent
Senator McMahon. I thought we had settled this.
Senator Tydixgs. I know we have, but it was brought up again, so
if there is any change
Senator McMahon. Let him have his story.
Senator Tydings. All right, we will come back again at 3 o'clock,
recess until 3 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 1 : 30 p. m., the subcommittee stood in recess until
3 p. m., that same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
Senator Tydings. I have some things here.
Mr. Budenz says this : He has pretty well outlined what he wanted
the committee to know — am I correct in that, Mr. Budenz?
Mr. Budenz. That is correct.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 585
Senator Tyoixgs. And. I have a lot of incidental things to ask him,
but in my oi)inion most of them flow from his testimony, anyhow, and
I have had my chance; so rather than delay the witness, who has asked
me, he is pretty well pressed, and has been right generous w'ith his
time, and wants to get away, T am for a moment goin.g to ask you to
ask him the questions you want to ask him.
Senator Greex, Before he goes on, did he or did he not put in this
list?
Senator Tydtngs. Well he did not put it in, and I am not going to
ask him to i)ut it in, or to withhold it. It is up to him to do what
he wants to do.
Senator McMahox. I think we ought to have a quorum of the
committee ])resent.
Senator Green, I would like to know whether it is or is not in.
Mr. BuDExz. There is a little bit of a problem here. Some of the
names I am perfectly willing to give ; others, I feel hesitant about.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator McMahon, have you some questions you
want to ask the witness ?
Senator McMahon. I have a few.
Did you want to say something ?
Mr. BuDEXz, I was going to say something. Senator.
I have turned this list over to the FBI, and unless it would seem
unfair on niy part, I would just like to indicate two or three names.
Senator Greex^. I think if you indicate any, you ought to indicate
them all, ought you not ?
Senator Tydix-^gs. I think we should let the witness use his own
judgment.
Mr. BuDEXz. I feel, in one or two instances, I should let it rest with
the FBI.
Senator Hickexlooper. Has our counsel seen it?
Mr. Morgan. Yes.
Senator Hickexlooper. Our counsel has seen it
Mr. BuDExz. That is right.
^r?-"
Senator Hickexlooper. As far as I am concerned, if the witness
wants to say only tw' o or three, I am satisfied.
I do not wi\nt to oppose Senator Green, but if the information is in
the hands of our counsel, and he only wants to give two or three
names
Senator Green. Let me ask : This is made up of a list of persons
whose articles have been published in the Institute of Pacific Relations
magazine ?
Mr. Budenz. That is right.
Senator Green. During the time Mr. Lattimore was editor ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.
Senator Greex*. Well, now, have you taken pains to find out whether
they published articles by these same authors before or after that
period ?
Mr. Budenz. Some were published after; yes. Senator.
Senator Greex\ Any ])ublished before?
Mr. Budenz. Tlie niunbor of these begin very strongly around June
in:^>f), iu the midst of Mr. Lattimore's editorship.
Senator Green. That isn't the answer to my question.
Mr. Budex'z. I beg pardon.
586 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Greex. Can yon tell ns whether there were any articles by
these same authors printed before he became editor?
Mr. BuDENz. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Green. Well, do yon know? , , -^ . , .1 ,,1,^
Mr. BuDENZ. No; I don't know exactly; but I do know that the
number increased terrifically after June 1936. . , -c
Senator Green. How do you know the number increased territi-
cally, if you do not know whether they published any before or not?
Mr BuDENz. Well, I would just have to say. that my observations
have been confined to Mr. Lattimore's editorship, and immediately
thereafter. ^ , i u ^ u
Senator Green. Then, for all you know, thev may have been pub-
lishing them before, at the same rate they did afterward^
Mr Budenz. This only introduces corroborative things that i
learned; I am not trying to have it St and on its own feet.
Senator Green. It is not corroborative, if they contributed treely,
as freely before as after he became editor.
Mr Budenz All I am submitting them for is for this conunittee
to investigate further and learn that. I did not have the opportunity.
Senator Green. That may be, but I thought likely you would know
about it.
Mr. Budenz. I do not know ; no.
Senator Tydings. All right, Senator McMahon.
Senator McMahon. Back on this list— in this list that you have
before you you state that you have given it to the Federal Bureau ot
Investigation ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahon. Does it contain either past or present
employees of the State Department, to your knowledge ?
Mr Budenz. Well, that is where I am somewhat handicapped. 1
am not fully informed of just who are in the Government, except
from the names I got occasionally, you understand, from reports.
I should say that very few are. However, I mean I know a nimi-
ber of these people as Communists, directly, and know who they are.
I should say that very few are employees of the Government.
Senator McMahon. Have they ever been employees?
Mr. Budenz. Well, that I would not be able to tell you.
I should say the majority of them— yes, there is— Gen. Evan S.
Carlson, formerly employed by the United States Government, was
a Communist before he was a general.
Senator Tydings. Employed where, sir ?
Senator McMahon. Carlson's Kaiders.
Mr. Budenz. Gen. Evan S. Carlson, of the Marines.
Senator Tydings. Was employed where? . . ■. •
Mr. Budenz. He was an employee of the United States, but he is
dead now. -, t 1 .1 r> 4.
He asked if any one of them was ever employed by the Government.
Senator Tydings. I have got a bad cold in my left ear, and didn t
hear you.
Mr. Budenz. I know he was a general. Therefore, he was a part
of the governmental machinery.
Senator McMahon. On Carlson, you know he was a Communist.
Do you know him in the same sense that you know Lattimore was a
Communist ?
STATE DEPARTJMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 587
]\Ii'. BuDExz. No, sir. I was introduced to General Carlson.
Senator McMajiox. Before he was a general?
Mr. Bddenz. That is right.
Senator INIcMaiiox. While he was in the jNIarine Corps?
Mr. BuDExz. Xo, sir. I think lie was retired at the time, for that
period.
Senator ]McMahox'. Before he came back into the service, at the
outbreak of the war^
Mr. BuDEXz. That is right.
Senator Mc^NIaiiox^. Was he introduced to you as a Communist?
Mr. BuDEXz. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahox^. And he accepted the introduction ?
Mr. BuDExz. Yes, sir.
Senator McMaiiox. Where was that, Mr. Budenz ?
Mr. BuDExz. This was in New York.
Senator McMaiiox. Who introduced you?
^fr. BuDEXz. This was at a meeting at Frederick Vanderbilt Field's
house.
Senator McMahox. Could you fix the year ? I know it is impossible
to fix maybe even the month, but perhaps you could fix the year ?
Mr. Budenz. I could not, offhand; but, I could after some little
thought on the matter. I do not think I could here today. I know
that he was not known as a general then. It was at that time
Senator McMahox. He was a colonel for sometime.
Mr. BuDEXZ. Colonel Carlson, he was retired at the time. As a
matter of fact, his life, gentlemen, is written up by a Communist
under order of the Communist Party, by Michael Blankford. Michael
Blankford was a former writer on the Daily Worker.
Senator McMahon. Was he an active man under the Communists?
Mr. Budenz. General Carlson was as active, I understand, as he
could be. I don't know very much about his activity, to tell you the
truth. Senator, except that I know we discussed him quite extensively
again, just before I left the party, when he was made head of the cam-
paign committee on China, by the Communists, that later got a name
like — I forget the name, but it is a matter of public record that he was
head of that 'committee.
Senator McMahox. When he was introduced in Frederick Vander-
bilt Field's house, was there anybody in it, in the company, who was
not a Conununist ?
Mr. BuDExz. No, sir.
Senator McMahox. All were party members ?
Mr. BuDEXz. So far as I know.
Senator McMahox. How many would you think were there?
Again, I know you can't say 12 or K^.
Mr. BuDEXz. There was a small group — as a matter of fact, there
was ^Marion Bachrach — I remember it was a small group. He was
passing through New York, or something like that.
Senator TvnixGs. Marion Bachrach is a man?
Senator McMahox. No; a woman.
Mr. BuDExz. A woman, and sister of John Abt — and four or five
other people.
Senator McMahox. What other names have you
Mr. BuDEXz. You must understand, Mr. Field's home is right
across from the Daily Worker, catercornered.
588 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McMahon. Very convenient.
Mr. BuDENZ. Yes, sir; there was some very great soirees there, tor
many people. I have been to many more elaborate parties than that.
Senator McMahon. Does he serve good refreshments, and that sort
of thing?
Mr. BuDENz. During the war, he served refreshments which were m
violation of the war rules. That was one thing I noted in the begin-
ning to be critical. That was toward tlie end, when he had a reception
for— well, I don't know whether I need to go into that on this inquiry,
but for Kepresentative Adam Clay Powell. Paul Kobeson was master
of ceremonies.
Senator McMahon. Do vou have any other names on the list^
I don't see, Mr. Chairman, Avhy we should not liave this list m
evidence.
Senator Tydings. It is up to Mr. Budenz.
Senator McMahon. I will tell you— he has given it to the FBI
Mr. Budenz. Oh yes.
Senator McMahon. You have given it to the FBI because you be-
lieve these people are members of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Budenz. That is right.
Senator McMahon. Now, here is this witness before us, he cannot
tell us whether the people on this list are or have been members of the
State Department — am I correct?
Mr. Budenz. I am perfectly glad to do it. The only thing is,
gentlemen, what I am trying to do is not to have this thing brought
before— I don't mean the Senators will, I want to give the list m such
a fashion
Senator Tydings. Would it be a satisfactory procedure for the com-
mittee—I suggest that the stenographer not take down the names
which you read, and then I suggest that the list of names be sealed in
the committee report, and not to be opened except upon vote of the
committee. In tliat way we can do it and we woirt have any doubt of
revealing the FBI information.
Is that satisfactory?
Senator McMahon. It is with me.
Senator Tydings. Plow about you. Senator?
Senator Hickenlooper. All right; that is, with the reservation, if
we later think we need it in therecord, we can put them in.
Senator Lodge. I have no objection.
Mr, Morgan. All right.
Senator Tydings. When you get the names, don't put tliem m the
record — is that all right. Senator Green?
Senater Green, All right.
Senator Tydings. Before the reading of this list, Mr. Budenz, I
presume you made up this list out of all the hundreds and hundreds
of Communists you know. You made this list in particular to bring
it with you today, because you thought it had some relation to our
inquiry ?
Mr. Budenz. This was the list I took from looking through the
back number of Pacific Affairs.
Senator Ty'dings. I see.
Mr. Budenz. I did not get this just to bring here.
Senator McMahon. Let us follow that up.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 589
Mr. BuDExz That was about all I could do between the time I was
here before, look through the list of Pacific Affairs.
Senator Greex. One other question about its nature that I would
J Ike to ask you : How did you pick out these names from the contribu-
tors to the magazine i?
Mr. BuDENZ. These are the men and women who wrote the articles
for the magazine while :\Ir. Lattimore was editor.
Senator Gkeek. Not all of the articles?
Mr. BuDExz. Not by any means.
Senator Green. How did you select these afterward, on what basis «
Mr. BuDExz. That I knew them to be Communists. There may be
others, and there may not.
Senator Greex All along a certain line, are they, these articles?
Mr BuDEXz. I have not reviewed them again. Senator. I lust know
the^athliations of these people.
Senator Greex. What was the nature of the articles they wrote?
Mr. Budexz. As a matter of fact, a slight pursuit will show, in
most cases, that T am correct. It doesn't take much to discover that
several of these people are Communist.
Senator Greex. What was the nature of these articles on China— on
what?
Mr. Budexz. Not necessarily. On the Pacific in general, the Phil-
ippines, China, the Moscow trials, other things.
Senator Greex. The general subject of the magazine?
Mr Budexz. That is right. As a matter of fact, they even enter-
tained a critical article from William Henry Chamberlain, criticizino-
their article on the Moscow trials. "^
Senator Greex. They are not necessarilv Communist articles «
Mr. Budexz. Not necessarily. You see, Communists do not always
write Communist articles. They write their articles in line with the
line Kremlin is trying to put forward at that time.
Senator Tydixgs. Did you read the articles yourself?
Mr. Budexz. Not recently.
Senator Tydixgs. At sometime, you were familiar with the articles
tJiat each of these persons wrote ?
Mr. Btoexz. I would say very vaguely familiar.
Senator Tydixgs. In other words, you know they wrote for the
magazine, and you are tendering those names
Mr. Budexz. No ; I know their affiliations.
Senator Tydixgs. You say they are Communists, but as far as the
articles themselves are concerned, recently you have not familiarized
yourselt, and your recollection is vague as to what they did and did
not contain, is that correct ?
Mr Bi-DEXz. That is correct. That would have to receive further
consideration.
Senator Tydixgs. All right.
Senator IMcIMahox. When you read the names, would you iust say
after it 'I know 'him personally," or "I do not know him" ^
Mr. Bn)Exz. That is correct, I shall.
Senator Tydixgs. Put "1" for the first name; "2" for the second
name, and so forth, so we will know, if we want to correlate them, how
we can key it to the testimony.
Go ahead, sir.
590 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BuDEXZ. One-
Senator Green. Say the first name, and the figure 1, and the ste-
noorapher will use the "1." rn ■ ^ i i j^.„
Mr.BiTDENZ. 1. (Name omitted.) She is, to my official knowledge,
a Communist; but, I have not met her as such.
2. ( Name omitted. ) He is to my personal knowledge a Communist.
I met him on one occasion myself. _
Senator Hickenlooper. He was at one time— oft the record.
(There was discussion off the record.)
Mr. BuDENz. Three — . . ,
Senator Tydingr. Let me suggest to the committee a reconsidera-
tion of what I have just said. I think it would be better if we put
the names in the record, and then carefully safeguard the record and
the part we make public can be deleted, because when you say so and
so was the widow of so and so, you lose the whole thread there, unless
you have all the names in.
If that is agreeable to the committee, I suggest you read the names
into the record, with such designation as you want to make, and
we can delete it afterward, rather than wonder afterward what or
"^^Senator Lodge. I understood in light of the vote we took before
lunch, that this whole record is going to be secret, is it not<
Senator Tydings. I want to make that extrasecret because the
FBI is working on it. , . ^ *. j ;„
Senator McMahon. It is secret, or is it not. When we started m
here, this was agreed to be a closed meeting. , . , ,, ,,
Senator Tydings. Suppose you start out and reiterate those on the
record.
Start at the beginning. ^ t • ^
Mr. BuDENz. Well, first will be Ella Winter, widow of Lincoln
Steffens, who was known to me to be a Communist from official reports
received.
Senator McMahon. You never met her i
Mr. BuDENZ. I never met her. „ . i ^ -.f
No 2, Joseph Barnes, known to me personally to be a Communist.
Senator McMahon. You met him, and met him as as a Communist.
Mr. Budenz. At least on one occasion.
No. 3, General Victor Yakhontoff , , , , i ^
Mr. Morgan. Can you identify them further? A name such as
Joseph Barnes, is such a common name.
Mr Budenz. Joseph Barnes is the former foreign editor of the
New York Herald Tribune, and one of our most distinguished foreign
correspondents, considered so at one time. Then, he became editor
of PM, as you recall. ^ . , ^ m ■ -\ t-^
General Victor Yakhontoff , I know him only from official reports.
Harriett Lucy Moore, I know her personally to be a member.
Senator IMcMahon. Harriett .
Mr. Budenz. Harriett Lucy Moore, a very active person m the
Institute of Pacific Relations.
Senator McMahon. You met her as a Communist «
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. , /-, • *.
Gunther Stein, I know him from official reports to be a Communist,
and in a very confidential capacity.
Senator McMaiion. Have you ever met him?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 591
Mr. BioEN'z. No. sir.
Hahloie Hanson, 1 know liini only from official reports, to be a
luoniber of the Conmuinist Party.
Senator McMahox. Haldore Hanson?
Mr. Bldexz. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahon. That rather surprises me, Mr. Budenz, because
he appeared before the committee, and made about as forthright a
statement as I ever heard from a witness. He was never a member of
any Comnuinist-front organization of any kind or character, as far
as could be made out from his back<rround, from his activities—there
wasn't a single indication. I only say this to you by way of infor-
mation. This is a public hearing, and you may have seen the testi-
mony. I wanted to say to you that the impression he made on me
was excellent — fooled me completely.
Senator Hickenlooper. He is not in the State Department?
Senator McMahon. He is in the State Department at this minute,
working on the point 4 program, and I would like, therefore, to have
you pretty carefully give us your testimony on him.
^Ir. Budenz. Well, I shall have to submit that to you further. That
is to say, I shall have to consider it further because I just know this
now as a general matter from official information received.
Senator Lodc;e. Official information?
Mr. Budenz. Yes. sir.
Senator IMcMahon. Somebody told you that he was?
'Mv. Budenz. Not gossip around headquarters; official information.
I carried his name with me.
Senator McMahon. Who gave it to you ?
Mr. Budenz. Well, as I recall at the moment, Jack Stachel.
Senator McMahon. Jack Stachel ?
Mr. Budenz. However, I shall be glad to advise you more definitely,
Senator.
Senator McMahon. I wish you would, because he certainly seemed
like a very decent young man who had a very honorable career in
the service of the Associated Press, and our own country ; and, I know
you would not want to do him an injustice,
Mr, Budenz. I think I have been as responsible for acquitting peo-
ple of being Communists in the loyalty tests, I think more people, than
convicting them, and I have no disposition to do otherwise.
Senator McMahon, At this time, Mr, Budenz, as far as Hanson
is concerned, you can give us no definite information as to who in-
formed you that he was ?
Mr, Budenz. My strong im]n-ession is that it was Jack Stachel.
Senator Mc^NIahon. You say that you are going to think about it
further. Does that mean you have recourse to a diary or notes ?
Mr. Budenz. No: I have recourse to one very excellent source of
information.
Senator Mc^Iahon. Recourse — I mean.
Mr. Budenz. That is, the files of the Daily Worker. Now, some-
times they fail me, but in this way I have been able to recall many
events from other events. For example, I don't know whether I need
to take your time
Senator McMaiion. I understand the process.
Mr, Budenz, I have lived in the Daily Worker, it was my life. I
made every issue. Now, I shall be glad to give the committee such
592 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
evidence as I have on this matter. Indeed, I ask always, on these mat-
ters that confirmatory information be obtained. i j v
Senator McMahon: I take it, that as far as he is concerned-don t
misunderstand me, if he is, we want to know about it-I want to know
about it. Contrary to any public assertions tha migh be made by
other people. I have no desire to shield anybody m the btate De-
^^'^Senator Tydings. May I interrupt to ask one question?
Senator McMaiion. All rio;ht, surely. .
Senator Tydings. I wanted to ask you : Your information as ot
today, rather, your information that this man is a communist is based
on oml words,^oral evidence that you received from somebody else?
Mr. BuDENZ. That is correct. .
Senator McMahon. ISIr. Budenz, do you recollect ever having dis-
cussed Hanson with the Federal Bureau of Investigation {
Mr BuDEXZ. No; I did not, except quite recently.
Senator McMahon. How recently, would you know '■
Mr Budenz. Well, I should say, I am not sure whether I did before,
as a matter of fact, I discussed, even though it seems as though 1 have
not discussed names with the Federal Bureau, I have discussed many
names, but I do not think I discussed Mr. Hanson with them until very
recently, I should say, in making up this list
Senator McMahon. Now, in discussing it with the h Bi, you say
"very recently."
When was that ?
Mr. Budenz. Oh, the last week.
Senator McMahon. And you gave them the name of Hanson this
past week ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir, I gave them—— .
Senator McMahon. Did they ask, by the way, who m the 1^ Bi did
vou give it to ? ■« .- /-, ^ i i
M?. Budenz. I gave them to the agent, McCarty, who works
with
Senator McMahon. McCarthy?
Mr. Budenz. He doesn't work with me, I mean to say he contacted
me more than anybody else. , ^r ^r i ^e o
Senator McMahon. Is he assigned to the New York olhce v
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. .i • t ^ j- j i.
Senator McMahon. I see ; and, when you gave him this list, did he
go down the list with you ? , t ^ xi
Mr. Budenz. Well, yes, sir; v/e went down the list together.
Senator McMahon. You told him everything you know about each
one? , , 1 i.
Mr. Budenz. That is right. Well, I don't know now, you must
understand, Senator, sometimes I have to meet the FBI m a terrilhc
hurry. We meet at all times, and in a terrific hurry. I might not
have gone into each one in detail.
Senator McMahon. This is rather fresh in your recollection ; it is
iust a week ago. . i , -i
Mr. Budenz. I don't think I went into ]Mr. Hanson m any detail.
Senator McMahon. Did you go into any detail about any one of
the rest of them ?
Mr. Budenz. No; because I will tell vou — most of the names, with
one or two exceptions, I had given the FBI before ; not most, but some
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 593
of them. We didn't have an opportunity, see, the time was limited,
to go into all the details.
Senator McMahon. How long did yon spend with him?
Mr. Budp:nz. I only spent about — you mean, on this matter?
Senator McMahox. On this list.
Mr. BuDEXz. Oh, I would say about a half an hour, maybe, at the
most.
Senator McMahox. Of the list of 21, vou say you gave most to the
FBI before?
Mr. BuDExz. Well, some of them now, for example, I'm not sure
whether 1 gave Ella Winter, because they know her anyway — that is,
lier association with the Communist Part3^
Senator McMahox^. She would not take any discussion time at
all? "
Mr. BuDEXz. No ; we didn't discuss this list.
Mr. MoRGAX. If I may say. Senator, I recognize quite a few of them
myself.
Senator INIcMaiiox. I understand, so tliat there would be no occa-
sion for discussing that, either on the ground they were notorious,
No. 1 ; or, No. 2, Mr. Budenz would say "Now, yon know so and so,
I have talked either to you or agent Brown or Smith about it before."
Now. that leaves three or four, namely, Hanson, and who else the
other three were, and in the half hour that they were together, I
wonder how much discussion there was about Hanson.
Mr. BuDExz. The half hour was not spent in that ; it was also spent
in this list of 200 names wliich I have been compiling. We were not
long on this.
Senator McMahox'. Did you discuss the 200 names ?
Mr. BuDExz. Well, we discussed compiling the 200 names. As a
matter of fact, what we have done, we have been discussing these 200
names some time. First of all, I am trying to get up this list of names,
and then I am going to go over it A'ery carefully, and write in how I
happened to know, that is — well, I won't give an example — but the
thing is I am trying to give the FBI once and for all how I know,
and who I know, and where I got the information.
Senator Mc"Mahox'. That is a very commendable thing. I hope you
go tlirongh with it.
When you went down this list, was there any member on there, any
name on there that you did discuss with McCarthy?
Mr. BuDExz. I don't think so: at the moment I was lust giving him
the list. J ^ ^
Senator McMaiiox-. Gave him the list?
Mr. BuDEX'z. Yes, sir.
Senator McMaiiox'. Gave him a copy of the list?
Mr. BuDExz. That is right.
Senator McMaiiox. Did he comment on the list at all?
Mr. BuDEX'^z. No,
Senator McMatiox'. He did not?
Mr. Bfdexz. No, sir: not to my remembrance.
Senator Mc\Maiiox. That is the first time to your best recollection
that Hanson's name ever passed your lips, as a member of the Com-
munist Party, known to you by reason of being told so?
Mr. Bfdexz. Yes, sir; that is tlie first I recall. It may be that I
didn't answer before.
594 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McMahox. You cannot now recall who told you he was,
but you think it may have been Stachel ?
Mr. BuDENz. That is right. • ^t -o
Senator McMahon. All right, who is No. ( (
Mr. Morgan. May I ask a question?
Senator McMahon. Yes.
Mr Morgan. Mr. Budenz, I realize you will have to refresh your
recollection some, but could you tell us generally, during the 10-year
period of your association with the party, about what time during
that association, or in that association did you know Mr. Hanson as
a Communist ? Was it '34 to '40, or '40 to '45, or any other narrower
limits that you could indicate ? xt v i
Mr. Budenz. It was after I came back to New 1 ork.
Senator McMahon. When was that ?
Mr. Budenz. That was in '40 or '41.
Senator McMahon. 1940 on ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. I can probably get that.
Senator McMahon. No. 7, Mr. Budenz.
Mr. Budenz. No. 7 is Frederick Vanderbilt Field.
Senator McMahon. We don't need time on him.
Mr. Budenz. The next is Lawrence K. Eossmger, who writes a num-
ber of articles for the New York Times, Lawrence K.
Senator McMahon. Is he on your staff?
Mr. Budenz. Well, that I don't know. He writes or he reviews
books for them especially on the Far East.
Senator Mc:Mahon. Do you know him personally^
Mr. Budenz. No, sir ; I do not.
Senator Mc^SIahon. No. 9.
Mr. Budenz. Edgar Snow.
Senator McMahon. He is also a writer ? . ^^ • t^ ^
Mr. Budenz. That is right, now with the Saturday Eveniiig Post.
Senator McMahon. Is he another one of these fellows, Mr. Budenz,
whom you know personally?
Mr. Budenz. No ; I do not.
Senator McIVIahon. By reference ?
Mr Budenz. I know a great deal about him because he got m
trouble with the party, wrote something wrong, and he had to amend
his book on orders of the party.
Senator McMahon. After it was m print i
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. Well, that is my recollection.
Now, I mav be wrong. My recollection is
Senator McMahon. Do you remember the title of that book?
Mr. Budenz. I can get it very readily. It is— I wouldn t want to
Senator McMahon. He is a native of Connecticut ; is he not?
Mr. Budenz. He may be.
Senator McMahon. I think he comes from up around
Mr Budenz. He has had many difficulties with the party, and al-
ways straightened himself out. He may not be now. That is one rea-
son I didn't want to mention his name.
I'll tell you why. One great one was his wife, Nym Wales, Mrs.
Pe^-o-v Snow, from whom he is now divorced, and that may change the
picture Therefore, I want you to understand, gentlemen, even with
this list I am not intimating these people are Communists now.
STATE DEPARTArEiVT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 595
Senator JNIcIMaiiox. We undei-stand, at least I do.
Senator Greex. On the other hand, some of them ai'e Communists.
You say tliey were Communists, all of them?
Mr. BuDExz. Yes, sir.
Senator Ghekx. Or have become Communists since?
Mr. BuDExz. I don't know what they have become since.
Senator Greex. But they were Communists then.
Mr. Budexz. James S. Allen.
Senator McMaiiox'. Before you get to Allen — you said you were
going to mention Mrs. Peggy Snow.
Xo. 10 is who?
Mr. BuDExz. James S. Allen.
Senator McMahox^ James S. Allen ?
Mr. BuDEXz. Yes he is a man I mentioned several times.
Senator McMaiiox^. As far as you know, he has never been in the
Government service or in the State Department?
Mr. BuDExz. Oh no; never.
Senator McMajiox. I take it that none of these people have, with
the exception of Hanson.
Mr. Budexz. No.
Mary V. Kleeck, with the Russell Sage Foundation.
Senator McMaiiox\ What?
Mr. Budexz. K-1-e-e-c-k.
Senator McMahox. By reputation ?
Mr. Budexz. Known to me personally, from many meetings. I
"won't say meetings
Senator McMaiion^. Seen her in meetings ?
Mr. Budexz. I know her pretty well.
Senator McMAirox\ You have conspired with her?
Mr. Budexz. That is right. She was a Communist before I was,
even.
Xym Wales, X-y-m W-a-1-e-s. I only know by reputation that she is
a Communist, and I also only know by reputation that this is the pen
name of Mrs. Beggy Snow — I mean, by reputation. I mean, by that,
by report.
Senator Green. When you say "report," you mean official reports,
or general reports?
]\ir. Budexz. Official reports; yes, sir.
Senator McMaiion. Would you say that Stachel told you about
that name?
Mr. BuDEX'z. I would say
Senator Greex. Was that an oral report?
Mr. BuDEX'z. Oral, always. Communists lujve nothing but oral
reports, except that time when the Politburo used it to get out the
leconunendations on it, until the Plitler-Shiliii break.
P^van Carlson.
Senator McMahox. He is 13?
]Mr. Budexz. Yes, sir.
Senator McMaiiox. He was introduced to you at Frederick Vander-
l)ilt Field's house, as a party member, and at that party there was
nobody else there but ])arty members; is that right?
Mr. Budexz. That is correct, but also. Senator, in addition, I have
liad official reports on General Carlson for nuiu}' j'ears.
The next man is T. A. Bisson, of the Institute of Pacific Relpiions.
596 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McMahon. T. A.?
Mr. BuDENZ. B-i-s-s-o-n, known to me by official
Senator McMahon. Bisson ?
Mr. BuDENz. Bisson.
Known to me by official reports to be a Communist.
Senator MgMahon. Do you know liim personally ?
Mr. BuDENz. I did not. I don't think I know him personally. I may
have met him.
The reason I have to put that in sometimes is— I shall explain that
we had national-committee meetings, large national-committee meet-
ings, where about 500 people met under assumed names, a great many
of them. I have met a number of people I later recognized. I don't
want to say always I have not met them.
Senator McMaiiox. Did they use assumed names between them-
selves ?
Mr. BuDENZ. They do ; yes, sir.
You see, where you have 500 people together, then the danger of it
coming out in an innocuous way is strong.
Senator McMahon. Who is'XV?
Mr. BuDENz. Anna Louise Strong.
Senator McMahon. That is a familiar name to me.
Mr. BuDENZ. Oh, well, she is now expelled from the Soviet Union.
I don't know the reason. She is well known to me as a Communist,,
for many years.
Senator McMaiiox. Thrown out of the party; is she?
Mr. BuDENZ. That, I don't know. There is a sort of twilight zone
there.
Senator McMahon. Has she not had some publicity ?
Mr. Budenz. She was expelled from tlie Soviet Union as a spy.
Senator McMahon. What did you think of that?
Mr. Budenz. I don't think she was a spy, but I think she made some
mistakes. You see, she disagreed with the Soviet leadership.
Senator McMahon. Why didn't they kill her instead of expelling
her?
Mr. Budenz. Because she is an American citizen. They have killed
but that would be too open there to do that. As a matter of fact, she
comes right back and has written pro-Soviet books.
Senator McMahon. She has?
Mr. Budenz. Yes.
Senator McMahon. Even though they tossed her out?
Mr. Budenz. Even though they tossed her out; yes. She is a pe-
culiar person. I have known her ; she is the daughter of the Reverend
Sidney Strong, in Seattle. They used to put her on the spot in Soviet
Russia, and she would weep tears and go right out and repeat Stalin's
lies. What can you do with a person like that ? She would break down
and take recourse in tears. How can you argue with a person like
that? This probably should not all be on the record, but I thought I
would give you an example.
Senator McMahon. Wlien were incidents like this ?
Mr. Budenz. That was before I joined the party. It was before
19?)5, when she was already a Communist.
Senator McMahon. That is interesting.
Now, No. 16.
STATE DEPART]MEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 597
Mr. BuDKNz, Andrew Steiger.
Senator McMaiion. Do j^ou know him personally ?
Mr. BuDENz. No ; lie is not known to me personally.
Senator McMaiion, Just by reputation?
Mr. BuDENz. 1 think I can bring in a number of the Marxist writ-
ings, but I am not sure of that. I think you will also find he was also
ghost writer for Henry Wallace. You will have to put a question by
that, because that isn't any official information; that is something I
heard through headquarters, and believe it is correct.
Senator McMahox. By the way, he was never in Government serv-
ice, as far as you know ?
Mr. BuDExz. No.
Senator McMahon. 17 ?
Mr. BuDENz. I don't know ; that is all I have.
Senator McMahox. That is all you have?
]Mr. BuDENz. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahon. I thought you said you had 21 ?
Mr. BuDEXz. I thought 1 had 21, but I have IT. I may have a few
more, but
Senator Lodge. Will you 3'ield, Senator McMahon?
Senator McMahon. Yes.
Senator Lodge. How do you identify these people not in Govern-
jnent service — a miscellaneous list?
Mr. Bttdenz. No: this was the list of those I said wrote for the
l^acific Aifairs when Lattimore was editor. Mr. Allen, for example,
A\ rote about four or five times.
Senator McMahon. The theory is Mr. Lattimore brought this cattle
in. *
Senator Tydix^gs. They are all writers.
Senator Lodge. You referred to this list this morning.
Mr. BuDENz. Yes, sir.
Senator ]McMahon. You made a pretty careful research, in your
own mind, since we have been talking about this thing, this matter of
the Pacific Institute; is that it, this Institute of Pacific Relations?
Mr. BuDEN"z. Yes, sir.
Senator McJMahox. Did the best you could?
Mr. BuDExz. I haven't had much time, but I have known it over
the years.
Senator McMahon. At least, prominent pei'sons you have had oc-
casion to look over, in the light of your testimony to us the other day,
who were connected with it ?
Mr. Bfdexz. Yes, sii-.
Senator McMahox. Philip Jessup was a member of the board of
trustees?
Mr. Bi'DKNz. Well, Di-. Jessup was working very close, on very
close and friendly terms, with Fi-ederick Vanderbilt Field, and his
name came into Mi-. Field's i-eport.
Senator McMahox. As a member of the party ?
Mr. BiT)Exz. Xo, sir; not to my knowledge. I never heard him
luentioncd as a member of the party; T only heard him mentioned.
I think 1 recall, above all, is a mention of the time that Mr. Field put
up to tlie Politburo — I can't give you the exact date at the m.oment,
but tlie event is very clear in my mind — he put it up to the Politburo
598 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTlGATIOlSr
whether he should stay in the Institute of Pacific Relations or join the
American Peace INIobilization, to attack President Roosevelt.
Senator Tydings. You mean Field put it up -
Senator Hickenlooper. As to who should stay i
Mr. BuDENz. Field. ^. . , , n .. 9
Senator Hickenlooper. Whether Field should stay ^ .^ ^ „
Mr BuDENZ. Remember, Field was called out of the Institute ot
Pacific Relations to become head of the American Peace Mobilization,
which picketed the White House and attacked President Roosevelt
very violently durin<r the Hitler-Stalin Pact. They had to take Jield
out, because they had to find some new personality. Dr. Ward had
been head of the American League for Peace and Democracy and
that thing had been just the other way around. They had a shift so
they hadio get a person who could attend to it, and they decided that
Frederick Vanderbilt Field would be the person. And, of course we
know what they did, picketed the White House and attacked President
Roosevelt rather violently, I should say.
However, of course, when Mr. Field became director of the Ameri-
<:an Peace Mobilization, it was not known that he was ?«i"|, to play
that role to the extent that he did. I daresay, however Mr. Field did
declare at the time— and I don't know whether this ought to be on the
record or not. .
Senator McMaiion. This is an executive record . ,, •
Mr BuDExz. All right. The thing is that, well, I am saymg this
in iustice to Dr. Jessup. I do not know him as a Communist. I re-
peat, Mr. Field reported that Dr. Jessup felt that he could serve better
in the Institute of Pacific R-lations.
Now, you must understand, I do not know whether Dr. Jessup
knew fully what Mr. Field intended to do. I know that if what was
given in, and the Political Bureau decided nevertheless that Mr h leld
fhould become head of the American Peace IMobilization, which he did.
^Ir ^loRGAN. You used the word "better" there, which confuses me a
little. Dr. Jessup could serve the Institute of Pacific Relations bet-
ter" that wdiat ?
Senator Tydings. Than Field could?
Mr. BuDENZ. No, no ; that Field could perform a better service.
AVell, I don't want to quarrel or quibble about words.
Senator Tydings. It was Field he was talking about, ratlier than
^Mr^BuDENZ. Dr. Jessup did not want Field to leave, in other words.
Now, I have no information that Dr. Jessup based that on any con-
nection closer than their previously working together. ^
Senator ^VIcMahon. I am pleased to hear you say you don t know
him as a Communist.
Mr. BuDENz. I did not.
Senator T^IcMaiion. I have known him for some years, and I would
hate to think that he had fooled me. 1 , n
^h\ BuDENz. They were very close together, but that does not mean
he was a Communist. i • ^ ^ ^
On the other hand, I thought I should report to you this statement,
because I don't know what was meant by that. That is the only thing
I know about Dr. Jessuj) that stands out, at any rate.
Senator IVIcMahon. Mr. Budenz, when did you get wise to your-
self, and break with the party?
I STATE DEPARTME]yT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 599
]Mr. BuDEXz. That was a long process, Senator.
Senator ]Mc]\rAii0N. I should put it tliis way : When did you finally
cut the thread ?
Mr. BuDENz. Well — oh, when I walked out.
Senator ISIcjMaiiox. When did they know that you had gone ?
Mr. BuDEXz. Thev knew it on October 10, the evening of October
10,1945.
Senator ^IcIMahon. 1945 ?
]\Ir. BuDExz. Yes, sir.
. Senator INIcMaiiox. Right after the end of the war ?
f Mr. BuDExz. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahox. Did you announce it to them, in a closed session ?
Mr. BuDEXz. I did not. 'l will tell you what I did. I don't want
to take up your time, to show you how hard it is to get out of the
Communist conspiracy ; but they have the rule that you cannot leave
the party. I mean, you cannot resign; you must be expelled.
I. as the president, had signed thousands of dollars of checks. I
had to sign thousands of dollars of checks. The Communist Party
does the biggest cash business in the world. That is, for example,
suppose the Daily Worker is short of money until it gets its cam-
paign going. It borrows from the International Workers Order, the
Fur Workers Union, or anything else under Communist control.
Senator McMahox. Always in cash?
^Ir. BuDEXZ. Always in cash, so if the auditor comes in they can
send the cash back. $iO,000 at a time. They don't make it too "big—
$10,000 here, and $10,000 from another source, until thev get, sav
$100,000.
Senator McMaitox. You said you signed checks.
Mr. BuDEXZ. Then, when we get the money, we return the cash
back to the organization, because then we have $250,000 or $400,000
on hand.
Senator McMaiiox. In other words, when it comes in from the
Fur Workers Union in cash, it is deposited by you as a cash receipt?
^Ir. BuDEXz. That is right.
Senator McMatiox. Not indicating where it came from, except on
a private record, so when the cash comes in from a drive, it is re]iaid?
^Ir. BuDEXz. The ])usiness manager keeps that record, William
Browder. William Browder is the business manager. He is per-
mitted by the corporation, under the cor])oration i-ules of the board
of directors, to draw on that under the name of William Browder,
business manager, which we pay back to it on a cash basis, again.
We make it, on the record, "William Browder, business manager,
$10,000,*' or "$20,000." and I was signing the checks up to $50,000
and I feared they would accuse me of conspiracy with Browder, or
something, to do awav with the money. They do do those things.
Senator Tydixgs. Do you not get some of the money from Moscow
handed to you?
Mr. BiDEXz. I will tell you about that in a moment. Senator.
Tlie thing is, in order to protect myself, since T knew on October
10 I was leaving, I went to the Politlniro, to Stachel, and said to him,
"Am I permitted to sign these checks as president of the corpora-
tion?" He said, "Yes," because William Browder was the brother
of Earl Browder, who is in disgrace at the moment.
68970— 50— pt. 1 39
600 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
He said, "You are permitted to do that," and they thought I was
more diligent than ever.
I might say, during the last 2 weeks I was there, it may sound a
little histrionic, but it is a fact: I was under terrific nervous tension
while I was giving orders to the comrades. I did have a rosary in
my pocket to give me a little strength, because if I had been dis-
covered, I would have been in a terrible position.
Now, by virtue of that. I was able to escape without being casti-
gated or attacked, or my character assassinated until later. Later the
character assassinations began, very strongly trying to attack my
family.
Senator Green. How much later?
Mr. BuDENZ. AVell, it began — of course, they had to catch their
breath. Senator, I mean.
Senator Green. How long did that take?
Mr. Budenz. About M to 48 hours. Then, they made an attack
upon me, but first attacked me as leaving on account of money. That
didn't work. Then, they attacked my past personal life very
strongly, and every place I went I was attacked as a bigamist and
adulterer and everything like that.
They knew what affection I had for my family, my four daughters,
and they used that to attack me.
Of course, it is very ironical that that was the attack made. How-
ever, that was defeated also and the latest attack they have now,
throughout the country, that meets me at meetings is : "If you did all
the things you say you did, how can we trust you now?"
I find that Communists do that, and I smoke them out. I say, "I
don't solicit your trust, or desire your trust. All I ask is that you look
at these records and documents."
That has been my line, because I cannot ask anybody's trust.
Senator McMahon. What documents do you show?
Mr. Budexz. I have one of the finest libraries on communism in the
world. I have been keeping it up ; that is to say, documents which
show all the lines of the determination to conquer the world.
Senator McMahon. You showed something to use the other day.
Mr. Budenz. That was one little sample.
There comes to this country, Senator, an amazing amount of in-
structions to the Communists.
First of all
Senator McMahon. Before you go into the instructions, Mr.
Budenz
Mr. Budenz. Maybe I am going on too far ?
Senator Tydings. This is very interesting. I am glad you are
doing it.
Senator McMahon. I am, too, but before you go into that, I am
interested, yes, I am glad to you did it and collected all this Communist
literature. You apparently were a pretty systematic and a careful
fellow, and have been by nature.
Were you ever able to get any of this onionskin stuff segregated
and place it aside ?
Mr. Budenz. You know. Senator, it is strange — I was an honest
Communist when I was a Communist.
Senator McMahon. So you tore it up ?
Mr. Budenz. I tore it up and threw it away.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 601
Senator McIMaiiox. I see.
Mr. BrnKNz. Then, I also gave it back. Later on, there was this
checking, and I liave regretted many times many things I didn't ob-
serve more carefidly; bnt I had no idea, until a certain period, even
when I began to have doubts — the first great doubt was when I learned
of the slave labor camps in the full fashion I did. Then, as I went
forward, then, of course, you don't think about that, I thought about
how in the world are you going to get out of the concentration camp^
to tell you the truth.
I would like to say that one thing now — there comes into this country
a tremendous amount of directives to the Communists in the form of
publications, in English, beautifully translated, the New Times, every
week. That is the successor to the Communist International maga-
zine. It comes in here from Moscow, very rapidly got together, and
they send that into every country on the globe in the language of that
country. This Cominform publication presents more agitation mate^
rial, gives the slogans to bring before the people, tells what is more
educational, explains the diiference
Senator Ttdixgs. Through the mail, by the boatload, and is dis-
tributed, or what?
yiv. Bt:t)Exz. It comes here, I don't know how, but it is distributed
by the Four-Continent Bookstore, and others, a Soviet foreign agent,
and is on the newsstands in New York and other places. I didn't
inquire how it comes here. No reason why I should, and at any rate,
it is easy to trace.
Senator Green. Who publishes it ?
ISIr. BuDENz. It comes direct from Moscow.
Senator Green. "Who publishes it, the Government or who?
Mr. Btt)enz. It has the name of being on the subject of trade-unions,
from a Comnnmist International newspaper, we were told that when
the Communist International went out of existence, they couldn't have
any Commmiist International magazine.
Senator Hickexlooper. Let me ask
Mr. BuDENz. It is there in words, news, and views, and now, you
take that Communist leader, he takes that and studies that and he gets
the shorthand instructions from a man like Eisler and he is supposed
then to be able to interpret the lines from these things he studies day
and night, but he gets the spearhead.
You understand, what I used to call political shorthand, he gets it
orally from Eisler.
Senator Tydixgs. At the risk of interrupting you, he didn't influ-
ence any of the rest of the United States.
I would like to ask you this question, which has nothing to do with
this hearing, but I am just curious: How do the Russians contribute
in money, in this country? Will ^^ou give us a sentence or two on
that, and satisfy my curiosity ?
Mr. BuDEXz. I cannot tell you the agencies they use. They did have
some kind of cori^oration through the late Joseph Brodsky. He was
an attorney. He is dead, unfortunately, but what they have here is
this Robert William Weiner. He is an illegal alien who has been over
here many years, was convicted when Browder was,, but didn't serve
because he had heart trouble. He doles out the cash from the con-
spiratorial fund.
602 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Suppose Browder goes to Moscow? They can't put on the books
of the Communists, "Earl Browder going to Moscow, illegal passport."
You understand? He gets this money in Washington, thousands of
dollars out of Weiner's hands. Also, they have a subdivision of this
conspiratorial fund. Suppose a person is ill, or something
Senator Tydings. You have answered my question. I am going to
ask you another question, and ask for an answer, yes or no, and
then I will quit.
Have you conferred — off the record.
(There was discussion off the record.)
Senator Hickenlooper. I want to ask a question about the New
Times magazine that you were speaking of, or referred to.
This is a rather broad generality that I am asking you about, but
if the New Times had the praise for an American citizen as having a
grasp of Soviet aims and Soviet objectives and understanding of the
Soviet purpose, would that at least be an indication that they con-
sidered that advice as friendly to them ?
Mr. BuDENz. Oh, yes, of course; it wouldn't be presumed that he
was a Communist, because they sometimes praise a man like Henry
Wallace, who is not a Communist.
Senator Hickenlooper. Or Winston Churchill?
Mr. BuDENZ. Yes, when they praised him — they praise certain
people during certain periods. They have a line and praise them.
That isn't a presumption
Senator INIcMahon. When you left the party on October 10, 1945,
how long was it before you got with the FBI?
Mr. BuDENz. Well, it was 6 months.
Senator McMahon. Was it as long as that?
Mr. BuDENZ. That is right.
Iwill tell you, the reason was, in part, not my own action. Of
course, I will tell you, generally, you don't just get out of the Com-
munist camp and become renewed immediately ; and one of the great-
est helps I received was from Father O'Donnell of Notre Dame, who
agreed with me that I should have 1 year of doing nothing but reor-
ganizing myself.
Now, the thing was that during the course of that reorganization,
it may have been less than 6 months, at any rate, it was about 6 months,
and then the FBI came to Notre Dame and, well — may I tell some-
thing very frankly gentlemen ? I hope you won't misunderstand me.
To show you how I feared, not the FBI so much, but — I made it a
condition, and I hope you won't misunderstand me — that I must have
two practical Catholics in any questioning, and that was no reflection,
don't misunderstand that. It was that I had to have some personal
assurance in my coming out of the concentration camp — of people I
could talk to, you understand. I don't know whether anybody knows
how a Communist is when he comes out, how he thinks there is a
Communist everywhere — you understand ?
Senator Tydings. Certainly.
Mr. BuDENZ. Not so much in the FBI, but he is so afraid of being
trapped, that is one thing — so afraid of being trapped he don't know
what he is going to be trapped about, but he is afraid ; he has to admit
to that.
Senator McMahon. I happen to be a Catholic, so you can appreciate
that I am not trying to trap you.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 603
Mr. BuT>Kxz. I did not mean that. I wanted the other Senators to
understand that there was no reflection on any other religion. That
was the only way I could express it.
Senator McMahon. I know you appreciate the fact that anyone who
tells the truth welcomes all examination that they can get because
obviously we are here to find the truth.
JNIr. BuDEXz. Yes.
On the other hand, you see, in the beginning — of course, as time
goes on-
Senator McMahon. You get reorganized.
Mr. BuDENz. I have developed and reorganized; but in the begin-
ning, I was afraid to talk to almost anyone, and that still lingers on
to some extent.
Now, I did have these two men, and they gave me a grilling for 3
days. Now, I want to confess, Senator, on some points I didn't want
to tell them things. I mean, I still had a lingering of wanting to keep
things back.
Senator McMahon. Where did you have those conferences ?
Mr. BuDENz. At Notre Dame.
Senator Green. Who were the two men ? Teachers there ?
Mr. BuDENz. No; they were FBI agents. They were FBI agents
and they gave me a real grilling for 3 days, and a part of the nights.
Senator Greex. And how did they find out about you?
Mr. BuDEXz. Oh, they knew I was at Notre Dame. I mean, they
knew I was at Notre Dame — they knew that.
Senator Ttdixgs. The press had it in there.
Mr. BuDEXz. The press did it, it was all over. The point is that
they came out there and grilled me 3 days. I say "gi'illed," not un-
friendly
Senator McMahon. A searching examination.
Mr. BuDExz. That is right.
Senator McMaiiox. At the school, 3 days, and then there was a
break and you went back with them again?
Mr. BuDExz. Well, then, as they didn't have much to do with me,
I should say — I mean, off and on, they would come and see me, but
they didn't .have much to do with me until I came back to New York;
and then, I began to prepare certain cases with them.
Senator M'cMahox. What month was that, that you came back to
New York? You said (5 months. That would bring it roughly to
March of 1946, before they were at Notre Dame.
Mr. BuDEXz. That is right, about that. It may have been earlier.
Senator McMahox. February or March?
Mr. BuDEXz. Well, it was in — I had to settle down. I should say it
was in September 1946.
Senator McMahox. You were back in New York in September
1946?
Mr. BuDEX'z. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahox. And then how many days did you spend with
them ?
Mr. BuDEXz. Well, I can't give you the exact number of days. It is
very irregular, but they used to come irregularly, particularly in the
preparation of cases. That is to say, first of all, they had me analyze
the whole Communist constitution. Well, I had to' do a careful job
604 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
on that. At any rate, we went along on it, and they were preparing
a case and I spent most of the time preparing cases, although from
time to time, they would show me a picture, or ask me a question.
Senator McMahon. Perhaps, as you know, I used to be in charge of
the Criminal Division of the Dejjartment of Justice, so I have many,
many friends in the Department of Justice.
Now, we have been associated off and on for 20 years, and are very
dose friends, and I am very much interested in the fact, I have been
following you for some time and I asked them one time how you were
doing, and they said "Very well" — that they thought you were telling
them every single important fact that you knew, and this is my recol-
lection, which is very hazy, and you would have a much better recollec-
tion than I would have of it, and one fellow told me that, as I recollect
it, that you spent 11 or 12 days discussing this conspiracy with them.
Is that about rigJit ?
Mr. BtJDENz. You mean — when?
Senator McMahox. I mean, well, o days at Notre Dame, and when
you came back to New York ?
Mr, BuDENz. For 11 or 12 days solid? Well, as a matter of fact,
gentlemen, I should be on the FBI payroll some way.
On the big trial, I didn't only si)end it with the FBI. but with Judge
McGohey. He came every Thursday, that was my day off, he came to
Fordham, and we spent nearly all day on that case.
Also, in addition to that, the whole Christmas vacation. Judge
McGohey came to my house, so we would have the records there, and
we worked on that.
I am trying to show you that
Senator McMahox, You spent literally hundreds of hours talking
to these agents?
Mr. BuDENz. That is right.
Senator McINIahox. Cooperating with the Government, and giving
them the very best information that you had. to combat this great
conspiracy ?
Mr, BuDENz. That is right.
Senator McMahon. That was your desire, to do that ?
Mr. BtiDENz. Oh, surely.
Senator McMahox. Right from the start?
Mr. BuDENZ. That is right, sir.
Senator McMahon. You say that it was a life and death matter to
3'OU, in your instructions at any time in carrying out the party line,
and that intrigued me.
How in the world did you succeed, for so many years, in watching
that line ?
Mr. BuDENz. It was a very tense situation. I used to stay almost
every night and study these documents, and in addition, there was a
representative of the Politburo who came every day, and we con-
ferred on these matters.
Now, the representatives of the Politburo, like Jack Stachel, he is
in touch with the Comnnmist International representative, he brings
in a new line, and therefore, I mean, it may be a variation of the line, or
a change in the line and there he tells about it.
Now, Stachel is a very clever man. He wouldn't say much when a
new line was coming, because sometimes these bureaucrats would come
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 605
in and say: ''You have to have these editorials innnediately,*' and
couldn't exphiin it, and you would have to go and look up problems
for them, but Stachel was clever, he would come in and ask everyone
of the editorial board of the Daily Worker: "AVell, now, under this
situation what do you think we should do f and everyone would make
a mistake, because they all interpreted it according to the old interpre-
tation of the old line.
You understand, it isn't the old line, but perhaps it would be the
interpretation which changed. Take a man like Badoglio in Italy,
who was considered to be a Fascist and a viper and, although the line
was to be violently against him, suddenly we get orders that he is a
desirable leader, and that is in evidence of interpretation in the line.
But, Stachel would come along and ask you ''\Vhat do you think
about this situation?" And ever3'body would argue along, according
to the old interpretation and all would be wrong and then he, I have
never seen such ability to use your arguments against you — he then
figures out how to offset your arguments, and would knock you over.
Senator McMahon. Then tell you you were all wrong?
Mr. BtTDExz. Yes. Then there was a man named Milton Howard,
who is still on the Daily, so prostrate is the Communist mentally —
he would run his hands through his hair and say, ''Why can't we be
better Marxists?" He knew you couldn't tell what ]Moscow wanted
on a thing like that.
Senator McMahox. I am interested.
Mr. BuDExz. The psychological problems of a Communist are
amazing.
Senator Mc^SIahox. You are developing that very nicely.
Senator Greex. Did you say "death or life" ?
Mr. BuDExz. I meant political life. They have been in danger of
life, too. Julia Stuart Poyntz was killed by the Communists — she
was, I discovered that. You see. in my zeal to defend the Communists
I discovered that they really had killed her, I wanted to defend the
Communists and they wouldn't let me. The thing is that she was
killed here in New York by the Communists, but she was about to
close out, and they caught her before she got away, and her own
husband, as. I understand it — I wouldn't swear to it — but her oAvn
husband betrayed her and called her up to meet him.
Senator Ttdixgs. He was a Communist, too; is that right?
Mr. BuDEX'z. Yes. She was in the underground.
Senator Greex. Do you know of any case
Mr. Bxjdexz. That is Julia Stuart Poyntz, P-o-y-n-t-z, an American
school teacher and a very active open Communist leader, out in the
open.
Xow, another thin^ they do : they buy out people to keep them from
testifying. I know tliat Harry C. Wycks, editor of the Daily Worker,
was on the payroll of the Communist Party. This was officially told
to me by Weiner — this is secret — he was on the payroll of the party to
keep them from the Dies committee, at the time he was attacking the
party, he, Harry Wycks. The thing is, the reason I know it, that we
had difficulty with that Chicago Communist paper out there finan-
cially, and I was always urging for more and more money, and Weiner
said, "We have so many calls upon our funds fi-om that so-and-so
Wycks ; I have to give him so much money every month to keep him
from the Dies committee."
606 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McMahon. Tell me, when you were in these conversations
with the agents, I presume that their inquiry and their main interest
was the way that the party was cooperating in developing the world
Communist line. I suppose that was one of their main
Mr. BuDENZ. That was of interest because they were building up
that case, I believe.
Senator McMahon. Against 11 Communists?
Mr. BuDENz. That started a long time before.
Senator McMahox. I suppose, too, that if they were not they should
have been very interested in who we had in the Government service,
who were off line, and were Communists?
Mr. BuDEXz. Well, I suppose they were, although that question I
didn't discuss the Government people with the FBI, and I left them
to the end.
Senator McMahon. Were they content to do that?
Mr. BuDENz, Well, I don't know whether they were or not.
Senator McMahon. I mean, the loyalty program, you see
Mr. BuDENZ. They asked me about a number of people specifically.
That is to say, I have said that a number of people came to me, and
I think that I have been responsible, insofar as my information is con-
cerned, in having people exempt, more than or as much as I have called
them Communists, because of facts.
Senator McMahon. You have cooperated in the loyalty program
then, since it started in 1947?
Mr. BuDENz. Oh, yes.
Senator McMahon. Right from the start ?
.Mr. BuDENz. Yes.
Senator INIcMahgn. Given the best that you had in you?
Mr. BuDENz. That was spasmodic, of course. There were other
things that came in, these cases came in between.
Senator McMahon. I recognize that, but of course it is all one huge
conspiracy, and these fellows that were contacting you, McCarthy
was one, do you want to give us the other names ?
Mr, BuDENz. Well
Senator MgMahon. Was one Pat Cohen ?
Mr. BuDENZ. Pat Cohen, yes.
Senator McMahon. I have known him for many years.
Mr. BuDENz. There had been also, Guard, but he is only irregularly.
Senator McMahon. Pat has probably been your closest
Mr. BuDENZ. Pat Cohen gave me my initial bath, so to speak.
Senator McMahon. Quite a fellow.
Mr. BuDENZ. Oh, yes; a very fine man. And, McCarthy has been
the man in touch with me most of the time, although from time to
time other agents have accompanied him.
Senator McMahon. I see.
Mr. BuDENZ. Irregular agents.
Senator McMahon. Well now, those 11 that have been convicted,
has that affected things a good deal, do you think?
Mr. BuDENZ. Well, I think it has affected public opinion, Senator.
Senator McMahon. You think it has affected the operations of the
party any — weakened it?
Mr. BuDENz. To a degree. I mean, as yet — if they are convicted
Senator McMahon. You mean if it is upheld ?
Mr. BuDENz. That is right.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 607
We must remember that the Communist counts liis apparatus above
all, and if he can nuiintain an apparatus, he is content; he knows he
is going to be under attack. Now, the thing is that if they are con-
victed, that will certainly be a blow^ to their apparatus.
Senator JNIcMahon. I should think so.
INIr. BuDENZ. No doubt about it.
Senator McJMahon. Tell me, as far as you know, the FBI seems to
be running down all the leads that you gave them, do they not?
Mr. BuDENZ. Oh, yes.
Senator JNIcMahon. Pretty strenuously and vigorously ?
Mr. BuDENZ. That is right. Of course, I will tell you, sometimes
Senator I must confess this : You must not think this is laches, or
anything, but I sometimes conline myself to answering questions.
That is to say
Senator McMahon. It gets pretty tiresome.
Mr. BuDENz, Well, it gets tiresome and it gets well — it isn't only
tiresome, but for instance in the Harry Bridges case, I begged not to
go on the stand. I think you will find that I had the evidence, and
they had all the evidence they needed against him, but I begged not
to, I am not making a plea there
Senator McMahon. That is understandable.
Mr. BuDENz. So that once in a while, I do not. It isn't that I don't
■want to serve the Government, but once in a while I do not give to the
FBI, or take the initiative in any way, and remain sort of passive and
let them ask the questions.
Senator McMahon. I suppose that you must have been able to give
them hundreds of names in this conspiracy and I think it is a wonder-
ful thing.
Mr. BuDENz. Well, I don't know how many hundreds. The fact of
the matter is, I think I have given quite a few, but I was not content
with what I had given them. I felt that I wasn't covering the field well
enough, that is why I began this other list. I think, though, that I have
given them a lot of names.
Senator Mo^Mahon. In this other list, it will include, or will it,
any names that you have heretofore given them?
Mr. BuDENz. Oh, yes; there are duplications in there, but I want
to make a whole complete clean sweep.
Senator McMahon. Do you think that this Institute of Pacific
Affairs
^Ir. BuDENz. Kelations.
Senator McMahon. The Institute of Pacific Relations was a potent
force in molding opinion?
Mr. BuDENz. I think so, I will tell you why : First of all, it had
this aura of the YMCA back of it. Secondly, it w^as a splendid
agency for joenetrating Washington.
Now, you see I have heard Field's report, which has not been de-
tailed, on Washington activities, that he was active down here. I
know, for several reasons. One time J. Peters came to me, and that
is the name — I don't foolishly call Field a Soviet agent, espionage
agent — J. Peters came to me and asked for a list of names who were
in the Washington cell here, not like Pressman or that crowd, or not
in the Field group, but who were separate and fresh, and he mentioned
Field as operating. I Imow from Field's report, although he was
608 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
very cautious of that, I mean in the Politburo, Field did not get uj,
and make a report on Communist activities.
Senator McMahon. I don't happen to agree with what you said
the other day was the Communist theory that whoever gets China
gets the world. I think that is a mistaken impression.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator McMahon. But, I could rebut in my own mind
Mr. BuDENZ. I was only reporting.
Senator McMahon. I was just saying, it is not important, but 1
don't think that is right. However, that is neither here nor there.
They believe, the Soviet believes, and hence you, as a good Commu-
nist, believe that whoever won the east won the world ; that is true ?
Mr. BuDENZ. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahon. This Institute of Pacific Relations, in your
opinion, was the spearhead of the Communist propaganda movement
in this country?
Mr. BuDENz. Well, it was going — yes it was, in part, not the whole
thing, but it was a big part.
Senator McMahon. I understand.
Mr, BuDENz. Of course they also relied on Harry Bridges. He was
to penetrate Hawaii.
Senator McMahon. He was an individual.
Mr. BuDENz. He was completely under control.
Senator McMahon, I am talking in terms of a publication, that
was a principal publication — what was it?
Mr. BuDENZ. I called the organization — —
Senator McMahon. The principal organization which had a pub-
lication.
Mr. BuDENZ. That is right.
Senator McMahon. Then, in your opinion, that had tremendous
influence in the most vital field of operation, according to the Soviet
Union, and this fellow Lattimore was the editor of that publication
for how many years ?
Mr. BuDENz. I think seven.
Senator McMahon. Seven years?
Mr. BuDENz. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahon. You know, that is why I can't figure out how
you could have spent hundreds of hours with the FBI agents and
never mention his name.
Mr. BuDENZ. Well, the reason is, because that matter of the Insti-
tute of Pacific Relations, while it came up, did not come up in a
very definite or vivid way. We had other things we were busy about,
you must understand.
Senator McMahon. You can see my puzzlement, can you not?
Mr. BuDENZ. I can see your puzzlement; but nevertheless, I can
show you other puzzlements that might also puzzle you if we had
time, other peo]^le that I have not dwelt upon with the FBI.
Senator McMation. I see.
Mr. BuDENz. You see, take for example another thing, Senator:
You understand also, a man who is an ex-Communist, he just simply
also respects a certain amount of power, too. He doesn't rush out and
reveal every one. I had the greatest hesitancy in revealing that list
today, even in executive session, not that I mean to say it will be
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 609
revealed. The point of the matter is that to clash with certain individ-
uals and forces is not desii'able. I don't mean to say j'ou are afraid,
or anything like that, but for you to rush out to do it is not a desirable
thino-. If you are approached and examined and questioned — here is
what happened, the first tliino- was the cases. You see, I have many
other things to do besides this. I teach 14 hours a week.
Senator Green. How often ?
Mr. BuDEXZ. Fourteen hours a week which is considered more than
the ordinary burden: and then, in addition to that, I was confronted
immediately with practical problems, confronted with a number of
deportation cases, many more than I even served in, and in order to
get the cases up, you have to have the greatest care. I felt that Eisler
and Peters were very important. It was my opinion that the strategy
should be first to get those people who were obviously Communist
agents, that is what I thought.
Senator McMahon. Obviously Communist agents?
Mr. BuDENZ. That is right.
Senator McMaiion. And then the ones suspected of being Com-
munist agents?
Mr. BuDENZ. Those whom you could prove were Communist agents,
for this reason — that you had to consult their opinion, and consult
the facts of it during recent years, Senator.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator ]McMahon. Let me ask you this question : Do you know of
anybody in the State Department now, other than tlie ones whom you
have named, other than the one you have named, Hanson, to be a
member of the Communist Party?
Mr. BuDENZ. Well, Senator, might I ask the privilege of presenting
to this committee such names as I have in the Government, during the
next 2 weeks ?
Senator McMahon. Such names as you have?
Mr. BuDExz. In the Government.
Senator McMahon. People in the Government?
Mr. BuDEXz. Yes, sir, including the State Department.
Senator McMahox. "Well, yes; are there some?
Mr. BuDENZ. I would like to do it carefully. I believe I shall pre-
sent some.
Senator McMahox^. If they do exist, we certainly want them.
Mr. BuDENz. I would like to do it very carefully, though, and with
an explanation of how I know.
Senator JNIcMahon. Will they be names of people whom you have
given to the FBI ?
Mr. BuDEXz. I think most of them are; yes. I mean, I can't al-
ways remember.
Senator IMcMaiiox'. What is the decision of tlie committee with re-
spect to proceeding?
Senator Greex. I think we can excuse him while we are in execu-
tive committee.
Senator Tydixgs. I think this is more important than answering a
little criticism down on the floor.
Senator McMahox. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator McjSLvhox. Can you give us, for our record, and this may
be a repetition of the questions we asked the other day — when was
610 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Lattimore discussed by you with the FBI? Do you have a record
of the date?
Mr. BuDENZ. I have not.
Senator McMahon. Was it in the past week ?
Mr. BuDENZ. Oh, yes ; it was. I said I thought, Senator — it is ap-
proximately a couple of days after
Senator Tydings. You said 3 or 4 days of the following week, some-
thing of that sort.
Mr. BuDENz. A couple of days after.
Senator Tydings. Yes. But you said distinctly that you had talked
to them about Lattimore — until after we had been down there.
Mr. BuDENz. That is correct.
Senator McMahon. And you gave Lattimore to the FBI, every-
body you knew, of course.
Senator Tydings. We are all being criticized as to what happened
this morning.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator McMahon. Tell me, is it a systematic business or in part,
or was it, to start whispering campaigns about people?
Mr. Btjdenz. Well, I don't know.
Senator McMahon. It seems to me I recollect either in some article
that you wrote, or maybe it wasn't your article, but that is
Mr. BuDENz. They start character assassination upon people who
attack them, yes.
Senator McMahon. Frequently they will start a rumor that you
are a Communist?
Mr. BuDENZ. Not to my knowledge.
Senator McMahon. No ? You never knew that to be done ?
Mr. BuDENz. No. That would confuse their own ranks.
Senator jNIcIMahon. I was under the impression, I read somewhere
that one of the favorite techniques was to get somebody and say "Now,
he is attacking us, but really he is one of us."
Mr. BuDENz. I never heard of that.
Senator McMahon. It is not true ?
Mr. BuDENz. It would cause too much confusion in their own ranks.
Senator McMahon. If you haven't heard it, they don't?
Mr. BuDENZ. They attack you on character assassination, they ac-
cuse you of every crime under the sun, sometimes, when your acts
injure them.
Senator McMahon. Frequently, of course, as you pointed out yes-
terday, any member of this committee might have some public ques-
tion and would coincide for the moment with the views that they have.
Mr. BuDENz. Oh, yes ; that is right.
Senator McMahon. I remember one instance in my public career
when I felt very strongly about something, and was astounded to find
that one of the arguments used against me was that the Daily Worker
was in favor of it. I had evolved that belief before then.
Mr. BuDENz. I think that is not a good argument. That would not
be a good argument in itself.
Senator McMahon. Not a good argument to prove McMahon is a
Communist sympathizer ?
Mr. BuDENz. No, sir; it would not be. I am not discussing you
personally, I mean against anyone.
Senator McMahon. I mean, I was just using that as an example.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 611
Mr. BuDExz. As a matter of fact, the Daily Worker, or — the Com-
Tiniiiists naturally hang together on things in order to penetrate. That
is their means of infiltration.
Senator McMahon. I was thinking, therefore, in the light of that,
and the experience I had myself, that it was likewise very dangerous
to conclude that a fellow was of the party or in the party, if either
line happened to coincide.
Mr. BuDEXz. Well, the only thing is — no, that isn't it.
You don't do it by that. You have to have other evidence, but if
someone keeps coinciding, or it does happen that they don't coincide,
there is a reason for it. Then, of course, you have a different situation.
That is to say, we do know that Communists exist. We do know that
they are concealed •
Senator Mc^SIaiion. Do you think that, or do you think — this is a
question I would like to ask 3^ou : Do you consider, as many people do,
one of the prime tests of a person's adherence, or nonadherence to
the Communist line to be whether or not that person changed over-
night, as the Daily Worker had to on the famous night when Russia
was invaded ?
Mr. BuDEXz. That is, in the case of most people. However, there
are exceptions. You will find in the record of Harry Bridges, that
that is not the case. They had to persuade him by almost strong-arm
methods, I don't mean to say literally, to change; and, there have
been many hesitancies. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned in my
testimony, the Daily Worker lias been compelled to criticize some
of its own members from time to time to bring them into line, but
my answer there is, that is correct.
Senator McMaiion. And you had to do this flip-flop yourself?
]Mr. BuDEX'^z. Any open Communist would have to.
Senator McMatiox. You had to do that flip-flop in June of 1941 ?
Mr. BuDEX'z. Very decidedly; yes.
Senator ^NIcMahox. That must have been a night that will live
in your memory.
Mr. BuDEX^z. I had to do a couple of flip-flops. I had to do one
where we had the Hitler-Stalin pact.
Senator McMahox. And, they reversed on it, and flopped both
ways ?
Sir. BuDEX^z. That is right. To me, the second was not nearly as
difficult as the first.
Senator McMahox. I was quite impressed by Lattimore's statement,
and I asked him, I Avas the one that asked him, how he acted at the in-
vasion of Russia, and his answer was that he had been on the side
of aiding the Allies, and that, as I recollect his answer — now, I will
have to look it up — and that of course he had no position to change in
June of 1941. That was one of the strong points in his case, to me.
Mr. BuDEX'Z. I would have to examine that. In fact, I do want the
privilege of examining some of those facts and presenting them to the
committee in written form, as I said, for this reason: I believe, al-
though you will find a number of other men who are under Communist
discipline that did the same thing, they had special permission.
Senator McMahox. Special dispensation ?
]Mr. BuDEX'z. That is right.
Senator McMahox. Tell me, you know Lattimore was adviser to
Chiang Kai-shek, did you know that ^
612 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BuDENZ. Oh, yes ; I knew tliat.
Senator McMahon. During that period when he was adviser to
him, was there ever any indication to you, through reports or any other
way, that he was doubling Chiang ?
Mr. BuDEA^z. Well, I can't remember that distinctly, Senator,
Senator McMahon. You don't remember that?
Mr. BuDENz. Not offliand, now.
Senator McMahon. You know, he testified that he of course ad-
vised Chiang, and supported him to the best of his ability when he was
sent out there as an adviser. That was, of course, after he had been
made editor of Pacific Affairs, of the Institute of Pacific Affairs.
Mr, BuDENZ. Of course there are gaps in some of my information
because I was not present through all the Politburo meetings.
Senator McMahox. You were not present at all of them ?
Mr. BuDENZ. Oh, no. I came up there when I was called up, or
when some circumstances compelled me to go. However, I was there
frequently.
Senator McMahon. Now, I would like to ask you — and I am about
through, I think you will be glad to know
Mr. BuDENZ. I only hope to get to Fordham tomorrow. That is
the only thing I hope. That is the thing I have to fulfill.
Senator McMahon. As I understand. Senator Tydings read off a
long list of congressional hearings that you have been to, and talked
about this thing, and this is the latest of them, and of course we have
developed in some way your fine relationship with the FBI, and your
effort to cooperate with them.
What other investigators have you talked with — have you talked
with the Department of Commerce at all ?
Mr. BuDENz. No, sir. I talked with the Department of State on
the Marzani case.
Senator McMahon. That was the case tried here, Carl Marzani?
Mr. BuDENz. That is right. He swore falsely. However, I could
not help him on that case. That is the only time, to my recollection,
that the State Department representative ever came to see me physi-
cally, face to face.
Senator McMahon. You remember where that took place ?
Mr. BuDENz. At Fordham.
Senator McMahon. At Fordham?
Mr. BuDENZ. This man, Lennox, he came to Fordham and he may
have seen me once or twice. I think that is the only place he came,
out there.
Senator McMahon. He saw you more than once there?
Mr. BuDENZ. That is right. That was the only case that I developed
anything with them and told them I couldn't, after checking it over,
help them.
Senator McMahon. Because what you had was hearsay ?
Mr. BuDENZ. I knew him as Wales, and I didn't know him as Mar-
zani, and it was necessary to know him as Marzani too.
Senator McMahon. I know the rest of the members of the commit-
tee will be glad that I have satisfied a good deal of my curiosity, and
will now cease and desist.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have some questions, Mr. Chairman, that
I would like to ask.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION 613
1 yliall not insist, one way or another, but I would like to ask about
some names.
Do you know of a man, officially — Albert Rliys Williams?
Mr. BuDENZ. I do, I am surprised that you asked me, but I know
him.
Senator Hiokenlooper. Do you know anything about whether he is
a Comnmnist or not?
Mr. BuDENz. Yes, he is a Communist of long standing.
Senator Hickenluopek. Do you know that personally, or by official
report ?
Mr. Budexz. I have known him for many years. Of course I have
not seen him recently, but I have known him for years ; even before I
was in the Connnunist Party, I knew he was one.
Senator Hickenlooper. So, you know he is a Communist.
Mr. Budenz. Right.
Senator McMaiion. "Who is that?
Mr. Budenz. Albert Rhys Williams.
Senator McMahon. What does he do ?
Mr. Budenz. I think he was a former minister, or educator for
the — I am not quite sure, something along that line, and then he
became a Soviet propagandist. He has written. He always claimed
to be a liberal and not a Communist, but I know him to be a Commu-
nist. He was a great friend of Robert W. Dunn.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know anything about Donald Hiss?
Would you like to comment on that ?
Mr. Budenz. I would not like to comment on that.
Senator Hickenlooper. That means that you would not like to
comment at this time on it.
Mr. Budenz. That is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, these three names, would you like to
comment on whatever personal knowledge, official knowledge, you
may have on John Davies, of the State Department ?
Mr. Budenz. I know^ nothing about him.
Senator Hickenlooper. I see.
Senator McMahon mentioned three names, three other names. I
mention here Ruby Parsons and John Carter Vincent, who is now
Minister to Switzerland.
Mr. Budenz. I would prefer not to discuss those at the moment,
until I can file the list with the committee. That will permit — I feel
this is quite a responsible obligation — without being more careful in
my statements.
Senator Hickenlooper. I shall not press
Mr. Budenz. I will say, in reference to Albert Rhys Williams, I
don't know what he is today, whether he is a Communist or not. I
know he was a Communist up to the last minute I heard of him.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you familiar w-ith Henry Wallace's
book tliat he wrote and published in 1946 about his trip to Siberia,
and up in there ?
Mr. Budenz. I have read his book, but I could not discuss it at
the moment. I would have to read it over.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, you have no comment at the moment
as to whether the Communists consider that to be a Communist
614 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BuDENZ. That was what you might call — ^Wallace was just
surrounded by Communist influence there, in the writing of that book,
and also, his policies
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you aware of the fact that Henry
Wallace, in writing that book, gives credit to Owen Lattimore and
to John Rhys Williams as his
Mr. BuDENZ. Albert Rhys Williams.
Senator Hickenlooper. Albert Rhys Williams as his collaborators
in the writing of that book ?
Mr. BuDENz. I am aware of that.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, if you are anxious to
leave
Senator Tydings. Go ahead, I will remain.
Mr. Budenz. While the Senators wait, I don't knov/ whether this
is an impertinent observation or not, but would it be agreeable if I
were to furnish anything I know, outside of Mr. Lattimore, what I
could on the Amerasia case to Mr. Morgan?
Senator Tydings. It would, and let me say this to you, Mr. Budenz :
Obviously, as you already know, this is primarily directed to the State
Department employees, past and present.
Mr. Budenz. I understand.
Senator Tydings. Anything that touches on that would be perti-
nent. If it does not touch on that, so far as I am concerned, I would
like for you to turn it over to the F. B. I., because we do not have the
facilities to go into things outside of the scope of our investigation.
Mr. Budenz. Very well.
Senator Green. On this list, some of those who are on that list were
in no departments-
Senator Tydings. If you will wait-
Mr. Budenz. People I would know of, in Government departments.
Senator Hickenlooper. May I complete my record?
Mr. Budenz, I have here a copy of a magazine that is called The
Reporter of April 2.5, 195Q. It has pictures of people who have left
tlie Communist Party. Your picture is up here, and there is a man
there alleged to be Arthur Koestler; also the name and picture of a
man alleged to be Stephen Spender; the name and picture of Ignazio
Silone ; also, a woman named Ruth Fischer
Mr. Budenz. That is Eisler's sister — Gerhart's.
Senator Hickenlooper. Also a man Traiclio Kostov; also a man
named Granville Hicks: also a man Wladyshaw Gomulka ; and a man
by the name of Laszlo Rajik.
Do you know all those people ?
Mr. Budenz. I don't know some of them — I don't know all.
Senator Hickenlooper. I will show you the pictures. The only
thing that I was going to ask you
Mr. Budenz. The only one I know personally, of those, are Ruth
Fischer, whom I met after she left the Party, and Granville Hicks.
I don't knoAv anyone else.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you have any reason to believe, any
sound reason to believe, that any of those people may not have been
sincere in leaving the party, or that they may be back, actually, in
the party, but openly
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 615
Mr. BuDENz. Oh, no. The point of the matter is that the people
iliat leave the i)artv and attack it in this wise, openly, are anti-Com-
ninnists. You can count on that. The party will take care of that, and
the person who is suspect, however, when they leave the party, are
the ones wlio remain silent and quiet in regard to the party.
I understand. See what 1 mean. Senator?
Senator Hickexlooper. Yes,
Mr. BuDEXz. That is not due to the fact that they leave the party
to become agents of some kind, but after they leave, you see this thing
I talked about, about being bribed, about being intimidated or some-
thing like that — now, the ex-Communist, such as Silone, Koestler,
Euth P'ischer, and myself, as far as we are concerned, are hated more
by the Communist Party than anything else. Their press is full of
vituperation of us and use every opportunity for injury. They use
every device and that is the reason you have to be so cautious, but an
ex-Communist who remains silent is a problem.
I Avill give you an example.
Otf the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
Senator Green. Mr. Budenz, just as you have told us already, there
are certain people in the party who make believe they are non-Com-
nnmists, so are there not people that are outside that make believe
they are Communists?
Mr. Budenz. No; no.
You see, those people — look. Senator — those people who would do
a thing like that, especially if they were to go and attack the party,
month after month, and in trial at the trial
Senator Green. That seems rather absurd.
Mr. Budenz. That doesn't happen. That is to say, a man like Koest-
ler, for example
Senator Green. But, there are certain people in the party that
make believe they are not: that is true?
Mr. Budenz. Surely. That is different. That is to deceive the out-
side ; but, you would have utter confusion within the Communist army,
if you try the other thing. In addition, see, one thing, Senator, that
they do, "they are ahvays watching for agents of the Government.
Senator Green. That would be one way to put people off, make be-
lieve you are op])osed to a thing when you are in favor of it?
]\rr. Budenz. You would not say you are a Communist, I am sure,
and
Senator Green. You don't know of any such case?
]Mr. Budenz. Xo: no. That is unheard of, because that w^ould
create utter confusion and would destroy the party, itself, eventually.
Senator Hkkenlooper. I have nothing else.
Senator Green. Y'ou have not told us, it would be very illuminating,
in A-iew of all you have told us, if you told us why you originally joined
the party.
Mr. Bi DEXz. Well, I would be glad to tell you that, Senator, and
why I left. Of course it is a long story, and linked up with my
religion. Briefly, it is a sort of personal story.
Senator Green. It must be an interesting story.
]\Ir. Budenz. The thing is. I was a great labor — I don't mean "great,"
1 mean intense, and intent labor worker Avhen I was young, and was
also very strongly opposed to discrimination against the Negro people
68970— 50— pt. 1 40
616 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
and a nvimber of other things, and thought these reforms were not
being cured fast enough. In fact, I took a trip out to Leeds, S. Dak.,
to help the fight of Bishop Bush, a Catholic. The bishop was against
a 7-day week. That was a long time ago. I was about 18 or 19 years
old, and I thought he didn't get proper support. I got angry, and
in addition — that is what helps to make Communists, thoughtless-
ness, and impatience, and I felt that he wasn't getting the proper
support and that made me criticize the Catholic Church of which I
was a member. I left the church.
I did not become a Communist; I went on fighting for labor. I
organized strikes. The fact is that I Avas arrested 21 times in the in-
junctions, the old days when that injunction was such a problem.
I used to get sent in for the A. F. of L. union. Time went on, and
I got more and more impatient, thinking that things were not reme-
died, and I became a Communist.
Senator Green. Did you become a Communist at once, or gradually ?
Mr. BuDENz. I fought the Communists ; I opposed them. I opposed
them very strongly when I was working for the A. F. of L. ; and then
I gradually, especially in 1935, came around to a certain extent. I
will say this, though : I don't want to make it public, because it just
looks like an excuse, but to a certain extent I was taken in. That is,
that although I knew that Stalin ruled the organization, when they
said in 1935, at the People's Front Congress, that they were going
to cooperate with a democratic organization and democratic nations,
1 thought then that communism was becoming democratic on its part,
and that it would merge, you understand, into a democratic Communist
development.
Therefore, after People's Front Congress was when I joined, after
1935 ; but of course I soon found, when I joined the Communist Party,
right up on the ninth floor here was Eisler.
Senator Green. In New York, you joined them?
Mr. BuDENZ. That is right. I became part of the Daily Worker,
right away, because they knew me.
Senator Green. Wliat do they do or what did they do to test you,
to be sure you could stick it out, and that you'd be loyal to them?
Mr. BiTDENZ. First of all, they knew me, or had known of me for
a number of years in a neighboi'hood movement; knew my views on
how I was opposed to them, and then worked with them in the united
front, and so forth; and, secondly, they wanted to use me, as they
frankly told me later, because at that time they were trying to weave
into the CIO union, and I had been on friendly terms with many of
the men who helj^ed form the CIO, like Tom Kennedy of the Miners
and, well, John Brophy, and a number of those men who knew me
from years back. So, they used me in a sort of front. Jack Stachel
told me that. That is why they put me on the central committee
so fast.
However, I found Eisler on the top floor, and Peters; and there was
Feruccio Marini, whose real name was Fred Brown — they were run-
ning the party. Browder was a stuffed shirt, just a front. That
is the rule of the Kremlin. The man running the party in every
country is never from that country. An American can run the
Philippine or Chinese Party.
Senator Green. When you are initiated or whatever you call it,
you have to take an oath ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 617
Mr. BuDEXz. You take an oath to Stalin; j'ou pledge to Stalin.
Senator Gkeex. Did you abjure your country at that time?
Mr. BuDENZ. No; j^ou don't do it that way. You just simply take
a pledge of allegiance to Stalin.
I introduced that in the Communist trials. It is in print.
Senator Green. I don't have it. I am not familiar with the trials,
as you found out the other day.
Mr. Budenz. That is all right. The thing is, I introduced this
in the trial, and here is the interesting thing about that. Senator:
There is a thing that people would say, "Why didn't he bring that
forward a long time ago?" I only gave the FBI knowledge of that
oath, although it was very clear to me — I only gave Mr. McGohey
knowledge of it on the morning I introduced it.
Senator Green. Do you have a copy of the oath ?
Mr. Budenz. I don't know whether I have or not.
Senator Green. Can you remember it ?
Senator Hickenlooper. He repeated it in the record; did you not?
Mr. Budenz. Only part, the concluding part. It is a little bit long.
Senator Green. Will you put it in the record ?
Mr. Budenz. It is to Stalin, "The leader and the teacher and guide
of the oppressed and proletariat of the world."
That is the lead. You are supposed to read that. They don't make
3'ou swear to it, because they don't belive in God, you understand.
Senator Green. What do you do ; promise it ?
Mr Budenz. You pledge, as a Communist.
Senator Green. They do not believe in a pledge; do they?
Mr. Budenz. You understand that it means punshment of some
kind. They don't go into all that.
]Mr. ]MoRGAN. May I ask a question ?
Senator Green. I haven't finished yet.
I am interested in following this up.
Mr. ]MoRGAN. Sorry.
Senator Green. Do they have a ceremony at which you are initiated ?
Mr. Budenz. They don't, for one who has been
Senator Green. In your case, what was it ?
Mr. Blt)enz. If you have been in some leading position, some place,
they don't have a ceremony.
Senator Green. What do they do ?
Mr. Budenz. They have you read that declaration, and you just
ngree to subscribe to it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think I will go on the floor, Senator.
Senator Green. Did j'ou subscribe to it?
Mr. Bi DENZ. Yes.
Senator Green. What "subscribe" means
Mr. Budenz. The}^ compel you. Senator, in addition to that, to make
a public statement, but that is separate.
Senator Green. But, when you say "subscribe," that word "sub-
scribe" means that you underwrite or write under; that is what it is.
Mr. Budenz. I understand.
Senator Green. Did you write your name?
Mr. Budenz. No; but wliat they do then is make you make a public
statement, and I made a public statement, not exactly in the line of
the oath, because it is sort of clumsy.
Senator Green. Does that appear in the Daily Worker ?
618 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BuDENz. Yes; on October 2, 1935.
Senator Greex. That appeared — your statement ?
Mr. BuDENZ. That is right.
Senator Green. Since then, yon were a loyal folloAver up until
when ?
Mr. BuDENZ. AVell, see, when the slave-labor camps — many things
bothered me, but the slave-labor camp matter in 1943 was very, very
hard for me to take, and I learned that this slave-labor camp situation
extended over so many areas, and in the Soviet Union, and I began to
sort of reorganize myself and consider — what is this, anyway ?
Then, from that point on, I began to be more and more critical. Of
course, I had a number of problems in how to get out of the party.
It was in January 1945 that my wife and I decided to return to the
Catholic Church. She was not a Catholic.
Then, we decided to write to Monsignor Sheehan, because he had
been our severest critic. He had written a pamphlet against me, and
we decided that a show of our sincerity would be to go to him, because,
after all, you go to a man that just lambasted you, and it would be a
sign of your sincerity.
We had to wait for my vacation, and I wrote JNIonsignor and he got
in touch with me, and then tliat happened.
Senator Greex. What then? Did you have any ceremony when
you went out '1 Do they pass a vote expelling you ?
Mr. BuDENz. No. I went out — you understand
Senator Green. You were ex])elled, you say?
Mr. Budenz. I went out without their knowledge.
Senator Green. But you said they expelled you.
Mr. Budenz. They do expel you.
Senator Green. What form does that take, that expulsion ?
Mr. Budenz. It took this form, where I had left them like that. I
had expelled myself from them. They took a form of attacking me.
Senator Green. Didn't this take some formal recognition? Didn't
they formally recognize the fact that you were no longer a Communist ?
Wliat did tliey do? They don't give you a certificate? They must
pass a vote, or make a statement in the Daily Worker.
Mr. Budenz. The statement is made officially by the Politburo.
Senator Green. In the Daily Worker ?
Mr. Budenz. That is right.
Senator Green. What date was that ?
Mr. Budenz. Two days after I left.
Senator Green. Could you put copies of both of those in the record ?
Mr. Budenz, By all means. I don't want
Senator Green. You said you had it.
Mr. Budenz. The oath to Stalin. I will be glad to. and the second
one
Senator Green. Yes?
Mr. Budenz. I will dig them up.
Senator Green. We would like to know what it says.
Mr. Budenz. All right.
Senator Green. And now, that pledge of allegiance to Stalin is in-
consistent with a man being a citizen of any other country than Kussia ;
is it not?
Mr. Budenz. It certainly is. However, you must understand when
you read it that it puts it in the form of "Stalin, leader and teacher
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 619
of the world," and doesn't say a word about conquest, but that is the
understanding" you <2;et as time goes oil.
Senator Greex. Do you think you are, after that, a loyal citizen-
Mr. BuDExz. AYell, the Connniniist knows that he is now under the
control of Moscow, if he knows anything.
Senator Gkeex, It is not consistent.
Senator Hickenlooper. I must leave, if you will excuse me, to go
down to the floor.
Senator Green. I will remain.
Now, I have one or two other questions that I want to ask you on a
difficult subject. I don't know w^iether we ought to go into it. Per-
haps you would rather have them here than tonight.
Were you coming back toniglit?
Let me ask you now. 1 don't care about going down tonight and
listening to that
Mr. BuDENZ. I will be glad to answer them.
Senator Green. I think these are all the names that were mentioned
at the previous hearing when you appeared.
Remember, I asked you about Mr. Kohlberg ?
Mr. BuDENz. Yes.
Senator Green. I would like you to refresh your recollection about
that. It seems to me you rather minimized your association with him.
Mr. BuDENz, I didn't intend to minimize it. I know Mr. Kohl-
berg, but the thing is. Senator, I didn't want to give the impression
that Mr. Kohlberg had any influence on my thinking or actions.
Senator Green. I am not saying he had the influence. Perhaps
you had influence on his.
Mr. Budenz. I doubt it.
Senator Green. I don't care. I want to know your association with
him, how often you saw him, and for how long ?
Mr. Budenz. I see him irregularly, from time to time. I will tell
you, here is the thing : There are several things that make me see him,
or made me see him — one was the fact that he had helped George
Hewitt, an ex-Communist, a Negro that had had a very difficult time,
and who is now paralyzed ; and, several other things like that caused
me to know. him, but I have been
Senator Green. How many years have you known him?
Mr. Budenz. Well, as well as I could place it, it was at the time
he was making this contest in the Institute of Pacific Kelations.
Senator Green. I don't remember what year that was.
Mr. Budenz. Well, it isn't very long ago.
Senator Green. About 2 years ago ?
Mr. Budenz. Just about that. It may be — no longer, certainly.
Well, I wouldn't say definitely; at any rate, it isn't long.
Senator Green. How recently have you seen him ?
Mr. Budenz. I saw him last week.
Senator Green. What day?
Mr. Budenz. Well, I don't remember the date, exactly. I saw him
very hurriedly last week. In fact, on a couple of occasions I saw him
very hurriedly.
Senator Green. Wliere did j'^ou see him in New York?
Mr. Budenz. At my house.
Senator Green. Is your house in New York ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.
620 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Green. You think you saw him two different days?
Mr. BuDENZ. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. Was Morris there ?
Mr. BuDENZ. I should say — no.
Senator Green. You should know — last week.
Mr. BuDENz. I will tell you. Here is the situation : There has been
coming and going. At any rate, the point is, the point of the matter,
Senator, is that I had not seen ]Mr. Kohlberg. prior to these 2 or 3 days,
for weeks.
Senator Green. You had seen him several weeks before?
Mr. BuDENz. Well, it must have been a month, a whole month, at
least.
Senator Green. Yes.
Mr. BuDENz. Maybe longer, that I had not seen him.
Senator Green. Before that, you had seen him several times?
Mr. Budenz. On and off.
Senator Green. A week or two apart ?
Mr. Budenz. Well, it may be.
Senator Green. Now, the 2 days last week when you saw him
Mr. Budenz. That is, these engagements were irregular.
Senator Green. I don't mean to say you had regular dates with him.
These last 2 days you saw him, what did you discuss with him?
Mr. Budenz. "^ Well, we didn't have much of a discussion of anything,
to tell you the truth.
Senator Green. You didn't sit and twiddle your thimibs?
Mr. Budenz. No, we didn't. I think that — well, once he had been
in touch, I think, with Senator McCarthy.
Senator Green. He had been?
Mr. Budenz. Yes.
Senator Green. That was the first time?
Mr. Budenz. The first day I think I saw him, that is what I sup-
pose-
Senator Green. So then, did you discuss your coming testimony?
Mr. Budenz. No, we did not.
Senator Green. You knew you were going to testify, or expected to
testify?
Mr. Budenz. Yes. As a matter of fact, nobody knew about my tes-
timony in full, until I talked to Mr. Morgan.
Senator Green. I mean, in part.
Mr. Budenz. I may have known, in part.
Senator Green. Did he give you any advice?
Mr. Budenz. He did not. Mr. Kohlberg has never given me any
advice and I would not take any particular advice.
Senator Green. Did he give you any information ?
Mr. Budenz. From time to time, he has.
Senator Green. On that day ?
Mr. Budenz. I don't think so.
Senator Green. A¥hen you mentioned Senator McCarthy, he must
have told you something about Senator McCarthy.
Mr. Budenz. He told me he was in the city.
Senator Green. Did he give vou any message from Senator Mc-
Carthy?
Mr. Budenz. He may have told me that Senator McCarthy would
not subpena me next week. I am not sure whether he told me that,
or someone else.
STATE DEPARTMENT EiMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 621
Senator Greex. But someone told yon that he would not?
Mr. BuDEXZ. That was my understandino;.
Senator Greex. If it was not Mr- Kohlberg, who was it?
Mr. BuDENZ. Well, it may have been Mr. Kersten, who was there
one day — Charles Kersten.
Senator Greex. When had you seen him ?
Mr. Bum.:xz. I saw him about in the middle of the week, before I
left, and went to Michigan.
Senator Greex. Well, to go back to Mr. Kohlberg, the first time
he came to see you, did he come in order to tell you he had seen Sen-
ator McCarthy ?
Mr. BuDExz. No.
Senator Greex. He came for some purpose ; didn't he?
Mr. BuDExz. I think that was the second time that he spoke about
Senator McCarthy.
Senator Green. What was the first time, then ?
Mr. BuDEXz. Well, tlie first time, I think that I had left word that
he should get in touch with me because I was interested in this case
of Hewitt.
Senator Greex-. About what?
Mr. BuDEXz. George Hewitt, the ex-Communist.
Yon see, Mr. Hewitt was a Negro Communist who became quite ill,
and before that, however, Mr. Kohlberg, I think, employed him. At
any rate, I was very interested in Mr. Hewitt, and things — I think we
discussed him.
Senator Greex. Mr. Kohlberg was very much interested in this
investigation; was he not?
Mr. Budexz. He was interested in it, but he did not discuss it very
much with me.
Senator Greex. That day, you may have mentioned it incidentally,
you mean ?
Mr, BuDEX-z. We may have mentioned it.
Senator Green. Why did he come back the next day ?
Mr. BuDEx-z. I say, the day I remember he came was the day that
Senator McCarthy was in New York, and if I recollet correctly, it
may have -been that Mr. Kersten told me, if I can recollect — Mr.
Kohlberg told nie very hurriedly, because he was only in the house
a very sliort time, that Senator McCarthy would not call me, as I
understand it.
Senator Green. You don't remember anything else about the con-
versation ?
Mr. BuDENZ. Well, we discussed China and other things.
Senator Green. What his views of China were, from a pro-
Chiang
Mr. BuDEX'^z.Yes.
Senator Green. And he had been?
Mr. BuDENZ. I cannot see why anyone cannot be for Chiang Kai-
sliek. He is not tln-eatening to destroy it, but the Chinese Communists
are. My point is. I Avill talk to anybody anti-Communist. I will talk
to Archbishop Yu Pin. I have had many talks with Yu Pin, arch-
bishop of Nanking, and he can be accused of being pro-Chiang Kai-
shek, too. He is interested in the missionaries who are going to be
slaughtered by the Chinese hordes and other people.
622 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Green. That is no test of loyalty, whether you are for or
against Chiang Kai-shek.
Mr. BuDENZ. The only point I want to make is, my association I
have, any association I have with Mr. Kohlberg, was on the same
friendly basis and association that I have with many other people.
Senator Green. I would think it would be very natural, if you
knew that Mr. Kohlberg was very much interested in the Chinese
question and that he would doubtless be interested in the Lattimore
case
Mr. BuDENz. Undoubtedly he was.
Senator Green. He must have known that you might be called as
a witness, and one day he came to you from Senator McCarthy and
told you that you would not be called. What else had he to say about
the Lattimore case ?
Mr. BuDENZ. We discussed very little at all. I can't think of a
thing he said about it, except his general statements in regard to the
people who were friendly to the Chinese Communists. We did not
have a detailed discussion, he and I, on any material
Senator Green. In general?
Mr. BuDENz. Or about Mr. Lattimore.
Senator Green. In general, what did he say about the Lattimore
case?
Mr. BuDENz. I don't know that he said anything in particular that
I can recall.
Senator Green. He must have mentioned that things might have
been going well, or going badly, or that Lattimore was a liar, or
that Lattimore was this, that, and the other.
Mr. BuDENz. As a matter of fact, to a large extent, I avoided the
Lattimore case in detail, because I have been aware that there had
been an attack on Mr. Kohlberg, and I am friendly to Mr. Kohlberg
but certainly not influencing Mr. Kohlberg; never have been.
Senator Green. I don't know what attack you have heard of, but
did you talk to Mr. Kohlberg about the attack on him, or did he men-
tion it to you ?
Mr. BuDENz. Some time in the past I think we have; yes, I joked
with him about it.
Senator Green. But not on these 2 days.
Mr. BuDENz, Not that I recall.
Senator Green. Are you positive that you did not ?
Mr. BuDENz. I don't recall exactly, because, as I say, Mr. Kohlberg
came in while Mr. Kersten was there. I mean, during those days
when they arrived, and I don't recall the conversation of each one.
As a matter of fact, what I was trying to do was to organize my own
thinking independently of other people so I could present it to Mr.
Morgan, and was in a hurry to dispense with discussing it with
people
Senator Green. Excuse me, had you had any other messages from
Senator McCarthy?
Mr. BuDENZ. Well, I understand Dr. Matthews called me up orig-
inally. He had learned that I knew something about Mr. Lattimore.
I was very cautious in speaking over the telephone, however, as I
always am, and stated that anything I have to say about Mr. Latti-
more will have to be said in a nonpartisan way, before a committee,
under subpena.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 623
Senator Green. Can you tell us — that was a telephone conversation,
you say'^
JNIr. BuDENZ. Yes, Senator.
Senator Green. Did you have any other conversation, personally,
with him?
Mr. Budenz. Never with him, or anybody, on this question, in detail.
Senator Green. Any other question?
Mr. Budenz. Senator, when Mr. Morris and Mr. Kersten came to
my house of tlieir own volition, I discussed briefly the case, although
I didn't give the full evidence, kept it to myself, until I saw Mr.
Morgan.
Senator Green. '\Anien was it that you last saw Mr. Matthews ?
Mr. Budenz. Oh, I haven't seen him personally for years. I know
him. You see
Senator Green. "When Avas this telephone conversation ?
Mr. Budenz. That was very recently.
Senator Green. What day?
Mr. Budenz. I would have to check on that and advise you, Sena-
tor, for this reason : You understand, a number of things have hap-
pened. I told you I shall send here to the committee the letter, if I
can recover it, that Senator McCarthy first wrote me, which was after,
as I understand it, the Lattimore case was already in the papers, be-
cause he refers to Owen Lattimore there as somebody.
Senator Green. A letter from Senator McCarthy?
Mr. Budenz. That is right.
Senator Green. Do you know him, or did you know him ?
Mr. Budenz, Senator McCarthy ?
Senator Green. Yes.
Mr. Budenz. I never heard of him except as a Senator.
Senator Green. Until you got the letter ?
Mr. Budenz, That is right.
Senator Green, That was the first communication you had, either
oral or in writing?
Mr. Budenz. That is right.
Senator Green. You had no oral message from him?
Mr, Budenz, That is all.
Senator Green. And later, the message?
Mr, Budenz. That is right.
Senator Green, How did you happen to discuss with Mr, Matthews
the Lattimore case?
JNIr, Budenz, He raised it : Mr, Matthews I know very well
Senator Green. Why should he have raised it with you ?
Mr. Budenz. He was the investigator for the Dies committee. He
also is an expert on communism for the Hearst magazines, and in
that connection apparently learned that I knew something about Mr.
Lattimore. He intimated in his telephone conversation as to that,
and I didn't say whether I did or not.
Senatoi- Green, I am not asking you what you said. What did he
say about Lattimore to you ?
Mr, Budenz, He said, "I undei-stand you know something about
Owen Lattimore as a Communist."
Senator Green, Did he say anything about testifying?
Mr, Budenz. I tokl him, ''Whatever I have to say about Mr. Latti-
more must be on a nonpartisan basis, under subpena."
624 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Green. Did he ask Avhether you were willing to testify?
Mr. BuDENz. I don't think he used the word "willing."
Senator Green. What did he say about it?
Mr. Budenz. Well, he indicated that he wanted me to testify, and
I said I would not except under subpena and on a nonpartisan basis.
Senator Green. Was that before or after you talked to Mr.
Ivohlberg ?
Mr. Budenz. May I say something off the record?
Senator Green. Why ?
Mr. Budenz. So I can explain.
Senator Green. Do you have any objection to putting it on the
record ?
Mr. Budenz. I will tell you why, Senator, and then we wall see.
(There was discussion off the record.)
Senator Green. I don't see what that had to do with your expla-
nation of my question.
Mr. Budenz. I M'as explaining to you why I took that position to
Mr. Matthews. I didn't catch it.
Senator Green. You were talking to Mr.. Matthews— was it before
or after you talked to Mr. Kohlberg?
Mr. Budenz. Before.
Senator Green. Before ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. So, you knew, then, that they were looking for you
to testify, that you would refuse, and this was a message brought by
Mr. Kohlberg from Senator McCarthy ; is that right— or it may have
been — that they would not call you ?
Mr. Budenz, That is right.
Senator Green. That is right?
Mr. Budenz. That is correct.
Senator Green. Well, now, you mentioned also, wdio was it, Con-
gressman Kersten ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. Where did he come into this ?
Mr. Budenz. I know Congressman Kersten, and have for many
years. He was on the House Labor Committee. When he was inves-
tigating communism I was just as reluctant to testify for him as I
have been to testify all along.
He just called up and came out to my house, and I did not go into
any
Senator Green. How often had you talked to him about this case?
Mr. Budenz. I think — once.
Senator Green. Only once?
Mr. Budenz, Yes, sir.
Senator Green. Where was that?
Mr, Budenz. At my home.
Senator Green. In New York ?
Mr. Budenz. Out of New York — yes, sir.
Senator Green. He came to you to talk to you about it?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. The Lattimore case?
Mr. Budenz. That is right.
Senator Green. What did he tell you; what advice did he give you?
STATE DEPARTMEA'T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 625
Mr, BuiM'.Nz. Ho didn't have any advice to g-ive me. As a matter
of fact, 1 ditl not disclose to INIr. Kersten what my testimony was to
be. Apparently Mv. Kersten had come to learn what my testimony
mi<j:ht be.
After all. Senator McCarthy didn't know what I was <i()ino; to say,
but I felt reluctant to go into this matter, although I received him in
a friendh' manner.
Senator Green. Well, did you think that they were trying to find
■out what your testimony was going to be, if called?
Mr. BuDENz. Oh, I think so.
Senator Giueen. Did they not know ; did they not assume that you
were with them?
Mr. Blt)enz. Well, I think they assumed I was not with them. I
am not with anybody.
Senator Green. That your testimony would back up their position ?
Mr. Budenz. Well, I think they assumed I w-as not wath them. I
am not with anybody.
Senator Green. That your testimony would back up their position?
Mr. Budenz. They may have, but they didn't know what I was
going to say.
Senator Green. You didn't tell any of them what vou were going
totestify, if called?
Mr. Budenz. Only in a general way. I told them in a general way.
Senator Green. In a general way, you did, then?
Mr. Budenz. The first time I told them — to the counsel of the com-
mittee, I did tell Mr. Morris, since I understood he was cocounsel, in
a general way what it was; but I did not go into the details.
Senator Green. When you saw^ Mr. Morris, you had already seen
Kersten and Matthews and Kohlberg?
Mr. Budenz. I hadn't seen Matthews at all.
Senator Green. You talked with him.
Mr. Budenz. Yes. I had.
Senator Green. He came in last, as far as that is concerned?
Mr. Budenz. That is right.
Senator Green. So you had discussed the matter ?
Mr. BUDE.NZ. Very briefly.
Senator Green, With the other three, before you saw Mr. Morris?
Mr. Budenz. Yes.
Senator Green. I think that is about all, except — have you given
any information to any Government agency about Lattimore? I
want that plain in the record.
Mr. Budenz. To the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Senator Green. When w^as that done for the first time ?
Mr. Budenz. That was done, as I said, w^ithin the last several weeks.
Senator Green. After the committee was appointed?
Mr. Budenz. That is correct; yes, sir. In my recollection, I may
have discussed it.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Budenz. I have one line I would like to pursue,
in questioning, and that just briefly. That is with respect to the mat-
ter of definitions that would be helpful to us in this record.
I think the general understanding of most of us relative to the
Communist problem is something like this : That we have formal mem-
bership in the Communist Party; and that, of those who are formally
626 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
members, we have those who are openly members and those who are
secretly members ; and then, additionally, we have those who are, we
might say, affiliated with the party; we call them fellow travelers,
those who pursue the party line.
Mr. BuDENZ. That is correct.
Mr. Morgan. For our record, would you be good enough to give us
something by way of a definition for those categories ? What I mean
is — would a fellow traveler be subject to party discipline?
Mr. BuDENZ. A fellow traveler normally would not be subject to
party discipline. The phrase, "under Communist discipline," which
is very much used, at least was very much used during the latter period
of my membership, means one who acts like a fellow traveler but is
really a Communist. As a matter of fact, most of the fellow travel-
ers are Communists. There is only a very small group of the type
of Albert Einstein and Thomas Mann and people of that kind who,
because of their eminent positions, would certainly feel insulted to be
under Communist discipline. They are fellow travelers in the sense
that they sign many statements under the influence of the people
around them.
Senator Green. They do not take this pledge ?
Mr. Budenz. They do not, but those under Communist discipline,
they necessarily do not take that pledge, either.
incidentally, I did not tell the whole story about the pledge. This
pledge I gave was to the leaders, those who were going to be in a lead-
ing position. There is also a general pledge I was trying to dig up
which Browder gave to two or three thousand recruits publicly at
Manhattan Center, New York — a very interesting pledge. If I can
get hold of that, I will put that in the record.
At any rate, there is a difference between a pledge of the rank and
filer, and someone they expect to lead
Senator Green. You have such a large library, it must be there
somewhere.
Mr. Budenz. It is there, all right.
That exhausts that subject.
Mr. Morgan. What I had in mind, though, was this : A fellow trav-
eler is not a member of the party, is that correct ?
Now, when Jacob or Jack Stachel indicates to you that one is to be
regarded as a Communist, does he mean by that the individual may
be a fellow traveler upon whom the party is depending, or does he
mean by that that he is an individual who is formally affiliated, or a
member of the party, or can it be either one?
Mr. Budenz. A fellow traveler is looked upon, until he becomes a
Communist, with a certain contempt. Therefore, he would not des-
ignate him except in that category. Very definitely, the Communist
Party is a military organization, in its organization. That is to say,
it must have the proper categories of people very clearly defined.
Therefore, when he speaks about a man, "Consider him as a Commu-
nist," he does not mean a fellow traveler.
Mr. Morgan. Now, unless you have some objection, Mr. Budenz, I
would like, inasmuch as we are going into this Amerasia situation,
to go down the line of some of the officers of that publication, and
ask if you can identify them for us.
Do you have the patience to wait here, Senator ? I think it will be
helpful to us.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 627
Senator Grekx. If yon think it wonld be, I will be fjlad to wait,
Mr. Budenz wants to get away, and I think you had better ask him
now.
Mr. IMoRGAx. Frederick V. Field was a chairman of the editorial
board from ID-'^T to 1944, accordino- to our inquiry. He had nine signed
articles in 1044, and lie appears also to have had an article, or articles,
in 1944 and 1945. You have already identified him as a member
of the Communist Party ; is that correct ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, and Mr. Field identifies himself again in his
recent article in which he declares China is a terrific blow to American
imperialism, namely, to the United States. He put himself completely
on the side of the Chinese Communists.
Mr. IMoRGAN. Philip Jaffe, he w^as managing editor of this publica-
tion from 1937 to 1945. You also, I believe, identified him as a member
of the Communist Party.
Mr. BuDExz. Mr. Jaffe is not only a member of the party, but is a
Soviet espionage agent.
Mr. ISIoRGAN. T. A. Bisson was a member of the editorial board from
1937 to 1944. Do you identify him as a member of the Communist
Party?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir, from my official information.
Mr. Morgan. William W. Lockwood was a member of the editorial
board from 1941 to 1943. Do you identify him as a member of the
Communist Party ?
Mr. Budenz. No, sir ; I cannot.
Mr. Morgan. Edward C. Carter was a contributor to the publication.
Do you identify him as a member of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir ; definitely he is a member.
Mr. Morgan. Owen Lattimore, who was a member of the editori-al
board: I think we already have our record rather replete as to him.
Benjamin Kizer was a member of the editorial board from 1942 to
1944. Do you identify him as a Communist ?
Mr. Budenz. Unfortunately, I must. He is an eminent lawyer on
the Pacific coast — a Communist.
Mr. ^Morgan. Kate Mitchell, a member of the editorial board from
1941 to 1945, do you identify her
Mr. Budenz. I identify her as a Communist.
Mr. Morgan. Harriet Moore, who was a member of the editorial
board from 1943 to 1944, do you
Mr. Budenz. I know" her as a Communist.
Mr. Morgan. Anna Louise Strong w^as a contributor, and I believe
you have already commented saying she was a member of the Com-
munist Party.
]Mr. Budenz. That is correct.
Mr. Morgan. Of these people, Mr. Budenz, and I will show you the
list I have just read, how many of them do you know personally — just
name them. That will be sufficient.
Mr. Budenz. Frederick Vanderbilt Field, Philip Jaffe, although
I haven't seen liim for some time ; Kate Mitchell ; Harriet Moore, and
Anna Louise Strong.
^Ir. Morgan. "With respect to the others, you know them to be
Communists, on the same basis, let us say, as you indicated in your
testimony with respect to Mr. Lattimore ?
Mr. Budenz. That is correct.
628 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. MoRCxAN. That is all.
Senator Green. Are there any other questions ?
Mr, Morgan. I believe that is all I have.
Senator Green. Mr. Budenz, do you have anything that we have
omitted to ask you, that you feel you should tell us ?
Mr. Budenz. Only this : That I would like to say I shall be glad to
cooperate with the committee in the Amerasia case, so far as I can, in
furnishing information to counsel, or in returning when it may seem
desirable, if it is desirable.
Secondly," I want to assure the committee that my first statement
still holds good, that I have come here in a nonpartisan spirit ; that I
have had no one contact me in regard to my testimony, so far as making
suggestions or formulating it ; that as a matter of fact. Senator Mc-
Carthy did not know what I was going to say.
And, finally, that I do stand, I want to say, for a strong, nonparti-
san policy against communism. That that could be fulfilled would
be my greatest hope.
Senator Green. Thank you very much.
I should think that it would be very difficult, after being an active
Communist for 10 years, or even a less time, and learning their ways,
their attitude toward the truth, put it that way, to change back to
your original attitude before you became a Communist.
Mr. Budenz. You see. Senator, I was fortunate, in my opinion. I
returned to the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has the great
idea of redemption. It seems to be getting lost in the w^orld today.
Its leaders, I am not comparing myself to them, but its leaders
most were people who reformed. St. Paul killed St. Stephen, the
first martyr, and became a great Christian. St. Peter defied Christ.
St. August led a life of attacking the Church, and repented and joined
it.
Senator Green. But, in all those cases, they had not been Christians
first and then apostate, and then again Christians.
Mr. Budenz. St. Peter reneged for a time.
Of course, I have always said. Senator, that I did not ask anyone
to take my word alone, let the confirmatory evidence speak for itself.
However, this is true^ — ^that I was attacked by Mr. Santos and his
friend, and he had to seek refuge in Hungary after my testimony, and
after the facts came out.
I was attacked by Mr. Peters bitterly, and he had to return to Eu-
rope,
I was attacked by Mr. Eisler, and he is back in the fatherland, and
that was the most vituperous assault upon me. He had to return.
I may say that I have a certain record of public service — and that
is without my testimony,
Senatoi" Green, I don't mean to imply it is impossible, but all I
said, it should be very difficult to change to a different attitude of
mind.
Mr, BuDDENZ. It is not, because you understand. Senator, a Com-
munist tells tlie truth except for the cause.
Senator Green. You mean, when you lose your confidence in the
caUvSe, you wouldn't lie for the cause, but if you believe in some other
great cause, the same frame of mind might shift your lying for the
cause.
Mr. Budenz. You have a check there.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 629
Senator GREf:x. What is tliat ?
Mr. BuDEXz. You have learned ah-eady, (1) tlie faUacy of the Len-
inist morality. I mean, you have learned it vividly, what a degrading
morality it is. You have learned thereby, one of the revolts against it»
Secondly, you have also had certain instruments at hand, namely —
well, in my case, people have ditferent instruments but in my case the
Catholic sacrament.
In other words, I am able to say that after all I am a different man
than 5 vears ago.
Senator Green. Admitting all that, I should think it will be difficult
to change from one type of mind to another. For instance, a child is
brought np gradually and finds that lying is wrong, and it becomes
abhorrent to him. Xow, later in life, not talking about an individual,
but in generalities, he has to learn that for a great cause which is
above the ordinary questions of morality, it is right to lie because
that justifies it, and I should think it would be very hard to lay that
aside, if you were interested in some other great cause, it might be
religion, it might be socialism, and not think it was justifiable to lie
for that. That is my point.
Mr. BuDENz. Not when you have embraced the philosophy which
makes for truth. Senator, and the reason you embraced that philos-
ophy is because jou have found deceit on the Leninist basis to be in-
correct.
Let us understand this, however, that the Communist does not use
deceit every day. The whole idea that he is a psychopathic liar is
ridiculous. What he does is to interpret events according to the
Stalinist orders. From that point, he then proceeds to try to de-
ceive others along the same line, but he may be, in his personal deal-
ings, one of the most — as a matter of fact, many of them are the
most straightforward persons, and that is the way they deceive
people so.
In other words, this is different from the case of a psychopathic
liar who just lies for the pleasure of it.
Senator Green. I can see that difference, but he would lie as to a
fact, not an opinion, something that it is not possible to have two
opinions about, such as whether the sun shown last Saturday or not,
and if it served his purpose, I should think that for the great cause,
he would lie about that, wouldn't he ?
Mr. BuDENZ. Well, not when a man has changed his life in such a
way as leaving communism means.
Senator Green. I mean, when he was a Communist, he would.
Mr. BuDENz. When lie was a Communist, he would do that which
would serve the cause. Of course, he might do it shrinkingly, de-
pending on how steeled he was, he might hesitate to do it, but he
woi'ild have to do it.
Now, however, when he breaks with the Communists — I think my-
self the most truthful people in the world are the ex-Communists,
on the whole, and for this simple reason: They have learned how
utterly incorrect is the morality of Lenin, the morality of deceiving
for the sake of the cause. They have learned that in pain and suf-
fering.
I want to assure you. after thinking this was the great hope, after
thinking this was the emancipator of the working people, thinking
630 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
the perfect man was going to rise in Soviet Russia, when they see
wliat has developed, then they certainly have a resurrection within
themselves, on the whole.
Senator Tydings. I want to thank you for all your cooperation,
Mr. Budenz.
(Whereupon, at 5: 40 p. m., the subcommittee stood adjourned.)
STATE DEPAETMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
TUESDAY, APRIL 25, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appoinit:d Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington^ D. C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 7 : 30 p. m. in the
caucus room, room 318, Senate Office Building, Senator Millard E.
Tydings, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings, Green, McMahon, Hickenlooper, and
Lodge.
Also present : Senator McCarthy : Mr. Edward Morgan, chief coun-
sel of the subcommittee; and Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel to
the subcommittee.
Senator Tydings. The committee will come to order.
Who is the first witness, Mr. Morgan?
Mr. Morgan, Dr. Dodd.
Senator Tydings. Dr. Dodd, before you are seated, will you hold
up your right hand and be sworn ?
t)o you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give in the matter
pending before this committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Dr. Dodd. I do.
Senator Tydings. Take a seat, please.
Senator McJNIahon. Mr. Chairman, before the witness commences to
testify, I would like to say that I made an engagement about a month
ago to preside at a dinner at the jMayfloAver Hotel at 8 o'clock and I
therefore will be obliged to leave at least by 5 minutes of 8, and I
wanted the record made clear as to the reason for it.
Senator Tydings. Sorry you have to go. Senator.
TESTIMONY OF DE. BELLA V. DODD
Senator Tydings. Dr. Dodd, give us your full name.
Dr. Dodd. Bella Y. Dodd, D-o-d-d.
Senator Tydings. And your place of residence.
Dr. Dodd. 235 West Seventy-fifth Street, Manhattan.
Senator Tydings. Have you an occupation at present?
Dr. Dodd. I am an attorney.
Senator Tydings. You are over 21?
Dr. Dodd. Unfortunately.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead with your statement, then.
631
68970 — .50— pt. 1 — —41
632 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Dr. DoDD. Senator Tydings and gentlemen of the committee, I have
come here because you have summoned me. I am here to answer your,
subpena and I will under oath give truthfully whatever information
I have on the subject of your inquiry.
This committee has a right to know who I am and what is my back-
ground in order to judge my statements.
I was born of God-fearing, simple working people. I was the young-
est in a family of 10. I was educated in the public schools and
graduated from Hunter College in 1925. I did graduate work in
political science at Columbia University and I obtained my law degree
at New York University in 1930. On mj^ graduation from college,
I became a teacher. For 13 years I taught at Hunter College in the
department of political science and economics. During my teaching
career at Hunter College I was admitted to the New York bar. How-
ever, I continued to teach after my admission to the bar because I
was particularly interested in the field of education.
I became politically active in the early 1930's. This was a period of
great dislocation in our national economy and all thinking people
were looking for solutions to the problems facing our country. I was
deeply shocked by the conditions created by unemployment which
faced so large a portion of our population. Like other public institu-
tions the American schools also were in a bad way during this period
and I became interested in taking action to save our schools and to im-
prove the economic condition of the school teachers. I joined the
American Federation of Teachers and began to organize for the New
York locals. In 1935 my union asked me to serve as its legislative
representative because of my knowledge of public aifairs and my
ability to draft a legislation.
So convinced was I that organized labor was the strongest arm in
support of education that I resigned my position from the staff at
Hunter College to take a job as a teachers' union official (even though
the salary was considerably^ less than I earned as a teacher) .
From 1935 to 1943, 1 devoted most of my efforts to organized labor.
When you are involved in the labor movement, there are so many
rami •"■cations into which you are drawn, that it is hard to explain or
comment upon them. In 1936, I took part in the organization of the
American Labor Party, set up initially by the unions, for the reelection
of President Roosevelt. I continued to function in the American Labor
Party as an official until 1944. I ran for public office on that ticket.
I functioned in the struggle against fascism because I had seen it in
action in Europe at the beginning of the 1930's, at which time I visited
both Berlin and Rome.
In 1932 I became acquainted with leaders of the American Com-
munist Party who were organizing anli-Fascist organizations. After
my trip to Europe, I was so convinced that fascism meant the destruc-
tion of our moral values, that I cooperated with the Communists on
var-'O'is projects to build an anti-Fascist movement.
With the creation of the CIO in 1930, I became involved in the
struggle for unity in the labor movement and for the expansion of
trade-union organization. There were Communists in most of the
organizations in which I worked — whether building the CIO, the
American Labor Party, the fight against retrenchment in education,
tl\e fight against Fascism, and the struggle for peace. I learned to
respect many of the Communists as effective fighters for these projects.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 633
I was SO miu-li coiiconiod with the immediate objectives that I did
not stop to think of the ultimate vahies. Everywhere I found that
wlien Communists supported you they were effective allies'. This
affected me particularly durino- tlie years 1938, 1939, and 1940, when
a violent attack was made upon education in the State of New York
characterized by severe retrenclunent in budgetary appropriations. I
needed the help of all the allies I could get.
During tliis period, I was trusted by the Communists and invited to
many of their meetings. I frequently consulted wnth their leaders who
had experience in the trade-union movement. I, in turn, was called
upon by them to give opinions and analysis of public affairs. I came
to know Earl Browder, Jack Stachel, Bill Foster, and many others in
the top leadership of the Communist Party.
The period of the war brought increased cooperation with the
Communists through every progressive organization. I can truth-
fully say that the Communists were hard workers in building national
morale for the winning of the war.
Toward the end of 1943, 1 agreed to join the Communist Party and
to take a post in the organization. At that time, because of the co-
operation between the Allies, that is, the United States, England, Rus-
sia, and China, and because there was projected a continued cooperation
in the postwar period, I felt that it was extremely important to de-
vote my energies to what I then believed to be a vital organization for
national unity. I made arrangements with my union to be released
from my position as legislative representative, and from all other
posts, because I felt that that was the honest and fair thing to do to my
union.
During the period of the national front, that is, during the war
period, I had been drawn close to many Communist leaders because
of my broad interests in politics, labor, and education. I served as
associate editor of the New Masses, which was a weekly publication
under the guidance of the Communist Party. This publication de-
voted much space to international affairs and I frequently sat in
on such discussions.
After I joined the party, I became legislative representative for
New York State. I served on many national committees. These dealt
with such subjects as legislation, politics, labor, international affairs,
taxation, and finance. In 1944, 1 became editor of a publication called
the New York State of Affairs which was devoted to an analysis of
the functioning of our State government. I was elected to the New
York State Committee and to the New York State Board, which is the
highest executive group in New York State. In the summer of 1944,
I was elected a member of the national committee of the Communist
Party. I was given this position because of my long service to the
labor movement.
Tlie year 1944 was one I will long remember. I was chiefly as-
signed to the national election campiagn and to legislative work in
Washington and Albany.
From 1932 to the attack upon Pearl Harbor, one of the questions
which the Communist Party constantly stressed was that of peace.
As a political scientist, I spoke and wrote on this C{uestion frequently,
first as a nonparty member and later as a party member. I was deeply
conscious of the fact that China, with the occupation of Manchuria
634 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
by the Japanese and with her continued internal civil war, was a focal
point of infection for spreading the war to the rest of the world. Dur-
ing- this time I sat in on many conferences and meetings with x^arty
leaders on international affairs where China and the Far East were
discussed. In 1045, 1 had the pleasure and task of entertaining three
Chinese delegates to the San Francisco conference. These men were
part of the Chinese united front and were appointed by Chiang Kai-
shek to represent China at the San I*'rancisco conference. As I re-
member, one of them was secretary to Mao Tse-tung, one was the editor
of the Shanghai Daily Worker and the other was a former president
of the Chinese Teachers' Union. I might say here inferentially that
they did not think very highly of the Institute for Pacific Relations.
They referred to it as a vehicle for either British or American intelli-
gence. I remember entertaining these gentlemen the evening of
October 8 — which was my birthday.
Senator Tydings. What year was that?
Dr. DoDD. 1944.
We went to a night club and they each wrote me a message of good
wishes in Chinese. I have one of the cards still and I offer it for your
committee files.
From 1945 on, I found myself in increasing opposition to certain
jjolicies of the American Communist Party. I did not resign or leave
its membership in a blaze of publicity. Instead, I struggled against
wdiat I felt were wrong policies. These were difficult and tragic years.
As a result of my struggles during a period o'f over 4 years — from
1945 to 1949 — I was expelled from the Conmninist Party in June of
1949 after unwarranted and slanderous charges had been preferred
against me.
I am not now a member of the Communist Party and I have no
ties with it whatsoever. Indeed, I am not a member of any political
group. I am one of the increasing army of Americans who are inde-
pendent in politics.
The period since mj expulsion has been one of severe hardship
morally, physically, and financially. The campaign of slander and
the smearing of my name by the Communists has caused me untold
agony and harm. Indeed, I want to forget the entire episode.
It is painful for me to come here today. I do so only in the firm
belief that no one has the right to remain silent when injustice is being
done to anyone. I do so also because I believe that the security of
our country is being menaced by irresponsible forces which would
provoke a holy war which can well result in the complete destruction
of our civilization.
I had never met Owen Lattimore before the press made me shake
hands with him here tonight. In all my association with the Com-
munist Party I never heard his name mentioned by party leaders or
members of the party, either as a party member or as a fellow traveler
oi- even as a friend of the Communist Party.
Since this controversy started, liowever, I have read Owen Latti-
more's two most recent books, namely. Solution in Asia, published in
1945 and The Situation in Asia, published in 1949. To me, these are
scholarly works. However, I must call your attention to the fact that
neither of these books represents the Communist position on China.
Anyone who thinks that they do, either has not read these books, or
is a political illiterate — or has a special stake in creating confusion.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 635
If you read the books, you will find that Owen Lattimore makes a plea,
as a ca]">italist, for an orderly relationshij) with C'liina so that trade
with American business can rapidly be established. Lattimore calls
for the building of a Chinese middle class, and like all those who
established capitalism in the western world a century and a half ago,
Lattimoi-e is impatient with the backwardness of the feudal regime
represented by the Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek. Lattimore
calls for a program much like that followed by the Biitish in India.
This position is contrary to the Communist position. Indeed, it is
anathema to the Communists.
I am profoundly disturbed by the technique used here by Senator
McCarthy and his witness Louis Budenz — of destroying confidence
in the ability of our Government to deal with the present world crisis.
I think we might all give support to the statement made last night by
President Truman when he said to my colleagues in the legal profes-
sion—
In short, we are not going to end democracy. We are going to keep the Bill
of Riuhts on tlie books. We are going to keep those ancient, liard-earned liber-
ties which yon lawyers have d<nie so much to preserve and protect.
If we all work tooether to maintain and strengthen onr democratic ideals,
connnunism will never be a serious threat to our American way of life.
This is important —
The example we set for freemen everywhere will help roll back the tide.
The technique currently used to destroy people is to declare them
guilty by association.
Character assassination is an evil thing no matter who uses it or
when. It is a tactic which present leaders of the Comnmnist Party
have used upon me and against others. Mr. Budenz, b}^ what I am
compelled to consider dishonest testimony, has adopted the same
tactic.
It has been my privilege in the years I served in the labor move-
ment and in various political struggles, to have personally known both
of the Senators from New York who now are yoiu- colleagues. Sen-
ator Ives and Senator Lehman. I often discussed political ques-
tions and legislative questions with Senator Lehman — when he was
our Governor. On many questions we agreed — on some we differed.
He cannot be called a Communist because he talked with me.
I fought vSenator Ives when he first introduced loyalty bills in
Albany, but I later worked with him in support of a decent educa-
tional budget and sound labor laws. I supported him in his fight for
FEPC and for merit rating. Did this make Irving Ives a Com-
munist?
I have known Governor Dewey from the very inception of his
political career in New York. I served on a committee to insure
his election as district attorney and had the occasion to discuss social
and legislative questions with him. Does this make Tom Dewey a
Conmumist ?
I have a high personal regard and affection for our Lieutenant Gov-
ernor, Joe K. Hanley, as a Republican. Does the fact that our per-
sonal relations were good and that he freciuently gave me advice, make
him a Communist?
I am reducing this question to absurdity because I do not believe
that "guilt by association" belongs in American public life.
636 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I have here a batch of letters, 14 or 15 letters. Unfortunately, I
had to sell my house this year and a lot of personal material was de-
stroyed. These letters were sent by various public leaders from both
parties on the occasion when I resigned from my official position
in the teachers union. Here is a letter from Herbert Rapp, a Repub-
lican, chairman of the Rapp-Coudert committee — a committee to
investigate budgets and communism in the New York Public
Schools — in which he states in part :
I first became acquainted with Dr. Dodd wlien I became chairman of the Rapp-
Coudert committee, and in the 4 years that I have held this position, I have had
occasion to contact Dr. Dodd on a great many occasions and would like to say
that she has always been fair in presenting lier view; and while at times we did
differ, I liave always found her very sincere and her wnrd v.ith nie lias always
been as good as a certified check.
I am very proud of that statement by Mr. Rapp.
Does this make Mr. Rapp, who was a chairman of a committee to
investigate communism, a Communist?
This batch of letters which I now put into the record is only a small
part of the evidences of my cooperation and association with men and
women of all parties on particular issues. It is fantastic that anyone
should be called a Communist merely because he either spoke to, as-
sociated with or agreed with me on specific questions. (Exhibit 79.)
It would be absurd to imagine that any of these men have Com-
munist leanings. They've expressed themselves against communism
repeatedly. But in politics and in the labor movement, the discussion
is hardly ever theoretical. People work together for immediate ob-
jectives regardless of party designation.
Now I would like to say a few words about Mr. Budenz. I knew
of Louis Budenz in 1935 when he left the Labor Age, a radical labor
sheet published by the so-called J. A. Muste group in Chicago. I
remember when he was employed by the Daily Worker, and wrote its
labor column. As a trade-union functionary I read the labor reports
in the Daily Worker as I did other newspapers. Louis Budenz was
sent to Chicago toward the end of 1937 to publish the Midwest Daily
Record. He remained in Chicago until 19t!:0 when the paper col-
lapsed. Therefore, I do not see how he could have had any so-called
directives about Lattimore during this period when he was in Chicago.
Budenz returned to New York in 1940 and was employed by the
Daily Worker. To the best of my knowledge he did not become man-
aging editor of the Dailv Worker until the end of 1942 or early in
1943. If Mr. Budenz will refresh his recollection he will recognize
that he was in error when he testified on April 20 before this body
that he became managing editor of the Daily Worker in 1940. He
may be confused because in 1940 he was made president of a dummy
corporation called Freedom of the Press which established the Daily
Worker as a corporation separate and apart from the Communist
Party. This did not make him managing editor, however. All of you
lawyers know how dummy corporations are set up in offices.
Budenz and I were both elected to the national committee in the
summer of 1944 at the national convention. I remember Louis Budenz
as an ineffective man who seldom took any part in the deliberations
of the national committee. I cannot bring into focus many of the
things he says about the Communist Party.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 637
For instance, his statement about Jack Stachel is laughable to any-
one who knows the party. Stachel was assigned to trade-union mat-
ters at the time Budenz testified that Stachel was givinir him names
to be remembered and instructions regarding Professor Lattimore.
Further, the Budenz testimony that Stachel shaped party policy
on orders from ^Moscow and through various underground leaders— is
to my knowledge ridiculous. Policy was shaped by the political
committee — now called the national board — and directives, if any,
were given by Earl Browder, the secretary of the party.
In reference to the 1,000 names which Mr. Budenz claims Stachel
gave him to memorize — I ask only one simple question, as a former
school teacher — who among us could even contemplate such a feat of
memory. I'd like to test Mr. Budenz on this by picking4,000 names at
random from any telephone book and giving him a month to memorize
fliem. Like most of us, I think he would flunk the examination.
This is not an endorsement of Mr. Stachel's work in the Communist
Party because I have stated previously that one of the reasons for my
ex]uilsion from the party was because of opposition to its recent labor
policies.
]Mr. Budenz says that Professor Lattimore was mentioned in secret
party memoranda as L or XL. This is playing cops and robbers with
a vengeance. In the first place, I never saw an onionskin document
such as Mr. Budenz says he was told to flush down the toilet. In the
second place, if Professor Lattimore had been as close to the party
as Budenz claims, he would have been asked to come to party head-
quarters for his instructions. Third, whatever errors we made in the
Communist Party we did not fall into the habit of taking our methods
from dime detective stories.
Again, I repeat I never heard Owen Lattimore's name mentioned
at any time in connection with management of the party.
During my 14 years of association with the Communist Party, first
as a fellow traveler, and then as a member and a functionary, I did not
find within it the atmosphere of secrecy and conspiracy which Louis
Budenz talks about. It was quite a normal thing for me to see non-
Communists and Communists associate themselves together in the
interests of' common causes, and no one in the party group objected
to this.
As for the exercise of discipline on nonparty members, this simply
is not true. The cooperation of nonparty members was solicited either
by discussion or persuasion. If this failed, we broke with them openly,
sometimes rather harshly through the press, but there was no such
tiling as exercising discipline.
Tliough I met with Earl Browder and subsequently with Bill Foster
on many occasions, I was never given any typewritten instructions as
to what to do, and I certainly was never given any instructions about
discipline for a nonparty person, as Louis Budenz claims he got in
reference to Lattimore.
Further, Louis Budenz indicates that Lattimore was in a Com-
munist cell in 1041. Party fractions were abolished in 10?>9. In
1944 the structure of the party consisted of big street branches and
trade-union clubs, which were public and open to everyone. Cells
were unknown in 1944.
638 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Perhaps the most reckless and, certainly to a Communist, the most
absurd statement Mr. Budenz made in his testimony before this com-
mittee is that Professor Lattimore and other under cover party mem-
bers were given special dispensation to publicly oppose the party line.
In particular reference to Lattimore, Budenz states that such a dis-
pensation may have been given him to support the drive for Finnish-
aid funds during the Russo-Finnish War, and presently to others, to
support the Marshall plan. I can say from my own knowledge that
any Communist Party member or friend of the party who helped the
Finns in the Avar with the Soviets would have been instantly denounced
and driven from the circle. This is also ti'ue of support for the Mar-
shall plan at the present time. Let us reduce this to its ultimate
absurdity, gentlemen :
Mr. Budenz states that all Communist Party political directives
come from Moscow, With the known stubbornness of Stalin, Molotov,
Gromyko, and the others, can it be imagined that they would consent
to allow a voice as powerful as Professor Lattimore to be raised against
them ?
Further, Budenz stated tliat Lattimore was told to speak of the
Chinese Communists as agrarians much like the North Dakota Non-
partisan League. I just don't know where Mr. Budenz got that. If
Lattimore was told to treat the Chinese Communists in this way,
nothing in the literature issued by the Communist Party to its own
members betrays this directive. I am familiar with the literature on
this question, and nowhere, as I recollect, was this expression used.
Indeed, it is contrary to Communist thinking on the organization of
a Communist Party which emphasizes the importance of an indus-
trial core of workers rather than an agrarian basis for party organ-
ization.
When I was originally approached by Mr. Wellington Rowe, an
attorney, to testify in this hearing to give Mr. Lattimore's attorneys
an affidavit, I was reluctant to do so because since my expulsion from
the party I have been trying to live a private life, to think out anew
my whole approach to political questions and to devote myself exclu-
sively to my family and to my profession.
However, it is a sad time for our country if the fate of our public
men must rest on statements by men who are at least reckless and
l^erhaps unscrupulous. Public officials are practically being asked to
l^resent their loyalty certificates not only from the FBI but also from
Budenz or men like him.
Smearing of public citizens has become a greater racket in the
United States than horse racing or gambling and almost equally
profitable for the individuals engaged therein. Decent men and
women are harassed until the value of their special knowledge is lost
to our Nation. They are hounded and driven out of public life by
parasites.
Now, I have respect for honest differences of political opinion which
places a man or a woman in or out of different political parties, or on
opposite sides of public questions. However, I have no stomach for
those who join an organization, stay a few years, leave it and there-
after make a career of denouncing those they once called their friends.
This observation stands for Communists, Republicans, Socialists, or
Rotarians.
STATE DEPARTME^'T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 639
The present A'iolent concerted attack upon leaders of our foreign
policy by an organized group for whom Senator McCarthy appears
to be the s[)okesman and Louis Budenz the finger man, bears careful
study, and, indeed, to my mind investigation. If this is not done, no
one is safe who disagrees with their program. Senator McMahon
believes in negotiation and international control of the atom bomb.
Senator Tydings believes in total disarmament. Anyone who is for
disarmament — for a negotiation for peace and for a limitation of war
budgets is in danger of attack by this group.
When I saw the reference to General Marshall, I w^ould believe
almost that this group will attack even the President of the United
States.
The American people are not as crazy or as gullible as Mr. Budenz
thinks. The American people want their country strong and pre-
pared— but the American peo})le Avant a realistic progTam for peace.
I trust, and indeed I pray, that the members of this committee will,
in their deliberations, base their conclusions upon facts and not fan-
tasy. I have infinite faith in the vitality of our Government and our
country. We are not a sanctimonious people but we are a moral
people. Therefore, I know that you will not permit honest public
officials or prominent citizens to be destroyed by irresponsible allega-
tions. Nor will you permit public policy to be shaped by those who
v.^ould bludgeon you with fear. The stakes in this controversy are the
future of our country and the peace of the world.
Senator Tydixgs. Mr. Morgan ?
' Mr. MoRGAx. Mr. Dodd, I believe your testimony, particularly in
pertinent part, was to the effect that during your period of association
with the Connnunist Party, you did not hear Dr. Owen Lattimore
referred to in any manner, is that correct ?
Dr. DoDD. No.
Mr. MoRGAx. Again, I realize you have it in your statement, will
you give me the exact date that you entered the party, if you recall it?
Dr. DoDD. I joined the part}' — there were no definite moments or
moment at which I joined the party. I agreed to join the party at the
end of 1043. and I was actually working in the Communist Party by
lU-f4 as a functionarv.
Mr. MoRGAx. To the end of 19-44?
Dr. DoDi). No, the end of '43, I agreed to join, and I disentangled
myself from other conunitments and began to function and joined
the Communist Party in 1944.
Mr. MoRGAX. You were expelled from the party, at what time ?
Dr. DoDD. June 1949.
Mr. MoRGAx. Would you care to elaborate on the circumstances
attending your expulsion (
Dr. DoDD. I don't think they are pertinent to this particular inquiry
because it is a case of differences of opinion between myself and other
members of the Communis*: Party on many questions, including the
cpiestions of war, ])eace, labor, the question of organizing the Progres-
sive Party, and various other questions of that kind. There were a
multitude of questions on which I found myself in real difference with
the Communist Party.
Mr. MoRGAx. You are not now a member of the party?
Dr. DoDD. I am not a member of the Communist Party and have
no ties with it whatsoever.
640 STATE 'DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Are you ideologically a Commimist ?
Dr. DoDD. That is a difficult question. I still believe in the things
that drove me into the Communist Party. I believe in the brotherhood
of man. I believe we should not have unemployment. My belief in
peace is still there, but there are many conclusions that I have drawn
now which are different from the ones I drew in 1944, when I joined
the Communist Party.
I am no longer ready to permit myself to be a part of the organiza-
tional structure, such as the Communist Party has.
Mr. Morgan. I realize it would be difficult to answer that question,
perhaps, yes, or no.
I would like an answer a little closer, if I may. I think you appre-
ciate the tenets of the Communist Party, and the ideological princi-
ples, and I would like to ask you again if you subscribe to those prin-
ciples, ideologically, now?
Dr. DoDD. I believe in a program for peace, against unemployment,
and so on. I do not believe that these can be achieved l^y the organiza-
tion of a minority party. I think that these may be achieved by
uniting the people of the various political parties and various political
groups.
Is that closer?
Mr. Morgan. It helps a little. Doctor. AVhat I have in mind par-
ticularly, is — let us approach it this way : I believe that we can make
the comment, in view of the trial in New York not so long ago, and can
generally accept the principle that the Communist Party is dedicated,
1 believe, to a revolutionary approach in this country, relative to Amer-
ican institutions. Do you subscribe to that principle ?
Dr. DoDD. I do not, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Did you ever?
Dr. DoDD, I never did.
Mr. Morgan. Now, Dr. Dodd, in your statement there was some-
thing that intrigued me a little, and that was your comment about
this disdain, I believe you said, for one who leaves his former associ-
ates or colleagues and then informs concerning them.
Now, knowing, as you probably do, or did know, the purposes of
the Communist Party in this country, I would like to ask you if you
feel that that is altogether an unworthy motive on the part of one who
breaks with the party and seeks to acquaint the American Government
with the dangers inherent in the party?
Dr. DoDD. There is nothing wliich we should not do to preserve our
American democracy. I begin that way. If there is danger to our
Government, I think it is the obligation of every citizen to do every-
thing within his power to protect it.
I do not believe, however, that people who systematically make a
practice and a pi'ofession of informing on their past associates, whether
they remember things or do not remember them, is a very worthy
technique.
Mr. Morgan. You were a member of tlie party for a period of some
5 years. Have you at any time informed any agency of this Govern-
ment, of information that might be pertinent concerning the Com-
mimist conspiracy in America?
Dr. DoDD. That is a difficult question to answer. I have not in-
formed anyone of any Communist conspiracy. I was not aware of the
existence of such a conspiracy.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 641
Mr. ]\IoKGAX. Well, I do not care to pursue that particularly, Dr.
Dodd. But, back to the other questions: Have you acquainted any
ollicial agent or agency of this Government with the identities of any
Connnunists whom you knew while in the Communist Party in this
country?
Dr. DoDD. 1 have not.
Mr. Morgan. Have you written any expose, or any articles, or any
book concerning your association with the Communist Party?
Dr. DoDi). I have not written any exposes. I have, for my own
benefit, written a political analysis of my time in the Communist
Party, but that is not an expose. I do not consider that my function
in life.
Mr. MoRGAX. Has that book been published?
Dr. DoDD. No ; and do I intend to publish it ? No.
Mr. IVIoRGAX. Did you make any arrangements to have it published?
Dr. DoDD. I did not.
Mr. jNIorgax. You have made no arrangements to have it published?
Now, Dr. Dodd, I believe in his testimony before this committee
Mr. Budenz referred to a meeting in the year 1937 in New York City,
attended by Trachtenberg, Browder, and other top party function-
aries, at which the concept of seeking to influence the attitude, our
attitude toward the Chinese Communists was adopted, with the idea
of painting them as agrarian reformers, such as the North Dakota
Nonpartisan League.
You have an observation in your statement here that interests me
very much, and I would like you to elaborate on it, if you can. The
import of your statement is that Mr. Budenz was not in New York City
at that time, but was in Chicago, 111. Can you help us any on that?
Dr. Dodd. ]Mr. Budenz was sent out to Chicago, 111., at the end of
1937. I do not know the date to which he refers, as to the meeting he
described, but he was sent to Chicago at the end of 1937 and remained
there until 1940.
Mr. Morgan. I believe the best approximation he gave us was the
month of October
Dr. Dodd. I could not put my finger on the month that he went out
to Chicago. I wasn't that close.
Mr. MoroAN. You were not in the Communist Party at that time,
so you would not know anything about that meeting; is that right?
Dr. Dodd. I used to read the Daily Worker and Mr. Budenz wrote
the labor column for the Daih^ Worker at that time, and I knew when
he went to Chicago, because there was an interruption to his Avriting it.
Air. Morgan. AVhat I meant was, inasmuch as this was rather a ra-
ther closely held meeting, as the testimony would indicate, and neces-
sarily, would not be reported in the Daily Worker, my point is, at
that time, in 1937, you were not in the Communist Party?
Dr. Dodd. No: but I was working closely with it.
Mr, Morgan. Presumably, you would not have known of the meet-
ing of high Communist functionaries; is that correct?
Dr. Dov>D. That is correct.
Mr. Morgan. Now, in 1944, 1 believe, or was it 1945, you were placed
on the national committee?
Dr. Dodd. In 1944, both ^Nlr. Budenz and I were elected at the same
time to the national committee.
Mr. iSIoRGAN. Did you ever get on the national board ?
642 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOiSr
Dr. DoDD. No ; I did not.
Mr. JMoRGAN. Was Mr. Budenz ever on the national board?
Dr. DoDD. Never.
Mr. Morgan. To your know]edo:e, was Mr. Budenz ever permitted
to sit in on nieetinjrs of the national board — do 3'ou know that?
Dr. DoDD. Mr. Budenz, like many others who worked for the Com-
munist Party, would be called in from time to time on specific ques-
tions, to listen to a discussion of the question but, as far as the right
to attend these metings, he did not have that right.
Mr. Morgan. Now, of course, I do not like to pursue Mr. Budenz'
testimony, but you have brought it up in the statement, and therefore
I am going into it somewhat at this point.
I would like to ask you, Mr. Dodd, if, by reason of his position with
the Daily Worker, and his responsibility as an editor there, it would
appeal to you as logical or illogical that he would be acquainted with
the names of various individuals whom he might be called upon to
treat with, or whose writings he might be called upon to treat in the
Daily Worker ?
Dr. Dodd. Thi^t is not possible, for this reason : The editor of the
Daily Worker was never a member of the national board until June
of 1947. That was the first time we elected the editor to the national
board, and Mr. Budenz was not an editor at that time, he was out of
the Communist Party; nor did the Communist Party leadership go
around just handing out names of people, either of friends or anyone
else. It is a very unheard-of thing.
Mr. Morgan. Are you suggesting in your statement. Dr. Dodd, that
the Communist Party does not have individuals who are ostensibly
non-Communist, but who are in reality Communists, doing an under-
cover job for the party, let us say ?
Dr. Dodd. I am not suggesting that at all, but I don't have to state
it the way you stated it.
Mr. iMoRGAN. I ask you, how would 3^ou like to state it?
Dr. Dodd. There are people who are members of the Communist
Party who are not known and do not tell people they are members
of the Communist Party. This does not mean thev are agents or that
they are doing a job for the Connnunist Party. For instance, a per-
son may be employed by a firm which is anti-Communist, and that
person has come to the conclusion that he believes or is a believer in
communism, and he does not let his employer know he is a Communist.
That is just one of the natural things that has happened because of
the unpopularity of this political opinion. It is not anything new in
history. I i-emember the day when people, who organized trade-
unions, used to carry their trade-union card in the soles of their shoes,
and wouldn't let their bosses know they were trade-unionists.
It is all a development of political ideas, a development of social
ideals.
Mr. Morgan. You have referred here in your statement to the posi-
tion of Jacob or Jack Stachel, suggested that his function was i^ri-
marily in the labor movement, and that it would be highly unlikely
that he would be a liaison man, let us say, between the national board
or the political committee and the editor of the Daily Worker. Are
you certain of Mr. Stachel's function in that regard ?
Dr. Dodd. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. There was no doubt in your mind ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 643
Dr. DoDD. No doubt in my mind, because I consulted with Jack
Stachel any number of times on labor questions during that period.
]\Ir. Morgan. I have just a couple more concluding questions. You
say you have never seen, at any time, any of these reports submitted
on onionskin, referred to by Mr. Budenz; is that correct?
Dr. DoDD. Unless they were interdepartmental communications,
you know, unless j^ou sent a memorandum on down from the ninth
floor to the fifth floor saying, "We want three more pads of paper," or
something of that kind. I have never seen any — any messages of that
kind which were confidential and which you had to be secret about.
Mr. Morgan. Do you regard, Dr. Dodd, the Communist Party of
this country as a fifth column, inimicable to the security of the United
States?
Dr. Dodd. "Well, political parties differ at different periods of their
lives. The Republican Party in 1860 was a different institution than
the Republican Party of today. The Communist Party during the
period I was in it was, I think, an effective instrument for helping
to win the war, and to establish building-tracle unions. I have not
been in the Communist Party for over a year. I was in disagree-
ment with many in the party during the period of 4 years preceding
that. I cannot speak with authority about what the situation is today.
If the Communist Party becomes sectarian, or a narrow group
which meets in private, and meets in secret, then I think it is inimi-
cable to the interests of the country. If, however, espousing the mean-
ing of communism, that is, the brotherhood of man, they go out and
meet with the public and work with other political parties, I do not
believe it is inimicable to the welfare of this country. It depends
upon who is running the party.
Mr. Morgan. Well, what do you mean by that ?
Dr. Dodd. Well, it depends upon the ideals of the people who shape
its policy.
]\lr. Morgan. Has that changed materially in the last 10 j^ears ?
Dr. Dodd. It certainly has, it changed very materially in the spring
of 1945.
MV. Morgan. In what respect?
Dr. Dodd. Well, there was a total change or shift in policy.
Mr. Morgan. What are you referring to specifically, there?
Dr. Dodd. At that time, at the end of the war there was a complete
shifting of policy as to international relations, and on other questions;
a new leadership was selected.
Mr. ^loRGAN. You mean who specifically went out and who came in ?
Dr. Dodd. Earl Browcler went out and Bill Foster came in' as the
chhirman of the party.
Mr. INIoRGAN. Why did Browder go out?
Dr. Dodd. He was expelled.
Mr. Morgan. For what reason?
Dr. Dodd. Well, the members' of the Communist Party felt he had
followed a collaborationist party policy of working with other gi'oups,
and he projected a too soft policy for the postwar period.
Mr. Morgan. Well, would you, or would not suggest then that from
1945 forward, the Communist Party had been more or less inimicable
to the best interests of this country'than it was before 1945 ?
Dr. Dodd. Well, I would say before the period 1945, because the
Communist Party was going along with the main stream of the de-
644 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
velopment of the liistory here in this country, the building of the
CIO, the building of the trade-union movement, the building of social
security, and things of that kind, and the support of a war against
fascism — in those the Communist Party played a very fine role.
With the end of the war in which the readjustments which we had to
make for peace, both in this country and the readjustments we had
to make on the foreign-policy front, the Communist Party began fol-
lowing a policy which seemed to me too narrow a policy, a policy too
much committed to the support of what they thought was the support
of the Soviet Union.
Mr. Morgan. Dr. Dodd, is there a serious doubt in your mind but
that the Communist Party in this country is an extraterritorial arm
of the Soviet Union ?
Dr. DoDD. I don't think that is a good statement.
Mr. Morgan. I would like your statement on that.
Dr. DoDD. I think the Communist Party very foolishly attempts to
be the public relations center or ])ublicity center for the Soviet Union.
Whether you like the Soviet Union or not, it does not have to depend
upon that little gathering of 30.000 people down on Thirteenth Street
in New York for its public relations, and I think that we do the Soviet
Union an injustice when we think of it in connection with just the
American Communist Party. I think that the one good thing you can
say about the Communist Party is that they do believe in socialism,
which means equality of opportunity for all.
Mr. Morgan. I shall not pursue that ■
Dr. Dodd. Let me say one thing more, Mr. INIorgan, if I may. I do
not believe the Communist Party, for instance, is the spy front. I put
no credence in that at all, the spy front or the intelligence service for
the Soviet Union. I might say, if you gentlemen were running the
Soviet Union, would you choose that group of people down on Twelfth
Street, in the Communist Party, for the intelligence service? I would
not.
Mr. Morgan. You mean their activities, political
Dr. DoDD. Oh, there are people here in America who have certain
political opinions, principles, and ideas but they are not competent
to serve as either public relations centers for the Soviets or a great
country — whether you like the Soviet Union or not — they are not com-
petent to serve either as a public relations center or as the intelligence
center.
Mr. Morgan. Dr. Dodd, I am a little reluctant to ask this, but I
want to know in view of what you said, I think all of us have a great
concern about the possibilities of armed conflict at one time or another,
and I would like to ask j^ou, on the basis of your membership in the
Communist Party, as to where you believe the loyalty of the Com-
munist Party members would lie in event of war with So^^et Russia ?
Dr. Dodd. I think that you would have to split there. I think you
would have some who would feel that their loyalty lay with the Soviet
Union, and I think that you would have a large proportion who would
find that their loyalty was with the people of their own country.
Mr. Morgan. To repeat
Mr. Dodd. I do not think that you can generalize about that.
Mr. Morgan. I think that you have made rather clear your thinking
on that score.
STATE DEPARTMEISrT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTI CATION 645
Now, a further question by way of repetition of another question:
You liave not cooperated, or have not passed on to any agency of this
Government or an agent of this Government any information con-
cerning communism, or the Communist Party in this country, is that
correct ?
Dr. DoDD. I have not.
Mr. MoRGAX. You considered writing an article, or a book concern-
ing your association with the party, but you did not do it. Wliy did
you not do it?
Dr. DoDD. I did write it, but the writing which I do, Mr. INIorgan, is
political analyses and your various publishers and various publica-
tions are not interested in political analyses. They are interested in the
same thing that Senator McCarthy has been interested in. They are
interested in scandal. I am not interested in purveying scandal. I am
interested in serious political thinking. I want to point out where I
have made errors, where the Counnunist Party was perhaps in error,
where it has been detrimental to our country and where it has helped
to further our country. That is the only kind of thinking you can do,
if you are a scientist.
Mr. Morgan. I gather then that the reason you did not publish your
work was because you did not think it would sell, is that it ?
Dr. DoDD. I did not think anybody' would be interested in that, at
this particular phase of history.
^Ir. Morgan. Thank you, Dr. Dodd. That is all that I have at the
moment.
Senator Ttdings. Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickexlooper. I again renew my request, Mr. Chairman,
if Mr. Morris has any questions, whether the committee would like to
have him ask those questions.
Senator Ttdings. I would prefer to take that up in executive ses-
sion. I think it has been decided. I would not want to pass on it,
because I know what happened today and I would not want to get
into another row. I will be glad to do it at our next meeting.
Senator Hickenlooper. After my very general discussion of what
happened today, I would not want to create the impression that we
had a row. .
Senator Ttdings. The row was on the floor, not in the committee
room.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes; I do have some questions.
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead, help yourself.
Senator Hickexlooper. Dr. Dodd, do you believe the Communist
movement in the United States is associated with the Communist
movement of Soviet Russia?
Dr. Dodd. Oh, I think the Comnmnist movement in the United
States draws its lessons from socialism, which is idigenous to Russia
and which is being established in China.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you believe that the Communist, the
real Communist, in the United States accept their direction and the
control of their political policies and their party-line activities from
Moscow ?
Dr. Dodd. Moscow ?
The Soviet Union is a country which has established socialism,
and it is a very natural thing for people who belong to the Communist
Party to take their guidance on international questions from the coun-
646 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
try which established socialism, since this party in the United States
professes belief in socialism.
Senator Hickenlooper. May I renew my question? Do yon be-
lieve the Communist Partv in the United States takes its guidance in
the party-line activities, in its policies and philosophies, from the
Kremlin? You may call it Politburo, Moscow, or the Kremlin, or
from Russia.
Dr. DoDD. I say to you that on questions which deal with New York
City or with the United States the Communist Party makes its own
policies. The national board discusses things and makes its own
policy. On international questions, it is very natural that the Com-
munist Party of the United States should follow the policy of the
Soviet Union.
Senator Hickenlooper. May I renew my question ? Do you believe
that the Communist Party of the United States takes its direction and
control from Moscow?
Dr. DoDD. I think sometimes it does and sometimes it does not ; on
certain questions it does, and on certain questions it does not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe that if the Communist Party
in the United States refuses to follow the party line as laid down from
JSIoscow and by Moscow — I mean the old Connnunist '"apparatus" in
Moscow — do you believe that the Communist Party in the United
States, if they refuse to do that and if it continues, wdll be an accepted
branch of tlie Communist Party?
Dr. DoDD. Oh, I have known the Connnunist Party to refuse to do
certain things which the Soviet Union wanted them to do, and they
have discussed the questions. In the old days, we used to hear about
the leaders going back and forth from Moscow to the United States,
I assume — although I was not in the party then — I assume that they
traveled back and forth to clear up questions of policy.
Senator Hk'kenlooper. May I renew my question once more, and I
hope to get a direct ansvrer.
Dr. DoDD. I am not trying to be vague.
Senator Hickenlooper. You are an intelligent woman
Dr. DoDD. Thank you.
Senator Hickenlooper. And I thinl: that a straightforward answer
to that question would be very helpful to the committee, and that is :
Do you believe or think that the Communist Party in the United
States receives its dii-ection and its orders in general from Moscow?
Dr. DoDD. If you use the words ""directions" and "orders," I must
say, "No." If you use the question "Is it inspired and does it follow
the principles in Russia," the answer is "Yes."
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe that the Communist Party
of the United States, therefore, aspires to the political aims and aspira-
tions of the Kremlin, or the Politburo in Moscow ?
Dr. Donn. The Connnunist Party of the United States is looking to
take over the United States Government just as the Ee])ublican Party
is looking to take it over in this next coming election. They would
like to be the ones in control.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you, as a Communist, take an obliga-
tion to Sl;alin?
Dr. D )i)!). My heavens, no. T never took any oatli to anybody ex-
cept my oath (o support tlie United States, whenVe pledged allegiance.
STATE DEPARTME2«;T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 647
There is no such thino; ;is that oath. I notice that Mr. Budeiiz made
that statement. Tlicre is no such oath to Stalin or anyone else. I
have never seen anything- of that kind.
Senator HiCKEXLOorEH. Have yon been a member of the Politburo
or the central ])olitical control organization of the Communist Party
in this country?
Dr. DoDD. I was a member of the national committee. That is the
policy-determining body. That is a sort of legislative body. I was
not a member of the national board, or the political committee or the
Politburo, as you call it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is that a higher authority or authoritative
body than the national committee ?
lir. DoDD. That is the executive; the other is the policy-making
body.
Senator Hickexlooper. "Which is the executive and which is the
policy-making?
Dr. DoDD. The Politburo is the executive. The national commit-
tee is the highest policy-making body.
Senator Hickexlooper. How many members are in the policy
committee?
Dr. DoDD. It varied between 50 and 70.
Senator Hickexlooper. Dr. Dodd, who induced you to join the
Communist Party ?
Dr. DoDD. Gilbert Green, who was then the district leader of the
New York Communist Party. He heard me make a speech at Albany
on the budget; and, since I had been working with the Communist
Party right along, he came to me and said that Si Gerson, who
was then a legislative representative, was leaving to go in the Army,
and would I come in and work with them and become a legislative
representative at that time, and 1 said, "Sure."
Senator Hickexlooper. Dr. Dodd, do you believe that the Com-
munist movement in the world, centered in Moscow, has for its ob-
jective the taking over of the dominions of all the nations of the
world under the Communist philosophy ?
Dr. DoDD. I believe the objective of the people in the Kremlin is to
make the world Communist.
Senator Hickexlooper. And. m making the world Communist, do
you believe that they advocate the centralization of control of com-
munism in the worlcl, in Moscow ?
Dr. DoDD. That is a theoretical question that I cannot answer. If
the answer to that is "Yes," I mj^self would be opposed to it.
Senator Hickex'looper. Do you believe that there exists in this
country a Communist conspiracy to take over the Government of
the Ignited States either by stealth or by political activity?
Dr. DoDi). 1 believe that there is a firm determination on the part
of Communists to take over the Government of this country; yes, but
not by stealth or by guns.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you believe that there exists in this
country a conspiracy in communism; that it is a conspiratorial opera-
tion in which they operate in secret, through secret agents, and use
surreptitious means to gain their ends ?
Dr. D(tDi). If we have investigations like Senator ^McCarthy is
ca.using to be made here, and terrorization, you aie goii'g to have more
and more secret work on the part of these people who have an un-
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 42
648 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
popular political opinion. Necessarily, if you are trying to drive
certain people, or limit their activities, they are going to go under-
ground and become more and more secret and conspiratorial. It
is for that reason that I believe in exactly the opposite. I say, let
the Communist movement be free and you will be surprised how lim-
ited it would be, because it takes a great deal to take over a country like
the United States. You have to deal with a lot of people.
Senator Hickenlooper. Let us leave Senator McCarthy as an indi-
vidual out of this for a moment.
I would ask you if you believe that the Communist movement in
the United States is a conspiratorial movement to capture and take
conti'ol of the American system of government and establish a Soviet
system of government comparable to that which exists in Russia today ?
Dr. DoDD. We use different terms, so I cannot answer your ques-
tion. That is, that the Communists in this country do intend to
take power, and they become conspiratorial because they are driven
or pushed by repression.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do the Communists in this country aspire
to set up the type and kind of government over the people here that
exists in Soviet Russia today?
Dr. DoDD. I hardly think so, and for this reason : We began, with
Soviet Russia, with a country that was extremely backward, not indus-
trialized. Any Communist group or any group establishing control
in this country would have to deal very differently ^vith the people
of this country than they dealt with the minions of the Czars in 1917,
very differently.
Senator Hickenlooper. May I renew my question : Do you believe
it is the purpose of the Communists in this country to set up the same
general type of government and public administration over the people
of the United States as is existing in Russia today ?
Dr. DoDD. I believe they intend to establish socialism just as in
Russia socialism is established. As to the technique, as to the number
of committees, as to the type of government, there is no blueprint on
that. Senator Hickenlooper. There is no blueprint on that.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Dodd, do you believe in the capitalistic
form of government?
Dr. DoDD. I will tell you that the capitalistic system has done a
great deal for our civilization. As an economist, I will tell you that
the capitalistic system has certain weaknesses which are inherent in
it, which will force a modification of our economic system of gov-
ernment. It cannot help it. We are a very different Government
today, with the kind of unemployment insurance and pensions for
tiade-unions, than we were 20 years ago.
Senator Hickenlooper. May I renew my question? Dr. Dodd, do
you believe in the present system of capitalistic government that we
have in the United States today, as it presently exists?
Dr. Dodd. I believe in the Government of the United States under
its Constitution. I believe, as far as the economy of the Government
is concerned, it is constantly evolving and shifting and changing as the
needs of the people shift and change.
Senator Hickenlooper. You were expelled, I believe you said, from
the party in June 1949. Will you again say what the reason for your
expulsion was at that time ?
STATE DEPARTMEGVJT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 649
Dr. DoDix The real reasons were a long and continued disagreement
with the party on many questions, both in the New York State board,
the national committee, and on various groups that I served. I entered
into a struggle in which I lost. Some of you gentlemen who fight
within your own parties can understand that. AVhen I lost, I got
thrown out.
Senator Hickenlooper. How long had that struggle been going on?
Dr. DoDD. As far as I was concerned, it was for 4 years, 1945 to 1949.
Senator Hickenlooper. So that from 1945 to 1949 you were gen-
erally, as we say, out in my country, "at outs" with the leadership of
vour party ; is that true ?
Dr. DoDD. I was in conflict with the leadership of ray party. I
hoped to win other people over.
Senator Hickenlooper. It is reasonable to assume, then, being in
conflict with the leadership of your party, that they did not take you
into their confidence very much during that period of time.
Dr. DoDD. They could not help but take me into their confidence,
because I held certain positions where they could not keep me out, and
the expulsion did not take place all at once. It was a long period.
I was a member of the State board, which met every single week,
for hours on end, in New York State. I was a member of the State
committee, which met frequently. I was a member of the national
committee, and a member of many of the national subcommittees.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, Dr. Dodd, you are not now a member
of the Communist Party, I believe you said ?
Dr. DoDD. I am not.
Senator Hickenlooper. You have not been since 1949 ?
Dr. DoDD. Not since June of 1949.
Senator Hickenlooper. By what method did you disassociate your-
self with the party at that time ?
Dr. DoDD. Well, I ceased paying dues and I ceased going to any
meetings.
Senator Hickenlooper. And you were thereafter attacked by the
party ?
Dr. DoDD. The expulsion statement on me is pretty drastic. They
do not do that in the Republican Party or the Democratic Party when
they read you out of their party.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Dodd, I will ask you whether, since
that time in 1949, you have at any time, at any place, to any person,
stated that you were still at heart a Communist ?
Dr. Dodd. I may have. I may have, Senator Hickenlooper. Sen-
ator Hicks
Senator Hickenlooper. Most people call me "Hicks" ; so that's all
right.
Dr. Dodd. If we did not have the table between us, I would —
Newspapers, for instance, made much of my expulsion. They just
piled in my office, and I did not know quite what I was doing, and
they asked me how I felt about it, and I said the things I believed
in when I joined the party, I still believe in. The fact that I do
not agree with the method of achieving these ends does not make me
foul my own intellectual nest. I believe in a strong fight against un-
employment, I am for a strong fight for peace.
650 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper, The same principles underlying your Com-
mnnist belief, ^vhile you were a member of tlie party, you still be-
lieved in when you were expelled from the party ?
Dr. DoDD. Let me put it this way : Christianity has gone through
man}^ tight spots. There was an inquisition, there was the St. Bar-
tholomew Massacre, and all those things and yet i^eople did not stop
believing in Christianity when those bad things happened. I do not
believe in the Communist Party or its organization, or its method
of getting power in the United States. Wlien I say "its method"
I mean for a small minority group. I have come to the belief that
the need in this country is to unite the people of all the different
parties in all of the different faiths.
Senator Hickenlooper. For what purpose?
Dr. DoDD. For the purpose of achieving peace, the purpose of im-
proving the conditions of our people.
You cannot do it by the narrow little sectarian way of calling people
names.
Senator Hickenlooper. You are still, I take it, just as firm a believer
in your opinions now, as you were when you were in the Communist
Party?
Dr. DoDD. We do not change, Senator, as far as our fundamental
beliefs are concerned. It took me a long time to come to the place
where I believed in Socialism. I cannot change overnight, and I will
not change overnight.
Senator Hickenlooper. And
Dr. DoDD. And I would be a hypocrite if I did.
Senator Hickenlooper. You then are a Socialist today, in your own
definition, right ?
Dr. DoDD. I believe in the public ownership of the means of the
production. I believe the time will have to come when the Govern-
ment will have to take more and more part in the productive processes.
Senator Hickenlooper. You believe in Government ownership of
natural resources?
Dr. DoDD. I certainly do.
Senator Hickenlooper. And in transportation ?
Dr. DoDD. I certainly do.
Senator Hickenlooper. And in communications?
Dr. DoDD. I think it would help.
Senator Hickenlooper. And, when you say "you think it would
help"
Dr. DoDD. I do not think that it is going to happen all at once. I
would not be in favor of making it all happen at one time. There
would be too many dislocations in our economic system. I have to be
realistic about these matters. It is inevitable and it is coming.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, do you believe that the Soviet Union
<^oday is a democratic movement, where the dignity of the individual
is preserved and recognized ?
Dr. DoDD. Well, I have never been to the Soviet Union, and my
answer that I give here may be colored by my own experience within
the party in New York.
I do believe that the Soviet Union has had to be more repressive
than we would have to be, because of the tremendous situation that
she had when she was first established. After all, in 1917, when they
made the revolution, they had three or four other countries parked on
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 651
tlioir doorstep, on their bouiularies, and it was very difficult for tliem
and therefore the control of their people on the inside probably was
essential.
Personally, I rebel a<i"ainst any limitation of personal freedom un-
less it is in the interest of the arou]), and I do not suppose I would last
in the Soviet Union because I believe in freedom of speech and free-
dom of the press.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do yon believe the Soviet slave camps are
justified in their great social experiment?
Dr. DoDD. I do not know that there are slave camps. If there are,
they are not justified anywhere.
Senator Hickenixh)per. Do you believe that Premier Stalin — the
Soviet Union — is a great progressive world leader?
Dr. DoDD. Well, he is a historic figure — a great historic figure,
whether you like him or do not like him.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe that he advocates and has
supported and has accomplishetl great social reforms in Russia to the
benefit of the individual citizen?
Dr. DoDD. Oh, I would say yes. After all, you have eliminated
illiteracy in the Soviet Union which was a curse upon the people in
1917.
Senator Hickenix)oper. And do you believe that the methods of dis-
tortion and untruth and misrepresentations that the Soviet representa-
tives have brought to all international conferences so far, are justified?
Dr. DoDD. Untruths and distortions and lies are never justified. I
have come to that conclusion — that is one conclusion I have come to
have in thinking about political questions.
The means never justified the end, because the means are always a
])ait of the end. You have to be clean all the way through. You can-
not reach through to the truth by untruthful methods.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe the Soviet Union has fol-
lowed the truthful method, or have they used deception and deceit
and misrepresentation ?
Dr. DoDD. What was the specific question?
Senator Hickenlooper. Practically every specific rnestion that has
come u]) in the United Nations, and otherAvise.
Dr. DoDD. I am not an expert on the United Nations but I would
say that there is a war going on there for power. I would commend
our own American representatives. I think they have done a fine job
there.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe the Soviet Union is justified
in excluding foreigners from free access and travel within the Soviet
Union ?
Dr. DoDD. I cannot judge for the Soviet Union on that question.
I personally believe in the freest kind of access. I believe in the
development of a one-world principle. I would like to see American
workers travel in the Soviet Union. I would like to see Soviet workers
travel in the United States. I would like to see Soviet students in
American universities and I would like to see American students in
Soviet universities.
I think, unless we get that kind of pers]iective. unless Joe Stalin
and Harry Truman get that kind of perspective, we will not have peace
in the world.
652 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe that Stalin and the Politburo
are oppressors of the liberties of the individuals in the Soviet Union,
or do 3^ou believe that they are supporting and promoting the liberties
of the individuals in the Soviet Union?
Dr. DoDD. I have no real information upon that question and it
is very hard — let me tell you-^it is very hard for people here, when
we read the various publications — there is no such thing as an honest
press, with all apologies to the newspaper men. I mean, each one has
an ax to grind and almost you go mad trying to get at wliat the truth is.
So, I do not realh^ know what the answer to that is. I am disturbed
and I certainly would not condone the curtailment of freedom of the
people.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am speaking of the Soviet Union — what
do you think about the curtailment of liberties in the Soviet Union?
Dr. DoDD. I would not condone that whether the Soviet Union did
it or Harry Truman did it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe th;'.t the Soviet Union is
extending freedom or curtailing freedom ?
Dr. DoDD. That is a very general question, also. She is extending
freedom in the sense that she is taking away from people the spectre
of insecurity. I daresay that there has beeri a curtailment of political
freedom in doing that.
Now, that is a real problem before all of us: How far. when you
give people security, shall you curtail their freedom ?
The Mayan civilization did that. Everybody in the Mayan civili-
zation had a job and had security, but they had no freedom.
Senator Hickenlooper. And, the Mayan civilization collapsed?
Dr. DoDD. That is right, and we do not want ours to collapse.
Senator Hickenlooper. But, so far as IVfr. Stalin is concerned, and
the Soviet system, do you believe that they are contributing to the
progress of the individual in the world, or do you believe that it is
an oppressive system?
Dr. DoDD. Senator, what is the use of kidding ourselves ? You have
got the Soviet Union which covers one-sixth of the world. They have
extended their holdings to China, which covers a lot of territory. They
have a political philosophy in this world and if that means curtail-
ment of the individual, or curtailment of the individual likes or dis-
likes, I do not know. If the Soviet Union has done it, I condemn
it, but I think we are picking at flies on the tiger's nose.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you advocate the establishment in this
country of the same kind of philosophy, political and economic, that
exists in the Soviet Union today?
Dr. DoDD. I am deeply committed to the general sovereign principle
of government in this country. As a matter of fact, it was because
I actually believed in the Jeffersonian principles that I got onto the
path of communism. That is a strange comment to make.
Senator Hickenlooper. It certainly is because I see no Jeffersonian
principle that comes within gunshot of that.
Dr. DoDD. Senator, vou should go bnr]c to reading Thomas Jefferson.
He has some pretty bloody statements in there.
Senator Hickenlooper. Getting back to my question : Do you ad-
vocate or believe in the establishment in this country of the same kind
of social and jDolitical philosophy and government existing today in
the Soviet Union ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 653
Dr. DoDi>. I believe that our political cjovernment here in the United
States is all risiht. I have no fault to find with it. Our political gov-
ernment, Ave have a political democracy in this country, and if we do
not like the people who are in, we can change it by going to the polls.
I do believe we have to have a change and an extension on the economic
front.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe that our Government in
this country, socially and economically, is the same as the Government
socially and economically in the Soviet Union today?
Dr. DoDD. It is not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do j'ou favor our Government today, or
do you favor the Soviet Government type for this country ?
Dr. DoDD. I favor our Govermiient. but I tliink we can always learn
something from everybody. We got a lot of our democracy from
France. I think that we can learn certain things from the Soviet
Union, for instance, on their scientific front, where they have done
a great deal for longevity.
I am not against extending human life by using Soviet science.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you think that the Soviet science has
progressed ahead of science in this country ?
Dr. DoDD. Oh, science is always uneven. Some scientists are always
discovering something in the United States and something else will
pop up over in Russia and something else will pop up somewhere else,
and it is an uneven kind of development.
Senator Hickenlooper. Since vou left the Communist Partv in
1944
Dr. DoDD. 1949.
Senator Hickenlooper. Forty-nine, excuse me — have you told any-
one at any time, at any place, that you were going back into the Com-
munist Party ?
Dr. DoDD. I never have and I never will.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe that Premier Stalin is a
dictator?
Dr. DoDD. I cannot answer that. In all honesty, I cannot answer
that because the Soviets have a constitution and they have a method
of government. I do not know how far that is being carried out or
it is not. I rather expect it is a mucli more centralized form of gov-
ernment than we have here in the United States. For instance, no-
body would dare make the kind of statement in the Soviet Union that
was made about General Marshall here in the United States.
Senator Hickenlooper. And, do you belicA^e that anybody that made
that kind of a statement about General Marshall should be punished,
or imprisoned?
Dr. DoDD. I do not agree with the statement, but I will defend to
the end his right to make the statement.
Senator Hickenlooper. "WHiat do you think of the FBI. Dr. Dodd ?
Dr. Donn. They seem to be a very efficient arm of the Government.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe that it should be encour-
aged, or do you believe that it is an oppressive organization?
Dr. Dodd. Well, I do not think that it is an oppressive organization.
It depends on how you people treat it. If you people are going to use
the FBI and extend it so that you have more policemen than you
have citizens, I think that it is a foolish kind of government to get
654 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
into; but, a reasonable amount of security of government requires,
if this Government is going to stand, it requires and needs security
and the FBI will be helpful. I cannot give you complete informa-
tion or a complete answer on that because I do not know. Whatever
relationshi])s I have had with the FBI have been very transient.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you ever criticized the FBI?
Dr. DoDD. Probably I have.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you ever called them a Gestapo or-
ganization?
Dr. DoDD. No, Senator. I do not like the use of that type of word.
I do not apply that to aiiy of our American institutions. I do not
believe that we have reached fascism.
Senator Hickenlooper. Let us go to the other side of the vocabulary
tliat you may use, and ask — have you ever called it the GPU, or any-
thing of that kind ?
Dr. DoDD. I may have. I don't know. We speak lightly. I would
not attach any significance to it. I have as much respect for the FBI
as I have for the Army, or Navy or any other arm of the Govern-
ment.
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, does that mean that you have a high
respect for it or a low resj)ect for it ?
Dr. DoDD. I have a deep-rot)ted respect for the instrumentalities
that our Government uses to protect us.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, you spoke of Dr. Lattimore
Dr. DoDD. By the way, Senator, I must say that I am amazed at the
number of FBI agents that you have covering the Communist Party.
My Heavens, you never can tell what you are stumbling over in the
Cbmmunist Party.
Senator Hickenlooper. What is the occasion for your great famili-
arity with that? You have been out of the Communist Party for
some time.
Dr. DoDD. I cannot pick up a newspaper without reading of an FBI
agent who had been an undercover agent in the Communist Party
for at least 10 years.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is that good or bad ?
Dr. DoDD. It is very confusing.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think it is, too. I think it is — to the
Communists.
Dr. DoDD. I think to others, too.
Senator Hickenlooper. I hope it is.
Now, do you consider the Communist Party in this country just an-
other party, such as the Democratic Party or the Kepublican Party ?
Dr. DoDD. I do not. It is not. It is a party which is a so-called
Marxist Party, based upon a certain scientific approach, and certain
literature and so on and so forth. It is a more closely knit, more — what
shall I say — like the nucleus in a cell, you know, it is a much more
highly concentrated group.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, and as a concentrated group
Dr. DoDD. Don't underestimate it. It is made up of people who
believe
Senator Hickenlooper. I hope that we don't underestimate it.
Dr. DoDD. Made up of people wlio believe intensely. That is the
diti'erence there. The people in the Democratic and Republican Par-
ties today, kind of take their parties with their morning cereal.
STATE DEPARTMEKT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 655
Senator HiCKEXLOorEK. Well, avouUI you say that ^eneraly speak-
in<r, the Democratic and Republican Parties in this country have be-
lieved in the dignity of man and the constituticm of government
under a capitalistic system, whereas, the Communist Party believes in
the sui)pression of the individual and the destruction of what we
now know as the constitutional i'orm of government^
Dr. DoDD. There have been many struggles, both in the Democratic
Party and the Republican Party, to maintain the dignity of man.
Senator Hick?:xlooper. I think that is true.
Dr. Dodo. And, I think that at certain times, when the parties, you
might sa}', begin to droop a little, the fight and struggle within those
parties insures our liberties and freedom. I think the two-party
system works well.
Senator Hickexlooper. What about the Communist Party as a
third party?
Dr. DoDD. The Conmiunist Party is not a third party; you cannot
consider it like a third party.
Senator Hickexlooper. What is it?
Dr. DoDD. It is a political party, it is a political party, a political
philosophy, and an economic philosophy, all in one, a definite entity.
For instance, the Democratic Party is not committed to the support of
big capitalists, small capitalists, or the farmers, but is connnitted to
do a little for all. The Republican Party at one time was for the
farmer, then it was for the big industrialists, so the small towns were
for the small-business men and they tried to straddle the issue for
all. But the Comnnmist Part}' is a concentrated party which believes
in the right of the worker only. They do not care what happens to
the capitalists. In fact, they want to get rid of them as fast as they
can. So, it is a party committed to a class.
Senator Hickexlooper. And you believed in this philosophy when
you were a member of the party ?
Dr. DoDD. I believed that the working class was the most important
single class in society, therefore, their organization was important,
and the j)romotion of their interests was important. I have modified
my opinions on that.
Senator-HicKEXLoopER. Do you believe the capitalists are important
now ?
Dr. DoDD. It is not the capitalists, but I believe that it is important
to unite people of all different classes in this country, in order to get
the kind of government which is going to insure the security of this
country.
Senator Hickexlooper. Tell me what kind of government you be-
lieve will insure that.
Dr. DoDD. Well, I believe in a progressive, completely democratic
country on the ]:>olitical side. By "democratic"' I mean really demo-
cratic, not curtailing the freedom of anyone. Let people talk; let
them organize, have the right of petition. I believe in the Bill of
Rights as it has been developed: from a political point of view, I
believe in extreme democracy.
On the economic front, I think we have to take serious steps toward
eliminating insecurity and want. I think the pension system which is
being established now throughout the ti'ade unions is a step in the
right direction. I think as time goes on this Government is going
656 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION"
to become involved more and more in business to prevent the economic
collapse of this Government, in this country.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do j^ou believe that they have that kind of
o-overnment in Eussia today?
Dr. DooD. You put me on the spot. You put two unlike things in
one sentence. I cannot answer yes or no to any one of them.
I believe that they do have economic security. I do not believe that
they have extended their political democracy to any degree, not to the
degree that we have.
Senator Hickenlooper. Would you say that the economic security
that you have in Eussia today is the security of the slave?
Dr. DoDD. I would not.
Senator Hickenlooper. You believe it is the economic security of
free men ?
Dr. DoDD. I believe it is the economic security of free men — yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think that is all. Doctor.
Senator Tydings. Senator Green?
Senator Green. Dr. Dodd, I would like to ask you a couple of
questions, to get back to the subject matter of this hearing and this
investigation, and one is this : You occupied, during those years that
you were a member of the Communist Party, very high positions^
member of the national committee, the State committee, the State
board — and what other high offices did you hold?
Dr. DoDD. I was associate editor of New INIasses. I edited the New
York State of Affairs. I was on the national committees on legisla-
tion, on politics. I functioned on education, taxation, finance.
Senator Green. Notwithstanding 3'our holding all these high posi-
tions, you have stated that you have never heard ^^Ir. Lattimore spoken
of, is that right?
Dr. DoDD. I never heard his name mentioned.
Senator Green. Would you have heard it if he had any connection
with the party?
Dr. Dodd. I certainly would have heard it because I attended many
meetings devoted to international affairs.
Senator Green. It has been stated, or charged that as editor of the
Institute of Pacific Eelations Magazine, he was directed or induced
to promote Communist writing for it, and the Communist line of
action, is that a fact?
Dr. Dodd. That could hardly be the fact, because the Institute
of Pacific Affiairs had no trace of a Communist line. As a matter
of fact, peo])le around the party did not think too highly of the Insti-
tute of Pacific Affairs.
Senator Green. And yet, some Communist writers wrote for it.
Dr. Dodd. If there were Communist writers that wrote for it, I
would not know them because I had had nothing to do with the In-
stitute of Pacific Affairs and I am sure they never mentioned Profes-
sor Latiimore's name in party circles.
Senator Green. And you would have heard if he had been active?
Dr. Dodd. Somewhere, I would have heard it, yes.
Senator Green. Thank you.
That is all.
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge?
Senator Lodge. I would like to second the expression of hope that
Senator Hickenlooper gave, that our Mr. Morris have a chance to
STATE DEPARTMEjSiT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 657
interrogate witnesses in the future. It is a literal impossibility to
take part in tliese all-day meetings, at the same time prepare ques-
tions for these witnesses. That is too much to ask of a member of
the committee, so I hope m the future, that course will be followed,
which I think will be the orderly way to do it.
Also, it w^ould insure that we get a broad coverage of all the sub-
jects.
I just have one or two questions because the hour is getting late and
I want to have mercy on everybody.
My first question is : Do you believe that the American Commu-
nist Party, in general, follows the design of the Soviet Government
insofar as foreign policy is concerned ?
jNIr, DoDD. Yes, I do.
Senator Lodge. Do you regard this as reprehensible?
Dr. DoDD. If tlie specific items are reprehensible, I Avould regard
their following it to be reprehensible; if the Soviet Union puts forth,
say, a program of total disarmament and the Connnunist Party of
America followed that, I would not say that was reprehensible.
I would have to examine the policy.
Senator Lodge. I mean, do you regard the blind following of the
desires of a foreign government as reprehensible?
Dr. DoDD. I think any blind following of anyone is always repre-
hensible.
If the Communist Party does that, I would condemn it.
Senator Lodge. You think it does that ; do you not ?
Dr. Dodd. I think on certain occasions it does, yes.
Spuator Lodge. Do you believe that the Communist Party is hostile
to religion?
Dr. Dodd. That question of religion is a very curious one. I my-
self do not ])arade my religion. I think it fair to ra}' that when I
joined the Communist Party everyone knew that I was a religious
person. However, the Communist Party at one time will be very
free toward religion. It will imite and function with Catholics,
Protestants, Jews, and yet at other times it will begin to get critical
of church hierarchies. As far as the Communist Party of America
is concerned, it has not followed any understandable or clear policy
on that question. I have known periods when they went out to
organize the Catholics, I have known periods w^hen they were very
critical of all Catholics.
There has not been a single general policy. If you will read the
old Marxist books, they are very critical of religion.
Senator Lodge. You do not think that the world headquarters
of communism is hostile on religion ?
Dr. Dodd. You mean the Soviet Union ?
Senator Lodge. Yes; I mean the head leadership of this world
Tnovoment, and I am asking a question about the leadership of that
-world movement, whether you do not think it is hostile toward religion.
Dr. Dodd. From the American Communist Party, I would say no.
I would say they follow no one definable policy toward religion.
The literature of communism is replete with attacks with regard to and
upon religion, Karl Marx, Lenin have some very strong things to say
about religiou, as the "opiate" of the people; but as I understand it
there are manv churches functioning in the Soviet Union today.
658 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Russian Orthodox Catholic churches, and there are others in the Soviet
Union.
Under Avhat conditions it operates, I cannot judLje because I have
not been there, and the reports are biased.' Some reports of it are
very glowing and some of them are very hard against it.
Senator Lodge. Do you think that the ahirm of religious leaders
at comnuniism is not well founded 'i
Dr. DoDD. I think that it is the function of religious leaders to make
sure, if the Soviet system is going to be extended, that freedom of
religion be protected. That is as far as I go, and I would say that
they have a right to be concerned about protecting it.
Senator Lodge. Yon think that they should be concerned, or have
a right to be concerned ?
Dr. DoDD. I think the religious leaders of this world have to look
forward, if the Soviet Union is going to extend itself and other nations
are coming under its control, they have to learn how other churches
fare.
Senator Loixje. Putting it in a hypothetical way. you do not say
that the Soviets are hostile to religion — you do not make that
statement ?
Dr. poDD. The reason for that is that there is no clear-cut policy.
There is only the crudest kind of publicity which says that communism
is against religion
Senator Lodge. Many eminent men have said it.
Dr. Dodd. Many eminent men have said it. but look at the facts.
Li the Soviet I^nion there are more churches now open than there
have been in th(^ history, since 1917. I do not know, but they func-
tioned on Easter Sunday. The New York Times, and the Herald
Tribune re])orted that. It may be that the leaders of the Russian
Orthodox Church made their peace with the Soviet Government. I
do not know.
Senator Lodge. All right. Thank you.
Senator Tydings. If there are no more questions
Senator Hickexlooper. I did not want to interrupt but I have a
question.
Dr. Dodd, Mhile you were a Communist, did you observe that Alger
Hiss was a Communist?
Dr. Dodd. No, I did not.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did you hear that Chambers was a
Communist?
Dr. Dodd. Chambers — I knew Chambers. I met him back in the
old days down in Greenwich Village, when he was pretty much of a
down-and-out character.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did v< u know him as a ComniuniiL^t at anv
time? • ' "^
Dr. Dodd. I never saw his card, never saw him in the Connnunist
Party. I heard him talk a lot about communism back in 1935 and
1936, back in the old days, before I joined the Communist Party. He
used to hang around Greenwich Village a lot.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did you at any time know, through other
Communist members, or did you really believe at any time that he
was a Communist?
Dr. Dodd. Chambers?
Senator Hickexlooper. Yes.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 659
Dr. Donn. I iievor u:ive much tli()n<;lit to him. As a matter of fact,
1 foiuot all about Chamber.s until it was localled to mind by his break-
iiio- into the newsi)apers. I forirot I met him many years ago, socially.
Senator Hu'KKNLOorEK'. 1 will renew my question. Did yoii at any
time come to the conclusion or become convinced through informa-
tion that you had from any source, tliat Chambers was a Conununist ^
Dr. DoDi). At which time?
Senator IIickenlooper. At any time.
Dr. Donn. As I said, I never gave it any thought until his name be-
gan to be Hashed in the newspapers, relatiiig to Alger Hiss.
Senator Hickexlooper. Now, may I return to my ([uestion? Did
you at any time in the past become aware of, or convinced through
information of any kind, that Chambers was a Communist?
Dr. DoDD. Well, I have heard man}' people refer to him as a Com-
numist, but not peo])le in the apparatus. I have heard them talk about
his being Communist.
Senator Hickexloopeu. Did you at any time in the past, yourself,
believe he was a Communist?
Dr. DoDD. During the trial ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I mean at any time in the i)ast, at an}-
period ?
Dr. DoDD. I want to answer that truthfully. The answer is, I did
not give nnich thought to it. The newspapers said he w'as, so I as-
sumed he was.
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, now, may I retiirn to my question,
and I hope it is one that can be answered by "Yes" or "No" — that you
either did or did not at some time in the past believe Chambers to be
a Communist, and I will ask you if at any time you believed him to
be a Communist?
Dr. DoDD. Well, when the stories began to appear in the papers,
I assumed he was a Communist.
Senator Hickenlooper. At any time before the story began — these
articles in the papers?
Dr. DoDD. No. I had forgotten that such a man existed as Cham-
bers.
Senator I1[ickexlooper. When was the first time that you had given
consideration to or perhaps believed that Alger Hiss was a Com-
munist ?
Dr. DoDD. I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth.
Senator Hickenlooper. I did not mean to ask you a "have you
stopped beating your wife" sort of question. I do not mean that.
But have you at any time from this date past, ever believed Alger
Hiss was a Connnunist ?
Dr. Doni). Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury. He is on trial or
on appeal befoi'e the courts of this country. I do not believe it is right
for me to comment on the Alger Hiss case. What my beliefs are
would have really no probative value in any court, or before the
Senate.
Senator Hickenlooper. I will ask you, did you ever know Alger
Hiss or accept him as a Communist in the Communist xVssociations?
Dr. DoDD. T never knew Alger Hiss.
Senator Hickenlooper. Never met him ?
Dr. DoDD. No.
660 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you ever meet Mrs. Hiss?
Dr. DoDD. I am not conscious of ever having met his wife, although
she was a school teacher, they tell me, and I met many teachers in my
life, and it may be that she was at a meeting Avhen I was at a meeting,
but I am not conscious of ever having met her.
Senator Hickenlooper. That is all, thank you.
Senator Tydtngs. We have two other witnesses. Thank vou. Dr.
Dodd.
You may remain in the audience, if a'ou wish.
Who is the next witness?
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Lawrence Kerley.
Senator Tydings. Will you stand, please and raise your right hand?
Do you solemnly promise and swear that the evidence which you
shall give in the matter before this committee shall be the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Kerley. I do.
TESTIMONY OF LARRY E. KERLEY
Senator Tydings. Give us your full name.
Mr. Kerley. My name is Larry E. Kerley.
Senator Tydings. Your residence or post-office address?
Mr. Kerley. 35-30 Eighty-first Street, Jackson Heights, Long
Island, N. Y.
Senator Tydings. Your age ?
Mr. Kerley. Thirty-five.
Senator Tydings. Your present occupation ?
Mr. Kerley. I am on the editorial staff of the New York Journal-
American.
Senator Tydings. All right, Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Kerley, I believe all of us are familiar with the
general nature of the proceedings here, and of the inquiry into the
charges of disloyalty in the State Department ; and I believe you are
acquainted with one of the witnesses who has been given to the staff
of the committee by Senator McCarthy, Mr. John Huber; is that
correct ?
Mr. Kerley. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Before going on to your acquaintnnce with Mr. Huber,
I would like to ask a little of your background. Will you please trace
your employment for our committee? I would appreciate it.
Mr. Kerley. From 1937 to 1941 1 was a clerk in the Federal Bureau
of Investigation. From 1941 until 1945, October of 1945, I was a
special agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Since that time
I have had my own business in Kentucky, and in the past 2 years on
the editorial staff of the Journal-American.
Mr. Morgan. You are acquainted with ]Mr. John Huber?
Mr. Kerley. I am.
Mr. Morgan. Will you give the committee the benefit of the nature
of your acquaintance and association with him?
Mr. Kerley. When I was employed in the Bureau about 1939, I
set Mr. Huber up as a confidential informant in the New York City
office of the FBI. At that time he had a code name, and had joined
the Communist Party, to serve as an undercover agent for the FBI
in that party.
STATE dp:partment employee loyalty investigation 661
Mr. Morgan. That was when?
Mr. Kerley. 1939.
IMr. ]\roR(;AX. Did you maintain the contact with INIr. Huber dur-
in<)- this time ;'
Mr. Kkrley. No. I recall that I set him up as informant and I
worked as mana<ier foi- an office in the United States, and as a matter
of fact never met Mr. Hul)er personally nntil 1940 or 1947.
JNIr. JNIoROAN. Are you in position b}' reason of your FBI associa-
tions or otherwise to comment on Mr. Ruber's reliability as an in-
formant ?
Mr. Kkrley. Well, apparently from the fact that he was in the
employment for the period of 8 j'ears and a member of the Com-
munist Party, and on their payroll. I would say that his services
were satisfactory during- that time.
^h: Morgan. Now, knowing the nature of this inquiry, Mr. Kerley,
do you have any information of pertinence that you would like to
lav before this committee now?
^fr. Kerley. Well, Mr. Huber, whom I have known these 2 or 3
yeai-s, and came to my office about a week after the charges had
originally been brought against Professor Lattimore that he was a
Connnunist agent in this country, and IMr. Huber advised me that he
bad seen Mv. Lattimore and had been in. his company at a party in
the early part of 1946, in the home of Frederick Vanderbilt Field,
who was one of the directors of the Committee for a Democratic Far
Eastern Policy.
Now this is one of the front organizations of the Communist Party
that has been named as subversive by the Attorney General.
T asked IVfr. Huber if known Communists had attended the party
and he said that as far as
Mr. Morgan. What I had in mind — I do not want to curtail your
testimony, but I think that aspect of it must best come from Mr.
Huber.
What I wanted, since you are here today, was whether or not you
had any other information of pertinence to this committee in con-
nection with this inquiry apart from Mr. Huber's testimony.
Mr. Kerley. Well, I do not know whether or not Mr. Huber is
present, and that is why I was going to relate to you some of the
conversations.
Senator Tydings. Would you mind if I ascertained whether he was
since it might have something to do with the length of your ex-
amination?
Is Mr. Huber present ?
Is Mr. John Huber present ?
(There was no response.)
J*^enator Tydtngs. He does not seem to be here. Mr. Morgan.
Mr. ]\I()RGAN. I would say, Mr. Chairman, for the record that my
information is that ^Ir. Huber was served with a subpena to appear
before the committee at this time, and at the same time you were
served : is that correct?
Mr. Kerley. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoROAN. Do you have any information for our benefit as to
where ^Mr. Huber may be?
]\rr. Kerley'. He came down from New York this morning and
checked into a hotel about noon, and I assumed then — as a matter of
662 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
fact, we came down together. I came on to the Hill and he was to
follow in an hour or so, and I have not seen him since.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Avhere he may be in Washington at
this time?
Mr. Kerlf.y. He was checking at the Carlton Hotel.
Mr. Morgan. The Carlton?
Mr. Chairman, in view of this circumstance, unless Mr. Kerley has
some further information that may have a bearing on our inquiry, I
think we must necessarily ascertain Mr. Ruber's whereabouts and en-
deavor to have him before the connnittee at the earliest possible time.
Senator Tydings. By all means, and how do you suggest that we
go about getting Mr. Huber as quickly as possible, Mr. Morgan?
Mr. Morgan. Well, with Mr. Kerley 's cooperation, I would appre-
ciate say 10 minutes with the thought of possibly locating him at the
hotel. I think we might well try to do tliat at this time and then if
we are unsuccessful in that regard, I think we have no alternative but
to postpone his appearance until some future time, and, of course.
let the committee take such consideration as it wants of the fact that
he is not here, and is the person named pursuant to the snbpena.
Senator Tydings. I would like to ask Mr. Kerley, if you will bear
with me a moment or two, two or three questions.
You say you came down together on the train ?
Mr. Kerley. On the plane.
Senator Tydings. Did yon go together to the hotel ?
Mr, Kerley. Yes.
Senator Tydings. Wliat time of day was that ?
Mr. Kerley. About noon.
Senator Tydings. About noon?
INIr. Kerley. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. How long did you stay at the hotel ?
Mr. Kerley. I stayed only about an hour.
Senator Tydings. Do you know whether ]Mr. Huber was there at
the hotel when you left ?
Mr. Kerley. No ; he had stepped out.
Senator Tydings. You do not know where he liad gone?
Mr. Kerley. For lunch.
Senator Tydings. Did you see him when he came back?
Mr. Kerley. No.
Senator TnnNGS. Do you know with whom he has gone ?
Mr. Kerley. No ; I do not.
Senator Tydings. We will have to try our hand on our own hook.
If there is no objection on the part of" the committee I suggest that
we take a recess for 5 minutes and give everyone a chance to stand
up a little while.
(A short recess was taken.)
Senator Tydings. Mv. Kerley, will you take the stand again, please?
While we are still thinking about Mr. Huber, Ave might go on with
questioning you.
You first were a clerk in the FBI ?
Mr. Kerley. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. What year did you start?
:Mr. Kerley. 1937.
Senator Tydings. What year did you become an agent ?
Mr. Kerley. 1941.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 663
Senator Tydin(;s. WIumi did you ai)point Mr. Huber for the work
^ou have described^
Mr. Kr.RLEY. I think, as I best recall, it was 1939. I did not ap-
point him. I merely set up the records indicatinj; that he was on
there serviuii'.
Senator Ivdixgs. So that you were here, I assume, to show that you,
as the clerk in the FBI, set up the record that Mr. Huber was an
informer for the FBI, connnencing in the year 1939, was it?
Ml'. IIkiu F.v. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. And tluit was a couple of years before.
Xow, who appointed Mr. Huber actually, as far as you can tell in
that re^jard, to be the informer?
Mr. Kerlj:y. The agent in charge of the New York Division.
Senator Tydixgs. Do 30U remember who that was?
Mr. Keijley. I do not recall. They shift a great deal.
Senator Tydixgs. To whom did Mr. Huber report ?
Mr. Kp:rley. To specified agents assigned to him.
Senator Tydixgs. A\'ould he report to the New York office?
Mr. Kerley. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. He would not report to the Washington office?
Mr. Kekley. No, sir.
Senator Tydix^gs. During the time that he was reporting, were you
in the New York office ?
Mr. Kerley. I was.
Senator Tydixgs. Did you see any of his reports, yourself?
Mr. Kerley. No, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. Then, from the time he went in, up until the pres-
ent, I assume, while he reported to the New York office, you had no
further contact with him?
Mr. Kerley. No; not until I left the service.
Senator T-ituxgs. What year ?
Mr. Kerley. I believe 1947.
Senator Tydixgs. '\Miat contact were you in with him after that?
Mr. Kerley. Simply that he came into the Journal- American and
was referred to me.
Senator Tydixgs. Was it a social visit?
Mr. Kerley. No. I did not know him, and it was concerning in-
formation that he had on the Communist apparatus in this country,
and that is my work on the paper as an editorial worker.
Senator Tydixgs. Did he give you information that he was hired
by the P"BI to get and to turn over to the FBI ?
Mr. Kerley. Well, he gave me information that he had learned in
the course of that employment.
Senator Tydixgs. Was that a proper procedure?
Mr. Kerley. I know of nothing improper about it.
Senator Tydixgs. The FBI would not mind that; would it?
Mr. Kerley. I cannot speak for them. Senator.
Senator Tydixcjs. You v>ere a former agent, and pretty familiar with
their agent methods. Would they condone that practice?
Mr. Kerley. I do not know.
Senator Tydixgs. What would be your opinion of that ?
Mr. Kerley. I imagine if it would interfere with an active investi-
gation, they would not condone it.
68970 — oo — pt. 1 43
664 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Was not tlie investigation of communism an
active investigation?
Mr. Kerley. Well, of course, it is continually an active thing.
Senator Tydings. Then the summation of what you are saying is,
the information he gave you, he should not have given you, according
to the FBI standards.
Mr. Kerley. I am not saying that at all, because I think much of
this information which is being filed in miles of steel file cabinets
should be brought out to the American people so they can know what
is happening with the Communists and the international conspiracy
in this country where that is concerned.
Senator Tydings. Suppose the FBI thought it would not be advis-
able to impart this information to any person until they could move
in more closely and get the people they wanted, would you say it was
all right for him to impart that to an outsider?
Mr. Kerley. It depends on whether the case is active or an inactive
case. As far as the active evidence is concerned, if the evidence has
been developed and the facts would warrant a prosecution and no
prosecution has been taken over a long period of time, it could be
safely assumed that no prose<?ution was intended. Therefore. I think
that a man is obligated to his own conscience to bring it to the atten-
tion of the people.
Senator Tydings. But are not all cases of Communists sometimes
cases that lie dormant for a long while until certain pertinent pieces
of information are ascertained and then the thing becomes active
almost overnight ?
Mr. Kerley. Are you speaking of espionage, or run-of-the-mill
Communist activities?
Senator Tydings. Both. Take one and then take the other and
differentiate, if there is any difference.
Mr. Kerley. Of course, a man might be engaged in espionage activ-
ities and lie dormant for 2 or 3 years and become active again.
Senator Tydings. How about the other case, whether he is a Com-
munist or not engaged in Communist activities, apart from espio-
nage— would not the same thing apply ?
Mr. Kerley. Would you repeat that question, please?
Senator Tydings. If a case that was being investigated by the FBI,
of Communist activities quite apart from espionage, any of the other
Communist activities, had a dormant period when the thing was
filed, very little new matter put in it — if new matter was put in it,
in the file or came to the attention of the FBI, would it not become
active ?
]\Ir. Kerley. Yes, sir.
There are many cases that have been active for 12 or 15 years and
will be active for 20 years from now.
Senator Tydings. I would assume that would be so. I only asked
you those l^ecause you have been in the service. You would be in better
position to give facts than my supposition.
Then if ]Mr. Huber gave you information concerning investigations
of communism or anything related to conununism. I would assume —
now I do not wisli to put words in yonr mouth, and you tell me whether
I am right — that that practice would not be approved by the FBI.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 665
Mr. Kerley. Well, I think that in his capacity as beino: an under-
cover agent, and mine as an airent. ^Ye conld discuss it between our-
selves.
Senator Tydixgs. I cannot hear you.
Mr. Kerley. I think we conld discuss it between ourselves, cer-
tainlv.
Senator Tydixgs. Well, to fjo back to my question : I would like you
to give me an answer to it, please :
Is it proper for an informer, working for the FBI, to impart to
others— other than the FBI — the results of his work?
Mr. Kerley. This is quite a time or period after he had left the
service of the FBI. He was no longer engaged in that activity.
Senator Tydinos. What year was it that he left the FBI?
]Mr. Kerley. Well, I took his word for it. It was some months
])revions to that time that he had gone — a few months before that.
Senator Tydings. And when was the conference that you had ref-
erence to held — approximately?
Mr. Kerley. Well. I met liim in 19iT, the latter part, or the early
part of 1948, as I recall.
Senator Tydings. How many talks did you have with him; one or
more ?
Mr. Kerley. Oh, I have talked with him a number of times, in the
ensuing period.
Senator Tydings. Did you ever talk to him before he left the service,
about his work tliat he was doing for tlie FBI ?
;Mr. Kerley. Xo.
Senator Tydings. After he left the service how many did you have
witlihim?
]Mr. Kerley. Well, he has been in my office perhaps a dozen times.
Senator Tydings. Over what period of time?
Mr. Kerley. Since I first met him, some 2 years ago.
Senator Tydings. Did he disclose what work he had been doing
while he was with the FBI ?
^Ir. Kerley. He discussed some of it ; yes.
Senator Tydings. Do you have any questions, Mr. Morgan?
]\rr. Morgan. I believe I have none.
I do not know whether we want to consider at this time Mr. Huber's
nonappearance. Perhaps that is something yon would rather discuss
in executive session at a later time. There are no other witnesses
scheduled to appear at the hearing.
Senator Tydings. I was distracted for a moment. Did you say w^e
should discuss Mr. Huber in executive session?
Mr. Morgan. I assume that the committee would want to do that.
Senator Tydings. Before we do that, I would like to consult with the
committee and would like also, if I may, to ask some questions that
Mr. Fortas handed me.
What were your duties as a clerk ?
Mr. Kerley. I worked in the different departments those years.
A young man who came out of college came into the FBI and worked
through their training, and obtained a training while attending law
school; so that I worked through the Personnel Section, the File
DiA'ision. the Tour-Leading Section, wliich was a public relations,,
and the Classification of Documents and ^lail — ^most all of the clerical
positions within the Department.
666 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Were your duties those of keeping records?
Mr. Kerley. No. There were various duties. Some of them were
the cLissification of the records, and there was a few months training
on different jobs.
Senator Tydings. What kind of records did you work on, or keep?
Mr. Kerley. I had access to personnel files, confidential files, and
for a time the record files.
Senator Tydixgs. At that time when you were with the division and
working on the records, you were of course not an agent i
Mr. Kerley. No.
Senator Tydings. Had you any investigative functions in connec-
tion with your work as a clerk?
Mr. Kerley. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Did you interview Mr. Huber, or see Mr. Huber
in connection with his appointment as informer?
Mr. Kerley. No.
Senator Tydings. You simply got the record ; it came to your notice
that the transaction was consummated?
Mr. Kerley. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. You were asked to appear here by Senator Mc-
Carthy— I am reading these questions.
Mr. Kerley. Yes.
Senator Tydings. By Mr. Kersten?
Mr. Kerley. Mr. Charlie Kersten?
Senator Tydings. I do not know the initials. I just have the name
'"Mr. Kersten."
Mr. Kerley. No ; I was not.
Senator Tydings. Do you know Mr. Kersten?
Mr. Kerley. Yes ; I met him.
Senator Tydings. Have you talked this matter over with him ?
Mr. Kerley. No ; I have not.
Senator Tydings. Has anyone on Senator McCarthy's behalf asked
you to come other than the subpena which we issued at the request of
Senator McCarthy?
Mr. Kerley. No.
Senator Tydings. Have you ever paid Mr. Huber any money for
his information or knowledge?
Mr. Kerley. No.
Senator Tydings. Have you ever rewarded him?
Mr. Kerley. No.
Senator Tydings. During the time you were an agent, did you have
any occasion to read the reports that Mr. Huber submitted?
Mr. Kerley. Not that I recall.
Senator Tydings. Were you in the New York office all the time?
Mr. Kerley. No.
Senator Tydings. So you would have no line on his work as an
agent after he had been appointed informer?
Mr. Kerley. No ; that is correct.
Senator Tydings. All right, sir.
Do you have any questions, Mr. Morgan ?
Mr. Morgan. I beheve not.
Senator Tydings. Any questions. Senator Hickenlooper ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I do not think so.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 667
Sonatoi- Typixos. Senator Green?
Senator Ghkex. No qnestions.
Senator Tn)iNGS. Senator Lod<re ?
Senator Lonoi;. No qnestions.
Senator Tvnixos. Tliat will be all, bnt before the people break up
in the room T would like to announce to the press that, as now tenta-
tively a<iree(l upon and scheduled, we had thon<j:ht to conii)lete Mr.
Ruber's testimony this eveninix. He not beiufj present, it is not
known when we can oet hold of him to testify, and orifjinally Mr.
Lattimore was scheduled to testify tomorrow morning, as I recall,
and because the committee has had a very long hard day and has
had a good bit of work over the week end — many of us — we are going
to not call Dr. Lattimore tomorrow, but Thursday instead. It is not
impossible that if we should again contact Mr. Huber I will get in
touch w^ith the committee, and we might decide quickly to have a
meeting that is not now scheduled, sometime tomorrow. In event
^Ir. Huber cannot be found tomorro^Y, what is the wnsh of counsel for
Dr. Lattimore, about when they should come oil ?
I assume ^Vlr. Huber's testimony will concern Dr. Lattimore.
Therefore, it occurs to me that you will want to come on after Mr.
Huber testifies, and for that reason I ask you the question.
INIr. FoRTAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We should, if possible, like to have Dr. Lattimore's testimony
scheduled at the conclusion of the testimony of all Avitnesses presently
known to the connnittee.
Senator Tydings. I think the request is reasonable. We do not
want to get Dr. Lattimore back twice, once before Mr. Huber's testi-
mony and then after Mr. Huber's testimony. So consider, therefore,
the meeting for Thursday tentative, and as soon as I can confer with
the committee I will give you more definite data; but, for the time
being, hold yourselves ready to come on, on Thursday.
Before we recess, I would a]:)preciate it greatly if everyone in the
room would leave without confusion but promptly. Everybody.
I have made all the announcements I know of that the press are
interested in. It is necessary that the committee meet here for a few
minutes, and if you will go completely out of the door and make
room for others, so they can get out, we can get home and to bed
quickly,
(The connnittee then went into a short executive session, at the
conclusion of which, at 0 : 55 p. m., it Avas adjourned subject to the
call of the Chair.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVEST] GATION
THURSDAY. APRIL 27, 1950
United States Senate,
committi-^e on foreign relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington., D. C.
The subconimitte met at 10 :oO a. m. in the caucus room, room 318,
Senate OlKce Ikiilding, pursuant to notice, Senator MiUarcl E.
Tydings (chairman of the subconnnitee) j)resicling.
Present: Senators Tyclings (chairman of the subcommittee), Green,
McMahon. Hickenlooper, and Lodge.
Also present : Senators Ferguson, Knowland, McCarthy, and Uong;
Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the subconnnittee ; and Mr.
Robert Morris, assistant counsel of the subcommittee.
Senator Tydinos. The committee will come to order.
I would like to inquire if Mr. Huber is in the room?
(No response.)
Senator Tydings. Is Mr. John Huber, who was summoned to ap-
pear here Tuesday night, in the room, or is they anyone in the room
who can represent him or speak for him and act in his absence?
(There was no response.)
Senator Tydings. If he is here, will he speak out or arise; or his
representatives, will they speak out or arise.
(There was no response.)
Senator Tydings. Who is the witness for this morning, Mr. Earl
Browder? .
Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Browder.
Mr Browder. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Will you come forward, Mr, Browder, to the
stand.
Will you stand and hold up your right hand?
Do you solemnly promise and declare that the evidence you shall
give in the pending matter before this committee shall be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
]Mi-. Browder. I do.
TESTIMONY OF EARL RUSSELL BROWDER
Senator Tydings. Take a seat. Mr. Browder. and give us vour
name, if you will.
Mr, Browder. Earl Russell Browder.
Senator Tydings. And your present address.
Mr. Browder. 7 Highland Place, Yonkers, N. Y.
tj69
670 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Your age ?
Mr, Browder. 58.
Senator Tydings. Your present occupation ?
Mr. Browder. Unemployed.
Senator Tydings. All right, Mr, Morgan,
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Browder, in case you liave not formally been so
advised, this proceeding is one designed to inquire into the question
of disloyalty in the State Department.
In the course of evidence received reference has been made in testi-
mony to a meeting held in New York City in 1987, at which you are
stated to have been in attendance, along with Mr. Trachtenberg, and
otlier leaders in the Communist Party.
At this meeting it has been stated, and so testified, that a determina-
tion of policy was made with respect to the Communist Party, insofar
as China was concerned.
Were you in attendance at tliat meeting?
Mr. Browder. I don't know what meeting is referred to. If you
could give me dates and further particulars, I might be able to identify
the meeting; but I certainly could not on the items that you have
mentioned.
Mr. Morgan. Thank you. Perhaps we shall pursue it in this
manner: In 1937 were you associated with the Communist Party in
this country ?
Mr. Browder. I was. I was the general secretary.
Mr. Morgan. I ask you if, in 1937. in the month of October particu-
larly, a determination was made by the Connnunist Party relative to
its policy or its approach to the problem of China.
Mr, Browder. I would say that, in 1937, I, in particular, as the
secretary of the Connnunist Party, was giving a great deal of atten-
tion to the question of China ; very great events were taking place in
China at that time that affected the fate of the entire world.
Mr. Morgan. At one time, I believe, Mr. Browder — and correct me
if I am wrong, please — you were a rejiresentative of the Comnumist
International in China; is that correct^
Mr. Browder. Not exactly. I was in China in 1927, as a member of
an international workers' delegation, under the invitation and i^er-
sonal auspices of Chiang Kai-shek. In that delegation I represented
the Trade-Union Educational League of the United States.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Browder, would you use that big micro-
phone, and pull it close to you; some of the reporters are having
trouble.
Mr. Browder. Yes,
Senator Tydings. Thank you, Mr. Browder.
Mr. Morgan. How lonjr were vou in China at that time, Mr.
Browder, for the record ?
Mr. Browder. I was in China for several months in 1927, and for
the largest part of 1928.
Mr. Morgan. I would jiresume, as a result of that period in China,,
that you have had a rather constant and direct interest in China; is
that correct ?
Mr. Browder. I had a direct interest in China ever since.
Mr. Morgan. Now, back to the question earlier suggested : During
the year 1937, did you, as the secretary of the Communist Party in
this country, have called to your mind, or did you participate in a
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 671
policy wliereby the Coniniunists of China were to be ])ainte(l, let ns
say. in a new role as agrarian reformers^
Mr. Browder. No, I have no recollection of anything- of the kind.
On the contrary, I recall very clearly that onr i)reocciipation with
the problems of China at that time took the line of explainina' to
America, as thorou<>iily as it was i)Ossible for iis to, that the Chinese
Connnnnists were leadino- tlie military struggle of Chinese people
iigainst Japanese invasion; that they represented the fighting section
of the Chinese peoi')le: and onr policy was to urge the unity of all the
national forces in China, together with the Chinese Conunnnist forces,
for joint resistance to the invaders.
In the course of that policy, the Chinese Comnuniists did represent
fundamental agrarian reforms in China, and of course we tried to
explain that as nuicli as possible, also; but that was in no wise the
dominant character of what we had to say to America about Cliina.
The main motif was military resistance to the invasion of China.
Mr. Morgan. I wonder if Ave coidd get that a little more specifically,
Mr. Browder^
Am I to infer from your answer that during tlie year 19;^)7 there
was the change along the lines which we have just discussed; that is,
the idea tiuit the Conmumist Party of China was to be painted not as
merely a Comnuniist organization but rather as an organization, so
it has been stated in testimony here, comparable to the North Dakota
Nonpartisan League?
Mr. Browder. Yes. The reference to the North Dakota Nonpar-
tisan Leaguers has no relation whatever to the policy of the Commu-
nists in the LTnited States, in exphiining the Chinese Communists.
Certainlv it could never occur to anvone in his riirht mind to trv to
compare the situation of the struggle in China to anything that existed
in America.
There was a change in the situation in Cliina. There was not a
change in the Communist policy. There was a change in the situation
in China in that the developments of the Japanese aggression called
for new moves toward unity in China. The Communists took the
lead in making those moves toward unity. They were joined in that
by vast masses of the pojMilation and ]niblic figiu'es in China; and,
therefore, something new entered the situation in that national unity —
to resist the invasion became a practical issue where, before, it had
been an abstract one.
Mr. Mor(;an. We can be a little more specific. I would like to ask
this question: As secretary of tlie Communist Party, was it a part of
your responsibility and function to endeavor to project, let us say, in
your endeavors, a policy with respect to China?
Mr. Browder. That the Connnnnists in the United States should
urge a particular policy upon the (xoverjunent of the United States^
Yes; that is correct.
Ml-. Morgan. Will you elaborate a little on that, please, as to how
you ])roposed to carry that forward and how you did carry it forward ?
Mr. Browder. We explained the position of the Communist Party
in China, urging unity upon the Kaomingtang for a joint struggle
against the Ja})anese invaders; and. we urged the United States to
adopt a policy of encouraging such unity.
We insisted that this unity w-as not only necessary for the national
salvation of China, but that it was further in the inmiediate and direct
672 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
interests of the United States, and the only way in Avhich the United
States could protect and advance its own interests in China.
Mr. Morgan. I appreciate that answer, but I would like to know
now, however : What methods, what instrumentalities, did the Com-
munist Party employ in projecting this idea?
Mr. Browder. The Communist Party employed instrumentalities of
direct address to the people of the United States.
Mr. Morgan. Through what medium?
Mr, Browder. Largely through the medium of my own speeches, as
the spokesman of the party ; and, through the medium of the Daily
Worker and the Communist, and such journals published by the Com-
munist Party.
Mr. Morgan. Did you employ, and I believe I am using an expres-
sion which you heretofore have used in hearings, congressional hear-
ings— did you emplo}^ "transmission belts'' in carrying this program
forward ?
Mr. Browder. I think that I have had occasion to explain before, in
several hearings in Washington, that the term "transmission b^lts,"
which has been made the occasion of much mystification, simply means
the utilization of every agency reaching the minds of the masses, that
exists outside of one zone organization.
To me, this committee here is my transmission belt to reach the
]>ublic of America today, to defend the truth.
Mr. Morgan. What other transmission belts did you use, Mr.
Browder, in connection with this 1937 matter we are discussing ?
Mr. Browder. Every occasion for public appearance which I could
find. If you want specific examples, I made a speech along about
that period in the Velodrome at Coney Island, in Brooklyn, N. Y.,
especially devoted to China, at which about 12,000 people were pres-
ent, and which I read them messages from China, addressed to me by
Mao Tse-tung, Chou En Lai, and Chu Teh, which puts forward the
position of the Chinese party, and which the Communists in America
endorsed and urged it upon the attention of the United States.
Mr. Morgan. Let us go at it this way, Mr. Browder : Are you
familiar with an organization known as the Institute of Pacific Rela-
tions ?
Mr. Browder. I have heard of it ; yes.
Mr. Morgan. Was any effort made by the Communist Party to
employ tlie Institute of Pacific Relations, and any publications of that
organization, that that organization might have, to advance the policy
that you say was the policy of the Communist Party with respect to
China?
Mr. Browder. We never considered such a thing as practical, for
any serious consideration at all.
Mr. Morgan. Would you say that you did not employ the Institute
of Pacific Relations for that ?
Mr. Browder. I would say very definitely that we did not.
Mr. Morgan. Did the Communist Party, to your knowledge, have
individuals in the Institute of Pacific Relations or associated with the
Institute of Pacific Relations, upon which you relied or depended or
emnloypd for the purpose of advancing this policy?
Mr. Browder. No ; it did not.
Mr. Morgan. Now I will ask you, Mr. Browder, and I am referring
in this regard to testimony that has been received by this committee
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 673
from Mr. Louis F. Biidenz, -who lias vofen-ed to a meeting lield, to
the best of his recollection, in October I'JoT, and 1 want to read a por-
tion of that testimony to you, and I want to ask you some questions
about it.
This a})pears in page 10-10 of the record in this proceeding — and I
quote :
Around the Institute of Pacific Relations also was established the magazine
Auierasia, of which ^Ir. .laffe —
Do YOU know Mr. Jaffe ?
Mr. Bhowder. I am acquainted with him.
Mr. MoRGAx (continuing) :
became e<litor, and which also was designed to influence Pacific affairs.
Mr. Jaffe and Mr. Field—
This is Frederick Vanderbilt Field. Do you know him?
Mr. Browdek. I have met him.
Mr. Morgan (continuing) :
I miirht tell this committee directly, to my knowledge, are solely espionage
agents — Frederick Vanderbilt Field and Philip Jaffe.
In this cell there was also Owen Lattimore.
Do you know ]Mr. Lattimore ?
Mr. Browder. I do not.
Mr. Morgan. You have never met ]Mr. Lattimore ?
Mr. Browder. I have never met Mr. Lattimore.
Mr. Morgan. Did you ever see Mr. Lattimore?
Mr. Browder. I have not, not to my knowledge.
Mr. ^Iorgan (continuing) :
This I know from reports received —
and I continue the testimony —
in the Politburo, and given to me officially as managing editor of the Daily
Worker. Mr. Lattimore, when I first learned this in 1937, was connected with
the publications of the Institute of Pacific Affairs. In a si>ecific meeting to which
I refer, INIr. Lattimore was commended by Frederick Vanderbilt Field and Earl
Hrowder for the fact that he had been responsil)le for the placing of the number
of Communist writers in the organs of the Institute of Pacific Affairs, of which
he was then the editor.
Now, Mr. Browder, I ask you : AVas there such a meeting, to your
knowledge?
Mr. Browder. There was not.
Mr. Morgan. Did you ever sit in a meeting in which Mr. Frederick
Vanderbilt Field was pre.sent, you were present, Mr. Budenz was
present, and at which the name of Mr. Owen J. Lattimore was men-
tioned?
Mr. Browder. There was never such a meeting.
Mr. Morgan. You deny that categorically?
Mr, Browder. I deny it categorically. I declare it is false.
^Ir. M()K(;.\N. Xow, I am reading from the testimony here on page
1041, again the testimony of Mr. Budenz, and I would appreciate 5^our
observation relative to it:
In 1937, then, at a meeting called by Earl Browder, it was brought forward
that we were now mider in.structioiis to name the Chinese Communists or re]>
resent them no longer as Red Communists, but we had formerly played them
up as being the spearhead of the revolution with their Soviet Army, the Red
army, and the like. But, we were to l)egin to represent them, as Earl Browder
said, as North Dakota Non-Partisan Leaguers.
674 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Did you, Mr. Browder, at this meeting, state that that should be
the basis of representation of the Chinese Communists?
]\Ir. Bkowder. There never was such a meeting, and I never made
such a statement and I never expressed such an idea in any form,
public or private.
Mr. Morgan. Pursuing it a bit further, this testimony is from the
same page, 1041, of our record, and I quote :
Field was present at that meeting —
the same meeting which vou denv occurred —
and made a report at wliich he commended Mr. Lattimore's zeal in seeinj^ that
Comiiiunist.s were placed as writers in Pacific Affairs and tliat this had been
particnlarly noted during this last year 1937 and 10.'',(). Mr. Browder also referred .
to that and it was aureed that Mr. Lattimore should he given general direction of
•organizing the writers and influencing the writers in representing the Chinese
Communists as agrarian reformers or as North Dakota Non-Partisan Leaguers.
Have you any observation to make concerning that testimony?
Mr. Browder. I would sa}^ that it is not only false, but it is utterly
ridiculous that it is hard to imagine how even a professional perjurer
could think it up.
Mr. MopciAN. Now, Mr. Browder, I am again referring to the testi-
mony given to this committee under oath by Mr. Budenz, as it appears
on page 1042 of the record in this proceeding, and I quote :
In regard to another event that I could testify to in 194.3, at a regular meeting
of tlie Political Bureau, at which Mr. Browder was present, and others whom
I could name, it was again olHcially reported that Mr. Lattimore, througli Mr.
Field, had received word from tlie apparatus that there was to be a change of
line on Chiang Kai-.shek.
Do you recall any meeting of that kind?
Mr. Browder. Certainly not.
Mr. Morgan. Do you recall any reports having been given to you,
or the organization of which you were secretary at that time, relative
to a Mr. Owen Lattimore?
Mr. Browder. I never heard Mr. Lattimore's name mentioned in the
party circle, and in fact, I was familiar with it only through having
noticed it in publications as the author of articles, now and then,
Mr. Morgan. Reference has been made in testimonv to some so-
called onionskin re]X)rts received by the Communist f*arty wherein
individuals were designated by symbols. It has been stated that such
reports were received at Communist headquarters in New York bear-
ing the symbol, in one instance at least, perhaps in others "L" and
"XL," designating Mr. Owen Lattimore.
Do you deny that that is true ?
Mr. Browder. It is quite strange to me, quite outside ni}^ experience.
Mr. Morgan. You mean, no such reports were i-eceived?
Mr. Browder. I never heard of such reports, never saw such reports,
and I doubt tlie existence of such reports.
Mr. Morgan. Was it customary. Mr. Browder, to have reports made
in that manner on onionskin paper?
Mr. Brow^der. On onionskin paper? Well, I certainly don't deny
the existence of onionskin pa])er, in my office and evei'V other office I
ever had any connection with, usually used for manifold copies of
letters, and so on, and for elimination of bulk in the storage of archives.
Mr. Morgan. Wliat I have in mind, Mr. Browder, is not just simply
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 675
Hie iiintter of onionskin ivi)orts on onionskin i)a|)er. 1 mean, was it
(.•ustoniary in llu' Connnunist Party to receive i-eports in wliieh indi-
viduals were designated by symbols, rather than by iiame^
Mr. l^KowDKK. No; neithei- on onionskin nor bond.
Could 1 volunteer a further elaboi'ation of an answer to a previous
(question ^
Mr. MoKOAX. (^ertainly, if you feel you want to ex})lain any answer.
Ml-. Bkowdeh. You raised the ([uestion of whether 1 received knowl-
ediie of a clianae pending- in American policy toward China in 194;^>.
I should inform you that, not in ID-to but in 1U4:2, 1 did receive in-
formation about a chan*ie in American policy toward China.
Senator Tydixgs. You mean, American or Conmnniists?
Mr. liKowDER. The United States (lovernment ])olicies toward
China. I received this information as a declaration that the policy
was such and such, and that was a chan^je, althou<j:h the statement
declared it was a contiinu^tion. This change in policy was <>-iven to>
me as a matter of information by the Under Secretary of State, in
whose office, in his office, in the State Department, where I visited on
his written invitation to receive that statement of what the American
])olicy toward China was.
Mr. ]Mor(;ax. Who was the Under Secretary ?
Mr. Browder. Mr. Sumner Wells. This was a matter of public
knowledge. The newspapers were in the State Department at the
time, and noted my visit: and. later I had a news))aper conference at
which 1 gave them, in written form, the statement I had received from
Mr. Wells, and my own declaration on it, and I sinmltaneously trans-
mitted that statement of United States Government policy on China
to Afadam Sun Yat Sen, in Chunoking, by cable.
Mr. MuK<iAx. I believe, Mr. Browder, that during the course of
the war, the Communist Party, as such, was dissolved and replaced by
an organization known as the Connnunist Political Association. That
is, the designation was changed to Communist Political Association.
Is that correct i
Mr. Browder. That is correct.
Mr. MoRCJAX. Now, I Avant at this point to read from the record in
these proceedings, pages 1(»()(> and KKiT, again from the testimony
of Mr. Budenz, and request your observation relative thereto, and I
quote :
As a matter of fact. Earl Browder dissolved the Communist Party ami formed
thp Commnnist Political Association in May 1044. and in doin^ so, explained
to the national coniniittee that he do so under instructions in order to make
America believe that coniiiiunism was ceasing to he a factor in the scene and
that thereby they could obtain at-quiesceuce by America in a Red Cliina and
a Red Poland.
Do you care to comment concerning that statement ?
Ml-. Browder. I would state that it is ridiculous and false,' and, I
would elaborate that, if you Avisli.
It is certainly ridiculous to say that I, or any other of the leader-
ship of the Communist movement in America, wish to create an im-
pression tliat connnunism was ]>1aying a lesser role in the United
States. On tJie contrary, everything that we did was foi' the pur-
pose of increasing and intensifying and strengtliening the role of the
Communists in the American public life.
676 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
We did not try to secure the adherence of American Government to
a new policy on China by the moves which were made in the organi-
zation, and the name of the Connnunist organization, because the
policy of the American Government toward China had already
changed before that, changed in 1942, and nothing that we did there-
after could possibly have any effect upon that question.
The change in policy of the American Government toward China
was dictated, not at all by questions of internal policy within the
United States, but was dictated by the necessities of a global war in
which it was necessary for the American Government to have a differ-
ent policy toward the Communists in China ; because otherwise it
was impossible properly to prosecute the war against Japan.
The previous policy against the Communists in China had immo-
bilized 1,000,000 soldiers in the struggle against Japan, and thereby
released 1,000,000 Japanese to fight the Americans.
Senator Tydings. It has been called to my attention, Mr. Morgan
and Mr. Browder, that in the course of colloquy Mr. Lattimore has
been once or twice referred to as only "Lattimore"' and once or twice
as "Owen L.," or "J." or some other initial in the middle, before
"Lattimore."
I am advised that Mr. Lattimore is "Owen Lattimore," so I sug-
gest, for the purposes of the record, you frame a general question to
see if you are talking about Owen Lattimore.
Mr. Morgan. Very well, sir.
Mr. Browder, let us proceed along this line.
No. 1. Do you know Owen Lattimore ?
Mr. Browder. I do not.
Mr. Morgan. Have you ever heard reference, while you were in the
Communist Party to Owen Lattimore, Dr. Lattimore, Prof. Owen
Lattimore?
Mr. Browder. I have not. I have never discussed Mr. Lattimore,
Professor Lattimore, or Dr. Lattimore with anyone in the Commu-
nist Party.
]\Ir. Morgan. While you were in the Communist Party, would you
have known individuals who were active in the Communist move*
ment ?
Mr. Broavder. I would assume that anyone, of the prominence of
Mr. Lattimore, I would certainly know.
Mr. Morgan. Was Mr. Lattimore known to you as a member of the
Communist Party ?
Mr. Browder. He was not. He was definitely known to me as a
person of anti-Communist views, of a very decided and profound
character.
Mr. Morgan. I have asked 3'ou eai'lier, Mr. Browder, about the In-
stitute of Pacific Relations, and I think your observations are now
in the record.
I would like to ask you if you are familiar or have been familiar
with a publication known as Amerasia?
Mr. Browder. I am familiar with it.
Mr. Morgan. I believe in, from 10o7 to 1944, the chairman of the
editorial board, of at least this publication, was a man named Fred-
erick Vanderbilt Field. I believe that you testified that vou knew
Mr. Field?
Mr. Browder. I know Mr. Field.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 677
Mr. jMoroax. Did yoii know or do yoii know Mr. Field to be a
member of the Coimiiiinist Party '(
Mr. Browder. I would not be able to say definitely. I met him
under the circumstances where we were cooperating and it never
occiin-ed to me to ask him if lie was a member, because cooperation
was complete at that time.
Mr. Morgan. Did you accept him as a member ?
Mr. Browder. I assumed he was, although I didn't know.
Mr. Morgax. From 10)^)7 to 1945, according to information avail-
able to the committee, the managing editor of this magazine, Amer-
asia, was one Philip Jaffe. I believe you testified that you knew Mr.
Jaffe.
Mr. Broavder. I know Mr, Jaffe.
Mr. Morgan. Now, you know Mr. Jaffe as a member of the Com-
munist Party ?
Mr. Broavtjer. I did not.
Mr. Morgan. In your association with him, did you accept him as
a member of the Communist Party, and so consider him?
Mr. Broavder. I accepted him as a friend.
]\Ir. Morgan. Both JNIr. Field and Mr. Jaffe have been identified by
one witness in this proceeding as espionage agents for the Soviet
Union. Do you deny that is true, or do you care to make an observa-
tion relative to that testimony?
Mr, Broavder. I AAOuld consider that to be a slander — to be false.
Mr, Morgan. Would you say they yvere not SoA'iet espionage agents?
Mr. Broaa'der, To the best of my knoAA^ledge and belief, they were
not, and are not,
Mr. Morgan. Would you have known whether they were or were
not?
Mr. BroaA' DER. I would not.
Mr. Morgan. From 1937 to 1944 a member of the editorial board of
the publication Amerasia was T. A, Bisson, Did you Ioioav Mr,
Bisson ?
Mr, Broaa'der. No,
Mr. Morgan. HaA^e you ever heard of Mr. Bisson?
Mr, Broavder. Oh, yes,
Mr, Morgan. Was he knoAvn to you to be a Communist?
Mr, Broaa'der, He was not.
Mr, Morgan. Did you ever accept and receive him as such ?
Mr, Broaa" DER, No,
Mr. Morgan, Did the Communist Party in this country utilize Mr.
Bisson in any manner?
Mr. Broavder. No.
'Mr. JNIorgan, Have you ever had conversations AA'ith ]\Ir. Bisson ?
]Mr. Broaa'der. I believe I met him socially, but I Avouldn't eA^en
swear to that, because I couldn't name the time and place ; but I have
a faint recollection of having met him at a cocktail party somewhere.
Mr. M()R(;an. From 1941 to 194-') on the editorial board of this maga-
zine Avas one ^^'illiam W, Lockwood. Do you know him?
Mr, Broavder, No,
Mr, Morgan, A contributor to this magazine was one Edward C.
Carter, Do you knoAA' Mr, Carter?
Mr. Broavder. I have met Mr. Carter.
n
678 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOiM
Mr. MoRGAX. Is Mr. Carter a Communist, to your knowledge?
Mr. Browder. He is not.
]Mr. MoRGxVN. Have you ever received and accepted him as a Com-
munist ?
Mr. Browder. I have not.
Mr. ]\IoRGAX. Has the Communist Party ever utilized Mr. Carter,
to your knowledge, in any manner?
Mr. Browder. You will have to explain how you mean "utilized
Mr. Morgan. I mean, Mr. Browder, has the Communist Party— —
Mr. Browder. Did Mr. Carter ever act under instructions of the
Communist Party? He never did.
Mr. Morgan. Would you care to elaborate a little more on just in
Avhat manner you knew'Mr. Carter, and your association with him?
Mr. Browder. I think that we had— and I say "we"' generally, Com-
munists—had a common objective with Mr. Carter during the war. I
believe he was very actively associated with the Russian War Relief,
and it was my task, as the secretary of the Connnunist Party, to see
that everyone' who was influenced by us gave every possible assistance
to the Russian War Relief, of which I believe Mr. Carter was the head.
Mr. Morgan. Xow, according to the information available to us,,
from 1937 to 1044 a member of the editorial board of this magazine
was Owen Lattimore. I believe you have observed on the record here
that you did not know Mr. Lattimore and that he was not a Com-
numist, to your knowledge. Is that correct ?
Mr. Browder. That is right.
Mr. Morgan. From 1942 to 1944 a member of the editorial board
of this magazine was one Benjamin Kizer. Did you know Mr. Kizer?
Mr. Browder. No.
Mr. Morgan. Xever heard of him?
Mr. Browder. I would say that the name didn't stick in my memory,
if I did.
Mr. Morgan. From 1941 to 1945 a member of the editorial board
of this publication was one Kate Mitchell. Do you know Kate
Mitchell?
Mr. Browder. I have met lier.
Mr. Morgan. Did you know her as a member of the Communist
Party?
Mr. Browder. I did not.
Mr. Morgan. From 1943 to 1944 a member of the editorial board
of this magazine was one Harriet Moore. Do you, or did you, know
Harriet Moore?
Mr. Browder. Not to my knowledge. If I met her casually, it was
not sufficient to stay in my mind at all. I doubt whether I ever met
lier.
Mr. Morgan. A contributor to this magazine was one Anna Louise
Strong. Do you know this individual?
Mr. Browder. I do.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know this individual to be a Communist?
Mr. Browder. No.
Mr. Morgan. Have you ever met Ainia Louise Strong?
Mr. Browder. Oh, yes; I know her well. I have known her for 30^
years.
Mr. Morgan. Would you care to make any observation concerning
her association with the party, and I would presume, Mr. Browder,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 679
that in 3'oui- ]>ositi()n you would know individuals in the party, at
least those in the hi<ihei' echelons?
Mr. Bkowdek. I think that I would, if she had become a member,
and accordin«T to the best of my knowledge and belief she was not a
party member. She was a o()()d fi-iend.
Mr. MomJAX. Now, for our record. Mr. Browder. would you indicate
please, for us. tlie period of your association with the Communist Party
of the United States?
Mr. Bkowdkh. I was in prison when the Conununist Party was
formed in 1!)19. servinji' a sentence for o])posin<r America's entrance
into the First World War. As soon as I ^ot out of prison, I joined
the Communist Party, havino- been associated with the left-win<r forces
in tlie Socialist Party before that, which went to form the Communist
Party. I was drafted, against my will, into the leadership of the
Communist Party at that time, and took an active part in it thereafter,
down to 1945.
]\lost of the time I was in a leading capacity, although I was away
in Europe for a few years.
Mr. MoRGAX. You separated from the Communist Party, you say,
in 1945?
Mr. Bkowder. Actually, the tecluiical separation took place with
my expulsion from membership in February 1946.
Mr. MoRGAX'. Would you care, for the information of this committee,
to elaborate any on the occasion of your expulsion?
Mr. Browder. I doubt whether the connnittee is interested in exam-
ing into the matters of the internal disputes in the Communist Party
that resulted in my expulsion.
Mr. Morgax. Well, ]Mr. Browder, let us judge that, shall we; and,
suppose you proceed and if we tind that it is not relevant, we can
Mr. Browder. I have nothing to volunteer to the committee on that
subject.
Mr. Morgan. You were expelled from the Communist Party.
Mr. Browder. I was expelled from the Connnunity Party in Feb-
ruary 1946.
Mr. ]\Iorgax. Did you resist expulsion?
Mr. Browder. I did.
Mr. Morgan. Will you tell the committee why you were expelled?
Mr. Browder. I have never been able to find out, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Woidd you have this committee seriously to believe
that is the answer to that question, Mr. Browder?
Mr. Browder. Different peo])le liave diiferent answers, and when
there are so many different answers, it means that one who is search-
ing for the truth has to suspend judgment until these different an-
swers are reconciled.
Mr. Morgan. Did you go to the Soviet Union shortly after the ex-
})ulsion, or during the period your expulsion was being considered*
Mr. I^RowDER. After — after my expulsion.
Mr. Morgan. AA'ho directed your expulsion?
Mr. Browder. What?
Mr. Morgan. AVho directed your expulsion?
Mr. Browder. Who directed my expulsion ^
Mr. Morgan. Yes.
Mr. Browm)er. AVilliam Z. Foster.
Mr. JSIorgan. And, for the record, who is Mr. Foster*
68970 — .50 — pt. 1 44
680 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr, BiiowDER. He is the present leader of the Communist Party in
the United States.
Mr. JVIoRGAN. You, at the time, were secretary of the party; is that
correct ?
. Mr. Erowder. Technically I was in position of president of the
Communist. Political Association, when I was removed from leader-
ship. When I M^as expelled from the Connnunist Party I was a sim-
ple member without any position whatever.
Mr. Morgan. Do I infer from that that you are still a member of
the Communist Party?
Mr. Bkowder. No; I am not. I was expelled from membership in
1946. I was removed from all official leading posts in July 1945.
Mr. Morgan. You say that Mr. William Z. Foster was responsible
for your expulsion. Would you care to indicate for our information
how that expulsion was consummated^ Did he merely advise you of
that fact, or were there formal proceedings ? How was it effected ?
Mr. Browder. I would not care to go into that.
Mr. Morgan. It might be helpful to us, ]\Ir. Browder.
Mr. Browder. I doubt it ; doubt it very much.
Mr. Morgan. AVell, perhaps we can approach it in this manner:
You did go to the Soviet Union following your expulsion.
Mr. Browder. I did.
Mr. Morgan. Wliat was the occasion of your trip to the Soviet
Union ?
Mr. Browder. Oh, the occasion for my trip to the Soviet Union
was the fact that I had been a close friend of the Soviet Union since
1921, and active advocate of better relations between the United States
and the Soviet Union with, in some periods, some effect upon the situ-
ation; and I considered that the occasion of my severance from the
Communist Party made it advisable for me, in order to continue
the previous relations that I had established over the course of years,
to visit the Soviet Union, if possible, in order to see that my expulsion
from the Communist Party here did not sever all my relations with
persons in the Soviet Union which would extremely limit the effective-
ness of anything I might do in America for better relations between
the two countries.
I ap])lied for a visa and got it, and therefore went to visit Moscow.
Mr. Morgan. What did you find out relative to your relations in
the Soviet Union, Mr. Browder?
Mr. Browder. I found that in Moscow I was received as an old
and trusted friend. I was given all hospitalit}^ of an old and trusted
friend^ and in the course of my visit there, it was proposed to me
that I should accept a post of representative in America of the Soviet
publishing houses ; try to secure American publication of Soviet books.
I accepted that proposal, largely because of the fact that it served
as a confirmation of my main purpose in visiting there, of establish-
ing that I had not broken my friendly relations with the Soviet Union,
Mr. Morgan. You were thus received, despite the fact that you had
only recently been expelled from the Connnunist Party in this coun-
try ; is that correct ?
Mr. Browder. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. You accepted this employment, returned to this coun-
try as an employee of — whom ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 681
!Mr. Bhowoek. Xo; not as an employee. I did not accept employ-
ment. I established a contractual relation with the Soviet publishing
houses whereby 1 acted in America as their business representative
to negotiate the placing of Soviet books with American publishers, and
for this service I was to receive a certain portion of the royalties
on such books that were paid in America.
I was not an employee.
Mr. Morgan. You were working on a percentage arrangement; was
that the idea?
Mr. Browuek. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAX. Who financed the trip to the Soviet Union?
Afr. Bhowdkk. Various friends of mine.
Mr. MoRGAX. In the United States?
Mr. Browder. In the United States.
Mr. MoRGAx. Friends in the Communist Party.
ISIr. Brow^der. I really should not have to answer such questions
as that, I think.
Mr. MoRGAX'. You decline to answer the question?
Mr. Brow^der. It is not pertinent to your inquiry.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Browder, you sa}'^ you are not now a member of
the Communist Party.
Mr. Browder. I am not.
Mr. MoRGAx. Are you today ideologically a Communist?
Mr. Browder. Depending entirely u])on your definition, and in
America today nobody understands exactly what a Communist is, and
man}- people even "strongly suspect that the late President Roosevelt
"was a Communist.
Therefore, the question is becoming meaningless in America.
If you want to know what political opinions, what my political
opinions are, I will very gladly state them. They are essentially
the same as they have been all my adidt life.
Mr. MoRGAX. Thank you. I think that is helpful.
Mr. Browder, do you know, or have you known a man named
Nicholas Dozenberg?
Mr. Brow'der. I would, at this point, want to say that if you are
going to try to put upon the record here the record of my trial and
conviction for passport irregularity in 19J:0, you will have to do so
v.ithout my cooperation.
Mr. iVIoRGAx. Well, that was not exactly what I had in mind, but
I think you have helped us in your answer to that, or your observation
there.
During the course of the war, did you, as secretary of the Communist
Party in this country, receive letters and other communications from
leaders of the Communist movement in China?
^[r. Broavder. Yes, I did.
Mr. MoROAX. Were those communications that you received the
])redicate for any official or unofficial action by the Communist Party
in this country?
Mr. Browder. In my capacity as the secretary of the Communist
]*arty. and Avithout consulting anyone else, I used information which
I received from ]Mao Tze-tung, the head of the Comnuiinst Party in
China — of China — to inform the President of the United States about
the military situation inside of China, |)lacing at his disposal informa-
682 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
tion concerning the diversion of one million Chinese Government
troops from the anti-Japanese front to the blockading of the Com-
munist territory.
Mr. Morgan. Did you, while secretary of the Communist Party in
this country, take any part in the program which I believe is borne out
by records'available'to this committee, of insistence, in the pages of
the Daily Worker, that individuals write various officials of our Gov-
ernment seeking to influence the policy in China 1
]Mr. Browdek. I don't quite get your question.
Mr. Morgan. I am^ asking you if the Daily AVorker was utilized as
a vehicle for the purpose of soliciting connnunications to officials of
our Government, with a view to influencing American policy in
China?
Mr. Browder. I would assume so; but if you would ask me to give
specific instances, I couldn't. I would assume that that was done.
Mr. Morgan. You mean you would not know that was done?
Mr. Broavder. I could not name specific instances, but now that
you raise the question, I assume that that was done. It was our pur-
pose to stir up all sorts of political expressions of opinion in support
of the Communists in China and support of unity in China; to influ-
ence the Government in every possible way.
Mr. Morgan. To influence the Government, you say, with respect
to unity in China; unity between whom?
Mr. Browder. And to take a different attitude toward specific
Communists
Mr. Morgan. What attitude did you want to project, Mr. Browder?
Mr. Browder. Abandonment of the previous policy in which the
influence of the United States Government was largely instrumental
in maintaining and intensifying Chiang Kai-shek's war of extermina-
tion against the Chinese Conununists. We wanted that influence of
America removed, and this influence to be exercised, on the contrary,
in favor of unification,
Mr. Morgan. I believe you have answered for us the principal
matter in which we are concerned, Mr. Browder. At least you have
given your testimony with respect to it
Mr. Browder. I would say that further, in 1942, it became unneces-
sary any longer to bring such pressure upon the Government of the
United States, because the officially declared policy, from that time
until 1946 was, the United States pressed upon China the coalition of
the Kuomintang, the Comnumist, and all the democnitic mass forces
in one united government. P'rom 1942 to 194(i that was the official
policy of the American Government, and it was therefore no occasion
for the Communists — I would say from 1942 to 1945, the only period
of which I can speak — there was no occasion for the Communists to
press for a change of policy in the United States Government at that
time.
Mr. Morgan. There are a number of things, I know, that would
have been of general interest to <^his committee, and I do at this point,
however, want again on the record, if I may have it, your answer to
this question :
You have referred to a policy of the Connnunist P.uty in this
country, which it sought to })roject with resj^eet to China. I ask you
again, what agencies, what instrumentalities, what methods, what
STATE DEPARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 683
procedures were utilized by the party, Avlien you were its secretary, in
order to accomplish the objectives which the Connmmist Party of this
couiiirv had in mind?
Mr. "Bhowokk. We nsed all available channels of intluencino; the
(xoverninent. principally public si)eech. on issues of the moment, which
ilhistrated and aave practical application to the policy that we were
uriiino-, in terms of general American interests'.
We did not rely at all upon converting the people in the Govern-
ment to the support of conununism. We considered that that would
be foolish and futile.
We based our efforts to influence the Government, in terms of
chaufring the attitude of policymakers, entirely in terms of citing
facts which proved that the interests of America required a different
policy.
In the course of that, I also had occasion, without publicity, to see
that the information that I received from Mao Tse-tung in China,
regarding the diversion of forces' away from the anti-Japanese front,
that this information was placed in the hands of the President, and
I was informed that the information which was so given was confirmed
by the American military high command as being correct, and I,
therefore, assumed, without the knowledge, that this information
played a decisive role in the reformulation of American policy toward
China.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Browder, perhaps I could make question, what I
have in mind, a little clearer in this respect: I hope you will correct
me if I am wrong, but as I recall reading some testimony that you had
previously given to a committee of Congress, you referred to certain
organizations as transmission belts of the Communist Party. In one
instance, you specifically referred to, as I remember, the National
Liawyers Guild as a transmission belt for the Communist Part}'.
Xow. what I Avant to know is this: Did you, did the Communist
Party in projecting its China policy, have any organizations which it
sought to employ in j)rojecting that policy?
Ml-. Bkowder. You are placing me again in the same position that
I have been several times befoi'e, before investigating committes, and
I never seem to be able to establish this point, and each time I appear,
I am quoted to myself as having said that this and that organization
was a transmission belt ; but the fact of the matter is that at all times
I have attempted to explain, and I will try now again to explain to you
here, that the term "transmission belt," as Comnnmists understoocl it,
was the utilization of every avenue of organized public relations, be-
ginning with the Government, beainninii: with Cona^ress, beginniuir
With committees of Congress, and going down all the lines.
If yon wiint to call any of the organizations a transmission belt of
the Communists, then you must begin, if you want to state it with
understanding, with the same understanding which Communists had.
when I was their leader — that this committee is acting as a trans-
mission belt for the views of Earl Browder.
Mr. Mor(;an. I think you have made that plain, sir.
Mr. Browder. T have said that the Lawyers Guild was a trans-
mission belt in answer to a question, not volunteering that for il-
lumination, but in exactly the same sense that I say to you now, yonr
committee is a transmission belt for me.
684 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Back to the question : I would like to ask you again
if there were any organizations, as such, that the Comnnniist Party
sought to employ and utilize in projecting its China policy — any
organization whatsoever that you sought to influence.
Mr. Browder. We sought to influence every organization with
which we came in contact.
Mr. Morgan. Was there any organization upon Avhich you spe-
cifically relied, or particularly relied?
Mr. Browder. No ; only our own party.
Mr. Morgan. Back to the Institute of Pacific Relations: Did the
party seek to have placed in the publications of the Institute of
Pacific Relations articles that would be designed to project the Com-
munist Party program and the line?
Mr. Browder. The party, as an organization, never gave any at-
tention to that problem. In saying that, I do not wish to say that
no Communist ever wrote for it. That I do not know.
Mr. Morgan. But you deny that the Communist Party, as an or-
ganization, did so ?
Mr. Browder. Had nothing to do with it; no part of any general
planned activity.
Mr. Morgan. Was it a part of your individual plan, if not an or-
ganization plan ?
Mr. Browder. No.
Mr. Morgan. It was not ?
Mr. Browder. No.
Mr. Morgan. Now, this committee as you know, as I said earlier,
has for its function, pursuant to a directive of the United States
Senate, to inquire into charges of disloyalty in our State Depart-
ment.
You were a high leader in the Communist Party of this country?
Mr. Browder. I was.
Mr. Morgan. I am wondering if you have any observations that
will be helpful to the committee incidental to its inquiry at this time?
Mr. Browder. Yes, I would be very glad to express an opinion.
Mr. Morgan. Well, now, before you express your opinion, what I
have in mind is : Have you any information or observations that would
be of assistance to us in determining whether there have been, or are
now disloyal people in our State Department, Communists?
Mr. Browder. I had no reason at all, from any point of view, to
think that there are any disloyal persons in the State Department,
or any other important apparatus of the Government. I think that
there have been in the past officials of the State Department who
pursued policies which are detrimental to the interests of the United
States, and I fought them openly and spoke against them. I found
that in the most important cases those policies were remedied, and
I never considered the persons who were responsible for what I
considered bad policies to be disloyal; but I considered them very
detrimental.
Mr. Morgan. 'Wliile you were secretary of the Communist Party
was an effort made by you, or by the party to place members of the
party, or those that we might call fellow travelers in the State De-
partment of the United States Government?
Mr. Browder. No.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 685
Mv. JVIdRGAX. You deny that any such effort was made?
JNIr. Browder. I do.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know now, or have you known in the past, of
nieinhers of the Communist Party who have been in our State De-
partment ?
]Mr. Browder. I have not.
Mr. Morgan. I do not like to ask this question, Mr. Browder, but
I intend to.
If you did know of Communists in the State Department, would
30U tell us Avhether you did or did not ?
Mr. Browder. If I had incidentally known Communists in the State
De]xirtment, I would not f^ive you their names — no.
Mr. jNIorgan. AVould you tell me whether or not there were Com-
munists in the State Department, to your knowledge?
^Ir. Browder. Yes, I certain!}-
Mr. Morgan. "Without givintr names.
Mr. Broavder. I certainly would not <iive names.
Mr. Morgan. Do you deny there were Communists in the Depart-
ment of State?
]\Ir. Broavder. I would say, to the best of my knowledge and belief,
there were not.
j\Ir. Morgan. Xow, I come back to the significant point of our meet-
ing this morning, and again I want it on the record : It is your testi-
mony, correct me if I am wrong, that you have never heard of, never
met Owen Lattimore?
ISIr. Browder. That is correct. I have never met Owen J. Latti-
more. I have never heard him speak. I do not know him. I have
had no connection, by correspondence, I have had no connection,
through third persons.
Mr. Morgan. Those are the only questions I have at this point,
Mr. Chairman. I may have some others later.
Senator Tydings. Senator Hickenlooper?
Senator Hickenlooper. My. Chairman, inasmuch as I suggested be-
fore, I would suggest that Mr. Morris may have some questions, or
whatever the will of the committee may be on the matter.
(Discussion was off the record.)
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Browder, where were you born?
Mr. Browder. Wichita, Kans.
Senator Hickenlooper. How long have you lived in Kansas?
Mr. Browder. How long did I live there ?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
Mr. Browder. Until — the age of 20, 1 believe.
Senator Hickenlooper. And were you ever a member of the — oh,
what was called the IWAV or International Workers of the World
organization ?
Mr. Browder. No, I was not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Existing before World War I ?
Mr. Browder. I was not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you ever participate in any of their
meetings or their activities in the Middle West, or any other place?
Mr BuMwnKR. I often attended tlieir meetings. I Avas very familiar
with them, but never a member. I was a member of the Socialist
Party in the early days.
686 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. In response to a question by Mr. Morgan,
I believe that yon said yon received a statement of American policy
from the Under Secretary of State, Mr. Snniner Welles, I believe at
that time, on China and that you transmitted that declaration of
American — or statement of American policy toward China to Madam
Chiang Kai-shek.
Mr. Browder. Madam Sun Yat-sen.
Senator Hickenlooper. Madam Sun Yat-sen?
Mr. Browder. Yes; after releasing it to the newspapers of the
United States.
Senator Hickenlooper. AVas Machim Sun Yat-sen acting in an
official capacity at that time, for the Chinese Government?
Mr. Brow^der. I do not know what her official position was.
Senator Hickenlooper. Were you by any chance the conduit, or
transmission medium from the State Department to transmit Ameri-
can foreign policy to China at that time ?
Mr. Browdi:r, I received that statement from the State Depart-
ment, with the understanding, directly expressed, that I was at liberty
to publish it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
Mr. Browder. And I took steps to pnblish it in America and I sent
it to Madam Sun Yat-sen in the hope that it would be published in
China.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. Now then, you have testified here,
as I understand your testimony, in response to questions by Mr. Mor-
gan, that you worked ceaselessly ovei- a period of years, perhaps be-
ginning in the thirties, late in the thirties and continuing up until
at least 1942, for the adoption of a definite policy on the part of the
United States toward China, and the Chinese Communists.
Mr. Browder. That is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. And you were working on that policy as a
Communist policy, were you not? That was the policy of the Com-
munists that you wei-e working on ?
Mr. Browder. That was the policy of the Communist Party.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then I believe that you said that in 1942,
that policy upon which you had been working was adopted as the
policy of the United States toward China.
Mr. Browder. I would not say that the policy that we had been
urging — I would say that the central points of that policy, the central
points of the withdrawal of the unconditional antagonism toward
the Communists and the replacement of it and encouragement of
unification in China, yes, that was identical with the policy of the
Communist Party.
Senator Hickenlooper. So that you were successful in imposing
upon or having accepted by the American Government, the Com-
munist policy toward China, so far as those particular principles are
concerned ?
Mr. Browder. I would say that it would be claiming too much to
say that it was the Communist Party that was successful. I would
say that the necessities of the successful prosecution of the war were
recognized, and that Communists have the credit of having recognized
them earlier than others.
Senator Hickenlooper. But, nevertheless, the views advocated up
to 1942, at least the substance of the imj)ortant views advocated by
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 687
the Conuminist Party u\) to 194'2, were in fact adopted by the State
Department, toward he Communists in China at about 1942 — is that
correct ?
Mr. Browder. In October 19-1:2,
Senator Hickenlooper. So, to that extent, regardless of the necessi-
ties of the situation or the exphmations, you were successful or success
met your efforts in getting that policy established?
Mr. Browder. The policy which we had advocated was substantially
incori)orated into the policy of the United States Government.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, Mr. Browder, have you at any time,
either when you were a leader or the leader of the Communist Party
of the United States, or held any other office in the Communist Party,
or at any time, conspired, agreed with, or attempted to secure the
transmission of information, secret information, classified either as
"Confidential,'' "Restricted," "Secret,'' "Top secret,'' or any other
restricted information, from American Government sources, either to
the Soviet Government or any agents of the Soviet Government, or any
people you believed to be agents of the Soviet Government?
Mr. Browder. I have not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you ever delivered, or caused to be
delivered, any information of a classified nature belonging to the Gov-
ernment of the United States, to any person who was either an agent
of the Soviet Government, a representative of the Soviet Government,
or one that you believed to be an authorized agent or representative
of the Soviet Government ?
Mr. Browder. I have not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, you visited Russia in 1946?
Mr. Browder. 1946.
Senator Hickenlooper. That was after your official expulsion from
the Communist Party in this country?
Mr. Browder. That is right.
Senator Hickenlooper. I believe that you said you visited Russia
in order to be reassured that your friendly relations, which you had
before that time, were not impaired by your expulsion from the Com-
munist Party in the United States, is that correct ?
Mr. BRcnvDER. I would not put it in the way that you did. I do not
think that that is entirely exact.
Senator Hickenlooper. Please explain it to me again, then. I was
trying to paraphrase what I understood you to say.
},h-. Bkowdek. I have found that, in my ])olitical life, paraphrases
are the most dangerous things in politics.
Senator Hickenlooper. That is the reason why I am happy to have
you put it in your own words again.
Mr. Browder. Yes. I went to Russia because, over a period of years
since 1921. I had been an active friend of the Soviet t'nion. in close
contact with the Soviet Union, a student of the Soviet Union, educator
in America on the understanding of the Soviet Union, and I certainly
did not wish my difficulties with the Communist Party in the United
States to end that relationship.
Senator Hickenlooper. During the period of time after you first
joined the Communist Party, and up to the time of your expulsion
from the Communist Party, had you been working for the end purpose
of establishing international communism in the world?
688 STATE departmejs^t employee loyalty investigation
Mr. Browder. Now, there you are raising questions wliich involve
the Communist doctrine and theory, and if you want to enter into that
field, you will have a very interestino-, but a very prolonged, session
of your committee that may last for years.
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, we do not want to have this commit-
tee last for years, but I will ask you again whether or not you advo-
cated the establishment of a Communist form of government in this
country that took its direction and its policy from the Soviet Union,
or the officials of the Soviet Union, or the Communist Party in Russia ?
Mr. Browder. No, I never advocated such a thing, never believed in
it and in fact, if I had advocated or believed in such a thing, I would
have found myself in fundamental theoretical conflict with Josef
Stalin, and that I avoided because I respected his theoretical ability.
Just as Stalin wrote, and I studied his writings very carefully, that
he would have nothing but contempt for the leaders of any other
country who accepted orders from Moscow.
Senator Hickenlooper. Does that include Tito?
Mr. Browder. Again I would say that if you want to place the
question of Yugoslavia, and its relations to the Soviet Union, on the
agenda of this committee, I will be entering into that ; but only with the
understanding that you go through to the conclusion ; but, if it is going
to be incidental, and by the way, I have no observations to make on it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, when you visited Russia in 1946, I
believe you said that you found your associations and acquaintances
had not been substantially impaired by the expulsion from the Com-
munist Party.
Mr. Brow^der. I didn't say that.
Senator Hickenlooper. What did you find ?
Mr. Browder. I said I found I was received as an old and trusted
friend.
Senator Hickenlooper. And it was suggested to you that you take
this position as a representative of the Soviet publishers in this
country?
Mr. Browder. Yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. And you did take such position?
Mr. Browder. I accepted that proposal.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you still working in that capacity?
Mr. Browder. I am not. I canceled that contract last July.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you ever, at any time, received in-
structions as to how you should proceed, ideologically or politically
in this country from Moscow, or the authorities in Moscow, or any rep-
resentative that you believed to be authorized to speak for them?
Mr. Browder. I never did.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you ever communicated with Moscow,
or any authorities of Russia that you believed to be authorized to speak
for the Russian Government; have you ever received or have you ever
communicated with any of those people at any time, requesting advice
and information as to what position the Communists in America
should take ?
Mr. Browder. Oli, yes; not of the Government but of the Russian
Communist Party. Throughout my experience as a leader in the Com-
munist movement, I always sought every possible occasion for consul-
tation with the Russian Communist Party, its responsible leaders,
and discussed with them problems of the world and of America.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 689
Senator Hickexlopek. Is communism an international conspiracy
to overtlirow the present Government of the United States and its form
and systems?
Mr. Bkowokk. Conununism is not a conspiracy. Communism is a
body of political views, an understanding of history, and a program
of how to meet the problems of the next steps forward in the progress
of history.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is it a part of the principles of the Com-
munist Party of the United States to overthrow the existing govern-
mental forms of the United States, under our constitutional system?
Mr. BuowDER. I will have to remind vou, whenever I am faced with
such a question, that I am not an official spokesman for any organiza-
tion. I can speak for no one but myself. I am unaffiliated, an unaffil-
iated individual. Therefore, when you ask me about what any organi-
zation stands for, I can only give you an expression of personal opinion.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, in order to take it out of the realm
of i^ei-sonal poinion, let us revert to the time when you were an official
of the Communist Party in this country, and your knowledge was
then official as to the Conununist Party.
What would your answer be ?
Mr. Broavder. I would say that the Communist Party was not a
conspiracv for the overthrow of the existing Government of the United
States.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know Mr. James S. Allen, a writer?
Mr. Browder. I do.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know whetlier or not Mr. Allen
is a Conununist, or ever has been ?
Mr. Broavder. Yes, he is.
Senator Hickexlooper. Have you ever met Alger Hiss?
Mr. Browder. I have not.
Senator Hickexlooper. During the time that you were head of the
Communist Party, or a ]:)rominent official in the Communist Party
in the United States, did you know whether or not Alger Hiss was
a member of the Communist Part}^, or considered to be a member of
the Communist Party?
Mr. Browder. I would say that I never even heard the name "Hiss""
in such a way as to fasten it in my memory, until I was visited by
agents of the FBI and asked to identify his photograph as someone
that I knew: and later on when Hiss was in the public eye, I learned
that photograph was his.
Senatoi- Hickexlooper. Yes, and when you saw that photograph,
did you recognize the pliotograph as one whom you had known ?
Mr. Browder. I had never seen him before, and I tell you now that
I had never heard his name before, in the way in which it would im-
press itself on my memory.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did you know Whittaker Chambers?
Mr. Browder. I did not.
Senatoi- Hickexlooper. Did you at any time, while you were an
official of the Communist Party, know whether or not AMiitaker
Chambers was a member of the Conununist Party, or considered a
member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Broavder. T knew that "Whittaker Chambers had been a member
of the Comnuuiist Party in the early 1920's. He disappeared, and I
assumed that he was out of the party, and I still so assume.
690 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you at any time while you were an
official of the Communist Party of the United States, ever receive,
directly or indirectly, funds or the equivalent of funds or money or
the equivalent of money, from the Communist Party of Russia, or the
Eussian Government, or any agents of either of those, or persons that
you believed to be reliable agents of either of those?
Mr, Browdek. Yes. I have expended money on behalf of Com-
munists in other countries and received that money back from them.
Senator Hickenlooper. When you say "in other countries," you
mean you have expended it in the United States and received it from
other countries ?
Mr. Browder. Not necessarily in the United States. The main oc-
casion on which questions of funds were involved, were in connection
with the Spanish Civil War. Durino; the Spanish Civil War, in the
course of helping to organize the American section of the Interna-
tional Brigade that fought on the side of the Republic, against the
Fascist invasion, I had occasion to get money from sources abroad.
Senator Hickenlooper. What were those sources?
Mr. Browder. I do not know, in detail ; and if I did know, I would
not tell you.
Senator Hickenlooper. Why not ?
Mr. Browder. Because I would not, under any circumstances,
create problems in 1950 for any individuals who had part in helping
fight the Fascist rebellion in Spain in 1936 and 1937.
Many ])eople helped in that work, and I would not give any detailed
information which in any way would help the enemies of the Spanish
Republic to persecute those people for the part that they played in try-
ing to prevent the victory of the Fascist dictatorship in Spain.
Senator Hickenlooper. We may reach that situation a little later,
but, Mr. Browder, have you received, while in this country, any money
from the sources which I mentioned in my question a moment ago, from
either
Mr. Brow^der. I have received
Senator Hickenlooper. From either the Communist Party of Rus-
sia, the Communist Government of Russia, or any agent that you
relied upon as being an authoritative representative of either of those?
Mr. Browder. You mean, for the purpose
Senator Hickenlooper. I say money or funds or things of value
that can be converted into money.
Mr. Browder. For the purpose of financing the Communist move-
ment in the United States?
Senator Hickenlooper, Well, first, have you received any funds
while in the United States, outside of the question of support of the
Spanish Revolution, have you received those funds for any purpose?
Mr. Brow DER. I have never received funds from abroad for the pur-
pose of promoting the Communist movement in the United States.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you ever received funds from abroad,
from either the Communist Party of Russia or the Government of
Russia, or any agents or persons that you believed to be authoritative
agents or representatives, for the purpose of jniblications in this coun-
try, for the purpose of hiring people for work in this country, or for
any other purpose ?
Mr. Browder. I would not be able to answer that categorically,
because as a matter of fact, there have been occasions on which I have
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION G91
acted in tlie capacity (»f sccuriiio' the publication of journals in Amer-
ica which were or<2;ans of international organizations and paid for
by international or<2:anizations.
But, I would say that for all of the normal work of the Communist
movement in America, as such, I have never received funds from
abroad from any source.
Senator HiCKKXLOorER. Have you ever received funds in this coun-
try that did not come directly to you from abroad, but that come from
persons who represented themselves as beinff a<rents, or reliable repre-
sentatives of either the Communist Party in Russia, or the Govern-
ment ?
]Mr. Browdkr. No.
Senator HunvExrooPER. Have you ever had any conferences, while
you were an oilicial of the Connnunist Party in this country, in the
Russian Embassy in Washington, or in the official Russian consulates
at any other place in the United States with regard to Communist ac-
tivities in this comitry?
Mr. Browder. As a matter of fact, I always felt very slighted that
I never received any of the invitations to the gatherings at the Russian
Embassy in Washington, and it w^as a little bit of a grievance on my
j^art, when so many other people could go there, I never could under-
stand why I couldn't, too; but Russians lean over backwards.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Reporter, would you read that question
to the witness?
(The question was read as follows:)
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you ever had any conferences, while you were an
official of the Connnunist Party in this country, in the Russian Embassy in Wash-
iui^toii. or in the official Russian Consulates at any other place in the United
States with regard to Communist activities in this country?
Mr. Broavder. I have not.
Senator Hickexlooper. I believe you said that you knew Frederick
Vanderbilt Field ?
Mr. Browder. I have met him.
Senator Hickexlooper. How long have you known Mr. Field?
Mr. Browder. I think that was the first time that he stands in my
memory with any clarity is about 1040.
Senator Hickexlooper. Have you ever been in Mr. Field's home
in New York?
Mr. Browder. Oh, yes.
Senator Hickexlooper. Had Mr. Field ever met with yon in the
building occu}ned by the Daily Worker in New York, while you were
a member of the party?
yiv. Browder. No.
Senator Hickexlooper. Has Mr. Field ever, so far as you know,
been in the building or in the offices of the Daily AYorker, while you
were a member of the party ?
a\Ir. Browder. T never saw him there, never met him there.
Senatoi' Hkkexi^ooper. Did you ever give or assign, while you
M-ere a member of the party, Frederick Yanderbilt Field to any special
mission for the Coinnuinist Party?
Mr. Browder. Never.
Senator Hickex't,ooper. Did you ever assign Mr. Field at all, or re-
quest to undertake any espionage missions for the purpose of ascer-
taining secret information for you?
692 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Browder. I would fiWe you the general statement that I never
have assigned or requested anyone to perform espionage.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know Tung Pi Wu, the Chinese
Connnunist leader ?
JNIr. Browder. I do.
Sentor Hickenlooper. When was the last time you conferred with
him, or saw him ?
Mr. Browder. I met him in New York when he was on his way to
the conference that founded the Ignited Nations. He was a member
of the Chinese Government Delegation.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was that the last time yoii ever saw him or
met him, or talked with him ?
Mr. Browder. Yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. Who was at that meeting?
Mr. Browder. I do not remember, and if I did, I would not give
information about a meeting which I held with such a person, and
who was present.
I think that such questions as that are not in order.
Senator Hickenlooper. The determination of that, Mr. Browder^
will be made bv the connnittee.
Mr. Browder. Possibly. I may also have something to say about it.
I think the chairman will confirm that I have a right to express my
opinion on these things.
Senator Tydings. Let us try to keep this a quiet hearing, without
any
Mr. Brow^der. I wanted to make it clear, Mr. Chairman, that I am
not going to be intimidated by any person.
Senator Tydings. Just let us all now settle down. Go ahead,
Senator.
Mr. Browder. Pardon me for raising my voice.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was Mr. Service there — a member of the
State Department — at that meeting?
Mr. Browder. If you want to ask me any questions divorced from
that meeting, about wdiether I know Mr. Sei'vice, I will consider
wliether T shall answer that or not, by itself. But, I will tell you now
that I will answer no questions about that meeting with Tung Pi Wu.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know Mr. Service?
Mr. Browder. Now, you have asked me another question — whether
I shall answer your question about Service in general — ^I would have
no hesitation in answering this, except for the fact that experience has
taught me that once I begin to answer questions about individuals, I
may be led unwittingly into cooperation with a fishing expedition, and
I want to tell you now that I am going to take no part in any fishing
expedition to try to rake up new scandals to confuse the x\merican
public mind. I want only to contribute to dissolving this fog of
slanders and innuendoes thaLare poisoning the public life of America
today.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do I understand then, that your answer is
that you refuse to say whether or not you know Mr. Service ?
Mr. Browder. I refuse on the ground that T consider this is merely
the beginning of a fishing expedition to bring out a long list, perhaps
Budenz' famous 1,000 names, which will be asked, I will be asked to
identify or not identify in detail.
I refuse to take part in such a game.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 693
Senator Hickexi,ooi'ek. 1 believe you did testify tluit you knew
John Carter Vincent a moment ago, if 1 am correct.
Mr. Bkowder. 1 made no such testimony. 1 heard no such question.
Senator Hickexloopkk. Do you know John Carter Vincent?
Mr. Bhowder. No; 1 do not.
Senator Hickexloopek. I do not want to make any assumptions
that are wrong liere, Mr. Browder; but, it is my memory that you
said you knew Mr. JafFe.
Mr. Bkowder. Yes; 1 know Mr. Jaffe.
Senator Hickexlooper. Now, I will ask you whether Mr. Jaffe —
whether or not Mr. Jaife was present on this last occasion when you
saw and conferred with Tung Pi Wu?
Mr. Browder. You mean that yon do not accept my previous state-
ment that 1 will not answer such questions? If you are going to make
an issue of this, let's have it out, as to whether I have to disclose who
was present when I met with the government delegation from China
to the United Nations. If I have to testify about that before this
committee, I think that it is a question that should be very seriously
considered, and the committee itself shall take a position.
Senator Tydixgs. ]Mr. Browder, I wonder if Senator Hickenlooper,
in an effort to make progress on Avhat he wanted to find out, will permit
me to ask you if you will quietly tell us your reason for your reluc-
tance to testify to this matter which he addressed to you ?
Mr. Browder. My reasons are that I am a person who takes his
responsibilities very seriously, and I never violate these responsi-
bilities.
When I have a conference with a representative of a government,
delegated to the formation of the United Nations, I do not consider
myself at liberty to discuss that conference except with the permission
of the man involved. Obviously, I cannot consult with Tung Pi Wu
now, to see wdiether it would in any way be embarrassing for me to
discuss it.
Senator Tydix^gs. I would take it, then, from your answer that this
mission that has come to the United Nations, discussed with you mat-
ters of some secrecy, and that is the reason for your reluctance to
testify?
Mr. Browder. I would say it was a confidential discussion about the
])roblems of the organization of the United Nations.
Senator Ttdings. Go ahead, sir.
Senator HicIvexlooper. I again renew my questions, and we can
get along, you may either say that you refuse to answer the question,
or not — I again renew- my questions as to whether or not Philip Jaffe
was at that conference, the last conference that you had with Tung
Pi Wu?
Now% I am not asking anything else, except for an answer to that
question, whether or not he was there.
^Ir. Browder. I do not answer any questions regarding m}^ meeting
with Tung Pi Wu. beyond the fact that it tookjdace.
Senator Hickexlooper. Was John Carter Vincent at that nu^eting
with Tung Pi Wu ? ....''
Mr. Browder. You cannot involve me, by indirection, in what I
refuse to do by direction.
694 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOTS'
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, you refuse to answer tlie question
of whether or not Philip JafFe or John Carter Vincent were at this
meeting with Tun^ Pi Wu whicli you referred to as the last meeting
Avhich you had with him.
Mr. Bkowdeh. At this time, I certainly do.
Senator Hickexloopek. Was Mr. Service at that meeting?
Mr. Browder. Same answer.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you refusing to answer whether or not
he was there ?
Mr. Browder. I refuse to answer any questions with regard to that
meeting. You cannot in any way infer from that that I am affirming
that any person you named was oi was not at that meeting.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was Dr. Owen Lattimore at that meeting?
Mv. Bp.owder. I refuse to answer any questions regarding that
meeting.
Senator McMahon, Mr, Chairman-
Senator Tydings. Senator McMahon?
Senator McMahon. Will the Senator yield?
Senator Tydings. Will the Senator yield to the Senator from Con-
necticut ?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes ; I yield.
Senator INIcMation. Mr. Chairman. I think that the inquiry should
be answered by the witness.
Senator Tydings. The last or ail of them ?
Senator McMahon. He should be directed to answer any question
that is pertinent to these aims — and that it is not for him to
Senator Hickenlooper. Thank you. Senator. I have a number of
questions that I want to ask and then I would hope that the com-
mittee would determine what it wanted to do about it.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Browder, without disclosing what went on
in that meeting that is of a confidential nature, assuming that your
request in that one respect will be respected, would you feel that you
could name the persons who were present at the meeting?
Mr. Browder. No; I would not so name them.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, for the official record, I
hope that the record shows definitely that all during this questioning,
the full subcommittee is present, every member is present.
Senator Tydings. The record will so show.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you ever meet, Mr. Browder — did you
ever meet Phillip Jaffe at a Communist Party meeting in New York
City?
Mr. Browder. It depends upon what you mean by "a Comnuniist
Party meeting?"
Senator Hickenlooper. At a meeting attended generally by Com-
munists, or known Communist sympathizers?
Mr. Browder. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know a J. Peters, just the initial
"J." Peters?
Mv. Browder. I do.
Senator Hickenlooper. Can you tell me what his functions were in
the Communist Party?
Mr. Browder. He was a minor functional^ — I could not describe
his functions in detail.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION G95
Senator Hickexlooper. Then
Mr, Bhowder. lie had none during the hist several years that I was
at the head of the party.
Senator Hickenu^oper. Did yon give him an espionage mission at
any time or request Inm to surreptitiously, or otlierwise, acquire secret
information for you ?
Mr. Browder. No.
Senator IIickenlooper. Did you ever receive or accept any instruc-
tions fi'om him to you, to perform an espionage mission, or to acquire
secret Government information ?
Mr. Browder. I would like to expand that answer to apply not only
to Mr. Peters, but to all other persons that might be subject to the
same questions — that in my function as the secretary of the Com-
munist Party of the United States, I received instructions from no
individuals whatever.
Senator Hickexlooper. That includes Mr. Peters?
]\Ir. Browder. That includes Mr. Peters.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did you ever work for or with the Comin-
tern, or any of its branches in China when you were a young man ?
]Mr. Browder. Xo. I worked in China for the Pan Pacific Trade
Union Secretariat. I was general secretary of that Trade Union
Organization, with headquarters in China.
Senator Hickexlooper. And as such, did you work with the Com-
munist movement in China at any time ?
Mr. Browder. Oh, yes, I worked very closely with the Chinese
Communists.
Senator Hickexlooper. How many times have you been abroad,
Mr. Browder, outside of the territorial limits of the United States?
Mr. Browder. Very many times. I couldn't give you offhand the
number.
Senator Hickexlooper. How many times roughly, between 1922
or— bv the wav, when did you sav that you joined the Communist
Party?
Mr. Browder. 1921.
Senator Hickexlooper. How many times between 1921 and the
present tin:^e have you been outside of the territorial limits of the
United States, on a passport visa or otherwise ?
Mr. Browder. Probably 18 or 20 times.
Senator Hickexlooper. And when you reentered the United States
each time, did you declare your affiliation with, or membership in the
Connnunist Party, in your declaration when you reentered?
]Mr. Browder. I do not understand your question. Is there such
a requirement in entering the United States?
Senator Hickexlooper. I just asked you if you did.
Mr, Browder. I never heard of such a requirement, I never heard
of such a custom or practice.
Senator Hickexlooper, Did you ever sign any statements on re-
entering the United States, or entering the United States, that you
were not in fact a Communist?
Mr. Browder. Xo ; I never did.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know Elizabeth Bentley?
Mr. Browder. I have met Elizabeth Bentley.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did you know her as a Communist at any
time 2
(iS970 — 50 — pt. 1 45
696 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Browder, No ; I did not know her as a Communist. I knew her
as a secretarial employee.
Senator Hickenlooper, Of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Brow der. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did Elizabeth Bentley ever attend any
meetings at which Communist policy was discussed or programs
outlined ?
Mr. Broavder. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you ever give Elizabeth Bentley any
espionage assignments in New York City, or at any other place ?
Mr. Browder. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Or, any assignment to acquire for you
secret information of the United States Government?
Mr. Browder. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you know, while you were an active
member of the Communist Party, a man by the name of Golos? I
believe he is now deceased.
Mr. Broavder. I did.
Senator Hickenlooper. Were you ever present at any meeting
where any member of the Soviet Embassy or Soviet mission to this
country, conferred with Mr. Golos, or with Miss Bentley or
Mr. Browder. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Or others, or both of them together?
Mr. Browder. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. On your last visit to Moscow, who were the
Soviet leaders or Communist leaders, or the Russians with whom you
discussed your situation, so far as the Communist Party and the
Communist movement were concerned ?
]\Ir. Browder. As a matter of fact, I had no discussions about the
situation in the Communist Party. I had no discussion, not because
I did not want to, but because I could not find any Russian who would
discuss the American Communist Party with me at all.
Senator Hickenlooper. Who were the Russians you talked to while
in Russia ?
Mr. Browder. Well, the outstanding figures that I had occasion to
talk to were Molotov, and Lassovsky. IMolotov was the former foreign
minister and Lassovsky was the chief of the information bureau.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you talk to any members of the — that
is, any leaders of the Communist Party in Moscow?
Mr. Browdzr. As such, no. 1 was not invited to the Communist
Party headquarters.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you liave any meetings with Com-
munist leaders in Moscow, outside of the Communist headquarters?
]Mr. Browder. Mr. Molotov, himself, was the — is the leader of the
Communist Party, but I met him as foreign minister. He invited me
to his office in the Foreign Ministiy, and I met him there. At the same
time he is the leader of the Communist Party.
Senator Hickenlooper. And did you meet other leaders of the Com-
munist Party, other than the two you have mentioned?
Mr. Browder. I met others.
Senator Hickenlooper. Would you give us their names, as you can
remember them ?
Mr. Browder. I think it is sufficient if I tell you that I met Molotov
and Lassovsky, and I do not care to go any further into it.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 697
Senator Hickknlooper. I do not think it is snfiicient that you limit
yonr statement to that, and as responsive to the question.
Now, you of course may refuse to answer the question, but I present
it again : Otlier than the two you have mentioned, what other Com-
munist leader did you meet and confer with in Moscow?
Mr. BRcnvDER. I refuse to answer.
Senator HiCKKXLOoPER. Do you know Abe Flaxer?
Mr. Browder. '\A1io?
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know Abe FLaxer, F-1-a-x-e-r?
]\Ir. Browder. I recopiize tlie name as a leading member of a trade-
union and I want to say that I will not answer any questions as to my
knowledge of any trade-union leader.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know whether or not Abe Flaxer
is a Connnunist or has been a Communist?
Mr. Browder. I refuse to answer.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know Judge Dorothy Kenyon?
Mr. Browder. I refuse to answer.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know Haldore Hanson?
Mr. Browder. I refuse to answer.
Senator Hickexlooper. Are any of these people whose names I
have just mentioned, namely, Mv. Flaxer, Judge Kenyon, INIr. Han-
son, to your knowledge now or at any time in the past, have they been
to your knowledge, Communists or sympathizers and workers for the
Conmnmist cause?
Mr. Browder. I want to declare to the committee that I consider
it outrageous that this hearing should be devoted to the development
of new smear campaigns, and headlines about individuals, on the basis
of innuendo and general smear campaigns. I refuse to take part in
such proceedings. This is not a search for facts. This is an attempt
to promote a public campaign of hysteria with which I will have no
association.
Senator Hickexlooper. Will you read the question to him, please?
(The record was read as follows :)
Senator Hickenlooper. Are any of these people whose names I have just men-
tioned, namely, Mr. Flaxer, .Judge Kenyon, Mr. Hanson, to yonr knowledge now
or at any time in the past, have they been to your knowledge, Communists or
sympathizers and workers for the Communist cause?
Mr. Browt)er. I refuse to answer.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do vou know Nathan Gregory Silvermas-
ter?
Mr. Browder. I refuse to answer.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know William Ludwig Ullmann?
Mr. Browder. I refuse to answer.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know Harry Bridges?
]\Ir. Browder. I refuse to answer.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know John Abt ?
Mr. Browder. I refuse to answer.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know Nathan Witt?'
Mr. Browder. I refuse to answer.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know Albert Ehys Williams —
E-h-y-s. middle name.
Mr. Browder. I refuse to answer.
Senator Hickexlooper. AVhile you were an official of the Com-
munist Party, did you at any time have any meetings in the office of
698 STATE DEPARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
the Daily Worker, or at any other ph\ce at which Louis Budenz was
in atteiulance?
]Mr. Bk()Avi>p:r. I never had any meetings in the office of the Daily
Worker at which Budenz was in attendance. Tliere were two or three
meetings in my othce at which Budenz attended.
Senator Hickenlooper. Those meetings were to discuss policy of
the Daily Worker, and the Communist program, were they not?
Mr. Bkowder. Xo; they were very specihc meetings which Budenz
was invited for the purpose of discussing the work among the Catholics
at wdiich he was considered to be a specialist.
Senator Hickenlooper. And those meetings were limited to that
purpose, is that correct ?
Mr. Browder. That is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. And who attended those meetings?
Mr. Browder. I can't tell you offhand; generally, in the office of
the ])arty.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was Frederick Vanderbilt Field at any of
those meetings?
Mr. Brow^der. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was William Z. Foster at any of these
meetings ?
Mr, Browder. I would not know. As far as — from the time — as
to exactly who was present.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was Jack Stachel at any of these meetings ?
Mr. Browder. I wouldn't remember.
Senator Hickenlooper. You know
Mr, Browder. Oh, yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. What position in the party does Mr. Stachel
hold now?
Mr. Browder. I do not know.
Senator Hickenlooper. What position in the party did he hold
while you were an official of the party ?
Mr. Browder. He held very many different positions. He changed
his work very frequently.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did Mr. Stachel ever direct you to per-
form any missions for the acquisition of secret information for the
Communist Party?
Mr. Browder. I have answered that question before, and I repeat,
no one ever gave me directions in my capacity as the secretary of
the Communist Party, either to get secret information or for any other
purpose. I received no instructions. I accept no instructions, I was
an independent executive responsible only to my executive committee.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did the executive committee give you
directions from time to time ?
Mr. Browder. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you ever receive directions from Mos-
cow, either from the Communist Party or the Communist Government
at any time?
Mr. Browder. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then I take it you were operating in a
completely sovereign capacity as an individual direct in the Com-
munist Party with neither the executive committee nor any other
person directing or suggesting what you did, that you were completely
sovereign in the Comnuinist Party in this country, is that correct I
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 699
Mr. Browder. You are at liberty to make your own formulation of,
or ireneralization of, Avliat the condition was. I have given you the
facts.
Senator Hickexlooper. Mr. Chairman, there are a number of things
involved liere in this hearing, that I think quite apparently require
a meeting of this conunittee, and at this moment I think that I have
concluded my testimony.
I am sorry to have taken so nuich time from the other members but
1 again revert — I think the Senator from Connecticut has a point. I
merely wanted to get through with the group of questions before he
took up his, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. Before we have our meeting, or set a time for
meeting, there may be others that have questions here.
Senator Green, do you have any questions?
Senator Green. No questions.
Senator Tydinos. ]Mr. Morgan?
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, in view of developments at this point,
I think, as counsel for this committee, I would like to have in the
record a portion of the resolution under which we are functioning.
Senate Resolution 231. which i^-ovides that, and this is a pertinent
])art of it, '"that the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, or any
duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is authorized and directed to
conduct a full and complete study and investigation as to whether per-
sons who are disloyal to the United States are, or have been, employed
by the Dei)artment of State."'
I think. Senator Hickenlooper, for our record, we might have your
observation as to whether theses questions to which you have not re-
ceived a response, were, in your opinion, pertinent to this authorizing
clause.
Senator Hickexlooper. These questions, Mr. Chairman, that I have
asked, have the utmost pertinency to the direct and intimate subject
matter of this resolution, and I should be glad to go into the matter
with the conunittee a little more in detail. I assure you that they have
a direct bearing.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator Lodge?
Senator L.odge. I would like to reiterate my hope that ^Ir. Morris
will have a chance to interrogate all the witnesses, and I think it is
impairing the integrity of this proceeding for him not to have that
opportunity. I think that this committee and the press and the Ameri-
can public are entitled to have all of these witnesses approached from
different angles and have this thinu' threshed out as nearly as possible
with as broad a coverage as possible; and, I shall not press for a vote
now, but it is a matter of procedure that is better settled in ex.cutivr'
session ; but, I do say that as of the next executive session, I shall ask
for a vote on that issue, which I regard as fundamental.
Senator Tydings. Senator Green ?
Senator Greex. I have no (juestions at the present.
Senator Tyt)IX'gs. Senator McMahon?
Senator Mc^Iahox. Mr. Browder, who set the line for Mr. Budenz'
pa])er ; was it j'ou or Mr. Stachel ?
^fr. Browder. I was the editor in chief, and ultimately responsible
for the paper as a whole. There was a brief period in which I used
Stachel as 1113' deputy, but he had no independent authority.
700 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McMahon. Can you give us tlie time of that interregnum ?
Mr. Browder. I would say that that was the 1944 period, and up
to the time of my being deposed as the head of the party.
Senator McMahon. When did Mr. Budenz come with the Daily
Worker, do you remember ?
Mr. Browder. I would hesitate to give offhand dates.
Senator McMahon. Aj^proximately ?
Mr. Browder. Approximately, subject to correction, I would say
that he was first employed by the Daily Worker in 1936. That em-
ployment lasted, I believe, something less than 2 years; and then he
went to Chicago. In Chicago he was editor of the Midwest Daily
Record. That was discontinued, I believe, in 1940; and, after he had
wound up the affairs of that paper, I think he came back to the Daily
Worker, although I think there was a period in which he was not
employed.
He was finally employed again on the Daily Worker sometime in '40,
I believe.
My memory would not be exact on that, because in that particular
period I was having my own trial and receiving a prison sentence,
and was not giving daily attention to that phase of the work.
Senator McMahon. Did he operate the paper during those times
when you were unable to do it ?
Mr. Browder. No. Budenz was never anything but a technical
man in the staff of the daily. He was not a political man.
■Senator McMahon. Didn't he have the title of managing editor ?
Mr. Browder. Yes.
Senator McMahon. Didn't that title carry with it the usual pur-
poses of such a title on the newspaper ?
Mr. Browder. I don't know wdiat the usual purposes of such a title
are, but in our paper it means the technical editor.
Senator McMahon. What do you mean?
Mr. Browder. The only field in which he was qualified, was the
technique of newspaper production. He was in charge of copy and
so on. I suppose that, in a large modern newspaper, he would be
what you would call the copy editor.
Senator McMahon. He had nothing to do with policy ?
Mr. Browder. No.
Senator McMahon. You regarded him as a loyal party member?
Mr. Browder. We had no reason at that time to question his loyalty,
but we did discuss — question his capacity for anything beyond the tech-
nical newspaper production.
Senator McMahon. Was it customary for the contributors to your
paper to call at the offices of the Daily Worker and leave their ma-
terial, or was it sent in from time to time?
Mr. Broavder. Both — both.
Senator McMahon. You said that you had him in a conference for
some work to be done on the Roman Catholic policy. What was the
nature of that work, if you care to say?
Mr. Browder. Well, he prided himself very much on his ability to
spread communism among the Catholics, and we naturally humored
that in hopes that it might develop something through it, and the con-
ferences
Senator McMahon. Louder.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 701
Mr. Bro-wder. Conferences were held at his insistence, to discuss
that problem.
Senator ]\IcMahox. He initiated that himself?
Mr. Browder. Yes. He -was the man who was also pressing it, and
the necessity and the possibilities of spreading communism among
the church members.
Senator McMahox. I don't wish to pursue this at any great length,
but. Mr. Browder, you have stated that you did not know, as I recol-
lect it, what the reasons were for your discharge from the Connnunist
Party. It is a matter of fact that Thorez, the French Communist
leader, made a speech a few days before action was taken against you
in the United States party, is not that true ?
Mr. Browder. You are probably referring to the fact that
Senator McMaiiox. When he denounced you.
Mr. Bro^\t>er. Jacques Duclos published an article in the French
party magazine denounced me as having revived the basic principles
of Marxism and Leninism.
Senator McMaiiox. It was a few days later that you were expelled ?
Mr. Browder. Xo; it was some time later. But first a series of
meetings and discussions, so-called, and a convention at which I was
removed from leading positions, and the following February, 6
months later, I was expelled from membership.
Senator McMahox. It is a privilege, of course, under our Consti-
tution, that a witness does not have to answer, if you want to plead that
it may incriminate him, but there are two names Senator Hickenlooper
has presented to you, namely. Miss Dorothy Kenyon, and Mr. Haldore
Hanson. He gave you those names in the middle of a list of other
names which I have not heard in these proceedings.
Now, some of them have a vaguely familiar sound to me, but, of
course jSIiss Kenyon and Mr. Hanson were named openly and charged
openly by Senator ^McCarthy and they have appeared before this
committee. It occurs to me that whatever your answer may be, that
to witldiold an answer on Miss Kenyon ancl this other gentleman, if
you are sincerely interested in not contributing to a smear campaign,
that your withholding of an answer on them, if the answer is in the
negative, is contributing to that smear.
On the other hand, if the answer is in the positive, since those cases
are before the committee, I believe you should answer.
I, therefore, Mr. Chairman, move that tlie witness be directed to
answer as to — I want it in tlie words of Senator Hickenloopers ques-
tion to these two people only, and for the reasons that I have given
you.
If you will just repeat your question. Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Tdyixgs. Allow me to talk to the witness a moment. Mr.
Browder. the names of the two persons who have been mentioned by
Senator McMahon, have had a part in these proceedings. I will not
attempt to detail what the statements against them were, but the
question has arisen as to whether or not they are members of the Com-
munist Party, first.
Xow, as Senator McMahon has pointed out, if you refuse to answer
the question, we can draw either interpretation from your refusal.
The chairman would like, therefore, before taking any formal action
on belialf of whatever the committee might want to propose, to bring
this matter to your attention and in the interest of fairness and truth,
702 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
and in pursuing tlie investigation which we are ordered to make, to
ask you if you will not reconsider on those two names, and tell us
whether or not you know or do not know they are members of the
Communist Party.
Mr. Browder. I am quite willing to answer the question about those
two persons and I refused to answer before only because they were
included in a long list which was obviously the beginning of a fishing
expedition for new names to smear by association.
It is unfortunate that I have associated with very many public
people and it is also unfortunate that they associated with me under
conditions where it was obviously their patriotic duty to do so whereas,
now the very mention of that sort of association can be used to destroy
them in public life, and I will not permit such associations of mine to
be used in that fashion.
I will not take part, and I will not be drawn into any fishing expedi-
tion of that kind.
With regard to Dorothy Kenyon, and the other name
Senator McMaiion. Haldore Hanson.
Senator Tydings. Haldore Hanson.
Mr. Browder. I would say, without the slightest hesitation, that
neither one of them ever, in my period of leadership in the organiza-
tion, the Communists, had any organized connection as members or
friends.
Senator Tydings. Thank you very much for cooperating. I would
like to ask Senator Hickenlooper if, in that list of names that he read,
many of which I have not heard before, there are any employees who
have been in the State Department or are now in the State Department,
and if he will not give me those names so that I may see if we can reach
an understanding and at the same time try to keep you in the character
that you say you want to remain in.
I have no idea of trapping you or involving you. I am only dealing
with you in complete frankness, to try to help this case which we are
ordered to investigate, and for no other reason.
Senator McMahon. I want him back when you get through with
this line.
Senator Tydings. Yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. For the record, and I again want it to
appear that at this time the entire membership of tlie committee is
here, all five members, I will call attention to tlie fact that Mr, Service,
John Carter Vincent, are both connected with the State Department;
Lattimore has been connected with the State Department, although
the degree of that connection is somewhat indefinite, on occasions;
and I say to the committee that the rest of the names, at least in most
part, in my judgment, have a direct bearing upon the inquiry into the
State Department's activities and the employees of the State Depart-
ment.
There might be one or two questions which would lay the basis for
further inquiry, depending on the answers he has, which might directly
affect the State Department; but every one of these questions that I
have asked this witness has been asked for the purpose that I believe it
can lead to information in connection with tlie State Department
activities.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 703
Senator Tydixgs. Now, Mr. Biowder, you liave already testified at
len*2:th about Mr. Lattimore. so I am not going to ask you any more
about Mr. Lattimore; I think that you have covered that subject.
Mr. John Carter Vincent and
Senator McMaiiox. Before that, would you mind if I proceeded
with my examination ?
Senator TyniNGs. Pardon?
Senatcn- ]\IcIMaii()N. That is perfectly all right. I would say now
that would come, but I have some preliminary questions
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Senator McMahox. Mr. Browder. you have made the assertion that
you refused to name people as having associated with you, whose
patriotic duty it was to associate with you during years past.
That statement is slightly mystifying to me, and I am sure that it
must be to others of the comniiltee. What do you mean by that?
Mr. Browdek. I mean that the cooperation of the Communist Party
in the war effort had a very serious significance in its success, and in
the course of that cooperation I had direct and indirect associations
and correspondence in cooperation with the large number of public
figures from the l^resident down.
Senator McMaiiox. In other words, prior to June 21, 1941
Mr. Browder. Yes.
Senator McMahox. When the Soviet Union was invaded by Hitler,
the Communist Party in this country did everything that it could to
prevent any demonstration of sympathy for the Allied cause. That
is true, is it not?
Mr. Browder. No ; that is not.
Senator McMahox. To discourage all aid and assistance to Great
Britain, for instance, during that period of the pact between the Soviet
Government and Hitler ? Is it not a fact that the Communist Party
in this country carried on a campaign denominating the war in prog-
ress as an imperialist war?
Mr. Browder. That is a fact.
Senator McMahon. It is a fact?
Mr. Browder. Yes. Your previous statement is not.
Senator McMahox. Now. in the process of carrying out that policy
denominating it as an imperitilist war there were many slow-downs
which were initiated in defense plants in this country by the Com-
munist Part3^
Mr. Browder. No ; that is not correct.
Senator McMahox. That is not true, or — in what regard?
Mr. Browder. That is not true.
Senator McMahox. As regards the airplane plant in California?
That is not true?
Mr. Browder. It is true there was a strike there; yes. It is true it
had no connection with international questions.
Senator McMahox. And was not instigated by the Communists?
Mr. Browder. The reason for the strike was that the workers in that
plant were receiving 47 cents an hour. The going rate in most air-
plane plants was 07 cents an hour, and those workers wanted to get
at least half of that difference, they wanted 57 cents an hour. The
strike was for 57 cents an hour, and the question the Communists
had to decide was whether they would tell the workers not to strike.
704 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
The Communists had no decisive power. They had to advise. They
told them to strike for 57 cents an honr. They were receiving 47.
Senator McMahon. Well, at any rate
Mr. Browder. By the way, that same airplane plant was getting its
own price from the British Government.
Senator McMahon. Obviously, we cannot go into all those ramifica-
tions, Mr. Browder
Mr. Browder, If one is not prepared to go into the facts of the
case, one should never cite these things as examples of a general situa-
tion.
Senator McMahon. All right. Now let's get on with it.
After the invasion of Soviet Russia, your attitude, that is, the Com-
munist Party attitude changed, after June 21.
Mr. Browdi;r. Yes. Would you like me to express why it changed ?
Senator McMahon. Well, that is not pertinent to my next question,
which is that apparently after that date, and when you decided to
wholeheartedly support the efforts made here, you stated that you came
into contact with American officials; was that correct?
Mr. Browder. I did.
Senator McMahon. Were you present at the San Francisco Con-
ference ?
Mr. Browder. I was not.
Senator McMahon. Did you make any calls at the State Depart-
ment during those war years ?
Mr. Browder. At the State Department ? Yes ; I visited the State
Department twice.
Senator McMahon. And, in what years
Mr. Browder. Both times at written invitation.
Senator McMahon. What years were they?
Mr. Browder. 1942 and, I believe the second time was 1943.
Senator McMahon. Whose duty was it to see you on those two
occasions ?
Mr. Bro^vder. I met Under Secretary Sumner Welles.
Senator McMahon. What was the purpose of that discussion ?
Mr. Browder. The first meeting was occasioned by a speech I had
made, making charges against cei'tain elements in the State Depart-
ment. Mr. Welles said that the Department had been forced to take
notice of these charges and considered that perhaps they were due to
lack of information on my, Browder's, part. He said that apparently
I was not sufficiently acquainted with what was the actual policy of the
United States Government. He then proceeded to read a statement*
to me in which he specifically rejected, one by one, the charges I had
made, which was to the effect that it was the State Department's in-
fluence which was causing the armies of the Nationalist Government in
China to be withheld from the fighting front and kept as a blockading
force against the Communists.
Senator McMahon. It was during this time, of course, that you
were demonstrating in favor of the second front, too, was it not ?
Mr. Browder. At the same time ; yes.
Senator McMahon. You put out quite a lot of propaganda on that?
Mr. Browder. Oh, yes, indeed.
Senator McMatton. And, in 1943, did you again see Mr. Welles?
Mr. Browder. Yes. I was requested to call at the State Depart-
ment, the occasion being that I had written to the State Department to
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 705
inform them tliat I was contemplating a trip to Mexico at a particular
date and inasmuch as the situation — and the war — was critical, I con-
sidered it necessary for me to notify them in advance, as a matter of
courtesy and cooperation.
He responded to that letter of notification that I was going to Mex-
ico, with the request that I call at the State Department.
Senator McMaiion. Mr. Welles did ?
Mr. Bhowder. Mr. Welles.
Senator McMahon. By the way, did he try to dissuade or discour-
age you from that second-front propaganda?
jNlr. Browder. I did not argue about those questions. He seemed
to have a specific agenda for the visit.
Senator McMaiion. Which had to do with your China
Mr. Browder. What?
Senator McMahon. Which had to do with China?
Mr. Browder. Primarily. We discussed a few other questions but
the basis and the reason for meeting was China, and that was the
serious business that was conducted.
The second time he called me to the State Department to request
that I should not make the trip to Mexico and I responded that, I
first asked him if he could give me any reason for it, and he said he
could not ; and then, I said that I thought that such a decision was a
mistaken one. I thought that my trip to Mexico would be helpful to
the whole situation, but since he had informed me that he was re-
questing me to not go, on the personal suggestion of the President, I
said I would accept this suggestion without decision.
I did not know, and later on I found out the reason why that
request had been made — that that was the exact moment when the
President was meeting the President of Mexico in Monterey. If I had
made my trip, I would have been a passenger to Monterey at the
exact moment of the meetings of the two Presidents, and the Un'
American Activities Committee would have a case against the Presi-
dent of the United States.
Senator McMahon. You saw, then, the Under Secretary on both
of your visits to the Department, Under Secretary Welles ?
Mr. Browder. Yes.
Senator "McMahox. Did you see him alone ?
Mr. Broavder. No. I was accompanied by Eobert Minor, and some
other officials with Mr. Welles on the first visit — not the second visit —
a Lauchlin Currie.
Senator McMahon. That was on the second visit ?
Mr. Broa\T)er. No, the first visit.
Senator McMahon. Now, what are the other circumstances, what
circumstances were there where it was patriotic, a patriotic duty of
officials to meet with you — what are the occasions?
Mr. Browder. I could not describe the occasions without naming
the i)eople. It is a fact, however, that there was a tremendous amount
of problems in the war in which the Communist Party was able to
play a very strong, constructive role in facilitating the whole process
of national unity.
Senator McMahon. Did you have any dealings with the OSS?
Mr. Browder. Personally, no.
Senator McMahon. Did you cooperate with them ?
Mr. Browt)ER. There were members of the party who did.
706 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McMahon. You will not o'ive us then, an answer to whether
or not you have met with with Mr. Vincent and Mr. Service ?
Mr, Broavder. I think somewhere I must draw the line or I will
inevitably be involved in the machinations of the people who have
created this silly mess, and therefore I prefer to draw the line right
here.
Senator McMahon. Mr. Browder, I am calling your attention to
the fact that, as was the case with Miss Kenyon and Mr. Hanson, IVIr.
Service has been mentioned publicly by Senator McCarthy, so it is
not a case of starting any campaigns. This matter is now out in the
open.
Does that change your determination ?
Mr. Browder. Xot at this time. I am, of course, open to conviction
later, as to whether I have done an injustice to anyone by arbitrarily
drawing a line at a particular place. I think I must draw a line, and
1 have drawn it and I prefer to let it stand there now.
Senator Tydings. Returning for a moment, Mr. Browder, leaving
out the association, of whetlier know these people, do you
feel, inasmuch as they are employees, or have been and I believe still
are employees of the State Department, do you not feel that you could
at least answer tliis question : To your knowledge, is Mr. John Carter
Vincent or Mr. Service, members of the Communist Party ?
Those are the only two names I shall present to you.
Mr. Browder. Yes — before it was two other names. Now, it is two,
maybe one by one we will get into a list of thousands.
Senator Tydings. These are employees of the State Department and
we have had some testimony about them. I see your point of view.
I am not arguing at the moment, but I do think you are defeating the
purpose of this inquiry in a way that you perhaps do not realize, if
you allow this to be obscured, and if you felt that you could answer, in
the cases of Mr. Vincent and Mr, Service, I would be very grateful to
you.
]Mr. Browder. When I have recei\'ed assurances that I will not be
subjected to intimidation, to try to reduce me to the status of a Budenz,
I will reconsider the question.
Senator Tydings, For the moment, so far as I am concerned, these
are employees of the State Department, and will you not reconsider
answering in these two names, the question — Do you, of your own
knowledge, know whether either or both of them are members of the
Communist Party ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I want to call attention to the fact that I
did not ask that question.
Senator Tydings. I understand. I am asking it. I did not inter-
rupt anybody and I would like to try to get fairly the evidence in the
case in which we are looking into the State Department employees,
I have nothing that is not apparent in the answer to my question.
Mr, Browder. Without in any way prejudicing my determination
to resist
Senator Tydings. I understand.
Mr. Browder. At any cost, the line of questioning pursued by Sena-
tor Hickenlooper, I would say that regarding the two names you
mentioned, to the best of my knowledge and belief, they never had
any direct or indirect connection with the Communist Party.
Senator Tydings, Thank you, sii*.
STATE DEPARTJNIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 707
Senator IIickkxlooper. I do not want to leave it at the moment.
The questions 1 had asked about the two men, were — I asked a question
as to whether or not the}' attended the conference of the Chinese Com-
nnmist leader. Tliat was my (luestion, with regard to those two
people.
Senator Tydings. 1 understand. I think that we have reached a
point now — it is a little after 1 — don't leave the room, please, and add
to the confusion. 'I'lie press have some statements to get off. but the
others, please remain so that we can invite you back some other time.
We have reached tlie point where it is 1 : 05 in the afternoon, and we all
have to vote beginning at 2 o'clock this afternoon, and do not know
how long we will be tied up in the alfairs on the Senate floor.
I understand that there are other witnesses here wlio were sum-
moned to appear today. I would like to say to Mr. Browder, and to^
those other witnesses, I wish you would stay and I ask you and direct
that j'ou stay in Washington until we can communicate with you as to«
what the future plans of the committee are.
I rather think we shall meet tomorrow morning, and I hope we can.
It will depend on circumstances which we cannot now apprise, so I will
ask all witnesses to get in touch with Mr. Morgan, our chief counsel, for
the purpose of acquainting him with where you will be so he can
transmit later information to you, as soon as we know what it is.
If you will do that, the Chair will be very much obliged to you all,
and we will take a recess subject to further call.
(Whereupon, at 1 :10 p. m. tlie subcommittee recessed subject to the
call of the Chair.)
STATE DEPARTMEiNT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington^ D. C.
The subcommittee met, purHuant to notice, at 10 :oO a. m., in the
caucus room, room 318, Senate Office Building, Wasliington, D. C,
Senator Millard E. Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) pre-
siding.
Present: Senators Tydings, Green, McMahon, Hickenlooper, and
Lodge.
Also present : Senators Connally and Knowland, and Mr. Edward
P. Morgan, chief counsel of the snbcornmittee.
Senator Tydings. The meeting will come to order.
[ believe, Mr. Morgan, our first witness is Mr. Frederick Vanderbilt
Field, is that correct ?
]\Ir. Morgan. That is correct, ]\lr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. INIr. Field, will you take the stand right here,
and hold up your right hand ?
Do 5'OU solemnl}' promise and declare that the evidence you shall
give in the case pending before this committee shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Field. I do.
TESTIMONY OF FREDERICK VANDERBILT FIELD
Senator Tydings. Give us your full name.
Mr. Field, Frederick Vanderbilt Field.
Senator Tydings. And your age?
Mr. Field. Forty-five.
Senator Tydings. And vour post office or residential address?
:Mr. Field. 16 A^'est Twelfth Street, New York City.
Mr. Tydings. And your present business?
Mr, Field. Self-employed,
Senator Tydings. mv. Morgan, you may proceed.
Mr, Morgan. ]Mr. Field, I have before me here a mimeogi-aphed
statement which I believe you desire to read at this point, is that
correct ?
Mr. Field. If I may do so, that is correct.
]Mr. ^Morgan. You may proceed.
Mr. Field. Gentlemen: According to the press, Louis Budenz is
reported to have testified before this subcommittee that I am a Soviet
709
710 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
espionage agent and that I had reported to officials of the Communist
Party at one time or another that Prof. Owen Lattimore was a Com-
munist or a Communist agent or under Communist control. In addi-
tion, there are press i-eports that j^our connnittee was informed that
a vanished witness, one John J. Huber, would have testified, had he
not "blacked out," that I have attended a Communist Party meeting
or meetings with the Lattimores. I have not been confronted by
Budenz with this testimony nor have I had an opportunity to read
a transcript of it. Similarly, I do not know what the vanishing wit-
ness' testimony would have been or may 3'et be.
I wish to take this occasion to deny under oath and without quali-
fication or reservation of any kind any statemeut or implication that
I have at any time ever been an espionage agent for the Soviet Union
or for any other country. I make a similar unqualified denial with
respect to any statement or implication that 1 have at any time
attended a Connnunist Party meeting or meetings with Professor
Lattimore or his wife, separately or together, or that I have ever
stated, directly or indirectly, by implication or otlierwise, that both
or either of the Lattimores were Communists, Connnunist agents, or
dominated by Communists. Any such statements are completely and
utterly false.
I M'as employed by the Institute of Pacific Relations from 1928 to
1940, in tlie last 6 years as executive secretary of its American branch.
During part of this period Professor Lattimore was a member of the
international secretariat of the institute. I met with Professor Latti-
more in connection with our institute work in the same way that I
met many far-eastern specialists. Since I worked on the staff of the
American branch and he worked on the staff of the international
branch our relationship was limited because we were stationed, for
the most part, in different cities or countries. Our association did
not involve a relationship to the Connnunist Party in any way what-
ever.
Gentlemen, I must respectfully decline to testify before this com-
mittee concerning any other nuitters affecting my i^olitical views or
affiliations, such as my alleged membership in or affiliation with the
Communist Party. This declination is in the exercise of my rights,
guaranteed to me under the fifth auiendment to the Constitution of the
United States. Furthermore, I am unwilling to stand apart from
others, whether they be Communist or non-Communist, who have de-
clined to answer such questions.
Under present circumstances the entire weight of the Government
and of its various branches is being brought to bear against all thought,
all political or cultural expression, all forms of organization which
oppose the policy of the cold war. One cannot criticize the foreign
policy of this Government without being officially castigated and
publicly smeared. One cannot, for instance, organize a committee to
advocate the opening of commercial and diplomatic relations with the
People's Republic of China without being falsely branded as disloyal
and the organization placed ou the subversive list by the Attorney
General and without facing persecution and possible prosecution.
Under such circumstances, it is my opinion that all progressive
minded individuals must stand together in defense of the traditional
American right to free expression and organization, in defense of the
whole Bill of Rights, and, what today is of paramount importance,
./'
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 711
ill defense of the inalienable rifi^lit and duty to advocate policies that
will brin^" about a lasting; peace.
Particularly the question, "Are you a Communist?" has become a
[irincipal wea'i)on used by the Government in its attempts to intimi-
date and terrorize its critics. If those who are are middle-of-the-
roaders answer the question and say "No,'* reactionary fanatics im-
mediately seek to condemn them by trying- to identify them with others
who may be Communists or who are nearer the Communist position.
Theiv was no end to this sort of thin<r in Germany nor in Japan; there
will be no end to it here unless all of us who believe in democratic
{)rog:ress and peace stand tofjether and put an end to it.
Mr. Morgan. Does that conclude your statement, Mr. Field?
Mr. Field. Yes : it does, Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Morgan. In view of some observations that you have made in
your statement. I would like, initially, to read to you a portion of
Senate Resolution 231, mider which this subcommittee is fmictioning:
KESOLUTION
Resolved, That the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, or any duly
authorized snbcoinittee thereof, is authorized and directed to conduct a full
and complete study and investigation as to wliether ijersons who are disloyal to
the United States are or have been employed by the Department of State.
Mr. Field, in view of your statement, without further ado, I want
to ask you the question at the outset : Are you now, or have you ever
been, a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Field. Mr. INIorgan, for the reason I have stated already, I
decline to answer that question.
Senator Hickexlooper. Mr. Chairman, I missed the question counsel
asked.
Mr. Morgan. I asked Mr. Field if he is now, or has ever been, a
member of the Communist Party.
Your answer ?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer on the ground I stated.
Mr. Morgan. Would you care to state those grounds again?
Mr. Field. My privilege, under the fifth amendment of the
Constitution.
Mr. Morgan. Is it your understanding that to answer this question
would incriminate you in some way or another?
Mr. Field. Mr. Morgan. I think I stated ni}^ ground fully. I have
a coi)y of the fifth amendment with me. I think it includes the
Ijrivilege that I have invoked.
Mr. Morgan. Is it your understanding, jSIr. Field, that it is a
violation of law to be a member of the Communist Party of this
country?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, also, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Going back to my first question, I ask you again:
Are vou now. or have vou evt-r been, a member of the Communist
Party? ^
Mr. Field. I say again. Mr. Morgan, that I decline to answer that
question for the reason that I have stated.
Mr. Morgan. I will ask the re]ioiter to note on the record, if he will,
please, that present at this time are the chairman of this committee,
Senator Tydings, Senator Green, Senator Hickenlooper, and Senator
Lodge; and I request the chairman of this committee to direct this
68970 — 50-
712 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
witness to answer this question as a proper one, and that this com-
mittee is entitled to an answer to this question as a proper one.
Senator Ttdings. The reporter will turn back and read the exact
cpestion to me.
(The record was read as follows :)
Mr. Field, in view of your statement, without further ado, I want to ask you
the question, at the outset : Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the
Communist Party?
Senator Tydings. Mr. Field, I would like to ask you specifically this
question : Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Com-
munist Party ?
Mr, Field. Mr. Chairman, in my original statement, I specifically
informed this subcommittee that I declined to testify on this, or re-
lated questions ; and, in so doing, I said that I was exercising my rights
guaranteed to me under the fifth amendment of the Constitution of
the United States.
In reply to your repeated question, I must also repeat my same
answer.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to observe that, in my
opinion, the witness appears before this committee in a proceeding
of this character, pursuant to a resolution under which we function,
that this committee is entitled to know the disposition of the witness
with respect to matters of this character. I regard this question as
a proper one. I feel that the committee is entitled to an answer to this
question, and I would request that the committee take official notice of
the fact that Mr. Field has refused to answer the question and that
at an appropriate time, the committee consider the fact that he has
refused to answer the question.
Senator Tydings. That will, of course, be laid before the commit-
tee; or rather, come up befoie the committee in executive session.
Mr. Morgan. Now, going on to other considerations, I believe you
state that you are not familiar with the testimony that has been given
in this proceeding with respect to you, particularly. Therefore, I am
going, at this point, to proceed through the testimony in our record
wherein your name is mentioned, and request your observations, from
time to time, concerning those matters appearing in the record.
On page 1039
Mr. Field. Mr. Morgan, would you mind waiting a moment until
I get a pad out and make some notes ?
Mr. Morgan. Certainly.
Mr. Field. Thank you.
Mr. Morgan. Before proceeding along that line, however, I want
to ask you, Mr. Field, if, during the month of October of 1937, you
were present at a meeting at 35 East Twelfth Street in New York
City, at which there were in attendance you, Alexander Trachtenberg,
Earl Browder, J. V. Peters, and others?
Do you recall such a meeting?
Mr. Field. For the reasons I have already stated, Mr. Morgan, I
decline to answer that question.
Mr. Morgan. Would you indicate those reasons again for this ques-
tion?
Mr. Field. Yes, my privilege, the fiifth amendment of the Consti-
tution of the United States.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 713
Mr. Morgan. ^Ir. Chairman. I request again that you direct this
witness to answer that question as a perfectly proper one, and within
the scope of prerogative here today.
Senator Tyoings. The reporter will turn back and read the ques-
tion; and, Mr. Field will consider that I am asking him the question
as the reporter reads it, and I do this so that I nuiy state the question
in exactly the same form it was stated by Mr. Morgan.
(The record was read as follows:)
Before proceeding along tliat line, however, I want to ask you, Mr. Field,
if, during the mouth of October of ll)o7, you were present at a meeting at 35
East Twelfth Street in New York City, at which there were in attendance you,
Alexander Trachtenberg, Earl Browder, J. V. Peters, and others?
Do you recall such a meeting?
Senator Ttdings. I direct you, Mr. Field, to respond to that ques-
tion.
Mr. Field. JSIr. Chairman, I decline to respond to that question, and
I invoke my privilege under the fifth amendment, that the answer
might be self -incriminating.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. JNIoRGAN. Earl Browder
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question for the reason already
stated.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Alexander Trachtenberg?
Mr. Field. Same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know the gentleman sitting beside you there?
Mr. Field. Yes, sir; I do.
Mr. Morgan. Who is it, please, for our record?
Mr. Field. My attorney, Mr. Harold Cammer.
Mr. Cammer. Harold Cammer, C-a-m-m-e-r.
Mr. Morgan. On page 1039 of this record we have the testimony of a
w'itness who appeared before this committee, Mr. Louis F. Budenz,
who has stated as follows :
I knew Frederick Vanderbilt Field, a Communist whom I first knew as Com-
rade Spencer
Senator Hickenlooper. T^Tiat was the name?
Mr. Morgan. Spencer. I ask you, Mr. Field, if you ever have been
known by the alias of Spencer or Comrade Spencer?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Morgan, for the
reason I have already stated.
Mr. Morgan. I want to say here, Mr. Chairman, that I hope to ask
this witness a great many questions, and that to avoid asking you to
direct his answer on each occasion, we will take them cumulatively,
at the end.
Senator Tydings. That will be all right. In other words, you under-
stand, Mr. Field, that at the end I am going to ask you a cumulative
question, for the record, so that you may make the reply in toto, to
all tlie questions that have been asked individually, as we are pro-
ceeding.
Mr. Field. I understand, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morgan. Also at this point, Mr. Field, I would like to ask you
if you know Mr. Owen Lattimore?
^Ir. Field. Yes, I do, Mr. Morgan.
]Mr. Morgan. AVlien did you first meet Mr. Lattimore ?
714 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr, Field. I couldn't say — I can't say exactly, but it was in the
early 1930's, I should think, probably 1933 or 1934. It would be when-
ever Mr. Lattimore, or shortly after Mr. Lattimore became employed
by the Institute of Pacific Relations, in which I had already been
working.
Mr. Morgan. Wliatyear?
Mr. Field. I would say, roughly 1934, something like that; but I
am not perf ectl}^ certain of that.
Senator Tydings. Approximately ?
Mr. Field. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. You have therefore known Mr. Lattimore since 1934,
is that correct ?
Mr. Field. That is correct.
Mr. Morgan. What has been the nature of your association with
him, since that time ?
Mr. Field. Well, I tried to indicate it generally in my opening
statement. We were both employed by the Institute of Pacific Rela-
tions. I have been working there myself since 1928. I had, with very
brief intervals, the intervals having occurred before Mr. Lattimore
came to the organization, worked for the American branch of this or-
ganization, as distinguished from its international secretariat. Mr.
Lattimore, if I am not mistaken, also worked for the international
secretariat of the institute.
JNIy relations with him, in the institute, were that of professional
colleague. I had similar relations witli a great many other specialists
in far eastern affairs. As I stated in the statement, my association
with Mr. Lattimore himself was somewhat limited by two factors:
one, Avas that we worked in separate branches of this organization ; and
secondly, and flowing from that, that we worked in different parts,
either of the United States or he arrived at one time or other, and I
at one time or another, would be stationed abroad.
Mr. INIoRGAN. I would like to ask, Mr. Field, in view of the fact that
you have declined to answer whether you know Mr. Browder, Mr.
Trachtenberg, wh}^ you admit that you do know Mr. Lattimore ? Can
you distinguish that for us, why you decline, on one case and do not
decline on another?
Mr. Field. I think. Mr. Morgan, I should decline to answer that
question.
Mr. Morgan. Would you care to indicate why?
Mr. Field. Yes; on the ground that I am privileged to decline a
question which may or may not lead me into an area which I feel may
l)ossibly lead to a conversation that might incriminate me.
Mr. Morgan. Is it seriously your thouglit, Mr. Field, that to answer
that question would, in some way, be a transgression of your rights
under the fifth amendment of the Constitution?
Mr. Field. I think I have answered your question a moment ago, as
clearly as I can possibly put it, Mr. Morgan. I will repeat the same
answer.
Mr. Morgan. During the period from 1934 forAvard I would like
for you to indicate for our committee the specific occasions, as best you
can, on which you have met Mr. Lattimore?
Mr. Field. That is a very hard thing to do.
Mr. Morgan. I realize that.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 715
Mr. FiFXD. I would be perfectly williirir to. I have no — I have no
<liary. It is very hard to reiueinber VXU and 10o5, every event.
JMr. MoKOAX. Let's suppose we do it in this way
Mr. Field. Let me answer it .^zenerally : We were both employed by
the same organization, under the circumstances I have already
described, that is. by different branches of the organization. In the
nature of my work, I was brought together with Lattimore from
time to time.' There would be committee meetings, this organization
held a munber of international conferences in various parts of the
world where all branches of the organization and all member conn-
tries came together. I attended a number of these, and I believe Mr.
Lattimore attended several of them also. I would meet him under
such circumstances.
F'or certain weeks, and I can't possibly tell you just when they were,
or when they came, we would both be working in, let's say, the New
York office of the organization.
Mr. MoRGAx. Let's go at it inversely, in view of the fact that there
is some difiiculty, of course, in recalling that far back, let's start as
of today, and go backward, and will you recall for us your association
with jNIr. Lattimore from today, let us say, back as far as your memory
will permit von to go?
:\Ir. Field. Well
Mr. Morgan. What is your most recent association with Mr.
Lattimore?
^Ir. Field. I have been trying to think, in the last week or so when
I — the last time I saw Mr. Lattimore. It is my own recollection that I
haven't seen him, I would say in roughly 5 or 6 years, something like
that.
Now. in saying this, I must add, and put some emphasis on the fact
that I say "to the best of my recollection." I may be mistaken, but I
don't think so. This is the best of my recollection.
Mr. Morgan. And what was that occasion?
Mr. Field. Oh. I do not remernber.
Mr. Morgan. Was it a social meeting?
Mr. Field. Well, Mr. Morgan, I think anyone has a great deal of
difficulty in thinking back of any sort of chance meeting with somebody
as far back as the early forties and I can't say, for absolute certainty,
that exactly when or under what circumstances I last saw Mr. Latti-
more. It is possible, I think now I can perhaps answer that: I re-
mained a member of the board of trustees of the Institute of Pacific
Eelations until the middle forties. That is, after I resigned from the
staflf in 1940, I remained as a trustee of this organization. Mr. Latti-
more, if I am not mistaken, was also a trustee.
This board would have annual meetings, semiannual meetings, and
it is very likely that I met him under those circumstances; in other
words, circumstances still associated with the Institute of Pacific
Relations.
Mr. Morgan. And that occurred some 5 years ago ?
Mr. Field. That would have occured possibly during the early
forties.
Mr. Morgan. And that is the last contact or association you have
had with Mr. Lattimore?
Mr. Field. That is the last one I can possibly remember ; yes.
716 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Have all of your contacts with Mr. Lattimore been
within the purview of the work of the Institute of Pacific Eelations ?
Mr. FiEM). Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Have you ever met with Mr. Lattimore or Mrs. Latti-
more, for that matter, socially at any time ?
Mr. Field. I'd say, in a normal and somewhat limited social way,,
that colleao;ues in any type of work occasionally meet together.
Mr. Morgan. You reside in New York City ?
Mr. Field. Yes ; I do.
Mr. Morgan. Wliat is your address ?
Mr. Field. I have already given it, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Repeat it.
Mr. Field. 16 West 12th Street.
Mr. Morgan. Have you ever entertained the Lattimores in your
home in New York City ?
Mr. Field. I think it is possible they have been there. When you
ask me if I ever entertained them, I don't quite know how you mean
that word. I don't remember their coming for an evening, or any-
thing like that.
Mr. Morgan. They didn't force themselves upon you, they were at
your home, is that correct ?
Mr. Field. I think they have been, yes. I think practically I would
say, could say, that all my people with whom I worked, at one time or
other, have probably been in my home.
Mr. Morgan. And on what occasion was that, when was that, do
you remember?
Mr, Field. No, I do not remember any specific circumstances.
Mr. Morgan. Have you ever utilized your home as a meeting place
for fund-raising campaigns for various organizations?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Morgan, for the
ground that I have already stated.
Mr. Morgan. You mean you have never at any time, or you refuse
to answer?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer the question.
Mr. Morgan. As to whether you have ever utilized your home for
fund-raising campaigns for any type of organization?
Mr. Field. That is right.
Mr. Morgan. That certainly is one question, Mr. Chairman, I
would specifically request that you direct him to answer.
Senator Tydings. The reporter will repeat the question and Mr.
Field will consider that I am asking it. I will ask the reporter to read
it for the purpose of accuracy.
(The record was read as follows:)
Have you ever utilized yonr bome as a meeting place for fund-raising cam-
paigns for various organizations?
Mr. Field. Mr. Chairman, I decline to answer that question on the
ground that the answer might be self-incriminating.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Field, I would like to know if you care, at this
point, off the record, to indicate to the members of this committee any
reasons you miglit have for not answering that question ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I object to anything being taken off the
record here, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morgan. I was thinking, Senator Hickenlooper, in terms of the
witness' refusal to elaborate on his reason for not doino; this. I was
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 717
thinkinii- that the chairman of this committee, in the province of the
court, somolinies will lot the Avitness explain his reason therefor, and
of course, if we have an objection to that procedure, why, that is quite
all right.
Senator HicKEXLOorER. If the committee wants to go into execu-
tive session and clear the room, and all that sort of business, such as
they do in a court when such situations arise, that is a different ques-
tion ; but I object to anything being said here in public, off the record.
I strongly object to that.
Senator Tydixgs. Proceed, Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Mow ;ax. Did you ever know a man named Louis F. Budenz ?
]\rr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Morgan, on the
ground that the answer might be self-incriminating.
Mr. Morgan. Have you ever made financial contributions to the
Institute of Pacific Eelations?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question for the same reasons.
Mr. ^loRGAN. Is the Institute of Pacific Eelations, to your knowl-
edge, a Communist organization?
^Ir. Field. Xo, it is not.
Mr. ]MoRGAN. I ask you again, have you ever made financial contri-
butions to that organization ^
Mr. Field. I repeat my answer, Mr. Morgan.
Senator Tydings. I would like the reporter to go back to the last
three questions and answer directed to Mr. Field and read them aloud.
(The record was read as follows:)
Mr. Morgan. Have you ever made financial contributions to the Institute of
Pacific Relations?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer tliat question for the same reasons.
Mr. Morgan. Is the Institute of Pacific Relations, to your knowledge, a Com-
munist organization?
Mr. Field. No, it is not.
Mr. Morgan. I ask you again, have you ever made financial contributions to
that organization?
Mr. Field. I repeat my answer, Mr. Morgan.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Field, listen to this, because it is possible
there may be some ambiguity in what you intended to say, and what
certain people assumed that you said, room for some disagi'eement.
Now, when you say you repeat your answer, it is obvious you don't
mean to refer to the answer just ahead, but in cold print, without fur-
ther explanation, it will appear that way ; so, will you please clear
that up?
]Mr. Field. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the oppor-
tunity to straighten this out.
^ly answer to the question regarding whether I ever made a con-
tribution to the Institute of Pacific Eelations — I can certainly an-
swer that it works both ways: I was paid by the institute, I was on
salary and made occasional contributions toward its budget. I think
that these are all matters of public record. The contributions were
published always, all the contributions, in an effort to get others to
contribute.
Senator Tvdtngs. Now, in — had }''ou finished that part?
Mr. Field. Yes.
Senator T^tunos. Xow. in connection with that, the question was
asked you whether or not, to \our knowledge — I am not giving the
exact words, but the substance of what was asked — whether or not,
718 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
to your knowledge, the Institute of Pacific Kelations — what was the
terniinologT yon used — was a Communist organization — and you
made a reply to that.
Now, will you repeat that reply now?
Mr. Field. My reply was "No"; no, it is not. I should also say,
"No, it was not" : but I could also perhaps add to that, and say that
there is nothing that has ever come to my attention which would give
me the slightest reason for me to believe that it was a Communist
organization.
Senator Tydixos. Now. I think we have the possible ambiguity
cleared up. Go ahead, Mr. Morgan,
Mr. Morgan. For the time being, Mr. Field, I am going to an-
other matter.
Are you familiar with the publication known as Amerasia?
Mr. Field. Yes. I am.
Mr. Morgan. Were you ever associated with that publication in
anv official capacity?
Mr. Field. Yes. I was.
Mr. Morgan. What was that capacity?
Mr. Field. I was chairman of its editorial board from the time
of its inception, which was sometime, I think, in 1937, until I believe
it was, November 1943.
Mr. Morgan. Did you write articles for that publication?
Mr. Field. Yes, a great many.
Mr. Morgan. During that period, did you know one Fliilip Jaffe?
Mr. Field. Mr. Chairman — Mr. Morgan, I decline to answer that
question.
Mr. Morgan. Was Mr.
Mr. Field. On the grounds I have stated previously.
Mr. Morgan. Was Mr. Jaffe the managing editor of that pub-
lication ?
Mr. Field. Put it this way, Mr. Morgan : It is a matter of public
knowledge that he was.
Mr. Morgan. While you were chairman of the editorial board of
this magazine, did you know one T. A. Bisson, B-i-s-s-o-n?
Mr. Field. Mr. Morgan, I decline to answer that question on the
grounds that I have already stated.
Mr. Morgan. Was Mr. Bisson a member of the editorial board of
that publication?
Mr. Field. He was at some time, and I would have to look up the
masthead of the magazine, which will be found at any public library,
to find out when it was. I don't remember the period.
Mr. Morgan. During this period of association with Amerasia, did
you know one William W. Lockwood?
Mr. Field. T decline to answer that question, Mr. Morgan, on the
grounds I have stated.
Mr. Morgan. State those grounds again, please.
Mr. Field. On the ground that my answer might be self-incrimi-
nating.
Mr. Morgan. Care to elaborate at all on why you have declined
to answer beyond that point ?
Mr. Field. Well, in answering previous questions, I think I have
made some elaboration, which applies to this.
Mr. Morgan. You care to add nothing at this point?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 719
Mr. Fii:ld. Mr. ]\Ior<r;ni, I can't very well enter into an elaboration
or explanation of the piivilege which 1 have claimed, because going
into such a discussion would destroy the privileges that 1 am claiming.
Mr. Morgan. Well, the reason I ask that, Mr. Field, is this: I view
this as a rather serious matter, and I want to give you every oppor-
tunity to explain on this record why you are declining to answer
them. If you have nothing further to say, that is quite all right.
Now, I ask you : During the period of your association w^ith Amer-
asia. did you know one Edwai'd C. Carter^
Mr. FiEij). Mr. Morgan, I decline to answer that question on the
ground already stated,
Mr. Morgan. During the period of your association w^ith the pub-
lication, Amerasia, did you know one Owen Lattimore?
Mr. Field. I have already stated that 1 did know Professor Latti-
more.
Mr. Morgan. What position, if any, did he occupy in connection
Avith the publication Amerasia?
Mr. Field. Do you happen to have a file of the magazine here,
because I wonld trul}' have to look it up to inform you. It is a matter
of public knowledge. If he appeared on the masthead, he was a
member of the board. I honestly don't recollect whether he was or
not.
Mr. Morgan. During this period of your association with Amerasia
magazine, did yon know one Benjamin Kizer, K-i-z-e-r?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the ground stated.
Mr, Morgan. During this period, did you know one Kate Mitchell?
Mr. Field. Same answer, Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Morgan. What is that answer?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer on the ground stated.
Mr. Morgan. Did you know one Harriet Moore, M-o-o-r-e, during
this period?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Morgan, on the
ground stated.
Mr, Morgan. During this period, did you know one Anne Louise,
or Anna Louise Strong i
Senator Tydings. Will you suspend, just a moment, please?
(Discussion was off the record.)
Senator Tydings. Proceed, Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Morgan. I have asked you concerning nine different individuals
during the period of your association with Amerasia. You have de-
clined to answer in the case of eight of those individuals, on the ground
that to answer might incriminate you. The only one of these nine
individuals that you have indicated as knowing is Owen Lattimore.
Will you indicate to the committee why you acknowledge having
known Mr. Lattimore during this period, and decline to answer with
respect to the other eight inclividuals?
Mr. Field. Mr. JNIorgan, it quite obvious to me that if I were to
give my reasons to you, the ])rivilege which 1 have claimed would be
destroyed.
(Discussion Avas off the record.)
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. ^Morgan. Mr. Keporter. v.ill you read the last comment I made
on the record?
720 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
(The record was read, as follows :)
I have asked you concerning nine different individuals during the period of
your association with Amerasia. You have declined to answer in the case of
eight of those individuals, on the ground that to answer might incriminate you.
The only one of these nine individuals that you have indicated as liuowing is
Owen Lattimore. Will you indicate for the committee why you acknowledge
having known Mr. Lattimore during this period, and decline to answer with
respect to the other eight individuals?
Mr. Morgan, Would you answer that question ?
Mr. Field, Is it possible to have my previous answer read back to
me ? I thought I answered.
Mr. Morgan. Did he answer ?
Senator Tydings. Yes ; he answered.
Mr. Morgan. Eead back his answer to that question, please.
(The record was read, as follows :)
Mr. Field. Mr. Morgan, it is quite ohvious to me that if I were to give my
reasons to you, the privilege which I have claimed would be destroyed.
Mr. Morgan. Am I correct in saying, therefore, that it is your posi-
tion that to answer the question we have indicated, namely, why you
acknowledge knowing Mr. Lattimore, and refuse to answer with
respect to the other eight individuals, would tend to incriminate you ;
is that correct?
Mr. Field. Mr. Morgan, I have throughout this questioning used
this ground of possible self-incrimination as a reason for declining to
answer; and the same ground would apply to this last question.^
Mr. Morgan. That ground applies to the question here; is that
correct ?
Mr, Field. Yes, sir. Mr. Cliairman, I wonder if you could inter-
polate a moment and request that — ask if I would assert more pre-
cisely and specifically the basis of my refusal to answer your first
question to me, as to my membership in the Communist Party ? And I
should like to place the ground for my declination in the case of that
request.
Senator Tydings. You may do that.
Mr. Field. On the same ground, that the answer might have been
self -incriminating.
Mr. Morgan, Now, Mr. Field, you have explained on the public
record here the basis for your refusal to answer.
I would like to ask you, noting that your attorney is there at your
side, whether you would like to elaborate, for this committee, either
here or elsewhere, on the reasons for your declination to answer the
questions with which we are concerned ?
Mr. Field. Mr. Morgan, I believe my reasons have been fully stated.
Mr. Morgan. You have nothing to add?
Mr. Field. I have nothing to add.
Mr. Morgan. I have asked you concerning these nine individuals
whose names are now in our record, in connection with your asso-
ciation with the publication Amerasia. You have advised us this
morning of your association with the organization, Institute of Pacific
Relations. I believe you stated that you were secretary and a member
of the American council of that organization, is that correct, at one
time?
Mr. Field. That is right.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 721
Mr. ^loRGAX. Now, clurino- the period of your association with that
or<xanization, which I believe you have stated, and correct me if I am
wronir. was not a Communist organization — is that correct?
Mr. Field. The Institute of Pacific Rehitions? Correct.
Mr. MoRGAX. Was not a Connnunist ortranization?
Mr. Field. To the best of my knowledge.
Mr, ]MoRGAN. Now, I ask you if, during the period of your asso-
ciation as secretary and member of the American council, in the Insti-
tute of Pacific Relations, you knew a man named Philip Jaffe, in
■connection with the work in the Institute of Pacific Relations?
Mr. Field. Well, ]\Ir. Morgan, I decline to answer that question
on the ground already given.
]\Ir. ^loRGAX. During the period of this association in the Institute
of Pacific Relations, did you know T. A. Bisson?
Mr. Field. Mr. Morgan, I have declined to answer any question with
respect to any individuals in this inquiry with the exception of Profes-
sor Lattimore, on the ground that I stated.
Mr. Morgan. That it might incriminate you?
Mr. Field. That it might incriminate me.
Mr. Morgan. To expedite the matter, I had intended to ask you con-
cerning all nine of these individuals concerning whom I interrogated
3' on in connection with Amerasia.
Is your answer the same with respect to your association with them
and the Institute of Pacific Relations?
Mr. Field. Yes. If you asked me, I would decline to answer ; yes,
sir.
Mr. Morgan. What are the jniblications of the Institute of Pacific
Relations?
Mr. Field. What are they, or what were they at the time I was
there ?
Mr. MoRGAx. Well, what were they ?
Mr. Field. The Institute of Pacific Relations has published some-
thing like five or six hundred books, a great many pamphlets
Mr. Morgan. Does it have any current periodicals ?
Mr. Fieijd. It has current periodicals.
Mr. Morgan. What were they ?
Mr. Field. It has a great many.
Limiting myself to one published by the American branch, called
the Far Eastern Survey, which originally was called something else,
might have been on a memorandum, or something like that, one de-
veloped into the other — The international body of the Institute of
Pacific Relations published a magazine which, at one time, was a
monthly: at another time, a quarterly, called Pacific Affairs; pub-
lished irregularly a research ])ulletin, I think it was, called IPR Notes
or something like that. There were a whole series of publications.
Tlien the different national councils in the other 10 countries had
their own publications.
Mr. ]\Iorgan. In September of 1945, did you write an article bear-
ing the title, "Avert Civil War in China,'* which appeared in the pub-
lication Political Affairs?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that, Mr. Morgan, on the ground
that the answer might be self-incriminating.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, I request you to direct this man to
answer this question. This publication is one available to any of us
722 STATE DEPARTMENT ExMFLUYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
over in the Congressional Library. I have asked this man if he wrote
the article. I would like for yon to direct him to answer the question.
Senator Tydings. ISIr. Field, unless there is some special reason
that seems pretty apparent to the Chair, if this article is in the maga-
zine over your name, that to say you can't answer that question is
stretchino; the imnnmity a little far, and I would respectfully ask you
to consider that and make answer.
Mr. Field. Mr. Chairman, in reply I would again most respectfully
ask permission not to answer the question on the ground that I have
stated, and to repeat something that I said in a similar connection
earlier in the hearing, to the effect that a question such as this, in my
opinion, begins to draw me into an area in which I do not wish to be
drawn, for the reasons that I do not want to ; I might incriminate my-
self and it is for that reason I do not want to engage in this.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, if I may suggest, it is my understand-
ing that this proceeding is not altogether to accede to the wishes of
Mr. Field. I think that this is of the greatest pertinence to oar in-
quiry, and I again request that he be directed to answer the question.
Senator Tydings. The purpose of this committee, counsel, is to ob-
tain evidence that is pertinent to the inquiry. Therefore, the chair-
man always feels that it is a most appropriate way to proceed, to try
to keep a degree of harmony between the witness and the committee to
accomplish the end of receiving testimony.
However, in the instant case I'd like the question read, and I would
like to ask you personally to speak to Mr. Field, and direct him to
make answer thereto.
Of couree, if answer is made, Mr. Field can, at any time after the
answer is made, use his right when he thinks the area which he has out-
lined has been reached, but it does not seem to the Chair that if this is
a written article, in a publication that is relatively available and can be
offered as an exhibit, that we have reached any area where the im-
munity would properly lie.
Mr. Field. Mr. Chairman, without the question being repeated
again, out of respect for the Chair, my writings are a matter of public
record. They can be found anywhere. I frankly don't remember
whether I wrote the article in that particular month or not. If there
is evidence that I did, I doubtless did. and would be glad to acknowl-
edge it.
Senator Tydings. Thank you.
MV. Field. But, in answering. Mr. Chairman, I again would like
to repeat that in my opinion, this question does come into the area in
which I am unwilling to testify.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead. Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Morgan. In view of the answer given, Mr. Chairman, I would
like to refer to an article of more recent date, one in January of 1948.
appearing on page 63 of the publication Political Affairs, entitled
"New China Program of the American Interventionists," written by
Frederick V. Field, and ask vou, Mr. Field, if you wrote that article?
Mr. Field. Mr. Morgan, I decline to answer that question on the
ground that I have stated, and elaborated upon, in the recent moments.
Mr. Morgan. I ask. Mr. Chairman, that the witness' be directed to
answer the question.
Senator Tydings. That seems to the Chair to be a perfectly fair and
proper question, and inasmuch as it is a matter, perhaps I would say.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 723
of public record, and can be offered in as an exhibit, it seems to me that
tlie ch\im of innnnnity here \vhich is tlie witness" ri^ht in certain cases,
i,-, not well sustained'and the Chair will have to direct the witness to
answer the question.
The mere identification of an article that is a matter of public record
is not, within the opinion of the Chair, a proper area for the claim of
innnnnity.
Mr. Field. ]\[r. Chairman, 1 did g-ive an answer to the first question,
at your re<iuest ; but T feel now tliat with a persistent line of similar
questioniuii'. I am being- drawn into an area in which I don't want to
make answer, and therefore I do decline to answer that question on
the crrounds I have stated.
Mv. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious to me that it is impos-
sible to develop a line of interrogation which I have in mind, with
respect to this witness, I believe that our investigation reveals' that this
witness has functioned in an area that is most significant to this in-
vestigation. I frankly state, and want to state on the record, that
this is, in my opinion, a matter of the most serious' character. I regard
it personally as contemptuous. I feel that Mr. Field, by his refusal to
answer questions that are pertinent to our inquiry, is evidence of con-
tempt of this committee and, as counsel to the committee, I request that
It take official cognizance of that situation and that Mr. Field be di-
rected to make himself available to this' committee during the course
of the day, after consideration has been given to the question of
contempt.
Senator Tydings. For the record. T would like to ask the members
of the committee. Senators Lodge, Hickenlooper, and Green, as well
as the chairman being present, if what I have said to the witness, and
the questions I have put to the witness, receive the support of all
members of the committee present ?
(Discussion was off the record.)
Senator Ttdixgs. The record will show that the chairman has inter-
viewed the members of the committee and they are in accord with
the procedure that he is adopting; and, I would like to ask them,
furthermore, if they are now in accord with the demand of the chair-
man, of the. witness, to answer the questions to which the Chair has
referred ?
(Discussion was off the record.)
Senator Tydings. The record will show
Senator- Lodge. '\'Miat was the last one?
Senator Tydings. That after rhe witness declined, the members
of the committee approved the demand of the chairman, of the witness
to answer the questions.
Senator Lodge. Yes: I tliink so.
Senator Tydings. And, the committee stands united behind the
chairman and supports him in that demand.
Mr. Morgan. Mv. Chairman, as I have indicated before, in view
of the position taken by this ^yitness. it is impossible further to de-
velop the line of interrogation vhich I belieA'e is of threat pertinence
to this inquiry under Senate Resolution '231 of the Eighty-first Con-
gress, second session. I, therefore, at this point have no "further in-
terrogation of this witness, and would repeat my request that the
committee consider, at the earliest possible time, the refusal of this
724 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
witness to answer, and that this witness be directed to hold himself in
readiness, dependent upon the action taken by this committee upon
consideration of this matter.
Senator Tydings. Taken under advisement.
Senator Hickenlooper, do you liave any questions?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes ; I have, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Field, have you contributed at any time, funds or property of
value of your own, or which you may have received from some other
source, to the Daily Worker?
Mr. Field. Senator Hickenlooper, I must decline to answer that
question on the ground that the answer might be self-incriminating.
Senator Hickenlooper. Or, have you contributed any such funds
or property of value from any such sources, to either Amerasia, the
magazine Amerasia, or the magazine or organization known as Far
Eastern Survey, or the paper or magazine or periodical called the
New China Daily ?
Mr. Field. Senator Hickenlooper, I must decline to answer those
questions on the ground that the answers might be self-incriminating.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you helped to finance, either through
your own funds, or property, or the funds or property of others which
you might have acquired or received, the publication known as the
New Masses ?
Mr. Cammer. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question at this point ?
Senator Tydings. You may, if you represent Mr. Field.
Mr. Field. He does.
Mr. Cammer. I should like to ask whether it is the opinion of this
subcommittee that Senator Hickenlooj^er's last question is pertinent
to the inquiry of this subcommittee?
Senator Tydings. Mr. Cammer
Mr. Cammer. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Cammer, there is no rule concerning the scope
of testimony before a Senate hearing. For your information, if we
were proceeding with matters in a court of law, the rules of evidence
would apply. For example, no hearsay evidence would be permissible.
Other restrictions on the kind of evidence and the manner and shape
and form of presenting it would be applicable. The best evidence
would always have to be presented in lieu of secondary or third-rate
evidence.
However, in a congressional inquiry, these rules are not observed,
and it is pretty much within the Senator's discretion, who. is asking
the questions, as to what limitation, if any at all, he desires to put on
the testimony ; and the manner it is adduced and proof that is adduced
is entirely up to him. So, therefore, I would have to advise you that
there is no yardstick for which I, as chairman, can rule on whether the
question is proper or improper. I have very strong opinions about
many of these matters, myself, but so have my colleagues and I must
abide by their opinions, as well as my own.
Mr. Cammer. Mr. Chairman, my question was addressed to the
point wliether it was pertinent to any inquiry as to whether State
Department employees are disloyal to the United States, to inquire
whether Mr. Field, who was never employed by the State Department,
made contributions to a magazine.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 725
Senator Tydixgs. Well, let me say this : That that is a matter entirely
up to the man on the committee, the member of the committee, the
Senator who asked the question.
We have even testimony of this kind, so you may know when I
say this, with no reflection on anyone, a man may come and say that
he' has heard another man is thus, something or other. You ask him
if he knows it of his own knowledge. He would say "No," but that
doesn't make any difference, but he can still tell what he heard, with-
out supporting proof of it.
Mr, (Jammer. Your point is addressed to evidentiary rules, and my
point is addressed to what the Washington Post this morning referred
to as, I think, onomatophilia, a new word I learned this morning; and,
you have ruled, however, and Mr. Field will make an appropriate
answer.
Mr. Field. Senator, I decline to answer that question on the ground
that the answer might be self-incriminating.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know, Mr. Field, a man named
Larry Duggan, D-u-g-g-a-n?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Senator, on the
ground that I have stated.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did you ever make a trip to Washington, to
confer with a man named Larry Duggan ?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the ground the an-
swer might be self-incriminating.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know an Elizabeth Bentley ?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the ground the an-
swer might be self-incriminating.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know "VAHiittaker Chambers ?
]Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the ground the
answer might be self-incriminating.
Senator Hickex^looper. Did you ever confer with or have a meeting
with Owen Lattimore, Joseph Barnes, Earl Browder, John C. Vin-
cent, Haldore Hanson, and perhaps others, or any of those whom I
have mentioned, at a meeting at the home of your mother?
Mr. Field. No, I did not.
Senator Hjckenlooper. Do you know John S. Service ?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the grounds stated.
Senator Hickenlooper. And those grounds, will you please state
them again i
■Sir. Field. On the ground that the answer might be self-incrim-
inating.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do vou know a Chinese by the name of
Tung Pi Wu, T-u-n-g P-i W-u f
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the ground that the
answer might be self -incriminating.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know Dr. Philip Jessup?
]\fr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Senator, on the
ground that the answer might be self-incriminating.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know — have you known such a man
as President Roosevelt, former President Hoover, Ambassador Grew ?
Mr. Field. That is a difficult question. You say "such men"?
Senator Hickexlooper. Have you known tliose peopled
Mr. Field. I know a great many men, Mr. Senator.
726 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\'ESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you acquainted with those men, or
would you decline to answer that question on the ground that it might
be self-incriminating? ^^ -ji^-u 4.
Mr. Field. I have never known the late President Roosevelt, it that
is your question. o ji o
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know Agnes femedley i
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Senator, on the ground
that the answer might be self-incriminating. .
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you contribute any money or thing ot
value, other than, outside of personal services, to the magazine China
Today at anv time in the past? . tit o ^ ^i,
Mr Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Senator, on the
ground that the answer might be self-incriminating.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you know Mr. Phdip Jaffe, under the
name of J. W. Phillips as manager of the magazine—-
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Senator, on the
m-ouiid that the answer might be self-incriminatmg.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know or have you ever met one
Vassili M. Zubertin, V-a-s-s-i-1-i, middle initial "M, ' last name
Z-u-b-e-r-t-i-n? , • tit o .. *.i ^
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Senator, on the
o-round that the answer might be self-incriminating. _
^ Senator Hickenlooper. I believe he was former financial secretary
of the Soviet Embassy in Washington. .^ a-a
Mr. Field, as publisher of the magazine Amerasia, how often did
vou confer with Owen Lattimore on magazine affairs ?
Mr. Field. I never conferred with him, Mr. Senator, i wasnt
publisher of the magazine, either. i . -. iv o
Senator Hickenlooper. Your position was that ot editor ?
Mr. Field. It is on the record, already. I said I was chairman of
the editorial board. tt- 5
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know Alger Hiss (! w, ^ ,
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question on the ground that to
answer might be self-incriminating, Mr. Senator. , , •,,
Senator Hickenlooper. At the time certain people connected with
the Amerasia case were arrested, did you contribute money, or any-
thing of value, to a defense fund for the purpose of defending those
people against prosecution ? . -,t ^ ^ ^i
Mr Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Senator, on the
o-round that the answer might be self-incriminatmg.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you own any property, do you own
a farm in New England, any estate in New England?
Mr Cammer. I would like the Chair to rule on that, if I might,
as 1.0 how that is possibly pertinent into an inquiry as to whether the
State Department employs disloyal people.
S?nator Tydings. Repeat your question.
Mr Cammer. I should like the Chair to rule, if I may, upon whether
that question has any possible pertinence to any inquiry as to whether
the State Department employs or has employed disloyal personnel.
Senator Tydings. That is something I cannot say, and a court,
in a court of law, of course, the court would ask what line is sup-
posed to be followed, to tie in such a question ; but we are both the
court here, and, rather, the judges and the attorneys, to a large ex-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 727
tent; so, therefore, it will be up to Senator Hickenlooper to decide
Avliether that is pertinent or not.
Mr. Field. AVoukl you repeat the question, Mr. Senator?
Senator Hickenlooper. I asked whether or not you owned a
farm or residence property in New^ England?
j\Ir. Field. I do oAvn residence property, not a farm.
Senator Hickenloopek. Where is that?
]\Ir. Field. In Connecticut.
Senator Hickexlooper. Connecticut?
Mr. Field. Yes.
Senator Hickenlcoper. Do you own any property in either New
Hampshire or Vermont?
j\Ir. Field. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. Vermont?
INIr. Field. No, I do not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Does ]Mr. Owen Lattimore own, or occupy
property near any property of yours, in Connecticut?
Mr. Field. Not to the best of my knowledge.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you spent any time as a temporary
resident, let us say, on vacation or otherwise, in any other State in
New England?
Mr. Field. In New England ?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, other than Connecticut?
Mr. Field. I have motored around, I suppose, in the normal
course of events. I went to college in Massachusetts, went to school
in Connecticut— —
Senator Hickenlooper. So that 3-011
Mr. Field. I have been skiing in Vermont.
Senator Hickenlooper. So that you have never occupied, that is,
for short periods of time such as during the summer, or seasonal
occupation, any property where you lived temporarily, at least, near
property of Owen Lattimore, is that correct?
]\Ir. Field. Mr. Senator, I haven't the slightest idea where Mr. Latti-
more owns property. To the best of my knowledge, he owns none
anywhere near my place in Connecticut.
Senator Hickenlooper. And you own no other property ?
Mr. Field. No other.
Senator Hickenlooper. In New England?
Mr. Field. No other.
Senator Hickenlooper. And you do not leas^, nor have you leased
anv ])ro])erty in the past in any other place in Connecticut?
Mr. Field. No.
Senator Hickenlooper. I believe you testified that the Institute
of Pacific Relations is not a Communist organization, in your opinion?
Mr. Field. I said, to the best of my knowledge, it was not a Com-
munist organization.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do 5^011 know whether or not members of
the Communist Party, or known Connnunist sympathizers have been,
during the time of your connection with that organization, either
occupying official positions with the institute, or regular contributors
to its publications^
;Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Senator, on the
ground that tlie answer might be self -incriminating.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 47
728 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Field, do you know one James V. Allen ?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Senator, on the
ground that the answer might be self-incriminating.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I call your specific attention
to the following questions and persons in my interrogation which,
without going into any follow-up questions, which might flow from
others, c^uestions which refer specifically to individuals connected,
either now or heretofore, with the State Department, and which Mr.
Field has refused to answer.
I call attention to the inquiry, in my interrogation, about his ac-
quaintance with AVliittaker Chambers, his acquaintance with John C.
Vincent, his acquaintance with Haldore Hanson, his acquaintance with
John S. Service, his acquaintance with Owen Lattimore, in connection
with Amerasia conferences ; and
The interrogation with respect to his acquaintance with Alger Hiss
and with John S. Service.
Senator Tydings. Have those questions been asked. Senator Hicken-
looper, all of them?
Senator Hickenlooper. Those have all been asked. I am referring
back to my interrogation, my (questions which I asked, and Avhich the
witness refused to answer.
Senator Tydings. I doirt think j'ou asked about ]Mr. '\Miitaker
Chambers. If you did, I didirt hear it, I was talking to
Senator Hickenlooper. If there is any question about it, I shall
ask
Senator Tydings. Just so I make sure it is asked.
Senator Hickenlooper. My memory is that I did.
Senator Tydings. You did? I didn't hear it. I was talking to
someone.
Senator Hickenlooper. I now ask that the chaii-man direct the
witriess to answer the specific questions which I put to him in con-
nection with those people.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Field, I am going to ask you a rather long
question, and then ask you to answer it.
Mr. Field, do you know any or all of the following people : Spe-
cifically, Elizabeth Bentley, Whitaker Chambers — I beg pardon- —
did you know any or all of the folloAving peo})le or persons : "VVHiitaker
C/hambers, John C. Vincent, Haldore Hanson, John S. Service, Alger
Hiss — that is the question.
Mr. Field. Is tliaf the question?
Senator Tydings. Do you know any or all of the five persons, I think
it was, whom I named ^
Mr. Field. Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully decline to answer
tliat question on the ground that the answer might be self-incriminat-
ing.
Senator Tydings. Well, the Chair deems it to be a pertinent ques-
tion, well within the purview of the resolution Avhich brings us here
this morning, and directs you to answer the question.
Mr. Field. Well, Mr. Cliairman, I again ]'es])ectfully must decline
to answer on the ground the ajiswers might be self -incriminating.
Senator Tydings. The Chair also takes the liberty of informing you,
uidess there is some objection, that he speaks for the whole committee
in directing you to resi)ond to the interrogation I have asked.
Mr, Field. I must still stand on this declination, Mr. Chairman.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 729
Senator HiCKENLOorER. I think tliat is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge?
Senator Lodge. It is obvious to me, to ask questions of this witness
is almost a complete waste of time; but I would like to just present the
thought that here is this committee, engaged in a vitally important task
of ferreting disloyal persons out of the Government service, a matter
which wouKl involve the very existence of this country, and we have
a shocking spectacle of a man who has had every advantage this coun-
try could oiler, and refuses to help this subcommittee do its planned
juiblic duty.
Senator "Tydings. Senator Green?
Senator Greex. AVell, supplementing what Senator Lodge just said,
I would like to ask the witness this question : Is he able and willing
to sive tliis committee any help in its effort to find out whether there
are" disloyal persons now "in the State Department or who have been
there before?
Mr. Field. Senator Green, I have tried to give some cooperation to
the committee. I have testified to all questions respecting what I
assumed to be the major matter on which I was brought down, namely,
my relation to Professor Lattimore. I believe that I have answered
all questions that have been put to me on that question. I have an-
swered all questions that hnve been put to me relating to my profes-
sional association with the Institute of Pacific Relations.
I have explained, in my opening statement, the reason that I felt it
necessary to decline to enter into any area bearing on my political
beliefs and associations, and if I may offer that as a reply to your
question, sir
Senator Greex. In other words, what you have given already is the
extent of the help that you feel able to give the committee in its work.
Mr. Field. I don't believe I can do anything more, Mr. Senator.
Senator Ttdixgs. Mr. Field, now that my committee associates have
asked yon their questions, there are two or three that maybe I should
ask you, and perhaps you can give answers to them, without taking
advantage of the situation which has been present up to now.
The first question is : In your refusal to answer these questions on
the ground that they might necessarily incriminate you, might I ask
you if it is reasonable to draw either a yes-or-no determination from
\our refusal to answer? Tlius, when you are asked a question, where
the answer would obviously be yes or no, if you were to answer,
without taking advantage, are we to assume that there is no inference
from vour refusal to answer of either affirmation or denial?
Mr. Field. Absolutely so; yes, sir.
Senator Tydix-^gs. Now, do you or do yon not know, of your own
knowledge, of any disloyal acts to our Government that Owen Latti-
more has ever performed?
Mr. Field. ]\Ir. Chairman, to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Latti-
more has in no sense or on any occasion been disloyal.
Senator Tydixgs. Do you or did you not know of your own Icnowl-
edge ^A•lletller Owen T^attimore lias an allegiance to any foreign govern-
ment, association, or apparatus which would make him disloyal to his
own Government ?
Mr. Field. Mr. Chairman, in answer to that, I have every reason to
believe, in the association I have had with Mr. Lattimore, that he has
a lovaltv onlv to the United States; that he has no connections whatso-
730 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
ever with any foreign governments, and there is no ground whatsoever
for suspecting him of disk)yalty.
Senator Ttdings. I might ask you again, for emphasis, if you have
ah'eady ansAvered it — Do you, or do you not of your own knowledge,
know whether or not he is a member of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Field. To the very best of my knowledge, Mr. Chairman, Mr.
Lattimore is not a member of the Communist Party.
Senator Tydtxgs. Might I ask you if any time in any of your asso-
ciations witli Mv. Lattimore, in the conduct of the Institute of Pacific
Relations, or in the publication of the magazine Amerasia, you saw
or detected anything that aroused your suspicions that he was writing,
not objectively, but — but rather objectively to accomplish a purpose
that was not to the best interest of the United States ?
Mr. Field. No, I never did. On the contrary, I spent many years
workino- for this research organization, in association with scholars ;
and, it is quite evident that Professor Lattimore has the reputation of
being one of the most outstanding scholars on the Far East in this
country. He has a woi'ld-wide reputation in this sense.
Senator Tydixgs. Now, at any time during your association with
this Institute of Pacific Affairs, and your position as chairman, I
believe it was, of the editorial board, or on the editorial board of the
magazine Amerasia, did you or do you know of anyone else who sug-
gested, connived, or aided in putting Communist articles in that maga-
zine, through the medium of Mr. Lattimore^
Mr. Field. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. Do you or do you not know of any time that
Mr. Lattimore knowingly aided in the publication of an article that
was written, so far as you know, bv a Communist ?
Mr. Field. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. Do you or are you in a position to say whether or
not at any time during your association with Mr. Lattimore, and the
Pacific relations unit, that Mr. Lattimore, directly or indirectly en-
gaged in any conversation, any undertaking, any intrigue, or any other
act which had for its purpose the placing of either persons on the pay-
roll of the magazine and insitute on the one hand, or the insertion of
articles that were calculated to be there other than for the purpose of
the magazine proper, upon the other hand ?
]\Ir. Field. No, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. I have no more questions.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have a question I would like to ask, if I
may.
Mr. Field, I believe you stated, in answer to a question by Senator
Tydings, as to whether or not, to your knowledge or within jour
knowledge, Owen Lattimore was a Communist, and I believe you said,
to your laiowledge — within your knowledge, whatever knowledge you
had — he was not; is that correct?
Mr. Field. That is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you in a position, Mr. Field, to know
wliether or not Mr. Lattimore is or is not a Communist ?
Mr. Field. No. I put the answer very differently. Senator. I said
that — I put it in two ways : One, that to the very best of my knowledge,
he was not; and, on some other occasion, I believe I said that I had.no
grounds whatsoever for believing he was a Communist.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USTS'ESTIGATION 731
Senator Hickenloopeu. But iny question, which I will n^ain repeat,
;ind which you answered. I belieA-e, by "No" — I want to ask a.iiain.
Then you are — you say that you are not in a position to know, either
affirmatively or neoatively, surely whether or not Owen Lattimore
is a Connnunist?
^Iv. FiKLD. If T may, Mr. Senator, I will stand on my previous
answer.
Senator Hickenlooper. Which is "No," as I understand it.
I would like for the reporter to read the previous answer to which
Mr. Field referred.
INIi-. Field. My answer was that I have no such knowdedge, and I
lune no i-eason to believe that Mr. Lattimore is or was a Communist.
Senator Hickexlooper. But my question w^as : Are you in a posi-
tion, within your knowledge, so that you would know whether or
not he was a Communist ?
]\Ir. Field. No ; I am not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Field, you had associations with Mr.
Lattimore over a considerable period of time in connection especially
with the Institute of Pacific Relations. Would you say that Mr. Latti-
niore's social and political views with respect to policies in the Orient
and social and political views in the United States quite generally
coincide with yours as a result of your experience with him?
Mr. Field. That is an extremely difficult question to answer, Mr.
Senator.
Answering it very briefly, I would say that Mr. Lattimore and I
were ])retty much in disagreement on political questions. I don't
think I can go further than that.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you in general agreement about the
American policy in the Orient over the last 10 years?
Mr. Field. Mr. Chairman, I said — and I wish to emphasize it —
that in my opinion Mr. Lattimore and I had different views, different
political views, on most such ]:)oints. I frankly disagreed with him.
Senator Hickenlooper. What areas of disagreement do you find
between you and Mr. Lattimore on social and political views?
Mr. Field. I decline to answer that question, Mr. Senator, on the
ground that the answer might be self-incriminating and will lead into
an area of discussion which I decline to enter.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think that is a pertinent question.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman
Senator Tydings. Mr. Morgan.
Ml-. Morgan. I would like to make the observation, Mr. Field, inas-
much as at one point in your testimony you seemed to be under the
impression that your appearance here this morning, in a pertinent
fashion, related only to Mr. Lattimore.
I want again to indicate to you that the purview of this committee's
functions includes any disloyal persons that may ever have been in the
State Department, or, for that matter, associated with the State De-
partment in any capacity.
Inasmuch as you may not be familiar with the record in this pro-
ceeding, I want to advise you that in the case of Mr. John Service,
Mr. Haldore Hanson, that they have been publicly charged before this
committee as being persons possibly disloyal ; that they are now em-
ploj-ed by the State Department ; and again I would like to ask you a
732 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
question which you have been asked once before : if you know Mr. Jolin
Service or Mr. Haldore Hanson?
Mr. Field. May I discuss this matter with my counsel for a moment ?
Senator Tydings. Yes; you may.
(Discussion was off the record.)
Mr. Field. Mr. Chairman, in answer to Mr. Morgan's question, may
I say this : That with the exception of certain other questions put to
me by Senator Hickenlooper, I do not think that I have indicated that
1 was declining to answer on the ground of irrelevancy, and I don't
mean to give that impression. I am declining to answer the question
that you have just put to me, and similar questions, on the ground that
my answer might be self-incriminating.
Mr. Morgan. You regard, therefore, the questions that have been
asked you as relevant to this proceeding, but decline to answer them
on the ground that they might tend to incriminate you ?
Mr. Field. Where I so stated.
Mr. Morgan. Thank you.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Field, I have no desire to pursue the matter,
but to take you completely into my thoughts, so that I may now hope
to get an answer.
If you were to say that you didn't know, first of all, these individuals
whose names have been brought out here, who are working for the
State Department, of course that would be one thing. In the event
that you said you did know them. I would like to ask you the question
as to whether or not you know them to be members of the Communist
Party, or know them to be disloyal to the Government of the United
States.
Now, it does seem to me that you might reconsider, with your at-
torney, that area, because I can see nothing in that particular situa-
tion which, if it stopped there, would involve you; and may I point
out to you that if you don't answer the question all sorts of inferences
can be drawn, some favorably, some unfavorably to the individuals con-
cerned. So, I would ask you if you wouldn't consult with your at-
tornev again to see whether, to the extent I have outlined, and to the
men I have named, who are now employed, you couldn't find it pos-
sible to give this committee the benefit of 3^our testimony.
(Mr. Field and his counsel conferred off the record.)
Senator Tydings. The names, I think, are Haldore Hanson, John
S. Service
Mr. Morgan. Those are the names I asked.
Senator Tydings. Those two, particularly-
Senator Hickenlooper. John C. Vincent is another one and-
Mr. Field. Mr. Chairman, may I try to meet your point part way
by making the following statement : That I had no knowledge what-
soever— I say this without any reservation or qualification — that either
Mr. Service or Mr, Hanson is or ever has been a Communist.
Senator Tydings. I don't want to take advantage of your option,
and I have no intention of doing it in directing this question to you :
There is one other employee of the State Department whose name has
been mentioned, I think. I shan't enlarge the list beyond this one
I overlooked — his name being John C. Vincent. Would you care to
make a statement similar to the one you have made in reference to
this man?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 733
]\Ir. Field. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would be glad to state I have
no — to the best of my knowledjije — INIr. Vincent is not and never has
been a Communist. I think I said "never has been" with respect to
the others.
Senator TYniNos. I want to thank von for your cooperation, and I
hope, after conference with your attorney, you can go into other areas
within a reasonable limit without going back on your general premise.
I would like to ask you whether or not these three men — Haldore Han-
son, John S. Service, and John Carter Vincent, or any of them, insofar
as you know — have conunitteed any act of disloyalty to the Govern-
ment of the United States, including the State Department, of course?
Mr. Field. No. Mr. Chairman ; to the best of my knowledge, none of
these three men have committed any act of disloyalty.
Senator Tydings. Thank you.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have some questions, in response to that.
Do you know Mr. John C. Vincent, do you know Haldore Hanson,
and do you know John S. Service ?
Mr. Field. Senator Hickenlooper, I understood, when I answered
the chairman's questions, that that was the limit to which this particu-
lar line of inquiry was to be pursued.
And on that understanding I decline to ansAver your question on the
ground that the answer may be self-incriminating.
Senator Hickenlooper. So, you decline to answer the question as to
whether you even knew these men about whom the chairman interro-
gated you in his last questions ?
(There was no response.)
Senator Hickenlooper. I think that is self-evident, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. It is 12 : 15. Do you have another witness ?
Mr. Morgan. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that IMiss Freda Utley
was scheduled to testify today, and suddenly Miss Utley indicated to
me she would appreciate the committee indulging her, perhaps giving
her more time in which to prepare her testimony ; and I have indicated
that I would favorably recommend to the committee that it excuse her
from testifying today and consider the possibility of her appearance
at a subsequent date.
Senator Tydings. Is that satisfactory to you. Miss Utley?
jSIiss Utley, Please. I want the committee to know I was only told
at 5 : 30 yesterday, and since my testimony relates largely to proof of
Mr. Lattimore's writings, of how he has followed the party line, I
simply could not get it ready in one night.
Senator Tydings. Miss Utley, ma}^ I ask you if your testimony is
going to be taken from his writings, as I understand you?
Miss Utley. Largely, but not entirely.
Senator T^h^ings. And from his utterances?
Miss Utley. Yes, sir.
Senator TiTdNGS. Now. will that be a matter of your opinion as to
what is happening, or will there be supporting facts?
Miss Utley. There will be supporting facts.
Senator Tydings. All right.
We will accede to your request and give you additional time. So,
hold yourself available and we will try to work it out so that every-
body is happy about it.
Now, what is our next proposal here, Mr. Morgan? Monday or
Tuesday ?
734 STATE DEPARTAIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Tuesday, Mr. Chairman, 10 : 30, at which time Mr.
Lattimore is scliecluled to appear.
Senator HiCKENLooPER. What time?
Mv. MoRCxAN. "V\Tiat time
Senator Tydings. Oh, we meet Monday. If we wanted to
I knew there was something. The Foreign ReLations Committee has
to meet on Monday in a special session ; so, our next meeting will be at
10 : 30 o'clock Tuesday morning — open session. Mr. Owen Lattimore
will have a chance to respond to these charges.
Mr. Porter. A point of information: Will Miss Utley follow Dr.
Lattimore? It was my understanding that Dr. Lattimore would be
permitted to respond to all allegations made against him, and I don't
see how that would be possible if Miss Utley is going to testify subse-
quently.
Senator Tydings I think you have a point there, Mr. Porter.
Quite frankly, this matter has been in progress now for nearly 2
months ; and, quite frankly, Miss Utley's name has been mentioned in
connection with it for a month or more ; and it does seem to the com-
mittee that we are all very busy men and under terrific pressure to
hold these meetings while many other things are going on, and that
it would be a matter of tremendous accommodation, ancl permit us to
proceed, if you could get your testimony together pretty soon ; and I
hope that to be before Tuesday.
Miss Utley. I can have it ready by 10 : 30 Tuesday before Mr.
Lattimore. I can have it ready on Monday. I just need about 24
hours.
Senator Tydixgs. We can't meet Monday.
(Discussion was off the record.)
Senator Tydings. Mr. Field, you will be temporarily excused. You
are still under subpena. We have no immediate plans to call you un-
less the committee, at a meeting we will hold, should deem otherwise.
So, I think you might be at liberty to leave. Leave your address and
whereabouts as near as you can with the counsel of the committee ; and,
if we need you, we will call you back. Thank you for being here.
Mr. Field. Thank you, INIr. Chairman, for your courtesy.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, just so I am not misunder-
stood in my position, the chairman has said the committee has no
immediate plan of calling Mr. Field
Senator Tydings. That is right.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have some immediate plans wnth respect
to Mr. Field, which I expect to present to the committee. I wouldn't
want the connotation to go out that this episode is ended here, now,
but
Senator Tydings. Of course if 3^ou are going to present this to the
committee, the committee will have to act on anything, before the com-
mittee will have any immediate plans. All I said was we have no
immediate plans, right now, at this particular minute, second, and
hour. We can have them in an hour from now, or 10 hours from
now, or next week.
Senator Hickenlooper. That is fair enough.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, let me renew the statement I have
already made : I desire to have the opportunity to question Mr. Lat-
timore in executive session, and I trust that that opportunity will
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 735
be made aA-ailablo. Tlio i-eason "\vl13' I want to do it is because I think
there are questions which, in tlie jn-esence of the public, will hamper
the work of our investif^ative agencies and have a deleterious effect on
the American position abroad and might besmirch the character of
innocent persons, so I will Avant to question Mr. Lattimore in private.
Senator Tydixgs. I think I owe it to the members of the committee,
in view of Senator Lodge's statement, to say that I am unalterably
opposed to any closed sessions of any manner, shape or form, either
pro or con, dealing with the Lattimore matter.
The charges Avere made in the open. The testimony was in the
open, and I think everything else ought to be in the open in it.
When we get to the end of the Lattimore case, after that we can take
up matters that have not been made in the open, in executive session;
but I think having this business shifting on the scene and then shift-
ing off the scene is conducive t^o things like happened yesterday when
one of the members of the Senate was down on the floor and made a
statement which was not accurate, and therefore, I am getting very
much opposed to closed sessions. You can't get the facts out accu-
rately. Therefore, I shall oppose, with all the force at my command,
any testimony pro or con about Owen Lattimore being taken at any
other place, or any other questions being asked at any other place
than in the open session.
Senator Lodge. Then that puts me in the position of either being
unable to get the answers to questions which I regard as essential to
help me reach a conclusion, No. 1 ; or, asking questions which will
hamper work of the investigative agencies and possibly besmirching
the characters of innocent persons and possibly injure American posi-
tion abroad.
That puts me in that position.
Senator Tydings. The committee will stand in recess until 2 : 30
Monday afternoon, tentatively, at which time I ask Miss Utley to be
ready with her testimony.
(Whereupon, at 12 : 22 p. m.. the subcommittee stood in tentative
recess until 2 : 30 p. m. Monday ^Nlay 1, 1950.)
STATE DEPARTMEIST EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY mVESTlCiATION
MONDAY, MAY 1, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 2?>[,
Washington, D. C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment taken on Api'il
2 9,, 1950, at 2 : 30 p. m., in the caucus room, room 318 Senate Office
l3uihlin<r, Senator Millard E. Tydings, chairman of the subcom-
mittee, presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) , Green,
McMahon, and Lodge.
Also present : Senator Knowland, Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief
counsel of the subcommittee ; and Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel
of the subcommittee.
Senator Tydings. The meeting will be in order.
Is Mrs. Freda Utley here?
Will you come forward, please?
Stand and raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly promise and declare that the evidence you shall
give in the matter now pending before this committee shall be the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
;Mrs. Utley. I do so solemnly declare.
Senator Tydings. Will you be seated?
STATEMENT OF MRS. FREDA UTLEY
Senator Tydings. Will you give us your full name.
Mrs. U'n.EY, My name is Freda Utley.
Senator Tydings. And your present address ?
Mrs. Uti.ey. 1717 Twentieth Street, Washington NW.
Senator Tydings. And your present employment, if any?
Mrs. Utley. Free-lance author, journalist, and lecturer.
Senator Tydings. Have you any associations in a business way
through which you practice your profession?
Mrs. Utley. No.
Senator Tydings. You receive no compensation as a matter of gen-
eral course?
Mrs. Utley. No.
Senator Tydings. ^vlr. ^Morgan, do you desire to interrogate the
witness?
Mr. ]\Iorgan. Mrs. Utley, do you have a prepared statement?
Mrs. Utley. I have a statement.
737
738 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. jVIorgan. Did you make copies ?
Mrs. IJtley. It has been physically impossible, within the time, to
get it duplicated.
Mr. Morgan. I wonder if you have any copies you might furnish for
the committee ?
Mrs. Utley. The only thing I have ready for the committee — the
newspapers of course have seen them and taken all my copies — that
was a statement of my past curricula. I think that I can get a copy
of that and hand it to the committee.
Mr. Morgan. Will you please proceed, then, with your statement?
Mrs. Utley. I am testif^ying here because I consider America is
the hope of the world, and that people like Mr. Lattimore menace our
security and freedom.
I was a member of the British Communist Party from 1928 to
1931. I ceased to be a Communist a few months after going to live
in Eussia in September 1930 ; that is to say, as soon as I learned the
truth about communism and Soviet Russia.
I remained G years in Russia because I was married to a Russian
wdio, not being a member of the Communist Party, had no chance of
leaving the Soviet Union after returning there in 1930. I finally left
the Soviet Union in the sunnner of 1936, following the arrest of my
husband. He was sent to a slave-labor camp without trial, and I
have long presumed him dead.
For the first 2 years after I returned to the free world with our young
son, who was 2 years old at the time of my husband's arrest, I refrained
from writing an exposure of the Soviet Union because I knew that
to do so would have caused the instant execution of my husb?ind. At
the same time, I also refrained from saying anything favorable about
communism, in spite of the fact that I knew that my best chance of
saving my husband's life was to engage in lying propagranda for the
Communists. Finally, in 1939, following the Stalin-Hitler pact, I
felt that I could keep silent no longer and decided to write the book
published in the United States the following year under the title, The
Dream We Lost, and reissued in 1948 as Lost Illusion.
These facts are pertinent to this inquiry because Mr. Lattimore, in
his statement to this committee on April 6, said that when he met me
in Moscow I M-as "working for the Russians."
This is technically true, since I had to earn a living, and in Russia
there are no jobs but Government jobs.
I first met Owen Lattimore in April 1936 in Moscow, together with
Mr. E. C. Carter and Harriet Moore, all of the Institute of Pacific
Relations. I \Yas a so-called scientific worker in the Pacific Ocean
cabinet of the Institute of World Economy and Politics headed by
Eugene Varga, the famous Russian economist. This institute was a
part of the Communist Academy, but the academy's name had been
changed to Academy of Sciences shortlv before the visit of the Ameri-
can Institute of Pacific Relations officials. It nevertheless remained
the same important branch of the Soviet Government as before, when
it had been called the Communist Academy. The leading members
of the Pacific Ocean cabinet of the Institute of World Economv and
Politics, where I worked, constituted the Russian branch of the Insti-
tute of Pacific Relations. The head of the Pacific Ocean cabinet was
a certain Voitinsk}^ who had represented the Comintern in China in
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 739
the revolutionary years 1925-27. Voitinsky was also the head of the
Kussian branch of the Institnte of Pacific Relations.
It was the fnnction of my branch of the institnte to stndy the econ-
omic and political sitnation in the Far East, and lay the theoretical
foundation for policy decisions. Of course these decisions were not
really made with reference to the objective situation.^ Emphasis
would be laid on Jiipan's v>-ickeduess, or the Kuomintang's or that of
Britain, the United States, France, or Holland, according to the
degree of hostility or friendliness displayed toward Soviet Russia by
these various governments concerned. My own work consisted of
studying and writing about the economic and political situation in
Japan, and since Japan was feared by Russia, I was able to study and
report on Japan's economy and politics without the need of obscuring
the truth as I saw it.
Now. myself not being any longer a member of the Communist
Party, I was not present in 1936 at the private meeting between Voi-
tinsky and Varga and the visiting American IPR delegates.
May I say ''IPR"'' instead of ''Institute of Pacific Relations" to save
time?
Mr. ^kloRGAN. May I interrupt^ If you will go more slowly, it
would be better for the reporter.
Mrs. Utley. However, ij: was officially accepted that the Institute
of Pacific Relations was an international organization which favored
collaboration with the Soviet and that Russia was making a large
contribution to its finances.
During the long hours of discussion at the Institute of World
Economy and Politics, with the American IPR delegates and even
more definitely in the evening when Mr. Carter addressed a large
meeting of the "Moscow actives" — that meant the leading members of
the Russian Communist Party in ISIoscow — together with the mem-
bers of my institute, I was convinced that Mr. Carter was a Communist
but did not think that Owen Lattimore was one at that time.
]\Ir. Carter spoke at the evening meeting just like a Communist
sympathizer, and in the afternoon meeting at my institute he never
once argued with the Russian Communists.
Mr. Lattimore, however, did argue, in particular concerning Mon-
golia. I cannot now, nearly 20 years after, recall the details of that
discussion during this long and boring afternoon. But I do remember
clearly that Mr. Lattimore kept insisting that INIongol society should
not be called feudal since a nomad society is not the same thing as a
feudal society. Incidentally, I note that in his latest book, Pivot of
Asia, Mr. Lattimore now refers to Mongol society as "feudal."
One of the things which made me doubt whether Lattimore, at that
date, was a Communist, was the fact that as editor of Pacific Affairs,
he had published an article by the Trotskyist Harold Isaacs. This is
the Harold Isaacs who, subsequently, in later years became a corres-
]>ondent of Newsweek. In the winter of 1936-37, in London, Latti-
more told me that he had almost lost his job as editor of Pacific Affairs
on account of having published this Isaacs article. This, in itself,
-seemed to prove the tight control exercised by Moscow over the Insti-
tute of Pacific Relations.
One of the reasons why I believe that Lattimore was moving ever
closer to the Communists, is that he never again published an article
740 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
by Isaacs or any other lieretic or indeed by anyone who dared to ex-
pose the whole truth about Soviet Russia, and Stalin's policies.
Soon after his visit to Moscow in 1936, he seems to have become a
follower of the party line, as I shall subsequently demonstrate.
In the months I knew Lattimore in London, in 1936-37, he was still
critical of the Communists ; but, in Baltimore, where I lived in the first
6 months of 1940, he appeared to have become an out-and-out defender
of the Soviet Government.
Senator Tydings. Wliat year was that>'
Mrs. Utley. In the first 6 months of 1940. That is after I took
my residence in the United States for the first time.
This is not to say that I have any proof that he ever joined the
Communist Party, but his attitude and actions seemed to me by this
time practically indistinguishable from those of a Communist; this
was in 1940.
I want here to explain by motivation in coming forward to testify
against Lattimore. He and his wife were once my friends, although
it is not true, as he has stated in the press interview, that I spent
weeks as their house jruest in 1938. However, it is true that in 1938
when I came to the United States from China to speak for the Ameri-
can Committee for Non-Participation in Japanese Aggression, Latti-
more arranged for me to lecture at Baltimore. It is also true that in
1940, when I came with my family to settle in America, I again knew
the Lattimores in Baltimore, where I first resided.
My former friendship with the Lattimores was based on my im-
pression in 1936-37 that, although sympathetic to the so-called Soviet
socialist experiment, they were not Communists. They were very
kind to me and my son. They sympathized Avith me for the loss of
my husband. They deplored the mass arrests, imprisonments with-
out trial, and other tyrannical features of Stalin's Eussia. But, by
1940, they had both, it seemed to me, decided to throw in their lot with
the Communist totalitarians. In parentheses I may remark here that
Lattimore, on page 53 of The Situation in Asia, writes that according
to Communist theory, "To be progressive in politics means to be on
the side of that which is going up and against that which is going
down" ; and states on the next page, that the Russians "have the feel-
ing that their country and their cause are going forward on the side
of history."
This seems to me the keynote of Mr. Lattimore's writings and the
motivation for his acts. He wants to be on the winning side, and he
thinks the Communists are destined to win. This, of course, is my
surmising.
In any case, what shocked me most was to learn later that in Septem-
ber 1938 while I was in China, Lattimore had written in Pacific Affairs
that the blood purge in Russia had been a triumph for democracy.
I have his exact words here, a quotation from this article, but I am
trying to cut this down to possibly not make the quotation too long :
The real point, of course, for those who live in democratic countries, is whether
the discovery of the conspiracies was a triumph for democracy, or not. I think
that can he easily determined. Tlie accounts of the most widely read Moscow
correspondents all emphasize that since the close scrutiny of every person in a
responsible position, following the trials, a great many abuses have been dis-
covered and rectified. A lot depends on whether you emphasize the discovery of
the abuse or the rectification of it; but habitual rectification can hardly do
anything but give the ordinary citizen more courage to protest, loudly, when-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 741
fver in tho future he finds himself beins victimized by someone in the party or
someone in the government. That sounds to me like democracy.
Lattiniore's reference liere to "the most widely read Moscow cor-
respondents" illustrates one of his most successful techniques for put-
ting across Communist propaganda, namely, putting it into the mouth
of some unanimous authority — in this case no doubt Walter Duranty, a
notorious apologist for the Soviet Union.
In the same issue of Pacific AfRairs Lattimore, in reviewing the
first volume of The American Quarterly on the Soviet Union wrote
concerning an article by John N. Hazard that it was "one more indi-
cation that the series of Moscow trials does not represent the climax
of a process of repression but on the contrary is part of a new advance
in the struggle to set free the social and economic potentialities of a
whole nation and its people. * * * It is evident that the quar-
terly will be indispensable for the formation of intelligent opinion
about the Soviet Union."
Since I knew that Lattimore knew that hundreds of thousands of
people had been arrested and sentenced to slave labor in Russia with-
out trial, I began to realize that he was adjusting his views to the
party line, and abandoning his earlier misgivings.
Friendship can be based only on mutual respect. Once I understood
that Lattimore had become a supporter or apologist for tyranny,
cruelty, and injustice, and as I perceived Lattimore was, in all respect,
following the Communist Party line, I ceased to be his friend. As I
remember my last conversation with the Lattimores, it was with his
wife about June 1940 when I was packing to move to New York. Elea-
nor Lattimore came to see me and said I was hurting Owen by calling
him a Connnunist. And as I remember, I replied, "Well, isn't heT'
And added. "In any case, it seems to me tliat to be a Communistic
sympathizer is an advantage to him in his field."
I consider it a pernicious and extremely dangerous idea that the ties
of long past or even recent friendship shouhl be considered more im-
portant than the securit}' of one's country, and the survival of freedom.
I think that America stands today in greater peril than at any time
since the foundation of the Republic, and that Moscow's witting and
unwitting tools in America are seeking to soften us up for Communist
concpiest ; and that people like Mr. Lattimore are assigned an impor-
tant role in the Communist strategy for world conquest. They have
already so influenced American policy as to have led us to throw away
the fruits of victory in the Pacific and given China over to Russia.
Now, today, Mr. Lattimore is arguing, as shown in his August 1949
memorandum to Mr. Jessup, that we should abandon Korea and Japan
and give no aid to the National Govermnent of China in Formosa, so
that this island could also fall to the Communists. If he succeeds
in this, he can next argue that first the Phili])pines, then the inter-
mediate islands, and then Hawaii are indefensible and must be aban-
doned. Thus, step by stej^, the Connnunist menace will come closer
to America's own shores.
Even if Lattimore had remained a friend of mine until recently,
and I had not broken with him 10 years ago, I should consider it my
duty as a prospective citizen of this coimtry to expose him.
I will now show how closely Lattiniore's writings have followed
the Communist Party line since 1938, when he demonstrated, by his
742 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
defense of the Russian blood purge, his subservience to party dis-
cipline.
To understand how Lattimore's writing's have followed the Com-
munist line, one must know what the Communist line has been.
From 1935, when the Comintern inaugurated the democratic mas-
querade, until the Stalin-Hitler pact of August 1939, the line was
one of all-out hostility to Nazis, Fascists, and Japanese and, conse-
quently, our support for the National Government of China. But,
following the Hitler-Stalin pact, all the Communist Parties, includ-
ing the Chinese, reversed themselves. Lend-lease was denounced in
the Chinese Communist Capital of Yenan, in the same terms as in
Union Square in New York — the Chinese Communists, like the Amer-
ican Communists, and Mr. Frederick Vanderbilt Field's peace mobili-
zation, denounced lend-lease for embroiling the United States in the
second imperialist war.
Mao Tse-tung, leader of the Chinese Communist Party, told Edgar
Snow that with the liquidation of the Nazi anti-Soviet pact and anti-
Commintern policy, the distinction formerly drawn between the Fas-
cist and democratic countries had lost its validity. Asked by Edgar
Snow whether he now saw no difference between fascism and the cause
of the democracies, Mao replied, "No; there is no difference in their
l^osition in this war."
And, what did Mr. Lattimore say during this period? In an
article he published in Pacific Affairs in June 1940 he echoed Mao
Tse-tung. He, too, said that there was nothing to choose between
both sides in the war in Europe. He called the war in Europe one —
I quote — "between the established master races and the claimant master
races," unquote.
In this article, he casts general discredit on the democratic side,
said it was merely defending its possessions, not the concept of de-
mocracy and equality and ascribed responsibility for the war equal
to both sides.
The cause of the war, he wrote, and I quote, "were the wrongs done
to China, Ethiopia, Spain, Czechoslovakia, and Albania — not by
Japan and Italy and Germany alone, but by Britain and France and
the United States as well. It was because they attempted to escape
the shortcomings of the old order without sacrifice to themselves at
the expense of the rest of the world, including the huge territories like
China and Russia, as well as the geographicall}^ small nations, that
tliey are now fighting each other."
Nor, is this the only evidence that Lattimore followed the party
line in denouncing the war in Europe prior to Germany's attack on
Russia, as an imperialist struggle in which both sides were equally
While Lattimore was one of the editors of Amerasia, in 1939 to 1910,
following the Stalin-Hitler pact, it published articles directly echoing
the Communist Party line, for which Mr. Lattimore must assume
paitial, at least, responsibility.
Senator Tvdixgs. Do you know whether or not they published at
tlie same time any articles that showed a contrary point of view ?
Mrs. Un.KY. No. I will state that almost categorically, but in the
time at my disposal, I have had no time to read every article in
Amerasia.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 743
It abused Italy and France and nr<»ed America not to be drawn into
the European war, wliile nrj^inir that it take action a^jainst Japan.
Folk)wing Germany's attack on Kussia, in June 1J)41, it switched over
to the opposite side, like all Communist organs, and urged American,
participation in the war against Germany.
I have here several pages of extracts from Amei-asia and I feel that
my testimony will be far too long if I read tliem all.
Senator Tydixgs. Put them in the record at this point.
I would like to ask a couple of questions.
Does this appear over Mr. Lattimore's signature?
Mrs. Utley. No.
Senator Tydikgs. Did they appear over anybody's signature?
Mrs. Utley. Yes. The particular articles I have mentioned, one
Avas by William Brandt, entitled "The Embargo Threat — A Diplo-
matic Maneuver," was published in the March 1940 issue of Amerasia.
Senator Tydixgs. Read the others, and identifv them.
]\Irs. Utley. Next is one by Harry Paxton Howard which explained
and justified the Stalin-Hitler pact.
I don't want to impose on your time by reading it all.
Senator Tydixgs. Don't read it, but let me ask you another
question:
During the period to which you refer, evidently you have had some
opportunity to read these magazines, is that right ?
;^Irs. Utley. During that period ?
Senator Tydixgs. Have they been handed to you, or did you read
them yourself, Mrs. Utley ?
Mrs. Utley. I have been looking them up now, in the last few daj's.
Senator Tydix'gs. Looking them up in the Amerasia magazine?
iSIrs. Utley. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. Plave you found any articles in there that were
published in there by people other than Mr. Lattimore, that presented
any contrary view ?
Mrs. Utley. No.
Senator Tydixgs. Nothing in the magazine at all except articles of
one kind during this period ?
Mrs. Utley. Yes.
Senator Tydixgs. How many of these articles to which you refer
were over the signature, or over the masthead of the editor of the
magazine w'ho, as I understand it, was then ISIr. Lattimore, is that
correct ?
Mrs. LTtley. Mr. Lattimore was only one. The managing editor was
Frederick Vanderbilt Field.
Senator Tydixgs. Who was the managing editor?
!Mrs. Utley. I think that was Frederick Vanderbilt Field.
Senator Tydixgs. How many other editors were there — I have not
read it?
Mrs. Utley. About a half a dozen. I cannot recall all their names.
One was Lillian Peffer, wife of a professor at Columbia Uni-
versity
Senator Tydixgs. Why attribute all of that to Mr. Lattimore if he
was onlv one of six, and wasn't the manaffinof editor?
Mrs. Utley. Senator Tvdings, if vou are on the board of a majrazine
that continually publishes only one view — actually ]Mr. Lattimore got
off the board in 1941, when he took up Government service.
G8970 — 50 — pt. 1 48
744 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Wliy give liim the responsibility when you say
there were six on tlie board? Do you know whether or not they ap-
proved these articles? Do you know whether or not tliey disap-
proved these articles? Do you know whether or not he saw the
articles before they were published; because if he was only one of
seven editors it would appear to me that in getting up a newspaper
or magazine like Amerasia, or the Saturday Evening Post, that some
of the articles could be published in there that might not be known
to all of the editors on the board, and I am asking as to information —
whether or not you can show any connection between this Mr. Latti-
more and these particular articles, or do you just surmise it?
Mrs. Utley. Senator Tydings, I have already read out an article in
Mr. Lattimore's own
Senator Tydings. I am not asking about that.
Mrs. Utley, Which says the same kind of things as Amerasia •
Senator Tydings. There is only one fact I want to ask you now — ■
whether or not you know that Mr. Lattimore sponsored, directly or
indirectly, these articles for publication in Amerasia?
We have had a lot of opinion evidence here. I would like to get a
few facts woven into it.
Mrs. Utley. The point I am making, Senator Tydings, is that Amer-
asia echoed almost exactly the same language I read you from Mr.
Lattimore's vvritings.
Secondly, surely, if one is in disagreement with the total line of a
magazine, it is the duty of one to get oif the editorial board.
Senator Tydings. I don't think tliat always follows, but your obser-
vation can stand.
Mrs. Utley. I would say that if Mr. Lattimore, in Amerasia, had
continued to write along these lines following Hitler's attack on Rus-
sia, his views could really be considered honest and consistent. But,
once the Soviet Union was at war with Germany, you could find no
more articles by Mr. Lattimore, saying that the war in Europe was
one between two lots of master races, as he said previous to Germany's
attack on Russia.
Senator Tydings. Of course, I don't want to take advantage of your
opportunity to testify, but let me point out, Mrs. Utley, that even in
our own Congress, when Britain and France were at war with the
Fascists, the Axis, and Avhen Russia was invaded, we had lend-lease
even before we got into the struggle, to give our money and substance
to Russia and all the other countries, so that everybody who then took
that particular side of the controversy would not necessarily be a
Communist, because a good many of my colleagues in the Senate would
be under very serious charges if that were true.
Mrs. Utley. May I make very clear, on that point. Senator Tydings,
that I personally was against American intervention in the European
war, because I considered it would lead to the domination of Stalin.
I want to make clear, I want to make that a clear distinction, and one
which I think the Attorney General made several years ago, and which
was to tlie eifect that you could tell a Communist as distinguished
from an isolationist, or whatever word you use, noninterventionist, by
his attitude before and after Germany attacked Russia. The people
who went on consistently opposing American intervention, and kept
on saying tlie usual things about the European war, and people who
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 745
<lid not change their line after Russia attacked Germany can be per-
fectly honest peo})lo and are perfectly entitled to that opinion; but,
those who switched directly the moment that Russia was involved in
the war, the Attorney General said, he thought you could spot them
as Communists
Senator Tydixgs. Thank you for that enlightenment. Proceed with
your story.
Mrs. Utlky. As further evidence of the fact that Mr. Lattimore fol-
lowed the party line, it is to be noted that little, if any, criticism either
of the Stalin-Hitler pact, or of the Russo-Japanese pact of April 1941
appeared in his writings.
Pacific Affairs under his editorship, published instead articles ab-
solving the Soviet Government of all blame or evil intent, and re-
peated the Communist argument that these pacts were victories for
peace or for the Japanese masses, and so forth.
When, in April 19-11, Russia and Japan signed their first pact, the
Chinese Communist Party welcomed it, saying that it "strengthened
peace on the eastern frontiers of the U. S. S. R. and guaranteed the
security of the development of socialist construction," so that "is in
keeping with the interests of the working people and oppressed na-
tions of the whole world."
Owen Lattimore similaily welcomed the pact saying, in the June
issrie of Pacific Affairs, that if the effect of the Russo-Japanese neu-
trality^ pact were to increase the isolation of China, it would lead to
more democratic and representative methods of government in China.
Pacific Affairs, June 1941, at page 152, said :
* * * the second is that in China a right-wing government can stand if
it has a certain amount of foreign support and approval; but if foreign attack
overweighs foreign support, it m-ust get on with the revolution or it will find that
the revolution can get on without it.
The second of these lessons applies particularly to China. It will become more
obvious if the effect of the Russo-Japanese neutrality pact is to increase the
isolation of China, forcing the government to rely less on foreign support and to
come to terms with the people by making the methods of government less authori-
tarian and more representative and more democratic * * *.
This is about the only reference either to the 1941 or the 1944 pacts,
Russo-Japanese pacts, which I have been able to find in Lattimore's
writings. Nor have I been able to find any reference to the effect in
them of the Soviet -Hitler pact, and of the statements of the Chinese
Communist leaders showing that they not only now favored Germany
in the European war, but that they were also preparing for the eventu-
ality of Russian intervention in China in alliance with Japan.
Omissions of vitally important facts can be as effective in mis-
leading the public as direct falsehoods. The effect of the Stalin-Hitler
pact and of the Russo-Japanese pact of April 1941 was, naturally,
to make the Chinese National Government fearful of receiving the
same stab in the back from the Communists as Poland had received.
There was an acute danger that, if it suited Moscow's convenience,
the Chinese Conmiunists would be instructed to turn against Chiang
and help Japan. Fear of this naturally cau.sed Chiang Kai-shek to
distrust not only the Communists but also the liberals who had rallied
around the Communists and were pressing for the same measures.
Thus the fear of treason led Chiang to rely more and more on the
•conservatives, or what the Comnmnists call the reactionaries.
746 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Lattimore never once takes into account the effect of Russia's
pacts with the Axis Powers.
According to him, the Kuomintang just got reactionary while the
Communists kept on getting more and more democratic.
Soviet Russia, in all of Lattimore's writings, is always sinned
against and is always represented by Lattimore as standing like a
beacon of hope for the peoples of Asia, even when she is collaborating
with the Nazis or agTessing on her own account. Russia is never in
the wrong and if he is forced to take cognizance of a few slight mis-
demeanors on her part, he excuses them as onlj^ a reaction to American
imperalism or some other country's misdeeds.
Senator Tydings. Mrs. Utley
Mrs. Utley. I am coming to my quotes now.
Senator Tydings. May I say
Mrs. Utley. An outstanding example of the wondrous way in which
Lattimore is able to attribute blame to others for Stalin's worst crimes
is the following quotation from his book "The Situation in Asia,'*
in which he writes, on page 89, that the Russians — and I quote:
"* * * were afraid that Manchuria, if its industries were left a
going concern might be turned into an American stronghold on the
doorstep of Siberia, so they gutted the factories of Manchuria as
they withdrew."
Before proceeding to give other quotations to show how replete
Lattimore's writings are with Communist propaganda about the
Soviet Union, I should give a few proofs of how consistently, albeit
subtly and cleverly, he has followed the Communist Party line in
his writings on China.
At the same time Mr. Lattimore is his own worst accuser for what
he writes in one place can be contradicted by what he has written
in another place, in conformity with the party line at any particular
time.
Senator Tydings. Are you going to read about the statements that
support your point, your point of view, and those that are in con-
tradiction to it, or those that suport your view only ?
Mrs. Utley. No; I am reading, Senator — in my statement I have
analyzed Mr. Lattimore's writings. I was preparing to read the dif-
ference in his views of the Chinese Communist Goverimient before and
after Soviet Russia turned against China. I realize, if I may say —
I don't want to apologize, but I will say that it has to take a certain
amount of time, because this is an intricate question, because Mr.
Lattimore is a very brilliant person, and because it is not just easy
to pick out 1, 2, 3, and 4, and then it is finished, and you can under-
stand the import and effect that Mr. Lattimore's writings and in-
fluence on American opinion and American policies, where one has
to go into a certain amount of detail of the background. I hope that
this committee Avill bear with me, although I am trying to make it as
short as possible.
Take, for instance, Lattimore's views of the Chinese National Gov-
ernment and Chiang Kai-shek.
In late 19'42 and 1943, when Russia was still backing the Chinese
National Government on account of the Soviet Govermnent's fear of
Japan, Lattimore paid high tribute to Chiang Kai-shek. For in-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 747
Stance, in a lecture given at Claremont Colleges, and published by
them early in 1043, Lattimore said :
Perhaps the situation will be larsely saved for us by the Chinese. Many people
talk of the dantrer of civil war in China at the end of this war, but I think that
tlie dani-'er of civil war in China is probably lt>ss than the danger of civil war
in many countries in Europe. One reason is that we have in Asia a world states-
man of real genius, in Chiang Kai-shek.
One of the oldest historical controversies turns on the question of whether
grejit men create the events of their time, or are created by them. The career
of Chiang Kai-shek shows that the problem cannot be limited to such narrow
terms. The truth is that great men and great events interact on each other in a
subtle and close way that results in creating history. This is as true of Roose-
velt, Churchill, and Stalin as it is of Chiang Kai-shek.
I have here another two pages of quotations from Mr. Lattimore,
not only in praise of Chiang, but saying very definitely that China —
and I quote again :
China is a democratic country, in the sense that the party and the Government
represent what the vast majority of the i>eople want. When we want to make up
our minds whether we are to call another country democratic and so forth, we
quite naturally begin by comparing it wicli our own democratic country.
Then he says :
This v\ay of looking at things can often lead to misunderstanding. The most
important standard by which to measure progress in a country like China is not
how near they have got to our way of doing, but how far they have got ahead of
the way things used to be done.
He goes on to say that China had made such very great progi-ess and
that the present rulers of China are not revolutionary, but they are
the sons and disciples of the Chinese and so forth.
Here is a long list of those extracts which the committee may want
to examine. I am trying to cut this down as much as possible.
Senator Tydings. That article you just finished is evidently an en-
comium of some length on the virtue of Chiang Kai-shek, is that
correct ?
Mrs. Utlet. That is correct.
It goes on to finish up, it goes into great detail about the develop-
ment in China and how, although they are not elected in our sense
of the word, nevertheless they do have representation of all parties.
Here are these papers.
Now, I want to just contrast that with only a few lines of what Lat-
timore writes in Situation in Asia in 1945, which directly contradicts
his favorable view of all wartime China. He is not referring to the
China that came afterward, when it had degenerated. He is referring
to the same China and the same Chiang Kai-shek, and the same period
to which he was giving these high compliments at the end of 1942 and
early 1943.
He says in Situation in Asia : I
In 10.37. when the struggle for survival against Japan began, China was con-
trolled by the Kuomintang, a party which owed nothing to elections or to repre-
sentative forms of government, and which itself appointed not only the National
Government but provincial governments and even the administrative officials of
counties. In parts of the country where its power was unchallenged, the Kuo-
mintang made such appointments without consulting anybody. In regions where
its power was weaker, it accepte<l and confirmed appointments made by whoever
was in power locally ; but the local power was also of a self-appointed kind,
under control by no process of elected representative government.
There is a lot more here that I could read if you like, Senator, or
I can put it in the record.
748 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Ttdings. It will be entered in the record at this point.
(The material referred to is as follows:)
Wbat may be called the functional test of the historical importance of Chiang
Kai-shek is" the fact that, thrcnghout an already long piilitlcal career, he has
gi-own steadily greater and greater. The greater the crisis through which he
has led his people, the greater he has become as a symbol. The greater the deci-
sions he has made, the greater the decisions he is able to make. In this he is a
part of the contemporary history of all Asia. In China and India and the
Pliilippines today the machinery for selecting representatives of the people i*
crude and inefficient. The leaders are to a large extent self-selected. Yet they
are leaders, and the direction in which they are leading their people is demo-
cratic, because what gives a Chiang, a Gandhi, a Nehru, a Quezon his power over
the minds of millions is his ability to make decisions and indicate courses of
action which those millions will support and follow. Unless they continue to
make such decisions, the people will not continue to follow them. There can
be no doubt that this is a phase of creative energy leading to the emergency of
true democracy out of the Asiatic societies. * * *
Mrs. Utley. And again, in The Makinir of ^Modern China, written
by Owen Lattimoi'e and his wife Eleanor and piiblislied in 194o the
following tribute is paid to Chiang Kai-sliek and the National Gov-
ernment of China :
From 1928 to 1937 the Chinese Government had two main lines of policy ; to
achieve uniformity of political structure and administrative control within China
and to strengthen and modernize tlie country. This was the decade in which
the western-trained Chinese had their greatest opportunity. They had unlimited
things to do, and a strong government backing them. This made possible China's
greatest and most rapid advances in industrial growth, mining. l>anking, engineer-
ing, education, and medicine and puldic health. The whole people felt that
China was becoming more modern and progressive, because they could see it
happening. At the same time the whole nation was conscious of one great dan-
ger ; that Japan would not allow it to go on happening.
In the same period China's heavy and light industry expanded with unprece-
dented rapidity. In all kinds of enterprises which had once been possible only
under foreign ownership or management, ihe Chinese began to show more and
more competence and versatility. * * *
Of conrse, evon in this book in which he was following the 1941— to
party line of siii)porting the Chinese National Government. Lattimore
found it necessary to slip in a few lies about Russia for Communist
propaganda i^urposes. Thus, on pages 181-182, he wrote:
China's system of politics and governmenr is as difficult for most people in
democratic countries to understand as the Ilussian system, but it resembles
that system as it existed in Russia 15 or 20 years ago rather than as it exists
today. It does not have such democratic features as wide participation by non-
party members in Government affairs, factory councils, and responsible func-
tions of all kinds; wide use of the secret ballot: actual equality of women
in all kinds of activities instead of nominal, legal equality, and so on. which
the Russian system has been developing.
I ask you whether anyone but a Communist sympathizer would try
to delude his readers into believing that Soviet Russia has, had, or is
developing any such freedoms as those Lattimore specifies.
However, my main point here is that Lattimore at this period was
saying the exact opposite about the Chinese Government and the
Kuomintang of what he has been saying since the Communist Party
line changed to hostility ar.d denunciatio'i of the ''Fascist'' Chiang
Kai-shek and the "reactionary,-' "feudal,"' and what-not National
Government. On page 185 of The Making of ]Modern China the
Lattimores had written:
China is a democratic country in the sense that the party and the Govern-
ment represent what the vast lua.iority of the people want. Wlien we want to
make up our minds whether we ought to call another country democratic, we
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 749
quite naturally be^in by coni[iarinsr it witli our own democratic country. Has
it got the same institutions that exist in our own country? Has it got the same
kinds of procedure for seeinj; that the will of the majority is carried out, and
the same safeguards for seeing tliat the rights of minorities are protected? If it
has not, we histiate to call it a democracy.
This way of looking at things can often lead to misunderstandings. The most
important standard by which to measure progress in a country like China is
not 'iiow near they have got to our way of doing things'' but "how far have they
got ahead of the way things used to be done?'' Judging them by this standard,
the Chinese have made very great progress ; they have made so much progress
that they certr.inly will not slip back into the old condition from which they
were slowly lifted by the long struggle of the Chinese revolution — weakness,
chaos, disunity, and tryainiy enforced by independent regional military chieftains,
combined with foreign control of a large part of their Government revenue and
foreign domination of their economic life.
The present rulers and leaders of China are not revolutionary in the sense that
they have suddenly and recently seized power. They are the sons and disciples
of the Chinese revolutionaries of 20 and 30 years ago. It is because they repre-
sent the tradition and process of the revolution as a whole that they so con-
fidently feel that they represent the jieople and the nation as a whole.
The People's Political Council is an example of the way in which the Kuo-
mintang has begun to permit political expression through channels other than
those of the Kuomintang itself. Formed during the war, the People's Political
Council contains a Kuomintang majority, together with representatives of other
political parties, including the Comnuuiists. This i)roduces the curious phenom-
enon of recognized representation for parties which conduct unrestricted public
campaigns for membership. Parenthetically, it may be pointed out that the
Communists, who dominate both politically and militarily a restricted area in
the north and northwest but are not permitted oi>en political activity in the rest
of China, are allowed to maintain several resident representatives at Chungking,
and also have their own newspaper at Chungking in addition to their representa-
tion in the People's Political Council.
Other members of the People's Political Council are nominated or elected by
Provincial or municipal organizations. In this way the total ropresentation
includes members chosen by the central organization of the Kuomintang, mem-
bers representing minority parties or groups, and members from various Prov-
inces who represent the principle of decentralized local nominations or elections.
It is true that the members who stand for the Provinces are also for the most
part either Kuomintang Party members or are nominated by the Provincial
organizations of the Kuomintang. but on the other hand the proportion of the
total membership which is elected rather than appointed or nominated has
steadily increased.
The People's Political Council meets once or twice a year, and continuity
between meetings is provided by a standing committee. While the council cannot
legislate, it can suggest legislation, criticize Government policy, and call on all
departments of the Government, including the army, for reports. Debates are
conducted according to parliamentary procedure. As in all par]iamentar.y bodies,
especially during a war, some sessions are closed, when the subjects discussed
might give information to the enemy ; but most sessions are open and the public
is admitted by ticket. It is noteworthy that an increasing proportion of the
recommendations of the People's Political Council is carried into effect l)y the
decisions of the Government.
The Kuomintang monopoly of political action and political expression is al.so
mitigated by a plaimed development of local government and by allowing the
press to serve to a certain extent as a carefully regulated safety valve. Control
over the press is regulated in such a manner that, while occasionally a paper
may have an issue confi.scated or be suspended for a few days, and while papers
almost never iduntly oppose a major decision of the Kuomintang or the Govern-
ment, there is frequent and lively criticism of the details of execution of a policy,
and this extends to criticism of individuals even when the individuals are highly
placed.
In the Situation in Asia, Lattimore gave the lie to himself by
directly contradict inff his favorable view of wartime China. Contrast
with the quotations given above the following :
In 1987, when the struggle for survival against Japan began. China was con-
trolled by the Kuomintang, a party which owed nothing to elections or to repre-
sentative forms of government and which itself appointed not only the National
750 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Government bnt Provincial governments and even tlie administrative officials
of counties. In parts of the country where its power was unchallenged, the
Kuomintang made such appointments without consulting anybody. In regions
where its power was weaker, it accepted and confirmed appointments made by
whoever was in power locally ; but the local power was also of a self-appointed
kind, under control by no process of elected i-epresentative government.
During the war this Government, headed by Chiang Kai-shek, was driven into
the deep hinterland. The Japanese occupied nearly half of the country, includ-
ing most of the highly productive and densely populated regions. In free China
Chiang Kai-shek hung on grimly in a purely defensive war described officially
as "trading space for time." Within free China the Kuomintang tightened all
controls, pushing its authority from the top right down into the villages. The
alternative of stimulating patriotic enthusiasm by calling for popular elections
and building a pyramid of representative government from the grass roots up
to the apex occupied by Chiang Kai-shek himself was rejected. It was con-
sidered that the people were politically immature and that representative gov-
ernment would only throw into confusion the discipline needed for carrying on
the war.
* * * The Kuomintang accordingly busied itself throughout the war with
intensive party training. Personnel of all kinds — officers, bureaucrats, bankers,
businessmen, professional men, landlords — were selected in rotation and put
through intensive training schools. The course f)f training was heavily influ-
enced by Fascist theories and by the methods of Hitler more than those of Musso-
lini. It included rigid drilling in the dogma of "One Country, One Party, One
Leader." and in disciplined, automatic acceptance of orders coming down the
chain of command. Initiative at lower levels was treated as subversive.
Now this quotation refers to the same Chinese National Government
at the same peiiod as the earlier one, so ]\Ir. Lattimore cannot argue
that his changed views reflect the changed nature of the Chinese Gov-
ernment. They clearly reflect only the changed party line.
Of course, I really may be boring you, yet it does seem that it is
necessary to complete the picture.
General Marshall, in a letter to Senator Tydings, published in yes-
terday's }:»apers, gives the fact that he never met the Lattimores as
proof of Lattimore not having been the principal architect of our
far eastern p(!licy. But was this true of the men who were advising
General Maishall? Did he not rely on the advice of the group in the
Far Eastern Division of the State Department whose views reflected
those of the Lattimore school '?
That school was extremely influential. There existed a powerful
coterie of friends of the Chinese Communists, which included State
Department and Foreign Service officials and many well-known jour-
nalists, })rofessors, and authors. This coterie of friends of the Chi-
nese Communists, by the help they gave one another in promoting,
praising, and recommending one another's writings, got into a posi-
tion of practical monopoly in book reviewing in the China field in
the most influential publications and in the lecture field. By scratch-
ing each other's backs and damning any book which appeared on the
anti-Communist front, the pro-Communist clique succeeded in silenc-
ing the anti-Communists and in building u]:) the reputation of the
pro-Communists as the only experts. Thus they succeeded in spread-
ing a favorable view of communism in general and a Chinese com-
munism in particular among the general public and Government
agencies and in the luiiversities. The coterie or clique of friends of
the Chinese Communists and admirers of the Soviet Union included
such well-known journalists as Edgar Snow, Vincent Sheean and
Mark Gayn, Theodore White, Annalee Jacoby. and Richard Lauter-
back, of Time and Life, the former of whom got their book. Thunder
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 751
Out of Cliina, accepted by the Book-of-tlie-Month Club, and thus suc-
cee(l(Ml in si)roa(lino- far and •vvido a view of China extrenit'ly favorable
to tile Conununist^ and unfavorable and unfair to the National
Government.
Senator Tydixgs. Mrs. Utle}"
i\Irs. Utlky. (\)niino- back to T.attimore-
Senator Tydixgs. If you will let me interrupt you for a moment,
you made a statement there, as I recall, that General Marshall per-
haps did not see Mr. Lattimore himself but his advisers saw Mr. Latti-
more.
Now, what adviser did see him — what adviser of General Marshall
did see Mr. Lattimore. that you know of;!
]Mrs. Utley. I am sorry ; 1 did not get you.
Senator Tydixgs. You made a statement that General Marshall
said, I think, in effect, that he did not know Mr. Lattimore, did not re-
call having met him, or words to that effect — you made that state-
ment. Then j'ou went on to say that this may be true
Mrs. Utlky. I accept that as true.
Senator Tydixgs. Yes; that is true; but, while Mr. Lattimore did
not see General Marshall, he saw the advisers of General Marshall.
Now, to your knowledge, what advisers of General Marshall did Mr.
Lattimore see and talk to ?
]Mrs. Utley. Senator Tydings, my point in all this
Senator Tydings. I do not want what your point is ; that does not
matter. I am asking you a question.
]Mrs. Utley. I see Mr. Lattimore's influence
Senator Tydings. Just a minute. I am asking you a question.
You made an assertion. Now, what adviser of General Marshall
saw and talked to Mr, Lattimore and was influenced by him? You
name them.
Mrs. Utley. My statement was this, Senator, and I will repeat it:
Did not General Marshall have to rely on the advice of the group in
the Far Eastern Division of the State Department whose views re-
flected those of the Lattimore school?
Senator Tydixgs. How can you prove that Mr. Lattimore made the
views of these people on whom General Marshall relied, and who were
these people and show whether or not they were indoctrinated with
the so-called Lattimore point of view? I am only asking you as to
that point.
Mrs. Utley. I have it later in my testimony
Senator Tydixgs. Find it now. I would like to get it.
Mrs. Uti.ey. If you w' ill wait a minute while I have a look. I have a
quotation fi-om the white paper on China
Senator Tydixgs. I have asked you a question, and the question is
this: Tell us. of your own knowledge, what advisers of General Mar-
shall were influenced, within your knowledge, by Mr. Lattimore — not
an opinion but the facts.
]Mrs. Utley. I have it later in my testimony. Will you give me a
moment to find it?
Senator Tydings. I will,
ISIrs. Utley. Sorry to keep you waiting, Senator.
I suggest to this committee that they compare the dispatches from
John Davies, John Service, and Raymond P. Ludlow, as reproduced
in annex 49 of the white paper on China, with Mr. Lattimore's
writings.
752 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. That is not the question.
Mrs. Utley. I am getting to it. They will then appreciate the close
similarity betwen the views of these Foreign Service officials and those
of Mr. Lattimore. Now, I have got my example — one moment
Senator Tydings. Let me see if I can very courteously put the ques-
tion to you. You stated when General Marshall said he did not know
Mr. Lattimore — so far as he knew, Mr. Lattimore had no effect on
his far eastern policy — you accepted that as true, but then you said
General Marshall's advisers were influenced by Mr. Lattimore. Now,
I am asking you specifically, of your own knowledge, to tell us how
you know that Mr. Marshall's advisers were influenced by Mr. Latti-
more, and to name those who were influenced by Mr. Lattimore's
writings — of your own knowledge, not your opinion or guess, but what
you know.
Mrs. Utley, I want to quote from the white paper. May I do that ?
Senator Tydings. The white paper will not prove that Mr. Latti-
more told these men what to write to the State Department, will it?
Mrs. Utley. Senator Tydings, if the views of these men, as pre-
sented, expressed in the white paper, are identical with those of Mr.
Lattimore's writings
- Senator Tydings. That may be a coincidence, or it may be due to
the fact that Mr. Lattimore influenced them, but you made the state-
ment that Mr. Lattimore had influenced them.
I am asking you how you know, when it took place, and who was
influenced.
Mrs. Utley. My actual statement was that they reflected the views
of the Lattimore school.
Senator Tydings. Then your further statement was that General
Marshall's advisers were influenced by Mr. Lattimore. Now, I am
asking you for the third time to give me any circumstances or facts
that will prove that assertion.
JNIrs. Utley. I am trying to read you a statement by Mr. John
Davies
Senator Tydings. Go ahead and proceed with your testimony where
I interrupted you.
Mrs. Utley. Page 573 of the white paper, John Davies, from Chung-
king, accused Chiang Kai-shek of wanting "to plunge China into civil
war" — continuing the quotation :
The Communists are already too strong for him. Chiang's futile China can'not
cot xi'-t alongside a modern dynamic popular government in north China. * * *
The Communists are in China to stay, and China's destiny is not Chiang's. * * *
Now continuing along the same John Davies
Senator Tydings. You may go back, as far as I am concerned, to
where I interrupted you; because it is quite evident that I am not
going to get an answer to my question.
Mrs. TTtley. Senator Tvdings, excuse me. I consider that certain
people, I do not say a majority or all, if certain people who were in
the Far Eastern Division of the State Department, advising the
Secretary of State, who of necessity had to rely on their advice, and
if those views were identical with tlie views of Mr. Lattimore, I con-
sider that as sufficient proof of the influence of his school of thought.
Senator Tydings. You consider it, but it still can be a matter of
opinion as to wliether your consideration is based on truth or
supposition.
STATE DEPART.MEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 753
Now, I onl}' asked you to give me the facts so that we can make your
assertion stand up on its own, and not upon opinion.
That yon have not done.
Pardon me for the interruption.
Go back to where you were in your statement and continue.
Mrs. I'tley. I was referring to the clique or coterie of friends of the
Chinese Communists wlio built up an almost monopoly over the organs
of public opinion in the United States.
Senator Tydixgs. You know, I was in China with General Marshall,
and conferred with him at this very time, visited his headquarters,
so I am not altogether guessing on what took place.
Mrs. Utley. Senator Ty dings, if I may interrupt you there to say
that I also was there in 1945 and 1946. I am not blaming General
Marshall. I am saying that he was, of necessity, forced to rely on
certain advisers, and may I say that General Marshall tried, for 13
months in China, on instructions to get the China Communists into a
coalition government, and in his parting statement in January of
1947, General Marshall said that he was still convinced that the
Conmiunists had included a great many liberal and what he called
reactionary — those people who said that they could not collaborate
"with Communists.
I say that General Marshall was relying on the advice of certain
people who believed that when he said those things ; a few months later
he learned in Paris that you could not collaborate with a Communist
even if he wasn't a reactionary.
I did not want to go into this INIarshall thing. I only think that
any Secretar}^ of State has to relay on his advisers.
Secondly, may I make the point. Senator Tydings, I am trying to
say that this whole atmosphere, poisoned at the source, not that I
blame one party or the other, I consider both the K.epul)licans and the
Democrats fell for this trap, but I was trying, in this testimony T
was reading here, to show that this was a poison that went through
the whole American people, irrespective of whether the people were
Democrats or Republicans.
Senator Tydixgs. I think the whole Communist situation has been
poisoned ev^r since they started in 1919, and I am sorry you did not
find out this fact long before you did.
ISIrs. I^TLEY. Well, I will tell you what I have written on the details
of how, whenever any book appeared on China that was anti-Commu-
nist, it was damned, and among them are such books as Way of a
Fighter by Claire Chennault, and George Creel's Russia's Race for
Asia — contemptuously dismissed.
Had any book a])peared that was favorable to the Comnmnists, that
book was highly praised.
I am trying to bring out the point here. Senator Tydings, that
I do not blame either (leneral Marshall or any other person in an im-
"jx)rtant position who had not had the time to study all the documents
and had to rely on the stuif available, very particularly on Asia.
The point I am trying to make is that during the past two decades
the poison of misinformation about Russia and China Avhich started
as a stream, became first a river and then a flood as the pro-Commu-
nist coterie came to exert practically a monopoly over all the organs
which influenced public opinion.
754 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
What I am tryinf^ to get at is : Who was responsible for the poison-
ing of the wells of information in America, about communism and
about Chinese Communists in particular ? During the past two decades
the poison of information about China reached its peak. There was
a flood of such material in books, radio, magazines, and reporting in
the newspapers. Owen Lattimore can be said to have done more than
anyone else to poison the wells of opinion with regard to China. His
brilliance, his ability as a writer, and his scholarly reputation were of
inestimable value to the forces seeking to destroy the free Western
World. He can be said to have contributed more than any other
American to the success of the Communist democratic masquerade
which succeeded in inducing the United States to throw away the fruits
of victory in World War II.
Here I quite from an article by David J. Dallin, published in the
New Leader, April 15 last, and may I remark that the New Leader
is a proadministration paper, a Socialist-Liberal paper which has
unswervingly supported President Roosevelt and President Truman,
so it is not a party matter, and I repeat it, that I do not consider it
at all a party matter.
Mr. David Dallin wrote, in the New Leader on April 15, an article
under the heading, "More harmful than spies," in which he said :
Owen Lattimore as a professor is tloins more liarm than as an adviser of
the State Department. So is Frederic Schnman. another professor named by
Senator McCarthy. Both are narrow, unintelligent, and essentially dishonest
men. In their colleges they freely dispense lies and treason, helping to educate
potential foreign agents and real spies. This applies to a number of other college
professors dealing with Russian affairs, whose names are familiar to every
intelligent man in this country.
Senator Lodge. Who said that ?
Mrs. Utley. Dr. David J. Dallin, author of many books published
by the Yale University Press and a frequent writer in the New Leader,
a Socialist-Liberal publication in New York.
Senator Tydings. Mrs. Utley, we cannot condemn or exonerate Dr.
Lattimore from any charges that may be made against him on the
opinion of a lady who writes books published in the Yale University
Press.
Mrs. Utley. He is not a lady but a gentleman.
Senator, may I make a point: I quote this specifically because it
comes from a newspaper which is entirely friendly and favorable to
the administration. It is not an attack on the administration.
Senator Tydings. With no disrespect to the press, if all of us had to
exist on what was published in newspapers without some means of
defending ourselves occasionally, there would be very few Members
of the present Senate sitting, in my opinion.
Mrs. Utley. The Communist democratic masquerade was decided
upon as the new strategy for World Communist conquest at the
seventh congress of the Communist International, held in Moscow
early in 1935. At that congress it was decided that the hitherto
reviled and hated Socialist, labor, and liberal forces in Europe and
America were henceforth to be wooed and won over as allies. Dimi-
trov, appointed secretary of the Comintern after the Reichstag fire
trial, told the leaders of the Communist Parties of the world that they
were to don sheep's clothing for the duration of the German-Japanese
STATE depart:ment employee loyalty investigation 755
menace to the Soviet fatherland, or until such time as opportunity
offered to seize power in their own countries. They were reminded
by Dimitrov of the legend of tlie Trojan horse and instructed to make
their Avay within the wall of the capitol citadel by means of the same
tactics. They were ordered to get into key positions within the demo-
cratic government bj' pretending to be liberals, in [)reparation for the
day of economic crisis to come when they would throw aside tlieir
disguise and seize the state power.
In conf ormit}^ with the new line, the Chinese Communists announced
they would cease liquidating landlords, would be kind to capitalists,
institute "democratic rights and freedom," and were ready to submit
themselves to the National Government in order to tight Japan.
Nowhere in the world were the Communists as successful as in China
in convincing the American people that thej- were really a nice liberal
democratic reformist party. Nowhere else was the democratic mas-
querade as successful, thanks to the powerful Lattimore school.
Mr. Lattimore has stated that nowhere in his writings can you find
him saying that the Chinese Communists were agrarian reformers, in
conformity with the party line as stated by Mr. Budenz. Technically,
this statement may be true, because Mr. Lattimore is always very care-
ful in his choice of words and is an expert in double talk and double
think. In Solution in Asia, page 108, he wrote :
During the 10 years of civil war the Communists, cut off from cities and urban
workers, had become a peasant party.
Next he proceeds to say that the war with Japan had led the Com-
munists to "encourage and protect both private enterprise and cooper-
ative enterprise." and that "having created nothing less than a new
coalition of group interests, they took the logical step of allowing
political expression for all groups within the coalition."
Then, on the next page, 109, he tells his readers that the Communist
Party limits its membership of local governing bodies to one-third, and
says, and I quote : "This is the most positive step yet taken in China by
any party away from dictatorship and toward democrac}'. It con-
firms the graduation of the Communists from being a perpetual
minority opposition party to the status of a party which has good
claims to a position within a coalition government."
He used cautious and careful language, but was Mr. Lattimore not
in fact representing the Chinese Communists as a democratic force?
Now, I cannot believe that JNIr. Lattimore, who is a great and widely
read professor, can be so ignorant of Communist methods and tech-
niques as not to realize that in a police state, such as Communist China,
even noiiparty representatives can easily be intimidated. Did he
himself really believe that the limitation of Communist Party mem-
bers to one-third of government positions meant democratic govern-
ment, in a state or area in wdiich the Communist Party monopolized
all newspapers and the radio and controlled the army and police?
Was he not, in effect, deluding his readers by representig a demo-
cratic facarle as democratic reality? Surely Mr. Lattimore, who is a
scholar and a political scientist, who has vasited the Soviet Union,
and can read and sj)eak Russian, nmst have known the tiuth about
Connnunist ainis and practices.
756 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATIOiSr
In his later book, the Situation in Asia, published in 1949, I have
also found references to the Chinese Communist Party being pri-
marih^ a peasant party. For instance, on page 158 of this book, he says :
Ever since 192S, when the Communists lost the cities and retreated into the
most backward rural districts, Mao Tze-tuug has been rising to supreme leader-
ship by slow stages, each stage marked by bitter disputes with others who
did not believe, as he did, that the Communists could survive and ultimately
win domination in China by relying primarily, and at times almost exclusively,
oil peasant support. * * *
However, I think the main point was not the exact words that Mr.
Lattimore used. The point that I understood Mr. Budenz to make
here before this committee was that Mr. Lattimore helped propagate
the Communist myth that the Chinese Communists were not real Com-
munists obedient to Moscow, but were liberals and democrats inde-
pendent of Moscow. Certainly Mr. Lattimore has put this line across
in his writings.
In Sohition in Asia, published in 1945, after remarking, on page
92, that—
The Communists have now won a relatively favorable place in American
public opinion —
and after apologizing for the Red terror as having been a necessity, he
proceeded to say, on page 94 :
Among the Communists in this period —
late twenties and early thirities —
the processes of coalition were unimportant. The vast majority were peasants.
* * * Even more important is the fact that the Chinese Communists were
so insolated, south of the Yangtze and far inland from the coast, that they
could not receive arms or any other help from Russia, while the intensity of
the fight for survival made it impossible for them to slacken or strengthen their
civil-war efforts in accordance with directives from either the international or
the Soviet Government.
And he ends his paragraph with —
They were on their own.
I submit that Mr. Lattimore. who is said to be the best-informed
American on China and Chinese-Russian relations, cannot have been
ignorant of all the evidence which proves beyond any reasonable doubt
that the Chinese Communists were never "on their own"; that they
were continuously and always acting on Moscow's directions; that
they have followed every twist and turn of the line laid down by
Moscow as obediently, or more obediently, than any Communist Party
in the world; that the Chinese Communist Party was recognized in
official Comintern and Soviet Government publications as the most
important of all the parties directed by Moscow\ or at least as only
second in im])ortance to the German Communist Party before the
defeat of the German Communist Party.
Why has Mr. Lattimore ignored all the evidence concerning the
complete subservience of the Chinese Commimist Party to Stalin?
Why can one find nowhere in his writing any reference to such im-
portant documents as, for instance, the Chinese Communist Party's
handbook on party organization, in which it is written :
According to the constitution of the Chinese Communist Party, all who recognize-
the constitution and rules and program of the Communist "^International and
the * * * Chinese Communist Party may become party members * * *
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IIsTVESTIGATION 757
The Chinese Conuunnist Tarty was born with the help of tiie Communist Inter-
national. It grew up under the guidance of the C()mniuiiist International.
The Ciiinese Connnunist Tarty and central committee, with tiie exception of
two short periods, have been loyal to the guidance of the Communist Inter-
national » * * To carry out the international line and to be loyal to the
executive committee of the Connnunist International is to guarantee the success
of the Chinese revolution.
Why, again, did Mr. Lattimore, in all his writings and in the publi-
cations he edited, fail to draw attention to such important Communist
lu'onouncemeiits a^ that made by Wang Ming, the secretary of the
Chinese Connnunist Party, in the December 1937 issue of the Com-
munist International explaining that the Chinese Communist aban-
domnent of the policy of overthrowing the National Government of
China by force, and their jn-etence of being disciples of Dr. Sun Yat-
sen, was only a tactic, and that once Japan was defeated the slogan
of "Sovietizing China" would be revived? Wang Ming's concluding
words ran :
They—
the people of China —
regard the U. S. S. R. as the country which in actual practice has shown China
how it can and must transform the country * * * into one mighty and
capable of defending itself, from a country poor and backward into one rich,
and cultural * * « into tlie most democratic country in the world under
the banner of the Stalinist constitution.
Surely Mr. Lattimore. as editor of a magazine published by an or-
ganization, the IPIi, which assures its members that it is impartial,
and devoted to objective research on far-eastern problems, was under
an obligation to inform his readers concerning the salient facts con-
cerning Russia's China policy, as shown in such pronouncements as
the one I have quoted above.
Why, in view of such evidence as I have quoted, does Mr. Lattimore
write as follows, on page 16-1 of his 1949 book, the Situation in Asia —
and this is my most important quotation :
If the Chinese Communists gravitate —
please note the word "gravitate" —
toward a political center in Russia, we shall have one kind of world. If they
maintain their own political center in China, we shall have a decidedly different
world.
I ask this committee to consider whether Mr. Lattimore was not
deliberately obscuring the facts b}^ representing the Chinese Commu-
n.ists as independent of Moscoav, and only as likely to "gravitate"
toward Moscow if America should not be friendly to them.
Is it possible tliat Mr. Lattimore was so ignorant as not to know
of the many ])rotestations of unswerving loyalty and fealty to Stalin
made by the Chinese Communiist Party leaders? Is it not evidence of
Mr. Lattimore's own subservience to Moscow that in all his books
and writings he has never called attention to the abundant evidence
proving that the Chinese Commimist Party is. a tool of the Soviet
Government ?
Why, again, is there nowhere in Ids writings to be found any ref-
erence to the docinnentai-y evidence which proves that the Chinese
Comnnniists during the war with Japan were reserving their major
forces for a futnre struggle to place China under llussian dondnation?
758 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
As an expert and a scholar who reads both Chinese and Russian,
Mr. Lattimore must have been aware that as early as 1937 ISIao Tse-
tung, the leader of the Chinese Communist Party, had issued the fol-
lowing; orders to the Communist armed forces :
The Si no- Japanese war affords our party an excellent opportunity for expan-
sion. Our fixed policy should be 70 percent expansion, 20 percent dealing with
the Kuonnntang, and 10 percent resisting Japan. There are three stages in
carrying out this fixed policy : The first is a compromising stage, in which self-
sacrifice should be made to show our outward obedience to the Central Govern-
ment and adherence to the three principles of the people [nationality, democ-
racy, and livelihood, as outlined by Dr. Sun Yat-sen], but in reality this will
serve as camouflage for the existence and development of our party.
The second is a contending stage, in which 2 or 3 years should be spent in
laying the foundation of our party's political and military powers, and develop-
ing these until we can matt-h and break the Kuomintang, and eliminate the
influence of the latter north of the Yellow River. V\'hiie waiting for an unusual
turn of events, we should give the Japanese invader certain concessions.
The third is an offensive stage, in which our forces should penetrate deeply
into central China, sever the communications of the Central Government troops
in various sectors, isolate and disperse them until we are ready f(ir the counter-
offensive, and wrest the leadership from the hands of the Kuomintang.
In his testimony to this committee on April 6, page 913 in the writ-
ten record, Mr. Lattimore said that, "like any other student wdio is
worth his salt," he had "eagerly seized upon every opportunity to ob-
tain information through chinks and crevices in the wall of fear and
suppression that communism builds around its informed people. This
makes it all the stranger, it w^ould seem, that he failed to familiarize
himself with, or inform his readers of, the available statements, books,
theses, etc., as used by the Chinese Communists and by the Comintern.
In his statement to this committee, as quoted, Lattimore admits
that the Communists have themselves erected a wall of fear and
.suppression. Why, then, in his 1949 book. The Situation in Asia,
did he blame the western democracies for isolating Russia ? He wrote,
on page 218 :
The Truman doctrine originated more in out-of-date British thinking than in
an up-to-date American thinking. It is the child of the Fulton, ]\Io., .speech at
which President Truman sat on the platform while Winston Churchill rang
down the iron curtain.
Wliy did Mr. Lattimore, during the years he edited the Institute of
Pacific Relations magazine Pacific Affairs, never publish any articles,
or reproduce or refer to any of the Communist literature, provii>g that
the Chinese Communists were only pretending to be democrats and
v/ere acting under Moscow's instructions? I have searched in vain
through Mr. Lattimore's own books, through back numbers of Pacific
Affairs under his editorship, through Amerasia during the years he
was on its editorial board, and through Mr. Lattimore's articles in
the New Republic, Asia, the Atlantic, Harper's, and so forth, for any
reference wJiatsoever to the evidence available concerning the Chinese
Communist Party's complete and absolute subservience to Moscow.
Instead, Mr. Lattimore has written about the danger of the Chinese
Communist Party "gravitating" toward Moscow unless we cease to
recognize the National Government, seat the Communist Government
in the United Nations, and give aid and comfort to Communist China
by trading with them and giving them economic aid.
It is just as easy to misinform people by omission of vitally im-
portant information as by telling direct untruths, and Mr. Lattimore's
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 759
omissions are so serious that he succeeds in consequence in presenting
a totally False picture for the benefit of the Soviet Union.
The primary and most important fact which has determined recent
victory in the Far East is the subservience of the Chinese Comnumist
Party to Ikloscow, and tliis is precisely the fact ignored or obscured by
Mr. Lattimore in all his writings.
The second most important fact which has led to China becoming
a satellite of the Soviet Union is the denial of American aid to the
National Government of China during the critical period of the civil
war. This fact is also denied by Mr. Lattimore, who falsely states in
his book The Situation in Asia, on page 147, "all during the period of
his [General Marshall's] mission the Kuomintang kept accumulating
American supplies."
Again, on page 152, he writes with regret concerning the agreement
with the Conununists for a coalition government "which might have
been obtained if military aid to the Kuomintang had been suspended."
On page 151 he says:
Defeat [of the National Government] lias been largely due to the demonstrated
inability of the high command to use the lavish American aid provided. * * *
Kuomintang China withered on the vine not from lack of American aid but
from misuse of it. i
Now, the above statements made by Mr. Lattimore are untrtie, and
he must know that the}^ are untrue.
What are the facts ?
The facts are that while in China in 1946 General Marshall, in his
efforts to force Chiang Kai-shek to share power with the Communists,
embargoed American supplies of arms and ammunition to China.
This embargo, which prevented the anti-Communist forces in China
from buying, much less being given, American arms and ammunition,
was maintained from August 1946 to July 1947. During all this
period the National Government of China was unable to obtain arms
or ammunition from us, while the Russians were supplying the Com-
munists with unlimited supplies from the Japanese stocks they had
captured in Manchuria and from American lend-lease supplies de-
livered across the Pacific to Siberia after Germany's defeat, for Rus-
sia's use in a. war against Japan which she never fought.
Relying on General Marshall and those of his advisers in the State
Dei^artment, I should say, who all followed the Lattimore line, Presi-
dent Truman in 1946 expressly forbade the sale to China of any
surplus American war stocks which, I quote, "could be used in fighting
a civil war."
My point here is to brin^ out that Mr. Lattimore's statement about
all this unlimited aid to China given by America is simply not true.
In July li)47, the embargo placed on arms to Free China by General
Marshall, who had that year become Secretary of State, was partially
lifted to allow the Chinese Government to buy loO,000,000 rounds of
7.92 ammunition on liand in the LTnited States, which could not be sold
to anyone else since it had been made specially for the Chinese during
the ^Vorld AVar. This provided the anti-Communist forces in China
with, at most, a month's supply of ammunition for their .30-caliber
rifles.
I do not pretend to be either a military or an ordnance expert. But
if this committee desires to know the true facts about aid to China,
68970— 50— pt. 1 49
760 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
as against the repeated assertions of Mr. Lattimore that we gave two,
three, or four billions of aid to China to defeat the Communists — he
varies the figures in his writings — I suggest that you call for the
testimony of Col. L. B. Moody, a retired United States Army ord-
nance officer who accompanied the Donald Nelson mission to China,
and who then and subsequently made a detailed study of exactly how
much American arms aid has been given to China during and since
the war, as contrasted with the mythical billions which Mr. Lattimore
refers to.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, do I understand the witness to say
that the amount of aid extended to China was very small i
Miss Utley. Yes — arms aid, for fighting the civil war.
Senator Lodge. What do you mean by "small" ?
Miss Utley. Light arms and ammunition.
Senator Lodge. What do you consider to be a small amount of arms ?
Miss Utley. My own calculation, in which I have been largely
helped by Colonel Moody, is that it amounts to something around a
quarter of a million, not the billions that Mr. Lattimore speaks of.
Senator Lodge. Speaking in dollars, a quarter of a million dollars'
worth of arms aid?
Miss Utley. Yes.
Senator Lodge. Is that what you mean ?
Miss Utley. Yes. I put it this way. I think this is the best calcu-
lation, if I may read this : It has been estimated by an AP corre-
spondent in Tokyo who studied the Japanese evidence that Soviet
Russia was able to supply Chinese Communists with sufficient sur-
rendered stores of Japanese arms and ammunition to supply an army
of a million men for 10 years. As against this, it can be calculated
that the United States supplied the Chinese National Government,
during the whole postwar period, with only sufficient light arms and
ammunition to equip an army of at most half a million men for half
a year. As I say, I would not pretend to be an expert on ordnance,
and I would like to refer again to Colonel Moody.
Senator Lodge, And you put a dollar value of half a million dollars
on that ?
Miss Utley. Yes. >
Senator Tydings. Might I ask you for your authority for that
figure? Did you see these stores of American ai-ms, or where did
you get your information ?
Miss Utley. I said that my authority for this is Col. L. B. Moody,
who is a retired colonel of United States Army ordnance, who has made
a detailed study of exactly what China has had, and I am suggesting
to this committee that if they want the details there is nobody better
qualified to give them, and I have relied on the material he has given
me in making the statement.
Senator Tydings. I do not know tliat the committee will want it, but
it won't be hard to get, for every bullet and every gun, within reason,
exactly what we have given China, and in dollar values, and if the
committee would like to have it I will get it and put it in the record
at this point, so we can see how accurate that estimate is.
Miss Utley. Right.
My point, of course, here, in referring to these matters, is to show
that when Mr. Lattimore keeps on writing in his books about the
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IJSWESTIGATION 761
various fioures of two or three or four billion dollars or whatever
tiguve he feels inclined to use on aid to China, it simply is not true. My
main point is to sliow that the statements in Mr. Lattimore's books are
not true and are misleadiuf^, and have made the American public
unaware of what is ^oinir on.
Senator Green. May 1 interrupt to ask you why you think that this
is in the interest of the Communist o-overnment, to show that we have
«riven a very small amount to Chiang- Kai-shek?
Miss Utley. Mr. Lattimore says we have f^iven huo'e amounts. He
says two or three or four million dollars' worth at different times in
his works. I say they are small amounts.
Senator Green. You want to show that we have given less?
Miss Utley. Mr. Lattimore all through his book, The Situation in
Asia, is arguing that America tried to establish tyrannical government
in China, that it backed the National Government to the limit and it
Avas defeated by the pjower of the ideals of communism and the greater
virtues of the Communists and the attraction of the Soviet Union.
I woidd here refer you to an article by Mr. Lattimore in the United
Nations World last March :
It is clear that the change of power in China cannot properly be described as
primarily a victory either of Communist armies or of Communist ideas. The
chief phenomenon has been the moral and political bankruptcy of the National
Government of China, whose "ability" to collapse greatly exceeded the ability of
the Communists to push it over.
It is also clear that Russian intervention, in the way of supplying either muni-
tions or political and military advisers, was insignificant. * * *
As it is, we do not even have a measuring stick for assessing what kind of
strength Russia has in the Far East or how much of it there may be. Whatever
the Russia strength, it remains behind the Russian frontier — undeployed, unex-
posed, a card unplayed. What we do know, therefore, comes down simply to the
fact that there has been so colossal an upheaval within China, in Chinese terms,
without benefit of Russian intervention, that we can no longer analyze the China
of today by use of the concepts which were adequate for analyzing the China of
the Boxer Rebellion just half a century ago. This change has been so great that
it coiild not be prevented by an American intervention measurable in money — so
far as such things can be measured in money values — by an expenditure of some
three billion American dollars.
Senator McMahox. Mr. Chairman, I have a call to go to the floor.
Senator TVdixgs. You will be excused.
Miss Utley. Although in this article Lattimore insists that Russia
did not help the Chinese Communists to win power, he elsewhere had
liimself once written to the contrary. In Solution in Asia he wrote:
There is too much danger of a drift toward making China a Poland in Asia,
with America eventually identified as the not too enthusiastic backer of a "legiti-
mist" group with too many Chinese "Polish colonels" and not enough popular sup-
port, and Russia identified as the strategically placed backer of a group which
is legally "dissident" but has growing support among moderate groups as well
as the peasants.
It seems to me that Lattimore has represented the Chinese Com-
munists as both independent and not independent, according to the
necessities of his propaganda.
I could go on giving you quotations from Mr. Lattimore's writings
Avhich give a totally false account of what has happened in China,
and of what American policy has been ; and which demonstrate Mr.
Lattimore's propensity" always to put the worst possible construction
on America's acts, and the best possible construction on Soviet Rus-
sia's acts.
762 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Here I give only a few examples out the Situation in Asia —
page 42:
Ever since the defeat of Japan, American discussion of tlie fate of Cbina has
harped on tlie idea that China is a field of power which should be "preventively"
occupied by the United States in order to keep Russia out.
So far from there ever having been any "harping" on such a theme,
and so far from American policy having tried to "keep Russia out,"
the administration's efforts were directed to letting Russia in by Gen-
eral Marshall's insistence on the admission of the Communists into a
coalition government.
On page 9, Mr. Lattimore refers to "American attempts in China
to maintain indirect control by backing one side against the other
in a civil war."
On page 43 he writes :
Tlie grandiose and disastrous American attempt to determine the character and
outcome of the Chinese civil war * * * proved that America does not have
the kind of power that can settle Chinese issues * * *. The American ex-
penditure of from 2 to 4 billion dollars included both military and economic aid
to Chiang Kai-shek.
On page 165 Mr. Lattimore excels himself in his misrepresentation
of America and American policy by directly echoing the Communist
line of propaganda begun in 1946. Remember in that year the Com-
munists began to say that there was no difference between American
and Japanese imperialists except that American imperialism was more
subtle and more hypocritical. Lattimore himself wrote —
It took 3 years and from 2 to 4 billion dollars of American money to prove the
uselessuess of an American attempt to imitate this early Japanese policy in China.
On page 102 he says :
In military action the biggest single battle in Asia, that of China, has already
been won by the Chinese Communists with little or no aid from Russia.
Page 163: "The top political and military leadership" (of the Chi-
nese Communist Party) "is not Moscow trained." This is one of
Lattimore's biggest falsehoods, most easy to disprove, for at the time
he wrote 32 of the leaders of the Chinese Communist Party were Mos-
cow trained. Since then the number has increased. In his testimony
before this committee on April 6, however, following Senator
McCarthy's list of Moscow-trained Chinese Communist leaders given
in his speech on the Senate floor, Lattimore admitted that most of the
top leadership of the Chinese Connnunist Party are now Moscow
trained.
Allow me to quote one or two other typical Lattimorisms designed
to put the Communists in a favorable light, and to praise the Soviet
Government :
On page 129 of The Situation in Asia he writes :
There will be an over-all food deficiency in China until the 1949 harvest, be-
cause of the civil war ; but after that, offering food to Japan would not cause
hardship in China and make the new government unpopular, because wherever
the Communists have taken over they have increased food production, con-
trolled distribution, and stabilized prices, successfully breaking the old cycle of
recurring shortages and famines.
This mythical expectation is directly contradicted by the famine
in China noM^ expected to be one of the worst in her history. But
even if nature had not added to China's troubles it would have been
impossible for "food to be offered to Japan" witliout causing hardship.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY I]Sr\'ESTIGATION 763
Lattiniore must be Avell aware that with JNIanchiiria's surphis being
exported to Russia, there could not be enough food in Ciiina to go
around. His lie is of course designed to show that it was only the
wicked Kuoniintang Government whicli caused food shortages. The
fact is that with only an aci'e of land i)er head of the population, if
one excludes Manchuria, China cannot produce enough food for her
people.
I would here also like to put in the record a recent editorial in the
Herald Tribune summarizing the tyranny and op])ression of the Chi-
nese peo])le under Communist rule, as against Mr. Lattimore's picture
of a China happy to have escaped from Kuoniintang rule.
Senator Tydixgs. We will put in that article from the newspaper
as exhibit 80, but if we cret to putting newspaper articles in this
record, it will be so big it will reach to the ceiling,
IMiss Utley. I have also collected certain quotations from Mr. Lat-
timore's what I would call pro-Soviet propaganda, his representation
of the Soviet Union as democratic and as a happy land of peasants,
and all the rest of it. In the text of Solution in Asia he wrote, on
page 134 :
In A8ia the Soviet Union has a major power of attraction, backed by a his-
tory of development and a body of procedures.
And on page 139 :
To all (the Asiatic peoples along her frontiers) the Russians and the Soviet
Union have a great power of attraction. In their eyes — rather doubtfully in the
eyes of the older generation, more and more clearly in the eyes of the younger
generation — the Soviet Union stands for strategic security, economic prosperity,
technological progress, miraculous medicine, fi'ee education, equality of oppor-
tunity, and democracy : a powerful combination.
Hardly a single one of these claims is even remotely true, but
Lattimore protects himself from the accusation of being a Communist
propagandist by telling his reader, not that he believes all these wonder-
ful things about Soviet Russia, but that the Asiatic peoples do. And
how are his readers to question the assertion of a learned professor who
has traveled extensively in China, central Asia, and Russia, speaks the
language of the countries and tribes he has visited, and is not sus-
jiectecl of being a Communist or fellow traveler on account of his
position at the Johns Hopkins University, and the respect and trust
with which he is regarded bv the administration?
Continuing with his assertions of untruths, or at the very least, of
exceedingly controversial expressions of opinion, as if they were in-
controA^ertible facts, Lattimore continues as follows on the same page
139 of Solution in Asia :
The fact that tlie Soviet Union also stands for democracy is not to be over-
looked. It stands for democracy because it stands for all the other things —
economic prosperity, equality of opportunity, and so forth.
Realizing, no doubt, at this point that some of his readers may
possibly have enough knowledge of the Soviet Union to question his
assertion that the Soviet L^nion stands for democracy and may begin
to get suspicious of him, Lattimore proceeds to confuse and shame
them by suggesting that they are narrow-minded, igniorant, and just
too, too unrealistic and theoretically minded if thev don't realize that
Anglo-Saxon or American democracy is just "one kind of democracy"
764 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
and not a very good specimen at that, since it is not held in high regard
by other nations. He writes :
Here in America we are in the habit of taking a narrow view of foreign
claimants to the status of democracy. If China, or Russia, or some other alien
people does not measure up to the standards of the particular American modi-
fication of Anglo-Saxon democracy, we say that it is not democratic. We are
going to find ourselves boxing with shadows instead of maneuvering in politics
it we stick to this habit. The fact is that for most of the people in the world
today what constitutes democracy in theory is more or less irrelevant. What
moves people to act, to try to line up with one party or country and not with
another, is the difference between what is more democratic and less democratic
in practice (pp. 1.39-140).
"^^Hiat, in effect, Lattimore has told his readers is that the Soviet
Union is more democratic in practice than America. But he has care-
fnlly refrained from saying so right out. If accused of being a
Commnnist propagandist he can reply that he didn't say so, bnt that
the peoples of Asia think so.
The whole of Lattimore's argument is based on two false premises :
(1) That the Soviet Government has greatly improved the material
conditions of the Russian people and given them unlimited op])or-
tunities to better themselves; (2) that the neighbors of the Soviet
Union are full of admiration and envy for the happy people under
Soviet rule. Such little details as the fact that thousands of people
are trying every week to escape from the benefits of Communi.st rule
at the risk of their lives are of course not mentioned by the learned
professor.
In the next paragraph (p. 140 of Solution in Asia) Lattimore
resorts to another of his favorite techniques : a quotation from the
writings of an eminent American or British writer who cannot be sus-
pected of being a Communist :
Doubts in America about the extent to which the Stalin constitution has really
been put into effect or criticisms of Soviet labor unions on the ground tliat they
are not really labor unions, do not lead us anywhere in trying to understand
what democracy means to people in Asia — or in the Soviet Union * * *
Wendell Willkie describes a hot colloquy on the subject of freedom with a
Soviet factory superintendent * * * finally Mi-. Willkie said, "Then actually
you've got no freedom." To which the Soviet engineer replied that he had more
freedom than his father and grandfather, illiterate peasants, bound to the soil,
with no medical attention when they were sick. He himself had had, from
the Soviet system, an education and a chance to make good. That for him meant
freedom.
Lattimore fails to point out that the enthusiasm of the Communist
boss of a large Soviet enterprise for the system which has given him
a lot of advantages proves no more concerning the sentiments of the
mass of the Russian people toward the Soviet system, than any
• approval voiced by an executive of, say, General Motors for our
"capitalist" system proves that the majority of the American people
are in favor of free enterprise.
Nevertheless, having driven his opponent to the ropes by this kind
of quotation out of context, Lattimore proceeds to hit liim below the
belt by resorting to another of the clever tricks which he constantly
employs. This trick consists in overawing his critics by a display
of his erudition, and assertions concerning his intimate knowledge of
the sentiments and aspirations of some obscure people or tribe, of
whom the reader has never heard, and concerning whom he therefore
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 785
ilares not argue with so eminent an authority' as Professoi- Lattimore.
Otlun- statements designed to deceive or totally untrue are:
Page 53 :
It is this kind of historical relativity that enables the Russians to exalt a live
Peter the Great, though they would regard a live one with horror.
The clear implication here is that Stalin is not a tyrant at all,
Avhereas in fact he is a much greater one than Peter the Great.
Page 46 :
Greece is a doubtful stronghold, because it is a stronghold in which the garrison
is besieged by the populace.
Here Lattimore in defiance of the facts is telling his readers that
the majority of the Greek population wanted a Communist Govern-
ment but were forced by America to submit to a government of our
choosing — untrue, or at least unproven.
Page 61 :
Every one [of the east European governments] with the exception of Czecho-
slovakia, had been Fascist or semi-Fascist.
Another untruth. Poland, for instance, had a predominantly Lib-
eral and Socialist Government in exile. Nor is it correct to describe
Yugoslavia under its monarchy as Fascists, and Michaelovitch was
certainly not a Fascist. Lattimore here accepts the Communist
identification of ''Fascist'' with capitalist.
Page 63 :
There had been an expansion of Russian power, but there has also been eastern
Europe's own retreat into the arms of Russia.
All the countries referred to had Communist governments imposed
on them by force, but Lattimore tries to prove that they voluntarily
went Communist.
Concerning all these matters Lattimore cannot be absolved on the
ground of ignorance, as I know personally he is well aware of the real
situation in the Soviet Union.
May I here quote Mr. Lattimore's best -known quotation about Mr.
Lattimore's attitude toward the Soviet Union. This is the jacket of
the first short popular book, Solution in Asia, published in 1945, and
it reads as follows :
He [Lattimore! shows that all the Asiatic peoples are more interested in actual
democratic practices, such as the ones they can see in action across the Russian
border, thnn they are in the fine theories of Anglo-Saxon democracies which come
coupled with ruthless imperialism.
It seems to me that Lattimore thus definitely arraigned himself with
those who were busy propagating the myth of Soviet democracy.
I have many more quotations that I could read, but I just know you
cannot listen to me long enough.
Mr, Morgan. If I may interrupt, for the benefit of the reporter can
you mark those that you' would like to have incorporated in the record
by him as you go along, or is all of that to be incorporated?
'Miss Utley. Parts of it I have not read. I will put them in.
Mr. Morgan. If all of it is to be incorporated, that will take care
•of it.
Miss Utley. In passage after passage Lattimore slyly slips in big
lies and small, always with the air of a detached observer and student
of international affairs. In one place he casually refers to "the trend
toward increased personal liberty and economic prosperity which has
766 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
contributed so much to [Russia's] advantages in competing with us"
for the favor of the peoples of Asia, as compared with our tardiness
in "the evohition of democratic processes." In another place he refers
to the grant by Moscow to ]Mongolia of "independent diplomatic rep-
resentation and action." All the evidence available contradicts the
first statement, and the second is not true, and I would here have you
note that in an earlier book which Mr. Lattimore wrote in 1935 called
Manchuria: Cradle of Conflict, he honestly wrote "The loss of Outer
Mongolia and its virtual inclusion in the Soviet Union * * *."
Now he is writing, and I can give other references, that Outer Mon-
golia ought to be admitted as a Soviet state into the United Nations.
It seems to me that in his latest book, the Situation in Asia, pub-
lished in 1949, Mr. Lattimore has gone ever further in deceiving the
American people than in his former writings. Also, something new
has been aclded. Formerly he urged us to recognize only the superior
"power of attraction" of the great and good Soviet Union, and the
virtues of the Chinese Communists. Now he is also seeking to awaken
our fears. This last book of his seeks to convince us that, whether or
not we like communism, the Soviet Union and its adherents over most
of the world are certain to wdn, so we had better appease them if we
want to avoid destruction.
It would seem to me that Mr. Lattimore, and others like him, had
only two choices after it became increasingly clear to the American
people that they had been deluded concerning the nature and aims
of the Soviet Union and the Chinese Communists. They had either
to retreat, or a(|vance to the offensive. To retreat would have meant
that they would be forced to admit: (a) that the Soviet Govern-
ment is neither peace loving nor democratic nor "progressive" but a
totalitarian tyranny under which its subjects toil without hope for
ruthless masters; (h) that the Chinese Communists are not nice
liberal reformers unconnected with Moscow, but very "real" Com-
munists under Moscow's orders. To retreat would have meant that
Lattimore and his friends must sacrifice their reputations and pos-
sibly their jobs since they would have exposed themselves as ig-
noramuses or tellers of untruths.
Having once hitched their wagons to the Soviet star, they had
either publicly to recant, or convince us that the Communists are
destined to win and so force us to give way to them. Lattimore has
chosen the latter course.
Senator Tydinos. Let me just say this to you. I don't want to
cut you off, but it would be very helpful to our committee if you
would take these two books and mark all of the parts that you want
considered by the committee, and leave out your opinions on them.
We will form our opinions, and we do not need any help from the
outside, but we would like very much to have you confine your testi-
mony to facts, and not what your opinion from the facts may or
may not be.
Miss Utlf.y. Senator Tydings, I am cutting all this out.
Senator Tydings. But it has been your opinion and interpreta-
tion. That is the committee's job. If you would mark those parts —
and they are pertinent; I am not taking issue with you — and let the
committee study the parts, we will say what they are when they are in
connotation with the whole text, or separately and every other way,
but it is not proper testimony for you tell what your opinion is. The
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 767
committee may aoree with you and it may not. We don't want
opinion evidence here. We want facts, f-a-c-t-s. We are getting
very few of them. We are getting mostly opinion.
Miss Utley. Senator Tydings, I tliink that I am testifying here
at least partly because I am an expert on the Far East and China,
and it does seem to me that unless one has had time to study the mat-
ters it IS not possible to understand the purport, intent, and influence
of Mr. Lattimore's writings.
Senator Tyoixgs. We are very glad to have you take Mr, Latti-
more's writings and mark in pencil every item which you consider
will support the opinions you have expressed. But the committee
did not call you here to get your opinion on these books. It called
you to present facts that will support the case in view of the charges
that have been made before us. We can call in 100 experts and hear
what their opinions are, and there will probably be 100 different
opinions. That is not going to decide anything. "Wliat we want are
facts, so please give us the parts of the books and do not give us your
opinions on the parts of the books. Let us be humble enough to
try to be able to see what those facts make an opinion of.
Miss Utley. Am I allowed to read one last quotation which is not
from his books and which you might find some difficulty in finding?
Senator Tydings. If you tell us where it is we will take that difficulty
upon our shoulders.
Miss Utley. It is an article of Mr. Lattimore's in the Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1946.
Senator Tydings. If we allow that to go in, somebody could come
in with opinions just on the opposite side to those of Mr. Lattimore.
We do not want opinions of other people on what Mr. Lattimore is.
Our records would be a mile high. It is our job to get every fact that
is pertinent to this inquiry, and for us to form the opinions for the
Senate of the United States, without opinion evidence being in here.
Without any desire to limit this hearing, this is a hearing to elicit
facts. We have already had all kinds of hearsay and everything else
in it, and the chairman, unless he is overruled by his committee, is going
to stick a little more closely to what might be called reasonable rules
of evidence-.
Senator Lodge. Does that not purport to be an article by Mr.
Lattimore ?
Senator Tydings. Is it written by Mr. Lattimore ?
Miss Utley. It is written by Mr. Lattimore.
Senator Tydings. Then you may read it.
Miss Utley. There are many other things written by Mr. Lattimore
which I have not read out. I am giving this one from the Annals of
the American Academy of Political and Social Science because it also
shows that Mr. Lattimore has not confined his propaganda to the Far
East. He says :
I think that in Europe we may look to Poland, for instance, for creative and
valuable thinking in the realm of political theory and to excellent methods and
techiu(iues in jjolitical practice.
Poland — 1946. I am not allowed to make any comment.
May I now, in concluding my testimony — I am nearly at the end-
Senator Tydings. If you are about to conclude your testimony you
may read anything you want, even though it is 'way out of the limits
of this.
768 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Miss Utley. I am getting to the end, Senator, and if I may say here
in passing, it still seems to me that in such a difficult subject, when you
are dealing with so brilliant and clever a propagandistr- —
Senator Tydings. Just a minute. We do not want your opinion
about Mr. Lattimore's brilliance or propaganda. "WTiat we want are
facts.
Miss Utlet. I think that Senator McCarthy was wrong in his origi-
nal statement that Owen Lattimore is the Soviet Government's top
espionage agent in America. I think the Senator under-estimated
Lattimore. Mr. Lattimore is such a renowned scholar, such an ex-
cellent writer, so adept at teaching the American people that they
ought to stop opposing the great, good, and progressive Soviet Govern-
ment, that it is impossible to believe that Moscow would regard him
as expendable, as all spies are. To suggest that Mr. Lattimore's great
talents have been utilized in espionage seems to me as absurd as to
suggest that Mr. Gromyko or Mr. Molotov employ their leisure
hours at Lake Success, or at international conferences, in snitching
documents.
Mr. Lattimore has been of far too great value in influencing Ameri-
can opinion and in determining American policy to Moscow's advan-
tage to be used in such a minor capacity as an espionage agent.
In searching for a suitable term to describe Mr. Lattimore I first
thought of an obvious Communist designation, namely, policy sabo-
teur. But afterward I recalled having heard that in the Chicago
stockyards they call the beast who leads the other animals to slaugh-
ter a "Judas cow." This seems to me a fit appellation for Mr.
Lattimore. His function has been to lead us unknowingly to de-
struction. I might, of course, call him a siren luring us to the totali-
tarian abyss with sweet songs about the progressive, just, and demo-
cratic society which he says exists in the Soviet Union. But some-
how the term siren does not quite fit the learned Baltimore professor.
I do not know whether Mr. Lattimore is a member of the Com-
munist Party or knows the influence he has devoted to the detriment
of America, but, as I say, his function has been to lead us to
destruction.
He may not be the "architect" of the disastrous China policy pur-
sued by the administration, which has delivered 400,000,000 people
to the tender mercies of the Communists, rendered vain the sacrifice
of so many young Americans in the war against Japan, and placed
the United States in dire peril. But there can be no reasonable doubt
that the Far Eastern policy advocated, and to a large degree fol-
lowed, by the administration, was inspired by Mr. Lattimore and
his disciples, proteges, and friends.
I suggest to the committee- — I have already' said this — that they
compare the writings of Mr. Lattimore with the dispatches of Mr.
John Davies, John Service, and Raymond P. Ludden as reproduced
in annex 47 of the White Paper on China to show the extreme simi-
larity of the views of these foreign service officers and those of Mr-
Lattimore, and their extreme partiality for the Chinese Communists..
I have already quoted the beginning of one of Mr. John Davies' dis-
patches. I complete this dis])atch, which Mr. Lattimore has quoted
himself in an article he published in the New Republic.
In this imhappy dilemma —
STATE DEPARTAIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 769
says Mr. John Da vies —
the United St;itos should attempt to prevent the disaster of a civil war through
adjustiiieut of tiie n(>w alignment of power in China by peaceful processes. The
desirattle means to this end is to encourage the reform and revitalizntion of the
Ku'ominrang so that it may survive as a significant force in a coalition govern-
ment. If this fails, we must limit our involvement with the Kuomintang and
must commence some cooperation with the Communist.s, the force destined to
control 'China, in an effort to influence them further into an independent posi-
tion friendly to the United States. We are working against time because, if
tlie U. S. S. K. enters the war agjiinst Jaimn and invades China before either
of these alternatives succeeds, the Communists will be captured by the U. S. S. K.
and become Soviet satellites.
Yoii will note the fact that John Davies, echoing Lattimore, fails
to acknowledge the fact that the Chinese Communist Party is. was,
and always has been under ISIoscow's orders. Lattimore wrote of the
danirer of the Chinese Communists "gravitating" townrd Russia:
Davies wrote of the danger of the Communists being "captured by
the U. S. S. R." and of their "becoming" Soviet satellites.
The truth was, of course, that the Chinese Communists had never
been anything but Soviet satellites.
In a later dispatch, written on November 15, 1944, Mr. John Davies
wrote :
We should not now abandon Chiang Kai-shek. To do so at this juncture
would be to lose more than we could gain. We must for the time being con-
tinue recognition of Chiang's government.
But we must be realistic. We must not indefinitely underwrite a politically
bankrupt regime. And, if the Russians are going to enter the Pacific war, we
must make a determined effort to capture politically the Chinese Communists
rather than allow them to go by default wholly to the Russians. Furthermore,
we must fully understand that by reason of our recognition of the Chiang
Kai-shek government as now constituted we are committed to a steadily de-
caying regime and severely restricted in working out military and political
cooperation with the Chinese Communists.
A coalition Chinese Government in which the Communists find a satisfactory
place is the solution of this impasse most desirable to us. It provides our great-
est assurance of a strong, united, democratic, independent, and friendly China —
our basic strategic aim in Asia and the Pacific. If Chiang and the Communists
reach a mutually satisfactory agreement, there will have been achieved from
our point of view the most desirable possible solution. If Chiang and the Com-
munists are iiTeconcilable, then we shall have to decide which faction we are
going to support.
In seeking to determine which faction we should support we must keep in
mind these basic considerations: Power in China is on the verge of shifting
from Chiang to the Communists.
If the Russians enter North China and Manchuria, we obviously cannot hope
to win tlie Comnumists entirely over to us, but we can through control of sup-
plies and postwar aid expect to exert considerable influence in the direction of
Chinese nationalism and independence from Soviet control.
If time permitted I could quote many other dispatches from John
Davies and other Foreign Service officials, as reproduced in the White
Paper, which prove how strongly the State Department's Far Eastern
Division was influenced by the Lattimore school. There were not
w anting many ]oyii\ and qualified experts on communism in the State
Department. The tragedy has been that they were not listened to.
The Lattimore clique had succeeded in drowning out the loyal and
giving paramount intluence to the disloyal, or to the stupid clupes of
Conununist propaganda.
I should like to state at this point that I do not hold the Republican
Party as without resf)onsibility.
770 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Be careful, now.
Miss Utley. I am trying to say I am nonpartisan in this, that it is
not only the Democrats who are responsible for what has happened.
Mr. Luce, who I understand is a Republican, built up the reputa-
tions of such pro-Communist writers as Theodore White and Richard
Lauterbach and Jack Belden. Mr. Dulles appointed Alger Hiss as
head of the Carnegie Institution, in spite of the fact that he had been
informed that Hiss was a Communist. And Mr. Lattimore enjoys
quoting Wendell Willkie to support his pro-Soviet propaganda, Mr.
Willkie having chosen a friend of Lattimore's and a notorius Soviet
propagandist, Mr. Joseph Barnes, to accompany him to Russia and
to help him write his book called One World.
Senator Tydings. You do not mean in the 1940 election ?
Miss Utley. This is a long time ago, wdien Mr. Willkie chose Mr.
Barnes to accompany him to Russia.
Senator Tydings. I just wanted to get the connection.
Miss Utley. I do not think the question of Communist influence
over American policy, in particular China policy, is a party question.
The issue is too grave, the peril which confronts us is too great, and
the number of Republicans who follow the "Love Russia" school in the
administration is too large.
The tragedy for America, and for what is left of the rest of the free
world, will be the result of failing to clean house because of party
politics. The chinese are supposed to be the one nation which is pri-
marily concerned with "saving face." It seems to me that both some
members of the United States administration and certain Republicans
are also more concerned with saving face than with saving America.
The Communist cancer nnist be cut out if we are to survive as a
free nation. Perhaps in this operation some healthy tissues on the
fringe of the Communist cancer will be destroyed. But we cannot
afford, in this time of dire peril to the survival of western civilization,
to refrain from eliminating the cancer which debilitates us because
some innocents and dupes and some unprincipled careerists may be
destroyed by the operation which is necessary if we are to stop the
spread of the Communist disease.
Senator Tydings. Miss Utley, before counsel begins to interrogate
you, so you will get a little chance to get a glass of water and a little
relief, I am going to read into the record a telegram. This telegram
is from a large city in China that shall not be named because it might
be disastrous to some of the people who sent it, and it is from the
American Chamber of Commerce of that city and it reads as follows.
The date of it is March 16, 1949 :
Reference is made to discussions now understood to be in process in Washington
concerning further economic aid to the Nationalist Government of China.
Incidentally, this telegTam was laid before the Armed Services Com-
mittee by me in secret session over a year ago.
The chamber of commerce of (this large city) wishes to place itself on record
as being opposed to granting further American economic aid to the Nationalist
Government except on a quid pro quo basis and on such terms as will guarantee
the effective use of such aid in the interest of Siuo-American relations, or at
least in the interest of China as a whole, rather than for the benefit of self-
interested groups as in the past. It nuist not be inferred from the above state-
ment that this chamber favors the polities of the authorities now in control of
North China insofar as such policies have so far been prouuilgated. On the
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 771
contrary it is our considered belief that only after the control of China policies
have been taken out of the hands of either extremist group can economic aid in
the strictest sense of the word be efficiently utilized. The Nationalist Govern-
ment has since VJ-day avowedly been committed to a policy of eradicating
ci>mmunisin from China. On the strength of such a policy being in the nmtual
interest of China and the United States they have sought and been granted
considqrable aid from the United States, insisting that such aid be granted them
as sovereign nation and free of any restrictions on its end use, either economic
or military.
Those of us who have been able to directly observe the operation of this policy
have seen prostitution of the National Government functions and the accom-
I)lishnient of directly opposite ends. Militai-y, civil, and economic incompetence
or worse on the part of the Nationalist Government officials is a matter of record.
The cry has continually been for more, more, and again more aid, but it is an
established fact that little or no effective use was made of the huge surpluses
and post-war sliipments of supplies, and that a considerable part of the aid went
to favored groups and individuals.
Prior to the ECA program the hundreds of millions of American military and
economic aid and also UNRRA provided extremely limited benefits to the Chinese
people. Bureaus within bureaus set up for the administration and distribution
of this thing proved inept, wasteful, and corrupt, totally incapable of implement-
ing rehabilitation programs, but concentrating instead upon interbureaucratic
controversies over the control of stockpiles and revenue from cash sales to highest
bidders, totally disregarding end uses.
It can be stated without fear of contradiction that the National Government
lias never invested a dollar of its own money to make possible the utilization of
the material in rehabilitation projects. Even implementation of ECA program,
ably conceived and effectively administered in its early stages, lias suffered from
the rapacity of Nationalist Government officials. Our administrators are able
in their own fields, but inexperienced in meeting the wiles of self-seeking Chinese
in authority whose expressed ideals far too often provide a cloak for realistic
thieving and graft.
To fight communism, China needed well fed and disciplined troops equipped
with small arms and ample ammunition, commanded by officers tliemselves dis-
ciplined and convinced tliey were fighting in a sound cause for a government tha*
would meet its commitments of supply and support, and committed to restoration
of normal life and trade for the populace. Instead the Nationalist Government's
policy since VJ-day in Manchuria and North China has been treatment of these
areas as virtual colonies. Trade and commerce have been stifled ; the people, taxed
unmercifully and swindled out of their reserve holdings of merchandise, bullion
and foreign currency, have had forced upon them tlie burden of unwanted so-called
armies of liberation, actually occupation, most of whom were virtually foreigners
coming from the South, ill fed, poorly clothed, and commanded by oflicers with
a single-minded objective, from generals down, of amassing as much personal
wealth as possible.
Armies lived ofE the country, thus engendering the hatred of the people who
had looked to be liberated from the savageries of banditry, strife, and prior
Japanese occupation. In isolation cases where Nationalist troops did succe.ssfully
fight Communists the Governor failed to make good its promises of bonus pay
and support. The inevitable result was disintegration of any vestige of discipline
or will to fight.
Nationalist troops tended to congregate in and misuvse cities and other centers
of population, only to be abandoned at the first showing of the smallest Com-
munist forces. Warehouses —
and this is the part I am coming to —
full of military supplies and stores which the Nationaiist Government would not
release to their own troops were thus painlessly transferred to the Communists.
Not without reason did Chiang Kai-shek attain his title given on the Connnunist
radio of "Supply Sergeant Chiang." Those in a position to intelligently observe
during the past 2 years the acquisition by the Communists of Manchuria and
North China have witnessed one of the most shameful pages in the history of
modern China. With but few exceptions of last-ditch defenses such as the
ill-advised and ill-fated defense of Tientsin, these potential buffers against Com-
munist aggression were abandoned to Communist forces practically without a
fight.
772 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Communist forces 4 years ago comprised a small percentage of tlie total armed
forces in China. Their strength has been augmented tvrenty or more fold through
voluntary turn-over of National troops. Many of these are 100 percent, all are
partially, American-aid equipped. They carry American arms, use American
artillery, ride in American vehicles, and are fed with American supplies. Through
our support of a decadent and ineffectual Nationalist Government we have not
without a measure of truth been accused of being party to the rape and eventual
abandonment of a large part of China and the people therein to communism.
These people do not want or believe in eomiiiunism. They hated it to the extent
of accepting oppressive colonial treatment at the hands of the Nationalist Gov-
ernment, giving up their gold and other reserves to support what they believed
to be a fight against communism. They are battered, beaten, and hopeless,
accepting a fate they hate but feel cannot be worse than that which they have
gone through in the past 4 years. China is today in the throes of peace nego-
tiations, werein power groups are fighting for control. We must give encour-
agement to neither extreme, but rather by withholding aid until such time as
it can effectively be used for the people add strength to the growth of the truly
democratic group which we hope will develop.
We believe, moreover, that if the prospect of controlling large American sup-
plies is no longer a factor at the forthcoming peace parleys the result may
be an earlier agreement on the purely political issues. W^e respectfully request
that the above views be brought to the attention of the authorities in our Gov-
ernment concerned therewith, and that further aid to tiie Nationalist Government
be withheld in favor of eventual aid to a government more nearly subscribing to
Sino-American ideals of democracy.
For obvious reasons these sentiments are passed to you in strict confidence
as to their origin. It is hoped that the confidential status may be honored.
I can teil you that they come from a large group of conservative
American business men forming the American Chamber of Com-
merce in one of the largest cities in China.
Senator LodcxE. Will the Senator yield? Now that so much time
has gone by, can we not have the name of the individual who signed
the telegram ? It is almost impossible to evaluate it accurately unless
we know who the signer is.
Senator T\t)ings. I will give that to the committee in executive
session. I do not think I ought to give it here, because these men's
lives may be endangered.
Mr. FoRTAS. Pursuant to the permission given me by the commit-
tee, I have furnished a number of questions to counsel for the com-
mittee to be asked of this witness. In view of the, shall I say, nature
of this testimony, I now withdraw my request that the first two pages
of those questions be asked. Of course they may be asked if the com-
mittee so desires, but I now repeat my request that the balance of those
questions be asked. Those are designed to show this witness' con-
nection with Mr. Kohlberg and the China lobby and the views she
allegedly expressed with respect to the Nazis.
Senator Tydings. All right, Mr. Fortas.
Mr. Morgan?
Mr. Morgan. Before proceeding to the questions, Mr. Chairman,
I would like to say. Miss Utley, that you obviously have given a
great deal of time and. study to this, and I certainly appreciate the
effort you have put forward in bringing this material together, and
1 want to be sure that all of the extracts from Mr. Lattimore's writ-
ings to which you have referred have been placed in the hands of the
reporter. Is that correct?
Miss Utx,ey. They will be.
Mr. Morgan. I might also say, Mr. Chairman, that we have had
reference here, and I believe also elsewhere in our proceedings, to the
State Department's white paper on China. I do not believe, how-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTVESTIGATION 773
ever, that it has been incorporated by reference or otherwise in our
record. I Avonld like, therefore, to suggest at this point that we in-
corpoi-ate — I woiikl suggest by reference rather than making it an
exhibit because it is so voluminous, the State Department white paper
at this point.
Senator Tydings. The stenographer will make a note that the
State Department's white paper on China is put in as one of the
exhibits in this case, but not set forth in full in the testimony.
Mr. Morgan. I not only thank you for your testimony here, but
for other assistance 3'ou have rendered the staff in the course of this
inquiry.
Now, as I recall the request of counsel for Mr. Lattimore, Mr.
Fortas, you desire that the first two pages of questions be omitted.
Is that correct ^
Mr. FoRTAS. Yes. I withdraw my request that those questions be
asked.
Mr. IMoRGAN. It is your desire, I presume, Mr. Chairman, that I
ask these questions?
Senator Tydixgs. Proceed in any way you see fit, Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Morgan. The first question. Miss Utley, is "Do you know Mr.
Alfred Kohlberg?"
Miss Utley. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. "Have you ever worked for Mr. Kohlberg?"
Miss Utley. No.
Mr. IMoRGAN. "Have you ever received funds from Mr. Kohlberg
in pavment of articles you have written for the publication Plain
Talk?"
Miss Utley. Not from Mr. Kohlberg. I have received payment
from the editor of the paper. The editor of Plain Talk is Isaac
Don Levin.
Mr. Morgan. "Can you enumerate the number of articles published
in Plain Talk and the total revenues received from Mr. Kohlberg
directly or indirectly for these articles, or for any other services or
work you have done directly or indirectly for Mr. Kohlberg?"
Miss Utley. I think if you will give me a moment I can say that
during the last year I have done three long reviews for Plain Talk,
for whicji I was paid $40 or $50 each. I wrote a few years ago a
])iece called Red Star Over Independence Square, about Mr. Edgar
Snow, writer on China, for which, so far as I remember, I was paid
$100. It might have been $120. And I may have had one or two other
small articles. I suppose the total would come to maybe $300 — two
or three hundred dollars.
Mr. Morgan. "Wliat is your present occupation and what are
your present sources of income?"
Miss Utley. Well, I write books, I write articles, and I lecture.
I am a free lance writer. Sometimes I make so much, sometimes I
make other amounts. I make income from my writings, from my re-
ports, from research, from lectures, and so forth.
Mr. Morgan. "What was your iunction with the Chinese Supply
^ilission?"
Miss Utley. I was only with them about 9 months from 1944 to
1945, and I gave up this work. I was consultant and economic ad-
viser. I gave up this work when I went to China, or before I went to
China in the fall of 1945. I gave it up in August because I thought
774 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
that as I was g'oing to write on China I should have no connection
whatsoever with a partially Chinese Government organization. That
was part American and part Chinese.
Mr. Morgan. The next question is : "For what period of time were
you employed by this mission, which I believe you said was 1945-46."
Mr. Morgan. You perhaps have covered this. I will ask it, how-
ever. "What were your functions with the Supply Mission, and what
were the total payments you received from this source or any other
Chinese sources since 1940?"
Miss Utley. Well, I was paid at the rate of $600 a month. You
can add that up. It is perfectly true that the Chinese also consulted
me at times on how to combat Communist influence in America, and
they never listened to anything I said, so I don't feel that has very
mucli to do with it.
Mr. Morgan. Would you care to indicate what 3'our functions
were, which I believe was also part of this question?
Miss' Utley. I was used for economic re]:)orts and so on. It is quite
true, as I say, that obviously I found when I was there that they
relied on me to give them good advice about combating communism,
none of which they ever took.
Mr. Morgan. Continuing now the questions of M'r. Lattimore's coun-
sel, "Have you recently purchased real estate in this vicinity or else-
where?"
Miss Utley. No. What do you mean by "recently"?
Mr. MoRTAS. At any time.
Mr. Morgan. Recently at any time.
Miss Utley. I don't know why I should have to go into all my per-
sonal things in this manner, but if you demand it I don't mind felling
you that when I first came to live in Washington from New York I
couldn't get an apartment. I was able to get a house in Chevy Chase
with a very large mortgage on it, borrowed some money privately
to buy — $2,000 had to be put down — and when I came back from China,
in order to write my book Last Chance in China I sold the house. It
wasn't really my house; it was mainly mortgages and debts. I sold
the house in order to be free to have the income to write Last Chance
in China. I did not go back to work for the Chinese.
Mr. Morgan. The next question also relates to this matter. Miss
Utley. This isn't my question, you understand: "From what sources
did you receive funds for the purchase of this property?"
Miss Utley. I have just been explaining. I can't explain any more.
That is all there is. I never really purchased it. It was likepaying
off a mortgage instead of rent. I really don't see why I should submit
to these questions.
Is it correct, Mr. Chairman, that I shall have all my private income
and everything else investigated into?
Senator Tydings. I do not know the i^urpose of the question, but
I would assume the purpose of it would be to show whether those
M'ho might have aii interest in China of one kind or another
Miss Utt.ey. May I without having to give everybody in this room
all the details about my income, which I think go to income tax au-
thorities, say that I have not since then — August 1945 — had any kind
of job, any kind of connection, with the Chinese Government or with
]\Ir. Alfred Kohlborg. I never had one with Mr. Kohlberg. Is that
enough ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 775
Spimtor TyDixGs. Counsel will have to decide that.
Mr. MoKGAX. "AA'ill you detail for us to the best of your recollection
all sums received from Chinese sources, includino; the payment of your
])assa<re and expenses when you came to the United States in 1939?"
Miss Uti.ey. I am sorry, but I liad no mone}' passa<2:e paid me when
I came in 193'9. Nothing was paid to me b}' the Chinese.
jNIr. IMoHGAN. "Are you now, or have you ever been, a member or
director of the China Polic}' Association?"
Miss ITtley. I am a member of the China Policy Association. There
is no income in it.
Mv. JMoEGAN. "You are a member as distinguished from being a
director, or are you both?"
]\Iiss UiTJSY. When I lived in New York I was, I think it is called,
a director. That is, I regularly went to the meetings. Since I have
lived in Washington I go very occasionally. I haven't been to a meet-
ing for a long time.
Mr. Morgan. '"Describe in detail the purpose and objectives of this
association, its members, officers, and directors."
Miss Utlet. Really, I think you had better ask Mr. Kohlberg. I
can't answer that. It is a group of us who were interested in China,
who were anti-Communist. The membership of the board of directors
ranges from right to left, np and down. It includes Mr. Peabocly of
the New Leader ; Mr. Kohlberg; Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce ; Irene Kuhn,
formerly of NBC although I don't loiow whether she is there any
more. You had bettei- ask Mr. Kohlberg.
Mr. Morgan. "Is Mr. Kohlberg the head of the association?"
^ Miss Utley. Yes. As I say, I haven't attended a meeting in a long
time.
Mr. Morgan. The Chairman suggests that I ask, what are the
objectives of the association.
Miss Utley. The main objective — I don't think I can answer for
them, but as far as I understood it, they were a gi'oup of people inter-
ested in China who were anti-Communist and wanted to do some-
thing to counteract the inffuence of all these pro-Communists in the
United States.
Mr. Morgan. Perhaps you have answered this question : "Have you
received any compensation for your participation in the China Policy
Association?"
Miss Utley. No. I don't go to their meetings largely because I
can't afford to go to New York just for a meeting of the China Policy
Association.
Mr. Morgan. "Did you write, in 1940, The Dream We Lost?"
Miss Utley. Yes.
Mr. IVIoRGAN. "In that book did you advocate a negotiated peace
with the Nazis."
Miss Utley. Yes. That is not quite correct. I advocated a nego-
tiated peace with Germany in order to prevent Russia dominating
Europe, and I also argued — if you want the book, anybody can look
at it. I argued that we could hope to have the Nazis overthrown from
within, but that if the war went on to a point that Russia was able
to dominate Europe, communism would be even worse than nazism.
Senator Tydings. Can I ask, is it possible to get n copy of the
book ?
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 oO
776 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Miss ITtlet. In the Congressional Library. It is out of print.
Senator Ttdings. Have you an extra copy that we can use for ref-
erence if I were to return it to you?
Miss Utley. Yes.
Mr. McKGAN. "Will you give us an explanation of the quotation
appearing- on page 361 of tliat book, which reads as follows: 'If
Germany can be halted u]3on its mad course of conquest, but not de-
stroyed, and the genius of the German people allowed to play the
leading role in the reconstruction and unification of Europe, National
Socialism may be liumanized and democratized.' "
Miss Utlet. I think, Mr. Morgan, I refer you much better to
m.y book published last year, The High Cost of Vengeance, in which
I go into all detail in all this. My own view of Germany was that
Germany had followed the false star of the Nazis owing to eco-
nomic conditions and despair, and the great difference I made in
that book betAveen Communist Kussia and Nazi Germany was that
in Communist Kussia an alternative to the Communists had been
wiped out, whereas in Germany, because of murder by the Nazis of
all nonparty members had never gone to anything like the extreme
in Russia, in Germany my book was — you take me far outside the
purpose of this committee — mainly an argument to show that Com-
munist Russia was even w^orse than Nazi Germany. It was written
in 1940, when most people had been led to believe that Communist
Russia was wonderful and that the only criminal, the only bad, gov-
ernment in the world was Nazi Germany.
Mr. Morgan. "Did you in 1941 write an article in Common Sense,
reprinted in the Reader's Digest in October 1941, which stated : 'Tliere
are times when there is only a choice of evils, and today the evil of
accepting the fact of Nazi domination of continental Europe is less
than the evil which is likely to result from encouraging England to
continue indefinitely a hopeless fight until Elnglish liberties also are
destroyed, either from witliin or without'?"
Miss ITtley. I did not bring the book; I brought this along. I
would like you to take the whole article in the record if you take
part of it.
My point was that America was not in the war then, and I think the
whole point again is that I felt it was a choice of evils. I rather like
that quotation, because that is just what I was trying to prove. I
considered it was a choice of evils.
Mr. Morgan. I am sure the entire article ought to be in the record.
Senator Tydings. I think the entire article ought to be in so there
won't be any false interpretation drawn from it, but as I read the
quote here, is that a correct quotation ?
The evil of accepting the fact of Nazi domination of continental Europe is less
than the evil which is likely to result from encouraging England to continue
indefinitely a hopeless fight until English liberties also are destroyed, either
from within or without.
Is that a correct quotation ?
Miss Utley. That is from the original. Reader's Digest picked it
up and altered it again. I can't tell you whether that is exact.
Mr. Morgan (continuing the questions). "Do not these quotations,
as well as others of your writings, establish that prior to Pearl Harbor
you were writing sympathetically for the Nazi cause?"
Miss Utley. No ; they do not.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 777
Mr. Morgan. "To obtain your more recent views on postwar policy,
did you write in ItUD a book about Germany under tlie title 'The Iligli
C!ost of Vengeance' ? "
Miss Utley. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. "In this book did you refer to Brig. Gen. Telford
Taylor as 'sympathetic to the Soviet Union'?"
JNIiss Utley. I don't remember the exact words in that book, but
certainly in a chapter on American activities in Germany I referred
to a number of people with those kinds of leftish sympathies, if you
call it leftish, who had been placed in high positions— editors of news-
papers and radio stations and so on — and I referred to Telford Taylor.
That was the general opinion of Mr. Taylor, and I think I give an
example. Mr. Taylor had appointed a Communist to show a film
around Germany. That is all in the book.
If this is going to be an examination of my writings, I wish you
would look at the whole book.
Mr. Morgan. "Who was General Taylor?"
Miss Utley. The counsel at the war crimes trials.
Mr. Morgan. The Nurenberg trials ?
Miss Utley. Yes, sir. I don't think I said he was a Communist. I
think he had Communist sympathies.
Mr. Morgan. The next question is, "Do you consider General Taylor
a Communist or Communist sympathizer?"
Miss Utley. I am not sure, but he certainly had people appointed
to positions and certainly did the things I said, but of course I referred
in that book in particular to what the Swiss newspapers were saying
about the trials as conducted by Mr. Telford Taylor.
Mr. Morgan. "Did you on page 244 of that book state 'It has
always seemed to me that the Communists and their sympathizers
were the main influence which inspired our inhuman treatment of the
Germans during the first years of the occupation, but the fact that
many of the Communists and their fellow travelers were given leading
positions in the military government, and acting as investigators,
prosecutors, in the Nurenberg and Dachau trials were also Jews has
naturally added fuel to the fire of anti-Semitic prejudice'?"
Miss Utley. I wrote it.
Mr. Morgan. "Could you name for this committee any of the Com-
munists and fellow travelers who were given leading positions in the
military government who are or who were acting as investigators or
prosecutors?"
Miss Utley. It is given in my book. I haven't got my book with
me. You can look it up in the same chapter, or those two chapters,
Un-American Activities in Germany and the one on the Nurenberg
Mr*. Morgan. "In the New York Times, July 10, 1949, Mr. Delbert
Clark wrote 'The High Cost of Vengeance is such a compilation of
half-truths, rumors, and demonstrable untruths that it is difficult to
make an appraisal of Miss Utley 's thesis.' Could you clarify for this
conniiittee what your thesis is for United States policy and postwar
Germany?"
Miss Utley. I should be delighted to do so if the committee has
time to hear me. May I say on that that Mr. Delbert Clark's review
was so untrue that I contemplated a libel action, and a lawyer here in
778 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION
Washington advised me to go for a libel action on Mr. Delbert
Clark. Mr. Delbert Clark accused me of lying because I quoted JCS
1067, the Joint C hief s of Staff Order to the occupation forces, which
stated nothing was to be done to rehabilitate the economy of Germany.
That is absolutely an Army order. Mr. Clark said by quoting an
Army order I was telling an untruth. I would bore you all to go into
great detail.
May I say there, on the subject of my book, in the Saturday Review
of Literature Mr. William L. White gave it the warmest possible
praise : George Schuster wrote about my book in the most favorable
possible terms in the Political Science Quarterly; and, if I am going
to have bad reviews cited against me, I can refer you to a whole lot of
reviews by very well-recognized people with very good reputations
like Dr. Schuster, William L. White, and so on, who have said favor-
able things.
As regards the Morgenthau thing, I think this is of extreme impor-
tance, because now it is generally assumed that Mr. Harry White, the
late Mr. Harry White, wrote the Morgenthau plan. Mr. Harry White
has been one of the people who was accused before the Un-American
Activities Committee by Miss Bentley and Whitaker Chambers.
Mr. Morgan. Harry Dexter White ?
Miss Utley. Yes. He was accused of being a Communist, and
the main line of my book was that the vhole Morgenthau plan and
the whole treatment of the punishment of Germany was a Communist
policy designed to drive the Germans into the arms of the Commu-
nists. If the Morgenthau plan had been carried out, we should have
had no hope whatsoever. The Germans in despair would have had to
throw in their lot with the Communists. It is my contention all
through that book that the whole line of collective punishment of the
German people, keeping them down as pariahs, was a Communist
policy.
Mr. MoGRAN. "Are you familiar with the New York German-lan-
guage newspaper Auf bau ?"
Miss Utley. That is a Communist paper in New York.
Mr. Morgan. You are familiar with it ?
Miss Utley. I think I have had a clipping from it. I am sure
someone else can give you details. I don't know much about these
German-language papers. So far as I know it is a Communist or
fellow-traveler newspaper. Maybe somebody in this room could
supply some information.
Mr. Morgan. "Have you read a review of your book, The High
Cost of Vengeance, by Kirk Hellmer?"
Miss Utley. Not that I know of . ^
Mr. Morgan. "Do you agree with his characterization that this
book is sympathetic to the Nazis and is of the highest potency 'in
underground Nazi propaganda"!^"
Miss Utley. I totally disagree, and may I say that Mr. White starts
his review of my book in the Saturday Eeview of literature by saying
"Because Freda Utley hates the Nazis, because Freda Utley is opposed
to all totalitarians of the right and left, she has got so upset about
the policies in Germany designed to discredit democracy."
If you want it for the record — I didn't know I was going to have an
examination on my books — I could have brought it along to show you.
Mr. Morgan. I didn't either.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 779
Miss Utley. I am delin-hted to expound my views on Germiiny. I
will bo delidited if the committee will listen to me. If I am to
answer vou properly, I will have to go into great detail.
Mr. Morgan. "Are you familiar with an article in the same publica-
tion, Aufbau, of September 2, 1949, in which it was stated, 'The Utley
book not only has become must reading among the known Nazi ele-
ments around town, but organized notorious pro-Nazi groups are
planning to get out a German-language edition'?"
JSIiss Utley. I haven't seen it. It is just the usual Communist
smear, nothing more.
Mr. Morgan. "Are plans for the publication of the German transla-
tion of this book German propaganda ?"
Miss Utley. It is not i:)ro-Nazi propaganda. My book is coming
out both in England and Germany.
Mr. ISIoRGAN. "Are you familiar with the review of this book in the
Catholic World issue of 1949, where, in this review, Leonard J. Witzer
writes : 'As a result of its author's remarkable mental gyrations, The
High Cost of Vengeance deplores the bombing of civilians and the
destruction of democracy without once placing the major blame
scpiarely where it belongs. The people Miss Utley accuses of these
crimes against humanity are all the people of this country, now her
own, ancl their allies, and the victims, following this came fortuous
reasoning, are not Hitler's slave laborers nor the innocent millions of
the occupied countries but the persecuted Germans'."
Miss Utley. I will tell you what I know about that review. While
I was lecturing in Philadelphia I was told an unfavorable review of
my book had appeared in the Catholic World and in America. I got
in touch Avith the two editors, and they said they did not realize my
book had been unfairly treated, and I was at liberty to write some
articles for them.
Mr. Morgan, I would say that if I am going to have read to me a
catalog of all the bad things that have been said, I ought to be at lib-
erty to bring in all the reviews from Best Sellers, another Catholic
magazine, and one after the other I can give you 10 good ones for one
bad one, but I think it is absolutely absurd that I should sit here and
listen to a catalog of bad reviews of my book without being warned
that I ought to have brought all the good ones.
Mr. Morgan. "Do you believe that Hitler and the Nazis should have
moral blame or responsibility for the crimes against humanity which,
according to this review in the Catholic World, you have placed upon
the shoulders of the United States and her allies in the World War?"
Miss Utley. In the first place I have not placed the blame upon
the United States. Second, I do consider that they are to blame for
their acts of genocide, and so forth, and all their atrocities. It is
utterly untrue and a complete smear that anything should be said of
that kind. What I have said in that book that made people mad was
that the atrocities committed by the Soviet Union in Germany have
equalled what the Nazis committed. That is an entirely different
thing from saying that America has committed them.
Mr. Morgan. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that concludes the questions
here. Perhaps the committee has questions.
Senator Tydings. I would like to ask Mr. Fortas if we have asked
the questions which he wants asked, or whether he wants us to ask
others.
780 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOISr
Mr. FoRTAS. You have, Mr, Chairman.
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge ?
Senator Lodge. No questions.
Senator Tydings. Senator Green ?
Senator Green. I have a few questions that I think will help us.
We seem to have gotten a long way from the original purpose of these
hearings. It was to give an opportunity to those who had been
charged by Senator McCarthy on the floor of the Senate with disloy-
alty in the State Department, and who asked to be heard, to reply to
those charges.
One of the charges against Mr. Lattimore was that he was the top
Russian agent in this country. Thei-efore I want to ask you whether
you know of your own personal knowledge that he is now or ever has
been the top Russian agent in this country.
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Green. Then I want to ask a similar question concerning
another charge that was made against him, and that is that he was
a member of the Communist Party. Do you know of your own per-
sonal knowledge that he is now, or ever has been, a member of the
Communist Party?
Miss Utley. Senator, I do not know. May I add to that that I
have endeavored to show this committee how closelv Mr. Lattimore's
writings have followed switches in the Communist Party line.
Senator Green. Of course that is something quite different from
being accused of being a member of the Communist Party.
Miss Utley. I don't think it is so very different.
Senator Green. You don't?
Miss Utley. I mean, I have no evidence whether he is or ever was..
I have tried to show this committee that the things he has written
are the same things Communists would write.
Senator Green. My question was whether of your own knowledge
you had such evidence.
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Green. Have you ever seen Mr. Lattimore at Communist
Party meetings?
Miss Utley. No; except in the sense — no; not at Communist Party
meetings.
Senator Green. You have attended Communist Party meetings, I
assume ?
Miss Uti.ey. T left the Communist Party. It was only the British
Communist Party. I would not be likely to meet Mr. Lattimore,
would I?
Senator Green. I do not know whether it was likely.
Miss Utley. I have attended meetings in England of the Com-
munist Party.
Senator Green. After vou joined the Communist Party?
Miss Utley. 1928 to 1930.
Senator Green. What was the nature of your induction into the-
Communist Party?
Miss Utley. Induction in my own case? When I ioined the Com-
munist Pnrty I had just been asked to stand for Parliament in Man-
chester. I made a statement to the press that I was joining the Com-
munist Party, and I was giving up my candidature to the Labor Party,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 781
I Avas an open, declared member. I was never an underground party
member, and I left the party as soon as I went to live in Russia.
Why I can't answer your question is that since the Communist
Party became more and more the conspiracj'^, since you had all these
undeclared members, the whole situation is different. When I was
a member of the party it was a revolutionary, an openly proclaimed
revolutionary party, and there Avere no secret meniDers.
Senator Grken. What I had reference to was not the declaration to
the public of where you stood, which was a very proper one for you
to make, but whether you took any pledge when you went into it.
Miss Utli-:y. I did not make any pledge ; no.
Senator Grken. The members did not have to make any pledge?
Miss Utlet. X"o. This was a long time ago, and this was England.
1 can't remember whether I ever made any pledge.
Senator Green. Witnesses here in other hearings who have joined
the Communist Party have stated that thej^ had to make a pledge of
loyal support to Stalin.
jMiss L'tley. AYhat I am trying to say. Senator, was that in my
period of membership, which is nearly 20 years ago, things were very
different. It was still more or less an international movement. Later
on it became purely loyalty to Stalin and the Soviet Union. When I
joined it was still, like the Second International or the Socialist Party,
a much looser and much more international bcd3\ It was not pro-
claimed as being under the orders of Stalin.
Senator Green, Was it consistent with loyalty to your country
then, at that time?
Miss Utley. That is difficult to answer. I suppose no; I suppose
not reallv. I thought of it in terms of the French and American
Revolutions, that this was carrying. through the liberal movements
of the past. I only say for myself that as soon as I learned what
being a member of the Communist Party really entailed I got out.
1 will also say that for years of my membership I was living in Japan
and was not taking any part in Communist activities. As soon as
1 learned what belonging to the party really meant, I went out.
I think your questions are pertinent, Senator, because I think a
great many young people in this country, like I — I was still at the
university then — do join the party, or come close to joining the party,
without in the least understanding what it is all about.
Senator Green. These young people that joined the paity both
then and now are usually among the most enthusiastic supportei-s.
They are anxious to do something to show their loyalty, to follow up
a new cause that seems to be a just cause, and I suppose that is what
motivated you.
Miss Utley. I stood for the London Communist Council for the
Communist Party.
Senator Green. And they began lying and committing perjury in
the interest of the cause?
Miss Utley. I am trying to say it was an open movement in my
day. It was only when I got to Russia that I understood tliis neces-
sity to lie and cheat for the party. I had not been taught that in
England. I didn't know it.
Senator Green. Even then didn't the Communists justify lying or
cheating or committing perjury for the cause?
782 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Miss Utley, It was in the Communist sacred writings, so to speak,
in Lenin's works, but it was not necessary to in England.
Senator Green. Didn't you read and understand it ^
Miss Uteey. Some knew. I don't think most of the people who
joined it as I did had any conception of these things until after they
got in it.
Senator Green. It must have been very hard for anybody brought
up with these ideas of lying and perjury to change their point of view.
Miss Utley. I am trying to insist that even though I was for a very
short period a member of the party, I never went in for this business
of lying. It is a very important point you are raising. I did not
lie about my affiliation. I was not one of these miderground people.
I did not go into lying and cheating for the party. When I learned,
as soon as I went to live in Russia, that it would be expected of me,
as a member of the party, to lie and cheat, I left the party. That is
the point I am trying to make clear.
Senator Green. I was not speaking of yourself.
Miss Utley. No ; but it is very important. It involves me, too.
Senator Green. I am talking about members in general. I should
think it would be very hard to learn to do that as a blight upon one's
own conscience. They say you must justify it to a greater cause.
Miss Utley. That is what Mr. Budenz said the other day. They
feel their loyalty is to something else, to the Soviet Union.
Senator Green. And even if you won't lie or perjure yourself, or
wouldn't at that time or at any time, you nevertheless believed your
superior loyalty was to the Communist Party than to any country ?
Miss Utley. That is the belief of the Communists.
Senator Green. That was your belief at the time, was it not?
Miss Utley. I did not believe that I had undertaken to lie and cheat
for the party.
Senator Green. Was that the reason you left the party ?
Miss Utley. Yes.
Senator Green. Were you expelled ?
Miss Utley. No. I just did not join the Russian Communist Party.
The normal thing was that when I went from a foreign Communist
Party to live in Russia I would transfer to the Russian Communist
Party. I did not transfer.
Senator Green. Then you were never active in the Russian Com-
munist Party?
Miss Utley. The first 5 months I was there I was working in the
Comintern. Then I got out.
Senator Green. Before you joined them in Russia you must have
been transferred from the British Party.
Miss Utley. No. As a matter of fact, I just went to live in Russia.
I went to meet my husband there. In 1928 I joined the party. In the
fall of that year'l went to Japan. I spent 1 year in the Communist
Party in England, the early part of 1930.
Senator Green. Didn't you have to carry a letter that you were a
loyal member in Britain?
Miss Utley. I had to get a visa to go to Russia.
Senator Green. I mean from the party.
Miss Utley. I don't remember; probably yes.
Senator Green. How do you get a visa? Don't you have to get it
through the Russian Ambassador ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 783
Miss Utley. Yes.
Senator Gkeex. He knew yon were a Comnninist ?
Miss Utley. You can get a visa without bein<r a Coinniunist.
Senator (Ireen. You were a Communist and announced it publicly
before he (rave you the visa ?
Miss l^iLEY. Yes.
Senator Green. Don't you sui)pose the information was connnuni-
cated to Russia?
Miss Utley. Yes.
Senator (Jreex. Then they did know.
Miss Utley. Senator, I told you I worked when I first went to Rus-
sia for 5 months in the Communist International, reading the news-
papers as a reference worker. That is where I learned so much. I got
out of it and got a job as a textile specialist in one of the business
enterprises.
Senator Green. It has been stated here at other periods that no one
was allowed to resign from the party, that they were expelled, that he
or she was expelled from the party.
INIiss Utley. I did not resign. I don't think that is true. I just
did not transfer to the Russian Party.
Actually, you see, you must get this: In Russia, to go into the party
is regarded as the greatest privilege that you can have. You get all
the good things, the high position, money, food, and so on. Every-
body wants to get into the Communist Party in Russia in order to get
all these privileges.
Senator Green. Didn't you vrant to ?
Miss I^TLEY. I did not want them at the price I had to pay by being
a member of the party.
Senator Green. At that time you had a high opinion of the party.
Miss Utley. Xo I have just said. Senator, that as soon as I went
to live in Russia I had no high opinion of the party.
Senator Green. At the time you went you worked for 5 months
for the party and then you changed your opinions?
Miss I^tley. That is what I am saying. Senator, that during those
months I learned the facts about Russia and the facts about commu-
nism and what was expected of me as a Communist, so I got out of
the party,
I was married to a Russian who could not leave the country. I had
to stay in Russia unless I was going to leave my husband, I got out
of the party and tried to find myself an obscure job.
Senator Green. You never broke with the party ?
Miss Uti.et, What do you mean, "broke," that I got out and put
my husband's neck in the noose immediately? No,
Senator Green. You never resigned from it?
MisS Uti.ey. Senator Green, do you understand? I did not re-
sign. I did not apply to transfer. Do you see wiiat I mean ? I did
not ask to join the Russian Part3\ and I did not go on belonging to the
British Party because I was no longer in England. I just ceased to
be a member of the party.
If you mean, if I had written a statement that "I think the Soviet
Union is terrible and I am leaving the party," my husband would have
just been executed. As it was. my difficulty in keeping quiet about
Russia probably helped to lead him.
784 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Green. Then you did not leave the Communist Party at
any definite time ?
Miss Utley. Yes ; I did.
Senator Green. How did you determine the date ?
Miss Utley. I can tell you how, because I did not pay my dues to
the British Communist Party when I was going to live in Russia,
and I didn't applj^ to the Russian Partv.
Senator Green. How do you fix a date ? You said a definite date
could be fixed.
Miss Utley. I can tell you just about. I went back to England in
the spring of 1931 on the publication of a book called Lancashire on
the Far East, and I didn't then renew my membership. I think I am
correct. It is a very long time ago, but I think that is the right date.
Senator Green. But 3^ou did not resign at a certain time, or j'ou
did not cease to go at a definite time ?
Miss Utley. Cease to go where ?
Senator Green. You just allowed it to lapse by not taking an active
interest?
Miss Utley. I am trying to tell you that it lapsed because I did not
transfer my membership from the British to the Russian Party.
Senator Green. What were you doing in those 5 months you Avere
in Russia?
Miss Utley. If you work in the Communist International you can
still be a member of the international party.
Senator Green. You were a member of the International?
Miss Uti.ey. I worked in the international for 5 months, '30 to '31.
Senator Green. Then you must have belonged to that.
Miss Utley. I did.
Senator Green. "Wlien did you resign from that, or were you
expelled ?
Miss Utley. I gave up my job. I wasn't expelled. I went to Eng-
land to get my book published. When I went back I got myself a job
as a textile specialist in the Commissary of Foreign Trade.
Senator Green. You have got a great man}^ quotations from Mr.
Lattimore's book to show his attitude of mind at different periods.
I find Mr. Lattimore has quoted from your book, China at War, pub-
lished in 1932, 1 believe.
Miss Utley. Published in 1938.
Senator Green. China at War?
Miss Utley. In 1938 or 1939, China at War.
Senator Green. Then I am mistaken. But he quoted from your
book to this effect:
Moreover, the Chinese Communist Party long ago abandoned the dream of
establishing its own dictatorship. Now that social basis is amongst the peas-
ants of the most backward Provinces in China, and amongst the middle-class
youth and the liberal reformers, its aim has genuinely become social and political
reform along capitalist and democi-atic lines. The Chinese Communists have
become radicals in the Engbsh nineteenth century meaning of the word.
Miss Utley. First of all, I consider I was mistaken, and one of the
reasons I was mistaken is that the Chinese Communists had talked
to me and welcomed me when I went to China in 1938, and I Imew
that in England or in Russia anybody who had left the party would
have not been as friendly to me as the Chinese Communists were. That
is one reason. I think in general I said other things in my book not
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 785
SO definite as that. I wasn't so sure. In fact, I ended my book by
saying that of course if there was a Russo-German Pact, then every-
tliing would be changed.
However, Senator, that was written in 1939; actually written in
1938 and 1930 and ])ublished in 1939. Mr. Lattimore read that out the
other day. I took the trouble of getting a cop}^ ^nade of an article I
wrote in April 1941, in Asia magazine, called Will Russia Destroy
China ? and I will hand you that article for the record.
Senator Grekx. I thought you had finished your testimony.
]Miss Utlev. I hand it to you. In that article I say very definitely
that the action of the Chinese Communists depends entirely on Mos-
cow. By that time I had learned completely that my first impression
of the Cliinese Communists was quite wrong, and I think anybody
who read what I said after the Hitler-Stalin pact would be convinced
that I knew I had been mistaken in 1938 and 1939.
Senator Green. How long was that after you had left the party?
JNIiss Utlet. About 7 years.
Senator Green. That you wrote this ?
Miss Utlet. The book China At War ?
Senator Green. Yes.
Miss Utlet. About 7 years.
Senator Green. Seven years later ?
Miss Utlet. It was only about a year and a half after I left the
Soviet Union.
Senator Green. At the time you wrote that you were sincere, were
jou not, in expressing your views?
Miss Utlet. Yes ; but I said I was mistaken.
What I am trying to get at, back in '38 and '39 there was really a
united front, where the Communists completely subordinated them-
selves to the National Government. It was possible to believe that the
'Chinese Communists had really subordinated themselves to the Gov-
ernment. In the following years it was impossible to believe that any
longer.
Senator Green. You did believe it when you wrote this ?
Miss Utlet. I believed it then, when I wrote it.
Senator Green. And you were anti-Communist at time, were you
not?
Miss Utlet. I was not. I was keeping quiet.
Senator Ttdings. The Senator asked whether you were anti-
Communist.
Miss Utlet. I want to make this very clear. When I came out of
Russia in the summer of July 1937, my husband had been arrested.
He was sent to prison without trial. I knew that anything I wrote
critical of the Soviet Union would cause his instant death. I waited
until 1939 to decide finally that I would write the whole and absolute
truth about the Soviet Union as I knew it, even if my husband was
still alive and it led to his death.
You asked me about 1938. I had gone off to China partly because I
didn't want to say anything about the Soviet Union if I could just
keep quiet long enough, so I went off in a different field. I went off to
China. Afterwards, when I came back to England and through Amer-
ica, at the outbreak of the European war and before that, I decided to
write everything I know about communism, and my denunciation of
the whole thing.
786 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION
What I am trying to say about that period of that condition is, first
of all, as Mr. Lattimore is fond of saying, you ought not to take just
one quotation out of a book. At the end of the book I made a point
that if Moscow strategy changed, there was danger of communism in
China. But I saw that it was impossible to believe that the Chinese
Communists were just agrarian reformers following the Hitler-Stalin
Pact ; and, above all, once the}^ had, as they did already, during the
course of the war, not only broken up the united front, but they are
attacking the National Government. They had never gone into that
united front with any sincerity. I have to give you a lot more back-
ground.
Senator Ttdings. Let's try to give answers a little more directly
to the questions.
Senator Green. In other words, at the time you wrote that book, in
1939 you did honestly believe, and you did say, to sum it all up, that
the Chinese Communists have become radicals in the English nine-
teenth century meaning of the word.
Miss Utley. I said it and I was mistaken.
Senator Green. That did not mean you Avere a Communist, did it?
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Green. Then why did you say Mr. Lattimore is a Com-
munist because he wrote similar thoughts ?
Miss LTtley. Because Mr. Lattimore went on writing it years after-
ward, when there was abundant evidence that it was not true, and I
as early as 1941 wrote completely differently, that I completely under-
stood that I had l)een wrong in that.
Senator Green. Did that show reform on your part, or vacillation?
Miss Utley. No; it showed a study of the evidence, of the his-
torical record.
Senator Green. Were you following the Communist line when you
wrote that?
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Green. Were you following the Communist line when you
wrote the opposite?
Miss Utley. I was taking the evidence.
Senator Green. You talked a lot about following the Communist
line, and you said Mr. Lattimore had been following the Communist
line, and I want to know whether you were following the Communist
line.
Miss Utley. I have repeated over and over again, I made a mistake
in '1938 about the Chinese Communists. I corrected that mistake as
the evidence accumulated of how wrong I had been, as the various
happenings showed how wrong I had been, as the written documentary
evidence accumulated, as happenings in history accumulated, and I
learned when the evidence was placed before me that I had been mis-
taken, and I submit that nobody could have said that a few years
later, believe me.
Senator Green. But at the time you said it you were following
the Communist line ?
Miss Utley. No, Senator ; I was not.
Senator Green. You have been speaking about Mr. Lattimore's
views.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 787
Miss Utley. I would like to quote you from the end of the book.
At the end of the book I made ti reservation that I could be wrong.
Yes; I did.
Senator Green. I think 3'ou were very safe in making that res-
ervation.
Miss IVr.EV. I made the reservation because I recognized that they
might be under ]Moscow"s orders all the time, and that would change
the situation.
Senator Green. I hate to press the question. I won't if you will
answer directly. It is this : If you honestly believed that when you
wrote it, were you following the Communist line ?
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Green. "\"Miat was the Communist line?
Miss I^TLEY. The Communist line at that time was, it is true, the
iniited front. They wanted the united front against Japan in the
Far East.
Senator Green. But when IVIr. Lattimore used similar expressions
you said he was following the Communist line.
INIiss Utley. I said Mr. Lattimore's record as to whether they are
this or that iroes zig-zagging up and down accordino; to the line.
Senator Green. That may be, but you were following the Com-
munist line just as much as Mr. Lattimore.
Miss Utley. No ; I was not.
Senator Green. Point out the distinction. I am not talking about
the whole series of years over which you both wrote; I am talking
about 1939.
Miss Utley. I said, when the evidence confronted me as it did
from the time of the Stalin-Hitler Pact of April 1941, when that
evidence became available, I recognized my mistake. Mr. Lattimore
<iid not recognize his.
Senator Tydtngs. Senator Green has asked you simply this : If j^ou
said this in 1939, and Mr. Lattimore said it in 1939, and when he said
it he was following the Communist line, why weren't you following
the Comnuniist line w'hen you said the same thing? That is the ques-
tion, not what you said in '41.
ISIiss Utley. I have to insist on saying that Mr. Lattimore was say-
ing it many years later. He was saying it in '45 and '49,
Senator Tydings. The Senator is entitled to an answer. If Mr.
Lattimore was following the party line in 1939 when he said it,
the Senator has asked you why you were not following the ])arty
line when you said it.
Miss Utt-ey. I said it at a different period.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Senator Green. You have spoken, I think, of Mr. Kohlberg. Are
you an official of the American China Policy Association?
Miss Utt.ey. I am not an official.
Senator Green. I thought you were a director.
Miss I'rr.EY. I said I did not know whether my name had been
taken off. I haven't attended a meeting for over a year.
Senator Green. T^Hiat were your duties at that time?
Miss Utley. I was just a member.
Senator Green. Did you give advice as to what their policy should
be?
788 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Miss Utley. I was advising them. We used to have discussions^,
and occasionally put out statements on China.
Senator Greicn, What was Mr. Kohlberg's relation? He was the
backer of it, the i^atron of it?
Miss Utlet. Backer or patron, I suppose. He was one of the lead-
ing people in it. Mrs. Luce was the chairman when I last used to go-
to meetings.
Senator Greex. Was he one of the leading financial supporters of it ?
Miss Utley. I don't know. I don't know anything about that.
Senator Green. You hadn't anything to do with it except lending
your name ?
Miss Utley. I used to attend and have discussions on China. I
would, when they got out statements on China, sometimes be there, and
sometimes helped.
Senator Green. Wliat was the policy apart from opposing the Com-
munist line and favoring China ? Was that the idea ? In other words,
you were favoring Chiang Kai-shek, is that right?
Miss Utley. Favoring the anti-Communist forces. I must tell you,
Senator Green, that the people on that committee consisted of all
kinds and sorts, and some of them were very critical of Chiang
Kai-shek. I have been myself in my own writings. I can refer you
to Mr. Lattimore himself in his review.
Senator Green. We do not want to go into that.
Miss Utley. I am trying to say we were all on that committee. We
have been very critical — I have myself — of the National Government.
Senator Green. All I am asking 3'ou is whether it was the policy
of vou at that time to support Chiang Kai-shek.
Miss Utley. To support the recognized Government of China.
Senator Green. That is the same thing, isn't it ?
Miss Utley. Not quite.
Senator Green. At that time was it not?
Miss Utley. I don't think you can say Chiang Kai-shek and the
National Government were exactly the same thing.
Senator Green. Wasn't it at that time? Of course ISIr. Chiang
Kai-shek has been in and out of leadership, but I do not think there
is any question.
IMi'ss Utley. I think you have to talk about the National Govern-
ment. I do not think you can talk about Chiang Kai-shek.
Senator Green. Your policy was to support the Nationalist Govern-
ment, is that right ?
Miss Utley. Yes.
Senator Green. And how did the organization do it, besides pub-
lishing a magazine?
Miss Utley. They did not publish a magazine. They did not
publish any magazine.
Senator Green. What did you do ? Did you support a lobby here
in Washington?
Miss Utley. No. I never heard of any lobby.
Senator Green. How did you function as an organization?
Miss Utley. Every several months or so we would discuss the
latest news of what was happening in China. Maybe somebody
would come back from China and make a report.
Senator Green. And you would get together and talk it over?
Miss Uti^y. Yes.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 789
Senator Green. Did you make any speeches for them, or write any
articles for them?
Miss Utley. Not for tliem. They haven't any way to publish
articles.
Senator Gheen. Did they have any income?
JNIiss Utley. I sup])ose Mr. Kohlberg must have carried the clerical
expense. Nobody Avas paid anything-.
Senator Green. Do you knoAv anybody except Mr. Kohlberg who
shared in the clerical expenses?
Miss Uteey. I couldn't tell you. Mrs. Clare Boothe Luce was one
of the leadino- peoi)le in it, one of the founders of it. Whether she
contributed any money I have no idea.
S(M)ator Green. Have you ever discussed Mr. Lattimore with Mr.
Kohlberg?
j\Iiss Utley. Oh I suppose so. There were a whole numbei' of
people whom we recognized as the propagandists for Chinese Com-
mnniyts, so we might have discussed Mr. Lattimore.
Senator Green. What were his views about Mr. Lattimore?
jMiss Utley. That is a difficult question for me to answer. I know
everybody who was anti-Communist considered Mr. Lattimore's writ-
tings were helping the Communist cause in China, and I think prob-
ably we must have said that pretty often.
Senator Green. And those were the views about Mr. Lattimore that
you expressed to Mr. Kohlberg?
JMiss Utley. I don't say I expressed them. He was one of the
people naturall}^ we took to belong with that group. I cannot give
you any specific information.
Senator Green. I am not asking for any specific information. You
sav you know him and vou talked about Mr. Lattimore. All I am
asking is what you said.
Miss Utl,p:y. All we probably said was "There is another book by
Lattimore. What a lot of harm that is going to do." I don't know
exactly what I may have said.
Senator Green. You do not know Avhether it was favorable or un-
favorable to Mr. Lattimore?
Miss Utley. I had not read the book when I said that. I always
read e\erytliing he wrote — not everything, but most of the things.
Senator Green. Was that your view as you expressed it to Mr.
Kohlberg^
Miss Utley. Honestly, I cannot tell you exactly what I may have
said.
Senator Green. I don't want to know exactly. I want to know
Avhat your views were.
Miss Utley. My views I have been giving you at length today,
and I probably said some of the things to Mr. Kohlberg — probably —
or to the whole conniiittee.
Senator Green. You could not have said the opposite, could you?
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Green. Did Mr. Kohlberg agree with those views ?
Miss Utley. I imagine that he did.
Senator Green. To the best of your recollection he did?
INIiss Utley. Pi-esumably. I never went in for long discussions with
IVIr. Kohlberg.
790 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Green. Had you ever had any financial interest in the
Kuomintang or in the National Government?
Miss Utley. No,
Senator Green. Or Chiang Kai-shek?
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Green. You were employed b}- Starr, Parke, Freeman &
Co., were you not?
Miss Utley. I was. I am not now.
Senator Green. For how long?
Miss Utley. From about 1940, soon after I moved to New York —
about the end of 1940, again, until I went to China in '45, because
even while I was working in Washington I was still consultant for
Starr, Parke, Freeman.
Senator Green, That company has large financial interests in
China, has it not?
Miss Utley. It had an American newspaper in China, the Shanghai
Evening Post, which when I was in China in '45 and '46 I wrote some
articles" for. I wrote some articles for it. There is no tie-up at all
between Starr, Parke, Freeman, and Mr. Kohlberg.
Senator Tydings. Can you respond a little more directly? It is
getting late.
Senator Green. Can you say "Yes" or "No"? I don't want to cut
you off. I asked you whether it had other financial interests in China.
Miss Utley. Yes.
Senator Green. And you went to China in behalf of the company,
did you not?
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Green. Were you in their employ when you went to China ?
Miss Uti.ey. No.
vSenator Green. You had left them ?
Miss Utley. I went for the Header's Digest, if I may add that, to
save questioning.
Senator Green, Were you a consultant for the Chinese Commis-
sion?
Miss Utley, Yes.
Senator Green, For how long?
Miss Utley. I already answered that question.
Senator Green. Was it at the same time you were in the employ of
Starr, Parke, Freeman & Co. ?
Miss Utley, Yes.
Senator Green. Did you go in its behalf?
Miss Utley. May I qualify that?
Senator Green. Certainly.
Miss Utt.ey. I was kept on on a very small salary with Starr, Parke,
because I knew I wasn't going to take this consultant thing for long,
so ]VIr, Starr kept me on a consultant basis. Then, in August of 1945,
when the Reader's Digest said it would send me to China as its ac-
credited correspondent, I gave up all other jobs,
Seiiator Green. What were your duties as a consultant?
Miss Utley. I already specified them to Mr. Morgan.
Senator Green. Were you to investigate conditions in China ?
Miss Utley. I wasn't in China. I wasn't employed by them when
T was in China. I said that. I was in China for the Reader's Digest
in 1945 and 1946.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 791
V,
Senator Green. You were representing the Digest when you went?
Miss Utley. And I also did some work for the Shanghai Evening
Po^t, Avhich was owned by Starr, Parke, Freeman & Co.
Senator Green. Indirectly, then, you were there in their behalf?
Miss Utley. You can say I was still more or less employed by Starr,
Parke, Freennm & Co. when I was in China, until my main employ-
ment with the Reader's Digest.
Senator (ikkex. Wasn't the continuance of Chiang Kai-shek in
oflice of financial interest to the company by whom you were
eni])loyed ?
Miss Utley. Please, Senator, I don't know how to answer that di-
rectly. May I be allowed to say this: Mr. Starr himself had very
different views on China from Mr. Kohlberg's. The Shanghai Eve-
ning Post itself was a business paper in China. It had never expressed
itself very forciblv on the anti-Communist side or on the Communist
side. I am trying to say that I can't tell you what Mr, Starr felt.
Senator Tydings, Try to be as direct as you can. If you can't, say
you can't.
Senator Green. ]My question was whether the continuance of
Chiang Kai-shek in office was not of considerable financial interest to
the company.
Miss Utley, I cannot answer that question.
Seriutor Tydixcis. Could ) ou give us your opinion on that?
Miss ITtlfa'. Look here, Senator, I don't think this is right. I don't
think I have any right to give Mr. Starr's opinion second-hand.
Senator Tydings. You have taken a lot of liberty in giving your
opinions on everything else.
Miss Utley. Mr. Starr is not arraigned before you. I have long
not worked for him.
Senator Green. Do you think it was to the financial interest of
Mr. Kohlberg?
Miss Utley. It may have been.
Senator Greex. Do you know Mr. William J. Goodwin ?
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Greex. Do you know Father James F. Kearney ? He is the
author of Disaster in China.
Miss Utley. No ; I don't.
SeJiator Green. Do you know of the Institute of Pacific Relations?
Miss Utley. TVHiat about them?
Senator Green. AYhat do you know about it?
Senator Tyuixgs. Not what you have heard, but what vou know.
Miss Utley. What I know about the Institute of Pacific Relations?
I have to make another long statement.
Senator Tydings. Miss Utley, if you know something about the
Institute of Pacific Relations that would be proper in answer to the
Senator's question, please say so directly.
Senator Greex*. Have you been connected with it in any way?
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Green. Did you help Mr. Kohlberg in his efforts to get
control of it ?
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Greex. Did you discuss it with Mr. Kohlberg?
68970— 50— pt. 1 51
792 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Miss Utley. I knew wliat was going on. I knew Mr. Kohlbei'g
was very anxious — how am I going to pnt it — very anxious to stop the
IPR from spreading what he considered to be a Communist line.
Senator Green, may I go back? I want to make one tiling clear.
I believe that when I went to China in 1945 and 1946 I said I worked
for Mr. Starr's paper while I was in Shanghai, and I also believe that
originally my application to go to China was on behalf of Starr, Parke,
Freeman, although my fare was paid by the Reader's Digest. I want
to be sure I am answering that correctly.
Senator Gkp:en. Your correction will appear in the record.
You no doubt saw in the papers on Sunday the statements of Secre-
tary Acheson and three former Secretaries of State about these pro-
ceedings and the work of this investigating committee ?
Miss Utley. Yes.
Senator Green. Did you see in the papers these statements by the
present and by three ex-Secretaries of State?
Miss Utley. Yes ; I saw them.
Senator Green. Did you see General Marshall's ?
Miss Utley. Yes.
Senator Green. Do you agree with the criticism that has been made
of it, that it was childish and silly ?
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Green. What do you think of it?
Miss Utley, I don't think it was childish and sill}^ I don't think
it answers the question. I think it is irrelevant.
Senator Green. There has been a good deal of irrelevancy in these
hearings. Is that all you can say of it?
Miss Utley. T have already said something in my prepared state-
ment.
Senator Green. Do you agree with it ?
Miss Utley. I said that the fact that General Marshall did not
know Lattimore does not prove that the people upon whom he did rely
for information did not know him.
Senator Green. I understood all that.
Miss Utley. You asked me what I had to say.
Senator Green. I am asking your opinion of what he stated in his
letter.
Miss Utley. I just repeated what I said. That is my opinion.
Senator Green. You also said it was irrelevant.
Miss Utley. It doesn't prove anything.
Senator Green. It didn't prove anything? Do you agree with his
opinion as expressed?
Miss Utley. It is a very vague statement.
I have been very busy, and I just have glanced through it. I can't
remember everything he said.
Senator Green. But you do not agree with the characterization of
it as childish and silly?
Miss Utley. I do not agree with such words.
Senator Green. What would you say, in your own words?
Miss Utley. What I said, Senator, was that I do not think the
question of whether he knew Mr. Lattimore was of any great
importance.
Senator Green, But what you think is of some consequence to us.
You have been telling us what you thought.
STATE DEPAHTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 793
Senator Tydix(;s. You have been tellinof us all afternoon what your
opinion was on these matters. Miss Utley. I think so long as you
were not interi-upted and were allowed to go ov- for hours you nuist
also give your opinion on other things.
Miss Utley. If Senator Green means I have to give my opinion on
the whole of General Marshall's statement, may I see it, please?
Senator TYmx(;s. I would like to say that all this opinion evidence,
if the Chair did his full tluty, would never hav3 been permitted, but
in the interest of fairness I have allowed the widost range of evidence
in this case. We cannot find out truth or falsity -dimply by opinion.
Miss Utlfa'. Ma}^ I just ask what I am asked ^-^ express an opinion
on?
Senator Green. I understood you to say you weie an expert on
China.
Miss Utley. Yes : more or less.
Senator Green. Also I understood you to say General Marshall
was influenced, perhaps unconsciously, by Mr. Lattimore's views.
Miss Utley. I call it the Lattimore school ; yes.
Senator Green. Then you nuist know what General Marshall's
views are, or you could not have nuide that statement.
Well, assuming General Marshall expressed his views in this letter,
do you agree with him or not ?
Miss Utley. According to that statement as I read it, he does not
give any particular views about China. He says "1 didn't hear Latti-
more and he didn't influence policy." That is what he said.
Senator Green. You know wliat General Marshall's views were
at the time?
Miss Utley. Yes.
Senator Green. Did you agree with them or not ?
Miss Utley. Xo. T thought he was mistaken.
Senator Green. Then, instead of childish and silly, you would
simpl}^ say j^ou considered them mistaken?
Miss Utley. Badly advised.
Senator Tydincs. I assume that General Marshall could be wrono;.
1 assume likewise you might be wrong.
Senator (4r"een, Do you admit both statements ?
Miss Utley. I am on record, if I may say so. Senator, on all these
matters.
Senator Green. You tried to connect Mr. Lattimore with the Com-
munists by reading several extracts which you claimed showed he
was folloAving the Communist line. Do you think he was following
the Communist line when he supported the Marshall plan?
Miss Utley. I prefer to leave the answer to that to Mr. Budenz. I
don't think the Marshall plan alone Avas going to stop communism,
just advocating the Marshall plan.
Senator (jReen. Do you think support of the Marshall plan is con-
sistent with following the line of the Communist Party?
Miss Utley. I think what ]\rr. Budenz said is probably correct, that
some people are ])ermitted such opposition.
Senator T^n^iNos. The Senator asked you whether support of the
Marshall plan was following the line of the Communist Party. The
answer should be "Yes" or ''No" and it ought to be brief.
Miss T'tley. Xo.
794 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\'ESTIGATION
Senator Green. Do you think lie ^yas followino; the Communist line
when he was advocating aid to Finland during the war ?
Miss Utley. I would like to see the evidence of his support, and
what kind of it.
Senator Tydings. Assuming he did, would you say that was follow-
ing the Communist line ? Yes or no ?
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Green. What was your public position with respect to aid
to Finland during that war?
Miss Utley. I was not in a position to give any aid myself. I was in
favor of aid.
Senator Green. Like Mr. Lattimore. Was that evidence that you
were following the Communist line, then?
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Green. How were you about the Russian-German pact?
'Wliat was your position on that at tlie time?
Miss Utley. Two totalitarian nations had come together.
Senator Green. Were you in favor of the pact, or were you opposed
to the pact
Miss Utley. I thought the pact was a very terrible disaster.
Senator Green. Was that following the Communist line?
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Green. Then if Mr. Lattimore supported it, was he follow-
ing the Communist line?
Senator Tydings. When Hitler and Stalin agreed on the German-
Eusso pact, you said you were opposed to it. If Mr. Lattimore like-
wise said he was opposed to it, were either you or he following the
Communist line when that proposition took place, according to your
position thereon?
Miss Utley. No, Mr. Chairman; but you must allow me to say that
he never said he supported it. I don't know what is being referred to.
Senator Tydings. He just asked you that question, and I would like
to get an answer. The Senator has his own reasons — I don't know
what they are — for asking these questions. I am simply trying to
move along.
Senator Green. You wrote a book called China at War, which we
have already made reference to, in 1939, and in that book you wrote :
Whereas the new line of the Comintern is tlie consequence of Russian fear of
Germany and Japan, and insofar as it received support from lahor and liberal
elements in France and England as a result of their fears of losing their colonial
possessions, in China the united front policy would, in all probability, have come
about irrespective of Hitler's rise to power.
Miss Utley. Did I write it?
Senator Green. Did you not?
Miss Utley. Presumably. I do not remember that passage.
Senator Green. That did not prove you were a Communist, did it?
Miss Utley. No.
Senator Green. Then why do you say it is an evidence of commu-
nism when Mr. Lattimore writes similar thoughts?
Miss Utley. Mr. Chairman. I cannot answer "Yes" or "No" when I
am asked that sort of question.
Senator Tydings. Do the best you can.
Senator Green. There are other similar phrases. I think you at-
tempted to explain before that now you think you were wrong when
STATE DI•:PARTME^•T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 795
you wrote those, but I tliouiiht I was justified in briii<>in<>- them to your
attention in view of the fact that you hiid such stress on Mr. Latti-
niore's beinir a Conninnnst because he liad taken similar views, and I
wanted to brin^- out, ifl could, that you had the same views that Mr.
Lattimore had! Now you have chanored your view^s. I don't know
whether he has chancfed his or not. But you were using evidence that
he was a Connnunist, and apj)arently it is no evidence that you were
a Communist, because you have vigorously denied that.
Miss Uti.ey. Senator, if you can show that my writings have
changinl accoi'ding to the Connnunist Party line, and that I said one
thing at one time and another thing at another, which fitted always
the Connnunist Party line, then you have a point.
Senator Gkkkn. This policy at that time you said was the only
possil>le policy in China.
Miss I^Ti.ET. Senator, in my testimony I endeavored to show that
Mr. Lattimore has changed his views and said different things about
the same thing at different times to fit the Communist Party line.
I have not done so.
Senator Green. To come down to the last, all your evidence today
is to show that Mr, Lattimore's opinions differ from your opinions,
and that he has changed his opinions at times and you have done
the same.
IVliss Utley. Sir, my evidence was to show that his opinions always
changed at the same time the Moscow line changed. That was the
whole point of my quotations.
Senator Green'. But when he changed at the same time you did, did
it also follow from that that you were following the Communist line?
Miss Uti.ey. He did not change.
Senator Green. If you did not follow that line I do not think it is
necessary — there are other quotations from your books that I could
read, to' show the same position then, but you may say you have
change them since, and I am not accusing you of being a Communist
because you expressed those views. It seems to me that there is
reason for taking one side or the other at that time, and there may be
still, without being accused of being a Communist.
That is all;
Senator Tyt)Ings. The Chairman will request counsel to get some-
one to go into Miss Utley's books and take the quotations that Senator
Green has brought out, with their dates, and also to go into Latti-
more's books and take such quotations as have been brought out there,
and see if they are on all fours as to date and time.
Miss Uti.eV. May I request that if all these unfavorable reviews
are to be put into the record I certainly should be allowed to offer
favorable reviews?
Senator Tyt)ings. You are not on trial for being a member of the
State Department who is disloyal, a disloyal American.
Mr. Demaree Bess, of the Saturday Evening Post, has written me a
letter which I was going to put in the record. I have not talked with
Mr. Bess, and I understand he is in the room and very anxious to
leave, and has oidy a short statement to make. I would like to ask
counsel for Mr. Lattimore whether he would object at this time to
allowing Mr. Bess to make a statement.
Mr. FoRTAs. Xot all all. I was going to suggest, after discussion
and consultation with Mr. Bess, that instead of his taking the time
796 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
to make a statement we be permitted to put into tlie record his letter
to you, which Mr. Bess believes covers the subject.
Senator Tydings. I will read Mr. Bess' letter, which I sent down
and got when I learned he was here, and if the members of the com-
mittee would like to ask him questions they can.
I am going to ask Mr. Bess, however, if he won't attend and be
sworn, and read his own letter to me, so it will have the authenticity
I think it ought to have. Will you hold up your right hand?
Do you solemnly promise and declare that the evidence you shall
give in this matter pending before this conniiittee shall be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Bess. I do.
Senator Tydings. Miss Utley, let me thank you for coming and
testifying. If you will exchange chairs with Mr. Bess, we will allow
him to I'ead his letter and the committee can ask him any questions
they desire.
First of all we will ask you for your full name.
STATEMENT OF DEMAREE BESS, ASSOCIATE EDITOR,
THE SATURDAY EVENING POST
Mr. Bess. My full name is Demaree Bess. I am associate editor of
the Saturday Evening Post.
Senator Tydings. Where do you reside?
Mr. Bess. I have resided recently in Paris. I now reside in this
country.
Senator Tydings. Your address now is care of the Saturday Eve-
ning Post, Philadelphia?
Mr. Bess. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. How old are you?
Mr. Bess. Fifty-seven years old.
Senator Tydings, How long have you been a correspondent and
writer ?
Mr. Bess. I have been for 25 years a foreign correspondent, 10
years in China and Japan, 4 years in Soviet Russia, and since 1937 in
Europe.
Senator Tydings. You are well known by reputation. I think you
may now go on and read the letter.
Mr. Bess (reading) :
Dear Senator Tydings : I am writing to you because Owen Lattimore was
my house guest during his visit to Moscow in 1936. about whicli Senator McCar-
thy has raised questions before your subcommittee. Mr. Lattimore stayed with
me because he was — and is — an old and valued friend whom I had known inti-
mately during my previous 10 years in the Far East as correspondent for
American newspai^ers.
There was nothing mysterious about Mr. Lattimore's visit to Moscow; he came
there as an editor of Pacitic Affairs, a publication of the Institute of Pacific Rela-
tions. As you probably know, the institute was organized into national groups,
and the Soviet group was then an active participant.
As I had already worked in Russia for more than 2 years, I was able to help
Mr. Lattimore to meet some Russians. In particular, I introduced him to a
vSoviet consular oflBcial I had met as a reporter and who had spent some time in
Mongolia, a country about which Mr. Lattimore was — and is — the foremost
American specialist. This Soviet official —
I say in this letter to you —
whose name I have forgotten —
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 797
but I now reiueniber it was Kantorovich —
was very helpful to Mr. Lattiinort' — as- ho had been tv nie — and introduced hiiu
to other" Russian exiH'rts on Monjiolia and Central Asia, and j;uided him throutili
Moseow niuseiuns and libraries devoted to these sulijects. At that pei'iod the
^reat imrjies had not yet started in Russia, aud it was much easier for Americans
to meet Russians than it later became.
Knowinj; niy interest. Mr. Lattiniore f;ave me detailed reports of his meetings
with Russians. He was uuderstandal)ly impressed by the extent of Russian
material concerning Russo-Chinese border regions — which seem very remote to
Americans but are not so remote to Russians.
In a speech on the Senate floor, Senator McCarthy mentioned an affidavit by
an unnamed Russian who has rept)rted a conversation in 1936 with a Soviet
intelligence officer who boasted that his organization was getting valuable in-
formation through the Institute of Pacific Relations, and especially through Mr.
Lattiniore. This is interesting evidence that the Soviet intelligence organization
was as smart as 1 myself was at the time — because I, too, was getting useful
bacljground material for my newspaper articles from the Institute's specialized
reports and from conversations with Mr. Lattimore and other Americans working
for the institute.
But perhaps the Soviet intelligence officer mentioned by Senator McCarthy
was not (piite so smart as he thouglit, because there is no doubt in my mind
tliat Mr. Lattimore learned considerably more from the Russians during that
Mosc-ow visit than they did from him — and this information later became avail-
able through Mr. Lattimore to our own intelligence services and to the State
Department.
During my many years' friendship with Mr. Lattimore in China, he never
showed any special interest in Russia except insofar as the Russians were con-
cerned witii Mongolia and Central Asia, his chosen field of research and explora-
tion. To my certain knowledge. INIr. Lattimore devoted almost his entire time
during the lO.SC) Moscow visit to this same specialty. Those were the years when
it was popular in the United States to be a "pink," but I never saw even the
slightest evidence that Mr. Lattimore was becoming even the mildest form of
"fellow traveler."
You may use this letter, in whole or in part, in any way you see fit. My own
record is available in Who's AVho in America. I think that my articles in the
Saturday Evening Post during the war — when it was not popular to he critical
of Russia — are sufficient evidence of my personal views about the Soviet system.
Senator Tydings. That is signed by you?
Mr. Bess. That is signed by me.
.Senator Tydixgs. The original letter will be given to the reporter as
exhibit 81 in this case.
Tomorrow morning at 10:30 the committee will resume imd hear
Mr. Lattimore's reply to the evidence that has been adduced today.
(Whereupon, at 6 o'clock p. m., the hearing was recessed to re-
convene at 10: 30 a. m. the following day, Tuesday, May 2, 1950.)
STATE DEPARTMEiNT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1950
UNITED STxVTES SeNAI-E,
c0m3iittee ox foreign relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Wdshhigton, D. C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment on ]Monday, May 1,
1950. in the caucus room, room 318 Senate Office B'uiklino;, at 10: 30
a. m.. Senator MiUard E. Tydings, chairman of the subcommittee, pre-
sidin<2:.
Present: Senators Tydings, Green, McMahon, Hickenlooper, and
Lodge.
Also present: Senator Knowland; Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief
counsel to the subcommittee ; Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel to
the subconnnittee.
Senator Tydings. The committee will come to order.
As was scheduled, we are here this morning to hear Dr. Lattimore.
Doctor, if you will take the stand, Mr. Fortas, if you would like to
come up with him, you may be seated. You have already been sworn,
of course. We do not swear witnesses but once, and that applies to
all testimony.
You may proceed in your own way.
STATEMENT OF DR. OWEN LATTIMORE
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity that
you have given me again to appear before you in response to the
charges that have been made concerning me.
Senator McCarthy made his charges against me from a fox hole of
immunity on the Senate floor, about 1 month ago. Since that time he
has obviously been engaged in a frenzied effort to prove them, or at
least to make them appear plausible. He has been assisted by a staff
headed by a former Congressman from Wisconsin, Mr. Kersten, and
by investigators who are being paid to beat the bushes for something,
anything, that will take the Senator off the spot.
JBef ore discussing the testimony that these frantic efforts have pro-
duced. I want to recall to your minds the charges of the man who
recklessly or maliciously began this attack upon me and the Govern-
ment of the United States : namely, Joseph McCarthy.
You need go no further than the undisputed facts — you need go no
further than the charges, Avhich are not supported by a shred of
evidence, perjured or otherwise — to establish the fact that the Senator
criminally libeled me.
799
800 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
First, the Senator said that I am "the top Russian espionage agent
in the United States." N'ot even the Senator's own procured witnesses
were Avilling to support this. Even the witness Budenz denied it. He
said that it was "technically"' not correct.
Second, the Senator said that I am "one of the top Connnunist
agents in this country," None of the witnesses even attempted to
support this.
Third, the Senator said that I am "a Soviet agent." No evidence
supports this.
A reading of the record fails to show that any witness — not even
Budenz — directly charged that I was a member of the Comnumist
Party. I shall deal with Budenz' testimony in detail.
Perhaps the most reprehensible aspect of McCarthy's attack was
his effort to pillory the State Department because of my alleged sub-
versive activities. You will recall his nonsensical and absurd state-
ment that I had a desk and telephone in the State Department, and
that somehow or other I was an official of the State Department.
His device was to attribute guilt to the State Department by insinu-
ating that the Department was associated with me, so that if my
subversive affiliation could be proved, it would follow automatically
that the State Department is full of Communists.
As I testified earlier, and as four Secretaries of State said a few
days ago, I have never been an official of the Department or the
"architect" of its far-eastern policy. If Senator McCarthy wants to
join the Communists in an effort to destroy the effectiveness of our
foreign policy, he will have to find another stick with which to beat
the State Department to death. I repeat that I. and I alone, am
responsible for what I have written and done. I take a certain amount
of pride in what I have writtpii and done. I am and have been a
private, independent American citizen, neither receiving nor taking
orders or money from the Conmiunists, Kohlberg, the China lobby,
Joe McCarthy, or anybody else.
Accordingly, I hope that it is clear beyond question that you are
here investigating a private American citizen : a university professor,
a journalist, an author, and lecturer. You are investigating a man
who has no official position with the United States Government; who
is neither the "chief architect" nor even one of the architects of our
far-eastern policy. You are investigating a man who has spent his
life in business activities and studies of the Far East, who has written
and lectured extensively concerning his specialty, and who has strong
views concerning the past, present, and future of that area which
he has freely and publicly expressed.
Senator McCarthy, however, has chosen to stake the validity of
his charges against the State Department and to stake his own repu-
tation on his accusations against me. Unlike the Senator, I am an
American who wishes to protect our Government against baseless,
destructive charges which give aid and comfort to any hostile foreign
power. For this reason, I am glad to accept the role in which he has
cast me, and by proving that his charges are false and malicious to
silence the Senator once and for all — or to show again that his word
is worthless. I ask only that this committee render its verdict in
clear-cut terms, so that the Senator can then be plainly advised that
he has been caught out in his fraud and deceit ; that he has lost his
STATE DEPARTMENT EAIPLOVEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 801
test case; and that he should lienceforth confine liimself to otlier — •
and less ini|>ort;int — activities than those of a destructive critic of
the State Department and a despoiler of character of good American
citizens. The Senator, to use his own term, ''is clearly a bad policy
risk."'
1 have replied to the Senator's own char<ji:es at len<i1h in my state-
ment before this connnittee on April 6. Since that date you have
heard the testimony of two ex-Connnunists, Budenz and Freda Utley,
who were produced by INIcCarthy as witnesses against me. McCarthy
also prochiced a man named Kerley who was supposed to prove that the
disapi)earing witness, Huber, had in fact been an P'BI informant.
On the other side, you have heard the testimony of two ex-Com-
munists, Browder and Bella Dodd, who were called by the committee.
Both of these persons were formerly high officials of the Connnunist
Party. Both denied the existence of any connection whatsoever be-
tween me and the Communist Party or Communist activities.
Senator McMahox. Mr. Chairman. I noticed Dr. Lattimore says
that Browder and Dodd were called by the committee. That was at
the re([uest of your counsel, however, was it not Dr. Lattimore?
Mr. FoRTAS. Xo; it was not, Senator.
Senator T^dixcis. Xo. Browder was called at tlie request of Senator
Hickenlooper, and the otlier witness. Bella Dodd, I believe was sng-
gested by ]\Ir. Fortas.
Mr. P'oRTAS. Xo; that is not so. I produced an affidavit of Bella
Dodd here, and it was the committee's decision to call her. I did join
in Mr. Budenz' request that Fi-ederick Vanderbilt Field be called.
Senator Tydinos. ^Iv. Budenz wanted Browder and Frederick Van-
derbilt Field called, and I think Senator Hickenlooper suggested to
the committee that we do that.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I want to straighten that
out. It gets a little restless to have these insinuations cast out con-
stantly. The facts about the calling of Mr. Browder are these, and
I am going to talk about an executive meeting of the committee right
now.
The facts are that the question of whether or not Mr. Browder
and ]Mr. Field should be called was brought up. Various views were
expressed. Among others I said. "Well, I ])resume we might be
criticized for not attempting to investigate all of the facets of this
thing if those people aren't called. So far as I am concerned, prob-
ably we ought to call them.'' But it was entirely np to the connnittee,
and the connnittee itself agreed that they should be called. I did not
generate the matter; I merel}' ex})ressed my opinion in response to the
suggestions that had been made in open session just as one of the five
members of the committee, and I resent the insinuation that I gener-
ated the calling of any of these individuals other than to express my
o})inion within the executive connnittee meeting.
Senator Tydixos. I think that was how it happened. The Senator
said we would be criticized if we did not call them, at which I made
the observation that I was opposed to calling any Connnunists, that
it was very doubtful in my mind if I could find it in my own conscience
to believe anything they said, but if anybody wanted them called I
w-oidd call them. Because T have been criticized in the press for calling
him, I seize this opportunity to say again that I o])posed the calling
of Connniuiists to testifv in this case.
802 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Go ahead, Doctor.
Dr. Lattimore. The committee has also heard a denial of any con-
nection between me and Communist activities from a person who is
alleoed to be a present member of the party : Frederick Vanclerbilt
Field.
However the committee may feel about relying' upon ex-Communists
such as Browder, Utley, Budenz, and Dodd, it will not, I am sure, dis-
count the evidence of Demaree Bess, or of Brig. Gen. Elliott Thorpe,
who was head of counter-espionage and civil intelligence for General
MacArthur during the war and who, with the assistance of his staff,
made an investigation of me on several occasions. General Thorpe
testified, as you will recall, that he found no indication whatever of
Communist affiliations or influences on my part. On the contrary, he
testified that "I can only say that were I called on to commit my per-
sonal safety and that of my command on information supplied by Dr.
Lattimore, I would do so with confidence that he would always act as a
loyal American citizen."
Now, gentlemen, I of course do not enjoy being vilified by anybody :
even by the motley crew of crackpots, professional informers, hysterics,
and ex-Communists who McCarthy would have you believe represent
sound Americanism. But on the other hand, I do not like to appear
to rely upon the testimony of others to establish my own good charac-
ter. My life and works speak for themselves. Unlike McCarthy I have
never been charged with a violation of the laws of the United States
or of the ethics of my profession. I have never been accused, as Mc-
Carthy has been, of income-tax evasion, of the destruction of records
that were in my official custody, or of improperly using an official posi-
tion for the purpose of advancing my own fortunes, political or
otherwise.
Unlike Budenz and Utley, I have never been a member of the Com-
munist Party, or subscribed to a conspiracy to overthrow and subvert
established governments. Unlike Budenz, I have never been engaged
in a conspiracy to commit murder or espionage.
I have examined the Attorney General's consolidated list of sub-
versive organizations and to the best of my knowledge and belief I have
never been a member of any of them.
I recognize, however, that so long as a reckless and irresponsible
man like Joseph McCarthy is in a position to. abuse the privileges of
the United States Congress, the quality of a man's life and activities,
however impeccable, does not protect him from vile assault. Even our
greatest living American, General Marshall, has been subjected to
McCarthy's vicious, dastardly, and repeated insult.
Accordingly, I am forced to take your time — the time of five im-
portant Members of the United States Senate and of its Foreign
Relations Committee — to analyze and answer in detail the so-called
evidence that this man McCarthy has presented in his effort to blacken
the name of an American citizen in the hope that he will thereby
be able to destroy the confidence of the American people and of the
people of the world in the integrity of our Secretary of State and the
officials in charge of the conduct of our foreign relations.
I shall first deal very briefly with the statements of Kerley, who is
now employed by one of the Hearst ]3apers in New York. Kerley
was merely a stand-in for Huber, McCarthy's man who didn't show.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 803
Despite the fact that Kerley merely stated what Huber supposedly
told him, I want to deal with the alle<j^ation that he repeated. If he
had not disai)])eared after the confei'enee that I am informed that he
had with McCarthy and Kerley, Iluber, if he had been ()l)edient, was
to testify that I attended a meeting of the Committee for a Democratic
Far Eastern Policy in the home of Frederick Vanderbilt Field some
time in 104().
Now. the fact of the matter is that I never joined the Committee
for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy. I was invited to become a
member, but I declined. I hand the connnittee a letterhead of this
organization which shows its board of directors, consultants, iu\d
sponsors. My name, of course, does not appear. I never attended
any meetings of this organization. As a matter of fact, I was not, to
the best of my recollection, in the house of Frederick Vanderbilt
Field at any time during the year of lO-K). My attorneys have com-
numicated with Edith Chamberlain Field, who was Frederick Field's
Avife in 1946. They are now divorced. Mrs. Field states that she is.
not and never has been a member of the Communist Party, and that
she is certain that neither Mrs. Lattimore nor I attended any meet-
ings or any party in the Field house at any time during the year 1946.
So much for that.
Mr. FoRTAS. "We offer the telegram from INIrs. Field for the record.
Senator Tydixgs. It will be inserted in the record as exhibit 82.
Dr. Latti^iore. Now as to Freda Utley.
This witness stated that she had no evidence that I was at any time
a member of the Connnunist Party; she stated that she had no knowl-
edge or information that I was an espionage agent, and said that she
thought that Senator McCarthy was wrong on that point. She ex-
pressed at considerable length her disagreement with my writings
and the positions that I have taken. She stated that my views fol-
lowed the Communist Party line — or, more exactly, as you will recall,
she said that I came near to following the party line.
I shall thereafter discuss the positions that I have taken, and I shall
show that I have not followed the party line. As a matter of fact,
my jDOsition did not come near to following the party line. But, in
any event, eten if we take as gospel the rambling and discursive com-
ments of Freda Utley and her distorted and false interpretation of
my writings, there is nothing that she said or charged which sup-
ports the allegations which have been made against me. Indeed, as
you heard yesterday, an equally strong case can be made that Utle}^
herself for a time followed the Communist line, long after she says
that she ceased to be a Communist, and that she subsequently followed
the Nazi line. I do not make these accusations about Freda Utley,
but her testimony yesterdav before this committee provides dramatic
evidence of the effect — justified or not — that can l)e created by the
selection of ([notations from the writings of a [professional author.
Since ]Miss Utley 's transcript was not available to me in the prepara-
tion of this statement, I ask the permission of the committee to file
my detailed comments at a laloi- time if I should desire to do so after
I read her remarks.
To the extent that any evidence in support of McCarthy's clr.irges
has been submitted, then, it is to be found only in the testimony of
the witness, Budenz. Despite all of the Senator's flourishes, i)romises
804 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
and threats, lie has produced only one witness who has even come within
shouting distance of the Senator's own wild charges.
I come now to the testimony of Lonis Francis Bndenz. I hope that
the members of this committee will find time in their crowded sched-
ules to read this testimony. I also hope that the members of the
press will read it. Disassociated from the fervor of Budenz's fanat-
icism— incidentally, he must have been a very zealous Communist —
the statements that he made unmistakably lead to two conclusions:
First, Budenz did not even pretend to have any factual information
about me or my works; second, the screen of lies behind which he
disguised his lack of information is very thin, indeed.
On pages 5^7 and 528 of the transcript, Budenz said : "I have never
seen any vestigate of Lattimore's Communist Party membership." He
never saw me in any meetings; indeed, he never met me.
He nowhere in the record directly accuses me of being a Communist.
When he was asked the direct question, he slid off into a general dis-
cussion of the different kinds of Communists, but he nowhere states
on his own responsibility that I was or am any 1 of the 57 varieties.
He never saw any vestige of my alleged party membership, yet
with the matchless skill of a veteran Comnmnist Budenz still tries
to give the impression that I was one of his erstwhile conspirators.
He says that he knew "of his official knowledge" that I was a member
of the Connnunity Party subject to party discipline.
When Budenz says on the one hand that he never saw any vestige
of ]ny alleged party membership, and on the other that he knew it
"of liis official knowledge." I sus]iect that he is saying, in his con-
spiratorial gobbledygook. that he knows nothing and recalls nothing,
but is dutifully pursuing his profession of paid informer and unscru-
pulous finger man. I confess that this contradiction is a little bewil-
deriug to me, luit tlien I don't have Budenz's 10 years and more of
self-confessed training in the arts of lying and distortion.
Now let us examine in more detail the specific statements that Budenz
makes.
It is imi)ortant to make it very clear just what it is of which Budenz
accuses me. I am accused of undertaking for the Communist Party
the "general direction of organizing the writers and influencing the
writers in representing the Chinese Communists as agrarian reform-
ers, or as North Dakota nonpartisan leaguers." (Transcript, p. 491.)
In return for this, the Connnunist high connnand gave me the most
iiranzing and wonderful gift : I was given special indulgences so that
I could support programs which were anathema to the party. I was
also accorded the rare privilege of being excoriated in tlie Daily
Worker and other ))ublications of the American Communist group and
in the Soviet Union's organs.
I, Owen Lattimore, was allowed to support the Marshall plan;
I was permitted to participate in raising funds co aid Fiidand ni its
fight against the Soviet Union; I was indulgently allowed to say and
write as I did that the spread of direct Russian (•cmtrol over Asia
would be disastrous; and I was treated to the exquisite pleasure of
being called a "libeler," a servant of Japanese imperialism, a madman,
and a lackey of imperialism. All of these rare l)enefits Avere extended
to me because, according to Budenz, I was busily engaged in the
special and delicate job of organizing and influenc-ing the writer^ to
represent the Chinese Communists as agrarian reformers. But
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 805
Biuleiiz ill his book. This Is My Story, directly contradicts this hypoth-
esis. He says on ])ai>e 234 that a Commiiiiist will never be permitted
to express one word of reservation or criticism of the Soviet Govern-
ment, its leaders or their decisions, and that a Communist must always
a^ree that whatever the Soviet Government or its leaders do or say
is always a hundred percent right.
I feel reasonably sure that if Molotov or Foster or Jack Stachel
did or said one-thousandth part of what I did and said that was
objectionable to the ])arty and the Soviet Union, those officials would
be expelled from the party or, if in Russia, put in concentration
camps, or put to death.
But, accordiufr to Budenz, I was such a tremendous big shot — even
if I was just a fellow who was organizing writers — that I got all
of these special favors, and was excused for a lot of party-line devia-
tions that I shall talk about in a few moments. I submit that this
is an absurd fabrication.
But let us examine Buclenz's testimony more closely. He alleges,
although he seems somewhat tentative about it, that although I receivecl
these special dispensations, I was subject to party discipline. This,
he said, means that I received and carried out orders.
On pages 526 and 527 of the transcript. Senator Lodge attempted
to get Budenz to state "a specific instance when an order or an instruc-
tion was given to me and carried out by me."'
First, Budenz attempted to reply by saying that the discipline to
which I was subjected "were these various assignments and instruc-
tions to which I (Budenz) pointed."' Buden:^ said, "That is what
discijiline means; and also the fuct that reports were made as to his
(Lattimore's) attitude from time to time.'"' — I don't understand how
reports can be considered to be discipline.
In any event. Senator Lodge repeated his question, and Budenz
finally said. "'Well, the order to represent the Chinese Communists as
agrarian reformers was certainly carried out, according to reports
coming to me. It was carried out through the moliilization of writers
in that field. Yes, it was." (Apparently Budenz was getting a little
uncertain here, and he continued as follows:) "But specifically I do
not know because I did not hear the detailed report on the matter."
Then Senator Lodge asked, "Is that the most concrete and specific
illustration there isT"
Mr. Budenz : "That is the most concrete, yes, sir."
Xow. this is so transparent — such a shabby, sordid, and feeble in-
vention that it does no credit to Budenz, the ]:)rofessional informer.
According to this preposterous story, the proof that I was subjet to
Party discipline is that, in absentia, I was given orders to represent
the Chinese Communists as agrarian reformers, and (although Bu-
denz does not laiow this to be a fact) that I did so represent them.
The fact is that the whole story is a plain, unvarnished lie.
First, what is the basis of his statement that I was given these or-
ders? Budenz states that at a meeting in 10?>7 I was commended by
Frederick Vanderbilt Field and Earl Browder for placing Commu-
nist writers in the magazine Pacific Affairs, a publication of the In-
stitute of Pacific Relations of which I was the editor from 1930 to
1941. According to Budenz, "it was agreed'* that I should be given
general direction of organizing the writers and influencing the writers
in representing the Chinese Communists as agrarian reformers.
806 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
When Biidenz was asked by Senator Tydings whether I was present
at the meeting where this occurred, he said, "Oh no, sir, he was not
there." (Transcript, p. 492.)
Now you will recall that Mr. Field has denied that he has ever dis-
cussed nie in the presence of Budenz. But Budenz says Field is a
Communist and that his statements must be disregarded unless they
agree with Budenz's. Then they become gospel. So let us disregard
that. Other unimpeachable evidence shows how nonsensical is Bu-
denz' charge that I organized or influenced writers on behalf of the
Communist Party.
In the first place, the magazine Pacific Affairs never had any writers
on its staff except its editor. I could not have placed writers on its
staff if I had wanted to. In the second place, on pages 504 and 505 of
the transcript, Budenz in response to a question by Mr. Morgan admits
that he has no documentary evidence of my placing Communists on
any publication. He whittles his charge down to an allegation of
documentary evidence in the form of names of Communists who pub-
lished articles in Pacific Affairs; and he whittles that down to a
single name — James S. Allen.
Now, the facts that I know about James S. Allen are that in March
1038 he write an article in Pacific Affairs on agrarian tendencies in
the Philippines. At that time, the international research program of
the Institute of Pacific Relations, agreed to by all the national coun-
cils, included a study of land, population, and food in all the countries
around the Pacific. This jjarticular article was based on statistics
of the Philippine Department of Labor. A big landholding com-
pany in the Philippines disputed some of Allen's figures and his inter-
pretation of the figures, but even this criticism contained no sugges-
tion that he might be a Communist. I myself had no idea whether
he was a Communist.
In June 19o8 he published another article in Pacific Affairs called
the Philippine Problem Enters a New Phase. This article agreed that
America should not abandon the Philippines in the face of Japanese
expansion. It mentioned the complicated moves in Philippine politics
that were then taking place in the shadow of this expansion, among
them Connnunist and united-front symptoms that were typical of the
times, all over Asia, and that would have been noted by any competent
reporter.
Remember, too, that on page 513 of the transcript Budenz specifi-
cally denies that he is charging that I ever personally stated that the
Chinese Communists were agrarian reformers or used any equivalent
term. He explains this by saying that I was "in a special and delicate
position." From his Communist viewpoint, I certainly was. I was
not a Connnunist and was doing my utmost to advise the American
and Chinese people of the danger of communism in China and the
methods of preventing its growth. Budenz, however, at that time
was a Communist, engaged in advancing the cause of communism by
every foul means that entered his mind or that was, in his own lurid
account, required of him by his Soviet chiefs. He was, he says, for
10 long years an important personage in a vile conspiracy to over-
throw the Government of the United States.
I come now to the second situation upon which Budenz relies in
support of his alleged "official knowledge" that I was connected with
the Communist movement. This was a Communist Party meeting in
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 807
]943 which Biulenz says he Jittended. Again, he does not charge that
I was present. Now there is a strange and weird discrepancy in.
Bndenz's testimony about this meeting. In his direct testimony, he
say^ that at this meeting it was —
again officially reported that Mr. Lattimore, through Mr. Field, had received
word from the apparatus tliat there was to be a change of line on Chiang Kai-
shek. (Transcript, p. 41)2.)
Kindly note that I received word of the cliange of line through Mr..
Field, and not vice versa.
The situation had, however, changed markedly in this man Budenz'
mind after he had been subjected to some cross-examination. On page
517 of the transcript, he casuall.y changed his story, although with
rather obvious misgivings. He said :
Mr. Field I'eported, as I understand it, that he had seen Mr. Lattimore * * *
and that Mr. Lattimore had said that the apparatus had reported that there was
a change of attitude toward Chiang Kai-sliek ; that we were going to he more
hostile to Chiang Kai-shek.
Now, both of these stories are lies, at least insofar as they concern
me. In 1943 I was an emploj-ee of the Office of War Information. I
had no connection with the magazine Pacific Affairs. I did not at that
time or at any other time receive word or have knowledge of changes
in the party line from Mr. Field or anybody else. Budenz's statement
is as fantastic as it is malignant. And that is true of both of his
statements — tliat I was the informant of Mr. Field or that Mr. Field
informed me.
Indeed, the fact of the matter is that for many years after the
change in the party line I Avas still vigorously supporting Chiang
Kai-shek. I shall go into this later in my statement. It will suffice
for the moment to say that I have never, in any of my writings,
in an}' speech or in any conversation, criticized the person of General-
issimo Chiang Kai-shek. I was his adviser for about a v^ar and a half.
I enjoyed liis confidence; I adinired him and had for him a great
affection. I have never called him, and shall never call him, a Fascist
or a dictator as Budenz did in the days of his malignant editing of
the Daily Worker.
I have criticized his policies. I have criticized his advisers. In
memoranda and discussions with him and in published works, I have
urged him to change his course. But I have never and shall never
change my view of him as a great man of his time, with all his good
qualities and weaknesses. Late in 1943 after the American Commu-
nists began their vicious, personal assault on him, I said he was a
''world statesman of real genius." In Solution In Asia, published in
1945, I said on page 83, "Chiar.g never became a dictator or a Fascist."'
At about this same time, Chiang was being referred to in the Daily
Worker, of which Budenz was managing editor, as a dictator and a
member of Slianghai's Creen Cang. (Daily Worker, September 12,
1945, September 11, 1945.)
Now, I would like to know, which one of us was carrying out the
party line, Budenz or I? And I would also like to know just how
Budenz squares the actual, trutliful record of my attitude toward
Chiang after I was allegedly instructed to attack him, with the terms
of the alleged directions to me from the Communist Party. Was this
another special exemption? Is Budenz" ''proof"' that I was subject
to the i^arty's order, the fact that I did exactl}' the opposite ?
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 52
808 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Now, gentlemen, you can judge for yourselves. Did Budenz in
1943 really hear a report at a meeting that Mr. Field told me or that
I told Mr. Field that there was to be a change in the party line with
respect to Chiang Kai-shek? Or did Budenz invent this story?
My own vieAv, gentlemen, is that the entire thing is a fabrication, and
that Budenz is either a plain old-fashioned liar or he is a pathological
liar.
I now come to the third incident upon which Mr. Budenz relies as a
basis for his statement that he had official knowledge that I was con-
nected with the Communist machinery. He says that in 1944 Jack
Stachel advised Budenz to consider Owen Lattimore as a Communist.
Budenz said that this meant to him "to treat as authoritative any-
thing that Lattimore would say or advise, because that was our method
of discussing these matters." (Transcript, p. 492.) Now, I have
never known Jack Stachel, and when Budenz mentioned him, his
name meant nothing to me. I have no way of knowing what, if
anything, he said to Budenz.
Mr. Stachel apparently did not say to Budenz that I was one of the
brethren, but Budenz claims that Mr. Stachel conveyed to him the
idea that Budenz — presumably in his job as managing editor of the
Daily Worker — was to consider as authoritative anything that I would
say or advise. Budenz does not say that I at any time ever gave him
any advice as to Daily Worker policy or otherwise. But if Stachel
gave Budenz the alleged instructions to follow my views, Budenz cer-
tainly did not obey instructions because in his obsequious editing of
the Daily Worker under the orders of his Communist superiors he
certainly did not reflect my opinions and attitudes on the Chinese
situation.
If Budenz in 1944 had followed Stachel's instructions to ti'eat as
authoritative anything that I might say, he and the Daily Worker
would have been warned against the spread of communism in China,
as I did. They would have been proposing measures to support dem-
ocratic government in China and to halt the spread of communism
there. They would have advocated, as I did, the creation of condi-
tions under which private capitalism might thrive in the Far East.
I ask Budenz to produce a single statement in the Daily Worker during
the time that he was managing editor which reflected these views of
mine.
Of course, he can't. I have already referred to a few examples of
the Daily Worker's policy under Budenz' editorship and its contrast
with my own position. INIany more can be supplied.
It is perfectly clear that Bndenz did not receive the alleged instruc-
tions from Stachel to treat my statements as authoritative or else he
didn't follow them. But he has testified that he was a good and
zealous member of this band and that while a Communist he always
followed instructions. I believe you will conclude, as I do, that he
never received them and has invented the entire business — either
maliciously and deliberately or because he is a pathological liar who
can conATuiently believe in his own fabrications.
I come now to the two remaining statements by Budenz which com-
plete his case. He says that the initials L or XL appeared on onion-
skin documents circulated by Communist Party officials; that these
initials referred to me; and apparently, that the fact that I was re-
ferred to in these onionskin documents indicates that I was one of the
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 809
bivtliren. Unfoitunately, those onionskin documents were so secret
lliiit they were all put down the di-ain.
Budt'uz does not attcuii)! to lU'scribe tlie context in which I was
iille<iedly mentioned. If theie were [)ai)ers of this sort, 1 wonder if
they ever contained references to Mr. J. Edo;ar Hoover or Congress-
man Martin Dies, and, if so, whether they had code names.
Actuallv. mv auess is that tliis is another Budenz invention. You
liave heard testimony from t\V(j other former hi^h C'onnnunist officials
denyin<2: that the Communist Party ever functioned in this fashion,
and"^ denyin«r that there were any onionskin communications of tlie
sort described.
The final attempt to implicate me in the conspiracy of which Bu-
denz was a part is his statement that it was reported by Jack Stachel
that I had been of assistance to some of the defendants in the Anier-
<asia case. T suppose that Budenz ''recalled"' this tidbit — I really mean
invented it — after he read Senator ]McCarthy"s statement that Mr,
Service and Mr. Roth visited my house prior to their arrest in the
Amerasia case. That has all been covered, with supportina' material,
in my ori<iinal statement. ^lerely for the record, I want to repeat
that I had no connection with the Amerasia case and that this trans-
parent endeavor to smear me by reference to the Amerasia case is
merely another manifestation of the sordid minds that are operating
in this underworld of accusation and innuendo.
Xow I have covered every sinale, specific event or incident that
Budenz has narrated. They are pure moonshine, or rather impure
hogwash. Thev are the product of a twisted and malignant person-
iility. ' •
But apart from the falsity of his specific charges which I have
discussed, in my opinion no honest man would put credence in the
accusations that Budenz has nuide against me, in view of the follow-
ing facts :
1. Since he left the Communist Party in 1945, Budenz has testified
before about a dozen governmental agencies and courts. He lias ac-
cused nniny persons, truthfully or falsely — I do not know. At no time
in all these years did he even mention me.
•2. He has spent many hours with agents of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, informing them of the Communist Party, its members
and instruments. At no time did he mention me. On page 1116 of
the transcript he says that he did not mention me to the FBI until
Avell after these proceedings began — certainly not before last month.
He plaintively but unconvincingly says that he did not have time to
denounce me. But if I am or was a dangerous or sinister character, I
su.ggest that he shoidd not have neglected me. He should at least have
added me to his list. At the very least, he could have said that he
believed that Owen Lattimore was a Communist or reqinred investi-
gation. This would have taken about ?>0 seconds of his time.
I say to 3'ou that his story and aljsurd explanation concerning his
belated accusation is an insult to the intelligence. The plain fact of
the matter, it seems to me, is that Budenz is engaged in a transparent
fraud. "Whenever anybody is consiiicuously accused of Communist
affiliations, Budenz hops on the bandwagon and repeats the charges,
garnished with more or less impressive references to Jack Stachel
and other Communist characters. And I suspect that the reason
810 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
why lie uses, as liis silent witnesses, officials of the Communist Party
is that he believes that they will refuse to testify in rebuttal. I^ut
he f^uards himself even against this contingency by saying that if
they do testify contrary to his own statements, they cannot be be-
lieved. This I respectfully submit is about as ingenious a boobytrap
as has ever been devised.
3. Budenz, you will recall, wrote an article for Colliers magazine
published in March 1949, concerning the Chinese situation. Even
in his original manuscript he merely stated that I was an adherent
of the Chinese agrarian reformer theory — which is not true. Al-
though he denounced various other people, this is as far as he went
with respect to me. But thereaftei', in a conference with the associ-
ate editor of the magazine, he voluntarily struck even this mild ref-
erence. He also stated that he was not saving that I acted as a Com-
munist agent in any way. Remember, this was little more than a year
ago, and remember, that this article was aimed squarely at the im-
portance of China and an alleged Communist influence on our China
policy. Because of the importance of this incident, I quote from the
transcript of this interview as it apj^ears on pages 512 and 51o of the
record, the questions being asked by the associate editor of Colliers
and the answers being by Budenz.
Question. You have done one thing here that I think is not good. By in-
ference you imiilied tliat Joe Barnes and Lattimore are not Comanunists exactly
but are fellow travelers * * *.
Answer (by Budenz). I think pmbably what we ought to do is to leave out
those names entirely. Perhaps we can replu-ase it some way. I said it merely
to show that they would add meat to what I was saying.
Budenz seems to hanker after a high-protein diet.
Question. You're not saying that they acted as Communist agents in any way?
Answer (by Budenz). No.
Question. That ought to be quite clear.
Answer. Oh, yes.
Now, the clear and simple explanation of this incident is that at
the time of this conference, just 1 year ago, it had not occurred even
to this professional denouncer and informer Budenz that there was
any basis whatsoever for accusing me of being a fellow traveler or a
Communist agent. Budenz didn't like what I wrote about China —
although you will note that even 1 year later, at the hearings before
this committee, he said he hadn't read anything that I wrote but
had only recently turned the pages of one of my books.
It is plain that it was not until much later, and I judge not until
after Senator McCarthy made his scandalous charges under the cloak
of senatorial immunity, that Budenz attempted to slander me with
his strange and weird tales about the onionskins and the party
meetings.
Budenz' statement that he was afraid of libel suits is, of course,
silly. If that was his problem why didn't he simply say to the asso-
ciate editor of Collier's, "I will eliminate even the references that I
have in my manuscript to Lattimore because I am afraid of libel
action." I believe that Collier's is also sensitive to libel actions. There
was certainly no reason if it wasn't true for Budenz to say flatly that
he did not charge that I acted as a Communist agent.
The other explanation that tliis incredible person gives is that the
questions and attitude of the associate editor of Collier's were "pecul-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 811
iar.'" His effort, obviously, was a characteristic one of attempting
by innuendo to smear another person. I prefer not to guess just what
Budenz was trying to imply concerning the Colliers editor's motives.
It is sufKcient to let the facts of the interview speak for themselves :
That Budenz did not 1 year ago charge that I was either a fellow
traveler or a Connnunist agent.
4. You will also recall that Budenz now has in the hands of the pub-
lishers a book which has an extensive discussion about China and the
Far East. In this book he does his customary smearing job on a great
many people including Ambassador Jessup and David Lawrence.
But here again, he did not mention me. It was only after the manu-
script was in the hands of the publishers that he inserted a single
reference to me, and that was completely innocuous. I submit that if
Budenz at the time that he Avrote this book, which was presumably
just a few months ago, thought that I was in fact a Soviet operative or
a Communist agent or even a fellow traveler, I would have received at
least honorable mention in this book. But I was not worthy of it.
The simple and inescapable fact must be that Budenz did not know
or think of me as a Communist agent or even a fellow traveler; that
he concocted this entire spider's web of lies only after he heard the
call to colors, sounded by ^fcCarthy or Budenz' old friend, Kohl-
berg, or some of the others of that crew.
Gentlemen. I suggest that there can be no doubt of this. Budenz'
fantastic stories about me are not only an invention; they are a
recent invention. During the 4 or 5 years since he left the Commu-
nist Party, which he has principally occupied in the disgusting sport
of being an informer, he never on any occasion accused or denounced
me as a fellow traveler, a Communist Party member, a person subject
to Communist discipline, or a Soviet agent. His first accusation was
made just a few weeks ago. Prior to this he didn't mention me to
the FBI; he never mentioned me in any of his testimony before in-
numerable connnittees of the House and Senate, in his appearances
before Government agencies ranging from Hawaii to New York, or
in his spectacular performances before grand juries or courts.
This kind of skullduggery would be bad enough if it involved only
one man and one crisis. But now this ]>erson has the consummate
effrontery to say that he is preparing lists of hundreds of persons
from the radio, press, Hollywood, Government, and other walks of
life; and that he will denounce these people, presumably with the same
tind of des])icable charges that he has made against me. Why hasn't
this professional informer named the persons that he accuses long
before this time?
I cannot believe that the American Government or the American
people will ])ermit this man to convert his triving retail business into
a wholesale enteiprise and to continue to abuse the processes and im-
munities of committees of Congress. He should be forced to turn over
the names, spurious or otherwise, of his victims to the FBI where they
may be held in confidence and subjected to the orderly and thorough
processes of that agency.
We cannot allow this man to run wild any longer.
In evaluating Budenz' testimony, I also ask you to take into account
a time-honored test of credibility. I ask jou to consider the personal
history and character of this man.
812 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
For 10 long" years he was a member of what he describes as a revolt-
mg conspiracy to overthrow tlie (irovernment of the United States.
For 10 long years, he received and faithfnlly carried out, he says,
orders from a foreign government, the Soviet Union. For 10 long
years, he was an active and knowing participant in an organization
which, as lie describes it, engaged in every foul device of intimidation
and dishonest3% including personal blackmail and espionage.
As he describes his role, he was neither a dupe nor a visionary.
He knew exactly what he was doing. As a staff member of party
publications and then as managing editor of the Daily Worker, he
fabricated and ])ublished conscious and deliberate lies.
You can read all of this in his book, This is My Story. Only a few
months after he joined the Communist Party, he became convinced, he
writes, that the American Communist Party was under the immediate,
personal control of a Russian state agent. He says, "My American
conscience revolted at the idea" (p. 13()). Nevertheless, for more than
*J years thereafter, he remained a loyal and effective party official.
He has testified under oath that in 1943 on instructions of a Soviet
representative he "established connections which involved espionage
on American military agents." And prior to that little service, ac-
cording to his sworn testimony, he worked for 3 years with the Soviet
Secret Police in connection with an act that he himself states is a
crime under United States' law : Xamely, the assassination of T^eon
Trotsky. (Transcript, In the Mattel' of Reinecke, August 6, 1948,
p. 31.) I have a certified copy of the manuscript here for j'our
examination if you care to see it.
Now, gentlemen, I don't know whether Budenz actually engaged
in these criminal activities or not. There are discrepancies between
his sworn testimony and his writings, and a careful student of this
amazing personality is never sure that he is reading fact or fiction.
I think you are entitled, however, to rely upon his sworn testimony
that as recently as 7 years ago he was engaged in the criminal con-
spiracies against the United States of military espionage and murder.
The history of this man's participation in questionable ventures
did not begin — as it certainly did not end — with his party membership.
Before he joined the party in 1935, he was a radical, left-wing agitator.
He has been arrested 21 times, tried and acquitted 21 times. I assume
that he was not guilty, but he was most certainly remarkably active.
If you are not yet convinced of this man's unsavory character, I
suggest that you read his sworn testimony on cross-examination con-
tained in the official transcript of the deportation proceedings, entitled :
In the Matter of Desideriu Hammer, alias John Santo, Respondent in
Deportation Proceedings, file No. A-6002664,
I do not wish to discuss the matters contained in this transcript,
but I hand a copy to the subcommittee.
Senator Tydings. It will be put in the record as exhibit 83.
Dr. L\TTiMORE. I suggest that the committee should not, in advance
of examining this transcript, make it part of the public record.
Senator Tydings. It will be kept sealed and noted in the record as
an exhibit but not spread in the testimony until the committee can
look into it.
Dr. Lattimore. Beginning at page 143 of the transcript, which is
page ?)(') of the typewritten copv, Budenz admits that even before the
joined the Communist Party, he engaged in certain personal activi-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 813
ties which, to say the least, are offensive to accepted staixhirds of
decent and conventional behavior. Be<iinnino; on pa<ie ITO of the
transcript, which is page 50 of the typewritten copy, Budenz refuses
to respond to a series of questions relating to his personal behavior,
on the grounds that his answers might incriminate him. These ques-
tions, gentlemen, relate to two different alleged relationships; and
they all concern Budenz' activities before he became a member of
the Communist Party.
So nuich for that. This man, however, would have us believe that
aftei- he left th(> l>art3' in 1045, he became a thoroughly different char-
acter; that he l)ecame a paragon of virtue and a peerless exponent of
the ti'uth. Gentlemen. I certainly do not wish to be misunderstood
as expressing disbelief in the ]~)ossibility of miraculous reformation.
But in the case of this man Budenz a bit of caution is indicated. He
was not a .young idealist when he entered the Communist Party. He
M'as a man of 44 years, hardened by years of violent, radical agitation.
He was 54 years old when he left the party, thoroughly indoctrinated
in the devious and implacable techniques that he so vividly describes.
His character, one may reasonably assume, was fully formed and
hardened.
Since that time, he has been engaged in connnercial exploitation of
his own sordid past, methods which, in my opinion, ai'e a menace to our
society. I respectfully draw your attention. Senators, to the fact that
Avhen a nnm like Budenz becomes a renegade from a secret party or
conspiracy such as he has himself described the American Communist
Party to be, he automatically drops an iron curtain behind himself.
From that moment on. he has no new sources of information. His
sources are all in the ynxst.
Xow consider the kind of career that Budenz has been following for
5 years. He has made himself a sensational author and lecturer by
exploiting his own past. But the past is the past, and he must be
haunted by the fact that his tales of skullduggery and conspiracy may
grow stale through sheer repetition. Already there have been new
sensational revelations by Government agents who have successfully
infiltrated the Communist Party, and who have appeared at trials to
give their tevstimony.
The pressure on Budenz is obvious. When a new sensation breaks
out in the press and a man is accused — even if the accusation is false —
•what is the temptation that is dangled before Budenz' eyes? It is the
easiest thing in the world for his own memory to be convenient and
obliging. He can then rush up and say "I remember him too*' — and
thus revive his reputation as the peerless informant.
Whether there are other presures and inducements operating upon
Budenz, I do not know. This alone would be adequate for a man whose
character is so plainly exhibited in his life and works. His basic repre-
sentation, I submit, is comj^letely incredible. That is. that while man-
aging editor of the Daily Worker, he was given from time to time a
list of a thousand names, and that he draws upon a prodigious memory
now, 5 years later, and for the first time i)roduces my name and a great
deal of circumstantial detail.
I have already pointed out that his story is, on its. fact, at variance
with the facts of record about me. You have heard other witnesses
contradict him on specific and general ])arts of his statement. You
814 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
have yourself developed the fact, which I have summarized, that
Budenz never accusecl me, privately or publicly in all of these years
until after my name was sensationally besmirched by McCarthy.
I now wish to add two other bits of evidence to show that Budenz'
testimony is not entitled to credit :
First, Budenz says that he received his list of names as managing
editor of the Daily Worker. I offer for your recoixl an affidavit of
James S. Glaser, obtained by my attorneys. I should like to read the
text of that affidavit into the record.
Mr. FoRTAS. Mr. Chairman, may I read that and give ]Mr. Lattimore
a little rest?
iSenator Tydings. You may.
Mr. FoRTAS (reading) :
United States of America,
District of Columbia, ss:
James S. Glaser, being first duly sworn, deposes and says :
I am presently engaged in newspaper worli in New York City. I am not
a Communist Party member and liave no relationship with the Communist
Party. I was a member of the party until I left it in 1936. From July 1934 to
July 1938 I was managing editor of the Daily Worker. For many months
during that period Louis F. Budenz served under me and received all instruc-
tions from me.
During th.e period July 1934 to July 1936 I was also an ex officio member of tlie
Politburo, top body of the Communist Party in this country.
As the managing editor it was my task to see that the policies of tlie Com-
munist Party were carried out in the news pages and the editorial section of
the paper.
At no time during my tenure was I given names or lists of names by anyone
to bear in mind for purposes outside of the regular routine of getting out the
paper.
Giving instructions to party members, except for newspaper activity, was the
work of other functionaries and at no time a duty of the managing editor.
Finally, as I remember, tlie staff members of the newspaper, including the
managing etlitor, were never required to keep or retain in memoiy any list or
lists of names.
James S. Glaser.
Subscribed and sworn to before me this 25th day of April, 1950.
IMargueeite E. O'Brien,
'Notary Public, District of Columbia.
My commission expires April 14, 19.51.
We offer this document for the record.
Senator Hickkxlooper. Mr. Chainnan, I have no objection to the
offering of this document and the inclusion of it in the record; it
has been read into the record. I call attention to the fact that the
alleged affiant is not here for cross-examination or any investigation
of the declarations that he has made in his affidavit and that, from
an evidentiary standpoint, he is the best witness on the witness stand
of what he knows and what the circumstances are.
Senator Tydings. I think that observation is a reasonable one,
and it will be filed and will be considered in the light of what has
been said here, for whatever it is worth, one way or the other.
Mr. FoRTAs. I shall be glad to give the committee the address of
this gentleman, if it cares to call him.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think his address might well be put into
the record.
Senator Tydings. Put it in the record.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 815
Mr. FoRTAS. I don't have it ^vitll nie, but I have it at the office.
S^'iiator Tydings. Supply it for the record.
Mr. FoRTAS. I shall do that.
Dr. LArriMORE. Second, it is my understanding that Whitaker
Chambers is reputed to have been key Conmiunist Party link with the
State Department. Presumably, if the charges of Budenz and Mc-
Carthy have any basis in fact. Chambers would at least have known
of me. But 1 quote from Chambers' sworn testimony before the House
Un-American Activities Committee on August 3, 1948, page 575 :
Question by Mr. Stripling (investigator for the committee) :
Di> yon know an individual named Owen Lattimore?
Answer (Mr. Chambers). No, I don't.
Now, gentlemen, I know that against this overwhehning evidence
of this man Budenz' complet.> unreliability, is the fact that he has
been used by the Department of Justice as a witness in various cases
involving Communists. I call your attention, however, to several
considerations in this respect. First, I am informed that the Depart-
ment has never used Budenz as a witness in any case except against
Qfpen and known Communist Party members and on the theory, ob-
jectives and operations of the Communist Party.
Second, I am sure that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has used
him, and anj^body else it could find as a source of leads, good or bad^
for further investigation.
Third, I am informed that the Department does not vouch for the
general character or credibility of its witnesses. At the most it
impliedly represents that it believes that they are qualified to testify on
the matters as to which they are questioned. For example, in appro-
priate cases, it calls as Government witnesses, narcotics peddlers,
gangsters, racketeers, confessed murderers, and thugs.
Gentlemen, I trust that this analysis has thoroughly disposed of the
Budenz charges, and also of the scurrilous attacks upon me by Senator
McCarthy. But I hope that you will understand that I want to prove^
once and for all time, that I am and have always been an objective
scholar and writer, devoted only to pursuit of the truth and subject to
no influence or discipline whatever.
It is for this reason that I turn now to the charge that the magazine
Pacific Affairs, which I edited from 1934 to 1941, was a medium for
pro-Communist propaganda.
This charge, gentlemen, is obviously traceable to the same polluted
source, Kohlberg's China lobby, which has attempted to smear me
through McCarthy and now through Budenz. The mouthpiece
changes, but the tune stays the same. As you yourself have seen, Mr.
Chairman, from the document supplied to you by the Institute of
Pacific Kelations,^ these charges are the same as those previously made
by Kohlberg against the IPE, in a vindictive but unsuccessful attempt
to discredit and take control of that organization in 1944 and 1945.
On pages 22 to 29 of that document you will have seen a detailed
examination of the articles alleged to have reflected or paralleled the
Communist Party line in those years. That analysis, which was re-
viewed and endorsed by a group of eminent American scholars and
business leaders, shows conclusively the falsity of the charges. It
^ An Analysis of Mr. Alfred Kohlbersr's Charges Aj?ainst the Institute of Pacific
Relations. American IPR New York, September 1946 (mimeographed).
816 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
shows also the same unscrupulous tricks of quoting passages out of
context that McCarthy has already used so flagrantly against me.
I would like to emphasize that this analysis was not made by me,
now, but was made 5 years ago by officers and trustees of the Amer-
ican IPR. They included Mr. Arthur H. Dean, a partner of Mr.
John Foster Dulles in Sullivan & Cromwell; Mr. William R. Herod,
president of the International General Electric Co.; Mr. Hunting-
ton Gilchrist, of the American Cyanamid Co. ; Prof. Joseph P. Cham-
berlain of Columbia University; Prof. Philip C. Jessup, also of
Columbia University; Mr. Walter Dillingham, a business leader in
Hawaii.
Pacific Affairs, gentlemen, is the quarterly journal published by the
international secretariat of the Institute of Pacific Relations. Since
it is an international journal, it has always tried to present a variety
of authors of different nationality and different points of view. Be-
lieving as I do in freedom of expression, I never chose authors on
the basis of their political views or affiliations but solely on the basis
of their professional competence. The many articles which arrived
unsolicited were considered on the basis of their content, often with
advice or comments from my colleagues or qualified outside experts.
I make no apology for the fact that under my editorship the maga-
zine carried a few contributions by writers who were then or subse-
quently regarded as leftist. A writer like Anna Louise Strong, for
example, who wrote an article in the June 1041 issue, was able to
present important, first-hand impressions of the Chinese Commu-
nist areas when few other outsiders had ever seen them. Her books,
and others by Avriters like her, have been published by reputable
publishing houses for years and widely reviewed and discussed. Mrs.
Strong has since then been expelled from the Soviet Union; I have
always believed that it was one of the strengths of our American sys-
tem that we do not — in spite of Senator McCarthy — operate that way
in the United States.
Pacific Affairs never promoted either Chinese or Russian com-
munism. It never called Chinese Communists agarian reformers.
Onl}^ one article in the history of the magazine ever used a phrase
even resembling this — "agarian democracy" was the phrase in ques-
tion. And an iutroductory note to this article, which was a transla-
tion from the Chinese, made it clear to the reader that the material
represented a Chinese Communist point of view.
F. V. Field had two articles in Pacific Affairs during my editor-
ship; neither of them was Communist in character. In one article,
published in 19o6, he mentioned Soviet progress in Siberia, but this
did not look like propaganda at the time when similar and more ex-
travao-ant comment was appearing in the most reputable, commer-
cial American magazines. Moreover, at that time I had seen no
evidence attributing either Communist beliefs or support to Field.
I am now told that he was then an active supporter and financial
backer of Norman Thomas.
May I remind you that throughout this period there was nothing
reprehensible or even unusuiil about the occasional publication of
significant left-wing views or the analysis of left-wing movements in
far-eastern counti'ies? Such views ;ind analvses apj^eared in all
the leading journals of the United States and the wliole western
world. In those days, before Kohlberg, McCarthy, and Budenz under-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 817
took to revise the American tradition of free inquiry and free speech,
nobody dreamed of accusing an editor or publisher of being a Rus-
sian spy because sucli views were printed.
Budenz has publicly mentioned the names of only two alleged Com-
nnniists who wrote for Pacific Affairs under my editorship, James S.
Allen and Frederick V. Field. These men wrote articles which were
published 12 and 13 j^ears ago. At the time that I accepted their
articles, however, I had no reason whatever to believe either of them
to be a Communist.
In addition. Senator McCarthy has insinuated that four people who
wrote for Pacific Affairs are spreaders of the Communist line — T. A.
Bisson, Haldore Hanson, Nym Wales, and Edgar Snow. At the time
they wrote for me I had no reason whatever to believe any of these
four was a Connnnnist, and I have no evidence that any of them is
a Connnnnist now. These six people pul)lished a total of 9 articles
in Pacific Affairs between 1934 and June 1941, or less than 21/2 percent
of the total of 250 articles published. But Pacific Affairs was not the
only well-established and reputable periodical to which they con-
tributed, nor the one to which they contributed most frequently. In
the same period they, these six people, published 156 articles in other
reputable, non-Communist periodicals, including Annals of the
American Academy, Asia, China Weekly Review, Christian Century
Current History, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy Reports, Fortune
the Nation, Reader's Digest, Review of Reviews, the Saturday Evening
Post, and T)-avel.
The press reports that Budenz in executive session gave the com-
mittee names of others who, he charged, were Communists or pro-
Communists and who wrote for Pacific Affairs during my editorship.
I do not know who these persons are, but I submit for the record a list
of all contributors to the magazine.
That is. for the magazine during the period of my editorship.
Senator Tvdixgs. It may be filed as exhibit 84.
Dr. LATniviORE. And in the same period we published at least 94
conlribulions out of the 250 that were definitely to the right of center.
Anonor onr right-wing or nnti-Russinn contributors were Sir Charles
Bell, British authority on Tibet and Mongolia ; L. E. Hubbard,, a Bank
oi iMiglaiul ec(jnoniiSt sp^'cializ ng on Russia; ^^rof. Rol)pi-t ,).
Kei'uer, of the University of California; Nicholas Roosevelt; Eliza-
beth Boody Schumpeter, who was against a tough policy toward
Japan; Arnold J. Toynbee; F. W. Eggleston, later Australian Minis-
ter to China ; G. E. Plubbard, right-w^ing British authority on China ;
William Henry Chamberlin, and a strcmg representation of Kuomin-
tang writers.
I expect that during the same period, hardly any serious and ob-
jective magazine devoted to analysis of political ]n-oblpms could show
a fairer or more representative sample of current thinking.
This, then, is the record of Pacific Affairs, while I was its editor. If
I had really accepted the humiliating assigmnent of causing that pub-
lication to reflect the views of the Connnnnist Party or of any other
group or faction, I was certainly a dismal failure. Clearly, the party
comrades should not have taken it l3nng down.
But there is another test, and probably a more persuasive one. That
is the test of my own writings. These show, beyond doubt, that I fol-
lowed no line but that of my own intelligence. The detailed proof is
818 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
too voluminous to recount, but I hope you will bear with me while I
recite a few highlights.
In his charges from the Senate floor Senator McCarth}^, that pro-
found political scientist, said that the Communist line from 1935 to
1939 was pro-Chiang Kai-shek. But during that same time, I was
critical of the Nationalist Government whenever and wherever I
thought they were wrong.
In 1935 and 1936 I wrote a number of articles on Mongol affairs
that were critical of the Chinese policy under Chiang Kai-shek. In
the August issue of Tien Hsia, a Chinese magazine, I wrote that the
Chinese ought to have a Mongol policy that would convince the Mon-
gols that "association with China can be made more advantageous
for the Mongols themselves than association w4th either Japan or the
Soviet Union." This and other articles caused the Russians to accuse
me of favoring Japanese imperialism.
In 1936, in Moscow, I disagreed with the Russian experts on the
whole question of ISIongolia. In Pacific Affairs, June 1937, 1 criticized
two Russian articles on politics in Inner Mongolia, one of them by
Voitinsky, a top Russian writer on the Far East. Voitinsky called Te
Wang, tiie Inner Mongolian nationalist, a "reactionary." I praised
Te Wang, a close friend of mine, for attempting "a democratic coali-
tion of Mongol nationalists."
The Russians thought well of a Kuomintang general named Fu
Tso-yi. I criticized him severely. Ten years later this general whom
the Russians praised made a deal with the Chinese Communists; while
my friend, Te Wang, is listed by the Chinese Communists as a war
criminal.
In these years the Communists, of course, hoped that the Japanese
assault upon China would strengthen the Chinese Communists. I, on
the other hand, kept demanding a tougher American policy toward
Japan and kept warning people that unchecked Japanese aggression
was building up Connnunism. In Amerasia, December 1939, 1 wrote :
Backing Japan today * * * ^^n only mean Bolshevism in Asia.
From 1939, after the Hitler-Stalin pact, according to Senator Mc-
Carthy, the Communists turned anti-Chiang until after Hitler invaded
Russia in June 1941.
In 1939 I published very little, because I was finishing a book called
Inner Asian Frontiers of China — a book that was later translated into
Chinese in Chungking, but has never been translated in any Com-
munist country that I ever heard of. In the winter of 1939—40, after
Russia's invasion of Finland, I was a member of the local Baltimore
committee for aid to Finland.
In 1940, the Communists wanted American policy to parallel that
of Russia. I wrote, in Amerasia, August 1940, that we would not get
anywher(
by trying to decide whether we should have a policy "parallel" with Britain or
"parallel" with Russia. Wh.it America must decide is wliether to hack a Japan
that is hound to lose, or a Cliina that is bound to win.
On September 30, 1940, I wrote in a personal letter to Admiral
Harry E. Yarnell
Senator Tydtngs. You might identify Admiral Yarnell. As I
recall, he was then in charge of the Asiatic Squadron of the United
States Navy — or was he?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 819
Dr. LATTnroRE. T \\vM aot to know Adniirnl Yaniell, Senatoi-, when
he was in a Navv post in Hawaii. After that he was Connnander of
the China Stjuadron. We knew each other for a good many years
and whenever we met we exchanged opinions. At the time that I
wrote this letter he liad recently retired from active service.
Senator Tydixos. All right.
Senator McMaiiox. Is he alive?
Dr. Lattimore. I am not sure, sir.
Senator Tydixos. I think he is. T am not snre. I am pretty certain
he is.
Dr. Lattimore (reading) :
I do not think it is practical iwlitics to negotiate witli the Russians about
their ideas and our ideas of the future of the Far East. There is too little in
common between the two nations on such elementary things as the meaning
of words.
This, let me point out, Avas a long time before other people began to
refer to the difference in the meaning of words between us and the
Russians.
In the spring issue of Virginia Quarterly Review, 1940, 1 urged that
American policy should give the government of Chiang Kai-shek the
kind of support that —
would give the Chinese Regular Arnty and the Kuoniintang the degree of lielp
they need to maintain tlieir ascendancy under Chiang Kai-shek —
and
guarantee that the Chinese Communists remain in a secondary position, because
it would strengthen those Chinese who are opposed to Communism.
In June 1041, just before the German attack on Russia, whai Com-
munist hostility to Britain was most violent, I praised the British
for their recovery after Dunkirk, and "a morale * * * ^yi^id^ gi^.
abled the people to face courageously a still dark future."
The next significant date is the year 1943, when Senator McCarthy
specifically accuses me of following a switch in the Communist line,
attacking Chiang Kai-shek. The truth is once more the exact opposite.
In that very year I published America and Asia, in w^hich I referred
to Chiang Kai-shek as "a world statesman of real genius,"' adding that
"throughout an already long political career he has grown steadily
greater and greater."
It Avas also in 1943 that my wife and I Avrote the Making of Modern
China, in which we summarized Kuoniintang history in a way that
did not please the Communists.
This book was republished in 1947, under the title China, A Short
History. In spite of this opportunity to change our minds and tag
along after the Communists, my wife and I included the same com-
ments.
Russian reviewers of the book were scathing. One called Chiang
Kai-shek and his followers "a clique of traitors,'' and abused us on
accoinit of our sympathy toward them. This reviewer called me per-
sonally a "libeller of the Chinese Communist Party." Another ac-
cused us of trying "to prove that the Kuoniintang" regime is a pre-
paratory stage preparing the future development of democracy, and
that its dictatorship thereby differs from a Fascist dictatorship.'''
There is one more test, on China policy.
820 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator.TyDiXGS. Doctor, I will say, while you pause there, for the
information of the committe, it appears that you may finish this state-
ment at our morninor session.
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. I will therefore ask you if you want to come back
at 2 :30 for cross-examination ; and, if we finish the cross-examination,
we have already scheduled an executive meeting this afternoon.
I say that for the information of the press and also for the com-
mittee members.
Go ahead, sir.
Dr. Lattimore. The Communists attacked General Marshall's mis-
sion in China just as Kohlberg and McCarthy are now doing. The
Communists accused him of double-dealing. In April 1946, while
General Marshall w^as still in China, I wrote in a syndicated news-
paper article, "His policy can be unreservedly described as in the
American interest as well as in the Chinese interest." Over Town
Meeting of the Air, on the first anniversary of General MarshalVs
famous report on China, January 6, 1048, I broadcast the opinion
that General Marshall's mission was his '"first brilliant success as a
diplomat."
Senator Tydings. For those that would like to leave the room, we
will take a minute's recess. If you want to leave the room, please do
so now. If you wish to leave the room, please move rapidly. The
committee desires to go ahead with the testimony.
All right. Doctor, go ahead.
Dr. Lattimore. Over Town Meeting of the Air, on the first anni-
versary of General Marshall's famous report on China, January 6,
1948, lV3roadcast the opinion that General Marshall's mission was his
"first brilliant success as a diplomat." An American Marxist publi-
cation. Science and Society, criticized my wife and me for "giving
General Marshall's famous and ill-fated mission a marshmallow
treatment."
The truth is, gentlemen, that the Comnuinist line has zigzagged all
over the map, while I have held what I believe to be a steady course
of my own, changing emphasis and direction only as the facts and
situations altered.
In some of its twists and turns, the Communist line at times coin-
cided with the course I was following, just as for a time it coincided
with the program of the American and British Governments in the
war against Hitler. This does nothing to prove that the American
and British Governments, or T as an individual, were Communists.
It proves only that at times the Communists, for their own reasons,
followed the same course that we did.
There is one additional point that I want to stress. I should like
to make it clear beyond any doubt that I did believe for a lono- time —
longer than the facts justified, I am afraid=-in the ability of Chiang
Kai-shek to stop the advance of communism by instituting a few,
necessary reforms. I clung to my faith in Chiang's ability to free
himself and to revitalize the Nationalist Party until 1946, when I began
to support General Marshall's policy of salvaging as much as could be
salvaged of the Nationalist l*arty and the generalissimo's personal
position. General Marshall recognized the futility of this hope before
I did; and finally, in 1947, I followed General Marshall in accepting
the fact that the Kuomintang was beyond salvage.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 821
Perhaps, witli my Ion*! years of specialized study, I shotdd liave been
ahead of General Marshall in seeing the shaj)e of things to come. Per-
haps I should have foreseen that the corruption and decay of the
Nationalist Party were so far advanced by 194() that it was useless
to write and hope for its salvation. I can explain this lack of foresight
only because I had not spent any substantial time in China since 194-1;
and because, not being consulted by the State Department. I had no
access to the intelligence on which the Department was basing its
jiolicy.
But, certainly, my error was in exactly the opposite direction from
the Communist position. As you know, during this period the Com-
numists were howling for Chiang's blood. I, however, was striving in
every way that I could to advocate support for him as long as there
was the faintest hope that his failing touch on the political pulse of
China would enable him to build a political following.
I liave already briefly traced the history of my position. Let me
now quickly comment upon some aspects of my relations with the
Generalissimo which are not covered by my published writings.
China was invaded by Japan in 1937. During that war I supported
the generalissimo's efforts to hold together the coalition with the
Chinese Connnunists in the war against Japan. I also agreed with
liim that the great problem with the Connnunists was their alien
loyalty. I urged him to solve this problem by drawing over to his side
a wider coalition than the Connnunists could assemble.
In July 1941, as I have testified, I became the Generalissimo's politi-
cal adviser. He suggested to President Roosevelt the idea of a British-
Soviet-Chinese alliance, to improve China's position during the war
and safeguard China's interests after the war. He asked me to draft
a memorandum on the possibility of recovering Chinese sovereignty
over Outer Mongolia. To make this point quite clear, I should add
that even in 19-11 most people believed that Outer Mongolia had passed
permanently under Russian control ; but I, as can be documented from
my books, still believed that it was possible to bring Outer Mongolia
back into union with China.
In my memorandum to the Generalissimo, I included a recommenda-
tion to take-care of the danger that, after detaching Outer Mongolia
from its Russian connection, the Chinese Communists might make a
bid for influence among the Mongols. The passage reads as follows :
It is recommended that China immediately adopt political methods that will
decrease the present Communist influence in Outer Mongolia, and prevent the
Chinese Communists from replacing the Russians as a source of Conununist ideas
and influence in Outer Moneolia.
Senator McMahox. Are you going to give us the Avhole thing?
Dr. La'itimore. If you wish it. Senator; I can submit the entire
memo. I would personally prefer not to do so, because this is something
that can l^e regarded as part of the state papers of another country.
I have nevei- yet i)ublished any of them in full. I do intend to turn over
all such documents eventually to the Roosevelt Library. But they are
not documents of this Government.
Senator ^NIcMaiiox. I think. Dr. Lattimore, that you should sub-
mit the whole document. And the committee will have in mind,
I should think. Mr. Chairman, what the witness says about it and
the necessity for treating it with discretion.
822 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. The chairman makes the request that the docu-
ment be handed to the Chair. Its contents will not be disclosed, if you
let us have it, beyond the committee members, and it will be returned
to you. You might keep it so it won't get mixed up with the exhibits
and hand it to me personally afterward.
Dr. Lattimore. Yes.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do I understand correctly. Dr. Lattimore,
that you were at that time adviser to Chiang Kai-shek ^
Dr. Lattimore, That is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. You were adviser to Cliiang Kai-shek as
the result of appointment of Mr. Koosevelt, President of the United
States?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir. Chiang Kai-shek asked President Roose-
evelt to recommend someone to act as his adviser.
Senator Hickenlooper. And it was in pursuance of that request
that
Dr. Lattimore. Following tliat i-equest, my name was submitted
Seiuitor Hickexlooper. By the President 'i
Dr. Lattimore. By the President.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did you receive any compensation or ex-
penses, or any other pay or reward from the American Governmenl,
during that period of time, at all?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir; none wliatever.
Senator Hickexlooper. You were paid entirely by the Chinese
Government ?
Dr. Laitimore. Paid entirely by the Chinese Government.
Senator Hickexlooper. I merely wanted to determine if you were,
as a matter of fact, responsible to this Government in connection with
this matter.
Dr. Lattimore. No; I was not responsible to this Government in
any vi'ay.
Senator Tydixgs. We will treat the paper as a private paper and
will not broadcast it.
Senator INIcMahox. I might say that I am so interested in this
exhibit that I think it is very important, Mr. Chairman, that we do
examine the whole thing, and that is the basis of my request for it.
Senator Tydixgs. All right. Senator. I am pretty sure we will get
the paper, and keep it in private, and the committee will have access
to it.
Go ahead, Doctor.
Dr. Lattimore, But let me move on to 1943 when, according to
McCarthy, the Communists and I had turned against Chiang Kai-
shek. I was then an official of the Office of War Information. That
was the year I published America and Asia, which I have already
mentioned, in which I called Chiang Kai-shek "a world statesman
of real genius."
At the very end of this year 1943 — I had resigned as Chiang's
adviser at the end of 1942 — I was notified by Mr. K'ung Ling-kai,
the nephew of Madame Chiang Kai-shek, that the Generalissimo and
Madame would like to make me a present of $5,000. I ask permission
now to file the correspondence for the record.
Senator Tydixgs. You may insert it in the record at this point.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISTS'ESTIGATION 823
December 28, 1943.
Mr. OwKN Lattimore,
Oflicc of ^y(ll• Information, San Francisco, Calif.
Dear Mm. Latti.mouk: I have just r«H'oived a message from Chnngkins? asking
me to send to you the sum of $r),noi> from the Generalissimo and Rladaine, and
therefore write to inquire in what form would you wish me to send the funds
to you.
With best regards,
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) K'ttng Ling-Kai.
(Typed) L. K. K'ung.
January 17, 1944.
Mr. LING-KAI K'tTNG
32 Bates Street, Cambridge, Mass.
Dear Mr. K'ung : Your yetter of December 28th has just been forwarded to
me from San Francisco. I am very nuich touched by the thoughtfulness of the
Generalissimo and Madame Chiang, and I hope you will convey to them my
appreciation and gratitude.
However. I find that it is impossible for me to accept this generosity, for the
reason that since returning from China I have been working not only in a
Government office but an office which is directly under the jurisdiction of the
executive branch, and, therefore, of the President. This makes it imperative
that in my personal relationship with the Generalissimo there should be no
suggestion' of benefits received. I am also going to send a personal letter of
thanks to the Generalissimo.
With cordial good wi-shes for the new year.
Yours very sincerely,
Owen Lattimore,
Director of Paeific Overations.
January 17, 1944.
Mr. Owen Lattimore,
Director, Office of War hiformation,
San Francisco, Calif.
Dear Mn. Lattimore : On December 28, 1943. I wrote you a letter informing you
of a remittance of $.5,000 from the Generalissimo and Madame and inquiring in
what form you would wish ine to send the funds to you.
I trust the letter has duly reached you and hope to receive a reply at your
early convenience.
With best regards.
Yours sincerely,
K'ung Ling-Kai.
January 17, 1944.
Via diplomatic air pouch.
His Excellency Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek,
Chungking, China.
Dear Generaussimo : Yesterday I was very much moved by the receipt of a
New Year message in the form of a gift from you and Madame Chiang, through
Mr. K'ung Ling-kai. (Mr. K'ung's letter was a little late in reaching me, because
it had been sent to San Francisco, and had to be returned to me here in Wash-
ington.)
That you and Madame Chiang should remember me in this way affects me
profoundly. Your thoughtfulness confirms my own feeling that though I have
returned to America and am no longer in your .service in an official or formal
sense, yet a lasting association has been established through my period of service
in China. It recalls to me the cordial way in which you urged me, when I left
China, not to regard myself as having resigned, but as being on leave, or even
on a kind of lend-lease to the President's service. The possibility that I might
some day be able to return to your service and the service of China is a hope
that I warmly cherish.
68970—50 — pt. 1 53
824 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
However, on carefully considering all the circumstances. I have decided to ask
Mr. K'ung not to deliver your gift to me. The governing consideration is that,
while I hold an official American appointment. I ought not to accept even an en-
tirely personal favor of this kind, even from one so highly placed as yourself in
shaping the history of the world. Thei-e is also a special circumstance which
reinforces my decision : namely, that the Government appointment which I hold
is under the jurisdiction of the executive branch and therefore of the President
himself. On consultation at the White House I am informed that my request to
you to allow me not to accept your gift is approved.
With warm and loyal wishes for victory in this year, and for the health and
well-being of yourself and Madame Chiang,
Sincerely as always,
Owen Lattimore,
Director of Pacific Operations.
Dr. Lattimore. I do not know just what Mr. Kung's motive may
have been in presenting this gift, but I doubt very much that it in-
dicated that the Nationalist Government, which shoukl have known
my views, believed that I was a Communist agent. On the other
hand, perhaps I missed a chance of getting in on the ground floor of
the China lobby. The fact is that, being devoted to the Generalis-
simo, it seemed to me possible to decline the gift since I was an Amer-
ican Government servant who could not properly receive such a gift.
I did decline it, as the correspondence shows.
Senator Green. You say you were a Government servant at the
time ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. In what capacity?
Dr. Lattimore. I was Director of Pacific Operations for the Office
of War Information.
Senator Ttdings. What year was that?
Dr. Lattimore. That was at the very end of 1943.
Senator Ttdings. Go ahead.
Dr. Lattimore. Now, gentlemen, I realize that it might be possible
to select passages from the writings of a man who is the author of
II books and more than a hundred magazine and newspaper articles,
to prove almost anything. I also know that it is not possible for you
to read all of my writings — I'd hate to undertake it myself.
Senator Hickenlcoper. Mr. Chairman, about the proposed gift of
$5,000, at the time Dr. Lattimore was an official of the Government,
isn't it true that it is illegal for an employee of the American Gov-
ernment under such circumstances to accept gifts from foreign gov-
ernments without consent ?
Senator Tydings. I don't know if it was from a foreign govern-
ment. Dr. Lattimore will have to say whether it was the Government
of China or a personal gift from someone in the Government of China.
Dr. Lattimore. It was re])resented to me, Senator, as a personal gift
from the Generalissimo and Madam. I may say that I never got as
far as considering the legal aspects of the question because the first
thing that occurred to me was that it was simply unbecoming and I
therefore took the steps that I did take.
Senator Ttdings. Whether it came from a government or an in-
dividual, you didn't get the money?
Dr. Lattimore. I did not, sir.
Senator Ttdings. All right; go ahead.
Dr. Lattimore. I think that the best judges of my position, how-
ever, are the people who have read my books and articles. I have not
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 825
the slightest desire to prove innocence by association, which I regard
as about as fallacious as trying to prove guilt by association. But I
want to submit to you the opinion of American scholars and experts
who are familiar with my work and with the problems of China and
the Far East to which my work relates. These people, I suggest, are
best qualified to appraise my views and to testify as to their inde-
pendence.
In the mass of mail that has come to me since McCarthy's first attack,
there are about 170 letters from people who have a professional knowl-
edge of my writings and work and of the Far East. The writers of
these letters include almost everyone who has a reputation as a scholar
or writer on the Far East.
Some of these people completely disagree with my analysis and
conclusions; some partially disagree with me. But all of them unite
in the conclusion that there is nothing in my writings which indicates
in any manner that I am subversive or a Communist agent or fellow
traveler, or that anything that I have written provides a basis for
questioning my integrity or loyalty.
I have these letters here and will be delighted if the committee
will arrange to have them examined. I also have a list of signers
of these letters which I offer for the record.
Senator Tydixc.s. "We will take the list of signers for the record as
exhibit 85, and unless the committee desires them later we will let
that phase of the matter rest in abeyance.
Dr. Lattimore. Perhaps a few quotations from some of these letters
will be of interest. A letter from 48 teachers and scholars concerned
with Asiatic studies attests my "personal integrity as a scholar" and
my "loyalty as an American citizen.'' Fifteen social scientists, in-
cluding Quincy Wright, professor of international law at the Univer-
sity of Chicago, wired to several Senators to the same general effect.
You may find of particular interest a letter from Paul Linebarger,
professor of Asiatic politics in the School of Advanced International
Studies here in "Washington, D. C. Professor Linebarger has opposed
my view for many years. He writes :
There is a' case against Lattimore's views. I have tried to malve it as a
Federal employee, as a G-2 officer in Stilwell's headquarters, as a Joint Chiefs
of Staff liaison officer to the OWI, and as a postwar private scholar. But the
case is one which can be made honestly ajrainst the views. To make it a charge
against the man reduces our republican and democratic processes to absurdity.
And he adds :
If Lattiraore is a "master spy," the Saturday Evenin.? Post is a voice of
Moscow, General Marshall a traitor, and Elmer Davis a rascal.
Edward A. "Weeks, the distinguished editor of the Atlantic Monthly,
for whom I have written many articles; Pearl Buck, who has written
many books about China ; Prof. Nathaniel Peffer of Columbia Univer-
sity ; Prof. Donald McKay of Harvard ; H. H. Fisher, chairman of the
Hoover Institute and Library; and more than a hundred other spe-
cialists characterize the McCarthy charges as ridiculous and baseless.
These people know what I have written and said. They know my
published works and my views as expressed in discussions with other
experts working in the same field. It would be insulting even to
compare the quality of their judgment with that of McCarthy or
Budenz, who are brazenly illiterate in the field Avhere they presume
to judge.
826 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION
James P. Warburg, the internationally known banker and author ;
Robert E. Sherwood; Brig. Gen. Elliott R. Thorpe, retired; Elmer
Davis, are all men with whom I have worked and who are familiar
with my views and activities. All of these rebut and refute the insane
charges against my loyalty and independence. Will you, gentlemen,
seriously consider the uninformed, reckless, mad denunciations of
McCarthy and Budenz against the informed conclusions of citizens
like these?
It is, of course, highly distasteful to me to call anyone to witness to
my integrity and loyalty. My life and works should be, and I believe
are, sufficient evidence of these qualities. It is particularly distasteful
to invoke the names and judgments of these ITO distinguished scholars
and experts. But as I read their letters, I realize even more keenly
than before that my obligation is to do everything that I can, by the
emphatic and conclusive refutation of these charges, to establish, be-
yond question, beyond dispute, and beyond further challenge, the
right of American scholars and authors to think, talk, and write freely
and honestly, without the paralyzing fear of the kind of attack to
which I have been subjected. [Applause.]
Senator Tydings. No demonstration, please.
Dr. Lattimore. I do not want to exaggerate the importance of my
own role or of my own situation here. But as I read the letters that
have come to me and as I talk with my colleagues, I cannot fail to note
their great apprehension concerning the peril to free research and
scholarship which this vicious political, and fanatical attack represents.
I want to read to you an excerpt from only one of the many letters
that reflect this fear. This is from Dr. Adda B. Bozeman, professor
of international relations and comparative law at Sarah Lawrence
College. I quote from a letter that she wrote to Senator Tydings, a
copy of which she sent to me :
Ever since your committee began its hearings on Senator McCarthy's charges
regarding Prof. Owen Lattimore I have had dithcnlties going about the ordinary
business of living and teacliing.
As a college teacher who began her career 10 years ago with considerable
enthusiasm, I now spend most of my energy fighting frustration and futility in
the face of the deli))erate attack on all values of research and all honest proc-
esses of forming one's opinions which is certainly implicit in the treatment
up to now accorded to Dr. Lattimore. There seems, indeed, little use in one's
efforts to uphold and develop among students standards of integrity and in-
dependence, if a man known for learning and intellectual integrity like Mr.
Lattimore can be subjected to the ignominious ])rocedures involved in this case,
while a man known for blind bias like Mr. KoliUierg can dictate to a United
States Senator from Wisconsin what to say and what not to say and while
ex-Communists known for false testimony in tlie past are expected to give de-
cisive testimony to truth. After several weeks of fruitless reflections about
this case and its alarming implications for freedom and security throughout the
United States, I have decided to take the liberty of writing to you.
I liave not the honor of being included among Dr. Lattimore's personal friends.
This letter is, therefore, not really motivated by feelings of personal concern for
Dr. Lattimore. I have, however, read most of his books and many of his
articles. Although I am not an expert in far eastern affairs, I am sufBciently
well informed and critically inclined to say that I have at no time and nowhere
iound a trace of pro-Communist or anti-American orientation.
Gentlemen, you cannot, you must not, permit a psychology of fear
to paralyze the scholars and writers of this Nation. In a remarkable
letter to me, the great Prof. Zechariah Chafee, of Harvard — an expert
on this sort of suppression of freedom — speaks of this McCarthy attack
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 827
as a "barbarian invasion." It is just tliat ; and it is at least as un-
American as the evil to which it is so ineptly addressed.
Tlie dan<ier of suppressing- freedom of scholarship and opinion is,
of course, not merely a threat to the scholars. It is a direct and im-
mediate danii-er to the national interest. Attacks of tliis sort which
have the effect of intimidatino; scholars and researchers are bound
to affect the quality of tlieir work, to circumscribe their sources of
information, and to inhibit the freedom with which they state their
facts and conclusions. Particularly is this a calamity with respect to
the Far East, where our knowledge is pitifully inadequate and our
qualified experts woefully few in number.
You may remember that General Thorpe, a practical soldier, made
the same point. I should like to quote from his testimony. In re-
sponse to a question. General Thorpe said :
Sir, I came liere because I am concerned as an intelligence officer about a person.
I am trreatly concerned about cutting off our sources of supply. I have stated
my belief in regard to Dr. Lattimore, and no one else, and I am concerned that
pepole wlio handle Communist documents, people who are seen with them, if they
are goin gto be accused of communism when they in my opinion are not, it is
going to cut off what little bit we have left in the way of information.
I shall return to that point a little later.
Senators, I believe that I have dealt with all of the so-called evidence
that has been presented in this unprincipled attack upon me. In his
press conference on March 22, McCarthy said about my case :
I am willing to stand or fall on this one. If I am shown to be wrong on this
I think the subcommittee would be justified in not taking my other cases too
seriously. If they find I am 100 percent right — as they will — it should convince
them of the seriousness of the situation.
Now, o;entlemen, I think you have many independent reasons for
not takiufT seriously McCarthy's charges in'his other cases. I have no
first-hand knowledge of the State Department personnel, but I am now
something of an expert on McCarthy, Kohlberg, Budenz, and their
associates.
I know that there are people who have been so misled by the spurious
sensationalism of Joe McCarthy that they will not be satisfied unless
you produce at least one victim." But I say to you, as a free and inde-
pendent American citizen, that you have an obligation to yourselyeSy
your high office, and your Nation wdiich I believe is historic and im-
portant> It is, of course, your obligation to clear the individuals who
have been unjustly slandered by this man McCarthy. Your task,
however, does not cease w4th the vindication of the individual victims
of McCarthy ; your task will not terminate even by giving a clean bill
of healtli to the State Department personnel if they deserve it, as I
hope and believe they do.
1 suggest — and I am sure that intelligent Americans will join with
me — that it is your solemn duty to point out, in clear and unambiguous
terms, that the processes of the Senate of the United States have been
debased by tliis man McCarthy ; that he has been contemptuous of this
committee; that he has lied, distorted, and vilified: that he has im-
properly received and used classified information; that he has made
promises which he has not fulfilled ; that he has used discreditable and
disreputable sources of false information; that he has disgraced his
party and the people of his State and Nation ; and that he has griev-
ously prejudiced the interests of our country.
828 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I siio-gest that it is your solemn obligation to warn such professional
character assassins that they will not be permitted to run riot or to
S23read publicly their venom. Those who sponsor these underworld
characters who have emerged from a life of violence and conspiracy
can do and are doing great damage to our Nation. They do not reflect
the great American traditions of freedom, decency, and faith in one's
fellow man. They are unwilling to seek to gain their purposes by the
democratic and honorable methods of open debate. To gain their
ends — whether those ends are sinister, fanatical, or ideological — they
use the weapons of personal attack and character assassination. They
are masters of the dark techniques of villainy. They are artists of
conspiracy. They are embittered, ruthless, and unprincipled.
The net effect of their techniques is to create in this land suspicion
and hostility, and to turn citizen against citizen. The result of their
work is to circumvent and impede the duly constituted processes of
government which should be carefully devised to protect the innocent
and to punish only those who are and can be proven guilty. Unless
stopped, these persons will destroy the warm faith of each man in his
fellow — a credo which is the bedrock of this democracy.
I think that it is important, gentlemen, that this Nation, while con-
tinuing its forthright resistance to communism, should also make sure
that it is adequately protecting itself against those few but virulent
people in our midst who seek to use the anti-Communist drive as an
instrument for their own particular subversion of American ideals.
Specifically, I suggest that Senator Lodge's proposal of April 3
should be made the basis of a program for a comprehensive investiga-
tion and analysis of this entire problem. I believe that a commission
such as Senator Lodge has suggested should be charged with the re-
sponsibility of a comprehensive survey of the methods and techniques
of combating communism. This should include not only an appraisal
of our present methods of fighting subversion to make sure that we are
effective, but also an evaluation of the effect upon our institutions of
the volunteer and irresponsible elements which are using the anti-
Communist program in this country for their own purposes. This
would include, of course, an appraisal of the libel-proof, irresponsible
tactics of people like Senator McCarthy and Louis Francis Budenz.
There is a Chinese saying, gentlemen, that in guarding against the
tiger at the front door you should not let your attention be distracted
from the wolf at the back door. I urge that we take care of both the
wolf and the tiger. This committee has a unique opportunity to make
this great contribution to the national welfare,
I suggest, too, that your committee and the Congress now reiterate
in the clearest terms, the fundamental American safeguards for free-
dom of speech and opinion ; that you make it j^lain, beyond dispute,
that these fundamental values have not been impaired by McCarthy
and his associates; and that you advise all of the scholars, writers,
and people of this country that they may and must speak their lionest
minds Avith frankness and vigor, and that they will not be vilified for
doing so. If this McCarthy nonsense intimidates our scholars and
writers, gentlemen, I assure you that the wellspring of democracy will
dry up, and that tlie Nation will indeed be in peril.
And finally, gentlemen, I suggest that you put an end to this non-
sense of trying to find or manufacture a personal scapegoat for the
trials and tribulations of our world position. All of us should con-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 829
centrate on tlie crucial problems of international policy that must be
resolved if we are to survive as a Avorld power.
Senators, it is plain to all that this country suffered a disaster of
the first ma<ruitude when China ])assed under the control of the Com-
munists. But the question is, What do we do now ?
Our present policy is already, in the main, a sound policy. I am not
the architect of it, so my connnent is disinterested. It is true that I
have criticized details of it. I shall continue to do so. I am not ^oing
to be intimidated by Senator McCarthy, by the China lobby, by Com-
munists or ex-Comnuniists. or by any kind of underworld scum that
McCarthy or Kohlbero; dredges up.
The two great blocs of jiower to be balanced in the world are those
of the United States and Russia. But there is more of the world that
is not under the full control of either the United States or Russia,
than there is divided between the two of them.
Mr. Walter Lippmann, in the April number of Atlantic ISIonthly,
has given it as his opinion that the master key to world policy now
lies in our ability to understand and deal with a group of nations that
will be independent of control both from Moscow and from Washing-
ton. I agree with him.
Mr. Lippmann points out that there is only one idea — I myself
should call it dogma — on which the Communist and the non-Commu-
nist world have been in agreement. That is the idea or dogma — I
quote Mr. Lippmann's words — "that the world nuist. and that the
world will, aline itself in two camps, the one directed from Moscow
and the other from Washington."
I agree with Mr. Lippmann that this obsession with a two-way
division of the world is Communist dogma, and that too many Ameri-
cans, while believino- themselves anti-Communist, have made the
mistake of blindly taking over this Conununist dogma.
I myself, however, can honestly say that I have never been the victim
of this obsession, in either its Communist or its reflected form. As long
ago as 104r). in Solution in Asia, I pointed to the coming three-way
division of the world. I quote from page 196 :
The world is. now grouped in three major divisions. In one, the capitalist eco-
nomic system and democratic political system are vigorous and unshaken. In
another the fniinnunist (oi-. strictly speakinsr, the Socialist) political system
is now permanently estalilished. and identitied with a coUectivist economic system.
In the third, there is an ad.iustment yet to be made between capitalism and col-
lectivism, and mixed political orders have not yet clearly taken shape. There
will lie a number of them, showing many degrees of modification, and the
greatest of all the problems of our time is to work out methods of ad.nistment
and avoid irreconcilalile divisions both within countries and Ijetween countries.
Mr. Chairman, just in the last few days there has been published a
book Peace or War, by John Foster Dulles, which, in Mr. Dulles' own
Avay. 7-eflects the same kind of o])inion that jNIr. Lippmann has been ex-
])ressing, about the necessity for American policy to adjust itself to
freely arrived at associations which we do not control and to abandon
the idea that the only form of power politics is outright control of
nations over which we can crack the whip.
Now, one thing has certainly been overwhelmingly presented to this
committee, namely, the proof that I am not the architect of the far
eastern policy of this administration. The latest confirmation of that
comes from no less than four Secretaries of State, past and present.
830 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
But in view of the trend that Mr. Lippmann and Mr. John Foster
Dulles are now following, I think, Senator, perhaps I ought to reserve
the right to file a claim to be the architect of the Republican Party's
foreign policy.
As the first priority in handling situations of this kind I recom-
mended in my book. Situation in Asia, published last year, "virtual
alliance with Britain" — hardly, Senators, a Communist idea. I
pointed out that the North Atlantic Pact — which the Communists hate
Avorse than they hate the Marshall plan — would form the nucleus of an
alliance. I then added, on page 227, the recommendation that "only by
working through the United Nations can the third countries, which
are already critically important in Asia and may become important in
Europe, be brought closer to the American side than to the Russian
side."
On page 237 I pointed out that policies of this kind "vrould enable
us to take up the adjustment of our relations with Russia backed
by the good will of countries independent of us but benefiting by asso-
ciation with us, and therefore having a vested interest in remaining free
of control by Russia."
I believe. Senators, that this country is now working toward a policy
of this general kind. I believe it will in time be successful. I believe
that it can even, in time, be extended to China, relieve China from
domination by Russia, and considerably improve our position in Asia.
It is true that there have been mistakes in our policy that will have to
be remedied. But not only can we, eventually, cut losses — we can
make gains — very big and important gains.
But in order to straighten out the disadvantages in our foreign
policy and exploit the advantages, one thing is essential. The inde-
pendent research worker who goes abroad to gather and study facts,
as well as the men and women in the State Department who analyze
situations and make policy recommendations, must be free to discuss
facts, and to present differing opinions, without baseless accusations
of disloyalty if their facts or opinions are not pleasing to pressure
groups. This is a question that affects the whole fabric of our tradition
of freedom of public political debate.
This is also a question. Senator, that vitally affects national se-
curity. The collecting of intelligence about other countries ought to
be immune from prejudice and emotion. It should be conducted with
the coldest realism. The standard of evaluation should not be "will
this fact be pleasing to someone who has influence," but "is this fact
true." Government intelligence agents cannot do a complete job un-
less they have full and free access to private experts who are in no
way dependent, either for pay or for influence, on the Federal Govern-
ment. The fact that such experts exist is of incalculable value to the
Government.
But, Senators, there already exists in Washington and throughout
the country an atmosphere of intimidation that is rapidly lowering
the quality of research work. Private citizens who are well qualified
experts are more and more afraid to express any opinion that may be
attacked by a powerful pressure group. Once intimidation has gone
as far as this, it is only a short step to the last stage of degeneration.
Both private citizens and men in Government service begin to be
willing to give a little, subtle distortion to their presentation and dis-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 831
ciission of facts, in order to please men witli ])reju(li('es. That is a
result of the breaking of the spirit of free men that is fatal to our
society.
(rentlemen, I know of no better way to conclude this statement than
by quoting from the Congressional Record of July 20, 1949 :
If then we feel it is this important to keep alive in the world the principle of
the dignity of man, and our standards of justice and right; if we think it impor-
tant enough to sacrifice the lives of hundreds of thousands of young men, and
jeopardize the economy of our country by giving away billions of dollars, then
it is of utmost importance that we demonstrate at all times to the people of
the world that our form of Government actually is what we say it is — that it is
more fair, more honest, more decent than the governments they have known
under Hitler or Stalin, and that our form of Government stands for the rights
of the individual over and above those of the state.
Surprisingly enough the words that I have quoted are those uttered
by Jose])h McCarthy, the junior Senator from Wisconsin. The Sen-
ator, however, gave voice to these eloquent words in the course of a
defense of the Nazi SS generals who massacred defenseless American
soldiers and a large civilian population in the infamous brutality of
Malmedy. For this dubious purpose, the Senator violently denounced
the United States Army which he accused of "being guilty of sacri-
ficing the basic principles of American justice." I hope with all my
heart that Joe McCarthy will come to understand that the principles
of justice and fairness which he loudly proclaimed on behalf of the
Nazi murderers are also the birthright of American citizens. [Ap-
plause.]
Senator Ttdings. The committee will stand in recess until 2 : 30
today. I will ask Dr. Lattimore if he would, kindly, be present then.
(Whereupon, at 12: 45 p. m. the committee recessed to reconvene at
2 : 30 on the same day.)
AFTERNOOISr SESSION
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment for the luncheon
recess, at 2 : 30 p. m., Senator Tydings presiding.
Senator Ttdixgs. The connnittee will please come to order.
Mr. Morgan, have you some questions to ask Dr. Lattimore?
Mr. ]\roRGAX. I have, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Lattimore, I have listened to your reading of j'our statement
this morning, and while it of course is not within my province to
comment concerning the propriety of remarks relative to a United
States Senator, I am constrained to express the belief that perhaps
you and Senator McCarthy are now even, and with that in mind I
would like to proceed to consider the charges that have been made
here as objective charges, endeavoring to divorce it from the per-
sonalities that may be involved as much as possible.
Before going into the line of questioning which I wish to pursue I
would ask you, if you will, to take your statement, because T have a
few questions concerning it which I would like to propound at this
point. I am referring now to page X7 of your statement, particu-
]ai-ly to the last sentence of the first full paragraph on that page,
where it is stated :
Mrs. Field states that she is not and never has been a luember of the Com-
munist Party, and that she is certain that neither ]Mrs. Lattimore nor I at-
tended any meetings or any party in the Field house at any time during the
year 1946.
832 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
How about other years? Did you attend any meetings at the
Field home?
Dr. Lattimore. No; not that I can recalL
Mr. Morgan. You recall no meetings at the Field home whatever?
Dr. Lattimore. I recall nothing of the sort.
Mr. Morgan. On page A'2 of your statement you have referred to
your participation in fund-raising campaigns to aid Finland in its
fight against the Soviet Union. Do we have any documentary evi-
dence on that in our record ?
Dr. Lattimore. Here, Mr. Morgan, are the minutes copied from
the office copy in the files of the first meeting of the Fighting Funds
for Finland, Inc., February 20, 1940, and the names of those who
consented to serve on the committee were announced as follows:
Etc., etc., Dr. Owen Lattimore.
Mr. Morgan. May we have that for the vecord. please, as exhi-
bit 86 ?
Referring now to page A15 of your statement, in view of the fact
that certain observations have been made here relative to Mr.
Budenz, I want to ask you. Dr. Lattimore, if in the quoted portion
of the question and answers Mr. F'arris propounded to Mr. Budenz
at that time, if you gather from the first question that Mr. Budenz
did not have your name mentioned in his article initially, at least to
the point that there was an implication that Joseph Barnes and you,
if not Communists, were fellow travelers?
Mr. FoRTAS. Just a moment, Mr. Lattimore. The transcript, the
exact manuscript, that Mr. Budenz testified he left with the editors
of Collier's, is in your record, Mr. Morgan, and that speaks for itself.
That manuscri])t did mention Mr. Lattimore. The exact language is
in the record. If you have that exhibit here, perhaps you might w^ant
to show it to Mr. Lattimore.
Mr. Morgan. The exhibit, as j'ou say. Counsel, is of course in the
record, but I am asking Mr. Lattimore at this point, since these
questions and the answers that were given have been given quite a bit
of attention in this statement, if from this question here one does not
gather that at least in the mind of Mr. Parris at that time the im-
plication might be that you and Mr. Barnes might be fellow travelers.
Is that a fair conclusion?
Dr. Lattimore. I have not seen the transcript since it was handed
in, so I don't recall the rest of the exact language, but the impression
that I retain is that Mr. Parris, as an editor, was thinking of what
readers might conclude, and wanted to raise the question whether
Budenz was in fact implying that I was not a Communist, exactly, but
a fellow traveler.
Mr. Morgan. My thought there was with respect to the observa-
tions that have been made that Mr. Budenz at no time up to this
j)oint has indicated you in such a light. This might be an indication
to the contrary, might it not ?
Dr. Lattimore. I would have to see the transcript to see what opin-
ion I would form from it. All I recall is that my name came in and
the moment it was brought up Budenz backed off very hastily and
very weakly.
Mr. FoRTAS. Mr. Morgan, I have a distinct recollection of the record
in this respect, and I respectfully ask that the exact language that is
contained in that manuscript referring to Mr. Lattimore be placed in
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\^ESTIGATION 833
the record at this point; that is to say, at the point where you are
askin<2: tliose questions.
Ml. MoKOAx. That is entirely satisfactory with me, Mr. Chairman,
for its insertion at this point in the record.
Now to paoe Al7 of the statement. There is one observation there
tliat I woukl ap])reciate your connnents on, Mr. Lattimore, because it
did not necessarily disturb me, but I would like your observations on
it.
In referring to Mr. Budenz, you are referriufj to the "disgusting
sport of being an informer.'' Would you care to make any further
observation on that ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, sir. I think that Mr. Budenz is an extremely
disgusting ])erson in this respect, that if a man gets out of the kind of
conspiracy that he himself talks of having participated in, he may,
of course, and he should, of course, give any information that he feels
is important to the security of this country to the proper Government
agencies. But Avhat I think is disgusting is the practice of taking ad-
vantage of senatorial immunity to scatter names around before they
have even been given to a proper agency for orderly investigation.
That seems to me to be an extremely unpalatable form of commer-
cializing his past career.
Senator McMaiion. But, Dr. Lattimore, Budenz did not volunteer.
As I understand it, he did not volunteer to come here to testify. Sena-
tor McCarthy requested the committee, if I am not mistaken, Mr.
Chairman, to subpena him here to testify. Is that not accurate?
Senator Tydixgs. I think that is accurate, but Senator McCarthy —
I may be wrong about it and I won't say it — but at least I think Sena-
tor McCarthy felt tl'iat what Mr. Budenz would say through having
other ])eople talk to I'lim was the reason for his being summoned. I
think Senator McCariMiy himself made the request that Mr. Budenz
be summoned.
Senator Mc]\L\hox. Yes, but Dr. Lattimore indicates, it seems to
me, that he appeared here as a volunteer witness, and the record does
not bear you out in that.
Dr. Lattimore. No. I'he only point I want to bring attention to.
Senator, is this : This man has had 5 years to turn in any names that
he considers impoitant. He has written articles in which he lays
heav}^ stress on the import>'ince of the whole China question and
China policy. And yet after 5 years he has not mentioned my name
to any investigatiAe agency, fond he is still talking about some 400
other names. Within 5 years. ,even if a man cannot give the investi-
gative agencies detailed inform'ation on names, surely orderly pro-
cedure would require that he tiArn in those names before he begins
commercializing them.
Senator ]\IcMauox. I do want to make sure, though, that I under-
stand you correctly when you said that "During the 4 or 5 years since
he left the Communist Party, in which he was principally occupied
in the disgusting sport of being an informer * '^' *," do I under-
stand you correctly now to say that you would not classify him as
being engaged in the disgusting sport by turning over to the author-
ities of the Government evidence that he has of criminal conspirators
who are seeking to overthrow the Government?
834 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Dr. Lattimore. Wliat I am saying. Senator, is that for him to
release names first, in public, and under immunity, is a disgusting
way of being an informer.
Senator McMAHOisr. Well, of course, he did give your name to the
Federal Bureau of Investigation,
Dr. Lattimore. After some 5 years, and after my name had come
into the press and after he had an opportunity when he knew he was
going to have an opportunity, to testify under immunity.
Senator McMahoivt. My memory is not so good on that. Are you
correct in that last statement? Did he know that he was going to
be a witness here when he gave your name to the FBI ?
Mr. FoRTAs. Senator, perhaps I can tell you what the transcript
shows in response to questions by Senator Green. I don't have the
exact page here, but in response to questions by Senator Green, Mr.
Budenz said that the first time that he mentioned INIr. Lattimore to
the FBI was last month. That would be some time in the month
of March. If you will give me a few moments I can find that.
Senator ]\Ic]\Iahox. I do not want to hold up the proceedings now,
and will let counsel go ahead, but I wanted to make very sure that
you were not condemning Budenz for giving information that he might
have, or condemning any person, not alone Budenz but any person,
who would leave the Communist Party and would give the authorities
of the United States correct information relative to this conspiracy
which exists in this country as it does in every couT.itry in the world.
And I wanted to make sure that you were not condemning that prac-
tice, because if you were, then I would be condemnatory of your
saying so.
Dr. Lattimore. Senator, I think that any citizen who has informa-
tion relative to the security of this country has not only the right but
the obligation to report it to the proper authorit es.
I find in myself a deep distaste, however, for parlying the informa-
tion later into lecture tours, books, and senfjation. I find it partic-
ularly distasteful when a man acts as Bud.enz did and gets on the
stand in a position of immunity and testifies against him. My vo-
cabulary in describing that Mr. Budenz \s that of a man who has
been struck at unsuccessfully by a rattleFjUake and do not feel over-
come by affection.
Mr. Morgan. In that same connection., Dr. Lattimore, at the top of
page B4 you say, again referring to Mr. Budenz, "Since that time he
has been engaged in commercial explc/itation of his own sordid past,
methods which in my opinion are a menace to our society."
Now I am wondering if there yoi.i are referring to the testimony
that Mr. Budenz has given to agen.cies of our Government in some
12 different proceedings, or are you referring to something else in that
particular sentence ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes. I am referrin.^ to his commercial exploita-
tion of himself and his own sordid past, with all his lectures and sen-
sational books, and particularly in connection with this business of
waving around lists of 400 undisclosed names, so that anybody who
questions Budenz had better look out: "You may be on my list of
400 names."
Mr. Morgan, I think I would liko to ask at this point,in line with
Senator McMahon's question, if here you are referring to ]\Ir. Budenz's
activities in revealing the nature of the Communist Party and the
STATE DEPARTMENT EIMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 835
Comnmiiist movement in this country. Do you regard that as a
menace to society?
Dr. Lattimore. I think that the more publicity and light we can
have on the nature and methods of the Connnunist Party in this
country, the better for tlie formation of sound understanding and
public opinion in this country. I also think there are ways and ways
of doino; it.
■Sir. ^loKGAX. You do not object, therefore, to the findings of Mr.
Budenz, and the statements of Mr. Budenz. Your objection goes
to the numner in which he does it, is that correct ?
Dr. Lattimore. I think that any statement on Communist or any
other political activities in this country of subversive groups or any
other political groups are a proper part of open political discussion
in this country, and should be accomioanied by proper proof and
demonstration. I don't like the kind of wild allegation to which I
have been subjected.
Mr. j\[oRGAN. In the same paragraph to which I have referred there
is a statement that is made, and I think perhaps in view of the cir-
cumstances here you mig'ht like to make an observation. You state
that "I respectfully draw your attention, Senator, to the fact that
when a man like Budenz becomes a renegade from a secret party or
conspiracy such as he has himself described the American Com-
munist Party to be * * *" and it goes on from there. I am won-
dering if you would like to make an observation on the record, Dr,
Lattimore, as to tlie manner in wliich vou regard the Comnninist
Party of this country. I notice you have attributed this cons])iracy
aspect to something Mr. Budenz said. "Would you care to make a
statement on the record concerning your attitude relative to the Com-
munist Party?
Dr. Latti^iore. I could make no statement on the structure or inside
operations of the Communist Party in this country except by hearsay.
Mr. ISIorgax. Doesn't that. Dr. Lattimore, almost place us all in
the position of having to depend and rely upon men like Mr. Budenz.
who have had an intimate acquaintance with the operations of the
Communist Party in this country ?
Dr. Lattimore. There is, Mr. Morgan, I believe, quite a large litera-
ture on the subject in this country, and there have been a good many
people who have been Communists and have written on the subject.
There have also been a great many political scientists who, without
ever having been Communists or Marxists of any kind, have studied
it from the documents, analyzed it, and so foi'th. We have in this
country at Stanford University the Hoover Library and Institute
of War. Revolution and Peace, which has collected documents from
all over the world on the various stages of history, of various Com-
munist Parties, and I think that (hat kind of a study is not only proper
but necessary. I think it is an extremely important part of political,
science at the present time.
I myself am not an expert on that subject.
Mr. MoRGAX. Have a'ou familiarized yourself with those writings
to such a point that you would care to make any observation along
the lines j^ou earlier suggested there ?
Dr. Lattimore. My general idea of the American Communist Party,,
not only as an outsider but as decidedly a nonexpert on the subj/ect
836 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
and having seen something of countries like China, in which there are
Communist I'arties, is that the American Communist Party seems to
have practically no roots in American political life. It seems to con-
sist very largely of people of recent European origin or extraction,
from families that have brought with them political ideas from
Europe. Added to that, there seems to be an extraordinary collection
of misfits, crackpots, generally discontented peo])le, and so forth.
There may also be in the party a certain number of honest people,
the kind of people that you would disagree with yourself ; you might
dispute their conclusions but not the fact that the conclusions were
arrived at by honest intellectual processes.
However, my over-all impression is that the American Communist
Party has not only a very small place in American life, but a very small
future in American life. The reason I believe that, and the reason
that I am more interested in other political manifestations in this
country than I am in communism, is because I believe that this country,
throughout its history, has been of all countries the one in which a
living democratic structure has been most real and most genuine. I
have been a lot in countries which hope that they might some day have
democracy, in which democratic phrases and expressions are more
or less slogans or catchwords. But in this country we have, and have
always had, a real democracy. People are not just working up en-
thusiasm over phrases. Democracy is a state in this country for
every man. This is a country in which all of us, and our forebears, as
long as they have lived in the country, have actually benefited by a
real democracy. So that the praises of democracy are not just ideas
in the air, but words which give a name to something real and precious
in our life.
Mr. Morgan. I think that a great many of us, Dr. Lattimore, will
thoroughly agree with your statement that the roots of the Communist
Party in this country are not in America, and I am wondering, from
your observations and studies, which certainly have been more inten-
sive than those of many of us, if you care to indicate where in your
ojjinion the roots of the Communist Pai'ty in this country are.
Dr. Lattimore. Again, Mr, Morgan, I am not an expert on the
subject. It is quite obvious that, even to a nonexpert, all over the
world all Communists look to Russia, and in Russia look to Moscow.
The degree to which those roots represent an actual flow of authority
from Moscow into the various countries appears, so far as my knowl-
edge goes — and my knowledge is not based on this country but on
other countries — to have been subjected to a certain amount of change
at different historical periods. For instance, in China you have Com-
munists who subscribe, and who never have ceased to subscribe, to
the ideas of Marx, Lenin, and later Stalin, but who at various periods
in their history have been operating in a Chinese environment cut off
from regular directives of detailed control from Russia, so that they
have operated in the context of their own society and, so far as they
have survived, have survived not only by adapting society to them-
selves but by adapting themselves to society.
Then you have other phenomena coming up, more recent, and to a
political scientist extremely intere.sting : phenomena like the detach-
ment of the Tito Communists of themselves from Moscow. We are
dealing not with a simple phenomenon that can be reduced to a few
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USTV'ESTIGATION 837
cliches but with one of the most varied phenomena of contemporary
world political life.
jNIr. MoHGAX. I notice in your statement yon have just made, and
])articularly the one precedin<r it, and also on page D3 of your state-
ment, the observation in your letter to Admiral Yarnell. You state
there that there is too little in common between the two nations, refer-
ring to the United States and Russia, to such elementary things as the
meaning of words. You mentioned the word "democracy" just a
moment ago. I wonder. Dr. Lattimore, from your study and experi-
ence, if the word "democracy'" itself has a dift'erent meaning to the
Russians from what it does to us.
Dr. Lattimore. I think it does, Mv. INIorgan, but I am not enough
of an expert on the subject to give you a good political scientist's
definition. There are many of these terms, and I have dealt wnth them
primarily in my experience not as an expert on American domestic
politics nor as an expert on Russian domestic politics. My experience
has been principally in the field between the Russians and the Chinese.
My most specialized studies have been on peoples like the Mongols,
the various Central Asian peoples of Sinkiang Province, and so on.
Now, in dealing with these people I find that very often the largest
fund of factual information is in the Russian language, partly nine-
teenth century Czarist Russian, some older than that, of course, but
^ erv larjielv nineteenth centurv Russian, and since the Russian Revolu-
tion, Soviet information.
Xow, in dealing with that information I find that over and over
and over again, while looking toward that in the context of our daily
lives you understand without any difficulty, it has to be extremely
carefully handled when you are dealing with Russian political science
or economic literature. It is not only the word "democracy"; it is
words like "feudal,"' "clan,"' "tribal," "family," and so forth.
Mr. Morgan. When you use the word "democracy," Dr. Lattimore,
in your writings, in which sense do you use it ?
Dr. Lattimore. I am trying to recall a definition of democracy
that I tried to write down for myself once not so very long ago. It
may be in one of my books here, or it may be in an article that I can't
lay my hand^ on.
Perhaps I had better just try and recall the general thinking that
led me to that definition.
I think that the essence of democracy is to be found in society
Avhere men and Avomen may freely meet together to discuss their
political ideas, and if they agree on a group of ideas, to organize them-
selves in the support of those ideas, and are, by the constitution or
standing customs of their country, allowed to be represented in the
processes of government, by freely choosing for themselves people
whose ideas are like their own, to speak on their behalf in the neces-
sarily smaller bodies that order the affairs of a community.
Mr. MoRGAX. I would gather from your definition, therefore, that
that would contemplate respect for the ideas and thinking of various
elements and various groups, and the privilege of such groups to be
entitled to representation ; is that correct ?
Dr. Lattimore. That is implicit in the whole idea, because if you
allow people to organize in groups in support of their ideas — and, I
should add, their interests as well — then what applies to one such
group should apply to another.
838 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan, There is one reference in your writings to whieli we
will come momentarily, Dr. Lattimore, in which you referred, I be-
lieve, to certain groups in the Orient looking across the border to
"democracy" in Russia. What did you mean there ?
Dr. Lattimore. When we come to that passage, Mr. Morgan, I
shall be glad to go into it, or I can go into it at this point.
I was writing there, as I have often written, of groups of people
in Asia who never in their history have had the kind of democratic
political institutions that we have. Among such, for the last 50 years
or so, were the spread of various movements of nationalism and so on.
Democracy has become a very common delightful aspiration, but
since it is something to which they aspire, something which they do
not have yet but hope to have, their ideas of it are necessarily rather
vague. They are different from ours because when we speak of
democracy we speak of defending something that we have, not of a
hope of something that we might get.
Accordingly in such counties, and this was extremely important in
China during the war and at the end of the war, democracy not only
in the Chinese language but in a number of other languages in cen-
tral Asia, India, Indonesia, .and so on, very often to the man in the
street or the man in the village, comes to mean a more tolerable kind
of life than we have. Remember, we are dealing with populations and
that the vast majority have a day-to-day life that is not easily tolerable.
Now, when you come up against the Soviet frontier you find many
communities closely similar, originally closely similar, to the com-
munities that are not within the Russian frontier. The Russian
frontier was formed there historically by the Russians stopping along
a line not because, or not always because, they had come to a natural
frontier, but just because they had reached the limit of expansion, so
that you can take a people and half of them had been taken under
Russian rule and half had been left outside of Russian rule.
Now, in Soviet Central Asia, which is the part of the world I was
writing about in that passage, there have been since the Russian
Revolution, and it would be foolish for us to close our eyes to the fact,
very considerable material improvements in people's lives. A great
many people are still poor, poorly dressed, and perhaps not adequately
fed. On the other hand, the number of people who can get an educa-
tion, who can go on to a career better than their ancestors had, and
all that kind of thing — they can become engineers, doctors, and one
thing and another — has greatly increased.
The people next to them, but not under Soviet rule, very often envy
them, and since in their political vocabularly democracy means some-
thing that it would be nice to have "but we haven't got it," they very
easily apply it to what they know about on the Soviet side of the
frontier.
Mr. Morgan. When you referred, therefore, to the democracy which
they saw on the Russian side of the border, you were not referring to
democracy in the sense of the definition you gave us, then; is that
correct ?
Mr. Fortas. Do you have that passage, Mr. Morgan ?
Mr. Morgan. Suppose we pass that until we get to it. I am sorry
we got diverted there.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 839
Dr. LATTi:NtoRE. I just niioht as well make the point at the. moment
that in the general treatment of that question I carefully pointed out
that these people who are in contact with something under Kussian
rule that to a certain extent they envy or would like to have are also
people who are entirely out of touch with us, and are therefore not in a
i)osition to make a comparison between our democracy and what they
tend to call democracy in Russia.
JSIr. MoKGAX. Well, of course, when I read it, for example, Dr.
Latt imore, I did not find that you were expressing it in such terms. I
could see, for example, their seeing a better school or better conditions
across the border, but when they see the democracy across the border
that left me with the impression that you conceived of the situation
there as a democratic one, and that is all I am talking about now.
Dr. Lati'imoke. Yes. I go on with the development of that idea
there, and then I speak of this man, any man, in this heart of central
Asia, who ma}- be told that these people are free and have democi-acy.
If he is then told that in distant America nobody considers that there
is either freedom or democracy in the Soviet Union, he is going to
shrug his shoulders. He is not in contact with the American system
and for him it forms no basis of action.
I might add something to that from recent experience. I don't
know whether on this occasion I should speak freely about the affairs
of another country, but I will go ahead. I?tcently when I was in
Afghanistan I asked the members of the foreign western community,
mainl}" diplomats whom I met in the capital of Afghanistan, whether
there was any overt Russian or Afghanistan propaganda going on
in the country. All of them except one said "No." The one excep-
tion was a man who had spent most of his life in countries close to
the Soviet frontier, and spoke several of the languages. He shrugged
his shoulders. He said, "I think the answer to your question is that
just across the frontier of this country at a certain point there is a
large Russian development enterprise going on. A big city is spring-
ing up. There are factory chimneys. The trams run. There are
movies and people who formerly were very humble shepherds, or
the kind of farmer who plows with a wooden plow, are getting em-
ployment in that town in ways which to them are exciting and new."
He said, "That town doesn't happen to be within the territory of this
country, but I think that its existence is very powerful propaganda
in this country."
Mr. Morgax. Perhaps I can dispose of all of this by asking you
a simple question now. Do you regard the Soviet system as a demo-
cratic system.
Dr. Lattimore. Under our definition, the definition that I have
just given, certainly not. On the other hand, it would only be fair
to say that so far as I know about Russia, and remember I don't know
the typically Russian parts of Russia. The only parts of Russia in
which I spent any time at all are these frontier districts in which/
ver}' often the Russians are outnumbered by non-Russian people. Idi
these districts which I know you might say that there exists a cer-
tain group of democratic practices which somewhat resemble an un-
fiuiiished house of which the first story has been built and the second
not added.
6S970 — 50 — pt. 1 — —54
840 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION"
That is, very often in, as far as I have seen, country villages and
little towns, there does appear to he a system of election and rep-
resentation, and those people run their own affairs on a local scale.
Then on top, where they have a democratic structure that goes all
the way on up to the highest offices of the country, the Russian sys-
tem seems to stop and instead there is an all-pervading Communist
Party which in sessions of its own works out policy lines. These
policy lines are then handed down to people who are told to do what
has been decided, and that is definitely not democratic. In Russia any-
thing that we would recognize as democracy either does not exist or
I do not know about it.
Mr. Morgan. There has been one phase of your writings brought
into question here, and I would like to refer to it, since we are dis-
cussing the subject of democracy.
In the September 1938 edition of Pacific Affairs, at the time when
you were editor, there appears an article written by William Henry
Chamberlain, I think you mention Mr. Chamberlain in your state-
ment. In the article he is, to speak generally, critical of the Moscow
trials. Thereafter, as editor, you make some observations concerning
Mr. Chamberlain's criticism, and without reading it all, I want to
read the concluding paragraph of your observations concerning the
Chamberlain statement.
Mr. FoRTAS. Mr. Morg;an, please, what page?
Mr. Morgan. Page 371, the last paragraph.
After taking issue with Mr. Chamberlain in certain aspects of the
situation, you say :
The real point, of course, for those who live in democratic countries is whether
the discovery of the conspiracies was a triumph for dmocracy or not. I think
that this can easily he he determined. Tlie accounts of the most widely read
Moscow correspondents all emphasize that since the close scrutiny of every person
in a responsihle position, following the trials, a great many abuses have been
discovered and rectified. A lot depends on whether yon emphasize the discovery
of the aliuse or the rectification of it ; but habitual rectification can hardly do
anytliing but give the ordinary citizen more courage to protest, loudly, whenever
in the future he finds himself being victimized by "someone in the party" or
"someone in the government." That sounds to me lilve democi-acy.
Would you care to make any observation on that?
Dr. Lattimore. Surely. Incidentally, yesterday I spoke with Mr.
Demaree Bess, who is mentioned here, because I quoted him as Mr.
Chamberlain's successor as Moscow correspondent, and I spoke of this
l^assage, and he laughed and said, "Well, you certainly were off base
that time."
Nevertheless, I do not think that I was off base. The point here is
that, following the practice of Pacific Affairs, we had an article on
the other side in which someone had praised the conduct of the Moscow^
trials, and I think there is where the phrase "triumph of democracy"
comes from. The question of "triumph for democracy" then was not
my phrase, but one which I was quoting that had come up in the course
of this controversy, and I as editor was trying to close the controversy,
oecause that was a quarterly magazine and in a magazine that comes
out every 3 months you can't carry on the thing forever and ever. I
stressed something Mr. Demaree Bess has published; and there were
also other correspondents whom I mentioned here at that time who
were rei)orting that since the close scrutiny of every person in a re-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 841
sponsible position followino- the trials, a jrreat many abuses had been
discovered and rectified. 1 then eini)hasized the idea that when the
ordinary citizen can have more courafjje to protest loudly whenever
in the future he finds himself victimized by someone in the party or
someone in the Government, that sounds to me like democracy — not
like tlie triumph of democracy, but like democracy. In other words,
I was i)raisin<> what perhaps too optimistically sceemed to be a change
at the time from the original Russian system of authority and what I
thought was the hopeful sign that people were beginning to have
courage to protest when they were ridden over roughshod by party
functionaries.
Mr. JNIoRGAN. You still feel, therefore, that the handling of the
^vloscow trials sounds like democracy to you?
Dr. Laitimore. I think I was speaking there of the results of the
^Moscow trials. The result of the Moscow^ trials was that people
weie beofinniuff to talk back to officials if the officials were too
dictatorial.
The ho})e did not develop, as we know. After that there were
farther trials, and since then the system in Russia has become more
rigid, not less rigid ; but what I was reacting to was what seemed to me
a hopeful symptom at that time that it was becoming less rigid.
Senator McMahox. It certainly was pretty rigid for the ones they
stood up against a wall and shot.
Dr. Lattimore. It certainly was.
Mr. MoRGAX. This morning I think all of us, in reading page D7 of
your statement, were somewhat impressed with the quotation that
appeared in one of the series of recommendations that you gave
Chiang. The passage to which I refer is the one quoted there, as
follows :
It is i-eeom mended that China immediately adopt political methods that will
decrease the present Communist influence in Outer Mongolia and prevent the
Chinese Communists from replacing the Russians as a source of Communist
ideas and influence in Outer Mongolia.
This expression, "replacing the Russians," confuses me a little, Dr.
Lattimore. Will you amplify on that a bit?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes.
Outer Mongolia, since the early 1920's, has been a country that has
defied Chinese authority successfully. Let's put it this way : There has
been no question whether Outer Mongolia has been de facto independ-
ent of China. The question has often been raised whether it was de
facto independent of Russia. That is a separate question. It was
definitely independent of China.
At this point the Generalissimo, as part of his over-all view of the
world situation — and remember that that was in the summer of 1941,
when the Russians were extremely hard-pressed and when for the
British also victory lay down a very long and hard road; the Chinese
were also having an extremely tough time, and the Generalissimo
wanted to put up an idea of a new treaty between Russia, China, and
Britain, all of which were defending tliemselves, that would not only
strengthen their defense position during the war but make it easier
to stabilize their postwar relations on a long-term basis.
As part of that he was extremely anxious to clarify and solidify and
strengthen the frontier between China and Russia. He asked me to
842 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
telegraph this idea to Washington, which I did. You ^yill find that
part of the telegram— and that is why I can talk about this freely—
has been published. It can be found in Robert Sherwood's Roosevelt
and Hopkins. . , ,. , i
The idea didn't come off, and I won't go nito that further, but as part
of the preparation for implementing the idea if it should come off
the Generalissimo asked me, as an expert on Mongolia and central
Asia, to prepare a memorandum on problems and suggested methods of
handling the Mongolian question for China, which I did.
I started from the point that Mongolia at that time, and for some 15
years ; no, for nearly 20 years, had been— we were not using the term
then, but what we would now call a satellite of Russia. I don't know
the exact forms of Russian control or domination, but it had beeu
very close to Russia. It had a Mongol Government, but there were
Russian advisers in there, and it was quite obvious that no questions of
hiirh policy were decided without the Russians.
Senator Hickenlooper. What year was this?
Dr. Lattimore. 1941.
Now, if the Chinese were to succeed in a diplomatic move v.hich
would get the Mongols to recognize Chinese sovereignty again, thdy
would improve their territorial position by reuniting Mongolia with
China. But the Mongolia that would be reunited with China would be
a Mongolia that had been deeply penetrated if not permeated by Rus-
sian ideas for about 20 years. Therefore it would be an advantage to
China to get the territory back, yet there would be a very serious
problem. , « tt i n
What about the political ideas of these people i How do we ht
them into the Chinese community again ?
Therefore I said, if they are detached from Russia in this way, there
will be a firm frontier between Mongolia and Russia, but your Chinese
Communists are up here in the north, and tliere may be a coming to-
irether of Communist-minded Mongols and Communist-minded Chi-
nese ; therefore, vou are going to have a problem, and accordingly in
order to handle that problem you should, in good tim.e, set up a plan
of operation that will give these Mongols, if they can be newly united
with China, a stake, something to their own benefit, in a non-Commu-
nist association with a non-Communist China. And that is the
way to handle this problem, and the details are to a certain extent
worked out in that memorandum.
Of course the whole thing is over the dam now because the treaty
never came off, and at the end of the war the Chinese recognized the
independence of Outer Mongolia.
, Mr. Morgan. I appreciate the explanation very much. Dr. Latti-
more. I might suggest that we have a long way to go here, and if
you can in justice to the answer shorten it a bit, fine. If not, go ahead
and elaborate any way you see fit.
Senator Green. Will you kindly state whether this whole memoran-
dum has ever been published?
Di-. Lattimore. No, sir. None of the memorandums that I wrote for
the generalissimo have ever been published.
Senator Green. Would you be authorized to publish it in part now?
Dr. Lattimore. I said this morning, Senator, that I thought that I
really should not take the responsibility of publishing or asking to
have published any memorandums of this kind.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 843
Senator Greex. But you have taken the responsibility, nevertheless,
in iniblishing part of it.
Dr. Lattimore, Yes. 1 would never have done so if a totally un-
justifiable attack on my person had not forced me to do so in self-
defense. I have given "the whole memorandum to the committee, but
have asked the connnittee if in its discretion it would refrain from put-
ting the whole memorandum on the record.
Senator Green. The extracts from the memorandum you have pub-
lished, and not in response to any question.
Dr. Lattimore. This one paragraph.
Senator Green. Yes.
Mr. FoRTAs. Mr. Chairman, perhaps there is a misunderstanding.
This morning it was agreed that the entire memorandum would be
handed to the chairman.
Senator Green. I was here and remember that, but I am asking Mr.
Lattimore how he justifies the publication here of part of this memo-
randum without any authority from the person to whom it was
addressed.
Dr. Lattimore. Senator, these memorandums are not in the same
class as classified documents of the United States. These are personal
memorandums presented by me to the generalissimo, and when I left
Chungking I spoke to the generalissimo about it, and I was allowed
to take with me anything of the kind as my personal possession.
Therefore, so far as declassification is concerned, I can declassify the
whole thing if I want to. It is not a matter of regulation ; it is simply
a matter that I liave the personal feeling that so long as the man for
whom I worked is still the head of even a nominal government, I do
not tliink it would be becoming for me to publish all these documents
in wliole. but I liave the riglit to publish any P'^^i't of them that I want,
and I liave the riglit to publish the whole of it if I want to, and the
committee may overrule me and publish the whole memorandum if it
wants to. It is simply a question on my part that I do not think it is a
fitting thing to do.
Senator Green. But do you think it is fitting to quote from it ?
Dr. Lattimore. Certainly.
Senator Green. I just wanted to get your point of view as to the
proprieties, that was all.
Dr. Latfimore. All that I quoted there was the specific fact, and,
after all, it is a hypothetical question now, a question of the reuniting
of Mongolia and China, but I thought it was perfectly fitting to show
that my attitude toward their hypothetical question was not one of
promoting communism or communization.
Senator Green. I had understood you to state you were confiden-
tial adviser to Chiang Kai-shek.
Dr. Lattimore. That is right.
Senator Green. So you did not I'egard this as a confidential
communication ?
Dr. Lattimore. That was at the time a highly confidential docu-
ment. The reason that I selected it is because the whole question has
since gone by the boards, and the redeveloping of it does not hamper
the diplomatic moves of anybody, because the whole thing, so far as
that is concerned, is a dead issue.
844 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
But there is no question but that at any time it has been in my
discretion to publisli part or all of this and other documents if I
want to.
Mr. Morgan. Referring now to page D9 of your statement, in the
second paragraph there appears this sentence :
I have not had the slightest desire to prove innocence by association, which
I regard as about as fallacious as trying to prove guilt by association.
Dr. Lattimore, does your revulsion at endeavoring to establish guilt
by association in the field of communism also apply in the field of
fascism? In other words, do you regard it as reprehensible and
objectionable. Is it fallacious to endeavor to hold one guilty of
Fascist practices, by association, as you indicate is the case in showing
that one may be Communist by reasons of associations?
Dr. Lattimore. Certainly.
Mv. Morgan. On pages D 11 and D 12, you make a very pointed
statement which you presented to us this morning relative to the free-
dom of American scholars to think and talk and write, as they hon-
estly feel they should.
I am merely asking for more information here. On pages D-11 and
D-12 you make a very pointed statement which you presented to us
with some vehemence this morning relative to the freedom of American
scholars to think and talk and write as they honestly feel they should.
I am merely asking for information here. Do you mean to imply
there, Dr. Lattimore, that you feel it is not a proper province to in-
quire into the character and the purport of writings wherein it ap-
pears that they have a degree of parallel, or do parallel programs that
may at any time be regarded as inimical to the best interests of this
country ?
Dr. Lattimore. I shall always attack any writings that I consider
to be directly promoting fascism or in-omoting communism. The ques-
tion of whether a person is guilty of fascism by association is a sep-
arate question. But I think that all writings should be subject to the
scrutiny and open criticism. The point that I was making was the
kind of paralyzing attack that I have been subjected to by calling
writings of mine Communist or party line when they were not.
Mr. Morgan. That is why I want you to make every observation
you wish to, Dr. Lattimore, about your writings.
Dr. Lattimore. That is why I appreciate the letter that I quoted
from Dr. Linebarger, in which he said that he had disagreed with me
right down the line in various capacities for a number of years, but
that he considered that there was a difference between disputing my
ideas as ideas, and carrying on an attack on my person.
Mr. Morgan. What I had in mind is, you are not presuming to sug-
gest that a committee of Congress may not properly inquire into mat-
ters of this kind?
Dr. LATriJiORE. Decidedly not. What I object to is the impro-
priety of Senator McCarthy getting up and making all these allega-
tions which he has not even attempted to prove — "top espionage
agent," "Soviet agent," "Communist" and all the rest of it. and he has
repeatedly refused to say so in an area where I can debate the issues
as a scholar should be allowed to debate the issue.
Mr. Morgan. In your statement, going back to the testimony of
Mr. Budenz, you imply, if not state pointedly, that Mr. Budenz has
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOX 845
not told tlie committee tlie truth. I am wondering, Dr. Lattimore, if
you liave found any instance in winch Mr. Budenz has not told the
truth incident to his some 12 appearances before various bodies.
Dr. Laitimore. An instance in which he has not told the truth ?
Mr. ]\IoRGAX. My thought here is this? We here have a witness
who has appeared many, many times on many different situations and
issues. We have alreatly an indication, at "least, that your belief is
that he has not told this committee the truth. I am wondering if you
base that on the fact that anywhere Mr. Budenz has thus far not told
the truth in his testimony.
Dr. Lattimore. 1 have no way of knowing the truth or falsity of
any of his previous testimony about other people or other issues. I
do know, and I deeply resent, the lies he has told about me.
]\ir. Morgan. Well, Dr. Lattimore, it seems to me — and correct me
if I am wrong — that Mr. Budenz's testimony related to what he had
been told by others, which you could not know, of course, and I am
wondering if his stating what he has indicated was told him is a
basis for your concluding that his statement was not the truth.
Mr. FoRTAS. Oh, now, Mr. Morgan, after all. Your questioning of
this witness, it seems to me, is highly objectionable. The last question
implies that you, and I know this is not true, attach a greater dignity
to hearsay testimony than to direct statements. This witness, Mr. Lat-
timore, has testified at length as to just what he characterizes as lies in
Mr. Budenz's testimony, and if you want him to repeat that state-
ment, I am sure he can obi ige you.
Mr. Morgan. I want him to answer my question, Mr. Fortas.
Dr. Lattimore. I should like to add, Mr. Morgan, that Budenz testi-
fied to hearsay evidence that I was actually carrying out Communist
directives and organizing writers on behalf of the Communists. That
is a lie. It is a lie if it was told to Budenz, and it is a lie when he
repeats it.
Mr. ]MoRGAN. We are getting now to the point I wanted cleared up
for the record.
In other words, when you refer to the fact that Mr. Budenz has
not told this committee the truth, you mean that what he says he was
told by others is not the truth ; is that correct ?
Dr. Lattimore. "He says he was told by others." That has been
denied by others. I don't know whether anybody else told Budenz
anything or not. I don't know what weight the committee may place
on the testimony of one ex-Communist, or practicing Communist,
versus another ex-Communist.
My point is that I have been lied about, and Budenz may have in-
vented that right out of old cloth, or he may have repeated it. I think
he has invented it out of old cloth.
Mr. ]\IoRGAN. I merely wanted to get on the record the apparent
discrepancy. I am not attaching significance to anyone or any bit
of testimony. I do believe that we have here some very pointed indi-
cations concei-iiing ]\Ir. Budenz's veracity, one way or the other. I
merely wanted to clarify it for the record at this point.
On page Y6 of your statement, you say [reading] :
The world is now grouped in tliree major divisions. In one, the capitalist
economic system and democratic political system are vigorous and unshaken. In
another the Communist, or strictly speaking the Socialist, political system is now
permanently established, and identified with a collectivist economic system.
846 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Do yoii make a distinction, Dr. Lattimore, between a Communist
and a Socialist system?
Dr. Lattimore. The Communists and Socialists both make that
distinction, and I repeat the distinction here. I am not enough of a
specialist on either communism or socialism to tell you the exact dif-
ference. The British Government, for instance, is certainly a Socialist
government. Again it is very obviously different from the Soviet
Government, it is a democratic government, as well as a Socialist
government. But I know from the literature that the Communists
themselves always refer to their government and th.eir social and
economic as well as their political system as being Socialist rather
than Communist.
Mr. Morgan. The position that you take with respect to the third
element, which you neither characterize as Conununist, Socialist, or,
let us say. Democratic, or ])ro-United States, that element, as I under-
stand it insofar as American policy is concerned, is not to be ap-
proached with the idea of projecting any positive American entree
into such countries: is that the idea?
Dr. Lattimore. That refers to such countries, such very different
countries, as Britain, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and so forth. I
think that as third countries, which are not now and are not likely
to come under our control, we should do everything in our power to
project our ideas, to help create conditions which may make those
countries become more like us, but as far as politics are concerned,
we cannot assume that any of these countries will make itself over
exactly in our image.
Mr. Morgan. Well, if I am correct in my interpretation of some
recent statements made by the American Secretary of State, he con-
templates some such approaclies to such peoples. Are you in dis-
agreement with his policy in that respect ?
Dr. Lattimore. I am sorry ; I have been kept so busy for the last
month that I am not up to date on any recent statements. If you
could give me the text
Mr. Morgan. I think perhaps I am getting a little far afield even
there, Dr. Lattimore, so we will not pursue that any further.
Getting back to some matters clearly on the record here that I w^ould
like to have clarified; in your testimony, I believe, originally, you
referred to a meeting with Mr. Earl Browder in 1936. Mr. Browder
in testifying before our committee stated that he had never seen you.
Manifestly we have, on our record, at least, a little discrepancy.
Would you care to amplify as to the meeting, when it was, where it
was?
Dr. Lattimore. I can't recall very clearly when the meeting took
place. To the best of my recollection it was sometime in the fall of
1936. As I said in my statement, I was hoping to open some leads
which might lead to sources of information about the Chinese Com-
munists, because I was going to China. I am not at all surprised Mr.
Browder doesn't recall the occasion because, as I said, I went down
there to call on him, I got a very quick brush-off, about a minute and
a half, and it is not surprising at all that he doesn't rec_all it.
Mr. Morgan. That occurred in New York City, did it?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. In connection with the expression we have here about
your being or not being the architect of our foreign policy in the Far
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 847
East, and tlie statements that have recently been made by three former
Secretaries of State and the ])resent Secretary of State to the effect
that you had nothinir to do with it so far as they were concerned, what
has been the extent of your acquaintance. Dr. Lattimore, with employ-
ees of the State Department in the Far Eastern Section?
I don't want to oo into a long discussion, if we can avoid it, but I
think that it would help us a great deal if you could go into your
association with them and develop that a bit for the record.
Dr. Lattimore. Well, naturally, Mr. Morgan, since I was living in
Peking through most of the thirties, and part of the twenties, I met
and got to know socially, more or less well, from casual acquaintance to
very good friendship, a number of members of onr Foreign Service,
some of whom have since risen to positions of considerable authority.
I knew them, as I knew other Americans in the Far East, and I talked
with them, as I talked with businessmen, about situations in China, the
way things were running, prospects of the future, all that kind of thing.
I have never had any close professional contact with members of the
Far Eastern Division in the Department of State, or any other divi-
sion. I will tell you why. I have a philosophy of my own on the sub-
ject, which has become more and more settled in my mind as I have
written more books and as I have written syndicated newspaper
articles, and so on. That is that in my position as a public com-
mentator, and an interpretor of policy questions, especially in Asia,
I do not like ever to be indebted to members of the Government for
inside information. I think that even if it doesn't cramp my style at
the time it is likely to cramp my style in the future.
Now, that is a "matter of personal choice. Many people work by
building np their "pipelines," as they are called. I just don't happen
to like doing it. My experience, my knowledge of the Far East is,
after all, not based on American personnel. My knowledge of the
Far East is based on the Far East, on the peoples and the languages
of that country, on the direct sources of those countries.
Therefore, I like to feel free to come, from my background knowl-
edge, to an individual treatment of any foreground question, and not
to feel that I have been obligated to somebody in an official position
for giving a particular presentation of any situation.
Mr. ^Morgan. Have you ever recommended personnel for employ-
ment in the Far Eastern Section of the State Department, Dr. Latti-
more ?
Dr. Lattimore. Never: except in the form that occasionally, espe-
cially since the war, when there has been a great deal of shifting of
Government personnel, various people's records have been brought to
my attention, they say, "So-and-so is applying for a job, what do you
know of him?" that kind of thing. But I cannot recall that ever
in my life have I taken the initiative in placing a man in the Govern-
ment.
Mr. Morgan. Wlio contacted you on those occasions?
Dr. Lattimore. The regular agencies, like the FBI, Civil Service
Commission, and so forth.
Mr. Morgan. How frequently has that occurred? Do you recall?
Dr. Lattimore. Less frequently now. In the first years after the
war, when the shifting around was going on, much more than now,
quite a large number. For instance, in my capacity as director of
848 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
the San Francisco office of OWI, I had a Large number of people under
me. After the war the OWI was dissolved as such and brought into
the State Department, where it has since gone through several re-
shufflings and reorganizations, and a great many of the people of that
kind would be referred back to me as their former superior, to see if
J endorsed their record or not.
Mr. Morgan. Now, certain employees of the Far Eastern Division
of the State Department have been publicly involved, as you know,
in these proceedings. I wish you would indicate for the record, if
you will, rather completely, the nature and extent of your association
with. No. 1, Mr. John Stewart Service.
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Service I got to know first in Peking during
the 1930\s, when he was — I think he was a student interpreter at that
time. I don't remember. He was a junior member of the Elmbassy,
or it still may have been a Legation. He is a good deal younger man
than I am. I saw him again in Chungking when I was there as ad-
viser to the Generalissimo, when I used to go over to the American
Embassy occasionally. I saw him again when he was on loan from the
Department of State to General Stilwell, when I was out there very
briefly in 1944. I saw him again when he came back from China, I
forget which year it Avas. And my wife and I have always thought
very well of him and his wife. I have always considered him one of
the most hard-working and well-informed and intelligent younger
men in that part of the service.
Mr. Morgan. Now, in the case of Mr. Haldore Hanson, do you know
him. Dr. Lattimore?
Dr. Lattimore. Haldore Hanson I know much less well. I remem-
ber him as a young and extremely interesting newspaper man in Pek-
ing in the 1930's. As I recall he came out originally to teach at one
of the Christian colleges in China. I forget which one. Then he
became more or less a "string man," I think is the term, for one of the
news agencies. And in 1937, after the Marco Polo Bridge incident,
which started the all-out Japanese attempt to conquer China, he did
some very enterprising journalism as a newspaperman covering both
the Chinese and the Japanese sides of the line in that war, which was
sometimes quite a fluid line, and he wrote some very good dispatches
at that time. Since then I have scarcely seen him.
Mr. Morgan. Have you at any time ever counseled with these officers
of the State Department in connection with any memorandum or other
material that they have supplied the State Department in their official
capacities. Dr. Lattimore?
Dr. Lattimore. Not that I can recall, and I think that I would
recall it.
Mr. Morgan. There is another name that has leaked out in the
hearings. That is Mr. John Carter Vincent. Do you know him?
Dr. LA'iTi:\n)RE. I know Mr. Vincent also from the 1930's. He and
his wife have always been very good friends of my wife and myself.
We have never lived for very long at a time in the same place. I
saw again a good deal of Mr. Vincent in Chungking in 1941-42. I
saw him again occasionally after he came back to this country, but
I can't even remember what year it was. And he, for the Department
of State, and I, for tlie Office of War Information, were both assigned
to accompany Mr. Wallace to Siberia and China in 1944.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 849
Mr. jNroKGAX. Incidentally, Dr. Lattinioro, in that connection, some
question has arisen concerniui>: a report that was suhmitted pursuant
to that mission. Was there a formal report, or an informal report, for
that matter?
Dr. LvrriMOHF.. Mr. ]\I()r<ran, I just don't know ahout that. If there
was one, I wasn't in on the writino- of it. On that journey to Siberia
and China, Mr. Vincent, as the Department of State man, was, quite
rightly, a member of various political meetings and discussions that
]Mr. Wallance had. For instance, while we were down in Kashing,
I think it was, Mr. Averell Harriman flew out from Moscow, and they
had a meeting and discussed various questions, presumably of policy,
but, just as he was, quite rightly, present, I was not, quite rightly,
present, because tluit Avas not my function. I did not belong to the
policy-making part of the Government. The same thing happened
in China, the policy discussions I did not take part in, except that I
had fairly long personal discussions at their invitation with the Gen-
eralissimo and other Chinese officials at which other people were not
present.
Mr. Morgan. Dr. Lattimore, at the time of your original appearance
there was a line of interrogation pursued by Senator Hickenlooper
which I don't think he followed through on in this regard : How much
of your life, your life during your formative years, w^as spent under
local American conditions; let us say, up to the age of 21, what por-
tion of your life was spent in this country?
Dr. Lattimoke. Tliat is easy to answer. Up to the age of 21 I had
spent about 10 or 11 months in this country. Those were the first
10 or 11 months.
Mr. Morgan. "With that in mind, I Avant to ask a general question,
a question which I think is proper, and which might throw^ light in
this proceeding in a manner which is not readily apparent: In your
writings, bearing that in mind, in your writings concerning the Chi-
nese, ])articularly up in the Mongolian area to which j-ou have re-
ferred, has your thought been essentially what is best for the Chinese
people, as distinguished from what might be, perhaps, best for the
United States of America, if you can distinguish the two?
Di-. La-itoiore. AVhen I have dealt with, analyzed, and discussed
political questions in China, Mongolia, et cetera, I have always started,
tried to start from the baseline, w'hat is this country, what are these
])eople: second, what is going on in this country; third, is tendency
A or tendency B the stronger one in this countrv.
I think your question is very pertinent because many Americans,
people of any nation who spend a large part of their lives in some
other nation, tend to develop what you might call a paternalistic
attitude of feeling that they have a right to recommend wdiat the
people of that country should do for their own good. "I know better
than yon do; for your own good do what I say." I do not think T
have ever developed that attitude. I have always tried to work from
what is ratJier than what I might think on the subject.
Mr. Morgan. It has been suggested in testimony before the com-
mittee that perhaps a defect in your writing, if I nuiy use that word
charitably, in the .sense of these ])roceedings, is not so nuich what
you have said but what vou didn't sav. I am wondering
Dr. Lattimore. Guilt by omission.
850 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\i:STIGATION
Mr. Morgan. I am wondering, Dr. Lattimore, if you can guide us
in our deliberations here, let us say, to any instance where you have
criticized the Soviet Union's policies and its programs ?
Dr. Lattimore. Well, I have said — I can't find the reference right
away here — that the spread of direct Russian control in Asia would
be a disaster for Asia ; I can i-emember making criticisms, or state-
ments, on the character of the history of China in the 1920's and 1930's
that have been bitterly resented by the Communists.
Of course, it is a little bit difficult to say what is a criticism. Some-
times you get jumped on for saying something that you yourself
thought was descriptive rather than a criticism.
Mr. Morgan. Well, in view of the observation that I made a moment
ago, I thought perhaps you would care to direct our attention to
those instances, if you have them ; if you don't, that, of course, is all
right.
Mr. FoRTAs. Mr. Morgan, we do have a collection of some quotes
along those lines. I regret to say that we didn't bring them along.
May Ave supply that for the record ?
Mr. Morgan. I am sure the committee will want them. Unless the
chairman objects, you certainly may.
Senator Green. They will be admitted, if they are first presented
to the chairman.
Mr. Fortas. Yes.
Senator McMaiion. Dr. Lattimore, have you ever been denounced
from Moscow ?
Dr. Lattimore. Plenty of times, Senator.
Senator McMaiion. I have, too. Now, I have a very vivid recol-
lection of the language that they used. I mean, I have got it right
here [indicating]. I know what Mr. Molotov said about me and what
Mr. Vishinsky said about me on a number of occasions. So I assume
that you wouldn't have to do any research to tell us the language that
was used, and the time of the announcement.
Dr. Latti3iore. Senator, we haven't been quite in the same sort of
positions. You have been in positions of extremely high responsibility
in this country so that you would become the target of the biggest big^
guns. I have been in a position in which the criticism of me has
come chiefly from Russian writers in political and economic journals,
and so forth. But I have been accused of being virtually an agent of
the Japanese imperialism ; I have been called a libeler ; I have been
called "mad as Hamlet"; I have been called a lackey, a learned lackey
of imperailism, and various things of that kind.
A great many of my publications, however, appear simply to have
been ignored in Russia rather than lambasted. We political science
writers of the West get a good deal of the cold shoulder treatment
from the Russians. They don't handle a great deal of foreign litera-
ture in their journals, notices of it.
Now, if I were a writer on atomic energy I might attract more
attention.
Senator McMaiion. I was going to say they gave him the cold
shoulder and they thought they gave me the hot foot.
I wish, seriously, that you would identify each one of those ex-
pressions. I don't recall that you did in your statement. That may be
an omission, in my opinion.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 851
Dr. Lattimoi!E. I think the most recent one was in an article in the
Kussian Historical Journal in 1049, the journal called Questions of
History, and there they jumped all over me. I can supply that
quotation.
Senator Mc]\Iaiiox. 1 wish you would for the record. Document
each one.
Dr. Lattimore. Yes.
Mr. FoKTAs. ]May I call attention to the fact that both in the original
statement and in today's statement there are references to such com-
ments, and in the orioinal some of them are given with their source,
but we will supply a complete list.
Senator jMc^NIaiion. Thank you. I think it would be well to have
them all in one place ; that is my point.
Mr. FoRTAS. Fine, sir.
Senator Greex. Had you finished, Mr. Morgan?
Mr. Morgan. No. sir.
Now, Dr. Lattimore, at any time did you have a discussion wdth
the president of Johns Hopkins University concerning your alleged
association with the Secretary of the Communist Party in Baltimore?
Dr. Lattimore. No; that is. not that I can recall. You mean the
previous president or the present one ?
Mv. Morgan. Either one.
Dr. Lattimore. Not that I can recall. I don't see why there should
be any reason for it, because I don't think I ever met the secretary of
the Communist Party in Baltimore.
Mr. Morgan. As you can imagine, Dr. Lattimore, a great deal of
information comes to the committee, and I am pursuing this line of
inquiry based on such information. Do you have any recollection of
any such correspondence?
Dr. Lattt^iore. To the best of my recollection — I may have been
asked whether I knew him and said I didn't know him, and such a
question would not remain in my mind — but to the best of my recollec-
tion I never had any conversation w^itli him.
Mr. Morgan. The suggestion was made that he had counseled with
you to avoid such a meeting, but you don't recall any such meeting?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't recall such a meeting, and you can't avoid a
meeting you never had.
Mr. Morgan. To move along, Dr. Lattimore, in j^our original state-
ment I notice you have made reference to certain parallels existing
between the charges made by Mr. Kohlberg and Senator McCarthy.
Now, as I stated earlier, I hope we are away from personalities now,
and I would like to know, irrespective of where the charges might have
come from, whether they are or are not true, and I refer specifically to
one of these charges by Kohlberg, attributed to Kohlberg :
Lattimore told a friend, Freda Utley, in London in 1936 that he almost lost his
job for publishing an article by Harold Isaacs.
Is that a true statement?
Dr. Lattimore. To the best of my recollection, it is not a true state-
ment, and I don't see how I could possibly have made it, because I
didn't nearly lose my job. The Russians made an awful row about my
publishing an article but I stood my ground on it.
I have a statement here by Mr. Isaacs, dated April 5
Senator Green. AMiat year?
852 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Dr. Lattimore. This year. [Reading:]
I am glad to make a simple statement of facts regarding the allusion to an
article of mine pi;blislied in I'acific Affairs in April 193.5 under the editorship of
Owen Lattimore.
Note that this is the year 1935, and I would not be likely to be nearly
losing my job in 1936 over an article that had stood in print since 1935.
I might appropriately press this with the statement that I have often sharply
disagreed with him on varying views, estimates, and analyses of far-eastern
affairs made by Mr. Lattimore in his various books.
I was engaged in 1934-.35 in Peking in research on the events of the Chinese
Revolution of 1925-27, and the subsequent development of the Chinese Communist
movement. Mr. Lattimore invited me to contribute an article presenting some of
my findings for publication in Pacific Affairs. I wrote the article and it was duly
published under the title "Perspectives of the Chinese Revolution : A Marxist
View." This article was sharply critical of both Russia and the Comintern,
and of the Comintern regime headed by Chiang Kai-shek. Following this publi-
cation, that is.sue of Pacific Affairs was, I was told, banned by both Chiang
Kai-shek's government and the Russian Government. Mr. Lattimore was aston-
ished and dismayed at this unexpected reaction to my article.
Since I was publicly known then, as now, as a critic of both the Comintern and
Kuomintang, and since my research had concerned the validity of Leon Trotsky's
criticism of Stalinism, it should be obvious that no pro-Stalinism editor would
have invited an article from me.
Mr. Morgan. Also in these charges. Dr. Lattimore, reference is
made to your alleged association, at least at this point, with certain
organizations, and on the record here I would like your statement
concerning them: No. 1, the National Emergency Conference for
Protection of Human Rights.
Were you associated with that conference ?
Dr. Lattimore. To the best of my knowledge, this is the first time
I ever heard of it.
Excuse me
Mr. FoRTAs. What was the name?
Mr. Morgan. Natioinal Emergency Conference for the Protection
of Human Rights.
Dr. Lattimore. No.
Mr. FoRTAs. Mr. Morgan, I believe in previous testimony it was
developed perhaps by the committee, that a Conference on Democratic
Rights, in Baltimore, was sponsored by an organization which sub-
sequently merged into the organization that you have just named, and
I believe that accounts for the witness' confusion.
Mr. Morgan. Were you associated with this organization, Dr. Latti-
more ?
Dr. Lattimore. No. This was called Conference on Democratic
Rights, and I find on the back page that it was affiliated with the Na-
tional Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights. This partic-
ular conference was held on June 14 and June 15, 1940, and I was
asked to sponsor that particular meeting, which I did. I never was a
member or sponsor of the organization. The organization, I believe,
died in Baltimore, Md., the next year, 1941. It no longer existed.
And this was, in any case, a good many years before the parent or-
ganization was declared subversive.
Mr. FoRTAs. May I respectfully call attention to the fact that this
was covered in the witness' first appearance upon cross-examination ;
that a photostatic copy of the document to which the witness has re-
ferred is in your records.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 853
Mr. Morgan. I think yon are ri<;ht,
I also believe we covered at that original meeting the Washington
Connnittee to Aid China ; didn't we?
Mr. FoRTAS. I think we did.
Mr. MoROAx. Wonld yon care to make an observation about that
organization now, Dr. Lattiniore.
Dr. La'itimore. The Washington Committee?
Mr. MoRCxAx. To Aid China.
Dr. Latfimore. I believe I spoke before that committee once at a
church here in Washington, about, maybe, 1U31) or early 1940. There
was no reason whatever to believe that the organization was subversive,
and I have never heard that, in fact, it was subversive. The same
organization was addressed, for instance, by the well-known Chinese
Bishop Paul Yu-pin.
Mr. IMoRGAN. Dr. Lattimore, there have been several references in
the course of this proceeding to your writings. I want to go through-
several of these as quickly as we can, and I would appreciate your
keeping your answers as short as possible consistent with answering
the question.
In Solution in Asia, pages 93 and 94, published in 1945, you said
[reading] :
The white terror, it should be pointed out, was as bad as the Red in the things
done, and worse in tlie number of people to whom things were done. For every
landlord or "bourgeois" killed, scores of peasants were slaughtered, tortured, or
burned in their villages ; untold numliers of peasant girls were sold into brothels
aTul boys into bondage. In China, as I'ilsudslvi's Poland, in the Baltic States, and
in Mannerlieini's Finland, the white terror was worse than the Red because in a
peasant country revolution attempts to break the grip of a minority, while
counterrevolution attempts to break the will of the majority.
Do you suggest here that the test for us should be not the moral
righteousness of an act but the number of individuals who feel the
impact of such act.
Dr. Lattimore. No; this is merely a factual statement of the nature
of civil war and revolution in predominantly agricultural countries.
The ])easant revolutions and peasant rebellions and uprisings, all
through history, not only in modern history, have been characterized
by the extreme brutality of the slaughter on both sides; and statis-
tically it apparently appears to be a constant phenomenon historically
that numerically more peasants get killed.
Mr. MoRGAX. In the same publication, on page 109, there is a state-
ment which I would like your observation on, which has been referred
to here. [Reading:]
This is the most positive step yet taken in China by any party away from
dictatorsliip and toward democracy. It confirms the graduation of the Com-
munists from being a perpetual minority opposition party to the status of a party
whicli has good claims to a position within a coalition government.
Do you sincerely believe, Dr. Lattimore, that the Communists, in
any percentage ratio in the governing bodies, will participate legiti-
mately in a coalition government?
Dr. Lattimore. I think the answer to that question in 1950 is a good
deal different to the answer in 1945. In 1945 it was true that the
Communists in northwest China had an actual record — no question
of possibility — they had an actual r(>cord of participating very well
in combination political bodies, including Communists and non-Com-
munists. That was a fact at that time.
854 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. On page 120 of that book you compared the Kuomin-
tang China with Communist China. Then you quote unnamed news-
men as follows. You say [reading] :
The O^mmunists have survived, and have even expanded the territory they
control, not because they subdue the people by armed force but because the people
support them.
Basic economic conditions as to food and clothing are better in Communist-
controlled China than in Kuomintang-controlled China.
The incidence of conscription and taxation is more equally distributed in
Communist-controlled territory than in Kuomintang-controlled territory.
Many pi-ogressive, educated, middle-class Chinese have somehow got through
the blockade into Communist territory, but not many have fled from that
territory.
The polil ical structure .under the Communists is more nearly democratic than
it is under the Kuomintang.
Now, I notice these statements are attributed by you to newspaper-
men or others tliat reported that to you. Do you recall from whom
these repoTts came to vou^
Dr. Lattimore. I recall that in 19 — I think late in 1944 — for the
first time American newsmen were allowed to go up to the Chinese
Communisl areas, and from that, from, I think, late 1944 and through
1945, and nntil well after the end of the war, in fact until the final
breaking ofV of relations when American military observers were pulled
out of the (Communist areas, there was a steady contact of American
newsmen going up to those areas. Some went on very short trips;
others went on longer trips. I could look up the record of who went
up there, but I don't recall offhand.
Mr. Morgan. Does the fact that you quote the reports imply or
indicate that you endorsed them, necessarily, Dr. Lattimore ?
Dr. Lattimore. The fact that I quote the reports means that I took
the reliability of the observations of those newspapermen seriously
enough to jjrint them under my o^vn name with attribution to the fact
that they were gathered by newspapermen and not by myself.
Mr. Morgan. I don't like to take statements out of context, but to
expedite this I am going to read a statement and then give you an
opportunity to explain it. On page lo9 of Solution in Asia you say
[reading] :
So tlie fact that the Soviet Union also stands for democracy is not to be over-
looked.
Now, we are back to our word "democracy" again. There is the
apparent statement that the Soviet Union stands for democracy. Do
you have an observation you care to make on that?
Dr. Lattimore. That statement is related to the preceding sentence
on page 139 — "In their eyes — rather doubtfully in the eyes of the older
generation, more and more clearly in the eyes of the younger genera-
tion— the Soviet Union stands for strategic security, economic pros-
perity, technological progress, miraculous medicine, free education,
equality of opportunity, and democracy."
In other words, "in their eyes," as stated in the previous paragraph
from which this follows.
Mr. Morgan. You are using the word "democracy" in the colonial
sense ?
Dr. Lattimore. I am using the word, what appears in the eyes of
those people there, to be democracy.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 855
Mr. ]\roRGAx. Again in Solution in Asia, page 142, you say [read-
ing] :
Outer Mongolia may bo called a satellite of Russia iu the good sense.
Would you care to elaborate on that ?
Dr. Laitimore. Yes. "In the good sense." I will see what I have
about it here. If I have it in print, there is no need to repeat it.
It is in the good sense, to the best of my knowledge, of Outer Mon-
golia, in that the satellite relationship betwen Outer Mongolia and
Eussia is not due to a Russian conquest; it is due to the free associa-
tion. Those people never had any free institutions; but, as far as
the association can be free in a society like that of the Mongols, it
was a free association of Outer Mongolia with Russia, and it resulted
not from the Mongols' thinking that the Russians were wonderful.
"Let's tag after them''; but, as I have explained— I am not sure
whether it is m this book, but elsewhere; I have frequently written
on the subject— the Mongols had had such a raw deal from the Chinese,
and were so badly scared by the presence of the Japanese in Man-
churia, that not as a choice of the best, but as a choice of the less bad,
they preferred to associate with Russia.
Mr. Morgan. Perhaps you have also touched on the next statement
that I want to refer ta. Page 144 of the same book, in which you say
[reading] :
Soviet policy iu Outer Mongolia cannot be fairly called Red imperialism.
Does the observation you have just made apply also to that state-
ment ?
Dr. Lattimore. That applies in exactly the same way.
Mr. MoRCxAX. Now, here is a statement. Dr. Lattimore, that I want
to bring to your attention, in the light of an observation made a mo-
ment ago about this so-called guilt by association. On page 190 of
your book, Solution in Asia, you say [reading] :
In the first interim government we should include political and parliamentary
leaders still surviving who have a record of imprisonment or of being beaten up
by political gangsters, or threatened with assassination. To protect them from
terror we should include among war criminals all officers and civilians with
proved associations of the Black Dragon type, who should be punished accord-
ing to their guilt, with deportation and internment as the minimum.
There, I notice, you suggest that association with organizations such
as the Black Dragon, on the part of Japanese, should be a basis fov
sanctions.
Would you care to comment on that in the light of your state-nent
with respect to and regarding guilt by association?
Dr Lattimore. I think thrtt is a case, Mr. Morgan, of— what is the
popular word now— "semantics"— and I think that the word "associa-
tion ' IS used in this text here very differently from the use with which
we are familiar Avhen we speak of guilt by association in this country.
U hen I said proved associations, organizations like the Black
Dragon, I meant proved participation in the activities of the Black
Dragon Society, which was a terroristic society.
At that time I don't think this phrase "association" had acquired
quite the flavor that it now has.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 55
856 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Going on, Dr. Lattimore — and, believe me, this is as
hard on me as it is on you — in Solution in Asia, page 191 [reading] :
When Japan begins to show an ability to make progress politically, we must
expect the leadership to be left of center and at least liberal enough to be friendly
with Russia.
What do you mean by "liberal enough to be friendly with Russia" ?
Is it possible to be "liberal enough and friendly with Russia*' without
going all the way ?
Dr. Lattimore. In 1915, Mr. Morgan, it certainly was. It hap-
pened all over the place.
Mr. Morgan. Do you still feel that way about it. Dr. Lattimore?
Dr. Lattimore. Not so easy now.
Mr, Morgan. Has your opinion changed, Dr. Lattimore?
Dr. Lattimore. My opinion has changed. The whole climate of
international relations has deteriorated since 1945.
Mr. Morgan. That brings us to another statement in Solution in
Asia, page 199, in which you say [reading] :
The difficulty in dealing with Russia is not Russian policy, but the truly ap-
palling lack of an American policy.
Do you still feel that way about it ?
Dr. Lattimore. I feel that in 1945 we did have a lack of policy about
what to do in China, Korea, Japan, that seemed to me appalling, and
I think the results since then have shown that we were badly prepared
in Asia for the situation that arose after 1945, and despite the out-
srandingly good work done by MacArthur in the occupation of Japan,
by General Marshall in trying to salvage the situation in China,
nevertheless, we did get into a mess.
Mr. Morgan. With respect to the situation today, do you feel that
our unpleasantness with the Soviet Union is the result of Russian
policy, or of any policy that this country is now" or has been
projecting?
Dr. Lattimore. I think it is mainly due to the Russians themselves,
I think, however, that it is also partly due to lack of policy or lateness
of action, on our part. We have been a part of a steadily deteriorat-
ing situation which has produced a worse and w^orse atmosphere on
both sides and has made it more and more difficidt on both sides to get
out of the kind of grouping of attitudes that we are in,
Mr. Morgan, Dr. Lattimore •
Dr. Lattimore. I might elaborate on that point a little bit, though,
because it is a part of a whole attitude of interpretation of modern
international relations that I began to develop at this time in Solution
in Asia and have developed further since, and that is that a great
part of the deterioration of the international situation stems primarily
not from Russian expansionism, and certainly not from what the
Russians call American imperialism, it stems rather from the fact
that the combined effect of the war in Europe and in Asia was a very
serious weakening of what hitherto had \)een great powers, like
England and France, and the weakening of these powers which had
formerly held a strong position in Europe, and also a strong posi-
tion in Asia, created a weakness in the general international structure,
to deal with which inevitably both Russia and the United States
took steps, but since these steps were not taken according to prior
agreements they inevitably led to rivalry; but the cause lies primarily
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION- 857
in the weakenin": of what has been the great power structure of the
world before the Second World War.
Mr. MoKGAN. I believe you testified, Dr. Lattimore, that nowhere
in your writings did you feel that you had ever referred to Chinese
communism as merely agrarian radicalism, and I must say that while
I have read rather exhaustively, I think, from your writings, I will
say at this point that it has not been as easy to "follow your writings
as it was your statement.
I have found in the Virginia Quarterly Review of 1940, pages 164
and 165, a statement that I would like to have you comment on :
The question of China illustrates perfectly how we think al)out China with
two quite different parts of our hi'ain. On the one hand we take it for granted
that tliere is practically no industrial proletariat in China, that the heavily
agrarian structure in China makes it necessary for even the Chinese Communists
to be agrarian radicals rather than true Communists, and that the Chinese
family system is notably resistant to Marxist ideas. On the other hand we
also take it for granted that the Chinese are incapable of looking after them-
selves and all it needs is a little excitement to turn them into raging Reds.
What is more, the persons associated with the second set of ideas are usually-
potent enough to stampede the intelligence of those associated with the first set.
Xow, this is a long way around the mulberry bush, but if I read
this correctly the first set of ideas, which interpreted the Chinese Com^
munists to be agrarian radicals, are the ideas to which you attach
the intelligence associated with such thoughts.
Would you comment on that statement?
Dr. Latti:morf. I haven't a text of that statement. Are you sure
the first sentence does not apply to the lack of industrial proletariat ?
Yes; the question of intelligence, Mr. Morgan, refers to a group of
ideas, that there is. perhaps, no industrial proletariat, that structure
of society is heavily agrarian, that this structure makes it necessary
for them to be agrarian radicals — in quotes. That was the current
phrase at the time. It was not my phrase. That is why I used it in
quotes. This question of true communism.
I don't remember wliether later in that article I clarified these ques-
tions that are in quotes, but I should like to quote to you a recent —
not so verv recent — letter that I wrote in response to a private inquiry
on the subject.
Somebody wrote to me. in 104S. and asked for mv opinion on the
subject, and I, on January 21, 1948. 1 wrote back [reading] :
The Chinese Communists are involved in a very wide movement of the Chinese
people which in some ways is extremely complicated but in others is quite simple.
The Chinese Communists themselves make no bones about the fact that they
are complete and convinced Marxists. They do not pretend that they are simple
agrarian radicals. On the other hand, the Chinese Comimmists who are Com-
munists are vastly outnumbered by their allies who include all kinds of liberals,
nationalists and democratically inclined people. As so often happens in human
affairs, the majority of these people are fighting with the ("oninmnists, as though
on the side of Communists, not because they are for communism but because they
are more against the homeless Chinese Government than they are against
communism.
Xow. in 1940 the situation was the same. As I say, I speak without
knowing whether in the full article I dealt with"^this other aspect
of the matter or not. But the fact is that in 1940 the Chinese Com-
munists were gaining ground politically by offering to meet Uie-
agrarian needs of an agrarian society.
858 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
That does not mean that they were converting themselves from
Marxists to agrarians. It means that they were exploiting the con-
dition that then existed.
Mr. Morgan. Thank yon. I am going to bring this to a head, to
the relief of all of us, and, again, I think we have touched on it, but
I would like to have in the record at this point your observations con-
cerning what, quite frankly, to me, is, to a great extent, the crux of
the situation here. That is, the advocacies, so far as you were con-
cerned, with respect to the American position in the Far East, parallel-
ing, to a degree, what most of us are inclined to believe were Soviet
Russia's. I refer (1) to the thought of recognizing the Communist
government in China today; the suggestion that we abandon Chiang
and Formosa; the suggestion that we pull out of Korea, South Korea,
insofar as we are in South Korea.
And again, I would like, at this point, for you to explain for me,
and for the committee, if you can, by what process of reasoning you
have arrived at these conclusions to which I have referred ?
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Morgan, the question of Formosa, and I believe
South Korea, though many people differ with me on South Korea,
is this kind of question: Let's take Formosa. It is the clearest
example.
The situation in Formosa is not one that can be remedied. Look-
ing at it as coldly as I can, I see no prospect whatever that a govern-
ment, the remnants of a government which landed upon the island of
Formosa, as the remnants of a process of collapse in China, are going
to roll back from Formosa to China. It is a hopeless situation.
Nor does Formosa, in my opinion, have the makings of a nation. It
certainly does not have the makings of a nation under this govern-
ment which is not Formosian in character.
As a matter not of the policy I advocate, but the future that I
predict, we are going to have to get out of Formosa, in the sense of
abandoning any idea of maintaining, by American support, the pres-
ent rump government in Formosa.
Now comes the question of what policy do you advocate. I think
that if you are in a position that you are going to have to abandon,
then you lose prestige, and suffer less moral damage if you show that
you are able to abandon that position of your own accord, rather than
wait until the situation is taken away from you.
Now, I think that the Communists, while they are, of course, pro-
testing, with as much noise as they can make, about the connection
between the American policy and the rump government on Formosa,
are really hoping that we will stay there as long as possible. They
would like to have us hang on; they would like to have us try to
hang on to a position that can't be hung on to, because then, when
we are finally pushed to let go, as they will represent it, they get a
much bigger propaganda story out of it.
Mr. Morgan. You feel that the Russians would like for us to try
to hold on to Formosa ?
Dr. Lattimore. I am sure they would, and the Chinese Commu-
nists, because they are sure we can't do it, and I think that in the
long run we can't do it. The situation is something like this : At the
time of the great defeat in France, when the British were left with
just the remnant of an army on the beaches of Dunkirk, if the British
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 859
had responded to that situation and used every ton of shipping they
coukl get to rush everybody from Enghmd on to the beach at Dunkirk,
that woukl have delighted every Nazi agent in Britain; instead of
which the British extricated themselves from a situation that was no
longer tenable and used the resources, manpower, and whatever equip-
ment they could save, extricated from the beaches of Dunkirk, to use
successfully in the subsequent conduct of the war from Britain.
And I think that is the kind of situation we have in Formosa.
Now, in connection with these holding point positions, such as
Formosa, Korea, Indochina, it seems to me that a grave defect of our
policy at the present time is that so much of our resources, and so
much of our emotion, is committed to these holding points, and I do
not think we can make a successful policy in Asia out of holding points.
The only reason for having a holding point is to do something in the
spaces behind the holding point.
What we ought to have right now is a program with a lot of re-
sources put into it and real drive behind it in countries like India,
Pakistan, Indonesia, Afghanistan, the near eastern countries I don't
know so much about, and I won't say anything about them, but if
we can get going in those countries, before they themselves become
holding points, programs which the people of those countries feel are
for their own benefit, not being imposed upon them by America, but
arrived at for reasons of mutual benefit, not only between them and
America but between them, America, and western Europe, so that
we coordinate our large-scale program in western Europe and south
Asia, then we can get something going, then there will be a feeling of
hope, and then this holding-point psychology will not longer be nec-
essary.
At the present time anything put into FoiTnosa is being frittered
away. Anything put into India, Pakistan, Indonesia, has a chancy
of developing into a big, going concern, and I think it is a grave de-
fect of our policy at the present time that so much attention is con-
centrated on these holding-point positions which cannot in any event
be anything but temporary situations, and the main field of action is
being neglected.
I was in India in December of last year, and talking with Indians
I was tremendously impressed that the Indians had the feeling that
the future of their country, what they were going to do now as an
independent country, was a matter of tremendous urgency, and if the
Americans were going to come in on it. then they better fish or cut
bait — come in on it if they were, stay out if they were going to stay out.
The Americans, on the other hand, seemed to have the idea, "Well,
let's see how this thing rocks along; after all, you aren't menaced
right now ; if we feel like it, we will see about some investment later
on — something of that sort. They weren't regarding it as priority.
They weren't regarding it as an emergency. They had no sense of
urgency. And the situation in Asia, as a whole, is an urgent situation,
and the ui^gency lies in the main features, and not in the detail.
Mr. MoRGAX. I have two final questions. Dr. Lattimore.
Is it your feeling, therefore, that any advantages that might stem
fi'om the program you suggest would offset and overcome any disad-
vantages that might result from such a program with respect to, let
us say, the Philippines and Japan ?
860 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Dr. Lattimore. The Philippines and Japan are two very different
problems. The Philippine problem is going to be solved in the Phil-
ippines. The Philippines are islands off the coast of Asia. Formosa
is an island off the coast of Asia, but the internal questions of national-
ism, economy, ability to be a nation, and so forth, are utterly different
in Formosa and in the Philippines. Japan is a- different kind of
question.
Japan is a Germany without a ruler. Japan is a country which has
got to live by foreign trade, and no longer being an empire it has got
to live by foreign trade on terms which it can negotiate, and not on
terms which it can enforce, impose.
Mr. MoKGAx. Dr. Lattimore, I want to ask you : Has the program
which you have advocated witli respect to China and the Far East been
the result of your independent studies and thinking or are you seeking
to project, on behalf of the Soviet Union, a policy in this area?
Dr. Lattimore. I think it is self-evident, Mr. Morgan, that that is
liot a program that can possibly be projected from Russia.
Mr. Morgan. That is all.
Senator Tydings. Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Lattimore, I have a number of ques-
tions to ask you.
First, I know Mr. Morris, the assistant counsel, has a number of
(questions to ask, and I ask that he be permitted to ask his questions,
as assistant counsel of this committee.
Senator Tydings. If Mv. Morris will give me those questions, I will
ask them as fast as he can write them.
Senator Hickenlooper. jNIy suggestion is that Mr. ]\Iorris be per-
mitted to do his own questioning.
Senator Tydings. We would like you to proceed now, if you please.
Senator Hickenlooper. That means that the committee action is
that he is not permitted to ask the questions ?
Senator Tydings. The committee took this up and decided against
it, and I don't find I have the authority to override the committee —
unless they give me the authority.
Senator Hickenlooper. Very well.
Dr. Lattimore, let me ask just this preliminary question. It may or
may not have pertinence: Where was your mimeographed statement
mimeographed? This statement that you read from this morning.
Mr. FoRTAS. It was mimeographed by the office that does the mimeo-
graphing for us, the law firm of Arnold, Fortas & Porter.
Senator Hickenlooper. It was not mimeographed here on Capitol
Hill?
Mr. FoRTAS. Oh, no.
Dr. Lattimore. That is right; it was not.
Mr. FoKTAS. Virginia Bowman. She would appreciate this adver-
tising. Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. That is perfectly all right. My question
was inspired by a suggestion made to me this morning that it was
mimeographed' here on the Hill and I merely wanted to find out
about it.
Mr. FoRTAS. If anybody would like to have the bill, Senator, we
would be glad to send it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, Dr. Lattimore, I believe you testi-
fied repeatedly, and I am not questioning that testimony at the mo-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 861
meiit. that you never met Mr. Biuleiiz, formally, in your life; is that
correct (
Dr. Lattimore. That is correct. Formally or informally, to the
best of my recollection. I hope I never do.
Senator Hickkxi-oopeij. It is my recollection of your testimony that
you said you had never seen him until he appeared here the other day,
a few days ago, to give his testimony, when he originally appeared
here ^
Dr. Lattimore. To the best of my recollection I had never seen
him before, and I sincerely hope I never see him again.
Senator Hickenlooper. And you never had any transactions, such
as correspondence, or dealings with him, in any way, in the past?
Dr. Lattimore. Xot that I can recall.
Senator Hickenlooper, Therefore you have never had any quarrels
with him, or differences with him, of any kind in the past in which
you and he might have been involved, some serious dispute of some
kind ; is that correct ?
Dr. Lattimore. Nothing besides the little difference of his
trving
Senator Hickenlooper. I am leaving out the present testimony as
an area of dispute.
Dr. Lattimore. That is something I am rather unwilling to leave
out. Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am attempting to ask you whether or not
in the past, let's say prior to
Dr. Lattimore. In the past, neither by conversation, correspond-
ence, word of mouth, or telegram, can I put the faintest recollection
of the man.
Senator Hickenlooper. I see.
Now. I think we are bound to be led to one of two, or perhaps three,
conclusions with regard to this controversy in connection with Mr.
Budenz about you — and these, of course, are alternative assumptions
that one might make :
One assumption could be that Mr. Budenz is telling the truth when
he charges that he learned officially that you were an instrumentality
of the Communist Party. That could be one assumption.
Another assumption could be that he is not telling the truth when
he makes that assertion.
Inasmuch as you have never had any association with Mr. Budenz,
or any dispute with ISIr. Budenz outside of the present dispute, if you
can call it that, in this proceeding — that is, involving the McCarthy
allegations, and so forth — inasmuch as you have never been acquainted
with Mr. Budenz, can you ascribe or do you know of any reason why
]Mr. Budenz would lie about you or about the information which he
alleges to be extant about you, which he claims he got in his official
capacity ?
Do you know of any reason why he would make these assertions if
they are not true ?
Dr. Lattimore. I should like to repeat, Senator, a passage from my
statement this morning.
Senator Hickenlooper. What page?
Dr. Lattimore. Page Bi. [Reading :]
Now, consider the kind of career that Budenz has been following for 5 years.
He has made himself a sensational author and lecturer by exploiting his own
862 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
past. But the past is the past, and he must be haunted by the fact that his tales
of skullduggery and conspiracy may grow stale through sheer repetition. Al-
ready there have been new sensational revelations by Government agents who
have successfully infiltrated the Communist Party, and who have appeared at
trials to give their testimony.
The pressure on Budenz is obvious. When a new sensation breaks out in the
press and a man is accused — even if the accusation is false — what is the tempta-
tion that is dangled before him? It is the easiest thing in the world for his own
memory to be convenient and obliging. He can then rush up and say "I remember
him, too" — and thus revive his reputation as the peerless informant.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, in short, do I understand you to
advance the theory that Mr. Budenz did not necessarily originate this
idea about you, but that after someone else had mentioned it, he then
joined the pack and said, "I knew him, too" ?
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Senator, these allegations and charges against
me are a tissue not onh' of lies but of recent lies.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Lattimore, do I understand your po-
sition
Dr. Lattimore. I am in a position where I can only deal with this
kind of fantastic performance by exercising my intelligence upon it,
and the best conclusion to which my reason leads me is that Budenz
was activated by extremely sordid commercial motives of personal
career.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am merely trying to establish, if there is
to be established, some motive for Mr. Budenz if his statements should
be false, reaching into thin air, as it were, and bringing your name
into this controversy by way of allegation.
Dr. Lattimore. Personal profit is a motive which acts upon people
in many ways, unfortunately ; at times in extremely sordid and dis-
graceful ways. Senator,
Senator Hickenlooper. But I take it that you have no direct evi-
dence that personal profit has induced him to name you in this con-
troversy ?
Dr. Lattimore. I have the evidence that Mr. Budenz pursues a
spectacular career by lecturing and writing as an expert on all things
Communist, He has been 5 years, presumably, cut off from his sources
by the nature of the way in which he himself says that he left this'
conspiracy, and if he is running short of material, he appears to me,
by his actions and words, to be the kind of man who will stoop to this
kind of dirty work.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, Would you call that guilt by asso-
ciations, Dr, Lattimore, that sort of analysis of why Mr. Budenz'
actions, you conclude, are motivated by those things?
Dr. Lattimore, Guilt by Mr, Budenz' association with Mr, Budenz ;
yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. In other words, I take it that you are en-
gaging then in assumption of what motivated Mr. Budenz by putting
various speculations together and coming to a conclusion ?
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Senator, Budenz has tried to do to me things
about as filthy as anyone who calls himself an American can do to
another American. I am not going to attribute to him any charitable
motive.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think you have made that very clear, Dr.
Lattimore,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 863
In an attempt to try and find out the facts in this case I am con-
cerned about whatever proof there may be in existence, whether you
may be able to supply it or whether someone else may be able to
supply it.
First, as to whether or not Mr. Budenz is telling the truth in his
tesitmony ; if he is not telling the truth, what is the motivating in-
fluence for picking you out of the thin air, as it were, and naming
you as the Commuiiist functionary, according to his own words?
That is what I am interested in.
Dr. Lattimoke. I can see no motive, except Mr. Budenz's idea of
Budenz's advantage.
Senator Hickexlooper. In other words, Mr, Budenz, according to
that theory, could reach out and arbitrarily pick anyone and name
them as a Communist functionary^
Dr. Lattimore. ]Mr. Senator, i3udenz has been waving 400 unde-
clared names, which he may pin on anybody.
^Senator Hickexlooper. Dr. Lattimore, you just returned from
Afghanistan; did you not?
Dr. Lattimore. That is right.
Senator Hickexlooper. You went there as a representative of the
United Xations; is that correct? Just what was the capacity?
Dr. Lattimore. I went there as the head of what was called an
exploratory mission for the United Nations technical aid program.
Senator Hickexlooper. Who paid the expense of that trip; that
is, your expense ?
Dr. Lattimore. United Nations.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did the State Department pay any part
of that directly ?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. It came directly from the United Nations ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. And in a recent trip last summer you were
in Alaska ; is that correct?
Dr. Lattimore. That is correct.
Senator Hickex^lgoper. Was that a private trip purelj^ or did it
have an}' ofHcial connections in any way ?
Dr. Lattimore. I went on that trip to Alaska as deputy for Presi-
dent Bronk, of Johns Hopkins University, who is one of the directors
of the Arctic Research Laboratory at Point Barrow.
Senator Hickex'looper. Now, that trip, were your expenses paid
by the State Department ?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. Who was responsible for the expenses of
that trip ?
Dr. LATTnroRE. As fnr as I can recall the expenses were borne bv
the Arctic Research Laboratory.
Senator Hickexlooper. And wlio accompanied you on that trin.
Doctor?
Dr. Lattimore. Oh, there must have been a dozen people or so
The minutes are in the record. Senator.
Snator Hickexlooper. Was Mr. Stefansson, the explorer, witli von
on that trip?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
864 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. You are acquainted with Mr. Stefansson,
are you not ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. I cannot pronounce his first name. If you
were to tell me how to do it, I would appreciate it.
Dr. Lattimore. V-i-1-h-j-a-l-m-u-r.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Stefansson has been quite active in the
past several years in various political sociological activities, has he
not ?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't know, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you interested, you and Mrs. Latti-
more, interested in any property with Mr. Stefansson?
Dr. Lattimore. We have joint ownership of a farm in Vermont.
Senator Hickenlooper. And where is the location of that farm ?
Dr. Lattimore. Bethel, Vt.
Senator Hickenlooper. You have an undivided, you and Mrs. Latti-
more have an undivided half interest in this farm, do you not?
Dr. Lattimore. That is right.
Senator Hickeklooper. AVhen did you acquire that?
Dr. Lattimore. Last summer, of 1949.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you spend some time up there, or have
you ?
Dr. Lattimore. We spent a couple of months there last summer.
I had some Mongols with me, from our research group at Johns
Hopkins, and I was engaged there in taking down material from
them, and in translation work from Mongol sources.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did Mr. Stefansson stay there at the time?
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Stefansson was at his house part of the time ;
not the whole time.
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, it is your house as well as his; is it
not ?
Dr. Lattimore. No ; he has a house on the property which belongs
to him and there is an adjoining property, about a half mile away,
through some woods, in which he has a half interest and we have a half
interest, and the house in which we have a half interest is on that
other property.
Senator Tydings. Are the two homes separate?
Dr. Lattimore. About a half mile apart.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is Mr. Stefansson the assistant director
of the Arctic Institute of North America, do you know ?
Dr. Lattimore. I believe he is ; yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know the Chinese Tung Piwu ?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir; I don't believe I have ever met him.
Senator Hickenlooper. In that event, you have never had a meet-
ing with him, and others, some years ago, 4 or 5 years ago.
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. At any place?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, I notice in your testimony, Mr. Latti-
more, today, as I recall, the Budenz charges, as far as you know,
were the first, as I understand your testimony, and if I am incorrect
you may correct me, as I understand your testimony the Budenz
charges against 3'ou were the first charges that you were aware of,
STATE DEPARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 865
or the first insinuations that you were aware of as to any possible
Coniniunist connections that you might have; is that substantially
correct i
Dr. Lattimore, Senator McCartliA' came before Budenz and Kohl-
berg went pretty far before Senator "McCarthy.
Senator Hickexlooper. Mr. Kohlberg's allegations, or whatever
they were, were in connection with the Institute of Pacific Relations
activities, is that correct?
Dr. Lattimore. Also in connection with me personally.
Senator Hickexlooper. I noticed on pages B 6 and 7 of your state-
ment, in connection with the appearance of Mr. Whittaker Chambers
before the House Un-American Activities Committee, that they ques-
tioned, Mr. Stripling questioned, Mr. Chambers about any acquaint-
ance with you at that time?
Dr. Laitimore. Yes.
Senator Hickexlooper. I believe Mr. Chambers said that he had
none, and I believe you testified, as I recall, that you had no acquaint-
ance with Mr. Chambers.
Dr. Latti:siore. I don't remember testimony — it may have been the
first time I was here — in any case, no, no connection.
Senator Hickexlooper. Now. on page C 5 of your statement, I call
your attention to the paragi-aph beginning in the middle of the page
as follows [reading] :
And in the same period —
This is referring, as I understand it, to the Institute of Pacific Rela-
tions publication —
And in the same period we published at least 94 contributions out of the 250 that
were definitely to the right of center.
Does that indicate. Dr. Lattimore, that the other 156 were to the
left of center, the balance of the articles in this publication ?
Dr. Lattimore. Xo, sir. The balance are articles that are on scien-
tific or bibliographical or political, entirely colorless subjects.
Senator Hickexlooper. It is my recollection. Dr. Lattimore, that
General Thorpe testified when he was before this committee that you
saw classified documents when you were down at the last post of com-
mand where he was stationed; is that correct ?
If I am not correct in my assumption, I wish you would correct me.
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, I recall his testimony on that subject, Senator,
and I have not conferred with him on that subject, but to the best of
mj recollection when I was in Tokyo I went in several times to see
General Thorpe, and to talk with him about various subjects. I don't
think there is any harm in saying that subject on which I probably
conferred with him in most detail was the fact that there were a
number of jMongols in Japan who had been brought over by the Japa-
nese before and during the war. General Thorpe api)arently did not
know about them, but I had known that they must be there because
I had known something about the Japanese Mongol from the Mongol
side before that. So I went in to urofe him to get some of the Mongols
down. At fii-st I urged him to get liold of them. Then he made inquiry
and found that they had all been segregated at a university up in
northern Japan. Then I suggested that he get some down. He found
out how many there were, and it was obviously too large a nmnber to-
866 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
brine: all of them clown, and I suggested to liim the classification on
which he sliould bring them down to Tokyo for interrogation, that
classification being b}^ region from which they came, tribal affiliation,
and that kind of thing. This was done eventually but only after I
left Japan, because the airfield where they were was snowecl in.
Now, in connection with that kind of question and other questions,
he may have shown me classified documents, but I can't, I confess
that I cannot recall any single classified document shown to me, or even
whether classified documents were shown to me. It may be that I
■v^as cleared in his department as a person to whom classified docu-
ments could be shown, and yet no occasion came up for showing them,
and, therefore, I wasn't shown any. But my memory is not entirely
clear on the subject.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Lattimore, did j^ou ever urge or recom-
mend to an official of the American Government that the United
States recognize the independence and sovereignty of Mongolia after
it had set up its, as you referred, I believe, a while ago, its de facto
independence from China?
Dr. Lattimore. Well, I have recommended in books that outer
Mongolia should be recognized, and I may have recommended it in
that memorandum of August 1949, but I can't recall any other
occasion.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you recall whether or not you, or would
you say whether or not you strongly represented that in, let's say, the
late thirties, the then recognition by the United States of the inde-
pendence and sovereignty of Mongolia — I don't know whether you
would refer to it as Outer Mongolia.
Dr. Lattimore. That is the general term. I can't recall it.
Senator Hickexlooper. Would you say that you had not so recom-
mended ?
Dr. Lattimore. No, I might have. I don't recall any occasion on
which I did so.
Senator Hickenlooper. When was it that the Russian secret police
and political police moved into Outer Mongolia and actually took
over the physical control, and by that I don't mean that they put
their own persons in the elective offices, but the secret police and the
enforcement branch from Russia, moved in and took over the prac-
tical control of Outer Mongolia ?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't know, sir. In fact, I don't know if they
have that kind of control in Outer Mongolia today. It is a subject on
which I work continuously accumulating information as best I can,
but I don't have the positive answer.
Senator Hickenlooper. Wasn't there a time around 1935 or 1936, the
dates of which I cannot specifically place, when there was reported a
so-called revolutionary activity in Outer Mongolia which set up
some new officials there and changed the complexion of the then ex-
itsing government?
Dr. Latiimore. There was a time — ^Let's see how close I can date
it — about 1931, 1932, along in there, when there was a year of rather
acute trouble in outer Mongolia, the nature of which was that they at-
tempted their move considerably to the left of where they had been,
and then decided that was a bad move, and moved back over toward
the right of center.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 867
Senator HicKENLoorER. Wasn't tliero a disturbance, or revolution in
Outer Mongolia in the thirties in which the Russian secret police and
other Russian secret forces, that is nonuniformed forces, I might say,
moved in and after a certain blood purge succeeded in getting people
friendly to them established in the Government of Outer Mongolia?'
Dr. Laitimore. I don't know, sir. There was a Mongolian purge
after this leftward move that failed. Whether that Mongol purge
was conducted by Russia or at the instigation of the Russians, I don't
know. In W'-I-i there was a much bigger change of regime in Outer
Mongolia, and most Mongols attribute the beginning of stronger
Russian influence to that period.
Senator Hickexlooper. Dr. Lattimore, did you ever address an or-
ganization in Washington known as the Washing-ton Book Shop,
or make addresses up there under your sponsorship?
Dr. Latiimore. Not that I recall, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you speak before a Washington com-
mittee to aid China which was sponsored by the American League for
Peace and Democracy about lO^l ?
Dr. Lattimore. About, I think, a little earlier than that, 1939 or
1940, I spoke at a committee for the — a meeting in a church some-
whei-e here in Washington, sponsored by the Washington Committee
for Aid to China, but I do not believe that they — what was that other
committee ?
Senator Hickenlooper. American League for Peace and Democ-
racy.
Dr. Latti:m()KE. I don't believe that was the sponsor.
Senator Hickenlooper. After Philip Jaffe was arrested in the Am-
erasia case, did you furnish any character references for Mr. Jaffe '^
Dr. Lattimore. I don't believe so. I haven't seen Mr. Jaffe since
about 1940 or 1941.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you think that you would recall if you
had furnished character references for him ?
Dr. Lattimore. I should think I would ; yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. And so far as you recall, you did not ?
Dr. Lattimore. As far as I can recall, I did not.
Senator Hickenlooper. You were in China in June of 1937, were
you not ?
Dr. Lattimore. That is right.
Senator Hickenlooper. And you were in Yunan at that time ?
Dr. Lattimore. About then ; yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. You made a trip to Yunan.
Dr. Lattimore. It was in June, I think.
Senator Hickenlooper. How long was the duration of that trip ?
Dr. Lattiimore. Oh, I forget how long the total duration of the trip
was overland to Yunan ; we spent, I think, 3 or 4 days in Yunan —
and, by the way, Mr. Chairman, I have just discovered the notebook
that I kept while I was in Yunan. I would like to submit it as an
exhibit to show the routine nature of the interviews, on which I took
notes, and the routine nature of the notes indicates wl\y I didn't feel
that there was anything that I could publish after such a trip.
Senator Tydings. You are just lending it to us for reference ?
Dr. Lattimore. I should like to have it back for my files, if I may.
868 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper, On tliis trip to Yunan, Dr. Lattimore, you
^ere accompanied by Philip Jaffe and by T. A. Bisson, or either of
them ?
Dr. Lattimore. Both of them, sir. I think there was a fairly com-
plete account of that in my first statement, Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you know Gerhart Eisler in Cliina ?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir ; nor anywhere else.
Senator Hickenlooper. Referring to Gerhart Eisler, is it possible
that he could have gone under any other name where his identity
might have become known to you later as Gerhart Eisler ?
Dr. Lattimore. I doubt it, Senator. I never knew that Gerhart
Eisler had been — who he was, or that he had been in China — ^until I
saw the newspaper accounts here, and, as I recall from those news-
paper accounts, he was in South China, where the Communists and
Kuomintang united front of that period was operating, and at that
time I was traveling across Mongolia and central Asia.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did a man by the name of Loomis, a man
who went under the name of Loomis, at least, ever arrange to furnish
information supplied by you to Moscow in Soviet diplomatic pouches,
the Soviet diplomatic pouch?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. I believe you were in Yokohama in 1934,
were you not ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yokohama, 1934? I may have passed through
Yokohama, probably did pass through Yokohama on the way back
from America to China in 1934 ; yes. I don't remember any Loomis,
though.
Senator Hickenlooper. Sir?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't remember any Loomis there.
Senator Hickenlooper. The Loomis had nothing to do with this
particular question.
The trip was made by boat ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was Agnus Smedley along on the boat on
that trip ?
Dr. Lattimore. She was on that boat ; yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. She made the trip from this country to
Yokohama then at the same time ?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't remember whether she made the trip from
this country or joined the boat in Yokohama. Let me see now. I
was on that boat for part of the time with her but not the whole trip.
Licidentally, that was the first time I had met her and the trip was
not by prearrangement.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Lattimore, do you know a person by
the name of Miyagi Yotoku ?
Dr. Lattimore. Not that I can recall. My memory for Japanese
names is not as good as my memory for Chinese names but that sounds
completely strange to me.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Lattimore, did Mrs. Lattimore, your
wife, lecture before the Tom Mooney School in California?
Dr. Lattimore. You will have to ask her, sir; she is right here.
Can't recall it, she says.
Senator Hickenlooper. And you no knowledge of your own as to
whether or not she did ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 869
Dr. LATToroKE. No ; I haven't, Senator.
Senator Hickexlooper. Dr. Lattiniore, we discussed for a moment,
on your previous appearance here, the matter of the picnic at your
phice, I believe, in JNIaryland, outside of Baltimore, at the time the
arrests were made in the Anierasia case, perhaps a day or so before that,
and that at that time, do I recall correctly, that you said Mr. Roth was
there ?
Dr. Lattimore. That is right.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is he married, and if so, was his wife there?
Dr. Lattimore. No : I don't think his wife was there.
Senator Hickenlooper. And was Phillip Jaffe there?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was John Service there?
Dr. Lattiimore. He was there.
Senator Hickenlooper. The purpose of their visit at your house,
in addition to attendinc: a picnic, I believe you said, was to examine the
manuscript, or some book in preparation that one of them was writing?
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Roth was going through the galley proofs of his
book. Dilemma in Japan, and as a good deal younger man, writing —
I am not sure that it was his first book — yes ; I think it was his first
book — I am not sure, but as a younger author, he very flatteringly
asked me if I would look at the galleys and make any suggestions
that could be made at the galley proof stage, and so on.
Senator Hickenlooper. And Mr. Service, what was his connection
with the meeting?
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Service, as I have been saying this afternoon,
was a friend of a good many years, I had seen something of him in
Chungking, he had been back in Washington for some time, I don't
recall just how long, and it was the first chance to offer him hospitality,
so my wife and I asked him to come over.
Senator Hickenlooper. And he was not there for the purpose of
examining the galley proofs of this book?
Dr. Latti3iore. He may have looked at the galley proofs, being a
foreign service officer, specializing in the Far East he could have been
expected to be interested, but I don't recall whether he did or not.
Senator 'Hickenlooper. And he did not bring or take away the
galley proofs, is that true, or did Mr. Roth do that ?
Dr. Lattimore. Not that I can recall, sir. The only galley proofs
I saw were Mr. Roth's.
Senator Hickenlooper. I will hand you, merely to refresh your
recollection, if possible, a tear sheet from the paper The People's
World, Wednesday, April 28, 1943. I call your attention to an adver-
tisement that appears on page 3 of that paper as the tear-sheet shows,
headed San Francisco, and in a box "Lecture by Mrs. Owen Lattimore,
China and the War, Friday, April 30, 8 p. m., Tom Mooney Labor
School, 678 Turk Street, Admission 50 Cents."
I will hand you that for your reference, to see whether or not it
may refresh your recollection, or that of ISIrs. Lattimore.
Dr. Lattimore. She says that she could have. She talked at a great
many places in those years.
May I ask. Senator, if there is any reason why anyone should not
speak at the Tom ^Nlooney School; is there anything sinister about it?
Senator Hickenlooper. I hadn't suggested any, one way or the
other. Dr. Lattimore, I am merely asking as to facts.
870 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Did you ever know or meet Richard Sorge ?
Dr. Lattimore. No. I don't recall ever meeting him, and I don't
think I could have.
Senator Hickenlooper. You know to whom I refer ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. He was the subject of an investigation and
report on espionage activities in the Orient.
Dr. Lattimore. That is right.
Senator Hickenlooper. If I may have returned that tear sheet, if
you are through with it.
Now, do you know whether or not the People's World is one of the
official publications of the Communist Party, or was in 1943?
Dr. Lattimore. I couldn't tell you, Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. On your visit to Yunnan that w^e men-
tioned a moment ago, I take it you had been in Yunnan before ?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir ; I had never been there before.
Senator Hickenlooper. In your life in China?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you have anything to do with the ar-
rangement for Edgar Snow's trip into Communist territory in con-
nection with securing necessary information for his book or writings
on Red Star Over China ?
Dr. Latiimore. No, sir; I didn't even know about it, the prepara-
tions for it.
Senator Hickenlooper. On your tv\p to Yunnan, did you lecture^
or make any addresses, address or addresses to Chinese Communist
troops ?
Dr. Lattimore. I made one speech, or partial address. They had
an open air meeting, for hospitality to the visiting group, and I spoke
there, rather briefly, in the open air.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know Harriet Lavine Chi?
Dr. Lattimore. I used to know her many years ago, yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is she not the ]:)resent proposed delegate
to the United Nations of the Chinese Communists ?
Dr. Lattimore. She is or was the wife of Chao-Ting Chi, yes. I
don't know whether they are still married or not.
Senator Hickenlooper. And he is the man w^ho is either now here
or waiting the action of the United Nations to become the delegate
for the China government of the Communists?
Dr. Lattimore. So I hear, yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. Harriet Lavine Chi was at one time your
secretary, w^as she not?
Dr. Lattimore. She worked for, I think, something like a week, as
my secretary, a week, or it may have been two weeks, in the summer
of 1936, wlien the preparations were being made for the 1936 con-
ference of the Institute of Pacific Relations, and we had a number of
temporary secretaries and stenographers.
Senator Hickenlooper. That is the only time she was ever employed
by you or worked with you ?
Dr. Lattiimore. She was not employed by me.
Senator Hickenlooper. She was employed to work for you ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 871
Senator Hickexloopeh. I do not mean necessarily that you paid
her.
Dr. Lattimoke. Yes.
Senator HickenloOper. "Was (hat (he only time that she ever per-
formed any Avork for you?
Dr. LA'pri:MoKE. Tliat is the only time I recall.
Senator Hickenloopek. Is she Philip Jeffe's niece?
Dr. LAT-riMORE. 1 don't know, sir.
Senator Tydings. Dr. Lattimore, the hour is getting pretty late, and
you have had a pretty long session. I wonder if it Avouldn't be con-
venient for you to be here at 10 :15 tomorrow morning?
Dr. Lattimoke. If you so desire, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. I have a great many more questions that I
want to ask. I don't care to hold the committee here.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator Hickenlooper has some other questions
he would like to ask: so I think we might make it at 10 tomorrow
morning, so that we can get back on our other schedule.
Senator Lodoe. Let me say, if the decision not to permit any ques-
tioning in executive session is adhered to, I would be constrained to
ask some questions myself.
Senator Tydixgs. All right. Senator Lodge will have some ques-
tions. I think we might as well meet at 10 o'clock tomorrow morn-
ing. So if it is convenient to the committee w^e will recess until 10
o'clock tomorrow morning.
( Whereujjon, at 5 :30 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene on
Wednesday, May 3, 1950, at 10 a. m.)
68970— 50— pt. 1 56
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1950
United States Senate,
commii tee on foreign relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
W ashing ton., D. C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to an adjournment taken on May 2,
1950, at 10 a. m.. in the caucus room, room 318, Senate Office Building,
Senator Millard E. Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee)
presiding.
Present: Senators Tydings, Green, McMahon, Hickenlooper, and
Lodge.
Also present : Senator Knowland ; Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel
for the subcommittee; and Robert Morris, assistant counsel for the
subcommittee.
Senator Ttdings. The committee will come to order.
"WHiile we are waiting to get started, I have written to General
Marshall, Cordel Hull, Secretary Byrnes, and Secretary Acheson,
inquiring of each of them, in identical or similar letters, what influ-
ence Mr. Lattimore had on the far eastern policy, and whether he was
the chief architect on the State Department's far eastern policy.
Each of them replied and I would like to have these inserted in
the record, both my letters and the replies thereto.
April 17, 1950.
Gen. Gf.oiige C. ^Marshall,
American Red Cross, Washinfjton. D. C.
Dbur Gener.\l Marshalx: It has been stated by Senator :McCarthy during
the course of the hearings now being heUl by the sulieomniittee of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee under Senate Resohition 231. that Mr. Owen
Lattimore is "the principal architect of our far eastern policy."
It is important for our committee to determine the truth of this contention
for whatever bearing it may have on other evidence adduced in the Lattimore
matter. For that reason, I would appreciate it greatly if you would inform
me at your earliest possible convenience of the extent to which, in your opinion,
Dr. Lattimore was "the principal architect of our far eastern policy" or the
extent that Dr. Lattimore influenced our far eastern policy during the period
in which you were Secretary of State.
I am addressing a similar letter to Secretary Acheson, Mr. Hull, and Mr.
Byrnes.
Thanking you for your kindness in giving the committee this information, I am
Very respectfully,
PiNEHURST, N. C, April 22, 1950.
My Dear Senator Tydings : I have received your letter of April 17 in which
\ou refer to a recent statement, in connection with the hearings of the Subcom-
mittee on Foreign Relations under Senate Resolution 231, that "Owen Lattimore
873
874 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
is the principal arcliitect of our far eastern policy." Your letter then asks the
extent to which, in my opinion, '•Lattiniore was the principal architect of our
far eastern policy" during the period in which I served as Secretary of State.
The statement referred to ahove is completely without basis in fact.
So far as I and my associates can recall, I never even met Mr. Lattimore.
I take the liberty of commenting on the harmful effect on our foreign relations
of such statements, charges, or insiiuiations broadcast with so little regard
for the truth. They undoubtedly confuse our friends abroad, undermine and
weaken our position before the world, and actually lend assistance to the powers
that would destroy us.
Faithfully yours,
G. C. Marshall.
April 17, 1950.
Hon. CoEDELL Hull,
Wardnian Park Hotel, Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Hull : It has been stated by Senator McCarthy during the course
of the hearings now being held by the Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Connuittee under Senate Resolution 231, that Mr. Owen Lattimore is "the
principal architect of our far eastern policy."
It is important for our committee to determine the truth of this contention
for whatever bearing it may have on other evidence adduced in the Lattimore
matter. For that reason, I would appreciate it greatly if you would inform me
at your earliest possible convenience of the extent to which, in your opinion. Dr.
Lattimore was "the principal architect of our far eastern policy," or the extent
that Dr. Lattimore influenced our far eastern policy during the period in which
you were Secretary of State.
I am addressing a similar letter to Secretary Acheson, Mr. Byrnes, and General
Marshall.
Thanking you for your kindness in giving the committee this information, I am
Very respectfully,
Washington, D. C, April 20, 1950.
Hon. Millard E. Tydings,
United States Senate.
My Dear Senator Tydings : I have your letter of April 17 in which you inquire
concerning the extent to which, in my opinion, Dr. Owen Lattimore was "the
principal architect of our far eastern policy" or the extent he influenced our far
eastern policy while I was Secretary of State.
In my opinion, he was in no sense the "principal architect" of our far eastern
policy during the period I served as Secretary of State. Although his position
in academic circles as a student of and writer on some aspects of Chinese life
and history was, of course, known to us, I am not aware tlTat during this period
he had any appreciable influence on our far eastern policy. I do not remember
having consulted with him on that subject or on any subject at any time.
Sincerely yours,
Cordell Hull.
April 17, 1950.
Hon. James F. Byrnes,
Spartanhurg, S. C.
Dear Mr. Byrnes : It has been stated by Senator McCarthy during the course
of the hearings now being held by the subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Re-
lations Committee under Senate Resolution 231, that Mr. Owen Lattimore is
"the pritK'ipal architect of our far eastern policy."
It is important for our committee to determine the truth of this contention for
whatever bearing it may have on other evidence adduced in the Lattimore mat-
ter. For that i-eason, I would appreciate it greatly if you would inform me
at your earliest possible convenience of the extent to which, in your opinion,
Dr. Lattimore was "the principal arcliitect of our far eastern policy," or the
extent that Dr. Lattimore influenced our far eastern policy during the period
in which you were Secretary of State.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 875
I am addressing a similar letter to Secretary Acheson, Mr. Hull, and General
Marshall.
Thanking you for your kindness in giving the committee this information,
I am
Very respectfully,
Spartanbukg, S. C, April 24, 1950.
Hon. Millard E. Tydings,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
Dear Millard : I have your letter of the 17th asking the extent to vphlch, in
my opinion, Mr. Owen Lattimore was "the principal architect of our far-eastern
policy" or the extent he influenced our far-eastern policy during the period I was
Secretary of State.
I do not know Mr. Lattimore. If he ever wrote me about the far-eastern policy
the letter was not called to my attention. If, while I was Secretary of State, he
discussed our far-eastern policy with any oflScials of the Department concerned
with that policy, in their discussions with me they did not quote him.
Early in December 1945 Gen. George C. Marshall went to China and thereafter
his reports to the President and me influenced our policies in China and the Far
East. I do not think General Marshall was influenced by Mr. Lattimore.
To my former colleagues, I take the liberty of adding that, regardless of the
merits of complaints as to what has heretofore occurred, the President and the
Secretary of State have given proof of their desire to restore the bipartisan policy
in our foreign affairs, and I earnestly hope the Members of the Senate will
cooperate in that effort.
While I was Secretary of State I found I could talk to Senator Vandenberg with
the same freedom with which I talked to Senator Connally and to my assistants,
and I profited by his advice. I am sure that in his absence other Republican
Senators will cooperate just as did Senator Vandenberg. It is extremely impor-
tant at this time, in view of the tenseness of the situation in world affairs, that
we do not give to either our friends or enemies abroad the false impression of a
serious division among us in our policies as to the Soviet Government. Seldom in
history have our people been so united on any issue.
I hope that, regardless of our differences on domestic issues, our political
leaders can present a united front in our foreign relations.
Sincerely yours,
James F. Byrnes.
April 17, 1950.
Hon. Dean Acheson,
Secretary of State,
Department of State, Washington, D. C.
Dear Mu. Secretary : It has been stated by Senator McCarthy during- the course
of the hearings now being held by the subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Rela-
tions Committee under Senate Resolution 231, that Mr. Owen Lattimore is "the
principal architect of our far-eastern policy."
It is important for our committee to determine the truth of this contention for
whatever bearing it may have on other evidence adduced in the Lattimore matter.
For that reason, I would appreciate it greatly if you would inform me at your
earliest possible convenience of the extent to which, in your opinion, Dr. Lattimore
was "the principal architect of our far-eastern policy," or the extent that Dr.
Lattimore influenced our far-eastern policy during the period in which you have
been Secretary of State.
I am addressing a similar letter to Mr. Hull, Mr. Byrnes, and General Marshall.
Thanking you for your kindness in giving the committee this information, I am
Very respectfully,
Aprh, 27, 1950.
Hon. MnxARD E. Tydings,
VnitrrJ States Senate.
My Dear Senator Tydings : In a letter dated April 17, 1950, you asked that I
inform you of the extent to which, in my opinion, Mr. Owen Lattimore was the
876 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
"principal architect of our far eastern policy," or the extent to which he in-
fluenced our far eastern policy during the period in which I have been Secretary
of State. On April 17 Mr. Peurifoy, Deputy Under Secretary of State, wrote
you in full detail concerning Mr. Lattimore's connections with this Department
in the past. The far eastern policy of this Government, like all other foreign
policy, is the responsibility of the Secretary of State and has been made by me
in my administration, subject, of course, to the direction of the President. I
welcome this opportunity to state personally and categorically that during the
period in which I have been Secretary, Mr. Lattimore, so far as I am concerned
or am aware, has had no influence in the determination of our far eastern policy.
There is clearly no basis in fact for describing Mr. Lattimore as the "principal
architect" of our far eastern policy. I might add that, so far as I am aware,
I have never met Mr. Lattimore.
The far eastern policy of the United States has at all times been determined
after careful study by the responsible officers of the Department and an objec-
tive evaluation by me of all of the facts available to this Government. The De-
partment of State has explored all avenues to arrive at the relevant facts. The
measure of the participation of Mr. Lattimore, so far as this Department and I
am concerned, is fully and fairly indicated in the letter of April 17 from Mr.
Peurifoy.
Sincerely yours,
Dean Achesox.
April 17, 1950.
Hon. Millard E. Ttdings,
Unitcfl States Senate.
My Dear Senator Tydings : Following Senator McCarthy's statement on
March 21 that a top Russian espionage agent, whom he privately identified as
Mr. Owen Lattimore, was an employee or consultant of the State Department,
I submitted to your subcommittee a brief statement of Mr. Lattimore's connec-
tions with this Department, as revealed by a careful check of our personnel
records. Since Mr. Lattimore has been publicly identified and since there has
been considerable public discussion concerning his relationship with the De-
partment, it is now appropriate to give in greater detail the instances of con-
nections between Mr. Lattimore and the Department. Without any intention
of reflecting on Mr. Lattimore and for the purpose of setting the record straight,
I believe I should state that Mr. T.attimore does not have a desk in the Depart-
ment of State nor access to its files, and is neither an employee nor a top ad-
viser of the Department. These are the facts :
On October \~>. V.)A~). Mr. Owen Lattimore was appointed as an economic ad-
viser to the United States Reparations Mission to Japan. He served with the
mission until February 12, 1946. While on this assignment he was paid out of
the Department's international conferences funds.
Mr. Lattimore was 1 of 28 persons to lecture on a program known as Meet the
Public, which was given at the Department's Foreign Service Institute. He
gave one lecture on .June 5, 1946. This program was initiated by the Depart-
ment's Office of Public Affairs and was designed to bring before departmental
personnel the viewpoints of various persons who were working on. or interested in,
foreign affaii's. In this capacity, Mr. Lattimore was not an employee of the De-
partment and received no remuneration. The following were the speakers on
this program :
Senator J. William Fulbright
Mr. Ernest K. Lindley, chief of the Washington bureau of Newsweek
Senator Warren Austin
Dr. Arthur C'ompton, chancelor of Washington University, St. Louis.
Mr. Charles Bolte, chairman of the American Veterans' Committee.
Congressman Jerry Voorhis.
Prof. Owen Lattimore. director of the AValter Hines Page School of International
Relations, Johns Hopkins LTniversity.
Prof. Frederick L. Schuman, Wil'iams rnllege.
Mr. Herbert EUiston, editor of the Washington Post.
Mr. Eugene Meyer, president of the International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development.
Dr. Jacob Viner, professor of economics, Princeton University.
Dr. Harold Lasswell, professor of law, Yale University.
Mr. Wallace Deuel, editor of the Chicago News.
Senator Wayne Morse.
STATE DEPARTMENT EJMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 877
Mr. Thomas K. Finletter. vice chairman of Americans United for World Govern-
ment, Inc.
Mr. James ^l. Limdis. cliairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board.
Mrs. Vera Micheles Dean, editor and research director of tlie Foreign Policy
Association.
Mr. Kermit Eb.v, director of education and research, Congress of Industrial
t)rganizati(ins.
Mr. Hamilton Owens, editor of the Baltimore Sun (and Sun papers).
Prof. Frank Tannenbaum. t\ilumhia I'niversity.
]Mr. (Jardner Murphy. American Psychological Association.
Rt>v. Kdmund A. Walsh, vice president of Georgetown University and regent of
t he Sfhool of Foreign Service.
Mr. David Lawrence, editor of the United States News and of the World
Report.
Mr. Robert Watt, international representative of the American Federation of
Labor.
Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt.
Dr. Dexter Perkins, professor of Latin-American affairs. University of Rochester.
Congressman ^like ^Ianstield.
Dr. James P. Baxter, president of Williams College.
On October G. 7. and 8. l!>4tt, Mr. Lattimore, following preliminary correspond-
ence with the Department of State, was one of a group of 25 private individuals
participating in a round-table discussion arranged by the Office of Public Affairs
for the purpose of exchanging views on United States foreign policy toward
China. As a member of this group, Mr. Lattimore was not an employee of the
Department an<l received no compensation but was reimbiu'sed for expenses.
This round-table discussion followed a solicitation of written views on the same
topic from a larger group in response to which the written views of 31 private
individuals were received and analyzed. Some of the members, including Mr.
Lattimore, were in both groups. Both the written views received and the
transcript of the round-table discussions were made available as some of the
background material for consideration by Mr. Raymond B. Fosdick, Mr. Everett
Case, and Ambassador Jessup, w ho had been requested by the Secretary to review
Uiuted States policy toward the Far East. The 31 who expressed views initially
in writing were:
Former Consul General Joseph W. Ballantine, now at Brookings Institution.
Prof. Hugh Borton, Columbia University.
Former President Isaiah Bowman, Johns Hopkins University.
Dr. A. J. Brumbaugh, American Council on Education, Washington.
Former Ambas.sador William Bullitt.
Former Under Secretary Castle.
Former Consul John A. Embry.
Pi'of. Rui>ert Emerson, Harvard University.
Dr. Charles B.'Fahs, New York City.
Prof. John K. Fairbank. Harvard University.
Dr. Huntington Gilchrist, New York City.
Prof. Carrington Goodrich, Columbia University.
Former Under Secretary Grew.
Col. Robert A. Griffin, former Deputy Administrator, EGA, China.
Former Ambassador Stanley K. Hornbeck.
Roger Laphani, former Administratoi', EGA, China.
Prof. Keruieth S. Latourette, Yale University.
Prof. Owen Lattimore, Johns Hopkins LTniversity.
Oliver O. Lockhart, Export-Import Bank of Washington.
Walter H. Mallory, Council on Foreign Relations.
Prof. Wallace Moore, Occidental College, Los Angeles.
Prof. Edwin O. Reischauer, Harvard University.
C. A. Richards, Economic Cooperation Administration.
Former Minister Walter S. Robertson. Richmond, Va.
Dr. Lawrence K. Rosinger, New York City.
Mr. James Rowe. Washington.
Mrs. Virginia Thompson (Adloff), New York City.
Prof. Amry Vandenbosch, University of Kentucky.
Prtrf. Karl A. Wittfogel, Columbia University.
Pnil". :\lMrv Wright, Standford University.
Admiral Yarnell.
878 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
The 25 who attended the round-table discnssions were :
Joseph W. Ballantine, the Brookings Institution, Washingon, D. O,
Bernard Brodie, Department of International Relations, Yale University, New
Haven, Conn.
Claude A. Buss, Director of Studies, Army War College, Washington, D. C.
Kenneth Colegrove, Department of Political Science, Northwestern University,
Evanston. 111.
Arthur G. Coons, president. Occidental College, Los Angeles, Calif.
John W. Decker, International Missionary Council, New York, N. Y.
John K. Fairbank, Committe on International and Regional Studies, Harvard
University. Cambridge, Mass.
William R. Herod, president. International General Electric Co., New York, N. Y.
Arthur N. Holcombe, Department of Government, Harvard University, Cam-
bridge, Mass.
Benjamin H. Kizer, Graves, Kizer & Graves, Spokane, Wash.
Owen Lattimore, director, Walter Hines Page School of International Relations,
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Ernest B. MacNaughton, chairman o fthe board. First National Bank, Port-
land, Ore.
George C. Marshall, president, American Red Cross, Washington, D. C.
,1. Morden Murphy, assistant vice president. Bankers Trust Co., New York, N. Y.
Nathaniel Peffer, department of public law and government, Columbia Uni-
versity, New York, N. Y.
Harold S. Quigley, department of political science, University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minn.
Edwin O. Reischauer, department of far eastern languages. Harvard Univer-
sity, Cambridge, Mass.
William S. Robertson, president, American & Foreign Power Co., New York, N. Y.
John D. Rockefeller III, president Rockefeller Brothers' Fund, New York, N .Y.
Lawrence K. Rosinger, American Institute of Pacific Relations, New York, N Y.
Eugene Staley, executive director, World Affairs Council of Northern California,
San Francisco, Calif.
Harold Stassen, president, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.
Phillips Talbot, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111.
George E. Taylor, I'niversity of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
Harold M. Vinacke, department of political science. University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati. Ohio.
The following were invited to the round table October 6, 7. and 8, 1949, but
did not attend :
W. Langhourne Bond, Pan American Airways, Washington, D. C.
Monroe E. Deutsch, provost, University of California.
Anne O'Hare McCormick, New York Times.
Moris T. Moore, chairman of the board of Time, Inc.
Michael Ross, director, department of international affairs, CIO.
J. E. Wallace Sterling, president, Stanford University.
In order to ascertain whether any facts whatsoever might support Senator
McCarthy's assertions that Mr. Lattimore has a desk in the Department, access
to its files, and a position as a top adviser on far-Eastern affairs, a check has been
made with officers of the Department who have been concerned with the Far East,
and many of whom have come to know Mv. Lattimore, who is widely regarded
as one of the leading experts in this field. Beyond the normal contacts found
among persons having a common specialized professional training and interest,
this check developed only that Mr. Lattimore. as director of the Walter Hines
Page School of International Relations of Johns Hopkins University, has partici-
pated in setting up at Johns Hopkins a Mongolian language project in which the
Department is interested. The Department of State, in line with the policy of
promoting and utilizing foreign language and other international studies in nu-
merous American universities, has, under authority of Public Law 724 (79th
Cong.), entered into a contract with the Johns Hopkins University, pursuant to
which it has contributed $.S,200 toward this language project. Very much larger
sums have been made available for this project, it is understood, by the American
Council of Learned Societies and the Carnegie Foundation. In connection with
this project, it was possible to arrange for three Mongol scholars, including Dilowa
Hutuktu, or the "Living Buddha," to enter the United States and work in, the
Walter Hines Page School in Baltimore. Officers of the Department's Foreign
Service Institute have visited the project from time to time to observe its progress,
and a junior member of the Foreign Service Staff, a specialist on the Far East,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^-ESTIGATION 879
whose salary is ^i.C^O a year, is studying at tlie Walter Hines Pa.c:P School as part
of this iirojtH't. The end results of the project will be a descriptive grammar
of the Mougolian language and other teaching materials in spoken Mongolian.
Mr. Lattiniore was recently sent by tlie Secretariat of the United Nations as
a member of a preliminai*y economic sui'vey mission to Afghanistan. In this
capacity, Mr. Lattimoie was hired by and responsible to the United Nations
and not the Department of State.
Mr. Lattimore does not have a desk in the Departmen of State, nor does he
have access to its files. Of course, in connection with his OWI employment
(1942-45) and his 4-month assignment to the Pauley Reparations Mission which
terminated February 12, 1946, Mr. Lattimore like others in such positions, might
have been required as part of his duties to consider some official papers from
other agencies of the Government, including the Department of State.
These are the facts.
Sincerely yours,
Deputy Under Secretary.
All right, Senator Hickenlooper, ■whenever von are ready.
TESTIMONY OF DR. OWEN LATTIMORE— Resumed
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, may I first hand in some of the
things I was reqnested to hand in yesterday?
Senator Ttdixgs. What are they, Mr. Lattimore?
Dr. Lattoigre. First, Mr. Chairman, I have here two exhibits.
One is my memorandnm to the generalissimo, which the committee
wanted to examine
Senator Ttdixgs. That will be filed.
Is it identified on the cover ?
Dr. Lattimore. It is identified on the cover.
Senator Ttdixgs. Hand it over to the stenographer.
(Tlie docnment referred to was passed to the committee reporter
for filing with the committee.)
Dr. Lattimore. Second is the diary of my trip to Yenan. In con-
nection with this diary, Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw attention
to one fact, lest any misapprehension shonld arise : The diary consists
entirely of interviews with Communist leaders at Yenan; but at the
end there are some names on a separate sheet. I did not want to tear
out that sheet, to make the notebook seem mutilated, but I do not
want to leaA'e the names in there without o^uarding against misappre-
hension. The names are the names of Christians, Chinese, and British,
and they are noted on that page because, while I was at Yenan, a
Cliinese Christian doctor came up to me and said that he was work-
ing in the region, that he was afraid that he would be denounced to
his colleagues, and the British, and would I please write to his col-
leagues and take out some letters for him, and to say that he was there,
not because he was a Communist, but because, as a Christian and a
doctor, he felt it his duty to remain in an area which had been taken
over by the Communists, to show that it had not been abandoned by
Christians, and men of his profession.
That is the only reason his name is in there.
Senator Ttdixgs. You want those names in the diary treated in
confidence, and vou are submitting it for the information of the
committee ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes.
Senator Ttdixgs. And you want it returned ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes ; returned to me, if j^ou please.
880 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydiistos. The stenoorapher will so note.
What was the year of the Yenan visit ?
Dr. Lattimore. 1937.
Senator Tydings. 1937 ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes.
Senator Tydixgs. And the diary is for 1937?
Dr. Lattimore. At the time I was there.
(The diary was passed to the committee reporter.)
Senator Tytdings. Go ahead.
Dr. Lattimore. I should then like to hand in some quotations from
my own writings.
The question was raised
Senator Ty'dings. Do you want those back, or just filed ?
Dr. Lattimore. Filed for the record.
Senator Tydings. Filed for the record, as exhibit 87.
Dr. Lattimore. In this connection, I should like to remark, Mr.
Chairman, that the question of whether I am against Russian expan-
sion, and against the spread of communism, is something that is implicit
throughout my writings. As a political scientist, and not a propa-
gandist, my writing has not taken the form of mere hostile denuncia-
tion. I have always been a loyal American citizen, devoted to the
best interests of my country ; and my anti-Communist view is primarily
expressed in the fact that I have repeatedly advocated programs that
would limit the expansion of Russia, as a state; and limit the expan-
sion of Communism as an ideology. Therefore, it is positively
expressed, and not negatively expressed, in terms of denunciation.
Senator Tydings. It will be filed for the record, as exhibit 87.
(The document was passed to the committee reporter.)
Dr. Lattimore. Thirdly, I should like to add to this record a file
of attacks on me in the Communist press. I should like to say that
these were gathered primarily by my wife while I was away in Afghan-
istan, before I returned. They do not represent a thorough search-
ing of the Soviet press; as the Soviet press is not indexed in this
country, and it is an oxpensive and long-time business to search the
entire record, particularly as my writings fall under the head of geog-
raphy, history, anthropology, as well as political science.
Therefore, a very wide search would have to be undertaken; and
in this connection, Mr. Senator, I should like to make one further
observation :
Reflecting last night on the trend of some of the questions yesterday,
which I realize were devoted to the eliciting of facts, and which I
realized represented the fact that the shadow of McCarthyism hangs
over the whole procedure of our public life, as well as over me person-
ally, I nevertheless found certain things that both as a university pro-
fessor, and as an author, I thought might represent perhaps a dan-
gerous trend in our whole public life.
How often does a man have to prove his loyalty as an American, not
by the constructive work that he does, but by the angiy denunciation
in which he engages ?
How often does a loyal American have to prove his loyalty by the
number of attacks on him, in the Soviet or American Communist press ?
One of the things that most instantly repels Americans is, when they
read in the original, or in translation, the kind of thing that is pub-
lished in the Soviet press, where every issue of a magazine has to begin
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 881
with an adulation of Stalin, and denunciation of American imperial-
ism, without any proof; where every individual article has to begin
with an adulation of Stalin and denunciation of bourgeois cosmopoli-
tanism, and jargon of this kind, Mr. Senator, to reach a point in Ameri.
•can life where a university professor can only hold his chair if he is
^ble to produce, from time to time, printed evidence that he has been
attacked in the Soviet or Communist press, not longer ago than, say, 6
months ?
If we get to that stage, Mr. Senator, McCarthyism will have domi-
nated this country.
Senator Tydixgs. It will be filed in the record as exhibit 88.
Senator Hickenlooper ?
Senator Hickexlooper. Dr. Lattimore, on yesterday you dwelt at
some length upon the freedom of research and the clanger to this
country in curtailing that freedom. You advocated strongly the right
of scholars, researchers, and others to examine the truth, to probe
deeply to get to the truth, and the facts, whatever the facts are.
Again this morning you have defended that philosophy, and I am
not in disagreement with you on that idea that the scholars and re-
searchers must search for the truth, if we expect to progress; but,
by the same token, this connnittee has a responsibility in the public
political interest to search for the truth and to probe deeply for truth.
Now, do I understand that you are raising objection here now to
this committee probing deeply and searchingly for the truth in this
matter ^
Dr. Lattimore. Senator, I am not raising any objection at all to
the committee probing as widely as it sees fit. I am here before this
committee, not only in person, but as a representative of a whole group
in our public life. I have referred to the trend of certain questions
which I thought represented the reflection in this country of a type
of denunciatory procedure which exists in Russia, and which I and
other Americans do not like.
Senator Hickexlooper. Well, Dr. Lattimore, the denomination by
you of this proceeding as "McCarthyism'"' in my judgment is not ex-
actly appropriate, and I say that without meaning to be caustic about
iiny
Dr. Lattimore. I am merely saying that the shadow of McCarthy
has been projected over this committee. He denounced this committee
over on the floor of the Senate •
Senator Hickexlooper. The shadow of Senator McCarthy may be
projected over this committee, but the shadow of communistic actiid-
ties in this country has been projected over this committee, and if you
Mill read the statement of Mr. j. Edgar Hoover of yesterday I think
that it will indicate that the Communist activities in this country are
something for substantial concern, indeed; and, I shall be further
interested in his statement of yesterday at a later date.
Dr. Lattimore. Tlie question of communism in this country, as far
as it affects me. Mr. Senator, has been introduced by false accusations,
not by activities or writings.
Senator Hickexlooper. Well, it is true that Senator McCarthy has
been prominently connected with this proceeding. Without doubt,
some of his charges generated the setting up of this committee. I
think that goes without saying. That is true. But this committee
882 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
faces, as I understand it, as I approach it, a fact, and not necessarily a
theory, and the fact that the committee faces — or facts — are the neces-
sity for probing for truth, once this matter has been opened up.
Now, you have become an element in this inquiry. As such an ele-
ment, I feel that it is the duty of this committee to ask questions, to
probe deeply, and to find out from the answers to the questions that are
asked, and information that is received, to find out a basis for fair
and decent conclusions.
Dr. LvTTiMORE. Equally, Senator, I feel it is my duty to appear be-
fore this committee. I would respectfully point out, however, that
my case has been before this committee for more than a month, in the
course of which I have not been able to attend to my ordinary voca-
tion, in the slightest. I have put more than a month of time at the full
disposal of this committee.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Lattimore, the question I asked you, the
question about whether or not Mrs. Lattimore liad lectured to the Tom
Mooney Labor School at San Francisco in 194.3, and produced a tear
sheet from the People's World, dated April 28, 1943, published in San
Francisco, I believe, and in connection with that I find — ^I want to ask
you whether or not, overnight, you and Mrs. Lattimore have had op-
portunity to refresh your recollection as to whether or not she actually
did lecture at that time and place, to the Tom Mooney School ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, Senator. We discussed it. First, I should
like to say that during 1943, we were at the height of our war effort,
and my wife and I, as people who had spent a great many years in
China, were requested to speak all over the place, to all kinds of or-
ganizations, and we did so; and, as the printed record shows, both
from a book that I published in 1943 and from a book that my wife
and I together wrote in 1943 and published in 1944, we were both at
that time heart and soul behind the Chinese war effort, as well as our
war effort, and were strongly in favor of Chiang Kai-shek; so that
nil the lecturer we gave at that time included strong support of Chiang
Kai-shek.
My wife recalls that she spoke at what she understood to be a labor
school, as both of us spoke at many schools, churches, community or-
ganizations and so forth, at various times ; and with all due respect,
Senator, I should like to add at this point that I think that this attack
on me has set a new low in American political life, and I consider
that this attempt to attack me through the activities of my wife, as
a loyal American citizen, giving her opinions to no matter whoever
it may be — her opinions, not the opinions of anyone else, strikes a new
low.
Senator HiCKENLoorER. I assure you. Dr. Lattimore, that I am
merely attempting to probe the historic attitude toward communism,
and I think some of these things are extremely pertinent, in putting
the pattern together.
Dr. Lattimore. In putting the pattern together, is it a question of
the audience to whom one speaks, or tlie words which one says?
Senator Hickenlooper. So far as the Tom IMooney Labor School
is concerned, I have checked up on it, and I find the following refer-
ence, from the California Committee on un-American Activities.
The first Tom IMooney Labor School was first announced in the Peo-
ple's World, July 1, 1942, that being the west coast organ of the Com-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 883
miinist Party. The California Committee on Un-American Activi-
ties further, in its report for 1947, said, and I quote as follows :
The San Francisoo Workers' School * * * frankly and openly a school
for instruction in communism * * * by 1943 * * * had been rechris-
tened the Tom JNIooney Labor School. * * * a. glance at the curriculum
reveals that chan,i:iu,<;- the name of the San Francisco Workers' School to tlie
Tom Mooney Labor School did not result in any deviation from the Marxist
character of the institution * * * the Tom Mooney Labor School functioned
for years with Communist Party functionaries as instructors.
The reference is the California Un-American Activities report, for
194T,pao:es63, 77, andTS.
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Senator, in 1943 my wife and I were enj^aged
in patriotic activity. We were not professional discoverers of sub-
versive institutions. As far as my wife can recall, she remembers
that she was asked to go down to a trade-union school. She spoke
there, expressing the same ideas that she and I expressed everywhere
else, and if now, some years later, it turns out that the Communists
at that time were against Chiang Kai-Shek, and if it turns out now
that my wife and I discover what we did not know before, that that
particular school had Communist connections, well, I think that it is
an extremely good thing that they were exposed at that time to some
extremely un-Communist and anti-Communist remarks on, and inter-
pretations of the situation in China.
Senator HicKEXLoorER. Dr. Lattimore, on yesterday I asked you a
question as to whether or not a man by the name of Loomis ever ar-
ranged to furnish information supplied by you to Moscow, and in the
Soviet diplomatic pouch. Your answer was "No."
Dr. Lattimore. I, to the best of my knowledge — the only man by
the name of Loomis, of whom I knew in those years, was a former
Y]\rCA seci-etary in Hawaii, who was at that time the secretary of
the Hawaii branch of the Institute of Pacific Relations and as anti-
Communist a man as I know, and I certainly never stuffed anybody's
pouches with information for the Soviet Union.
Senator Hickenlooper. And, you did not at any time use the Soviet
diplomatic pouch for the transmission of communications of any
kind?
Dr. Lattimore. I may have used it on one occasion, in 1947, when
I was hoping to be able to make a trip to Outer Mongolia. At that
time, I knew that Americans were not being admitted to Outer Mon-
golia, and T thought it would be a considerable score if I coidd get
there, so I wrote a letter to the Premier of Outer Mongolia, using
the same technique that is used by correspondents in Moscow when
they write a letter to Stalin, hoping to get a publishable answer, since
the United States has no diplomatic connection with Outer Mongolia.
I enclosed an original letter written in Mongol, with an English trans-
lation, and sent it to the Soviet Ambassador here in Washington, and
asked him — and the enclosure was unsealed, and I asked him if he
would transmit this request to the Soviet, to the Mongol Embassy
in Moscow, asking him to transmit it to the Premier of Outer Mon-
golia.
Wliether they sent it in any pouch or by written mail, I do not know.
My request was all in writing. There was no conversation, and there
was no answer.
884 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA'ESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. And did you at any other time, and under
any other circumstances ever make use of the Soviet diplomatic pouch
for the transmission of any communications ?
Dr. Lattimore. Not that I can possibly recall. Senator; and. I
think it most unlikely. I cannot imagine the circumstances under
which I might have used the Soviet pouch.
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, then
Senator IMcMahon. I want to just say that — have you a copy of
that letter that Senator Hickenlooper just asked you about ?
Dr. Lattimore. I must have, yes.
Senator McMahon. Will you produce it?
Dr. Lx\TTiMORE. Surely.
Senator McMahon. I will take advantage now of saying, for the
record, that I have to preside over a meeting of the Joint Atomic
Energy Committee at 10: 30. We are having a very, very important
session with Dr. Page, the physicist, and I have to go.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Lattimore, what methods and means
did you take for making your arrangements and the contacts for vour
trip to Yenan in, I believe, 1936 or 1937 ?
Senator Tydings. Excuse me.
Due to the absence of some of the members of the committee here, it
will not be feasible to sit beyond 11 : 15, which is 40 minutes from
now. I, myself, have to go downtown to keep an engagement of 2
months' standing which I have tried to get out of, and cannot, and,
at 12 : 15 a speech ; and Senator McMahon has this meeting and I am
wondering what the situation will be in that regard.
Senator Green, could you preside up to 12 : 15 here, because we are
meeting at 11— that would take care of it. We could go on for that
length of time.
Senator Green. Thej* want us all present.
Senator Tydings. Can you be here up to 12 : 15 ? I have to go.
Senator Green. I received this call from Senator Lucas to be in the
Senate at 11.
Senator Tydings. What is you answer?
Senator Green. No.
Senator Tydings. I would stay myself, even in spite of the call, but
I cannot stay on account of the engagement of a few months' standing,
to speak to the Washington Rotary Club. Visitors from all over the
country will be there at 12 : 15, and I have to leave before that to
arrange for some other matters.
If you could sit here until 12 : 15, and then you could recess, it would
relieve me; otherwise, there won't be anybody here.
Just a minute, we will get this all straightened out.
I would like for the hearing to go on, if you could stay here.
Senator Green. I would, but the majority leader telephoned and
asked me to present there at 11 o'clock.
Seantor Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, the two Eepublican mem-
bers might arrange to go on with the hearing, if the Democrats have
to be gone.
Senator Tydings. Some of us have tried to be here at all times. We
have always tried to have one of each party present while the com-
mittee was proceeding.
Senator Green. It seems to me it will be better if, when it comes
II o'clock, we would adjourn
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 885
Senator Tydixgs. "We will have to do that.
I had no idea yesterday that Ave Avere meeting at 11 this morning.
The usual time for a meeting is at 12, so I had planned to go to 12:15.
Go ahead. We will have to recess at 11 and meet again this after-
noon.
Sorr}- to have to do this.
Senator Htckenlooper. T withdraw that question. Just disregard
the question I had asked which has not yet been answered.
Dr. Lattimore, Avill you tell the circumstances of whom you con-
tacted and who arranged for your trip to Yenan, that you testified
about ?
Dr. LATTi:\roRE. I was the man who managed the trip, Senator.
"We went by train, as far as we could go by train; then, we chartered
a motorcar and drove on. and our first contact with Communists was
at the first Communist post we encountered in the territory held by
them.
Senator HiCKENLOorER. Did you have arrangement made to go on
through, through that territory?
Dr. Lattimore. None.
Senator Hickenlooper. You went without any previous authoriza-
tion?
Dr. Lattimore. None.
Senator Hickenlooper. None whatever?
Dr. Lattimore. None whatever.
Senator Hickexlooper. So that you did not have the arrangements
for this trip made in advance by any other persons?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. I believe you said Mr. Jaffe and Mr. Bis-
son accompanied you on that trip?
Dr. Lattimore. That is right, Senator.
I might add. Senator, that at that time every newspaperman in
China was trying to get to Yenan. The press, all over the world, was
avid for news of that region, and it was known that anybody could
get in who could get that far.
Senator IJickenlooper. And, did the press, generally, get into
Yenan at that time ?
Dr. La-^ttimore. A certain number got in, quite a number.
Senator Hickexlooper. Was Agnes Smedley and Nym Wales at
Yenan when you reached there ?
Dr. Latti:more. They were there when I arrived, yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. And you conferred with them, there, I
believe, at that time in Yenan? That is, you met and talked to them
there ?
Dr. Lattimore. When we got there, we found that the Communists
had a sort of resting house or hostel at which they put up all visitors,
all foreign visitors. They were at that same hostel, and we saw them
there.
We — at least. I can't speak for the others, but I had no conferences
with them. I met them and talked with them socially.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you ever read the sort of story as
developed by the Far Eastern Command?
Dr. Lattimore. I have seen references to it. Senator. I don't think
I read it in detail.
886 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. You are aware that Agnes Smeclley was
listed as one of the agents that worked in connection with Sorge
Dr. Lattimore. I am aware of that. I also remember a press story
in which she vigorously denied it.
Senator Hickenlooper, Dr. Lattimore, what connection did you
have with the Pacific Story, and the National Broadcasting Co. tran-
script, presented by the OWI? Did you write it or collaborate in its
preparation?
Dr. Lattimore. The Pacific Story was a radio series of the type
that is called radio drama. I was approached by NBC in 1943 and
asked if I would act as commentator, coming on for a 3- or 4-minute
period at the end of each broadcast, and for a number of the broadcasts
my wife was asked to act as research worker, to dig out material for
the man who did the program.
The program itself, as written, dramatized and presented on the
air, was entirely the responsibility of the producer and of NBC. I
was responsible for the commentary which I added at the end.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did Agnes Smedley broadcast in The
Pacific Story?
Dr. Lattimore. Not that I ever heard of, not while I was on it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you ever arrange for Miss Smedley
to broadcast or take part in the broadcasting or preparation of The
Pacific Story?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir. I was on that Pacific Story program for
about 3 months, as I recall. I did not arrange for it to be rebroadcast
by OWI and, in fact, I believe that any time when I was working on
it, I cannot recall that it was rebroadcast by OWI, and I did not
arrange for anybody else to appear on it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do I understand you to say that Agnes
Smedley did not appear on the program while you were taking part
in it? '
Dr. Lattimore. Not that I can recall. The program went on for
some time after I left California.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you familiar with the organization
called Indusco?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Were you ever an official of that organi-
zation ?
Dr. Lattimore. I may have been one of the executive committee at
one time, before I left for China in 1941.
Senator Hickenlooper. Were you, in fact, an honorary vice chair-
man of the organization ?
Dr. Lattiiniore. I may have been and, also, while I was in China, I
talked a number of times about Indusco with the man who was then
Premier of China, H. H. Chung, who was the chairman of the Chi-
nese side of the organization.
Senator Hickjenlooper. And was F'hilip Jaife on the board of
directors ?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't recall.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was Mrs. Lattimore on the board of di-
rectors with you ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes
Mrs. Lattimore. Yes, I still am.
Dr. Lattimore. She was and still is.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 887
Perhaps I should add at this nionient, Senator, that in the people
who were active on Indnsco, as far as I knew them, and the whole
proijfrani as far as I had anythin<i: to do with it, it was a part of that
whole oeneral attitude in China (hat I so frequently referred to, as
my attitude, namely, the development of reforms and progressive
measures in China that would forestall the Communists by giving
people a democratic state of their own, in a kind of China totally
different from the kind of China the Communists were aiming at.
Senator Hickexloopek. IMr. Chairnmn, may I diverge just a mo-
ment hei'e?
I received a note on yesterday, received a note from Freda Utley,
in which she said she had seven questions she w^ould like to have pro-
pounded to ^Ir. Lattimore. The information was that she had sent
those (questions to me, but the guard told her the questions had to
be turned over to Mr. Morgan, and I never received the questions.
Now, I am giving no carte blanche to ask any questions anybody asks
me to, but that is not the point — I would like to see the seven (juestions,
to see whether I want to |>repound any of them to this witness or not.
(Mr. Morgan handed the ({uestions of Miss Utley to Senator
Hickenloo})er. )
Senator Tydixgs. Is Mr. Bielaski in the room, Mr. Frank Bielaski?
(Xo response.)
Senator Tvdix(;s. He does not seem to be here, but he sent a message
to the chairman that — I don't know Mr. Bielaski — that he w^ould like
to be notified when he was likely to be called. That is something I
cannot tell him, except that when we finish with this phase of the
matter, it is the present intention of the chairman, if the committee
approves, to call Mr. Bielaski today, if we can find time to do it.
If he has any friends here, I wish they would notify him.
Senator Hickexlooper. I believe. Dr. Lattimore, that you testified
as to your acquaintance, for some period of time, with the young ]\[r.
Chi, who is the person proposed by the present Communist regime in
China as their representative to the United Nations?
Dr. Lattimore. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Hi.ckenlooper. You have known him for a number of
years ?
Dr. Lattimore. I have known him for a number of years.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did you know him before the war ?
Dr. Lattimore. I knew him before the war. I think I must have
met him first about 1934. I knew him rather slightly in those years,
exce])t fhat I remember that he helped me, by checking some of my
translations from Chinese sources at one time, Chinese historical
sources: but the time at wdiich I knew him best was during the war, in
Chungking, when I was adviser to the generalissimo, and he stood in
a confidential relationship to Mr. H. II. Chung, who was then the
Premier.
Senator Hickexlooper. During your acquaintance with Mr. Chi,
pv'iov to the war or during the war, did you believe him to be or did you
learn him to be a Communist at any time?
Dr. LATTnioRE. No, sir; no, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. When did you first know that he was, in
fact, a Communist?
Dr. Lattoiore. I do not know that he is, in fact, a Communist
now, Senator.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 57
888 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Seiicator HiCKENLOorER. Is tliere aii}^ doubt in your mind tliat he
would be here as the proposed representative of Communist China
to the United Nations, if he is not a Communist ?
Dr. Lattimore. It is possibk^, Senator. The Communist govern-
ment in China appears to have taken over the services of a consider-
able numl)er of non-Communists, especially where they were men of
specialized training of various kinds.
Senator Hickenlooper. You have known Mr. Frederick V. Field
for a number of years?
Dr. Lattimore. Since 1034 ; in the summer of 1033 I met hin:i at a
conference of the institute.
Senator HiCKENLoorER. And you have associated with him in the
Institute of Pacific Eelations and in the earlier days of Amcrasia ; is
that correct?
Dr. Lattimore. I was associated with Mr. Field to the extent that
we were both employed by the Institute of Pacific Eelations since
1031:.
He, however, was associated with the American Council of the
Institute of Pacific Eelations, and I was associated Avith Pacific
Affairs, which was the organ of the International Organization of
the Institute of Pacific Eelations.
During the earlier years of that association I was living principally
in China.
Senator Hickenlooper. During that association, did you believe at
any time, or were you reliably informed by Mr. Field — I will i:)ut it
specifically — by Mr. Field, on information, that Mr. Field was either
a Communist or had vigorous Communist sympathies?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir. Quite the contrary. As far as I knew,
Mr. Field was a man who had an interest in the economies of the
Pacific region, and who was a rather liberal young man, but my
acquaintance with him, my discussion of political topics with him, was
so casual that it was not even — not until the other day did I even
learn that he had at one time been a supporter of Mr. Norman
Thomas. At that time I didn't know it.
Senator Hickenlooper. During all of your associations with Philip
Jaffe did you at any time come to believe, or were you at any time
reliably informed, as to whether or not Mr. Jaffe either was or is
either a Communist or a strong Communist sympathizer?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir. In my contacts with Mr. Jaffe, which were
extiemely slight, I went on this one trip with him to Yenan, and after
I came back to the United States, at the very end of 1037, enroute to
Baltimore in the fall of 1938, I saw him rather occasionally. I was
not an active- — I was not very active on the advisory board of Amer-
asia, and my opinion of Mr. Jaffe, chiefly from talking to him on the
journey to Yenan, which was the closest association I ever had with
him, was that he was one of those Americans who had a very bright
and open vi^'w of the democratic nature of the Communists in China,
but I had no reason to believe that he was, himself, a Communist.
Senator Hickenlooper. As a result of your association and ac-
quaintance with Agnes Smedley, did you at any time conclude, or
were you at any time reliably informed that Agnes Smedley either
was a Communist, or had strong Communist sympathies?
STATE DKPARTAIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^•ESTIGATION 889
Dr. I.ATTiaroRE. No, sir. :My acquaintiiiice witli A^nes Smedley,
^Yllich lias never been a very close acquaintance, consisted in meetin<r
h.ere on a few occasions, at lonjz intervals and would convince me,
from such of her conversations that I have heard, that she is not and
never could be a Communist. She is a person of very strong opinions,
and as far as my experience with her goes, she is not a person who
would submit her ideas or her conduct to anybody's control.
Senator Hickenloopkr. During your association and acquaintance
with, and knowledge of Nym Wales, did you at any time believe, or
were you at any time reliably informed as to whether or not Nym
"Wales was a Communist, or strongly sympathetic toward the Com-
munists ?
Dr. Lattiimore. My acquaintance with Nym Wales is even slig'hter
than my acquaintance with Agnes Smedley. I knew her slightly
when she and her then husband, Mr. Edgar Snow, were living in
Peking. T saw her again when I was up at Yenan. From what I have
heard of her conversations, and from what I have read of hers, and
I confess I have not read very much that she has written, I have
no reason to believe that she is or was a Communist.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, during your acquaintance with and
knowledge of T. A. Bisson, did you 'have reason to believe, or were
you reliably informed as to whether or not ISIr. Bisson was either a
Communist or had strong Communist leanings ?
Dr. Lattimore. None whatever, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. Had these people, or any of them become
known to you as either Communist, or people with strong Communist
leanings— had that happened, would your actions and conduct with
them been different than it was, in your associations?
Dr. Lattimore. That is a hypothetical question, Senator?
Senator Hickexlooper. I realize that it is.
Dr. LAn'i:M0RE. I think it can best be answered by pointing out
that during those years, and to this day I have been extremely little
influenced by— I say this with all due respect to them- — people like
Agnes Smedley or Nym Wales or T. A. Bisson; because all of these
are people wl?o have 'lived in China less than I have ; w'ho either do
not s]:)eak or read Chinese at all, or do not speak it or read it as well
as I do, so that they are not people to whom I would go, either for
material information, or for guidance of ideas, because I have always
worked directly with original sources.
Senator Hickexlooper. I believe on page 914 of yonr statement —
I don't know whether the page number is correct or not — I believe
you made a statement in Avhich you said that during the war you con-
sulted with a Chinese, Chon En Lai : I don't know hoAV to pronounce it
but it is spelled C-h-o-u E-n L -a-i. He was a Communist leader; was
he not?
Dr. Latttmcre. He was the official Connnunist representative in
Chungking when I was there with the generalissimo, and I met him
on instructions from the generalissimo.
Senator Hickexlooper. Therefore. T take it that you reported in
detail the results of your conversations with him to the generalissimo?
Dr. Lattimore. Naturally.
Senator Hickexlooper. 1 believe that you stated previously that
Lauclilin Currie had advised you that he had recommended you to the
President, and the President had selected you for recommendation as
an adviser to Chiang Kai-shek ; is that right ?
890 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir, I was asked to come over to Washington,
to speak with ]\Ir. Ciirrie, who told me that the generalissimo had
asked President Roosevelt to reconnnend an adviser to him. I don't
know how my name came np, bnt I certainly did not understand that
I was being recommended to the President by Mr, Cnrrie. Wliat
I understood was that Mr. Currie, as an executive assistant to the
President, had been instructed to all me in for an interview to see
whether I was willing to consider such an appointment, before I saw
Mr. Roosevelt,
Senator Hickenlooper. How long and how well had you known
Mr, Lauchlin Currie before that time?
Dr, Lattimore. Before that time, I had never heard of him. I had
never met him or even heard of him, except as his name appeared in
the press, as a man who had made a journey to China, on behalf of
the President,
Senator Hickenlooper. After your tour of duty as adviser to
Chiang Kai-shek, did you submit a report to any person in this Gov-
ernment as to your activities ?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper, Of the affairs there during that period?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir. I was not responsible to this Government,
and there was no requirement for me to make any report to this Gov-
ernment. I was solely in the service of the generalissimo.
Senator PIickenlooper. I understand that. I was inquiring as to
whether in fact such a report had been filed.
Did 3^011 file a report with anybody in the Government after you
returned from your trip with Vice President Wallace?
Dr. Lattimore. Not that I can recall, Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. Were 3^011 designated to accompany him on
that trip by some authority?
Dr. Lattimore. I was.
Senator Hickenlooper, What was the designating authority?
Dr, Lattiiniore. The Office of War Information, to which I belonged,
as far as I recall.
Senator Hickenlooper. And did you not file a report with the
Office of War Information on that trip ?
Dr, Lattimore, I don't recall that I did. That could easily be
checked.
Senator Hickenlooper, Did you file any official report, or a report
with any public officials. Government officials at the conclusion of
the Pawley Reparations Commission?
Dr, Lattimore. No, sir. Like other members of that Commission,
I participated in the gathering of pertinent material and the drafting
of Mr. Pawley's report, Mr, Pawley's report was Mr, Pawley's report,
and I was not required to make any report as an individual.
Senator Hickenlooper. In connection with your trip with Mr.
Wallace, you are familiar with his book, Soviet Asia Mission, are
you not?
Dr. Lattimore, That is right.
Senator Hickenlooper, You are familiar, therefore, I presume, with
the credit which he gives in the first part of this book, under the
heading "Author's note" in which he says :
In ackuowlpdgenient of invaluable assistance in preparing the manuscript of
Soviet Asia Mission, my sincere thanks are extended to : John Hazard, Oweji
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 891
Lattiniore. and Capt. Kenneth Knowlos for intimate observation of life in
East Asia today ;
That is tlie important part of the author's note, but I think, in
fairness, I should put the entire note in the record.
After that it says, after the semicolon :
Joseph Barnes, Harriet ]Moore, Albert Khys Williams, Dr. Tredwell Smith,
and JNIyra Jordan for readius the text and offering editorial suyiiestions ; and
to Andrew Steiger ^vho compiled the book from the diary I wrote during the
trip, and from other factual material supplied him by me.
And below that, is his printed signature.
I presume j'ou read this book, Mr. Lattimore — Soviet Asia Mission?
Dr. Lattimore. I have looked through it. I don't think I have ever
read it right through.
Senator Hickexlooper. I don't know what other people think about
it. but my opinion is that it is lyrical praise of the Soviet system of
ojDeration in Siberia, and a magnificent support of their activities;
and, I wonder how much you may have had to do with the compiling
of that book, in view of the credit that is given in the author's
comment.
Dr. Lattijiore. Mr. Wallace's reference in that introductory note
is rather more laudatory than I deserve. As far as I recall, I did not
submit any material for the book. There are a number of references
to me in the book, and proofs were sent to me to look at, and I con-
sidered that my dutj^, as far as the proofs were concerned, was to see
that any references to me were correct, which I did. I did not assume
any responsibility for the rest of the book, in whole or in part.
Senator Hickexlooper. And you did not advise on the general
tenor of the book, or the conclusions arrived at in any way ?
Dr. Latti:more. Xo, sir; and I might add that it was well known
to other members of the mission that when I came back I did not
come back as a supporter of ^h\ AVallace's ideas.
Seuntor Hickexlooper. Dr. Lattimore, during the time — or at any
time during- the time that you were the Director of Pacific Operations
lor the OWI did you believe, or had you been reliably informed as to
whether or not — that is, did you believe or had you been reliably
informed tlult the China Daily Xews, in New York, was either a
Communist newspaper, Communist controlled, or had strong Com-
munist leanings ?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir ; very definitely not.
My knowledge of the China Daily News, or New China Daily News,
whichever it was called in those days, in New York, came primarily
from Dr. Chi, old Dr. Chi, who was at that time, I believe, writing or
had been writing editorials for me, and whom I knew to be a staunch
Democrat and anti-Communist.
Senator Hickexlooper. Dr. Lattimore, at the time of the picnic al
your place in ]\Iaryland or when, I think it was a day or two before,
certain raids or arrests were made in the Amerasia case, and when
Mr. Service and Mr. Roth were piTSont, was there present at your
place on that day any document of the United States Government
classified as confidential, restricted, secret, or top secret?
Dr. Latti:more. Not that I ever saw, Senator.
Senator Hickex'looper. Did you discuss with any person on that day
of the picnic, the matter of any classified documents of the Federal
892 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Government, or any copies of classified documents of the Federal
Government ?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. And, I am using the word "classified" in
the technical sense used by the Federal Government for documents
that have been marked
Dr. Lattimore. Marked "secret" or "confidential'' or "restricted."
Senator Hickenlooper. Restricted, confidential, secret, or top secret.
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you at any time ever discuss the Amer-
asia case, that is, so far as the arrests, the raids and seizure of the
documents is concerned, with either Mr. Service, Mr. Roth, Kate
Mitchell, or Philip Jaffe, either before or after the raids that we
have been talking about?
Dr. Lattimore. For 4 or 5 years before the raid, I cannot recall meet-
ing either Mr. Jaffe or Miss Mitchell. I cannot recall discussing the
raid with Mr. Roth, after the raid occurred.
To the best of my knowledge, the best of my knowledge and recol-
lection, the only time that I have seen ]\Ir. Roth since 1945 was
last December in India, where I was giving a lecture to an Indian
group, and to my surprise, because I didn't know he was in India,
Mr. Roth came up at the end of the lecture and shook hands. "We
had no conversation because I was being whisked off to dinner by some
Indian friends,
Mr. Service I saw some time after the charges against him had been
dismissed. I saw him before he went on his next assignment, I forget
which it was; and naturally, as old friends, we discussed the matter.
I cannot recall in detail what the discussion was.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did any of these people that I mentioned in
my previous question ever display to you, or show 3^011 any restricted
documents ?
Dr. Lattimore. No, not that I recall.
Senator Hickenlooper. Either of the Government or any pur-
ported copies of restricted documents ?.
Dr. Lattimore. Not that I recall ; and furthermore, I cannot recall
why any of them should have any occasion to show me any such
documents.
Senator Hickenlooper. During the month of June 1945, how fre-
quently did you consult with or talk to either Mr. Jaffe, Mr. Service,
Mr. Roth, or Miss Mitchell ?
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Jaffe and Miss Mitchell — not at all, because,
as I say, I don't recall meeting either of them since about the year
1940 ; Mr. Roth, I had met once in — as far as I recall — in Washington,
prior to that, when he told me that he was working on a book on
Japan ; and Mr. Service I may have seen once or twice before then,
that is. between his return from China, and the occasion when he came
to my house on that Sunday.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Lattimore, where was the office and
the establishment — that is, the headquarters of the magazine
Amerasia ?
Dr. Lattiinfore. I don't remember. I think it was at one time ■
Senator Hickenlooper. I understood, for several years, three or
four anyway, you were connected first officially as one of the board
of directors of that magazine.
STATE DEPARTMENT EAFPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 893
Dr. Lattimoke. I was one of the consultant editors, living in Balti-
more. I have a vague recollection that when the magazine was first
started, it had heachjuarters in the same building as the Institute of
Pacific Relations, but I don't remember ever being in those offices.
Later, the office was shifted somewhere else, and I remember being
in there on one occasion, rather briefly; but, that is the only occasion
that I can remember being there.
Senator HicKEXLoorrj;. ]My next question must be: Where was the
office of the Institute of Pacific Relations located?
Dr. Lattimore. At one time, in those yeai*s, generally speaking —
well, put it this wav : When I was working as the editor of Pacific
Affairs, the office was on East Fifty-second Street; and some time
later, I don't recall exactly what year, it was moved to East Fifty-
fourth Street, where it now is.
Senator HicKEXLOorEK. At any time during your association with
that magazine, or with Amerasia, or at any time, any other time within
your knowledge, was the Office of Pacific Affairs located adjacent
to the Amerasia office?
Dr. Lattimore. Xot that I can recall.
You see
Senator Hickexlooper. At any time, was there a doorway cut be-
tween the two offices for access between Amerasia and the Office of
Pacific Affairs ?
Dr. Lati^imore. Xot that I can recall ; but then, my recollection may
not be accurate. When I came back to this country and settled in Balti-
more in 1938, in the fall of 1938, I continued to edit Pacific Affairs,
but my editorial work was done in Baltimore and I went to the New
York office very infrequently. I did my editorial
Senator Hickexlooper. Did you say "frequently" or "infrequently" ?
Dr. Lattiiniore. Very infrequently.
Senator Hickex^looper. Sorry, I didn't get that.
Dr. Lattimore. The material that I edited, I sent in by mail.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know, at the time you had con-
nections with Amerasia, do you know how maiw subscriptions the
publication had, the number of its subscription list ?
Dr. Tvattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you know whether or not it was
approximately 1,700?
Dr. I^-ATTnioRE. I couldn't say, sir. I had nothing to do with
circulation.
Senator Hickex'looper. In your visit, in any visit which you may
have paid the office of Amerasia, did you ever see its printing and
lithographing and photographing production plants?
Dr. Lattimore. I never saw anything of the sort, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. You left your official connection with
Amerasia, I believe, in 1941?
Dr. Lattimore. That is right.
Senator Hickex'looper. "U^iat was the occasion for that ? I mean,
did you go into other work, or what was the reason ?
Dr. Lattimore. Well, in 1941. Avhen I went out to Cliina as adviser
to the Generalissimo, I resigned both as editor of Pacific Affairs, and
as a corresponding editor or consulting editor of Amerasia. As a
matter of fact, I had had less and less to do with Amerasia for some
894 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
years, and had already been considering resioning- my position as a
consulting editor because there didn't seem to be anything to consult
about, at least I never got consulted.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was Amerasia, so far as you know, widely
read in the State Department, especially in tlie Far Eastern Section
of the State Department ?
Dr. Lattimore. I have no knowledge whatever of that, Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was the institute of
Dr. Lattimore. I couldn't tell you whether it was read or not read.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was it subscribed to widely ?
Dr. LATTiiAiORE. I have no idea whatever, Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was Pacific Affairs subscribed to widely
by the personnel of the State Department, especially those connected
with the Far Eastern Affairs ?
Dr. Lattimore. It may have been or it may not have been. I had
nothing to do with the circulation side of Pacific Affairs.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know, during the time vou were
connected with Pacific Affairs', approximately what the number of
its subscription list was ?
Dr. Lattimore. I recall — as I recall, it was about — it would be
something of the order of a couple of thousand, of which fluctuating
between 900 and about 1,100 would be in the United States, plus the
Territory of Hawaii ; and the other half, slightly smaller half, would
be in the various other countries that were members of the Institute
of Pacific Relations.
Senator Hickenlooper. Both Amerasia and Pacific Affairs had to
be supported by subsidies outside of the cost of the subscription, isn't
that correct ?
Dr. Lattoiore. Pacific Affairs did not pay for itself, and was
partly supported— did not fully pay for itself and was partly sup-
ported from the budget of the Institute of Pacific Eelations.
About the financial affairs of Amerasia, I have no knowledge.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did Mr. Frederick V. Field contribute to
the financial support of Pacific Affairs ?
Dr. Lattimore. To the best of my recollection Mv. Field made some
contributions to the American Council of the Institute of Pacific Rela-
tions which made a contribution to th.e international organization of
the Institute of Pacific Relations, which allocated part of its budget
to the support of Pacific Affairs.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know whether such contributions
came directly from Mr. Field, or from some other organization ?
Dr. Lattimore. I have no idea whatever.
Senator Hickenlooper. The money did not pass through your
hands ?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. I mean, you did not receive-
Dr. Lattimore. I had nothing to do witli the treasurer's functions
of either the American Council or the Pacific Council of the institute.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Lattimore, did your son David attend
the World Youth Congi^ess in Prague in the summer of 1948?
Dr. Lattimore. In the summer of 1948, my wife and my son and
I were all in Czechoslovakia, and my son went, for a while, to camp
outside of Prague somewhere, and he also attended various youth
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 895
gatlieriii^s and so on that were s:oin<2; on in Czechoslovakia that summer
and which — his signing up with those organizations gave liim cheaper
dormitory facilities and so on. He was at the age when he wanted to
get awayf rom his parents and show that he was able to go around on
his own. I don't recall the details of what arrangements he made.
Senator Hickenlooper. He was a student at Putney School, was he
not?
Dr. Lattimore. That is right.
Senator Hickenlooper. Quite a number of students from Putney
School did attend the Youth Conference in Prague that summer, did
thev not?
])r. LATrnroRE. I don't know. I recall seeing, I think, three Putney
students in Czechoslovakia that summer. There may have been more.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did your son return directly from Prague
to the United States that summer, or did he go somewhere else?
Dr. Lattimore. Let's see. My wife and I went from Czechoslovakia
to England, where we spent some time; he came back — he was in
England for part of the time that we were there, partly with us and
partlj^ on his own.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you go to Russia that^year at all?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Green. Senator Hickenlooper
Senator Hickenlooper. Just one more question, please, then we will
recess.
Dr. Lattimore. I believe that you referred, and put into the record,
a numljer of criticisms of you by Soviet organs of publication, et
cetera.
Are you familiar with the Soviet publication, the New Times ?
Dr. Lattimore. I have seen occasional copies of it, yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have here a photostatic copy of the 1945
issue of the New Times, that is, certain sheets of it, number 13 [23] is
the notation, pages 29 and 30, as well as 31. The New Times is a Soviet
publication, is it not?
Dr. Lattimore. So I understand. In fact, when it first came out I
seem to remember it was an organ of the new Cominform that was set
up after the war, but I may be mistaken on that.
Senator Hickenlooper. This is a review of your book. Solution in
Asia, by a man named B. Yarovoy. This review of your book Solution
in Asia, the entire review I expect to put in the record, but this review
seems to give you very great credit for understanding the Soviet
position, and the situation in the Orient.
They quote from certain excerpts from your book, as supporting
their position, and they quote, among other passages from the book,
from page 144, as follows :
Soviet policy * * * certainly establishes a standard with which other na-
tions must compete if they wish to practice a policy of attraction in Asia.
Then, they refer to page 155 in this review, and I quote you as
follows :
Even if we should declare that we have no policy toward other people's
colonies, the colonial peoples will ontor to our account a large measure of ci'edit
or blame, according to the degree in which victory over Japan works out as
colonial liberation or colonial reconquest.
896 STATE DEPAK'iM]i:J\T iOMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATluiv
Then, tliey quote from pages 199 to 201 of your book as follows :
The question is not what Russia was going to do, but what we are going to do
* * * militarily, politically, and economically, if we declare for cooperation,
the Russians are in a position to cooperate and to make it work. If we declare
for a policy of independent grabbing of strategic bases, economic spheres of
influence, and political satellites, they can outgrab us right down the line * * *
we must therefore seize the advantage of discussing all major world policy in
common council with the Russians, and avoid isolating Russia, because it. would
actually isolate us more than the Russians.
The reviewer of this book, after discussing the book and referring
to various supporting pages in the book, concludes as follows :
Lattimore's book is chiefly interesting because it indicates that there are
people in America who realize the immense weight of the Soviet Union in Asia,
the popularity of its ideas, and the magnitude of its prestige among the de-
pendent and colonial peoples. Lattimore urges that this fact should be reckoned
with, and warns that any American policy which ignores the Soviet Union's
progressive influence in the east is doomed to failure. He argues that America's
interests can best be served not by defying the Soviet Union, but by cooperating
with it.
The propagation of this sober view — especially today, when, after the war,
an opposite trend is to be observed in certain quarters in America — is undoubt-
edly of positive value.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the entire review, which is rather
short, may well go in the I'ecord at this point.
Senator Green. It will be placed in the record.
(The book review entitled "Solution in Asia" from the New Times,
No. 13 [23] 1945, is as follows:)
Solution in Asia
(By B. Tarovoy)
Owen Lattimore, author of the book under review, is an American specialist
on far eastern affairs. He spent many years in China as a newspaperman, trav-
eler and student of the country. In 1941-42 he was political adviser to Chiang
Kai-shek. Later he held the post of Pacific Director of the recently abolished
United States Office of War Information.
Lattimore's book is an attempt to explain the new, complex and contradictory
conditions that have arisen in the Pacific. The defeat of imperialist .Japan and
that country's future destiny, the problem of creating a strong and united China,
the postwar status of Korea, Thailand, Indochina, and the Netherlands Indies,
British and Dutch colonial policy, America's far eastern policy, the Soviet
Union's role in the Far East, international cooperation in the Pacific — such is
the wide gamut of problems touched upon in this book.
It begins with an analysis of the role of Asia in World War II and in inter-
national politics. Lattimore believes that the era of imperialist policy in Asia,
the era of colonial domination on the part of certain powers, of concessions,
settlements, and extraterritoriality, is largely a thing of the past.
The desire manifested in big-business quarters in Britain and America to i-evive
this policy in its old forms is, in his opinion, unrealistic. If it could be realized,
it would inevitably lead to a new war.
In support of this view, he cites the long and deplorable tale of Anglo-American
ex))loitation of the Asiatic peoples and encouragement of Japanese aggression,
a policy which was pursued riglit down to the outbreak of World War II. He
points out that for many years Britain and America regarded Japan as a force
buttressing the system of colonial exploitation, on the one hand, and as a "good
watchdog against Russia," on the other (p. 17). And even when it was manifest
that Japanese imperialism had adopted the course of unceremoniously ousting
Britain and America from eastern Asia, the policy of patronizing Japan was
still continued.
The United Nations must learn the lesson of the past. This means that Japa-
nese imperialism and everything associated with it must be destroyed. Latti-
more is of the opinion that, besides destroying Japan's armed forces, her war
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 897
industry must be wiped out, and not only the miUtarists but the industrial
leaders who produced for the war must be tried and severely punished. He
lays particular emphasis on the Mikado's role as the head of the imperialist
state and considers that he nuist be removed.
It should be remarked that, although Lattiniore wrote his book before Japan's
defeat, the maneuvers to which the Japanese reactionaries are resorting today
indicate that his warnings were quite justified.
However, it is not to Japan that Lattimore's attention is chiefly directed, but
to the future of the countries liberated from Jai)anese aggression, and to Ameri-
can polify toward these countries. Much space is devoted to China. Lattimore
advises the Americans to bear in mind the changes which have taken place within
that country during the war. He emphatically asserts that present-day China
is no longer a semicolonial country. Today the great Chinese Nation, with its
4f)0.000.(i0(). has become conscious of its mission to participate in the settlement
of far eastern affairs on an equal footing with other nations.
But. as Lattimore points out, if China is to preserve her international prestige
after victory, the first thing she must do is to put an end to the political split
at home. What is needed is a united China, achieved by the democratization of
the country. Lattimore's warning is vei-y timely today :
-Wiien the Japanese are driven out, the political program of the forces which
drive tliem out * * * will be of critical importance. If the actual policy
put into practice is not one of free political organization and representation, or.
at the very least, a coalition policy representing all major groups, there will be
terrible disillusionment * * *" (p. 110).
The war in the Pacific has caused deep changes in the relations between the
colonial peoples of Asia and the metropolitan countries. Japan's initial military
successes and her seizure of the larger part of the east Asiatic colonial posses-
sions of the big powers severely undermined the latter's prestige.
The colonial peoples, Lattimore says, believe that inasmuch as the war was
waged for liberty, they are entitled to expect emancipation from their colonial
status and the grant of independence. However, he doubts whether these am-
bitions are fully realizable under existing conditions.
Lattimore holds that with the victorious end of the war Great Britain will
endeavor to preserve and strengthen her rule in the colonies. And with Great
Britain's support Holland and France will make a similar effort. In view of
this, he appeals to America to pursue her own policy in Asia, one independent of
these countries. This policy should be not to assume responsibility for support-
ing the efforts of Great Britain and the other colonial powers to restore their
dominion in Asia. As we see, Lattimore does not consider that America herself
is a colonial power. He is disposed to foster this illusion by recommending that
the United States competely disassociate itself from the other, older colonial
powers — Great Britain, France, and Holland — which have compromised them-
selves most in Asia.
He re( ommends America to pur.sue a flexible and realistic policy in Asia, not
to repeat the mistakes of the past, and to avoid overfrank expansionism. He
believes that after the war there will be three states which will possess a tre-
mend<ais power of attraction for the colonial peoples of Asia. These states are
the Soviet Union, China, and the United States.
The Soviet Union, says Lattimore, is a state with a new civilization. The Social-
ist economic system and the Soviet form of democracy have a powerful influence
on the peoples. The colonial peoples of Asia, which are principally agricultural,
are impressed chiefly by two factors : the solution of the agrarian problem in
the Soviet Union and its nationality policy. The abolition of the power of the
landlords, the transfer of laud to the peasants, and the Soviet nationality policy,
under which every nationality feels itself an equal among equals, have led the
peoples of Asia to look upon the Soviet L^nion with hope. In Lattimore's opinion,
"the F-Ui^sians and the Soviet Union have a great power of attraction. In their
eyes — rather doubtfully in the eyes of the older generation, more and more clearly
in the eyes of the younger generation — the Soviet Union stands for strategic
security, economic prosperity, technological progress, miraculous medipine, free
education, equalitv of opportunitv, and democracy: a powerful combination"
(p. 130).
Lattimore urges a careful .study of the Soviet Union's practice in relations
with other countries, and with the small and weak countries in particular.
Underlying these relations, he says, is a wise and farsighted policy which pro-
ceeds from the principle of equality and of respect for other nations. As an
illustration of the Soviet Union's attitude toward minor Asiatic countries, he
898 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
cites its relations witli the Mongolian People's Republic, stating that "Soviet
policy * * * certainly establishes a standard with which nations must com-
pete if they wish to practice a policy of attraction in Asia" (p. 144).
Passing to China, Lattimore believes tliat, after victory, that country's author-
ity and prestige in the eyes of the colonial countries will have been greatly en-
hanced. It may become a country on which the small nations of Asia may
orientate themselves. But if China is really to become such a power, her internal
cleavage must first be healed by means of a genuine democratization of the
coimtry.
As to America, Lattimore believes that her prestige will gain considerably
in the eyes of the Asiatic peoples as a result of her leading role in the defeat
of the Japanese aggressor. But the subsequent attitude of these peoples toward
America will depend on what policy she practices toward them :
"Even if we sliould declare that we have no policy toward other people's
colonies, the colonial peoples will enter to our account a large measure of credit
or blame, according to the degree in which victory over Japan works out as
colonial liberation or colonial reconquest^' (p. 155).
Lattimore therefore recommends that A^merica oppose the restoration of the
colonial system in its prewar forms. He recommends an "open door" policy in
the dependent and colonial countries, and the abolition of the monopolies of
the old colonial powers. This fully accords with the interests of the economically
more powerful American capitalism, which naturally wants the opportunity of
unhampered penetration into the Asiatic countries.
Lattimore takes up the cudgels against those who assert that the antagonisms
among tlie Great Powers make international cooperation in creating a lasting
system of security impossible. Lie believes that enduring peace in the Pacific,
based upon sincere cooperation among the Great Powers, is both possible and
feasible, notwithstanding the existence of differences.
He therefore appeals to the United States of America, in the first place, to
practice a policy of cooperation in the Pacific. He argues against the reactionary
elements in America who, in order to .iustify their narrowly selfish imperialistic
aims, propagate the theory that international cooperation is impossible, particu-
larly owing to the "enigmatic" policy of the Soviet Union.
He writes :
"The question is not what Russia is going to do, but what we are going to
do * * *. Militarily, politically, and economically, if we declare for co-
operatioi!. the Russians are in a position to cooperate and to make it work.
If we declare for a policy of independent grabbing of strategic bases, economic
spheres of infiuence, and political satellites, they can outgrab us right down
the line * * *. We must therefore seize the advantages of discussing all major
world policy in common council with the Russians, and avoid isolating Russia,
because it would actually isolate us more than the Russians" [pp. 199-201].
Lattimore's book is chiefly interesting because it indicates that there are
people in America who realize the immense weight of the Soviet Union in Asia,
the popularity of its ideas, and the magnitude of its practice among the de-
pendent and colonial peoples. Lattimore urges tliat this fact should be reckoned
with, and warns that any American policy which ignores the Soviet Union's
progressive influence in the east is doomed to failure. He argues that America's
interests can best be served not by defying the Soviet Union, but by cooperating
with it.
The propagation of this sober view — especially today, when, after the war, an
opposite trend is to be observed in certain quarters in America — is undoubtedly
of positive value.
Senator Green. Do yon have a qnestion ?
Senator Hickenloopee. Now, Dr. Lattimore, havinir observed in
pnblications and otherwise the vigor in wliich Commnnist propa-
f^andists attack anyone that they believe to be in the last hostile to
their prog-rams and views, it seems to me, in reading this Soviet
magazine of yonr, for instance. Policy Toward Asia, and Solution in
Asia, that they had been very kindly indeed toward you, and express
approval of your attitude and your approach. That happens to be
the way I view the article, or the review of it.
I should be glad to have your comments on that.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 899
Dr. LATTi^roKE. Senator, the first comment I shonld like to make is
that any review of any books made by a Commnnist will be a political
review made for i)<)litical purposes.
If I i-ecall to you, Senator, that in 1945, all kinds of proposals and
tentative measures were being- discussed about how to regulate the
relationship principally between the United States and Russia, through
the United Nations, and through other measures. Tliese proposals
went on for some time after 1945.
I can remember, for instance, that as late as. I think, as late as the
year 1947, I am not quite sure of the year, General Wedemeyer, as
part of the idea of regulating American-Russian relations, went so
far as to propose a joint Russian-American-Chinese trusteeship over
Manchuria.
With that background, I will point out that this book review begins
by drawing to the attention of the obviously, principally Communists,
the fact that certain aspects of the book appeared to Communists at
that time to contain matter which they could use to their advantage.
They accordingly quoted that which they could use to their advan-
tage. They left out — they included a passage referring to the powder
of attraction of the Russians, in the Soviet Union. They omitted a
passage which stressed the fact that the United States had a great,
much greater power of attraction than the Soviet Union. Then
they proceeded to warn the faithful that the author of this book was-
obviously not a Communist or a fellow traveler, by inserting such
sentences and i)assages as the following :
As we see, Lattimore does not consider that America, lierself, is a colonial
power. He is disposed to foster this illusion by recommending that the United
States completely disassociate itself, and so forth.
It also includes a passage in which the author of the review says :
This fully accords with the interests of the economically more powerful
American capitalism which naturally wants the opportunity of unhampered
penetration into the Asiatic countries.
It thereby presents me as an agent or spokesman for what Russians
apparently are expected to understand as expansionist American capi-
talism. The -book also contains several passages which I think are of
interest as being written by a Communist, in which the presentation
of-
Senator Greex. You mean the article?
Dr. Lattimore. The review article ; yes, sir.
Senator Greex. You said "the book."
Dr. Lattimore. I am sorry ; my view is distorted. Tlie author says :
He cites the long and deplorable tale of Anglo-American colonial exploitation.
That is a word put in to color my views — a word attributed to me
as if it were a quotation.
On the question of the passage which this Soviet reviewer left out
of his review, I cite the following from Solution in Asia, the book
being reviewed, and this is from page 152 :
America has the clearest power of attraction for all Asia.
Senator Greex. Thank you.
According to the statement made by the chairman, and the instruc-
tions he gave, we will, or were to adjourn at 11 o'clock. It is now
almost half past 11, so we Avill have to take a recess.
900 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
[The carbon copy of a letter addressed by Senator Tydings to Gen.
George C. Marshall, and others, as previously indicated, and answers
thereto from Mr, Cordell Hull, Secretary Dean Acheson, Gen. George
C. Marshall, and Hon. James F. Byrnes were handed to the committee
reporter, and will be found in the files of the subcommittee.]
Senator Lodge. Will there be a further opportunity to question Dr.
Lattimore ?
Senator Green. Yes.
Senator HiCKENLOorER. I have not finished with my questioning,
as yet.
Senator Green. Yes.
Now, we will take a recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon, when Mr.
Lattimore will again return to the stand.
(Whereupon, at 11 : 27 a. m., the subcommittee stood in recess until
2 p. m., that same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
The session convened at 2 p. m., following the expiration of the
luncheon recess. Senator Theodore Francis Green, acting chairman,
J) residing.
Senator Green. Senator Hickenlooper, will you proceed with your
questions of the witness?
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Chairman, may I add a few words to the reply
that I was making to Senator Hickenlooper's last question?
Senator Green. If you have not completed it, yes.
Dr. Lattimore. I should like to add that in 1945 the fact that the
Ilussians for their own purposes might choose certain quotations from
my book. Solution in Asia, is not inconsistent with the fact that they
apparently did not approve of the book within their own frontiers.
I mentioned I think it was in my first statement, on April G, that at
least one newspaper acquaintance of mine proceeding on assignment
to Russia was refused permission to take a copy of that book with him
into the Soviet Union, and I think one passage which possibly explains
this reaction of the Ilussians is to be found on page 83 of that book.
I quote :
Chiang's Russian experience was important when the Kuomintang dismissed
its Russian advisers and split with tlie Chinese Communists. His position was
not that of an ignorant anti-Russian, hut that of a man who had studied Com-
munist organization and Russian metliods in tlie Soviet Union.
Senator Green. Have you finished ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Lattimore, do you know Lawrence
Rosinger ?
Dr. Lattimore, Yes, I know him.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you been associated with him?
Dr. Lattimore. When I first knew him he was working, as I recall,
for the Foreign Policy Association. He has more recently become
associated with the Institute of Pacific Relations and I am associated
with him to the extent that I am a member of the Institute of Pacific
Relations.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know whether he is a consultant of
the State Department on Far Eastern Affairs and Policies in any way?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir. I have no knowledge whatever.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 901
Senator HiCKENLOorER. Have yoii ever been associated with William
T. Stone in connection with Amerasia or any other niagazine ?
Dr. Lattimork. Mr. Stone was at one time on the board of con-
sultants of Amerasia, as I was. At that time I believe I had never
niet him, but I have met him since.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was that a casual meeting or frequent
meetings ?
Dr. Lattimore. Very casual.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know Anna Louise Strong?
Dr. Lattimore. I have met Anna Louise Strong several times.
Senator Hickenlooper. Has she visited you or your home in Balti-
more within tlie last 2 years ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes. She came to see me, I forget exactly when,
but it was after she had been expelled from Soviet Russia.
Senator Hickenlooper. More than once, or once?
Dr. Lattimore. As I recall, she came for part of the day, between
trains.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did she discuss her expulsion from Soviet
Russia with you?
Dr. Lattimore. She did.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know Ho Chi Minh ?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir ; I have never met him.
Senator Hickenlooper. By reputation you know who he is?
Dr. Lattimore. I know who he is, yes; the Viet Nam leader in
Indochina.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you ever communicated with him di-
rectly or indirectly through others?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. As I recall it — I don't mean to put words
in your mouth — I believe you said that you had never met Secretary
of State Acheson.
Dr. Lattimore. That is right, Senator,
Senator Hickenlooper. I was not sure that that was your exact
testimony.
Have you always believed, or have you had different views at dif-
ferent times, that the Chinese Communist leaders have been consist-
ently full-fledged members of the Communist International ?
Dr. Lattimore. I think you will recall, Senator, that I testified be-
fore that to the best of my recollection — and I have not looked up the
passage — in a book that I had published in 1932f, which was about
Manchuria, I believe that I more or less dismissed the Chinese Com-
munists, who were at that time down in south China, as representing
the same kind of peasant-rebellion upheaval that had occurred at the
time of the Taiping rel)ellion 100 years before, or roughly a century
ago. At that time I had never seen a Chinese Communist or read
any of their literature or had any sort of contact with them. Since I
have had any oi)portunity to study the Chinese Communists I have,
I believe from the very beginning and certainly with a consistent and
strongly developing view, held that the Chinese Communist Party is
an out-and-out loyal Moscow party.
Senator Hickenlooper. And that goes for the Communist lead-
ers in China.
Dr. Lattimore. That goes for the Communist leaders in China.
902 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. Substantially since that time, when you re-
ferred to the Communist uprising in South China, in developments
since that time have you consistently believed that the Chinese Com-
munist leaders were out-and-out members of and adherents of the
Communist Party as directed from the Kremlin?
Dr. Lattimore. My view has been this. Senator, that the Chinese
Communists', and especially their leaders, are convinced, not to say
devout, Moscow Communists. On the otlier hand, the Chinese Com-
munist Party appears to have gone through a rather turbulent history
of its own. In the 1920 's there were the same sort of factions in the
Chinese Communist Party that existed at that time in Russia in the
Russian Communist Party; just as the Stalinists won out in Russia,
so they eventually won out in China. And ever since that time, which
appears to have been definitely settled in China sometime in the 1930's,
one can consider the Chinese Communists to be Stalinist Communists.
On the otlier hand, the Chinese Communists were operating in a
country about as different as it could be from Russia and there appears
to be very considerable evidence that the Chinese Communists, while
adhering to M'oscow principles, operated very largely on their own by
making their own decisions in local situations peculiar to themselves.
Senator Hickenlooper. Were you ever associated with the China
Aid Council of the American League for Peace and Democracy?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't believe so, Senator. I don't even recall the
name. I have no recollection of it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I would like to read you a list of names,
Doctor, and ask you whether you know any of these people or not.
This is a list of officers and officials of the organization I have just
named.
Dr. Floyd E. Forkner?
Dr. Lattimore. I am not sure of that name. Senator. He may have
been a doctor who was at the Johns Hopkins medical school, but I am
not sure.
Senator Hickenlooper. At least you have never had any substantial
association w^ith him, or acquaintance?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Arthur Upham Pope?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes ; I have met him.
Senator Hickenlooper. Frequently ?
Dr. Lattimore. No; infrequently.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you discussed social and economic
philosophy with him?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Henry A. Atkinson ?
Dr. Lattimore. That name is entirely unfamiliar to me, Senator.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Henry Bibby?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't recall liim".
Senator Hickenlooper. Lyman B. Bradley?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't recall him.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mrs. Edward C. Carter?
Dr. Lattlmore. Yes ; I know her.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is that acquaintance a family acquaintance
or in the writing field ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 903
Dr. LATTr:sroKE. She is the wife of Mr. E. C. Carter, who was secre-
tary <jreiieral of the Institute of Pacific Rehitions when I was editor
of Pacific Affairs.
Senator Hu'kenlooper. I believe you testified that you know Dr.
Ch'ao Tin Chi ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. I tliink we discussed him, so I will not go
into that further.
Dr. Joseph B. Cotton?
Dr. Lattoioiie. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. INIrs. Lucy Forkner?
Dr. LATTnroKE. Unless she is the wife of the Dr. Forkner whom
you just mentioned, and unless I have met him, I can't recall the name.
Senator Hickexlooper. The same situation would apply to ac-
quaintance with her as to Dr. Forkner if she is his wife?
Dr. Lattimore. Quite so.
Senator Hickenlooper. These are, as I understand it, officials or
people in charge of policy or advisory boards of either the American
League for Peace and Democracy or the China Aid Council of that
body. That is the reason for the list.
Miss Margaret Forsythe?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Tolitha Gurlock?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, I have met her.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is she a writer?
Dr. Lattimore. No. She is a YWCA worker. I knew her in con-
nection with the Chinese Industrial Cooperatives.
Senator Hickenlooper. In China?
Dr. Lattimore. No, in New York. I met her maybe two or three
times.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Claude E. Heaton?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir ; I can't recall the name.
Senator Hickenlooper. Philip J. Jaffe. Of course, we have dis-
cussed him. His name is on this list, and I shall not take the time to
go into it any further.
Sally Lucas Jean ?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir; that is unfamiliar to me.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mrs. Philip C. Jaffe?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes ; I have met her.
Senator Hickenlooper. ]Mr. Duncan Leigh?
Dr. Lattimore. Unfamiliar to me, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Miss Dorothy McConnell?
Dr. Lattimore. Unfamiliar to me. sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Edgar H. Rue?
Dr. Lattoiore. Unfamiliar to me.
Senator Hickenlooper. Miss Gordon M. Tiffany?
Dr. Lattimore. Unfamiliar to me.
Senator Hickenlooper. Miss Mildred Price?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't think I have met her. The name sounds
vaguely familiar, but I do not think I have ever met her.
Senator Hickenlooper. ISIentana G. Sayres?
Dr. Lattimore. The name is unfamiliar to me.
68970—50 — pt. 1 58
904 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. You were asked on yesterday, Dr. Latti-
more, whether or not there had been discussed with you by the Presi-
dent of the Johns Hopkins University contact witli certain people.
I will ask you whether or not President Bronk of Johns Hopkins
University ever spoke to you or had a conversation with you about
your association with Philip Frankfelt, of Baltimore.
Dr. Lattimore. No sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you ever have any association with
Philip Frankfelt?
Dr. Lattimore. The name is unfamiliar to me, and I do not believe
1 could ever have met him.
Senator Hickenlooper. So that, so far as you know, you have never
had any association with him ?
Dr. Lattimore. So far as I know, I have never had any association
with him.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you ever been acquainted with a Dr.
Walter Heissig ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, Senator. I met him on one occasion for about
half an hour in Peking, China. It must have been either the last day
of 1945 or the first day of 104G. I was introduced to him by a Swedish
friend who had been in Peking during the war as a neutral. Dr.
Heissig had been, as a German, in Peking during that time working
on Mongol studies, and I gave Dr. Lleissig some money and asked him
if he would buy for me anything that he could find in the way of
Mongol books, or books on Mongolia, that had been produced in
Peking and the Inner Mongolian region during the period of Japanese
occupation. He sent me a considerable number of books.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you have an5^thing to do with Dr.
Heissig or anything to do with his behalf or exert any influence in his
behalf after VE-day in Europe ?
Dr. Lattimore. After VE-day? It was after VJ-day also.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you have anything to do — perhaps I
had better just clear this up by giving you the genesis of my questions
here. I am referring to a newspaper report of Monday, March 27, 1950,
carried in the New York World-Telegram-Sun, and I assume that it
has been written by Frank Fai-rell. His picture appears there, and
his name under it. This article is as follows: I shall read about
three short paragraphs. Then I will be glad to have you comment
on the article and the allegations. I have no affirmative information
on the matter at all, but this appeared in the public print recently.
As a portion of this column under the heading "Secret Service," this
columnist says :
I don't know how strong Senator Joe McCarthy's evidence against Owen
Lattimore is in charging him with being one of Russia's top espionage agents
while in our State Department service, but it is interesting to find Lattimore de-
fending himself for a change, instead of other cliaracters who have been caught
with tlieir hands in the .iam. No matter liow little time he actually served on the
payroll of the State Department, this self-ordained expert on Mongolia has
always thrown plenty of weight around in that office.
When Hitler's Dr. Walter Heissig, a member of the dreaded Nazi supersnoop-
ing ST, was caught flat-footed by our agents for violating the German surrender
agreement and continuing hostile on^rations with the Japs against the United
States after VE-day. Lattimore was first to rush headlong to the crusade. Despite
the fact that we had adequate evidence and Heissig's confession with which to
convict him in a war-crimes trial, Lattimore did his utmost to spring his buddy
from jail. He brought heaviest pressure to bear against United States investi-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATION 905
gators in the case and tried to discnnlit ns with onr Ambassador to China, Gen-
eral Marshall, and Lieutenant General Wedemeyer. When it was all over, we
discovered that Heissig had secretly offered to present his vahiable library on
Mongolia to Lattimore. We tiiially presented Heissig with 20 years at hard
labor.
The reason I am asking you about that, and request your comment,
is that, as I read it, it is a very positive statement by this writer, and
I think in all fairness to you and to us the question is fair to ask you
to comment on that statement. You may have for reference this state-
ment. I want it back. I mean you may have it for your reference.
Dr. Lattimore. In connection with that story. Senator, I should
like to say that my only personal contact with Heissig was this ex-
tremely brief contact in Peking, and that he afterward bought books
for me which I was very glad to have. He never offered me his library,
and I do not have his library.
He was involved with a number of other Germans who were caught
in Peking at the end of the war. The story, as I heard it — and it is
only hearsay — is that the top members of that German intelligence
set-up mysteriously disappeared and turned up instead in the service
of the Chinese Government, which left the lower-down ones to stand
trial.
American friends of mine who were caught in Peking at the time
of Pearl Harbor said that Heissig had been of considerable service to
them at that time; that he helped Americans who were in difficulty
and stranded at that time until they w'ere all eventually taken to Japa-
ness concentration camps.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you happen to recall any of the friends
who were helped by Heissig at that time ?
Dr. Latttmore. Whj\ yes. One is Prof. Arthur Wright, at Stan-
ford University, and his wife.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you recall others?
Dr. Lattimore. I recall writing to the then American Ambassador
in Nanking, Dr. Leighton Stuart, a friend of many years, telling him
what I had heard and asking him if the matter could be looked into.
M}^ letter was not anything in the nature, or anything like the nature,
of "heavy pressure."
Since then INIr. Heissig has been imprisoned in Germany. I under-
stand that he has a firm of lawyers in this country who are trying to
reopen his case and that of a nvunber of other cases. I wrote to those
lawyers and said that I was interested in a fair inquiry into his cases.
I did not know if there was anything I could do, but if they would let
me know I would see what I could do. I have never heard from them.
I also wrote to General Thorpe, who testified here the other day,
and told him that I knew of this man who had valuable informa-
tion on Mongolia, and that, if General Thorpe wanted to look into
his case from the point of view of the Army, there he was.
I have also corresponded occasionally with Dr. Heissig in prison
through the prison censorship. He has been allowed to continue
some research work on Mongol sul)jects while in prison, and he sent
to me a Mongol text that he edited to see if I could find any possi-
bility of publication of it in this country.
Senator Hickexlooper. Who are his lawyers here?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't know. sir. I mean I can't recall, sir, but
I believe I could probably find the correspondence and let you know,
or let the committee know.
906 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. I think it would be probably in keeping
with the questions if the name of the law firm is put in here. I as-
sume that it is registered with the State Department. This case is
well known. It is not a secret matter.
Senator McMahon. I think, Senator, it might be well if we had
a copy of Dr. Lattimore's letter to the Ambassador, inasmuch as it
is alleged that he exerted great pressure and he denies that and says
that is was a connnunication looking toward getting a review of the
case. Would you be willing to submit that letter?
Dr. Lattimoke. Surely. If I can find the letter, I will be very
glad to submit it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think if we can get it and it is available,
tlie entire correspondence with any persons in connection with the
Heissig case might be in order. Would you furnish that ?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think I asked you the other day whether
you were acquainted with Alger Hiss or not.
Dr. Lattimore. I met Alger Hiss very slightly during the late
1930's, when he was in the office of Dr. Stanley K. Hornbeck in the
Department of State. I used to go in occasionally to see Dr. Horn-
beck, and Mr. Hiss was sitting in the outer office.
Senator Hickenlooper. What were tlie occasions of your going in
to see Dr. Hornbeck at the Department of State ?
.Dr. Lattimore. I used to go in there urging a tougher policy to-
ward Japan.
Senator Hickenlooper. And did you visit other departments or
other agencies in the Department of State, or individuals, in urging
these policies ?
Dr. Latthnlore. I very likely did. Senator, but I can't recall whom
I visited. I think Dr. Hornbeck was the principal person I knew
at the State Department at that time.
Oh, yes, I remember one time Mr. Nelson Johnson, who had been
Minister to China, was at one time Under Secretary of State, and I
went in to see him occasionally.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was this before we entered the war?
Dr. Lattimore. This was before Pearl Harbor.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you confer with Mr. Alger Hiss in
connection with our policies toward Japan
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. During that period?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was it purely a casual acquaintance?
Dr. Lattimore. It was purely a casual acquaintance.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are vou acquainted with his brother,
Donald Hiss?
Dr. Lattimore. I never met him, sir — at least not that I can recall.
Senator Hickenlooper. Yesterday, I believe, Mr. Morgan inquired
about the discrepancy in the testimony between Earl Browder here
and yours as to whether or not you had ever seen Mr. Browder. I
do not care to renew that except to ask you whether or not you ever
on any occasion, at any time other than the one occasion that you said
you called upon Mr. Browder, have ever seen Mr. Browder to speak to
him or to visit with him or to discuss any matters with him.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY I]Sr\^ESTIGATION 907
Dr. Lattimore. Neither to speak to liim nor even to see liim at a
distance.
Senator IIickenlooper. Have you at any time and on any other
occasion than the one which you mentioned in your first testimony
ever sent, directly or indirectly through some other medium, any com-
munications to Mr. Browder or received any communications of any
kind from him?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir.
Mr. JNIoRGAx. In a similar vein, Mr. Lattimore, in connection with
the inquiry concernin<>- Mr. Browder, there is in our record. I believe
at this point, some confusion with respect to possible contacts that you
niiolit have had with Mr. Field. On pages 715 of our record through
717, Mr. Field has indicated that in all probability you and perhaps
Mrs. Lattimore did visit his home in New York, and I am wondering,
in view of his observation and the statements that j^ou have made on
the record, if you care to make any further statement at this time.
Dr. LATTirsroRE. I have not seen that part of the transcript, Mr.
Morgan ; so I am not familiar with exactly what he may have said,
but to the best of my recollection I may have seen Mr. Field at some
time or other between, say 19 — let's see. I came back from China in
1942: so the calendar dates would be som.e time between 1942 and 1946,
which is the year in question, but, if so, the contract was so casual
that I cannot recall the date or occasion.
Mr. ^NIoRGAX. If I recall the testimony, Mr. Field stated that in all
probability everyone with whom he had been associated in the institute
at one time or another had been in his home. I don't think he did
state positively that jou had been there, but he put it that probably he
had entertained everyone connected therewith, and your statement is
that you at no time were ever at ]Mr. Field's home. Is that correct '?
Dr. Lattimore. No; I have certainly been in Mi-. Field's home at
some time subsequent to — it would be some time subsequent, I think, to
1938. when I came to Baltimore to live.
^Ir. ^MoRGAx. On just one occasion, or more than one?
Dr. Lattimore. It might be more than one, or several, but I can't
recall.
Mr. ^Iorgax. The statement I had in mind yesterday was the one in
your prepared statement in which you stated that you had not been in
his home in 1946.
Dr. Lattimore. To the best of my recollection, I was never in his
home in 1946.
Mr. MoRGAX. And I think yesterday I asked the question if you
had been in his home at any other time.
Dr. Lattimore. That's right.
]Mi-. MoRGAx. Your testimony now is that you have been in his home
at other times?
Dr. LAnoioRE. I have been in his home, but I can't recall exactly
when.
Mr. MoRGAX. At any time in the general time limits there, 1945,
1946, or 1947?
Dr. Lattimore. On one or more occasions between 1938 and 1945,
but on no occasion for anything in the way of a meeting.
Mr. MoRGAX. Thank you. Senator. I am sorry I interrupted.
Senator Hickexlooper. That's all right.
908 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USTV'ESTIGATION
I just have one other. I have one observation that I think it is only,
fair to make, doctor, and I want to call your attention to the fact that
I asked 3'ou this morning abont yonr acquaintance and association
M'ith a number of people, and I will read their names: The youno- Mr.
Chi, Mr. Frederick V. Field, Mr. Philip Jaffe, x\gnes Smedley,"Nim
Wales, T. A. Bisson, and you stated your association with those people
over a period of j^ears.
You also stated, as I recall, the fact that you had no reason to believe
that they or any of them were Communists or had strong Communist
leanings.
Dr. Latttmore, At that time.
Senator Hickexlooper. In view of the volumes of public allegations
and discussions about these people indicating their at least very, very
strong leftish leanings, and in view of your very brilliant and great
ability, doctor, which I am happy to admit and frankly and honestly
admit, it is difficult for me to understand how a man of your percep-
tion and experience would fail to sense or appreciate the leftish lean-
ings of those particular people. I would not credit — I would not want
to credit — you with being naive.
Dr. Lattimore. Would you give that list again. Senator?
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chi, Mr. F. V.'Field, Mr. Philip Jaffe,
Agnes Smedley, Nim Wales, and T. A. Bisson.
My point is that they have been widely discussed publicly insofar
as their political opinions are concerned, and their writings, and I
frankly am — well, I did not apprehend that you would answer that
you had no idea or knowledge of their symphathies for the Com-
munist causes, which I think they have all clearly expressed repeatedly
over the years.
Dr. Lattimore. Let us take first, Senator, the names of Mr. Chi
and Mr. Bisson. 1 have never had any reason to consider Mr. Bisson
a Communist, and I had no idea that his name had been
Senator Hickenlooper. I have not charged any of these people with
being Communists. I said their strong leftish leanings.
Dr. Lattimore. I had no reason to consider tliat ^Ir. Bisson had a
strong left trend, and I had no idea that his name had been widely
circulated with any such allegation. At the time I loiew Mr. Chi
best, which was in Chungking during the war, he was associated in
a business in China and I certainly had no reason to consider him a
leftist.
Mr. Field, at the time when my association with him was relatively
frequent, in 19?)8-o9, I had no reason to believe to be a Communist
or a leftist until the period of, let me see, I suppose it was 1940-41,
when his view of the war in Europe was difl'erent from mine and I
considered then that his views on that were much moi-e sympathetic
to the Kussians than mine were.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Lattimore, was a treaty or an agree-
ment or a compact of friendship made between the Eussian Govern-
ment and Chiang Kai-shek at some time about 191-6 or thereabouts?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, I believe there was. At (he end of the war the
Chinese signed a series of agreements with the Russians involving the
return to the Russians of certain railway systems in Manchuria, the
ports of Dairen and Port Arthur, Chinese recognition of the inde-
pendence of Mongolia and so forth. Is that the agreement to which
you refer ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 909"
Senator Hickenlooper. I believe that that is the agreement. Tlie
point I was ti-vino- to make was that Stalin and (liiang Kai-shek did
come into agreements. I suppose they made the customary state-
ments of great friendship and cooperation and so on, so that at least
on paper (I believe it was in 1945) there were expressions of coopera-
tion between Stalin and the Kussian Government and the Govern-
ment of Chiang Kai-shek. That is my impression.
I wonder if vou airree at least that the outward forms were those
of cooperation as a result of those agreements.
Dr. LATTmoRK. My recollection of those agreements, Senator, is
that they were — I forget exactly when they were signed, but that they
were published shortly after the surrender of Japan, but the wording
indicated that they were agi'eements which had been negotiated while
the war was still in progress, because they contained clauses about
the relationship between the Eussians and the Chinese military au-
thorities and the relations between the Russians and the Chinese civil
authorities in areas that might be taken over from Japan.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you recall whether these were agree-
ments that grew out of the Yalta Conference and the agreement at
Yalta?
Dr. Lattimore. I do not know that any public statement has ever
been made to that effect. As I recall the Yalta agreements offhand,
there was an agreement between Churchill, President Roosevelt, and
Stalin which had to do with both Mongolia and Manchuria, and there
was some expression that — I forget whether it was both President
Roosevelt and Mr. Churchill or just President Roosevelt, would use
their influence with Chiang Kai-shek to get his concurrence.
Senator Hickenlooper. Which, of course, at that time probably
meant that the influence was a command, virtually, to secure agree-
ment in those matters.
Dr. Lattimore. I was not a member of any high councils of state at
that time. Senator. I can't tell you how close it was to a command.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, there are many items here
in i\Ir. Lattimore's prepared statement that I would like very much
to canvass, .which would take some study and isolation for the purpose
of proper questioning, that I shan't go into at this moment, and I
hope if opportunity occurs at a later date that I can read it a little
more carefully and be prepared to ask some more questions, but at
the moment I think that is Jill that I have to ask.
Dr. Lattimore. I should like to add, Senator, one remark on the
subject of the agreements between the Chinese and the Russians over
Manchuria. It has alwavs been my belief that it was a grave mistake
of American policy to arrive at any settlement or agreement or under-
standing with other countries about the internal disposition of Chi-
nese territoiT. My understanding is, from the published documents,
that the decision to do so was arrived at largel}- because of the pressure
of the military services, which wanted to make sure that Russia would
join in the war against Japan. My opinion on that subject was that
the Russians were going to join in the war against Japan anyhow,
and that it was unnecessary to come to an agreement with them in
advance which had to do with the internal territory of, sovereignty,
and administration of an ally.
910 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY im'ESTIGATION
I understand that tlie argument against that is that since the Rus-
sians were going to take advantage of the end period of the war against
Japan anyhow, it was better to do so under arrangements than with
the Russians uncontrolled by any form of agreement. My personal
opinion has always been that the United States should not even put
itself in a position of seeming to dispose internally of Chinese ter-
ritory.
Senator Hickenlooper. That is all.
Senator Greej^. Senator McMahon, have you some questions ?
Senator McMahon. Dr. Lattimore, I had to be absent during part
of your cross-examination. You may have covered this. I don't
intend to go into it in great detail. But I am interested in your
assertion that you did not go to Mr. Field's house to attend a meeting.
Dr. Latti]more. That is right, sir.
Senator McMahon. On the occasion or occasions when you did go
there, what was the purpose of the visit ?
Dr. Lattimore. Mr. Field was an associate of mine in the Institute
of Pacific Relations, and I maintained friendlv contact with him, as
I did with other members of the staff of the Institute of Pacific Re-
lations.
Senator McMahon. Was the home then in Washington ?
Dr. Lattimore. No. His home was in New York and the offices of
the Institute of Pacific Relations were in New York. I lived in Balti-
more, and occasionally when I came to New York I visited the Insti-
tute of Pacific Relations, and on much fewer occasions than that I may
have dropped in to Field's house to see him.
Senator McMahon. Did he make a practice of visiting you in Bal-
timore?
Dr. Lattimore. To the best of my recollection he never visited me
either in Baltimore or Washington.
Senator McMahon. Does any particular person stand out in your
mind as having been a guest at his home when you were there ?
Dr. Lattimore. At his home?
Senator McMahon. Yes.
Dr. Lattimore. No ; no particular person.
Senator McMahon. Were there many or few ?
Dr. Lattimore. Very few.
Senator McMahon. Do you remember a man named Huber ?
Dr. Latfimore. No, sir.
Senator McMahon. Doctor, when did the fidit occur over the con-
trol of the Institute of Pacific Relations ?
Dr. Lattimore. I believe it was in the years 1945^6. Senator. It
IS stated m that document issued by the Institute of Pacific Relations
which recounts the whole story and gives the vote of the membership
and analyzes the various publications of the institute and so forth.
All the details are there, including the dates.
Senator McMahon. Is that in the record ?
Dr. Lattimore. That is in the record.
Senator McMahon. Tell me, who were the principal contenders?
How would you line them up ? Who were the principal contenders on
both sides of that fight ?
Dr. Lattimore. As I recall. Senator, Mr. Kohlberg made an attack
on the management and policy of the Institute of Pacific Relations,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 911
circulated a frreat deal of mimeoixraplied material. A certain luimber
of letters came in from the membership saying "Wliat is all this
about?" Eventually the institute set up a committee from among its
trustees to consider the -whole matter. Kohlberg's charges were cir-
culated to the entire membership, as I recall, togethei- with the analysis
made by this committee. A vote of the membership was then held,
and as I remember a total of some 1,200 votes were reported.
Senator Mc^Iahon. Out of how many ?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't know out of how many — out of about 2,000.
And of the votes recorded, 66 were in favor of Kohlberg and over 1,100
were against him.
The committee that conducted that inquiry, examination of charges,
and so forth, or whatever you would like to call it, consisted of Mr.
Arthur Dean, of the firm of Sullivan & Cromwell; Mr. William R.
Harrod, of the International General Electric; Mr. Walter Dilling-
ham, who is a prominent businessman in Hawaii ; Prof. Joseph Cham-
berlain, professor, I believe, of international law at Columbia ; Prof.
Philip Jessup, of Columbia. That is all the members of that commit-
tee that I can recall.
Senator McMaiion. Were you aetiA^e in that fight ?
Dr. Lattimore. Xo, sir.
Senator McMaiion. Were you a principal bone of contention?
Dr. Lattimore. I was one of the people attacked ; yes.
Senator McMaiion. How many were attacked?
Dr. Lattimore. I don't recall, sir. It is all in the record in that
document.
Senator McMaiion. Attack was made on you on the ground that
you were what — leftist. Communist, or what?
Dr. Lattimore. The attack was made in terms of those I think
rather interesting parallels that have alread}^ been submitted to the
committee showing the parallels between the Kohlberg charges and
the McCarthy charges.
Senator McMaiion. Did you answer in writing, submit anything
by way of a brief to the membership ?
Dr. Lattimore. Not that I can recall.
Senator "^NIcMahon. Wouldn't you be likely to recall that. Doctor?
Dr. Lattimore. I would be likely to recall it, I should think, yes;
but I thouirht that after all eveiything that I had said was in the
record. The record was being examined by an extremely competent
committee. Why should I do any special pleading?
Senator ]\Ic^1aiion. Did you do any electioneering?
Dr. Lattimore. Any electioneering? No, sir.
Senator ]McMaiion. Did you communicate with the members that
brought about the 1,100 vote?
Dr. Lattimore. Not with the members. I would certainly have
answered any inquiries that may have been directed to me by that
committee.
Senator ^IcMaiton. Did vou appear before the committee?
Dr. Latti:\iore. Not that I can recall.
Senator ^IcMaiion. Did they make a written record of their
deliberations?
Dr. Lattimore. Yes. It is in the record.
Senator ISIcMahon. And we have that in the record?
Dr. Lattimore. You have that in the record.
912 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I think the record shows that the Kohlberg charges were based on
sometliing less than 2 percent of the total output of the institute, and
had been magnified in Kohlberg's presentation as if they represented
the entire activity of the institute.
Senator McMahon. Dr. Lattimore, you stated that you called at
the State Department in connection with urging a tougher Japanese
policy ?
Dr. Lattimoee. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahon. And you talked with Dr. Hornbeck. He is
retired now, is he not?
Dr. Lattiimore. He is retired now ; yes.
Senator McMahon. He was then in charge of the Far Eastern
Division ?
Dr. Lattimore. He then had a special office which I believe does
not now exist, which had a title something like Consultant on the Far
East, or something of that kind.
Senator McMahon. Did Hiss participate in your deliberations with
Hornbeck ?
Dr. Lattimore. Never that I can recall.
Senator McMahon. Was he Hornbeck's assistant at that time?
Dr. Lattimore. At the time he sat in Hornbeck's outer office. He
was the man I saw on my way in to see Hornbeck. I don't know what
his status was.
Senator McMahon. What were you urging by way of a stronger
policy in Japan ?
Dr. Laitimore. I was very much in favor of stopping the ship-
ment of war materials to Japan,
Senator McMahon. That was during what time, Doctor?
Dr. Lattimore. That would be from the end of 1938, when I came
to Baltimore, and the middle of 1941, when I went out to China.
Senator IMcMahon. At that time Japan and Russia and Germany
had an alliance, did they not?
Dr. Lattimore. Not the whole of that time. Senator.
Senator IVIcMahon. When was that alliance? When did it come
into existence?
Dr. Lattimore. As I recall, Senator, offhand, there was first a Eome-
Berlin Axis which may have been in 1938, perhaps, and then an ex-
tension of it by agreement between, certainly. Berlin and Tokyo, and
I think there was some sort of exchange of diplomatic notes between
Rome and Tokyo. But as I understand it, the Tokyo relationship
was much less of an active partnership than the Rome-Berlin Axis.
Senator McMahon. At the time when you were urging a tougher
policy on Japan, could you refresh us on tlie relationship between
Japan and Russia ?
Dr. Lattimore. During that period, and it is a little bit difficult to
recall the exact dates, there were a number of clashes between the
JajDanese and the Russians on the frontiers of Manchuria and the
frontiers between Manchuria and Siberia and the frontiers between
Manchuria and Outer Mongolia.
Senator McMahon. They liad sort of a full-scale undeclared war
going on at one time; did they not?
Dr. Lattimore. At one time it was a fairly large-scale undeclared
war. I don't think either of those undeclared wars on the Siberian
frontier or the Mongolian frontier was observed by American corre-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IK\'ESTIGATION 913
spondeiits, 'though in the case of one of tlieni, on the Siberian frontier,
the Japanese side of the lines was visited by American correspond-
ents, inchiding the correspondent of the New York Times, not very
lon<r after hostilities ceased.
Eventually some kind of a standstill agreement or nonaggression
pact was signed between the Russians and the Japanese. At the time
that that was signed, there was a great deal of dispute about its sig-
nificance. One interpretation of it was that it gave a green light
to the Japanese to go on with their invasion of China ; the other in-
terpretation of it was that it represented Japan's going back on its
ally Germany, because it meant that Japan would not join with Ger-
many in an attack on Russia from tAvo sides.
Senator McMahox. Do you recollect now who the leading protago-
nists were in this country for an embargo on shipments to Japan ?
Dr. Lattimoee. I should say I was one of them, Senator. Admiral
Yarnell was also very much interested. He Avas then inactive, not
on active service. He was in favor of a tougher policy toward Japan.
The head of the committee was IMr. Henry Stimson.
Senator McMahon. Did you serve on that committee?
Dr. Latttmore. I served on that committee.
Senator Mc^NIaiiox. Do you know Mr. Stimson?
Dr. Lattimore. I have met him, I believe, once.
Senator McMahon. That is all.
Senator Green. Senator Lodge, have you any questions?
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, first, for the record, and for the
same reasons that I previously stated, I wish to reiterate my vigorous
dissent at the assistant counsel, Mr. Morris, not being permitted to
cross-examine witnesses. It seems to me that that impairs the in-
tegrity of the proceedings and flies in the face of our political phi-
losophy.
Then I would like to reiterate my dissent also with the decision
not to permit any questioning of anyone involved in the case of Dr.
Lattimore in executive session. I don't see how we can get at the truth
of this affair otherwise, and I would call attention to the new angle
that is developing, by Avhich I mean tlie coming international confer-
ence in Pai'is and London, and I plead vrith everyone to visualize the
effect on the American representation abroad of a constant stream of
this kind of publicity that is going to be published in the London
and Paris press, and the weakening effect it will have on the interests
of the American people at those conferences. I think that is a fac-
tor which has to be taken into consideration in addition to the other
objections to these public proceedings which are, of course, that they
hamper the work of our investigative agency.
Senator Mc^Iahon. Senator.^ do you mind my saying that I think
there is a great deal to be said for your desire to have an executive
session. However, it strikes me that in the Lattimore case we have
lost the option to try to continue his case ; hearing witnesses in his
case in executive session would perhaps be misinterpreted and do our
situation generally more harm than good.
I, too, would like to ask Dr. Lattimore some questions that I do
not feel that I can ask in open session, and that makes me doubly
sym])athetic with your idea of an executive session, but I think we
are rather on the horns of a dilemma in this particular case.
I just wanted to make that observation.
914 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge, I appreciate the Senator's observation, but I think
it is a definite mistake to foreclose ourselves from examination in
executive session on this matter. I think it would be better in the
interest of justice to the individuals involved, wholly apart from the
effect that this publicity has on the interests of the American people
in these forthcoming conferences. I would like to take this show
off the road, myself.
Senator Green. May I suggest that Senator Lodge proceed with
the witness ?
Senator Lodge. I will be glad to. The Senator from Connecticut
wanted to ask me another question.
Senator McMahon. I will be glad to talk with the Senator about
the projected examination that he wishes to make in executive session,
and I certainly will maintain an open mind on the matter. I merely
wanted to state what seemed to me to be the dilemma which we are
facing, and I will be glad to listen to the Senator in executive session
as to wliy he thinks we should adopt that procedure for the rest of
the Lattimore witnesses.
Senator Lodge. I am glad the Senator is willing to listen to me.
I appreciate that.
First, Dr. Lattimore, I have some questions that the able Senator
from California, Senator Knowland, wished to have asked, and he
wanted to have them asked in executive session, but as that procedure
is impossible I shall ask them now. Some of them relate to subjects
on which you have touched. I do not think precisely these questions
have been asked. If they are slightly repetitious, you will under-
stand.
Question No. 1 : While in China did you know, meet, or have any
contact witli Ho Yung-Chi, secretary in the Chinese Documents
Section of the Wedemeyer and Marshall headquarters in China?
Dr, Lattimore. I can't recall the name. Senator, Of course I was
not in China when either the Marshall or the Wedemeyer mission
was there.
Senator Lodge, How many times did you meet Agnes Smedley in
the Far East?
Dr, Lattimore, To the best of my recollection, my wife and I met
her first when we found ourselves on the same boat with her going
to China in, I think, 1934. After that she came in to call on us at
our house in Peking once. It would be the next year, I think — 1935.
After that I saw her in Yenan in 1937, and that I think is the total
num.ber of times I have seen her in China.
Senator Lodge. How many meetings have you had with Agnes
Smedley in the United States, and the approximate dates of such
meetings?
Dr. Lattimore. I can't recall having any meetings with her in the
United States, I may have met her in the United States, but if so I
certainly can't recall it.
Senator Lodge, Did you at any time, directly or indirectly, receive
from or transmit to any of the following persons any documents which
were classified "restricted," "confidential," "secret," or "top secret"?
Here are the names :
Philip J, Jaffe?
Dr, Lattimore, No, sir.
Senator Lodge. Emmanuel S. Larsen ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 915
Dr. Lattimore. Xo, sir.
Senator Lodge. Andrew Roth?
Dr. Lattiimore. Xo, sir.
Senator Lodge. John S. Service?
Dr. Lattimore. Xo, sir.
Senator Lodge. Kate Mitchell?
Dr. Lattiimore. Xo, sir.
Senator Lodge. Did you ever meet or have any contact with James
G. Endicott?
Dr. Lattoiore. The name is totally unfamiliar.
Senator Lodge. Chino; Xu-chi?
Dr. LATmroRE. Can you say anything in the case of these names
to refresh my memory in case it might turn out tliat I have met them
casually ?
Senator Lodge. At the moment, no.
The next is Ching Xu-chi.
Dr. Lattimore. Xo.
Senator Lodge. Ozaki Hozumi?
Dr. Lattimore. That name sounds vaguely familiar. He may be
a Japanese writer or politician or something, but I can't recall meeting
him.
Senator Lodge. Mary A. Endicott?
Dr. Lattimore. Xo, sir.
Senator Lodge. Max Klausen ?
Dr. Lattimore. Xo, sir.
Senator Lodge. Branko De Voukelitch ?
Dr. Lattimore. Xo, sir.
Senator Lodge. "Was Frederick V. Field the secretary of the Insti-
tute of Pacific Relations at the time that vote on Kohlberg's charges
was taken?
Dr. Lattimore. Xo, sir; I don't believe so, sir. I think, Senator,
that he i-esigned as secretary of the American Institute of Pacific
Relations about 1943.
Senator Lodge. And the vote on Kohlberg was taken when?
Dr. Lattimore. About 1946—1946 or 1947.
Senator 'Lodge. Xow I would like to ask you a question which
relates to a statement which you made yesterday on page A-17 in
your mimeographed release, and I quote :
The simple and inescapable fact must be that Budenz did not know or think
of me as a Communist agent or even a fellow traveler; that he concocterl this
entire spider's web of lies only after he heard the call to colors, sounded by
McCarthy or Budenz' old friend, Kohlberg, or some of the others of that crew.
Wliat do you mean by "the call to the colors"? What call would
there be? Wliat compunction could there be on him to answer the
call?
Dr. Lattimore. The call to the colors, as I thought of it when I
wrote that passage, was the call to come and "smear'' somebod}^ as a
Communist who wasn't a Communist, which is just what Kohlberg and
McCarthy are fond of doing.
Senator Lodge. Would any motive make a man respond to a call
like that?
Dr. Lattimore. T liave said in the same statement. Senator, I think,
what I think of Budenz" motives. I can read them again if you desire.
916 STATE DEPARTME^'T EIVIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. You are referring to that part about commercialism t
Dr. Lattimore. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. Then on page BT, I quote :
Thii'd, I am informed that the Department does not vouch for the general
character or credibility of its witnesses.
That to me is important. If the Federal Bureau of Investigation
does not vouch for Mr. Budenz' credibility, that is a significant fact.
Are you sure tliat is true ?
Dr. Lattimoee. On that. Senator, I was naturally interested in
Budenz' past record, and I asked my counsel to look into the matter.
Senator Lodge. And then what happened ?
Dr. Lattimore. Would you care to speak to that, Mr. Porter ?
Mr. Porter. I thinlv, Senator, that the succeeding sentence perhaps
clarifies, if I understand what the Senator has in mind. That is to
say that in any particular case involving criminal proceedings, the
Department of Justice, or any other prosecuting agency, does not
vouch for the general credibility of its particular witnesses.
Senator Lodge. This statement, then, refers to your understanding
of the general practice ?
Mr. Porter. That is correct.
Senator Lodge. And is not particularlv pm-pointed on Budenz?
Mr. Porter, With specific reference to Budenz.
Senator Lodge. Have you specific information that leads you to be-
lieve that the FBI does not vouch for his credibility in this particular
connection ?
Mr. Porter. No. I have none to the contrary. But I think this is
a generally accepted legal principle.
Senator McMahon. You see, Senator
Senator Lodge. Either it is a principle applying generally or it ap-
plies specifically to Mr. Budenz.
Mr. Porter. We mean them both, and I would ask the Senator to
read the sealed document which was handed up in connection with
another proceeding.
Senator Lodge. I haven't read that. I will read it.
Senator McMahon. Senator, might I volunteer a statement ?
Senator Lodge. Yes ; I yield.
Senator McMahon. It is the Department of Justice's duty, and any
attorney's representing them, to put on witnesses who have any knowl-
edge of a particular proceeding. It would not be considered right for
an attorney representing the Department to fail to make known to the
court a witness who did have some knowledge of the proceedings.
Now, conceivably the witness would be ready to testify to something
that was not in the Government's interest. However, the duty of an
attorney for the Government is to place all the facts before the court
that are available, and not to scurry around to get only witnesses who
will testify to a man's guilt. You can see there is a difference in the
duty that is owed by a Government attorney or a State's attorney or
county prosecuting attorney from what there is of an attorney who is
counsel for a person in a civil proceeding, representing a particular
person.
I think that perhaps is what was meant, but as I understand it. you
did not refer particularly to any particular attitude that the Depart-
ment took toward Budenz personally.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 917
]\Ii-. PoKTER. We (lid not s])ecifical]y make the inquiry as to whether
they considered Btidenz a reliabh^ witness.
Senator ]\1c]Maiiox. I think tliat should be A'ery clear in the record,
because I would doubt very mucli whether tlie Dei)artnient would nudve
any particular statement about Budenz.
Mr. PouTKR. The point we undertook to make was simply that the
Department by using a man like Budenz in these proceedings does not
endorse or vouch for his general credibility.
Senator Lodge. And that is all you were trying to convey ?
]\Ir. Porter. That, plus the collateral information which we su.b-
nutted to the connnmittee which we think completely supports that
point, that any reasonable man who reads that additional information
would reach the same conclusion we have with respect to Budenz.
Senator Lodge. I haven't read that yet. Of course, I will. I am
referring to the public statement made yesterday on page B7, and that
expresses a generality, does it not ?
^Ir. Porter. It expresses a principle that applies to Budenz.
Senator McjNIaiu^n. But has not been applied by the Department
of Justice to Budenz.
^Ir. Porter. They have used him as an informer.
Senator ]McMaiiox. They have used him as a witness, as I under-
stand it, but you have not, as I understand it, and if you have I want
to Imow how, got any expression from the Department or any official
in which they have said, "Mr. Porter, we have used Budenz but we
have not warranted him." They have not communicated with you
to that effect. They have stated a general policy, and you have applied
it to Budenz. Isn't that right?
]Mr. Porter. That is correct.
Senator Lodge. The thing that must be obvious to everybody is that
the credibility of Mr. Budenz is a cardinal point in this whole venture.
That must be obvious to everybody, and I am trying to figure out
whether on page B7 you are informing the committee that you have
been informed by the FBI that they don't put a very high value on hi^
credibility.
Mr. Porter. We have asked no rating from the FBI as to Budenz.
I assume the committee could get it if they seek it, but we have been
informed, if you will notice in the first item there, that the Department
has never used Budenz as a witness in any case except against an open
and known Communist member, on the theory, objectives, and oper-
ations of the Communist Party. I was specifically told that by a com-
petent official of the Department of Justice, that he was not used in
connection with the identification of suspected individuals, rather on
the ideology and what he calls the apparatus.
Senator Lodge. I am not making this remark to you now, but I am
making it to my colleagues, that there is something into which this
committee ouglit to delve and ought to delve off the record. That is
one of many, many things that we ought to do off the record, and I
repeat, this business of keeping these whole proceedings in public is
to me an impossibility.
I am almost through with the questions I want to ask in public.
Yesterday — :iik1 I am referring to page 180G of the record — you
said this, and I quote :
Now, in connection with these holding-point positions, such as Formosa. Korea.
Indochina, it seems to me that a sxrave defect of onr policy at the present time
918 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
is that so much of our resources, and so much of our emotion, is committed to
these holding points, and I do not think we can mal^e a successful policy in Asia
out of holding points.
I would like to ask you whether it is your considered judgment that
Indochina is on all fours with Formosa, whether you really think that,
or whether that was
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir; I do not think Indochina is on all fours
with Formosa. Formosa is an outlying island of China controlled at
the moment by a government that is exiled and does not represent
the local people in Formosa. Indochina is not only a much larger ter-
ritory, but it is a multiple territory. It consists of Annam, Cochin-
China, Cambodia. Tonkin, and Laos. It is a multiple nation: there
are a number of different local languages, societies, and consequently
loyalties, there. It might be possible in Indochina, for instance, to
get a program going that would make n.on-Communist states out of-
territories like Cambodia and Laos. The operation so far as Annam
is concerned, which is the heart of the Viet Nam movement, is much
more serious and difficult, because there you have a nationalist move-
ment that has been actually gathering momentum for a number of
years.
Senator Lodge. I don't think I have made myself clear. Yesterday
you gave two classifications of countries in the East. You had For-
mosa, Korea, and Indochina in holding-point positions; then you had
India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and Afghanistan as countries in which
we ought to really make a major effort to hold, because they were of
substantial importance in their own right.
Dr. Latthviore. Quite so.
Senator Lodge. It seemed to me that Indochina was a country of
substantial importance in its own right.
Dr. Lattimore, That is right.
Senator Lodge. That the French Army is pretty well deployed
along its northern border, that it has large natural resources and so
on, and is the gateway to a great many others, and from a strategic
standpoint it was in a wholly different category from Formosa, yet
you put it in the category with Formosa and do not put it in the cate-
gory with Indonesia and Afghanistan.
Dr. Lattimore. I think I understand now what you mean. Senator.
I think that the operation that is going on at present with the
French Army on the one hand and this slightly dug-up ex-emperor,
on the other hand, to whom the French have belatedly conceded an
inadequate standing, to have that kind of thing supported by Ameri-
can policy is not only a holding operation but a holding operation
that is going to lose out.
Now, the other half of the proposition, the importance of large-
scale constructive policies in major territories like India, Pakistan,
Indonesia, and so forth, this is the point I shoidd like to make: If
back of the holding points you don't do anything, if you have hold-
ing points that are held only by inadequate people that look to the
people of the coimtry like puppets, and like rather miserable puppets,
then you are going to create an impression of constantly receding
holding points which create more and more of a defeatist mentality
in the territory's mind. If you have a constructive program in the
territories behind that begins to make headway, that begins to give
people a feeling of hope, a feeling of having a constructive future
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY I]Sr\'ESTIGATION 919
and a constructive future in association \\\i\\ the United States, you
may then chantre the whole atmosphere and create instead a feelin<r
of something better cominc: up and movin<i- up to the hohlin<i; point, so
that tliey are no h)n<ier merely holdinfr points but become the advance
points of a constructive movement, which we do not have at present.
Senator Lodge. Admittin<j: that that in oeneral is true, should not
Indochina l)e included in a <jroup like that?
Dr. Latti^iore. Senator, things have been moving rather fast in
Indochina. I Avas away in Afghanistan for a month under conditions
which made it impossible for me to follow the day-to-day news from
Indochina. When I got out to Afghanistan, Ambassador Jessup had
been there just a few days before me. I didn't see him. He w^as
coming back here to report on his visit to Southeast Asia.
Since I came back, for more than a month now, I have been occu-
pied with this extremely distasteful to me procedure to which the
disreputable McCarthy lias subjected me, and I have also not been able
to keep up with my profession, so that in respect to a rather fast-
moving political situation in a territory like Indocliina I really can't
profess to give you answers of any real depth or substance. I have
only had fleeting glances at the papers. I did notice in a newspaper
the' other day in the Alsop brothers' column a reference to what was
called, I think, the stupidity and folly of the French handling of that
situation in Indochina.
Senator LodCxE. Thank you. That is all.
Senator Greex. May I ask a question myself?
Senator ^NIc^Iahox. You can.
Senator Greex. It is this : The charge is made that you were the
architect of the State Department's policy in China. That charge
you very modestly disclaim, and yet in your testimony today you
stated that you called many times on Mr. Hornbeck in the State De-
partment and urged the adoption of your policy in Japan. Japan
is in Asia. Mr. Hornbeck is in the State Department. Do you mean
that you endeavored to get your policy adopted but failed?
Dr. La'itimore. I endeavored, with total unsuccess.
Senator Greex. But you endeavored?
Dr. Lattimore. I endeavored.
Senator Greex. Did you endeavor to get your policy toward China
adopted?
Dr. Lattimore. Xo, sir. By the end of the war I had undertaken
to write syndicated newspaper articles, and that to my mind meant
that since I was speaking on my own in the public press, that was the
way in which I should do my speaking, and not by going to urge
private arguments with members of the Government.
Senator Greex, Then, in the case of Japan, you used your private
arguments v.itli members of the Government, and in the case of China
you used your public discussions.
Dr. L\TTiMORE. That is right. One was prewar and one was post-
war. Before the war I was a university piofessor who wrote occa-
sional articles in the magazine which I was editing and in other
magazines, but I was not writing for the daily press, I was not writing
for general consumption, and together with a numljer of like-minded
l>eople. I was alarmed by what I thought was a dangerous policy.
I thought that Japan was increasingly becoming an enemy of ours,
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 59
920 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
that it was extremely unwise to strenothen this enemy, so I joined
this committee which M'as known as the Connnittee for Non-Partici-
pation in Japanese Aggression, and together with tliat committee
1 urged a stronger policy toward Japan.
After the war, as I say, after I had left Government service, I was
asked to write a syndicated news])aper column, and I thought that
tliat changed my relationship to anybody in the State Department;
that is, that I might then, like other newspapermen, go to people in
the State Department and ask what policy was, and then make my
comment upon it, but I did not urge policies in the State Department.
Senator Green. You refrained from giving anv advice, is that the
idea ?
Dr. Lattimore. Except in my column. In my column I expressed
my opinions freely.
Senator Green. Did you go to the State Department with other
newspapermen ?
Dr. Lattimore. No, sir. I dropped in there occasionally, but prob-
ably much more rarely than tlie regular press here in Washington, for
the reason that I explained, I think, yesterday. 1 based my knowledge
of the Far East primarily on my own experience there, on the accumu-
lation of many years of knowledge and experience, and I tried to work
from my background knowledge toward a particular question which
is in the foreground, whereas a newspaperman working in Washing-
ton, when the Far East comes into the news, may have to deal with
the news and yet be a man who has never been in "the Far East, there-
fore he has to go to the State Dej^artment and any other governmental
agency from which he thinks he may get inf()rm*ati(m, get such infor-
mation as they are willing to give him, and then as a newspaperman
form the best judgment that he can on the subject.
Senator Green. Wliom in the State Department did you call upon
to get this news ?
Dr. Lattimore. When I went to the State Department at all I
would naturally go either — I forget what the exact title is now. So
many of these State Department internal divisions have had their
names changed, but it was roughly the Division of Far Eastern
Affairs ; and there is a China, a Japan, and a Southeast Asia section
within that division, and I would go to whichever one I was inquiring
about at the moment. *"
Then there is also in the Department an office, the name of which
I can not qtiite recall, which is a special office sujiposed to provide
background information on policy to newspaper men or to the public
which may come in to inquire about policy.
Senator Green. Whom did 3'ou see when you went to these de-
partments?
Dr. Lattimore. Lidividuals, do you mean ?
Senator Grfj:n. Yes.
Dr. La^itimore. Let me see. For China it would be— I haven't been
there for so long I can't remember who was the man who was there
last. In Southeast Asia I know
Senator Green. I am simply asking you whom you saw.
Dr. Lattimore. I mean in the Southeast Asia section.
Senator (treen. Not whom you naturally might see.
Dr. Lattimore. In the Southeast Asia section the man I would
see when I would go there was Mr. Kenneth Perry Landon.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 921
Senator (ikekn. I am not askin;jf wlioni yon would naturally go
to see. I am asking you whom ^ou did see.
Dr. LA'rrnioUK. That is the man I actnally saw. I don't think I
know anyone else in the Southeast Asia section.
Senatoi- Gkkf.n. So far as you recall there is only one person you
Mcnt to for news?
Dr. Lattimcre. For Southeast Asia it would be Mr. Landon ; for
China it ATas whoever was head of the China desk.
Senator Green. Who was it ?
Dr. Lattimore. It has changed several times in recent years and I
liave been there so seldom I find it difficult to remember the names of
the people. It was Mr. James Penfield. That was one person that
I have seen in the Chiiui section.
Senator Gheen. Do you remember any others?
Dr. Lattimore. In the Japan section
Senator Green. Xo, the China section.
Dr. Latt'imore. Mr. Penfield, Mr. Philip Sprouse. Those are the
only two names that 1 can remember at the moment.
Senator (ireen. Were there others?
Dr. Lattimore. There are a number of people in that section, but
the i)eople that I went in to see were Mr. Penfield and Mr. Sprouse.
Senator Gkekn. How often did you see them?
Dr. Lattimore. INlaj'be once in G months or so.
Senator (treex. Once every 6 months?
Dr. Lattimore. Something like that.
Senator Green. Was that enough to keep you up to date?
Dr. Lattimore. Well, as I say. Senator, it was enough for my pur-
poses by my methods, because I was working, and I have always
Vi'orked, primarily from my own accumulated knowledge of many
years plus a very careful following of the papers. I follow and keep
tiled clippings of the New York Times — nuiinly of the New York
Times and to a certain extent of the New York Herald Tribune. 1
Avould put those clippings together for the recent news. I then con-
sidered my background, and on very rare occasions if there seemed
to be a point there that I could not understand of my own knowledge,
I might go" to the Department and ask for clarification, as any news-
paper man would.
Senator Green. Thank you very much.
The bell has called; it is an important vote that is coming up. I
am sure we are glad to have been able to finish just as the bell rang.
I want to make the announcement that the committee will meet in
executive session tomorrow morning at 10 : 30.
Mr. Porti-:r. Does that mean that Dr. Lattimore is now excused ?
Senator Green. He is not expected tomorrow.
Senator McMahon. As I understand it, he is still on call.
(Whereupon, at 4 p. m., the hearing was adjourned, to be resumed
upon the call of the chair.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
THURSDAY, MAY 4, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington^ D. C.
executive session
The subcommittee met in executive session at 10 : 30 a. m., in room
G-23, United States Capitol, Senator Millard E. Tydings (chairman
of the subcommittee) presidino;-
Present : Senators Tydings, Green, McMahon, and Lodge.
Also present : Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel for the com-
mittee, and Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel for the committee.
Senator Tydings. The meeting will come to order.
Mr. Bielaski, will you stand and raise your right hand?
Do you soleimily promise and declare that the evidence you shall
give to this committee on the matter now pending before it, regarding
the loyalty investigation of the State Department employees, shall be
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Bielaski. I do.
TESTIMONY OF FRANK BROOKS BIELASKI
Senaor Tydings. Take a seat and give us your full name.
Mr. Bielaski. Frank Brooks Bielaski.
Senator Tydings. Give us your age.
]\Ir. Bielaski. Sixty years of age.
Senator Tydings. What is your present occupation?
Mr. Bielaski. I am president of the Research and Security Corp.,
a New York corporation.
Senator Tydings. And what is your present address ?
Mr. Bielaski. My residence address is 315 East Sixty-eighth Street.
My business address is 521 Fifth Avenue.
(A brief recess was taken.)
Senator Tydings. Let's start, now.
Senator Green. I move Mr. Morris be allowed to attend.
Senator Tydings. I agree to that.
Senator McMahon. I agree, and I further think, Mr. Chairman,
it might be a good idea to let him ask the questions.
Senator Tydings. I will agree. It will just take more time, and we
ought to get on with the case.
All right, sir, do you have a statement to make about this ?
923
924 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BiELASKi. I have a prepared statement.
Senator Ttdings. Tell us what you can about the matter.
Mr. BiELASKi. Do you want me to tell you what I know about the
particular case ?
Senator Tydings. Anything that has to do with disloyalty of per-
sons in the State Department.
Mr. BiELiVSKi. Well, as to that I have no first-hand knowledge of
disloyalty of persons in the State Department, in connection with the
Amerasia case. I do know certain parts of the Amerasia case thor-
oughly, and if you wish to have a complete understanding, I think you
coukl hear what I have to say.
Senator Tydings. Well, sir, go ahead.
Mr. BiELASKi. It is not prepared, in any sense, and I will have to
speak from my memory.
Senator Tydings. Take your own way, and tell us what you think
is pertinent.
Sir. BiELASKi. Early in 1942, in January or February, I became Di-
rector of Investigations for the Office of Strategic Services
Senator McMahon. Mr. Mclnerney of the Department of Justice
is here on this case.
Is there any objection to having him here in the room ?
(There was discussion off the record.)
Senator Tydings. We will leave him out for the present.
Go ahead.
Mr. BiELASKi. And, I remained as such for the life of the Office of
Strategic Services, and continued for an additional year as Director
of Investigations under the Strategic Service Unit of the War Depart-
ment.
Senator Tydings. Wlio headed that?
Mr. BiELASKi. General Donovan.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. BiELASKi. Genera] Donovan sent his aide. Colonel Huntington,
to ask me to take a job, that was an undercover job, and my associa-
tion with the Office of Strategic Services was never known, except to
about a half a dozen of the officials of the OSS.
My office was in New York, and my organization extended through-
out the ITnited States, consisting primarily of former agents of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Senator Tydings. Were there any present agents of the FBI ? That
is, I mean men who were agents at the time you were operating, or
were they all ex-FBI ?
Mr. BiELASKi. All ex-FBI, but men of experience and ability.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. BiELASKi. My principal office was in New York, and we had of-
fices or agents in every State of the Union. I don't think you want to
know about the details of the organization.
Senator Tydings. That is enough. Go right into the case. You
have qualified yourself.
Mr. BiELu\SKi. My main office was in New York, at a hotel on Elev-
enth Street, and it was there, on February 28, 1945, that Mr. Archbold
van Beuren, who was then the security officer of the OSS, visited me,
and laid before a case of stolen documents, believed to be stolen — a
leak. He showed me the document which was one gotten out by the Re-
search Division of the OSS, and it dealt with conditions in Thailand.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISTVESTIGATION 925
It was «rivon a "secret" lating, not so imu'li because of what was in
tliat i)artic-ular document, but because it was one of a sei-ies of six or
eicflit. and if all were taken together, it made a complete picture which
sl'.ould not be disclosed to the public.
Senator Tvdixgs. Showed you the original ?
Mr. Bir.LASKi. He showed me the original, or a copy of the original.
There were
Senator Lodc.e. Mr. van Beuren?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes. sir.
Senator Ix^doe. What was his position?
Mr. BiELASKi. He was security officer for the OSS here in Wash-
ington. He is presently publisher of Cue magazine.
Senator Ttdings, C-u-e?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes. At the same time he showed me this document
on Thailand, and let me see, in addition to what I have said, that the
docun^.ent itself expressed some opinions which, while not vital, were
lather undiplomatic, and it showed the basic reasons wherein the
British policy and our policy would always differ
Senator Tydixgs. Who — I will ask you — who was the author of the
document, if you know ?
]Mr. BiELASKi. I have heard the name. He was one of the analysts,
a research man in that bureau, but I can't recall at the moment.
Senator Tydixgs. Some one man has prepared the document?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir; in the organization.
.Vt the same time he showed me that document, he showed me a copy
of Amerasia magazine, which I think was the February copy, the
current one that month. He opened the magazine to an article and,
reading the document and then the article in the Amerasia magazine,
it was obvious that whoever wrote the article in the magazine had
access to the documents of OSS.
Senator Tydixgs. Or, knew the contents of the document?
Mr. BiELASKi. Xo. He had to have it in his possession, because
whole ])aragraphs were repeated, word for word. The original docu-
ment liad some 11 or 12 items, numbered, wherein our policy could
never agree with the British policy. Amerasia magazine had all of
those points, all 12 of them. The only thing they had done was
take possibly the last three and put them first. They had changed
the order of the points, but there was no change in phraseology.
I asked Mr. van Beuren and, well, of course, he said there was a
leak and they were very much disturbed about it and wanted to know
wdiat I woufd do to find out what happened. I asked him to tell me
in whose hands these documents had been distributed. He told me of
about :^jO ])laces they could have gone, including a couple of foreign
offices, and that each person who received a copy had an assistant and
secretary, and it finally multiplied out to where there were about 150
persons that had access to it— it takes about 10 persons to watch one
person, and I don't have enough men, or didn't have enough men to
do that jol) of surveillance of each one, and I told him that surveillance
Avas impossible, but we would try to figure out some way of solving the
problem. ?Te left it in my hands and returned to Washington.
1 inunediately assigned to the job a chap named Brendon P. Battle,
a former agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, now living in
Westchester County, N. Y., who is now a representative of the Board
of Fire Underwriters, and a very able chap.
926 STATE DEPARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I sent him up to make a surveillance of the headquarters of the
Amerasia magazine, look over their building and report to me just
\yho they were, and what they were, and what their premises looked
like.
I assigned another man to go out and obtain all available informa-
tion from the reporting agencies, credit bureaus and so forth, of the
magazine itself, as to who founded it and so forth ; and I sent a female
agent to the Public Library in New York to look over the magazine,
its past issues, and find out who its principal contributors were, who the
officers were, and anything that she could, from an analysis of the
issues over a period of years.
That material all came to me in tlie course of a few days, I don't
know just how long. Mr. Battle reported back to me that he had
kept the building under surveillance, and that it was busy during the
day, and also busy every evening.
Senator Ttdings. You had then formed a suspicion that the place
that you would crack that leak would be what?
Mr. BiELASKi. I had made up my own mind, subject to development
of conditions, that there was only one place to strike at the thing,
and that was the fountain source. I couldn't strike all over the
country. I could pick the spot and go there and take a look.
The female agent I sent to the library came back with a list of
names. I still have a penciled draft of that, as it was prepared, and
I want to show it to you, and explain to you what it meant to me, and
also some things it didn't mean to me.
Senator Tydings. A penciled draft of what?
Mr. BiELASKi. Of the personnel of the Amerasia magazine.
Now, early in her study of the situation it became apparent to her
that there was an interlocking in the way of personnel of Amerasia,
and that of the Institute of Pacific Kelations. I instructed her to
Senator Tydings. What was the year of that?
Mr. BiELASKi. This was 1945. " She prepared a list showing the
persons in the Amerasia organization. I was not particularly in-
terested in the Institute of Pacific Relations. I knew some of the
people in there, and I knew them to be very good Americans.
I did not know all of them, but from my study of Amerasia, and
from the report that came in from the credit bureaus, I knew that
the chairman of the editorial board was Frederick V. Field. I knew
that Philip Jaffe was managing editor, and had been from 1937 to
1945. It is shown here.
Field was chairman of the editorial board from 1937 to 1944. He
was there, and there were a number of signed articles he had in the
magazine, some nine, during that period.
Jaffe had some ten signed articles up through 1944, after which
any articles by him seem to have been unsigned.
I knew that T. A. Bisson, who meant nothing to me, was a member
of the editorial board ; the same of William Lockwood.
I knew that Edward C. Carter, of the Institute of Pacific Relations,
was a contributor, but he was not an officer, nor was he on the editorial
board.
It was there I first saw the name of Owen Lattimore as a member
of the editorial board, and my draft, the result of the work of the
research persons, shows that he was a member of the editorial board
STATE di:pakt.me-\t kmpluvee loyalty investigation 927
from 1937 to 1944. If this is in error, I am perfectly willing to admit
it. 1 noticed (lie other day that he said he left in 1941, or something
like that. During that period, he contributed eight articles to the
magazine.
Senator Tydinos. What period?
' Mr. BiKLASKi. '37 to '44.
The other names were Benjamin Kizer, Kate Mitchell, Harriet
Moore, Anna Louise Strong, who was a contributor, and then a host,
not a host but qnite a few other names, the names of contributors or
personnel who had contributed both to the Amerasia magazine and
had a connection with the Institute of Pacific Relations.
Some of those names revealed something; others didn't mean a thing.
I noticed Andrew Roth contributed three articles in that period
from '37 to '44, and then, here are about 15 other articles contributed
to the Amerasia from membei's of the IPR between '37 and '44, and
those names are down here. One or two mean something to me, and
the others I have never looked into at all.
Mr. Morgan. I wonder if we might luive all the names, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. BiELASKi. I will give you this, or a copy, if you want.
Senator Tydings. Give it to ns, and I will notify the stenogTa])her
to mail it back, indess the committee deems otherwise, mail it back
to you for keeping, and you hold them if we want them.
(The list referred to was passed to Chief Counsel for the com-
mittee.)
Senator Green. Are those in your handwriting?
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir, they are not ; except that at the top I have
crossed out something that the research person wrote, and wrote in
here, where she had "are connected with," I said, "or were connected
with."
That is my handwriting, and that is my handwriting (indicating),
and these two words "and writers" are in my hand. The rest is not
mine.
The lady who did that work is dead, unfortunately.
Senator Tydings. All right, go ahead.
INIr. BiELASKi. After getting this material, I knew that Philip Jaffe
was known as a Communist. I didn't know him as a member of the
Communist Party
Senator Tydings. How was that? He was known
Mr. BiELASKi. He was know^n as a Communist, that is
Senator Tydings. By general reputation ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Xo. I had checked with either the Committee on
Un-American Activities, or other Government organizations with
whom I conferred, and I was informed that he had contributed $5,000
to the Connnunist Party, or to the Communist effort, if not the party.
He was known as a heavy contributor.
Senator Ty-dings. When was that contribution?
INIr. BiELASKi. It must have been the previous year, or the j^ear be-
fore.
Senator Tydings. During the war?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir.
(Mr. Morris entered the room.)
928 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISrS^ESTIGATION
Mr. BiELASKi. I knew that Frederick V. Field was regarded as
having Communist inclinations, or was intimate with them. The de-
gree of his communism, I do not know, didn't know then and don't
know now. Of course I knew who Anna Louise Strong was. She was
then lepresenting a news])aper in Moscow, and some of the others, the
picture to me indicated certain very definite Communist affiliations,
and I decided to go in that place and see if I could find our original
document.
I took a specialist which I borrowed from the Office of Naval Intelli-
gence, a man that was an expert on locks, and I took Mr. Battle and
myself and we went up to look over the building. When I vv^ent there,
we found that they were working at night and we couldn't do any-
thing. We stayed there until midnight. They were still working in
there and we turned around and went home.
The first opportunity we had to get in was on the night of March
the 11th. As I recall, that was a Sunday night.
Senator Tydixgs. 1945?
Mr. BiELASKi. 1945.
As I recall, they were working on Sunday up to 5 o'clock, and when
we were ready to go in there, we had to wait and make sure they were
not coming back and work that night too.
Senator Tydings. That was the three of you ?
IVIr. BiELASKi. At that time, I had my full gi'oup.
Senator Tydings. How many ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Brendon P. Battle, and then I had a man I had first
assigned to it, William J. Losti, a former member of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, who was on the Communist desk in New
York. The third agent was named Olaf Oleson, who is now in
charge
Senator Tydings. How many were there all together ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Five.
Ssnator Tydings. Five ? Go ahead.
Mr. BiELASKi. And the expert on locks, who I would prefer not to
name, having been borrowed from Naval Intelligence.
I gave them their instruction. There were a little dubious about
it
Senator McMahon. Who was Oleson with?
Mr. Bielaski. He is now with Bloomingdale. He had come from
R. H. Macy & Co. to work for me.
Senator McMahon. I thought you meant he was with the FBI.
Mr. Bielaski. He was the only one that had not been.
Senator Lodge. What was his particular skill?
Mr. Bielaski. He was a very able, two-fisted man, and a very bright
chap and one of the best investigators I know, is today, and I have
a high regard for him.
They were a little dubious about doing this thing, and I felt ap-
prehensive about it myself, and I decided to go along with them,
because I didn't want to ask them to do something that I didn't ap-
I)rove of and wouldn't undertake personally, so I went along and
that made five of us.
We entered the offices and, without explaining how we arranged it,
the offices were opened to us. We did not force our way in. We were
invited in.
Senator Tydings. By whom?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 929
Mr. BiELASKi. Well —
Senator Tydings. You don't need to name the person.
Mr. BiELASKi. By the assistant superintendent of tlie building. I
■VN'ould not like to have that known because it might leave them open to
some claim by the company.
Senator Tydixgs. This will not go out.
Mr. BiKLASKi. He was persuaded, on a patriotic basis, to cooperate
with us; and that was the end of it. We were in there for a hmited
l)eriod of time.
Senator Tydixgs. You didn't have to use your locksmith?
'Slv. BiELASKi. Not on the outside. AVe did use him on the inside,
but the premises Avere opened to us.
When we went in, we found rather commodious offices for a small
magazine. The front part was divided — I divided the men and sent
the three agents back in the rear, for the three rear rooms, and sent
the locksmith back with them, and told him to open all desks and all
files, and have them make a careful study of what they saw. I per-
sonally took the front end of the office because I was looking for some-
thing si^ecific. I had ])ictured to myself that if this article which was
published in the magazine it ts-ould probably be in the publisher's
or printer's dummy that was gotten up and if I could find the printed
dummy, I might find the original of the document we had lost.
I had all the files opened in the front office, and personally went
through every file there. I don't mean I made a minute study, but
I made sure that what I was looking for was not there, and, I could
could find the dummy for the issue of March, but I didn't find the
dummy for the issue of February.
While I was about it, I became interested in the circulation of the
magazine. I became interested in the figures of profit and loss, and
I studied them rather carefully, and looked through the checkbook to
see Avhere they were getting the money, and there was nothing there
to show where it came from, but it Avas perfectly apparent that their
circulation was steadily falling off and at that time it amounted to
just barely 1,700 monthly distribution. The losses on the sale of
the magazine had mounted steadily.
Senator Tydings. Had what?
Mr. BiELASKi. Steadily mounted. Their losses — it was a losing op-
eration, and losing more and more each month. Their dealer distri-
bution had dro])ped from some 550 to 320, roughly. I tell you that
to show you it was a failing operation.
About the time I finished my work in front, the lock man came up
and said "You had better come on back here. The boys in the back
want to see you. Something is going on back there."
I had not been all through the office, and on my way back, along a
long corridor, the first room I passed on the right was a closed room
that had no outside windows or ventilation at all, just the door; and
I stopped there and looked in. That room was half as big as this,
and it contained developer pans nnd drying machine, and apparatus
for a photostat, or photocopy business.
Senator Tydings. For the magazine, or for commercial use?
Mr. BiELASKi. It was not for tlie magazine, because there was noth-
ing, no evidence in the front office that showed a photostat or photo-
copy had been used at any time, which made it all the more impossible
for me to understand why they wanted it.
930 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I went in that small room and looked around. The only thing miss-
ing was the actual photocopy machine itself. It was not there. We
subsequently found it in the library.
I went on back then to the two rear rooms, office rooms, and it turned
out that the one on the left was the office of the associate editor, Kate
Mitchell, and the one on the right was the office of Philip Jaffe.
The agents in there had devoted their time first to looking through
his desk and found nothing that we were looking for and disturbed
nothing; but, all over the top of his desk were documents that had
been photocopied and that were drying. They were not entirely dried.
They were j^inned together. There must have been, oh, I will say
roughly 15 or 20 documents.
The man in Kate Mitchell's office came in with some in his hands,
and started to show them to me. About the time that I started to look
at these things, Oleson came in. He had been assigned to the library,
which is a large room, bigger than this, and he said "I think you had
better come in the library. I have something to show you in here."
So, I went in the library. Their table, as big as this, was covered
with documents, and this is something that I have never repeated in
public or anywhere, but which I thiiik must be told here; an envelope
in the middle of the table, a little bigger than this [indicating] was
there, and written across the top of it, eater-cornered, was the name
John Hersey.
Senator Tydings. John
' Mr. BiELASKi. H-e-r-s-e-y.
The author, I presume.
Senator Tydings. At least the name is right?
Mr. BiELASKi. The names are identical, and it was not an. envelope,
to my mind, that was address to him, but as you might write your name
on an envelope belonging to you, as I have done many times, written
my name across it, not here where an address would be.
The envelope was open on the table, and there were quite a few of
these documents, that had John Hersey's name written on them, too.
I was, of course, nonplussed after seeing all this stuif. Oleson said
to me, "You haven't seen anything yet. Let me show j^ou what is in
the envelope."
So he opened the envelope and pulled out about, I would say, a
dozen or 15 documents which were the same as those lying around
the place. I didn't read them particularly. It was when I started to
look at them, he said, "Wait a minute. You are looking at the wrong
place; look in between them"; and here in between these documents
we found six typewritten documents, written on newspaper copy
paper, this rough white stuff about that wide, and they were all about
that long [indicating] ; and they were typewritten, and all six of them
were marked "Top secret."
Senator Tydings. They were copies or originals?
Mr. BiELASKi. They were copies, typewritten copies of six docu-
ments, and all marked "Top secret."
I want to say, before I went into the library, I had told Agents
Losti and Battle to start to copy the titles and identifying marks on
some of these things, and they were in the other room doing that.
About that time they came in and asked me to come back.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 931
Before I went back I looked these documents over in the Hersey
envek)])e, and of the six I remember only two, remembering the
moaning of the titles, and one of which I have a general recollection.
The lirst one that I recall, and which I discussed with Oleson, was a
document, as I say, nuirked "'Top secret" which dealt with the disposi-
tion of the units of the Japanese Navy subsequent to the Battle of
Leyte, or I believe it was referred to as the battle of October, which
was not over until the end of December.
Senator Tydings. This was after the battle of the Philippine Sea?
Mr. BiELASKT. That is right.
Senator Tydixgs. And it showed the disposition •
Mr. BiELASKi. Of the units of the Japanese Fleet. It showed them
by name and the ports where they were hicliixg, or place where they
were hiding, and if they were disabled — I don't remember the names
of the places, and I don't remember the names of the ships; but that
Avas the general tenor of it.
The other documents
Senator Tydixgs. Was that in the brown envelope in the center of
the table?
Mr. BiELASKi. That was in tlie envelope, mixed in between these
other documents.
Senator ]McM\iiox. Do you know what Hersey was doing at that
time?
Mr. BiELASKT. I do not.
Senator ]McMaiion. You don't know what occupation he had?
Mr. BiELASKi. No. I know what he had shortly after that. He
went on a trip to the Far East, but I don't know where he went. I
never saw Mr. Hersey. I had some intention of seeing him, and then
I decided it wasn't any of my business, and I didn't do it.
The second of the ones I remember
Senator Tydixgs. One question before you leave that: Did your
investigation show that Hersey was connected in any way with the
magazine?
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. Or that he was a contributor to the magazine?
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir; not a thing that showed he had any connec-
tion with the magazine at all, except the documents in tlie envelope
with his name on it.
He was not on the editorial board or in any way connected with
the
Seiuitor Tydixgs. You have answered.
Go ahead.
Mr. BiELASKi. The second document was one which was headed,
to the best of my knowledge, the bombing program, or strategic
bombing program for Japan; and, it said in effect that the targets
would be the piincipal industrial cities of Japan. I don't remember
the cities as named, but my recollection is that they would be bombed
pi-ogressively until they reached the point where they couldn't stand
it any longer, and that Avould be the end of it. It was a progressive
plan of bombing for Japan.
The third document which T remember, and of which I do not
remember as much as I wish I did, had to do with a new bomb, which
I thought at the time was merely a piece of ordnance, a new piece of
ordnance. I believe — I recall "that it w^as marked "A" bomb, but
'■}
932 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION"
was merely a capital A, with quotation marks on each side, and it
didn't say "atomic" and as I had no knowledge of the atomic bomb,
it meant very little to me and didn't mean anything to me until many
months later.
I went back in Jaffe's room
Senator Green. Wliat was the nature of the memorandum about
the A bomb ?
Mr. BiELASKi. That, I don't know, sir. I have racked my memory
time and again to produce more, and I don't know whether it was a
progress report or a plan report or what ; but, it had to do with a new
piece of, as I thought, ordnance.
It irritated me a little. I remember my reaction to it, because it
seemed to me it was just a bomb, an A bomb as compared to a
B bomb or a C bomb or a D bomb, and it had no other sig-
nificance to me than that.
I went back in Jaffe's office, and the men there had listed four or
five of these documents, each one of them. About that time, we
happened to pull the office door back, and I discovered, behind that
door, a very large l)ellows suitcase which had the initials of "P. J. J."
as I recall, on it, which we believed to be Jaffe's initials. I had the
lock man immediately open that, and that was stuffed so full of
documents that we just dropped evei-ything. I knew it was impos-
sible to make a list of all of them, and told the men we must just as
well discontinue making the list, and we would have to decide what
we were going to do. We had only, by the way, about an hour or an
hour and a half in that place. We had agreed to get out, and thought
that was time enough.
Senator Ttdings. You certainly did some fine work in that short
time.
Mr. BiELASKi. When we opened that suitcase, we found it was a
bellows type, and it was expanded to that width [indicating]. It
contained — it was not for clothes ; it was made expressly, apparently,
foi" a documentary suitcase. It had compartment after compartment
in it, and all of them were full.
Out of that case I took either four or five OSS documents that we
didn't even know were missing, not the one I was looking for, but
additional documents.
I took all of those out, and, I have tried to estimate since, with the
help of the men who were with me, how many documents we saw
there, and at luncheon the other day we agreed it was a conservative
number to say there were 400. I didn't believe that anybody would
believe me if I made a written report on what we saw and what we
did. I expressed myself as feeling that if I wrote a report to head-
quarters that they would say, "This man's crazy," or something of
that sort, and I wanted to prove positively what we had found ; so, I
decided to take enough with me to show them what we liad found,
and then no possibility — there would be no possibility of their
denying it.
I took between 12 and 14 documents. I took either four or five OSS
documents I found, and in addition to tliat, I took documents which,
possibly those which had initials or something on them wliich would
pei-mit us to trace the channels through which they had come. We
wanted the documents with markings, but I also took those that
seemed important, and put those in my pocket.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATION 933
Of the (looiimonts wo saw, I made the comment at the time, that
we had documents tliere from every de[)artment of the Government,
with the exception of the FBI. AYe dicbi't find any FBI documents in
that office; but, the State Department, Military Intelligence, Naval
Intelligence, Bureau of Censorship, British Intelligence, OSS, and
possibly some others which I have forgotten.
They were not documents that were primarily of literary value,
they were not literary documents. They were documents that had very
deri'nite value of a different kind, not all, but many of them. Every
document I saw was stamped with the mail receipt stamp of the De-
partment of State. I would not say that all 400 were stamped that
way, but all I saw were so stamped. All those that I saw, also, were
marked with a paragraph, I can read it exactly to you, I wrote it down
in a memorandum, but it was to the effect that "The possession of
these documents by an unauthorized person constituted a violation of
the Espionage Act," and it quoted the paragraph, and so forth, of the
act.
Senator McMahon. Mr. Bielaski, as I get it now, these documents,
many of them originated in different departments of the Government,
but they had been received at the Department of State.
Mr. BiELASKT. Yes, sir.
Those from tlie OSS, which had originated in the OSS, had the
State Department stamp on them, showing they had gone there, and
from tliere they had gotten into otlier channels.
Senator ]\IcMahox, The State Department had picked them up
from the. e individual agencies?
Mr. Bielaski. Yes, sir.
Oh, amonor these documents which I recall, and which we discussed
while we were sitting there, to determine how we were going to handle
this thing, was one all of us remember because it startled us. It was
a lenjrthv document detailing the location of the units of the Nation-
alist Army of China, their strength, how they were armed, where they
were located, the town in which they were located, that is
Senator Tydings. The Japanese?
IMr. Bielaski. No, sir ; Chinese.
Senator Tydixos. Communist or Nationalist?
Mr. Bielaski. Nationalist.
And, it was a lengthy document, I should say three or four pages
of foolscap size.
Of course, we couldn't understand why any document of that sort
had any business beiuix there.
Senator Tydixgs. What was the origin — OSS?
Mr. Bielaski. No. Its origin was the State Department, but it may
have come through the military attache in China.
Senator Tydixgs. I see. Go ahead.
Mr. Bielaski. There were several articles signed by Mr. Gauss, who
was our Ambassador to China at that time.
There was another
Senator ]\IrMATiox. You say "articles"? You mean dispatches?
ISIr. Bielaski. I mean documents. I believe the State Department
calls them "dispatches."
There was one of which I made a note, a Document No. 58 which
was entitled '"Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek, the Decline of His
934 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION
Prestige and the Reason for It,'' or words to that effect. It was a
secret document.
I want to say also that as far as I recall, all of the documents that
originated in the State Department had on them a stamp "Not to be
released to the OWI" which rather indicates that they were docu-
ments that the public was not going to get hold of.
A third document that I remember, and which was a secret docu-
ment that dealt with the intimate relations between Chiang Kai-shek
and Madame Chiang, and that document I assure you was very inti-
mate, and there were about three pages of it. We didn't think that
had any place in that office.
(There was discussion off the record.)
Mr. BiELASKT. There was another document that dealt with the
cause of dissension between Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek and his
generals, and the secret reasons why some of them were dismissed.
Those are about the only ones I remember.
It later on developed that two agents
Senator Tydings. That is off' the record.
(There was discussion off the record.)
Senator Tydings. Back on the record, now.
Mr. BiELASKi. I found out aftei-ward that my two agents, who were
copying the titles, had copied about eight or nine before I stopped
them from doing so, and I later made a memorandum of the titles of
those documents and sent it to the OSS security officer here in Wash-
ington.
I took the 12 or 14 documents that I had decided to bring with me
and use as proof of what we had found, went out and had some break-
fast— it was then about 2 o'clock in the morning — went home and
changed my clothes and went over the LaGuardia Field and caught
the plane and came to Washington.
I went into the office of the security officer.
Oh, I would like to go back just a minute. Before we left the office
of Amerasia, we found five typewritten copies of the document which
we were looking for. We did not find the original, but found five
unfolded and perfectly clean typewritten copies. I tliink that is
significant, if I may digress a minute, for this reason : We felt, or we
considered this thing that we had stepped into was a well-established
and going wholesale business in stealing Government documents, and
that there was every means there for reproducing. The fact that the
original document of the OSS was not there, but that the five type-
written copies were there, made us believe that a batch had come in
ahead of our trip, our visit to the office, thev had moved out, the
originals had gone back to Washington, and these five copies were
found, and that was all that was left.
I think that is sound, as you will see a little later.
I came down here, went to the office of Mr. van Beuren. and handed
him first the five copies of the document he was looking for, and told
him where I got it. He was very much pleased.
Senator Tydings. Tliat is, in OSS?
:Mr. BiELASKT. That is in OSS.
Then, I proceeded to hand him, one by one, the four or five addi-
tional documents tliat had been stolen from OSS, documents that
originated from OSS; and, one of them, he told me. was of such
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 935
seciecY thai it was almost calamitous. Tt was a document that was
iiuuked for the Chief of Naval Intelligence only, a secret document.
I don't know what it was about.
Senator Tydixgs. You brought it with you, though?
Mr. BiELASiii. I brought it with mo, and it was an original, as well
as all the others that I brought, original documents of varying degrees
of secrecy, from confidential
Senator Lodge. Xot coi)ies, but originals?
Mr. BiELASKi. Every one I brought was an original document.
Senator Gkeex. Is this the onh^ one that you don't remember what
it related to?
'Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir. I don't remember what any of those 12 or
14 related to.
Senator Greex. You told us about some of the others, the subject
matter.
Mr. BiELASKi. I remember some of those we left there, but the ones
I brought. I do not. "\Ve selected them for markings on them, be-
cause we wanted to trace the channels through which they had got
there.
Senator Tydixgs. Fingerprints, and so forth ?
Mr. BiELASKi. And initials. They all had initials. I was told that
the particular one I referred to had the initials of the Office of the
Chief of Xaval Intelligence on it, so it had come to him personally.
After I turned over to the OSS the documents, of course the security
officer was terribly chagrined. I said, ''You don't have to feel so
badly about this thing," and I handed him other documents from
other departments ancl called attention to the fact that all of them
had on them the stamp of the Department of State.
We had called down to the office a Major Donigan, who was Chief
Legal Counsel of the OSS, J. J. Donigan, who is now practicing law
in Newark, N. J.
INlajor Donigan. when he saw the material and realized the im-
portance of it, nearly fainted — so much so that he couldn't talk.
Senator Tydixgs. Who is this?
Mr. BiELASKi. Major Donigan, who was Chief of Legal Counsel,
OSS.
It was decided that the stuff should be taken up to General Donovan
at once. He was upstairs. I believe he had just returned from a trip
abroad. They wanted me to take it up, and I refused to do it, because
Donovan had always kept away from me. I was under cover and I
saw no reason at that time to violate the practice that we had
established.
I turned it over to ^Ir. van Beuren, and he took them up with
Major Donigan.
I had known him before this, and it was not necessary for me to
go up.
Now, from there on. my knowledge of what happened, is more or
less hearsav. It came to be in the course of my official duties, but there
were reports brought to me by my agents, from FBI agents or other
places.
I will tell you some of the things that happened, if you want to hear
them, but I don't want you to think that it is first-hand evidence. It
is not. It is something that I think you should know, and I can give
you some names that can make it evidence, not hearsay.
68970— 50— pt. 1 60
936 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
General Donovan personally told me that he immediately called Mr.
Stettinius on the telephone and told liim he had the documents, they
were all marked "State Department."
Mr. Stettinius was still in bed — it was about 10 or 11 o'clock in the
morning — and it was arrano;ed that General Donovan would go over to
his house that night about 8 or 8 : 30, and General Donovan did go over,
accompanied by Mr. van Buren, and at Mr. Stettinius' home, he met
General Holmes. I believe Mr. Lyon of the State Department, was
supposed to be there but didn't get there, and he didn't get into the
picture until the next day.
General Donovan told me that he recommended to Mr. Stettinius
that they innnediately institute John Doe proceedings in the case, but
that his advice was not followed.
I went back to New York.
Senator McMahon. What do you mean, "Institute John Doe
proceedings T'
Mr. BiELASKi. That, I don't know; except that General Donovan
told me he wanted to swear out a John Doe warrant, arrest all these
people, and bring them in and see where they were getting it, and see
if he couldn't find out who was behind it, without naming them.
He told me, when he was assistant Attorney General, he had followed
that procedure and it had worked very well. You probably know a
great deal more about it than I do.
I went back to New York.
I know that within 48 hours
Senator Tydixgs. Did he tell you who advised him not to do that?
You say he wanted to do it but his advice was not taken ^
Mr. BiELASKi. General Donovan advised Mr. Stettinius to do it but
he said Mr. Stettinius did not follow his advice and, as a matter of fact,
never spoke to him about the case after that.
Senator Tydings. Do you know why Mr. Stettinius didn't follow it?
Did he say ?
j\Ir. BiELuVSKi. No ; he didn't.
Senator Tydings. All right, go ahead.
Mr. BiELASKi. He called in the FBI.
Senator Tydings. Who did ?
Mr. Bip:laski. JVIr. Stettinius called them in. I had told the security
officer that the material I took would not be missed. There was no list
of documents there. We looked for it. We felt that the documents
were on their way back, because they were packed in a suitcase. They
wouldn't miss the documents. Anyway, we figured that I hadn't taken
2 percent of them and there were so many of them they would never
miss them; but, just the same I f^lt that they should act as quickly as
possible, and we hoped that they would be able to get somebody on the
job in New York within a week. They were there within a week. I
think they moved in within 5 days. Mr. Gurnea, of the Department
of Justice, who was assigned to the case, came up and organized the
squad himself, organized the surveillance men, and put on telephone
interceptions, and I think did a bang-up good job investigating that
case.
Senator Tydings. Who is Mr. Gurnea ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Mr. Gurnea was one of the supervisors of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 937
Senator Tydinos. Tn other woi-ds, General Donovan didn't tell the
FBI. Tn fact, Mr. Stettinius called them and told them to go ahead
with the thing.
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir. i • i
Senator Lodge. Your ent ranee into the Amerasia offices had evident-
Iv not been noted by them'^
" Mr. BiEEASKi. No, sir. There was a thought
Senator Tydixgs. Did you say they got hold of wires and put sur-
veillance men on them ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Put them under surveillance.
Senator Tydixgs. How many days went by before action was taken ?
Mr. BiELASKT. They continued \heir investigation until 5 weeks
after, when thev made six arrests.
Senator Tydixgs. Did they make — when was the first arrest made?
Mr. BiELASKi. In June.
Senator Tydixgs. AVhen did you come down and see General
Donovan?
Mr. BiELASKi. I came down the early morning of March the 12th.
They were there from March the 12th until June the 5th or 6th, I
should sav.
Senator Tydixgs. When did they start to do that, how soon after
you had come down ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Within 5 days after I came down, they stepped into
the job.
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead.
Mr. BiELASKi. And they ])ut, I think, roughly 75 men on the job.
They had plenty of them and they did a good job.
My men of course were interested in the case and they knew the
boys* who were working on it, and they had progress of course from
time to time, which. otT the record, they brought to me. I knew what
they were doing. I knew when they discovered that a writer on Far
Eastern affairs for Colliers magazine was implicated, and I knew
when a lieutenant commander in the Navy was implicated, though I
didn't know the name of either one. The}' didn't discuss the names
with us, but told us that much.
Senator' Tydix'gs. How they were getting along?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. I suppose that your progress reports showed
they were trying to get everybody in the net that they could before
they closed it, is that correct?
Mi-. BiELASKi. Not onh^ tried to do it, the}^ were convinced they had
done it by the time they made the arrests.
I knew, for instance, when the Chinese Communist delegate to the
San Francisco Conference arrived in New York, because they told me.
His name was Tung Pi Wu, and they said that as soon as he arrived
in San Francisco he had come to New York, that their surveillance
men knew that Jatfe had a conference with Tung Pi Wu and Browder,
and I think it was held in Browder's apartment, although I am not
sure. It might have been in Jaffe's, but it was a 5-hour conference.
. I knew Avhen they reported to me that Jaffe was known to have
taken dinner on at least one occasion at the Russian consulate while
this surveillance
Senator Tydix'gs. In New York?
938 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BiELASKi. In New York, and that he "was in touch with him fre-
quently during that time.
Xow, the arrests liov\'ever came as a complete sui'prise to me, and I
had never, up to that time, heard the name of Mr. Service, nor had I
heard Mr. Lars?n"s name, nor had I heard Roth's name.
Senator Tydikgs. Was he arrested ?
Mr. BiELASKi. He was the lieutenant commander in the Navy who
was liaison b'^tween Naval Intelligence and the State Department,
He was arrested. Tlie only two I knew were going to be arrested were
Philip JafFe, and Kate Mitchell. The others, they didn't tell me their
names, just told me they had them.
Senator Tydikgs. How many were arrested ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Six. I want to say that another thing they told us,
when they first moved in, the FBI Ijoys on the job told my men that
we had ruined the whole thing because of my taking these documents
to Washington, it had been discovered, they thought, and there wasn't
anything there when they moved in.
Well, as it turned out, they were wrong. They had simply gotten in
when the stuff had come back to Washington, and they waited until
the new lot came along, and all their reports deal with evidence which
they saw, but they had no knowledge of the stuff which I and my
men saw. I did not know that. So, until some months later, we did
not have knowledge of the fact that on our first look, in which the OSS
documents were there, then we moved out, and the lot that the FBI
saw after they moved in was different, and I think there were four
lots by the time they finally arrested these people, and it was a whole-
sale business.
I may say that while I did not look for it in our study of Amerasia
magazine, we never found where any material from these documents
had ever again been used by Amerasia magazine.
Senator Tydings. Outside of the one article ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Outside of the one, we saw nothing that indicated
they were using this material for their own magazine.
I want to say that some while later I came down here to Wash-
ington, and I met a man named Daniel O'Connor, who is a former
agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and was an agent at
that time, and who is now practicing law here in the District of
Columbia
Senator Tydings. Was an agent in 1945 ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir; at that time; and, on this occasion, working
on this case — I felt that I could talk to him, and I told him about
our visit to Amerasia's office, and jocularly I said, "And, one thing
we didn't find was any documents in there from the FBI, and I assure
you I looked very hard to try to find one, because it would have been
quite a feather to find one."
And, he said, "Well, I had better luck than you did." I said, "How
is that? ^Vliat do you mean?'' He said, "I enterecl Larsen's apart-
ment here in the District of Columbia and when I entered his apart-
ment I found plenty of FBI documents in Larsen's possession."
Senator Tydings. Let me ask you there, for the record : Was the
raid in New York and the raid on Larsen and these people in the
District made simultaneously, or made with a lapse of a few days
between ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 939
Mr. Btelaski. I don't know. I think they were simultaneously.
Senator Tydixgs. I would imao;ine so.
Mr. BiELASKi. Thoy should have been, and I iniajiine they were;
but I think that O'Connor did what is known as a black bag job on his
own. He is not supposed to do that, n.nder the instructions from the
FBI. I assume he slipped in and took a look, and that is what he
saw. That if off the record, and they wanted to talk to O'Connor, but
he was out West somewhere.
Senator Tydings. When? Who wanted to?
Mr. BiELAsKi. Larsen found out later that somebody had been in
his apartment, after he was arrested, and I think the superintendent
told him it was O'Connor, and O'Connor just was not available.
So, tlie fact that the FBI documents were included in the docu-
ments these people took, I tliink the statement is significant.
Senator Lodge. Did they have the State Department stamp on
them too ?
Mr. BiEEAsKi. I can't sav that. 1 do not know.
Senator Lodge. You can't say that all
Mr. BiELASKi. All that I examined, did have the State Department
receipt stamp on them.
Senator Lodge. Regardless of where they originated?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. But, if the FBI documents had a State Department
stamp, there would be an inference they came from the State De-
partment?
Mr. BiELASKi. They would be FBI — between the FBI and the State
Department — left there and taken by Larsen. Otherwise, I do not
see how they must haA'e gotten there from the FBI, to the State
Depai'tment. There must have been a change
Senator Lodge. That is a point that should be elucidated.
Mr. BiELASKi. That would seem the logical answer.
Senator Tydixgs. Why, in your o})inion, when they had so much of
this evidence that seems to be so primary, in such volume, when they
made their arrests, why didn't they click in court?
Senator Lodge. What ?
Senator Tydixgs. ^Yhy didn't they click in court?
Mr. BiELASKi. Senator, that is the principal reason I am here. I
would like to see that question answered, too. I know my men felt
completely outraged when they saw the disposition made of those cases.
Senator Lodge. What was the disposition ? You see. when this was
going on, I was out of the country and I know nothing about it.
Mr. BiELASKi. Jaffe pled guilty and was fined $2,500.
Senator Lodge. Pled guilty to what?
Mr. BiELASKi. Pled guilty to unlawful possession of Government
documents.
Senator Tydixgs. In other words, he violated the very injunction
stamped on the documents.
Mr. 1>ielaski. He was not tried under tlie Espionage Act, stamped
on there. He was tried, and charged with a minor offense, merely,
anyone who steals or possesses or purloins Government papers, some-
thing of that sort. That is what he was charged with. He was in-
dicted, I think, on a more serious charge but finallv tried on that.
940 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Let me get that straight. How many State De-
partment employees, from your knowledge, were arrested among the
six which you have enumerated?
Mr. BiELASKi, Two.
Senator Tydings. Who?
Mr. BiBLASKi. Larsen and Service.
Senator Tydings. The other four — do you know whether they were
ever connected with the State Department or not? Jalfe was one.
Mr. BiELASKi. Jaffe never had any connection. Kate Mitchell never
had any connection. Roth never had any connection; he was a naval
intelligence officer.
Senator Tydings. Was he arrested?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir. He was arrested, but naval intelligence
managed to get him out of the Navy before he was arrested.
Senator Tydings. You have one intelligence officer working for the
Government; two from the State Department; now, you have one
more
Mr. BiELASKi. Mark Gayn, a writer for Collier's.
Senator Tydings. Was he ever connected with the Government^
either the State Department or any other branch, you have knowl-
edge of?
Mr. BiELASKi. No.
Senator Tydings. Then, it looks like you had one naval man, two
State Department men, and three outsiders in the net.
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes. sir; one of whom was a writer, of course, Mark
Gayn, and admitted that he used this material.
Senator Lodge. Roth was a liaison between the Navy and State
Department ?
Mr. BiELASKi. And naval intelligence.
Senator Lodge. He was a naval officer?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. All right.
Senator Tydings. What was his liaison position; Navy to where?
Mr. BiELASKi. State Department.
Senator Tydings. To the State Department?
Mr. BiEASKi. State Department from the Navy.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Senator Lodge. Tell us what happened as a result of these court
proceedings.
Mr. BiEi^SKi. Well, Jaffe ultimately pled guilty to the minor charge
and was fined $2,500. Larsen pled nolo contendere, and was fined $500 ;
and three of them were not indicted.
Senator Tydings. Wliat three?
Mr. BiELASKi. The three not indicted were Service, Mark Gayn,
and Kate Mitchell.
Senator Tydings. How about that ? The other three were indicted ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Roth's cliarges were dropped against him, after a
while, after Jaffe pled guilty.
Senator Tydings. Was he indicted?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes: he was indicted.
Senator Tydings. Jaffe and Roth, and — who was the other? Kate
Mitchell ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No. Kate Mitchell wasn't indicted; just the three.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION 941
Senator Tydings. JafTo, Koth — ^lie was naval intelligence — and ■
Mr. HiEiASKT. Rotli and Larsen.
Senator Tydings. Oli ; and Larsen.
Mr. MouKis. How about Service? Excuse me.
Senator Tydixgs. Service was not.
Mr. BlET.ASKT. No.
Senator Tydixgs. Kate Mitchell was not indicted.
Mr. BiEL^vsKi. No.
Senator Tydings. And Gayn ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No.
Senator Tydings. Three indictments?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes.
Senator Tydings. Two paid fines, and the third man was Roth, of
nav.-il intelligence?
Mr. B1ELA8KI. Yes.
Senator Tydings. Do 3'ou know about what happened to him?
Mr. BiELASKi. Well, I know that
Senator Tydings. Did the Navy
Mr. BiELASKi. The naval intelligence knew he was involved in it,
but before the arrest took place tliey
Senator Tydings. Do you know whether the Navy interceded for
him before
Mr. BiELASKi. The Navy eased him out of the service. If Roth
had faced a court martial for what he was doing, they would have
sliot him.
Senator McMahon. Why didn't they?
Mr. BiELASKi. But he was eased out of the service, and the Navy
just got out from under; that's all.
Senator McMaiion. Was he a career man in the Navy?
Mr. BiELASKi. No. He had formerly been an employee of Amer-
asia ; had contributed some three articles to it.
Senator Tydings. What was his background before he went in the
Navy ?
Mr. BiELASKi. He was a member of several Communist fronts. I
know that from what naval intelligence told me.
Senator Tydings. Did he come from New York City?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. How old a man was he?
Mr, BiELASKi. I could only guess at — 30.
Senator Tydings. AVas he an educated man?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir; a college graduate with a master of arts
degi'ee at Columbia University.
Senator Tydings. What business was he in before he was in the
Navy?
Mr. BiELASKi. He was with the Amerasia magazine at one time;
had written some articles for it.
Senator Tydings. Before he went in the Navy?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Did he continue to write after he went in the
Navy?
Mr. BiEL.\sKi. I don't think so ; no, sir.
Senator Tydings. What is he doing now ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Representing a newspaper. The last I heard of
him, he went abroad.
942 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Typings. What did lie do besides write for Amerasia maga-
zine, as far as you know — his career?
Mr. BiELASKi. I don"t know.
Senator Tydings. So, your first knowledge of his life is when he
started to write for Amerasia?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes. sir.
Senator Tydings. And he went from there to the Navy; and, after
he got out of the Navy, he did wliat?
Mr. BiELASKi. He went abroad, representing some newspapers
Senator Tydings. Is he connected — do you know ? — with the Ciov-
ernment, or any of its ramifications, at present ?
Mr, BiELASKi. Not that I know of.
Senator Tydings. What else can you tell us, INIr. Bielaski, sir? You
have given us a very interesting morning.
Mr. Bielaski. I know, Senator, that tlie men wdio worked on the
case, FBI men, did a very good job. They felt that they did a
thorough job. They have told me — and I will give the names of some
of them — that they felt that they had investigated the biggest espi-
onage case in the history of this country, and they felt, when nothing
happened, they were thoroughly outraged and felt that the Depart-
ment, the Bureau of Investigation
Senator Tydings, There is one thing in your story that is not com-
plete, and you may not know it; but, even if you don't, I am going to
risk asking your opinion :
Evidently this Amerasia outfit had more than three people work-
ing for it up there. That is right ; is it not ?
Mr. Bielaski, Yes, sir ; that is right.
Senator Tydings. Why was it, in your judgment, that tliey got what
we must assume are the principals in the matter, and didn't get more
of the employees ?
Mr, Bielaski. I don't know, and I have often wondered.
Senator Tydings. "Wliy didn't the FBI arrest the whole bunch?
Mr, Bielaski. I wondered if it ever questioned them, because a
great deal of information could be gotten.
Senator Tydings. How many people would you assume were work-
ing in the office, outside of stenographers ; I mean, naturally, includ-
ing the writers or editorial — —
Mr. Bielaski. In the front office, wdiere I made my investigation, in
the early part of the evening, I would say there must have been three
or four persons working in there.
Senator Tydings. Would that include stenographers ?
IVIr. Bielaski. I don't think they had many stenographers. There
would be a bookkeeper.
Senator Tydings. Let's start from there.
Mr. Bielaski. I would say about four.
Senator Tydings. Just for the purpose of my questions, leave out
bookkeepers and stenographers. I am dealing with w'hat I would
consider the brains or direction of the thing.
Mr. Bielaski. I couldn't so classify them. Senator.
Senator Tydings. Yon couldn't ?
Mr. Bielaski. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. How many employees in the whole place, would
you assume ? In all the rooms, counting everybody ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY im'ESTIGATION 943
Mr: BiEi.ASKT. Not over a half dozen.
Senator Tyuixgs. Is that all ?
Mr. BiELASKi, Yes, sir, in that magazine.
Senator Tydings. Yon mean, counting the bookkeeper, too?
;Mr. l^iKLASKi. I should say a half dozen persons.
Senator Tydixgs. How big were these quarters for a half dozen
people? Compared with this room you are sitting in, as to the floor
space ?
Mr. BiKLASKi. I would say twice as big as this space.
Senator Tydings. Twice as big?
Mr. BiELASKi. The library was very well furnished. It was a li-
brary that had several thousand volmnes in it; the walls were covered
with it.
Senator Tydings. Did your investigation bring to light the people
who were going in and coming out, who were not employees ?
j\Ir. BiELASKi. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. It did not ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Do you know whether the FBI did ?
;Mr. BiELASKi. I think the FBI did, and I think they have a com-
plete record of who went in there and who came out.
Senator Tydings. Now, was any reason given the newspapers or
press or the public at the time when the thing was finally settled ?
Mr. BiEi^vsKi. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. In the court, that is.
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir. I personally sent a man down here and got
the court record and read what the United States attorney had to say.
Senator Tydings. Did you testify in the case?
Mr. BiELASKi. I have never testified, given one word of evidence;
never been called.
Senator Tydings. Did General Donovan ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. The FBI handled it all?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. You simply passed on your information to Gen-
eral Donovan?
Mr. BiELASKi. And stepped out.
Senator Tydings. Evidently, he passed it on to Stettinius. Stetti-
nius passed it on to the FBI, and the FBI evidently had a surveillance
on the place for weeks, and the arrests were made and the evidence was
the thing to go and come on, rather than the people.
Mr. BiELA^Ki. That is right. I don't believe that the evidence, of
itself, has ever been shown — even that which the FBI had — to the
proper people ; and I know that the evidence we saw has never been
shown.
Senator Tydings. I am certainly obliged to you, and it may be that
some of the other members would like to ask some questions.
Senator LoixiE. I would like to ask some questions.
Did you ever get any evidence of the documents going out?
Mr. Beelaski. After they were photostated ?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir. I don't know what became of those photo-
stats. There was no evidence as to how they got out of the office, or
whei-e or what thev did with them.
944 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. No evidence showing they got back to some enemj^,
or Conimnnist or anything?
Mr. BiELASKi. Only the fact that they were — Jaffe was in freqnent
contact with the Russian consulate in New York, and you can guess
there. I am told by the FBI agents they didn't see him carry any
documents in his hands while they had him under surveillance. That
"wasn't necessary.
Senator Lodge. Under what authority did you conduct the raid
on the Amerasia office, in the first place?
Mr. BiELASKi. I didn't ask for authority at the moment, Sena-
tor; but, since I have thought of the legal position, and I understand
that the OSS was created by Executive order and that when it was
created the orderprovided that it should take care of its own security,
which means security from within and without, and proceeding on
that basis as a Government agent, following something that had been
stolen, I thought I had a right to go after it and bring it back.
Senator Lod ;e. Did you realize that in wars in the past the normal
safeguards of search and seizure and habeas corpus had been sus-
pended and probably in this war it would be all right to suspend
them in the security of the country, if the security was involved? Did
you realize that?
Mr. BiELASKi. I realized we were at war, someone had stolen valu-
able secret documents from us, and I had to try to ijo get them, and
I did.
Senator Lodge. You don't think therefore that the failure to prose-
cute the theft of these documents could soundly be based on the con-
stitutional prohibition against search and seizure, because of the fact
that there was a war, is that right ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I certainly think so, but I am not a lawyer.
Senator Lodge. I'm not a lawyer either.
Senator Tydings. You cannot set aside the Constitution in time of
war.
Senator Lodge. I think they did it in time of war — he did it and
got away wdtli it and saved the country
Senator Tydings. I am in favor of it, but I don't know how we can
do it.
Senator Lodge. I can understand how a patriotic man like Mr.
Bielaski would feel about a thing like that, and in fact, my thinking
was proper, and I would have done it myself.
Senator McMaiion. I agree that you did the right thing in going
there, but amendment IV of the Constitution says:
The right of people to be secure in their person, houses, and papers and effects
against unreasonable search and seizure shall not be violated. No warrant shall
issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation particularly-
describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
That is amendment IV of the Bill of Rights.
Senator Lodge. Of course, my friend from Connecticut knows that
if that had been followed, it would be impossible to protect ourselves.
Senator McMahon. There are two different things there : getting it
and the ability to use the evidence in court to convict them. They are
different things.
Senator Tydings. What could have been done, if you will allow me
to interrupt, would have been to have had, as a result of Mr. Bielaski
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 945
or anyone else's iiivesti<;ation, an affidavit made out. a searcli warrant
<rotten, tlie place then entered and searched and the evidence wonld be
admissible in any court, beyond question.
Isn't that correct ?
^Fi-. BiELASKi. I felt the FBI had plenty of evidence without mine,
and they so felt too. They felt they had this case tied up.
Senator ]\IcMaiiox. Api)arently, from what you said, we will have
to question them.
I practically took notes of what you said about Larsen questionino;
O'Connor, and O'Connor wasn't around when Larsen wanted to talk
to him ; but there was something about having irone into his apartment.
Mr. BiFXASKi. That is true, but I think that as a matter of policy
with the FBI, I think they wei'e justified.
Senator Trnixos. That was a bad slip.
Senator McMaiiox. Let's get this straight. This is now up against
the legal proposition, in other words, the question of whether or not
3"ou can use evidence that is illegally obtained.
Mr. BiKLASKi. You can't use it
Senator ^IcMaiiox. And, of course, there can be no doubt about
that. I mean, you couldn't sustain, cannot sustain any conviction
based upon evidence that was obtained or seized contrary to the Con-
stitution. Xo President or anybody else has got a right to suspend the
Constitution.
Mr. Bielaski. I noticed when you read that, that it says, "they shall
be secure in their property and their papers." It doesn't say that they
should be secure in Government property and papers they have stolen.
Senator ^IcMaiiox. Well, I will tell you, the question is — it is the
premises, yon see. that are sacred. "What I am trying to do is tell you
what the law is.
Mr. Bielaski. Frankly, Senator, if I had known the law I wouldn't
have stopped.
Senator Mc]NL\hox'. Xeither would I. I'm trying to explain to you,
out of your story, this is all I know about it, the thing that hit me right
away is. here is this bale of evidence but unfortunately it would not be
admissible on the basis of your story.
Senator Lodge. Let me ask you this : One possible explanatioii of
why these men were not indicted and found guilty, and everything,
is the legal explanation you give, but it is by no means the only possible
explanation, and you knoAv that as well as I do; and the Constitution
has been set aside by Presidents
Senator McMahox. Xo.
Senator Lodge. President Lincoln set it aside.
Senator ]M('i\LvHoisr. He suspended tlie writ of habeas corpus, and as
a matter of fact, no President of the United States can set aside the
Constitution.
Please take that on my word.
Sanator Lodge. I know what Lincoln did in the Civil War.
Senator Tvdixgs. You can do it, but not legally.
Senator Lodge. I don't say it was legally, maybe one reason why
the court didn't follow through on that — it may be, it is true that the
reason they didn't indict and punish these men. as they should have
done, is because of the legal aspect : but, there also may have been
other reasons and it seems that the connnittee ought to go into the
other reasons.
946 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McMahon. That may be premature. I seem to remem-
ber
Senator Tydings. Do not let us go into that.
Mr. BiELASKi. There are reasons, I don't know what they are. I
know the Federal IJureau of Investigation men who worked on this
felt that they had gotten the most severe kick in the face the dejDart-
ment had ever gotten. They feel that way today.
Senator Tydings. Well, we will find out.
Mr. BiELASKi. I would like to give you the name of the men who
wrote all the FBI reports on tlie case.
Senator Tydings. Would you like to ask some questions ?
Senator Green. Did you come to the conclusion, from this little
printing establishment, that apparently far greater than was neces-
sary for bringing out this magazine, that the main purpose was for
other than publishing the magazine ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir; very definitely.
Senator Green. None of tliis material ajiparently was ever used by
the magazine.
Mr. BiELASKi. I am certain. That was my immediate impression.
There were so many things there that could not possibly be explained
by the operation of this little magazine.
Senator Green. You said something about discussing this matter
with some people at a luncheon the other day.
Mr. BiELASKi. My three agents who were with me.
Senator Green. Discussing what you were going to testify here
today ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes. sir. I wanted to find out, not what I was going
to testify here today, but wanted to find out if my recollection was
accurate in some respects.
Senator Green. Refreshing your recollection?
Mr. BiELASKi. That is right, and on one or two points which we
don't agree on, one man may say he saw an item in the library, but I
might think he saw it in Jaffe's office, but they are minor details that,
after 5 years, you may expect.
Senator Green. The reason I ask is, I think we ought to straighten
it out. In your capacity as an agent of the Office of Strategic Serv-
ices, and as a Govermnent official during Avartime, didn't you take an
oath of keeping all the information secret?
Mr. Bielaski. No, sir.
Senator Green. You didn't ?
Mr. Bielaski. No, sir ; and I have the permission of General Dono-
van to testify before this committee, and disclose such facts as I have.
Senator Green. That is what I wanted to clear up.
Mr. Bielaski. I have, and I asked his permission. I have gotten it,
and he says if you wish to see him, he will come down here and verify
it, and he can testify to the seriousness of the evidence that I turned
over to the OSS.
Senator Green. Noav, did you turn over, simply to the OSS, or give
any of this information to the grand jury ?
Mr. Bielaski. No, sir; I was never before the grand jury. There
were reasons for that. I Mas under cover in the organization, and I
don't think they wanted to expose me.
Senator Green. "\Yliat did you say the name of your organization
was?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESR^ESTIGATION 947
Mr. BiELASKi. In New York?
Seniitor Green. Yes.
Mr. BiELASKi. Research and Security Corporation.
Senator Green. Have you ever had another name for it ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir.
Senator Green. I know Mr. Biehuski, know his family, and know his
forebears.
1 wanted to be sure there couhl be no question.
Mr. BiELASKi. It was orfjanized 2 years ago. If you want to know
my directors, one was formerly Assistant Chief of tlie Federal Bureau
of Investigation. One of them was Mr. van Beuren, who was security
officer of the OSS. One was former chief of the British Intelligence
m Russia, Mr. McPherson- — all men of experience.
Senator Green. How many operators have you?
Mr. BiELASKi. Well
Senator McMahon. May I interrupt a moment?
It is 1 o'clock and I have a luncheon engagement. I have a few
questions I want to ask Mr. Bielaski. I think if Senator Green will
defer
Senator Green. My question will be brief, and I also have a lunch-
eon engagement.
Senator McMahon. I suggest we adjourn for lunch and then come
back. I think we are entitled to make our luncheon engagements.
Senator Green. I made one that I just dismissed.
Senator IMcIMahon. I'm not asking you not to meet your engage-
ment. I'm asking the committee to recess for lunch.
Senator Tydings. Well, we will meet again at 2 : 30 this afternoon.
(Thereupon, at 1:05 p. m., the connnittee stood in recess until
2 : 30 p. m. that same afternoon.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
Senator Tydings. All right, on the record.
Mr. ]\IoRRis. Mr. Bielaski, as a result of your investigation at the
time of your disclosures, did you know of any tie-in between the
Amerasia office and the office of the Institute of Pacific Relations?
]Mr. Bielaski. I have testified that there was a close interlocking
among the personnel in the upper level. I cannot say the directors,
because they were not directors, but persons of that status — yes. I
handed the committee a paper here which conveys all of my notations
on that subject.
Mr. Morris. I didn't realize that.
Senator Tydings. He handed them in, and he also said that there
were some people that were interlocking and also some people that
seemed to be ])retty respectable, a combination of both sides.
Mr. ]\roRRis. I must have been absent.
Mr. BiEKvsKL I turned the paper over to him (indicating).
Senator Tydings. Do you have any questions. Senator Lodge?
Senator Lodge. In the material you found at the Amerasia office,
was there anything you found dealing with atomic energy?
Mr, Bielaski. There was nothing I recall. There was, on one
secret document that I saw in the Hersey envelope something which
referred to the A bomb, but what it said I do not remember.
948 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. Then, tliere was something about the atomic bomb.
Mr. BiELASKi. The A bomb. The word ''atomic" was not there.
It was referred to as an A bomb, in quotes, and at tlie time it meant
absohitely nothing to me because I had never heard of an atomic
or an A bomb, and it wasn't until months later that the significance of
that particular document finall}'^ penetrated.
Senator Lodge. Did you have in mind the fact that in war, arrange-
ments are sometnnes made so that secret documents are stolen on pur-
])ose, in order to mislead the enemy? You have heard of that being
done, have you not ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I have heard of nearly all of the tricks in the busi-
ness.
Senator Lodge. But, you do not think that that situation could
liave ap])lied to the 400 secret documents in the Amerasia office?
Mr. BiELASKi. Would you please explain that again?
Senator Lodge. You don't think that the situation described could
have applied to the documents in the Amerasia office?
Mr. BiELASKi. Explain that again, that situation.
Senator Lodge. I was going to put it to you, that in war there arg
occasions when a nation will make possible for one of its secret docu-
ments to be stolen, so that the enemy may be mislead.
Mr. BiELASKi. Oh no. It never occurred to me that that was rhe
case here, and I don't think it was. That is dealing with double-
agents, passing out some information in the hope of getting a greater
return.
Senator Lodge. That isn't quite what I mean, in the hope of get-
ting something in return — but in the hope of misleading the enemy,
making them think you are going to do something you are not going
to do.
Mr. BiELASKi. I don't think it applied in this case, Senator — not
at all ; certainly not according to my experience.
Senator Lodge. You think the documents were too numerous?
Mr. BiELASKi. Too numerous, yes.
Senator Lodge. And too genuine?
Mr. BiELASKi. And, too serious. I think these were taken mali-
ciously. What became of them I don't know.
Senator Lodge. You don't know where they are now?
Mr. BiELASKi. I don't know.
Senator Lodge. Has the FBI got them?
Mr. BiELASKi. Those documents I saw?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir. I think they went back to the State Dei^art-
ment, were delivered there; and the documents the FBI got were an
entirely different lot.
Senator Lodge. So, these 400 documents that were in the Amerasia
office can now no longer be identified ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No ; they can't ; not at all.
Senator Lodge. You brought them back into the pool ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes ; back into the
Senator Lodge. Who is resonsible for making that decision?
Mr. BiELASKi. Well, those documents were never lifted. I left
them there. I took from 12 to 14. The rest were left there and in the
normal course of the operation, that they were conducting, they were
taken back after, presumably, they had been copied or photostated.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 949
Senator Lodge. I don't make myself clear. You were in there that
nio:!it and found 400 documents; is that right?
Ml-. liiELASKi. That is right.
Senator Loixje. Not copies, originals.
Mr. BiEL.\SKi. That is right.
Senator LonciK. All riglit. What T ^vant to know is what happened
to those 400 documents?
Mr. BiELASKi. They were taken hy Jaffe back to Washington and
presumably delivered back to the State Department. I don't know
that
Senator Lodge. By Jatfe?
Mr. BiELASKi. That is just my guess.
Senator Lodge. I thought you said the FBI went there, and put 75
men on the thing and tapped the telephones and set up surveillance
and tied up the whole case in a knot ?
Mr. BiELASKi. But, that was 3 months before the FBI did that. The
FBI, when they did that, that Avas 5 or fi days after we had been there
and they found no documents; and for that reason, they thought that
we had spilled the beans by taking 14 of them. They thought that
Jafie and his crowd had become aware of it, but that turned out to
be not the case. It was simply a period where documents had come
in, been photostated and gone back, and another lot was coming, be-
cause the FBI did get the next lot that came in.
Senator Lodge. How loiig was it after the time you told General
Donovan about this, that the FBI got on the job?
Mr. BiELASKi. They got there on the job Avithin 5 days, and stayed on
the job for 3 months before they finally smacked down on them.
Senator Lodge. When they smacked down on them, did they find no
documents stolen?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir; but that was probably the third lot they
smacked down on. It ran into hundrecls. I think there were 467
documents they got out of Jaffe's office.
Senator Lodge. WHiat did they do with those?
Mr. BiELASKi. They still have them, I have been told they have
13 volumes pi evidence up there.
Senator IIodge. I think this committee ought to notify the Depart-
ment of Justice to impound those documents right now.
Senator Tydixgs. Will you do that, Mr. Morgan?
Mr. Morgax. Yes, sir.
Senator Lod(;e. There is no objection to that, I presume, on the part
of the members ?
Senator Tydixgs. No.
Mr. BiELASKi. And, over 200 documents they seized in Larsen's
office.
Senator Lodge. To me. this is terribly serious. I never heard of this
before. I was in the Army when this happened, and if you lost one
document in the Army, if that ha])pened to you, you ought to shoot
yourself. A thing like this, of 400 major documents
Senator Tydixtjs. Off the record.
(There was discussion off the record.)
. Mr. BiELASKi. Of my knowledge, the total number of documents
involved exceeds a thousand — there is. 400 that we saw, and I think
the FBI seized 407 in Jaffe's office later.
Senator Lodge. Different ones.
950 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BiELASKi. Different ones, and 280 some that they seized in
Larsen's apartment, here in Washington.
Senator Lodge. What happened to them ?
Mr. BiELASKi. The Department of Justice has them.
Senator Lodge, Still has them ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. So, they have not been returned ?
Mr. BiELASKi. And probably they photostated other documents that
came in between what we saw and what they seized.
Senator Lodge. Of the people that were implicated in this, do I
understand you to say that only one is now still in the service of
the State Department, and that is Mr. Service ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir, because there were only two implicated,
Larsen and Service ; and, Service is the one that is still there.
Senator Lodge. What happened to Larsen, do you know ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Larsen was fined $500.
Senator Lodge, Did he get out of the State Department?
Mr. BiELASKi. Oh, yes ; he got out of the State Department.
Senator Tydings. He is out.
Senator Lodge, Under what circumstances did he get out ?
Senator Tydings. He was fined and dismissed.
Senator Lodge. They dismissed him ?
Senator Tydings. That is my understanding.
Mr. BiELASKi. I know he applied for a job and was going to be
taken on, in another Government department, and I heard about it
and saw that he didn't get the job.
Senator Lodge. That is an explanation I can understand.
I would like to have somebody give me an explanation of why
Service was retained.
Senator Tydings. We will get that, I think, in time.
Senator Lodge, That is all, for the moment.
Senator Tydings. Senator Green ?
Senator Green. This morning, I asked you w^hat the name of the
agency was, what was your reply ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Research and Security Corporation.
Senator Green, And I asked you if you had ever had another name
and you said "No."
Mr, BiELASKi. No, sir, never had another name. This was organized
after the war.
Senator Green. Was it the successor of another agency ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir.
Senator (treen. What w\as the Seaboard Bureau of Public Rela-
tions ? That was the name of your agency at one time ?
Mr, BiELASKi, That was a company in which I was interested some
11 years ago, yes, sir.
Senator Green. That was your agency, the same as the present one
is? _ .
Mr, BiELASKi, Yes, sir; probably more than the present one is. The
present one is a stock corporation.
Senator Green. In the interval between the two — did they exist at
the same time ?
Mr. l^iELASKi. No, sir.
Senator Green. One succeeded the other, is that the truth ?
Mr, BiELASKi. No, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 951
Senator Green. ITow lono- an interval was there between them?
Mr. BiKLASKi. An interval of the war, 5 or (j years.
Senator (tkeen. AVhich war ?
Mr. BiELASKi. The last war ; and, an additional year where I stayed
with tlie War Department an extra year.
Senator (Jheex. When did the Seaboard Bureau of Public Relations
go out of existence ?
Mr. BiELASKi. 1939 or 1940, I think. I am not sure of which year
it was.
Senator Green. Why did it go out of existence ?
JVIr. BiELASKi. Because I got disgusted with the business of investi-
gating and swore I would never investigate any more. That is a
simple answer to it.
Senator Green. Then, you were interested enough to take it up
again?
Mr. BiELASKi. I couldn't help it. General Donovan sent Colonel
Harrington to me, and I was just persuaded to do it. I don't like it
now.
Senator Green. When was the agency formed; the new agency?
Mr. BiELASKi. I don't call it an agency. It has a license to investi-
gate, but it is in the business of investigating. Practically all my men
are former FBI men, and lawyers.
Senator (treen. When was that? Is it a corporation?
Mr. BiELASKi. It is a corporation under the laws of the State of New
York.
Senator Green. When was it incorporated?
Mr. BiELASKi. Two years ago.
Senator Green. Did it do any business before it was incorporated ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Xo, sir.
Senator Green. I think that is clear.
You think the other one went out of existence about 1939 or '40,
von don't remember which.
Mr. BiELASKi. I don't. It was either late '39 or early '40.
Senator Green. When you testified, you testified here before in
Washington on Government investigations, did you not?
Mr. BiELASKi. Oh, yes.
Senator (jreen. Was it at that time the Seaboard
]SIr. BiELASKi. "V\1iich testimony do you refer to, testimony before
the Senate committee ?
Senator Green. Yes.
Mr. BiELASKi. It was the Seaboard Bureau of Public Relations at
that time, that I was interested in — yes, sir.
Senator Green. And it was wound up shortly after that?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. Thank you.
Senator Ttdings. Senator McMahon, do you want to ask some
questions?
Senator McMahon. ISIr. Bielaski, on this paper in which there was
written "A-bomb," do you recollect anything beside just the title?
Mr. Bielaski. I don't recollect what was in the body of the docu-
ment; no.
Senator McMahon. It wasn't a legal document?
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 61
952 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BiELASKi, No; it was not. It was about, as I say — it was on
newspaper reporting paper, the kind of stuff that he writes on, this
rough, white stuff which was about that wide, and it was only about
that long [indicating] ; and, as I recall it, all six of these documents
were single spaced, so that it would be, you could get it in that much
single spacing.
Senator McMahon. They were in Hersey's envelope ?
Mr. BiELASKi. In Hersey s envelope, not in a bunch, but the six were
slipj^ed in between these other documents. If we hadn't looked care-
fully, they wouldn't have found them.
Senator McMaiion. Did they all relate to the bombs ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I can't say that. I know one of them related to the
disposition of the Japanese battle fleet, but as I recall, Senator, all of
them related to battles, battle intelligence, and was not diplomatic
material or anything of that sort. It was combat material, and my
impression of that was not distinct at all, all the details are hazy.
Senator McMaiion. Do you remember whether there was a time
stamp of the State Department on that one?
Mr. BiELASKi. I don't knoAv, don't think so.
Senator McMahon. Was there any identification of what depart-
r^ent it had come from?
Mr. BiELASKi. There was no indication on any of those six docu-
ments as to where they came from ; although I have the impression,
based on nothing except my recollection, that they w^ere all concerned
with the Navy or Navy intelligence. I may be mistaken about that.,.
Senator McMahon. Were they among the ones that you brought
down ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I didn't dare touch those, because I thought they
would be surely missed, if I took them, and there was such a mass
of material.
Senator McMaiion. When you had your conversation the other day
with your men who were working on it, is that one of the things you
had to refresh your recollection on, or do you remember ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No. They agreed with me on all of the things ex-
cept the documents in that Hersey envelope. I didn't discuss them
with them. I discussed them with one man, Mr. Oleson, wdio found
them, but he don't have an exact recollection of what they contained.
He was more concerned with the list of the troops of the Chinese
Nationalist Army, that is the thing that stuck out in his memory,
although one did recall the disposition of the Japanese fleet after the
battle of Leyte. He remembers that vividly. He says he thinks it
was on Jaffe's desk, but it wasn't. We have differences of opinion in
that respect.
Senator McMahon. Let me get it clear. How manj^ documents did
you bring down to Washington ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Fourteen.
Senator McjMahon. Fourteen ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes.
Senator McMahon. As far as you know, they stayed here ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No. General Donovan took them over and handed
them to Mr. Stettinius and says "That is your baby, and you can have-
it."
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA^ESTIGATION 953
He even took the four or five back tluit originated in OSS, because
the slani]:) showed them to have come from the State Department and
he wanted to })ut them back where he thought they belonged.
Senator McMahox. You don't know what Mr. Stettinius did with
them after he got them ?
jSlr. BiELASKi. I do not. I know subsequently there were 50 addi-
tional documents found that originated in OSS, and each time they
were found, the FBI came to the Securitj' Office with a photostat and
said, "Can 30U identify this document?" And they were identified
by the security officer.
Senator McMaiion. Did you make copies of those 14 documents?
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir. Mr. Van Beuren made a memorandum of
those documents, the titles of them, and we have been unable to get
that memorandum, if it is still in existence. It would be in the pos-
session of the CIA, and certainly I can't get anything from them.
Senator Mc]Mahox. They would give it to this committee, though,
Mr. BiELASKi. If they have it.
Senator McMaiiox. If they have it; and, was that a copy then, or
simply a listing?
iNIr. B1EL.VSKI. That was simply a listing of the titles and the rela-
tive degree of secrecy attaching to each document.
Senator Mc^Maiigx. Have you told this story to any other con-
gressional committee ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I have told part of it to a subcommittee of the House
Committee on tlie Judiciary, back in 10 IG. I did not tell it all. At
that time I asked them to let me tell them the story, under an assumed
name, because I was then engaged with the War Department and was
trying to find some additional documents that were stolen from us,
from the United States in Cairo, and published in the Communist
newspapers in Athens, Greece ; but, I didn't want my name in those
reports to be made public, to come out so that they could know who
I was and what I was doing.
Senator McMahox. What name did you testify under?
Mr. Beelaski. Frank Brooks.
Senator McMahox. Frank Brooks?
Mr. BiELASTvi. My first and second names.
Senator McMaiiox. I see.
Mr. BiELASKi. Let me tell you when I first went into the OSS, I
embarked on a project which was very secretive, and those of us that
were engaged in it had to lose our identities, and remove all markings
from our clothing, and everything else, and I was known then as
Frank Brooks, and they called me Frank Brooks after that, and I
couldn't get rid of it. It is one of those things and that is why I have
insisted on being called Frank Brooks Bielaski, which is a continua-
tion of the name.
Senator McMahox. When you testified before that committee, in
general, is there any reason why you didn't give them all the story
that you had ?
Mr. Bielaski. No particular reason, except for the lack of time.
We were very pressed for time. No reason at all.
Senator McMaiiox. What part of it did you give us todaj^^ that
you didn't give to them?
Mr. Bielaski. I may have given you some additional details, but
I don't know what thev are. I think in general I sketched the whole
954 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
ihu\<r for them, except, it is possible at that time I simply referred
to the bomb as — ^this secret message on the bomb as a new bomb,
because at that time, in 1946, it had not yet penetrated my stupidity,
if you want to call it such, that it had added significance, because
I didn't know of the atomic bomb for a long time and even after it
was used, I was not very familiar with it because I was busily engaged
in other things.
Senator McMahon. Do you remember when it was in 1946 that you
told this story to the House committee ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I don't know. I would say it must have been in the
spring, because they issued a report after the House adjourned. The
House had adjourned for a week before the report was issued, and
I don't think anybody paid any attention to it.
Senator McMahon. There is a record of your testimony, you think ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I think there must be, although I don't know.
Senator McMahon. And you say you referred then to it as a new
bomb instead of an "A" bomb?
Mr. BiELASKi. I said that I had a recollection that the third docu-
ment which I read in the Hershey envelope or folder, referred to a
new bomb. I told them that I was sorry, but I only remember that
it was alDout a bomb, that was the only thing that registered in my
mind, I considered it a piece of ordnance.
Senator McMahon. Did anybody, a member of the committee
examining you, suggest that maybe it was an "A" bomb ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I don't think they suggested a thing. Senator.
Senator McMahon. By and large, I suppose you gave the committee
just about everything you knew about this situation. They ' were
inquiring into the Amerasia case?
Mr. Bielaski. They were inquiring into it from a little different
angle. I understood that they were inquiring to see if any undue
influence had been brought to bear on the Judiciary.
Senator McMahon. Or any misdeeds by the Department of Jus-
tice personnel?
Mr. Bielaski. I don't know as to that, but rather as to any mal-
function on the part of the Judiciary — that was the principal thing,
and that was the reason why they got into it.
Senator McMahon. I think,' and very properly so ; but of course
the Judiciary Committee, you see, has supervision, so far as the Con-
gress is concerned, for the House and for the Senate, and in our
case it would be the Senate, over both the Judiciary and the Depart-
ment of Justice, so if they were going to make an inquiry into the
Amerasia case, which they did do, one of the purposes of it would be
to see that they find out the full and complete story.
Mr. Bielaski. I know they did subpena the people I suggested, and
I saw part of the testimony which was shown — the testimony con-
cerning Mark Gayn, and the testimony of Mr. Gurnea, the gentle-
man who conducted the investigation in New York ; and, if you will
let me, I would like to tell you what it said, because that is another
reason why I could never understand the disposition made of this case.
Senator McMaiion. Wliat I want to know is everything you know.
Mr. Bielaski. All right. Mark Gayn said, when they arrested
}>im, that yes, he got material from Jaffe, but it always came to him
in typewritten form, and he had no knowledge whatsoever of where it
came from ; he had never seen any Government documents ; that he
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 955
was just the willing recipient of valuable information. He didn't
(Question liow they got it, and they asked him "Did you go before the
grand jury and testify on thatf and he said "Yes,'' and he did and
the grand jury didn't indict him.
. And they later on, while Mr. Gurnea was again testifying, said,
""N^Hiat did you do with the documents you seized in Jaffe's office f He
said, "We processed them all, put them through the laboratory."
They said, "What did you find?" And he said, "We found finger-
prints." And one of the congressmen said, "Did you find the finger-
prints of Mark Gayn?" And he said, "Yes; they were all over
them.''
Senator McMahon. On the originals ?
Mr. BiELASKi. The original documents found in Jaife's office.
This congressman said, "To me, that is a prima facie case of per-
jury. Can't you do anything about it?'' And the answer was "No";
they found out that Gayn's articles that he had written, had been ap-
l)roved by the censorship up in that district, and therefore they let
it go.
I don't think that had anything to do wath the fact that
Senator McMahon. I don't either. I think we have got to get an
explanation for that.
Tell me who was on that committee that went into that. Do you
remember ^
Mr. BiELASKi. It was known as the Hobbs committee. I have for-
gotten. Now, I have for the first time recently gotten a copy of their
re])ort, and I was very much surprised to know that there was no
mention whatsoever of any of the evidence I gave them ofi' the record.
Senator Lodge. "\Miat ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I don't mean off the record
Senator McMaiiox. As Frank Brooks.
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir. I was still, you see, the director of in-
vestigation for the SSU, and I was very apprehensive about talking
about it, and showed them my credentials, wdiich they accepted, and I
said "I would like to tell you the facts about that case," and I did,
to the best of my ability. They didn't question me, and let me go
right away.
Senator McMahon. I think that is a good argument. I can see
why you testified under that name, but I think it is important to this
connnittee to know — that the testimony that you have given us today
about the Amerasia case is the testimony that you gave the Hobbs
committee in 1946.
Mr. BiELASKi. I think it is just exactly, with the possible exception
that I have added some details because I have had more time to
consider it.
Senator McMaiion. Of course, you may have added because you
had more time to consider, but it also gave you a little more time
away from the thing
Mr. BiELASKi. And, more chance of error.
Senator McjMatiox. Yes ; more chance for error.
Mr. BiELASKi. I admit that, frankly, but I don't think-
Senator McMaiiox. I am not drawing that conclusion, please be-
lieve me. I am just trying to get the situation in order. I am very
much interested in this report.
956 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydixgs. Excuse me. We have a problem. Tlie Washing-
ton Star, I understand, is coming out with big headlines that the
Amerasia case has developed
(There was discussion off the record.)
Senator McMahon. Did you make available to that subcommittee
any copies of any correspondence, any of these papers — to your
memory ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No ; I did not.
Senator McMahon. You didn't have any in your possession ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No. I gave Mr. Dondero some material. Mr. Don-
dero had already made some speeches about the Amerasia case, and
I stopi^ed Mr. Dondero and volunteered to give him some.
Senator McMaiiox. Congressman Dondero?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir, which I did ; but I never gave anybody else
any papers.
Senator McMahon. What kind of material did you give him ?
The only purpose of that, Mr. Bielaski, is for the purpose of ascer-
taining whether there is something in that record over there that will
help us at all.
Mr. Bielaski. You will find something in his speeches where he
took exception to the handling of the case, and saying that the char-
acter of the material was far more serious than was indicated; and,
he mentioned particularly the document about the Chinese Army, and
one or two others ; and I had at that time a memorandum of the cases
which these two men had listed before I stopped them, when we were
in Jaffe's office. I cannot find that memorandum. It did have the
titles of about 10 of these documents on it.
Senator McMahon. Was the Dondero investigation or the Hobbs
investigation pretty thorough as an investigation ?
Mr. Bielaski. No. They had no one investigating for them.
Senator McMahon. Did they call the Department of Justice up ?
Mr. Bielaski. No, as far as I know; they accepted a report by a
so-called research analyst, as to the character of the documents they
had seized, and his report in general was, well, they were not so im-
portant after all ; their importance has been exaggerated.
That I could not agree to. I think that was wrong.
Senator McMahon. Did you ever hear any talk or discussion along
the way about the defense of violation of the constitutional provision
of search and seizure as being a phase of this matter ?
Mr. Bielaski. No.
Senator McMahon. Nobody ever said anything about that ?
Mr. Biel^vski. Because they never used — the only person that might
be involved was by my own action, and they never used my evidence.
I was never brought in. I think the Department of Justice, the FBI
didn't want to bring me in because I was still an undercover man.
Senator McMahon. You have been in the business for a long, long
time.
Mr. Bielaski. Too long.
Senator McMahon. How many years?
Mr. Bielaski. I would like to get out. I have been in it 12 or 15
years, and before that I was doing financial investigating with a
corporation.
Senator jMcMahon. Let me ask you, you are not an attorney ?
Mr. Bielaski. No.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 957
Senator McMaiion. I don't know, but that is one of the things
I Avant to find out — wliy this case got the disposition it did; but, as
a lawyer, and one who has had some experience in criminal cases, and
some of some importance, the first thing that strikes me, or that struck
me, when told us about it, was the fact that anything you did get by
way of your nocturnal visit, was not admissible in evidence.
ilr. BiELASKi, Well, it never was used as evidence, my part of it.
Senator McMahon. It seems to me that the FBI, knowing that
3'ou had gotten it surreptitiously, rightfully so — do you follow me?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes.
Senator McMahon. That they would have gotten a writ of search
and seizure.
Mr. BiELASKi. They did. Their evidence was legally obtained.
Senator McMahon. AVas it ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Oh, yes, and they took — they planned the thing very
carefully. The men who had been in there once before, dropped, out
of the picture. The men who made the arrests were new men.
Senator McMahox. How about this fellow — what is his name —
the Irishman who went to California ?
Mr. BiELASKi. He went in Larsen's apartment before the seizure
was made, just as I went in Jaffe's office before the final FBI raid was
made there.
Senator McMahon. Well, you see, this is no place to argue the law,
but being a lawyer I would like to discuss it, and the proposition is
this : If yoi^i i?o and })reak into a person's house and you learn that there
is evidence there — follow me?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahon. And then return, get a writ of search and
seizure, and come back and pick up that stuff, that doesn't help you,
follow me?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes.
Senator McMahon. The original entrance vitiates the search-and-
seizure warrant, because otherwise there would be no protection at all.
Well, thank you very much. That is all I wanted to ask.
Senator T.ydings. Mr. Morgan may have some questions he would
like to ask.
Mr. Morgan. I think Mr. Bielaski gave a rather complete story. I
do have a few questions.
Senator Lodge. I have to go on the floor.
Mr. Morgan. I would like to take care of a few thoughts that have
occurred to me with respect to John Hersey.
Mr. Bielaski, I wonder if that information has been passed on to
the Bureau, the FBI?
Mr. Bielaski. No.
Mr. IMoKGAN. They don't know about it?
Mr. Bielaski. It never has been, and I have been very reluctant to
do anything about it. I don't know; I have heard some statements
about ]\Ir. Hersey. I have nothing about it; I know that 5 years
have gone by and Mr. Hersey lias certainly seen a great deal about
the Amerasia case, and has never come forward to say that "I happen
to have been there," and make an explanation about it. He has never
opened his mouth about it. I think therefore that ]\Ir. Hersey should
be required to explain why this stuff a\ as there under the circumstances.
I have never mentioned it.
958 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McMahon. May I break in there ?
I have expLained to the chairman that I had this engagement; I
didn't know we were coming back this afternoon, and I would like,
after Mr. Bielaski is through, and before Mr. Mclnerney testifies — if
you would give me a recess for about 15 minutes.
Senator Tydings. How would this do : So that we can accommodate
everybody, how about letting Mr. Morgan go on with Mr. Bielaski, and
then when he finishes, we wnll take a recess for 15 minutes.
Now, at that time, I w^oukl like — I know Mr. Bielaski wants to get
away, and at that time, we will let him go. If you want him back,
we can call him back.
How long will you want?
Senator McMahon. I will be back; it is 20 minutes after 3 now,
and I should say that I will be back here about 10 minutes of 4. Could
w^e make an agreement that we could get back at 4 o'clock?
Senator Tydings. Yes; but let Mr. Morgan and Mr. Morris go
ahead.
Senator Green. I would like for you to preside, I have to go to my
own office and I will be back in 5 or 10 minutes.
(Senators Tydings and McMahon left the room, and during the
absence of Senator Tydings from the room, Senator Green presided.)
Senator Green. Proceed.
Mr. Morgan. The committee, as I understand it, is trying in every
instance where it can, to pass information on to the Bureau that may
be of significance to its inquiries, and I just thought in connection
w^ith Mr. Hersey, since he has not given that to the Bureau, if it would
be satisfactory from your standpoint for us to pass this information
on to the FBI ?
Mr. Bielaski. Yes, sir; as long as you understand there is nothing
in my statement, I have nothing against Mr. Hersey, one way or the
other, and there is no explanation to offer as to why he was there,
but I think it should be known to the committee, just what the situa-
tion was.
Mr. Morris. Excuse me. That was in the report that you made
back some years ago that Mr. Hersey was there.
Mr. Bielaski. I made a resume of this thing within 2 weeks after
it happened, dictated a memorandum for my own convenience, to re-
fresh me, and it is only a page or a page and a half and in there I
think I mentioned Hersey's name. I'm not positive.
Mr. Morgan. My only thought w^as that it seems his name is of
some significance, and the Bureau would probably like to have it, and
if you have no objection to
Mr. Bielaski. I have no objection whatsoever, and I'll tell you the
reason wdiy I never did mention that; never did anything for a long
time ; I was under the apprehension that when the Bureau first came
in, they probably saw it, and it wasn't mitil some while after that I
found they had not seen it, that all that stuff had moved out and they
saw an entirely new lot: so they didn't see the Hersey documents,
and didn't see manv of the other documents I mentioned.
Senator Green. Mr. Bielaski, you referred to a memorandum you
made 2 weeks after the time
Mr. Bielaski. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. Have vou o-ot it still ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY DA'ESTIGATION 959
Mr. BiELASKi. Mv. Morgan lias got a copy of it.
Air. Morgan. I have a copy of it.
Mr. BiELASKi. I haven't a copy left.
]Mr. IMoRGAN. Another qnestion that I have, I don't believe we have
in onr record here the listing that yon made of those docnments at the
time of your raid. Is that available in OSS today, I mean, the coun-
terpart of OSS?
]Mr. BiEi.ASKi. CIA, I don't know. I would like to know that,
but it should be there, if the}' have preserved the old OSS files, and I
think they have, and as a matter of fact, I thought I had a copy of it.
I have searched my files but 1 haven't been able to find it. If I do, I
will be very glad to give it to you. I expect that it is somewhere where
I have stuck it away, out of the way.
Senator Green. Off the record.
(There was discussion off the record.)
Senator Green. Yon have no objection to that memorandum being
put in the record?
]\Ir. BiELASKi. No, sir.
Senator Green. And that is a correct copy that you have given
counsel to the committee?
Mr. Morgan. That being the case, Mr. Chairman, I would call
attention of the reporter to a report dated April 12, 1945, designated
here by an operative number, I presume that is your number, is it
Mr. Bi'elaski ?
Mr. BiELASKi. What is that?
Mr. Morgan. 120.
Mr. BiELASKi. No, the case — the number is New York, 120.
Mr. Morgan. This is your report?
Mr. BiELASKi. That isn't the report. That is the memorandum
written for my own edification. I thought sometime I would want to
be reminded, and I hastily dictated the principal spots of this thing.
Mr. Morgan. This memorandum was never delivered to anyone in
the Government?
Mr. BiELASKi. No, it has stayed in my files.
Mr. Morgan. And, there is another memorandum dated May 21,
1945, which I Avould ask you to identify. Is that also a memorandum
prepared by you?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes, and this "To: A. vB.," and "A. vB." is for
Archbold van Beuren, and the "From: FDB" they addressed me
"FDB" instead of "FBB."
Mr. Morgan. I will hand that to the reporter at this point and ask
to have them put in the record and then returned to me.
(The memoranda referred to are as follows :)
April 12, 1945.
MEitOUANDUM
(New York, No. 120)
On "Wt'dnesday, Fobruary 28, 1945, A. vB. came to this office for a discussion.
He told me that our Department was faeed with new evidence that tliere was
a leak somewhere, and in substantiation of this statement, showed me a secret
document gotten out by one of the divisions of the Office of Strategic Services
which treated with the differences between the British policy toward Thailand
and that of the United States Government, and analyzed the basic reasons
for the diffei-ence in policy. He then showed me a copy of Amerasia magazine,
in which the principal article was one dealing with conditions in Thailand. It
960 STATE DEPARTMENT EJVIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
was obvious from reading the article in Amerasia that the person had access
to the secret document to which we make reference. In a great many places,
the wording was identical and the phraseology such that there could be no
mistaliing the fact that the writer must have had before him either our secret
document or a copy thereof.
In response to my request, Mr. Van Beuren gave me a list of persons to whom
copies of the secret document were sent. Many were in our own Department,
some in the Department of State, at least one each in Naval and Army In-
telligence, and a single copy each to a half dozen of our foreign offices. There
were probably a total of 30 persons to whom copies of the secret document
were sent.
Mr. Van Beuren wished that something be done to trace the source of the
leak. We discussed the impracticability of checking on the behavior of all
the persons to whom the secret document was sent, plus those persons who may
have had access to it in each of the oflHces to which it was sent. We pointed out
tliat proceeding from the Washington angle would take a very large force of
men such as we have never had available. We promised Mr. Van Beuren that
we would do something about it.
A study was made of all the data available, particularly of the Amerasia
magazine. It was noted that the article to which reference was made, while
the principal one of that issue, was unsigned. We did the usual amount of work
in finding out by whom the magazine is owned and operated, where located,
and something of the background of the individuals prominent in it.
We decided that the best way to solve this problem was to strike right at the
heart of it, and therefore determined to visit the ofiices of the Amerasia maga-
zine at 225 Fifth Avenue. This was arranged in a manner which we do not
care to describe and through a channel which we do not care to identify. We
attempted to make a preliminary survey of the quarters one evening in the
week of March 3-10, but found the offices in use very late at night, and at least
one person working there diligently.
We were able to enter the premises on the night of Sunday, iMarch 11, at
midnight. Present were B-1, B-2, O, and L-2, together with one outside person,
a specialist. The offices which were entered had been in use on Sunday up
until 5 p. m.
Our force scattered through the offices which were larger than we expected,
and each worked on the task to which he had been assigned. All the tiles in
the front office were given a quick but thorough search to identify them, and
were found to refer to dealers, newsstands, and matters concerning circulations.
The correspondence had to do witli subscriptions and collections. The front
office was quite obviously the business office of Amerasia. From figures found
it was evident that the circulation of the magazine had been decreasing steadily,
liaving dropped from approximately 2,500 copies to 1,700. Tlie number of
dealers handling the magazine had decreased from something over 500 to
slightly over 300. The downward trend was steady and consistent.
Attention is directed to the fact that in the second room back in the suite
to the right of the hall, there is located a very large photocopy room, where
there was equipment sufficient to produce a large quantity of photocopies.
There is no reason to believe that photocopying is any essential part of the
process of getting out this little magazine. There was no material in the
photocopy room in process. In the rear of the oflice suite, there were three
principal rooms, one the office of Kate Mitchell to the left of the main hall ; to
the right of the main hall at the end was the office of the editor-owner, Philip
Jaffe. The main room to the riglit of the hall is a very large library, which
contains hundreds of voliuues and a great many that dealt with thie Far East,
and among these, many concerned with communism in China.
The library seemed to be far larger than justified by a magazine of the type
of Amerasia. On the library table, there was an envelope containing quite a
few documents, legal size, all seeming to deal with the Far East. Wliile the
letters were the size and shape of the typewriter, the indications were that the
documents were not typewritten but possibly mimeographed. Eacli document
had written across the top "John Hersey." In with these mimeographed docu-
ments were found six documents evidently hastily copied on a typewriter from
the original and all marked "Top Secret." Upon perusal, these documents
seemed to have i^rigin in the Navy. They dealt with the disposition of the
Japanese Fleet subsequent to October 1944, giving the location and class of
each ship. The second document dealt with the schedule and targets for
bombing in Japan. All were of recent date, either late in 1944 or early in
1945, and all (this is repeated for emphasis) marked "Top Secret."
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISTVESTIGATION 961
In the office of riiilip Jaffe there was found a bellows-type suitcase and two
brief cases. The suitcase was designed for the carrying of documents and not
clothing, and liad many compartments in it. The suitcase was marlved with tlie
initials of riiilip Jaffe, "1*. J. J."; as I recall, the brief cases were so marlved.
In tiie three receptacles were found scores of secret documents. They came
from various Government departments. Many were from tlie State Department,
many from Naval Intelligence, many from Army Intelligence and quite a few
from the OSS. In one brief case was found a typewritten original copy and
three or four carbon copies of the secret OSS document which was the object of
our search. This typewritten material had evidently been prepared in the
office where we tlien were, and must have been copied from the original
docinnent.
The original document was not present, and our assumption was that it had
been returned. On the desk, which obviously was that of Philip Jaffe, were
found many documents from the State Department, some of which had
been photostated. There were so many of these documents of all kinds that
we felt it safe to take a reasonable number as evidence of our find, and the higlily
secret nature of the documents there. We took four or five documents marked
"Secret" which originated with the OSS. All of these were stamped to the
effect that possession of such articles by an unauthorized person constituted
a violation of the Espionage Act. All of these documents, as stated, were
marked "Secret." We took some photostat copies of documents lying on the
desk of Philip Jaffe, and these were principally State Department documents,
one dealing with the intimate aifairs in the household of Chiang Kai-shek; an-
other showing the complete distribution of all the groups in the Chinese Army,
the places where located, and under whose command, naming these units di-
^■ision by division, and showing their strength. We took some documents evi-
dently originating with Naval Intelligence, and at least one or two originating
with Army Intelligence. These documents were selected because they were
all marked "Secret" or the equivalent thereof, and because each document had
a stamped or penciled notation of some sort which might serve to identify the
person or persons through whose hands the documents had passed. We also
made a list of some of the documents on the desk of Philip Jaffe, principally
those which had been photostated. We had to discontinue listing these docu-
ments because there were so many that we wished to read that we had no time
for listing. Later it was found that we had listed some six documents, other
than those we took with us.
All four of the agents who participated in this affair saw all of the docu-
ments ; all were amazed at the magnitude of the operation, and all were con-
vinced that we had come upon a principal channel through which information
was being obtained from the State Department, the Navy Department, the War
Department, and the OSS. From the nature of the documents and indications
in the surroundings where they were found, we were of the opinion that the
material was brought thei'e by courier, that it was photostated, returned by
rourier, and that the photostat copies of these secret documents passed from
this center probably through Communist channels to a destination by us un-
known.
The premises were vacated about 2 : 30 a. m. and everything was left in the
identical order in which found. We did not believe that tlie documents which
were extracted would be missed within a week, this by reason of the fact that
there was such a mass of material on hand.
On Monday, B-1 proceeded to Washington and in person delivered all of the
documents one by one to Mr. van Beuren, security officer of the OSS. The origi-
nal and all of the copies of the secret document which was responsible for our
quest had been extracted from the receptacle in which found, and these were
among the papers delivered to the security officer.
Mat 21, 1945.
To : A. vB.
From: FDB.
MEMORANDUM
Subject : N. Y. No. 120
Several days ago you asked me for further explanation of a graph which I
sent you in connection with New York case No. 120. Since that time, we have
made a modest seaich of the records and find that there are quite a few persons
very active in the affairs of the Institute of Pacific Relations and Amerasia.
962
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Attached is a memorandum in which we show the names of 10 persons. The
first one, Field, has a prominent position in both organizations. Carter, who is
managing head of the Institute of Pacific Relations, is intimately associated
with Amerasia, but at present, as far as we know, has no official position. He
has been a contributor.
We could go down this list and identify all these persons for you, but then we
doubt if it is necessary. Field is himself a Communist, and so that you may
know that he is presently active, we are attaching a photostat of a program
which shows that he was the principal speaker on May 17 before the Communist
Political Association of San Francisco. As far as the rest of the names are
concerned, you will find to be accurate the graph which we sent. There are three
names on our list which were not on the graph, and we know practically nothing
about their political color. We have not endeavored to find out, but they are
included simply to show the extent of the interlocking of Amerasia and the
Institute of Pacific Relations.
We would like to use this memorandum as a medium for confirming to you
telephone advice that we gave you rather casually a short while ago. Within
the past month, Jaffe has upon one occasion been in conference with Earl Brow-
der for 5 hours. Immediately thereafter, he was in conference with Freda
Kirchwey for over 2 hours. Of course, you know the intimate relationship that
exists between Freda Kirchwey and Anna Louise Strong. We deal with that in
our report on Freda Kirchwey's son, sub.iect of case No. 25598. Since the
conference has been in session in San Francisco, a Chinese Communist, member
of the Communist delegation, has flown to New York, conferred with Browder
and Jaffe, and immediately returned by plane to San Francisco.
Members of the editorial board of Amerasia and writers who are, or were,
connected ivith Ifistitute of Pacific Relations
Amerasia
Institute of Pacific Relations
Frederick V. Field
Chairman, editorial board 1937-44; 9
signed articles until 1944; 1944-45,
unsigned.
Managing editor, 1937-45; 10 signed
articles until 1944; all articles un-
signed 1944-45.
Member, editorial board 1937-44; 13
articles until 1944.
Member, editorial board 1941-43; 5
articles.
Contributor..
Philip Jaffe
Council, IPR.
Businessman formerly connected
with IPR; traveled Far East
with ? members. 1937.
T. A. Bisson
William W. Loclivvood '
Edward C. Carter
retariat IPR.
Research editor, American Com-
mittee, IPR.
Secretary-general to the interna-
tional secretariat, IPR.
Trustee. IPR editor Pacific
Owen Lattimore
Member, editorial board 1937-44; 8
articles.
Member, editorial board 1942-44;
approximately 2 articles.
Member, editorial board 1941-45; 11
articles, associate editor.
Member, editorial board 1943-44;
approximately 3 articles.
Contributor to Amerasia .. .
Benjamin Kizer •
Kate Mitchell I .
Affairs.
West coast branch, IPR; also
trustee. ^
Harriet Moore
Annq. T.oiiifsp Strong
IPR.
Completed studies on Soviet inter-
ests in Far East for IPR.
Contributor to IPR
> Not listed in Kohlberg graph.
Mr. Morgan. Noat, with respect to this particular memorandum
that you were looking for, or paper relative to Thailand, when you
returned to OSS here, you brought back the original copy, is that
right ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Five copies. We never found the original.
Mr. Morgan. You never found the original ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No.
Mr. Morgan. So, of the 12 or 14 documents you brought back to
Washington, some were not originals ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No. They were all originals. These five copies were
typewritten and not included in the 14 documents that I brought back.
Mr. Morgan. What I was interested in was a copy of the Thailand
material in the file of OSS that you brought back to Washington.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 963
Mr. BiELASKi. Oh, no.
Mr. Morgan. It was missing too? ^oo i
Mr. BiELASKi. It ^YOuldn't normally come back to Ofeb. Ooo had
sent it out to some other department of the Government, and it would
not come back there.
Mr. MoKGAN. Now, one further thought here : Insofar as your raid
was concerned, it appears that all the papers, or does it— that all of
the papers were documents of the State Department, documents that
had been received by State, bore the stamp of the State Department,
that were in the office of Amerasia ?
INIr. BiELASKi. I think that every document which I looked at bore
the receipt stamp— it is a time and date stamp, of the State Depart-
ment.
I know that some of the documents, I certainly didn't look to see
what they had, becauses when I went through the documents in that
suitcase, I went through them this way [gesturing], looking for
something that belonged to OSS ; but all that I did take out and ex-
amine, although they had originated in other departments of the
Government, had come through the State Department.
Mr. Morgan. Were any of these memoranda you found identified
in any way with INIr. Service, Mr. Larsen, or Mr. Eoth ?
Mr. BiELASKi. No, sir. I can honestly say that I never heard their
names until the Department of Justice arrested them, that was the first
knowledge I had of them.
]Mr. Morgan. I presume that would also include the possibility of
memoranda prepared by Larsen, or j)i"epared by Service for their
superiors ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I have no knowledge of that, sir. My point of that
case was pretty abruptly confined to a hunk in the middle of it, to
start with.
Mr. Morgan. Now, for our record, I do not believe we have the
particular issue of Amerasia that bore the counterpart of your Thai-
land material.
Mr. BiELASKi. I do not have it, but it must be available.
Mr. Morgan. I thought maybe you could cover it.
Mr. BiELAfeKi. I think it is the February 1945 issue.
Mr. Morgan. Now, this Mr. J. J. Donigan, you say, is practicing
law in Newark, N. J., today?
Mr. BiELASKi. Practicing law in Newark.
Mr. Morgan. At one point, Mr. Bielaski, you were going to indi-
cate for us some suggested lines of development of this situation, and
I think you were interrupted.
Would you want to go into that ?
Mr. BiELASKi. I would, and I want to say that I have not talked to
these men, but I made some inquiry as to what Department of Justice
agents, who were very prominent in this case, are no longer in the
Department, and I talked ito one of them very briefly, and he is J.
Lewis Ames. He is in New York, in the Chrysler Building, New York,
and presently a vice president of Ruthrauff and Ryan, advertising
people.
Mr. Ames was the so-called reporting agent on this case. He con-
solidated all of the telephone intercepts, and all the surveillance re-
ports and submitted them, and he has frankly stated to me that he
964 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
knows the men engaged on the case are very bitter about it, and feel
that sometliing happened to it, that they would like to know what it
was. They felt they had a conviction. They term it as the biggest
espionage case this country unfortunately ever had.
I know that William Dunn and Joseph Garvey, both living in New
York now, were agents who were active in this case and, I think,
testified before the grand jury. Robert Brow^nell, of Washington,
D. C, is one who was very active here. He is still in Washington, no
longer with the Department; and John Caulde, of Ypsilanti, Mich.,
practicing law there now was, I think, supervisor in the case under
hearing.
I am very sure that these gentlemen will testify, if you want them
to. They can give you some very interesting information, particularly
as to what happened after I got out of the case.
If I may, I would lik to say this : About 48 hours after the arrest
of these people down here, almost spontaneously there were editorials
and news articles that appeared in all the left-wing papers in the
country and in some of the conservative papers, stating that this was
nothing but a question of the freedom of the press involved, and that
made me furious, because I knew there wasn't any such thing; but
I could never understand how that happened, and I had been told
over telephone conversations that were heard, as to how that infor-
mation was passed out by the Amerasia people to the newscasters,
and to the papers — that they deliberately put that front on it at that
time as a defense.
Seiiator Green. Can you give such names as those you just men-
tioned, who were at your luncheon the other day?
Mr. BiELASKi. I have just given them. I have given the names and
the addresses.
Mr. Morgan. The thought occurs to me, every one of the gentlemen
you mentioned I know, and are personal friends of mine.
Mr. BiELASKi. I have no doubt they are very fine fellows, all of
them.
Mr. Morgan. I take it that you are very much concerned and dis-
turbed about this case. Now, I am wondering, for the record, Mr.
Bielaski, wherein your concern lies ? Of course, we are all concerned
that this information was taken. Does it lie in the fact that certain
individuals may have been shielded, or that somewhere along the
line the judicial process broke down and didn't follow through on this?
What I have in mind is seeing if we can ascertain where, in your
mind, the feeling of difficulty or problem lies in this case.
Mr. Bielaski. I don't think that I'm qualified to state that. I have
heard some things said, but I wouldn't testify to them here, because
it wouldn't be fair ; but I am sure if you will call these gentlemen, they
can testify, are willing to, they can give you a better picture about that
than I can — the influences that were brought to bear in this case, and
I think there is definite evidence of it in the way of telephone inter-
cepts, and furthermore, I am not interested in punishing these people.
I think that the Congress should know — certainly the Senate should
know — just what was going on in this country in the way of organized
espionage.
I have never been willing to accept this idea that these were inno-
cent people, innocent of any wrong intent. I have been positive, from
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 965
the start, that it was malicious and vicious aud treasonable, and I
still stand on that. I therefore think that something should be done
about it. It is too late to punish them.
Mr. I^IoRGAX. Wliat I have in mind is that— I know the committee
wants to develop this picture completely, and it occurred to me that
perhaps bv reason of vour strong feeling on it, as a lot of people have,
that you could indicate for us on the record certain aspects of the case
that appear to present considerations of a questionable character that
we should explore as we bring these witnesses before us.
Mr. BiKLASKi. Let us take these six persons. Kate Mitchell: Kate
Mitchell was arrested and Kate Mitchell was not indicted. We know
that she knew everything about what was going on, and there were
thirty-some documents in her apartment. She could not have been
there working, day by day, without having intimate knowledge of it.
I would like to leave this oil the record, if I may, subject to later
correction.
Senator Greex. Off the record.
(There was discussion off the record.)
Mr. MoRGAX. It would seem that, from this discussion, one of the
substantial questions would be : Why. in view of all the considerations
in the case, was not Kate Mitchell indicted? That would be one.
Go on, this is most helpful to us, and I would like
Mr. BiELASKi. 1 don't like to tell a thing like that.
Mr. M'oRGAX. Of course, that is off the record.
Senator Greex. Now, M^e are back on the record.
Mr. BiELASKi. As to Andrew Roth, the naval officer, who nothing
was done about, they dropped the prosecution against him. I have
always thought that it was extremely important to find out how he got
where he was, in the first place: who ])ut him there, because Naval
Intelligence indicated to me, long ago, that they had a totally adverse
report about him in the first place.
And, Larsen has made the statement, I have seen it published, at
least, that Jaffe boasted he was able to get Roth's commission, despite
the unfavorable report about him, not only got him a commission
but he was put in a very delicate spot, that is, the liaison man between
the Naval Intelligence and the State Department.
How did he get there and who did it, despite the unfavorable re-
port that they had about his being in Communist-front organizations,
et cetera, and they had a complete record of him?
Mr. MoRGAX. That brings us to a second consideration here : Wliy
was the case against Andrew Roth not prosecuted to a logical conclu-
sion, and there is, as a corollary to that — how did he obtain the posi-
tion he did, in the Naval Intelligence?
]\rr. Btelaski, Yes. Here was a man that sent through a security
organiztition which turned him down.
Senator Greex. Mr. Morris?
Mr. Morris. I want to get some support to Mr. Bielaski's state-
ment from my own experience. This is on the record, but I assume
it is spoken in confidence.
Senator Greex. On or off the record.
Mr. Morris. On the record.
Mr. Morgax. I think, in fairness to the record, if it is affirmative
evidence, you ought to be sworn, and put it in the record.
966 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I think you ought to swear him in, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Green. Wait until we get through with this witness.
Mr, Morris. Very good. It is directly on the point. I happen to
know about it. Excuse me.
Senator Green. We had better finish the one witness first.
Mr. BiELASKi. I have always felt, Mr. Morgan, that Larsen could
if he wanted to, throw a great deal of light on this case. I know he
has made a partial statement, published a story, but that wasn't the
complete story, and he told that in order to protect himself as much
as possible from looking like a first-class villain, and I think from
what I know of the case that he was in it because he was getting some
money out of it, not because he was a Communist, because I don't
think Larsen was ; but, I think Larsen, under proper handling, could
probably give you some very valuable information, if he would.
Mr. Morgan. That brings us to No. 3 : Develop through Larsen vari-
ous ramifications of the case that might thus far not have come to-
light.
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Go on.
Mr. BiELASKi. I am sure he can do that.
Now, concerning Mr. Service, I know nothing whatever. That wa&
entirely out of my job in this case.
Mr. Morgan. Now, I don't want to get into situations that may
be a bit far afield, but at the same time we are in executive session
and we would appreciate helpful leads or suggestions. Would you
care to indicate any rumbles that you have heard on this, that per-
haps should be explored in order to get to the root of this situation?
Mr. BiELASKi. By the way, there is a man you could call who is
available today, Mr. Bannerman. He used to be the security officer,
or chief investigator for the State Department, and is now with the
CIA. Mr. Bannerman, with Mr, Lyon, we were informed, was in-
vestigating the case for the State Department. I think Bannerman
probably has a better recollection than Mr. Lyon has.
Mr. Morgan. Bannerman is now with CIA ?
Mr. BiELASKi. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. And Freddy Lyon is with the State Department?
Mr. BiELASKi. I don't know.
Bannerman is a very able chap.
Mr. Morgan. Any other considerations you feel should be developed
and exposed?
Mr. BiELASKi. If you will accept them purely as rumbles, as you
say, that I have heard — I know that during the investigation, while
they had these people under surveillance, it was known that Jaffe was
frequently in touch with Freda Kirchwey. She is the publisher of one
of the left-wing magazines. I don't recall the name.
Mr. Morris. It is the Nation.
Mr. BiELASKT. Yes ; the Nation.
It is known that Jaffe was in touch with her, and that she came to
Washington, and I would like to leave it there because I don't know
the name of the places she came.
Mr. Morgan. The reason I am concerned in learning this
, Mr. BiELASKi. I had been told also, that as far as Kate Mitchell
was concerned, that Colonel Hartfield, of White & Case, in New York,
came down here and used his influence, but where he went or what
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 967
he did, I don't know; but. I am sure you can find that out from the
otlior persons whose names I have mentioned.
j\Ir. Morgan. What Avas that name ao;ain?
Mr. BiELASKi. H-a-r-t-f-i-e-1-d, of White & Case.
Mr. MoRGAX. Attornej's, in New York?
Mr. BiEi^vsKi. Yes; of White & Case, a very prominent firm.
Mr. Morgan. Are, there any other thoughts or leads you can sug-
gest to us ?
Mr. BiELuVSKT. I don't think so.
Oft' the record.
(There was discussion off the record.)
Mr. Morgan. I beheve, Mr. Chairman, that those are the thoughts
I had in mind, with respect to this witness.
Senator Green. Do you have anything else you care to add?
JNIr. BiELASKi. I don't think so, Senator.
Senator Green. Mr. Morris, do you have any questions?
Mr. BiELASKi. I have about exhausted my memory. There are
probably some things I have forgotten
Senator Green. I think 3'ou had better stay around, because they
may want to call j^ou, if and when they come back.
Now, Mr. Morris, please stand up.
Will V'ou swear that all the evidence you shall give in this case shall
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you
God?
Mr. Morris. I do.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT MORRIS
-Mr. Morris. Back at the time I left the Eapp-Coudert committee, I
was assistant counsel — I left that committee to be in charge of the so-
called Communist desk in the Third Naval District.
Mr. Morgan. When was that ?
]Mr. Morris. In the summer of 1941.
During the course of that Rapp-Coudert committee, we had discov-
ered the identity of a long list of Communists who were teaching in
the New York school system, so, as soon as I got into the Navy, I made
a record of all those Communists and disseminated that list to all
interested services, the FBI, Military Intelligence, ONI, emanating
from the DIO, Third Naval District — a long list, I can't remember
the number, but one man was named Arthur Braunlich, against whom
the evidence was most definite that he was a member of the Communist
Party, so much so that he took his work of communism so seriously
that when he would attend the meeting of the Communist Party, he
would wear gloves so that he woulchi't leave fingerprints on the desks,
so someone could come in and discover his identity from his finger-
prints.
Mind you, all this was disseminated to all the agencies that should
know about it.
Much to my surprise, I discovered that Braunlich had turned up
having an important post on the Manhattan project. I know that
the Manhattan project people cleared all their applicants through the
district intelligence office, and a card was definitely in there as to who
Arthur Braunlich was, and the extent of the evidence, and even an
68970— 50— pt. 1 62
968 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
evaluation of the evidence against him, and much to my surprise I
found that Mr. Braunlich had an important job. Mr. Fred Woltman,
of the New York Telegram, published something about it later on.
He had an important job in the atomic bomb development, and that
"was one indication, certainly, if Braunlich knew when he picked up
anything while working, you can be sure the whole Communist move-
ment picked it up. That is one fact.
The other fact I would like to say
Senator Green. Was any comment made on that in the newspapers
at the time they published his name, in that connection ?
Mr. Morris. The many people who viewed the thing as I did, were
outraged, Senator, but we had to let our rage die out.
Senator Green. Did you do anything about it, or report it?
Mr. Morris. I probably mentioned that a hundred times in the last
3 or 4 years.
Senator Green. To anyone of authority?
Mr. Morris. I did. I kept repeating it over and over again. I
had been doing this for years, Senator, and after a while you wear
out.
Senator Green. And, to the committee that screened him?
Mr. Morris. Naval Intelligence knew it, the FBI knew it. It was
published in the newspapers, and that is about all I can do, Senator,
and to tell all my friends about it.
Senator Green. They knew your suspicions?
Mr. Morris. My convictions.
Senator Green. Your conviction of it?
Mr. Morris. That is right. Senator.
Senator Green. All right.
Mr. Morris. The other thing was, while I was in charge of the Com-
munist desk, the Third Naval District, it came to my attention that the
man, Andrew Roth, was applying for a commission in the Navy, in the
Intelligence. A fellow named Nelson Franks, who was then an agent
for us and is now a reporter on the World-Telegram, was assigned
to process the report. In other words, the investigators had picked up
certain facts about him, and came to us for evaluation. We recom-
mended that he not be eligible for commission in the Naval Intelli-
gence.
Again, much to our surprise we discovered later on, long after we
had anything to do about it, that he had been given a commission, and
had acted as liaison between the State Department and Naval Intelli-
gence. I asked, and someone said he got it through the State De-
partment, and not through the Navy Department.
Senator Green. Who did you ask?
Mr. Morris. "^Vlio told me that?
Senator Green. Yes.
Mr. Morris. I'm afraid I don't remember, Senator.
Senator Green. You must remember it.
Mr. Morris. Well, who told me, I don't think is important. Prob-
ably we can go to the record and find out how he got it. That was
many years ago.
Senator Green. Now, who do you believe did it, who were you told
did it?
Mr. Morris. I don't recall now who told me that. I mean, that is
back 5 years.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION 969
Senator Green. "Wliat did you do about that— I will ask again.
Mr. Morris. Every chance I got 1 spoke about it and deplored
about it. ^ re • 1
Senator Green. I don't mean at cocktail parties, but what officials
did you report it to ?
Mr. Morris. Senator, what I had been doing, you ran only do so
much, but I am in charge of the Reserve training program for Navy
Intelligence officers, and we have 200 of them up there, and once a
month I would bring up a speaker who was well informed on the whole
subject, and I had that opportunity to tell the whole 200 what I knew,
and also whatever the speakers kiiow.
However, if I made a speech no one would listen to me.
Senator (jreen. There are certain committees and/or commissions
that pass on these questions. I wonder if you took it up with them ?
Mr. MoiiRis. I told Naval Intelligence, told the FBI. Now, where
else, or whom else should I have told ? I don't know. I think when you
tell people like that, you have done your utmost ; and, in addition, if
somebody is going to write an article about it, you call attention to
that.
Mr. ^Morgan. Eoth was turned down by the Third Naval District,
is that correct?
Mr. Morris. He was turned down by the DIO, that's district intelli-
gence office, Third Naval District.
Now, here is another one.
Senator Green. We would like to have them.
Mr. Morris. This is a good one. One of these Communist school
teachers who we had direct evidence was a member of the Communist
Party, Theodore Geiger, a card was made up on him and dissemination
was made in the usual fashion and all agencies knew about him.
Now, I discovered that he is now one of Paul Hoffman's assist-
ants, and that he has recently been a member, an employee of the
State Department. When I heard about it, I once again called the
FBI, ONI, MIS, and let them know once again what he was doing.
In addition to that, nothing was done about that, and I called up a
newspaper reporter and asked, "Why not report it in the newspapers?"
which he did accordingly. Therefore, it did appear in all the papers.
One congressional committee took cognizance of the matter and took
steps about it, I don't know who all did testify against him, but they
developed other witnesses and for the life of me I can't understand why
the man is still Paul Hoffman's assistant. It may well be that he has
gotten out of the party, but when he was asked by the newspaper re-
porter who was writing up the case, "Was it true that you were named
as a member of the Communist Party before the Rapp-Coudert com-
mittee?" He said "No," that he was cleared, and it was all a mistake.
Well, what did they do? They spoke to the chief counsel of the
committee, they spoke to the chairman, and nobody had cleared him,
and he was never cleared. I told the investigator who was working
on the case all that, but I came down here 2 weeks ago, and asked if
Geiger was still in Government service, and found that he is still one
of Paul Hoffman's assistants.
What can you do ?
Senator Green. It seems you have done what you could.
Mr. Morris. You see why I have strong feelings on the subject.
Senator Green. Yes, I do.
970 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
What could we do about it now ?
Mr. Morris. I think you can very seriously evaluate all this great
scope of evidence that keeps coming in, and look at it, not with a skep-
tical eye, but with an eye that maybe there is something to the whole
thing after all.
Senator Green. I am interested in another phase of the matter.
We have been appointed as a subcommittee, you might say, of the
subcommittee to study the set-up among loyalty tests, and it is our
duty to make i-ecommendations as to how they can be improved, if
they need it. We are very glad to hear this and will be glad to have
you furnish us with your ideas.
Mr. Morris. Very good, sir.
Senator Green. And suggestions as to what improvements can
be made.
Mr. Morris. I would feel very much as Mr. Bielaski, very much that
something could be done.
Senator Green. Well, let us have your suggestions, promptly, as we
are now proceeding with our work.
Did you want to say something off the record?
Mr. Bielaski. Yes sir, off the record.
(There was discussion off the record).
Senator Green. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Morgan. I want to ask Mr. Morris a couple of questions, to
get the record straight.
Senator Green. He is the witness.
Mr. Morgan. How do you spell Braunlich's name ?
Mr. Morris. B-r-a-u-n-1-i-c-h.
Mr. Morgan. Is he still with the Maniiattan set-up ?
Mr. Morris. I would assume not, but I haven't the slightest idea.
Mr. ]\Iokgan. You don't know whether he was separated from the
service ?
Mr. Morris. No.
Mr. Morgan. When did you know he was associated with it; at
what time?
Mr. Morris. I read an article by Fred Woltman in the World Tele-
gram, probably in the year 1946. I think a check of the index of the
World Telegram will show, and describe the job he had, the type of
job. My recollection is, he was close to the inner circle somewhere
in Chicago.
Mr. Morgan. Those are all the questions I have.
Senator Green. Is that all ?
(A short recess was taken, at the conclusion of which the subconi'
mittee proceeded with Senators Green and McMahon present, and
chief counsel and assistant counsel for the subcommittee also present.)
Senator Green. Did you come here as a witness ?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
Senator MgMahon. I think we ought to swear in Mr. McInerney.
Senator Green. Hold up your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in this
case shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God ?
Mr. McInerney. I do.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ITsTVESTIGATION 971
TESTIMONY OF JAMES M. McINERNEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL IN CHARGE OF THE CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPART-
MENT OF JUSTICE
Senator Greex. State who j^ou are, your address, and so forth, for
the record.
Mr. McInernet. James M. Mclnerney. I am Assistant Attorney
General in charge of the Criminal Division. I reside at 3200 Sixteenth
Street NW. I have been in the Department of Justice since January
1935. I served 4 years with the FBI, until December 31, 1938. On the
following day I transferred into the Criminal Division and was there
until July 1947, and I returned to head the Criminal Division in
January of this year.
Senator Greex. AMiat have been your duties in that time?
Mr. McInerxey. I was First Assistant of the Tax Division, De-
partment of Justice, between July 1947, until my return to the Crim-
inal Division. At the time the Amerasia case came to the Depart-
ment of Justice — by that I mean the Criminal Division
(Senator Tydings entered the committee room.)
Mr. McIxERNET. I was First Assistant, in the Criminal Division,
First Assistant to Mr. Tom Clarke
Senator Green. We had just started on the Amerasia case.
Senator Tydings. All right ; proceed.
Mr. McInerney. The case arrived in the Criminal Division May
29, 1945. I remember how it arrived. I was in the restaurant eating
my lunch on Pennsylvania Avenue when a messenger came to the
restaurant and said that I had to return to the Department immedi-
ately, that they had to have a decision on a case by 3 o'clock that
afternoon.
It was some emergency; I don't know whether the President was
leaving town for Potsdam, or the Secretary of State was leaving;
but there was some urgency about having a decision by 3 o'clock.
I had no previous acquaintance with the case, except the memoran-
dum which arrived that day.
I went over to the offices of the FBI and spoke to the men handling
the case, and they filled me in as much as they could on it in the fol-
lowing half hour. They had a desk about half as long as this one,
and it was filled with photostats of documents, probably 2 feet high,
the whole desk : and they told me the facts brief!}'.
What they told me was this : That in March it was ascertained that
there were documents in the office of Amerasia magazine, on Fifth
Avenue, Xew York City, which fact had been ascertained by repre-
sentatives of the OSS who had made a surreptitious entry into the
offices and ascertained that documents or copies of documents were
in the files.
They advised they had reported to their superior who, in turn,
reported it to the Department of State, the Department of State
requested OSS to step out, and that they would have the FBI come
in. With that, the FBI came in, about March 12.
It was obvious, from the presence of these photostats, that the FBI
had made similar entries into the premises of Amerasia and photo-
stated the documents. I later learned that similar entrances had
been made to the residences of some of the other subjects.
972 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. "V^Hiom ?
Mr. McInerney. By the FBI.
I discussed the legal evidence available by that time, and to my
mind, it was not sufficient to seek a warrant, because the main evi-
dence, leg il evidence at hand at that time was physical surveillances
of these individuals. On some occasions they were observed to be
reading documents, or passing documents between themselves. I th nk
there was one small piece of evidence that an agent had looked over
the shoulder of Mr. Gayn, who was one of the subjects, in a bus and
saw him reading a, what seemed to be, a copy of an official document;
but since our experience has always been that we can make a case
on an apprehension and search, I authorized the prosecution on
May 29.
Then, the arrests were not made until June 5 or 6. T think that
delay was caused by, one factor I know, was that they had to find
all six in their homes at the same time, so that they could make the
search incident to the arrests on which we hoped to base our case.
(There was discussion off the record.)
Senator Tydings. Read the last two questions and answers to re-
fresh his memory.
(The record was read by the reporter.)
Mr. McInerney. In amplification of the fact that how much we
relied on facts developed at the time of the arrests, I might state that
S3 percent of persons convicted in Federal courts are convicted upon
their own confessions, or almost entirely upon their own confessions.
"Well, on the apprehension of these people, we didn't get any con-
fessions, with one possible exception, and that was Larsen.
Mr. Jaffe made no admissions. Mr. Service made no admissions
of value. Miss Mitchell made no admissions. Mr. Gayn, I believe
stated that he obtained some documents but as a newspaper man, he
would not disclose the source. He later did, however.
Senator Tyivxgs. Who was that last?
Mr. McInerxey. Mark Gayn, the magazine correspondent.
The agents did find probably 800 documents, I think; some 600 in
Jaffe's office; probably 200 or 300 in Larsen's home; and about 42 in
Gayn's home. They found nothing on Miss Mitchell, except inas-
much as she shared the office of Jaffe, and was an associate editor.
They found nothing on Roth and nothing on Service.
At the arrests, I selected what I thought — the man I thought was
the best prosecutor we had in the office, and who was, at that time,
a special assistant to the Attorney General, whom we had borrowed
about 2 years before to prosecute some German cases, internal se-
curity cases. His name is Robert Hitchcock.
Rolbert Hitchcock was first assistant to the United States Attorney
in the office at Buffalo, and had been there for 10 or 12 years and
practically ran that office, since the United States attorney took very
little part in the operation of the office.
Mr. Hitchcock came down about June 15, and we started a grand
jury on June 21.
Counsel for these various defendants started coming in, requesting
conferences. Things generally were pretty well upset in the Criminal
Division at that time, principally by the reason of the fact that Tom
Clark was moving out as head of the Criminal Division and becoming
STATE DEPARTMENT e:\IPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 973
Attorney General on July 1, and he had promised some of them
conferences.
"We, we held one large conference, I remember, on June 27.
It had been presented to the grand jury for 1 day only at that time,
I believe it vas June 21.
After the conference on June 27, Mr. Wadmond, who was Miss
IMitcheir.s attorney — after he returned to New York he telephonically
communicated with ns and requested an opportunity for Miss Mitchell
to come in. waive immunity and testify before the grand jury.
We were being inundated with threatened motions to suppress the
evidence, bills of particulars and return of the property, and we de-
cided we would give Miss Mitchell the opportunity to appear before
the grand jury, and we thought it was a good idea, from our standpoint
too, to try to improve our case, and asked the other def endents, through
their lawyers, whether they desired to take advantage of the same
privilege.
Senator Tydixgs. Waive immunity ?
Mr. McInerxey. Yes, sir ; and permit us to examine them before they
■went into the grand jury, also.
All of them agreed, except Roth. So, we were then faced with the
question as to whether or not to extend the present grand jury, which
was expiring on July 2, to extend it for a month or two, or start all
over wntli a new grand jury which was coming in on July 3.
We decided, just as a matter of convenience, and for no other reason,
to re-present the case to a new^ grand jury, since we had only used the
old grand jury for 1 day.
In July, the various defendants came in and were subjected to
examination by Mr. Hitchcock and ]\lr. Donald Anderson, who was
a former FBI agent, and was then in the criminal division.
All of the defendants except Roth — Jatfe had said that he would
come in and waive immunity, but he explained that he could not
appear for examination before his appearance before the grand jury,
his wife was in the hospital, and we told him we would not allow him
to appear before the grand jury unless he submitted himself for exami-
nation. He didn't do it; and didn't ask, as a matter of fact, to go
before the grand jury, so we had four defendants before the grand
Senator Tydixgs. Name them.
]Mr. McTxERXEY. Gayn, Mitchell, Larsen
Senator Tyuixgs. Service?
Mr. McIxERXEY. Service? I don't think I mentioned Larsen;
Larsen declined to go before the grand jury. He did not.
Senator Tydixgs. Which ones did you have ?
Mr. McIxERXEY. Mitchell, Gayn, and Service — those three.
Senator Tydixgs. Three ?
Mr. McIxERXEY. Yes, sir.
Larsen, Roth, and JaiFe
Senator Tydix'gs. Refused?
Mr. McIxERXEY. That is right, sir.
I think Mr. Hitchcock was pretty well convinced, from an exam-
ination of Service prior to his appearance before the grand jury, that
he was innocent, but he took him before the grand jury and examined
him but he didn't give him the same penetrating examination that
he gave Gayn and Mitchell.
974 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
The grand jury took the position, first, that these Government
agencies were very sloppy in their liandling of documents, and ahnost
invited this type of violation ; second, that the same thing that was
being done by these people, was being done by regular newspapers,
and that copies of documents which were classified, wliich were marked
"classified" could be seen in almost every magazine and newspaper
office in New York.
They voted an indictment as to Roth, Larsen, and Jaffe. They
no-billed Mitchell, Gayn, and Service. They no-billed Service unani-
mously, 20 to 0.
Senator Tydings. They did no-bill Service ?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir, and with respect to Miss — if you like,
I could put the votes in the record, I have it here.
Senator Tydings. I think it would be useful. Don't you think it
ought to go in?
Mr. Morris. Oh, yes.
Senator Tydings. Were the others unanimous, do you recall ?
Mr. McInerney. Pardon?
Senator Tydings. Were the others unanimous ?
Mr. McInerney. No, they were not.
Jaffe was voted, for indictment, 14 to 6, 12 being required as tha
minimum.
Larsen was voted, for indictment, 14 to 6.
Roth was voted for indictment, 13 to 7.
Gayn was no-billed, 15 to 5.
Mitchell was no-billed, 18 to 2.
Service was no-billed, 20 to 0.
We, in effect, wound up here with a case against two defendants,
Jaffe and Larsen. I think our examination of the case showed pretty
completely that Larsen had been the main abstractor of documents.
There was, however, eight ozaloid copies of Service's reports which
were found in Jaffe's office.
Senator Ty^dings. What do you mean by "ozaloid" ?
Mr. McInerney. Ozaloid is a process of duplicating by which you
type your original report, and you put a piece of carbon paper ia
behind the original, in reverse, and then that original is later used
for duplicating, something similar to mimeographing.
Eight of his reports were found in Jaffe's office, and it was suspected
that he had given them to Jaffe.
Senator Tydings. May I interrupt you there long enough to ask
you — were these reports that were found there, of a highly confiden-
tial, or general nature, or what ?
Mr. McInerney. I would say that with respect to all of these docu-
ments, that they were of innocuous, very innocuous character. If I
would estimate that 1 percent of them related to our national defense,
that would be about right. Tliey had to do wdth very minor political
and economical matters in the Far East, and I say that, having been
Chief of the Internal Security Section of the Department all during
the war, and I handled all the espionage cases for the Department and
these things impressed me as being a little above the level of teacup
gossip in the Far East, and I think that you have seen the House
report.
The majority report stated that few, if any, of these documents
had any relation to our national defense.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY I]Sr\^ESTIGATION 975
(Senator Lod^e entered the room at this point.)
Senator Tydings. Mr. Mclnerney, right there, did you see and view
all these reports?
Mr. IMcInkrney. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. How many did the House committee look into?
^Ir. McInerney. We g-ave them all the exhibits.
Senator Tydings. All of them ?
]Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir ; all that we had.
Senator Tydings. And they made some finding as to what they con-
sidered the important and unimportant ones, from an over-all secret
standpoint?
Mr. IMcInerney. Yes, sir.
Shall I put that statement in the record, it is one sentence.
Senator Tydings. I think it ought to be in.
Mr. McInerney. The House subconnnittee, on page 5 of its report,
stated :
Few, if any, of the identifiable classified documents involved in this case had
any real importance in our national defense or our war efforts.
(Senator Green left the room.)
Senator Tydings. Tliat is in the House report?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. That was after all of the stuff you had was turned
over ?
Mr. McInerney. All of our exhibits were turned over. The grand-
jury testimony had been turned over. OSS had testified, and we had
testified.
Senator Tydings. Was there anything in the position of the Depart-
ment of Justice, or the FBI, in connection with this case, either on the
grand-jury end, or what you had on the outside, that the House com-
mittee did not look into, that you can recall ?
Mr. McInerney. There Avere some documents mentioned in connec-
tion with the House committee which we did not have, apparently.
Senator Tydings. They got them some place else?
Mr. ;McInerney. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. McInerney. After the grand jury took this action, which I
believe was on August the 10
Senator Tydings. The indictment?
jMr. jNIcInerney. Yes, sir, and the no-bills; on August 10, 1945 —
Jaffe, through his attorney, began to make overtures about entering
a plea on terms.
No decision was arrived at with respect to that offer until the week
of September 25, when several things happened.
Mr. Larsen, when his home was searched, and while the agents
were about his apartment, betrayed to him in some way that they had
familiarity with his private effects.
Senator Tydings. You mean, the agents did, in your opinion?
Mr. McInerney. He so swore, Larsen did, later.
Senator Tydings. Swore, to whom?
Mr. IVIcIxERNEY. In an affidavit on file with the district court.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. IMcInerney. He stated that one agent, he overheard one agent
say that something could be found in a middle drawer; and in another
976 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
place, an agent was handling a leather case, and the other agent
stated that "That's all right, that is the place."
Senator Tydings. Who heard the agent say that ?
Mr, MgInekney. Larsen.
. Senator Tydings. Where was he when he heard that ?
Mr. McInernet. He was being arrested, and one agent was watch-
ing him and the other agents were searching his premises.
Senator Ttdings. So tliat Larsen, when he was arrested, heard
these agents tell where different things could be fomid in his apart-
ment?
Mr. MclNERisrEY. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Which gave him an indication that the agents
had been there and knew where the articles were?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. I wanted to get that clear.
Mr. McInerney. After Larsen made bail, he went around to see
the building superintendent, a Mr. Seager.
Senator T^tjings. Where did he live ?
Mr. McInerney. He lived in the Harvard Apartments, on Co-
lumbia Road, apartment 227.
After he made bail, he went to see the superintendent, a Mr. Seager,
and inquired of Mr. Seager how many times had Mr. Seager told him
that he had allowed the agents access to his apartment.
Senator Tydings. An ingenious question.
Mr. McInerney. Mr. Seager had not, of course, told him pre-
viously; but assuming the fact, he cold-cocked Mr. Seager, and Mr.
Seager said, "Two or three times."
So, he took that information to his attorney; but, however, not until
about — well, I don't remember the day — but on September 25 they
came back to Mr. Seager and askod Mr. Seager to make an affidavit
as to his permitting the agent access to his apartment.
Senator Tydings. Let me ask you there, if you recall when you first
learned that this event had taken place?
Mr. McInerney. Well, I knew it had taken place when I saw
these photostats on the desk on May 29, that they must have had
access to somebody's apartment, surreptitiously.
Senator Tydings. When you knew this conversation had taken
f)lace between Seager and Larsen
Mr. McInerney. September 28.
Senator Tydings. How did you learn it ?
Mr. McInerney. An agent came over and told us.
Senator Tydings. They learned it, I suppose.
INIr. McInerney. I learned it two ways: By the agent who came
over in the morning, and the motion to quash was served in the after-
noon, incorporating the evidence of Larsen about the matter. Well, as
I say, Larsen asked Seager to execute an affidavit on September 25,
1945, and we \vere informed of it, I believe, on Sej^tember 28, on a
Friday.
Senator Tydings. Give me those dates again.
Mr. McInerney. September 25, I believe, was Monday ; September
28 was a Friday, and this date is important with respect to the plea of
Jaffe.
to
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 977
Senator Tydixgs. That is what I want it for.
INIr. INIcInerxfa'. Yes, sir.
The agents came in on Friday and told us about Larsen's visit to him,
and — what coukl be done ?
Senator Tydixgs. "Were these the same agents that had taken part in
getting the arrests, and working up the case '^
Mr. McIxERXEY. Xo, sir; they were supervisory agents from the
Bureau.
Senator Tydixgs. I see.
i\[r. McIx-^ERxr.Y. AVe debated what to do. We were having great
difficuk}' with the attorney for Larsen at the time. He was trying, in
every way, to embarrass the Bureau. His name is Arthur Hilland. By
reason of the fact that he represented Monroe Kaplan, you may re-
member him, as having the little house on R Street, the red house
on R Street, which was later tried in New York City, a 5 percenter;
and, he thought that the FBI had tapped his wires, the attorney's wires,
and lie was ver^^ antagonistic toward the Bureau.
Senator Tydix'gs. He represented Larsen ?
]Mr. ]McIxERXEY. Larsen.
Well, we considered what we could do on Larsen's motion to quash.
We had enough evidence, without what we seized at his apartment —
in other words, our first inclination was to return everything to Larsen,
or leave it out of the case and proceed against him on the documents
"we found in Jaffe's office, since Larsen could not complain of an illegal
search of Jaffe's office; but, we knew that if Jafle learned of such a
motion, he would also make a motion to quash, and we would be left
high and dry.
So, we wanted to get a plea out of Jaffe, and in view of the fact that
these overtures had been made, over a period of 2 or 3 weeks with his
attorney, I called his attorney here in Washington, Mr. Albert Arant.
Senator McJ\L\H0x. Who'^
Mr. McIx'ERX'EY. Albert Arant, and asked if he cared to discuss a
plea by Jaffe.
Now, three things came together. I remember, at one o'clock on.
September 28, the agent had just told us that our search of Larsen was
up in the air. "\Aniile we were discussing it, a motion to quash was
served on the Criminal Division.
Senator Tydixgs. Which Jaffe did not then know himself?
Mr. McIxERXEY. That is right.
Senator Tydixgs. Did Jaff'e come, in person, or did his attorney
come ?
Mr. ^[cTx'erx'ey. Only his attorney.
Senator Tydix'gs. Where was Jaffe, then ? In Washington, in jail —
or in New York — or where ?
Mr. McIxerxey. I believe he was in AVashington. He was out on
bond.
While I was talking to the agents, and the motion to quash was
served, Jaffe's attorney was waiting in the outer room. I called the
clerk of the court down here and asked him if he could hold the notice
of motion to quash out of public domain for a few hours, so that Jaffe's
attorney could not see it. The clerk of the court told me he could not
do that, that when this notice of motion was filed, Mr. Hilland walked
in with three reporters, so that I knew when Mr. Arant left my office,
it would be in the newspapers.
978 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IlSrV'ESTIGATION
I have here, the notice of motion to quash which was filed on Sep-
tember 28.
Senator Tydixgs. You can supply it for the record later. It is
purely a formal motion to quash ?
Mr. McInerney. With supporting affidavits.
Senator Tydings. With the reasons.
Mr. McIxERNEY. Alleging wire tapping and trespass.
Senator Tydings. Alleging the illegal possession of evidence, and
burglary and entering?
Senator Lodge. I think that is important. What were the reasons
for not going further with the case ?
Senator Tydixgs. The motion to quash
Senator Lodge. "\^niat were the reasons for it ?
Mr. McInerney. They alleged illegal trespass upon Larsen's apart-
ment, and wire tapping — they were the two main ones. Of course he
alleged the general ones, that the facts did not constitute an offense,
and the indictment did not stand
Senator Lodge. Was that motion carried, is tliat what happened?
Was tlie case stopped there ?
Mr. McInerney. No, sir.
Here is a copy.
Senator Tydings. Do you want to hear it read ?
Senator Lodge. "Wliat?
Senator Tydings. Do you want to hear the reasons, without hearing
it all? ^
Senator Lodge. I want to know how it is possible for these people
not to be tried and given hell. That is what I don't understand. To
me, it is a very serious matter.
Senator Titdings. The evidence upon which the indictment was
returned by the grand jury was illegally obtained, as shown by said
defendant's affidavit and motion to suppress evidence filed herein.
The allegation; that tlie defendant agreed to commit certain offenses
against the United States is ^■ague and uncertain. The certain of-
fenses which the defendant is alleged to have agreed to commit are
not stated in the indictment.
That is all routine.
There is one tiling in there, do you want to file this ?
Mr. McInerney. No, sir. That is our official copy. I will be glad
to supply a photostat.
Senator Tydings. Do that, and we will put it in the record, and
then we will have the whole thing.
Mr. McInerney. I don't know whether the matters about which
I have been talking are set forth in Mr. Larsen's affidavit here.
If you care to see it
Senator Tydings. Let me see it, for a minute.
Senator INIcMahon. You see, Senator Lodge, the difficulty is
Senator Tydings (reading) :
I, Emanuel Sigurd Larsen, being first sworn, et cetera, do say * * * on
June 6, 1945, after arriving home from work in the State Depai'tment, I had
just sat down to eat my dinner at about 7 o'clock p. m., when there was a knock
at the door. I went personally to open the door of my apartment, and two
men forced their way in with the words "you are under arrest," after asking
me whether I was Emanuel S. Larsen. I was dumbfounded and asked them
what I was under arrest for. They refused to answer my question.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 979
Senator Lodge. What was <hp date of this, the date of the occur-
rence ^
Senator Tydings. This is the date of the affidavit.
Senator Lodge. The date of tlie occurrence Avith the two men?
Mr. jNIcInerxey. June 6. 1945.
Senator Tydixgs. Then, the affidavit (roes on reviewintr for about 20
pages, what his wife said, what he did, what the afjents said, and so on,
just reading certain parts of it, but we would like to have it all.
Mr. McIxEKXEY. All right sir.
Senator T^i-Dixos. We are more anxious to get your story now, and
get the details later.
Mr. McIxEKXEY. 1 es, sir.
As I think I indicated, I knew that when Jaffe's lawyer went out
on the street, when I got finislied with him, he would see Larsen's
notice of motion in the paper, and that he would make a similar
motion, and our whole case, I think, would be destroyed.
So, we were faced with trying to make the best arrangement with
him that we could, and we made the arrangement that w^e would rec-
ommend a substantial fine, if he pleaded guilty.
Senator Tydings. What was the alternative, as you saw it at the
time ^
Mr. McIxERNEY. Well, of losing both Larsen and Jaffe.
Senator Tydixgs. Why ? Because of these motions to quash and the
supporting statements? Do you know those to be true?
Mr. JNIcInerney. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Was it your thought that the evidence that you
had amassed would not be admissible ?
Mr. McIxerney. Well, in the first place, our complaint, upon which
the searches were based, was probably faulty. There was no prob-
able cause asserted in our affidavit on which the complaint was based,
because all we had was the association between these people, and
exchange of documents, the nature of the documents we did not know.
As it later developed, both Roth and Jaffe were writing books, and it
developed that they were exchanging chapters. One wrote a chapter
and he would pass it on to the other fellow, and read it — that is what
they stated; and we had no evidence to contradict it.
Senator Lodge. May I ask a question ? We were talking today about
the fact that after the FBI had been told about this Amerasia business,
that they sent 75 men up there to tap the wires and exercise surveil-
lance on everybody. Do I gather from you that in spite of that fact,
the FBI was unable actually to trace the furnishing of the documents
from somebody in Amerasia to somebody else?
Mr. McIxERXEY. To somebody else ?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. MgInerxey. Yes ; no document was ever traced out of Amer-
asia's office to anyone else— not one.
Senator Lodge. Not one ?
Mr. McIxerxey. No, sir.
Senator Lodge. Isn't that very extraordinary ?
IVIr. Morris. How about the surveillance? I understand that the
FBI began surveillance of the various defendants
Mr. McIxerxey. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morris. Was that evidence made available to the Government?
Mr. McIxerxey. Yes, sir.
980 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Ttdings. That evidence, and what it showed
Mr. McInerney. I am telling you, all it established was association.
Senator Lodge. What were they doing all the time? What were
they finding out with the telephone tapping and surveillance and
everything ?
Mr. McInerney. Senator Lfodge, there was no one instance in which
they found these people abstracting a document from any agency of
the Government between March 12, when they took over on a 24-hour
basis, until the day of the arrests ; and, there was no instance of any-
body ever using one of these documents for anything except the ]3ur-
pose of publication in Amerasia, or elsewhere.
Senator Lodge. I wasn't asking about the evidence of the documents
being taken from the Government, because obviously there they were,
you didn't have to get evidence on that.
Mr. McInerney. You do, to prosecute them.
Senator McMahon. What?
Mr. McInerney. You do, to prosecute them.
Senator Lodge. Even in time of war?
Mr. McInerney. Certainly.
Senator McMahon. In time of war, things
Senator Lodge. I want to finish my question.
Senator McMahon. I was only trying to help. You used the re-
mark, four or five times, "in time of war."
Senator Lodge. It is very significant.
Senator j\IcMahox. I want to f :\y, as a lawyer, that when we go into
a war, maybe we should, but we never have repealed the constitution,
or any part of it. That is all I wanted to tell you.
Senator Lodge. I don't think that is all tliere is to it. I just don't
think that is all there is to it.
Senator McMahon. I am not trying to say anything else.
Senator Lodge. I am not a lawyer. I have read the constitution
once or twice, and I don't think that is all there is to it.
Senator McMahon. Let's find out
Senator Lodge. Mr. Morris told me that I don't understand. You
were saying, before I got here, that it was customary to treat these
classified documents rather informally here in Washington.
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. It is shocking to hear that, because I will tell you,
in the field, if anybody loses a classified document, you might as well
slioot yourself. The idea that these fellows were taking these docu-
ments home, or to cocktail parties and teas, and everything, makes
my hair stand on end.
Mr. McInerney. Didn't you become rather cynical about the classi-
fication of documents?
Senator Lodge. I didn't; no. I was very, very serious about it.
Mr. McInerney. The classification of documents in this case was
nothing short of silly. They would incorporate a newspaper clipping
in a document and classify it as "secret."
Senator Lodge. Are you telling us that all these thousands of docu-
ments were all things like that?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. All of them?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 981
Senator Lodoe. Yon say there wasn't a single docnment in the
Amerasia case that had military valued
Mr. McIneijney. No, sir. I think I said, prior to the time you
came in, that I would estimate there was 1 percent, and I don't know
whether you read this sentence, this underscored sentence from the
House committee s report.
Senator Tydixgs. Read it. He put it in before you came in.
Senator Lodge. I don't know who says it or anything about it. I
know that I was trained to have great respect for classified docu-
ments, and it astounds me to have it said that most of these documents
were silly, that is all. I don't say you are not right, but I say it is
astounding.
Mr. McIxerney. I explained, I had charge of all internal -security
violations during the war, and I think I have some idea of what a
classified document is, and is not, and as the committee report shows,
the routing of a document, or mailing of it from the Far East to the
United States depended upon the classification ; for instance, if they
wanted the mail to get here quickly, they would put the highest possi-
ble classification on, purely for mailing purposes.
Senator Lodge. If anybody had done that in our outfit, he would
have had his ears pinned back.
Mr. Morris. Mr. INIcInerney, would you consider a report emanat-
ing from the State Department, giving the details and arrangement
and deployment of the Chinese Nationalist armies, at a time when
they were locked in mortal combat with an enemy force — would you
consider that to be a classified document?
Mr. McInerney. As of what date ?
Mr. IVIoRRis. 1945.
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir. Was there such a document?
Mr. IMoRRis. We have had testimony today.
Mr. McInerney. 1945 ?
Mr. Morgan. In fairness, there was testimony relating to that
evidence being found, by Mr. Bielaski.
Mv. ]\Iorris. We had the testimony today on that.
Senator Tydings. That was what Mr. Bielaski found.
Mr. Morris. One other question : It is your testimony, Mr. Mc-
Inerney, that the Department of Justice presented to the grand jury
in the case of the six defendants, all the evidence that it had in its
possession, from all sources?
IMr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Was there anything of value that you did not
present, that you can recall ?
Mr. McInerney. No, sir.
Senator Lodge. I would like to ask about the documents that were
in the Amerasia office.
Am I correct in stating that in spite of all this surveillance and
wire tapping that the FBI did, with 75 men on the job, that they
never caught anyone transmitting one of those documents from the
Amerasia office to somebody else?
Mr. McInerney. That is correct.
Senator Lodge. That is correct ?
Mr. JNIcInerney. The FBI has so stated.
Senator Lodge. And you said, do I understand, that some of those
documents were used for magazine articles ?
982 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. McIneknf.y. Yes, sir. They were used by Gayn for magazine
articles. He testified before the grand jury that before publication
they were submitted to the Office of Censorship.
Senator Tydings. Submitted to whom ?
Mr. McInerney. To the Office of Censorship.
Mr. Morris. Mr. McInerney, is there a record today of the docu-
ments, and their contents, seized by the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation from the Amerasia office ?
Mr. McInerney. I am sure there is.
Senator Lodge. Do you have the documents still?
Mr. McInerney. No, sir.
Senator Lodge. Wliat happened to the documents ?
Mr, McInerney. They were returned to the agency.
Senator Lodge. All of them?
Mr. McInerney. I am quite certain that the FBI have photostats
of all of them.
Senator Lodge. You ought to get independent judgment by military
men on the value of those documents.
I hereby make that request, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. How can we get it ?
Can you get the photostats for us, JNIr. McInerney ?
Mr. McInerney. Well, just from the standpoint of formality, we
made these documents available to one congressional committee, and
I assume that they will be made available again, but I would have
to get clearance.
Senator Tydings. Take it up and see what you can do, and then we
will look for the military men.
Mr. Morgan. May I interrupt. Senator?
Incidentally, this morning a request was made by Senator Lodge
that such records as do exist in the Department of Justice be im-
pounded at this point, and I presume you can arrange for that. Do
we need to make a formal request?
Mr. McInerney. Impounded ?
Mr. Morgan. We don't want them dispersed.
Senator Lodge. The documents not sent back and lost.
Mr. McInerney. ^Vliat has been done, has been done. They won't
be further dispersed.
Senator Lodge. I would like to ask one or two more questions.
What is your present position ?
Mr. McInerney. Head of the Criminal Division.
Senator Lodge. Department of Justice ?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. How long have you held that position ?
Mr. McInerney. Since January of this year.
Senator Lodge. How long have you been in the Department of
Justice ?
Mr. McInerney. I came in the FBI in January of 1935, and I
transferred from the FBI, on December 31, 1938, to the Criminal
Division, on January 1, 1939. I was in the Criminal Division from
January 1 until July 1947. From June 1940 until December 1944 I
was Chief of the Internal Security Section of the Criminal Division.
In July 1947 I was first assistant in the Criminal Division, and trans-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 983
ferred to the Tax Division, where I was first assistant assistant until
I rotiirned to the Criminal Division, as head of it, January this year.
iSenator Lodge. ^Miere is your home?
Mr. McInerney. New York City.
Senator McMahox. Are you through?
Senator Lodge. I am through.
Senator McMahox. I have known James McInerney since 1938,
when he was head of the detail of the FBI, who was in charge of
the Harlan County case which I, as the head of the Division which he
now heads
Senator Lodge. Harlan County, Ky.?
Senator McMahox. Yes. As a result of the services of him, I was
intimately acquainted with him, and they included guarding me from
an attempt on my life.
Mr. McInerney came to the Criminal Division, and he was there
when I resigned in 1939. He bears a most enviable reputation.
His appointment as Assistant Attorney General was well deserved
and he went at his duties with great pleasure and enthusiasm. I
want to say that there is no man for whose integrity and whose loyalty
to the United States I have a higher regard than I have for Jim
McInerney.
Senator Lodge. I am glad to hear that, and I am sure it is all true.
(At this point. Senator Tydings left the room.)
Senator McMaiion. Mr. McInerney, I would like to ask you
whether Mr. Bielaski at any time was ever examined by the FBI,
to your knowledge?
Mr. McIxerxey. I do not know.
Senator McMahon. In your evaluation of this case, did you ever
hear, or did it ever come to your attention, that one of the documents
that was discovered by Mr. Bielaski in the Amerasia office and, on
the occasion of his first entry, was tucked in an envelope along with
five or six other papers having the caption "A-bomb" ?
Mr. jMcIxerxey. I never heard of such a thing.
Senator McMahox. Is this the first time you have heard of it?
Mr. McIxerxey. Yes, sir; and I would have remembered it, be-
cause I was General Grove's liaison with Justice at the time, and it
would have struck me between the eyes.
Senator ]\IcMahon. "Were you with General Grove as liaison man
between
Mr. JMcIxERXEY. Between Atomic Energy, or the Manhattan proj-
ect, and the Department of Justice.
Senator Mc^Lvhox. Now, the Atomic Energj^ Commission didn't
take over operation of the program until January 1, 1948, so at this
time, it was under the control of General Grove.
Mr. McIxerxey. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahox. I suppose you were pretty conscious of any
A-bomb matters at that time, were you not?
Mr. McIxerxey. I certainly was.
Senator McMahox. Do you know of any agent of the FBI that
participated in tliis investigation who reported, either to you or any-
body else, that there had been any material discovered relative to
an A-bomb?
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 63
984 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
]\Ir. McIneeney. No, sir; I never heard of such a thing from any-
one, anyplace.
Senator McMahox. Mr. Bielaski testified, has said this morning
that he did testify before that committee over in tlie House, and that
the significance of what he had seen in 1945 had not been apparent
to him, as it now was.
Do you know where the 14 pieces of paper that Mr. Bielaski took
from the ofRce on that occasion, and turned over to the OSS, who
in turn turned them over to the Secretary of State, who in turn pre-
sumably turned them over to your organization — can you identify
those, do you suppose ?
Mr. McInerney. No, sir. There were documents apparently seized
in this case which never became a part of our case, and we first learned
of that when Mr. Dondero, Congressman Dondero, was introducing
his resolution. He was making mention of a document with a portion
that had a more important sound than any we had seen, and they
were not in our case.
Sen.ator McMahox. Well then^—
Mr. Morris. Why was that ?
Mr. McInerney. I don't know. I assume, I must assume that INIr.
Bielaski or someone abstracted some documents, and did not return
them, probably because of their sensitiveness, or for some other reason ;
but I know there w^ere several documents which Congressman Dondero
mentioned, documents marked "Secret," obviously originating in the
Navy Department, dealing with the schedule and targets for the
bombing of Japan, and we didn't have that document.
Another document, also marked "Top Secret" and likewise originat-
ing in the Navy Department, dealt with the disposition of the Japanese
fleet, subsequent to the major naval battle of October 1944. We didn't
have that document.
And, I believe maybe the document you just mentioned; another
stolen document, particularly illuminating, and of present great im-
portance to our policy in China, and this is the language of Congress-
man Dondero, was a lengthy detailed report showing complete dis-
position of the units in the army of Chiang Kai-shek, where they were
located, how they were placed, under whose command, naming the
units, division by division, and showing their military strength.
We did not have that document.
Mr. Morris. That, therefore, was not presented to the grand jury?'
INIr. McInerney. No, sir.
I did not close tlie circle on Jaffe's conviction.
Mr. Morgan. I would like to see that done.
Senator McMahon. Yes.
Mr. McInerney. It will take about 2 minutes.
Senator INIcIMahon. I wish you would, because there are two ques-
tions I want to ask, then.
Mr. McInerney. Wien I left off, I was testifying that we were
trying to make the best bargain we could with JafFe, in view of his
motion to quash, which, as far as we knew, was fatal to our case, and
also would disclose investigative techniques which we had rather not
have disclosed — speaking for myself, now.
Senator McMahon. Incidentally. Mr. McInerney, these documents
that were not made available to the grand jury, if you had them, and
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA'ESTIGATION 985
they had been made avaihible to the grand jury, would they have been
admissible before the petit jurj'?
:sh\ :MrIxr.HXEY. Well, that would depend upon the agency to
whom they belonged. I guess they were ONI, and we would have to
get clearance from OXI before we could use them.
Senator McjMaiiox. They had been seized by Mr. Bielaski. I am
asking you a legal question. Having been seized by ]Mr. Bielaski in
his raid on the office at night, and brought down to Washington,
would tliey have been admissible?
jSfr. iSrcixERXEY. I think they would have been, if Mr. Jaffe had not
made a motion to quash, and "knew of the trespasses committed on
his premises.
Senator McINIahox^. That is the point I wanted to make.
Mr. McIxERXEY. From the standpoint of evidence, they wei-e ad-
missible, unless they were vulnerable.
Senator McMaiion. Of course. Does the motion to quash, under
the circumstances, run to those documents also?
Mr. McTxERXEY. I would say that they would be suppressed.
After having Mr. Arant, Mr. Jaffe's lawyer, in the office for about
4 hours, he made me a firm commitment that he would plead his man
guilty, or nolo contendere, and the agreement was that he would pay
any fine imposed by the court, whether it was two thousand or ten
thousand. That was the arrangement.
Senator Lodge. Why do you think he made that arrangement?
Mr. McTxERXKY. Why did he do it?
Senator Lodge. Why did he do it ?
Mr. McTx'erxey. I think now that Jaffe may have been an espionage
agent, v.hich information we did not have at that time. We knew
him only as a publisher of a magazine.
Senator Lodge. He thought you might have something worse than
you had on him ?
Mr. McInerney, That is my seconll guess, as of this moment.
The reasons he asserted, or the reason was, that he was tied up in
litigation, in some aribitration proceeding which took his whole sum-
mer; his wife had just gotten out of the hospital the previous Satur-
day from a very serious heart condition, and his attorney, Mr. Arant,
also stated that his practice was such that he could not take on a pro-
tracted trial of this case, which he wanted to do on the basis of a
"Drew Pearson defense," as he described it — that he thought that
these newspaper reporters and magazine people had an implicit license
or an implied license to get this stuff, and that this was nothing more
than reportorial enterprise.
Senator Lodge. What happened to Jaffe, since?
Mr. McInerney. Well, I don't know, sir.
Senator Lodge, Has the FBI ever gone ahead with an espionage
case and tried to get him on that ?
Mr. McInerney, No, sir,
Mr. Morris. Was Mr. Jaffe's Communist record made available to
you at that time ?
Mr. jMcIxerxey. I would say yes. He was described in the FBI
re])orts as a Communist. He was never described as having a Com-
munist Party card, but his Communist complexion was so strong
I assumed he was either a secret or open member of the Communist
Party. We had three or four visits to Browder's home, and at least
986 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
one visit to the Communist Pary headquarters ; and, visits of Browder
to his house against him, I assume that he was a Communist Party
member.
Senator McMahon. Looking at it now — ^you have had a long time
to review it — is there any evidence in the file anywhere — that was
not subject to a motion to suppress or a motion to quash — that could
have sustained a conviction of anybody in this case ?
That calls for an opinion, I know.
Mr. McInernet. It calls for a comprehensive recollection, too.
You say "any evidence."
I would say offhand that the only evidence we had, assuming motions
to quash by all defendants ■
Senator Lodge. What ?
Mr. McInernet. Assuming all defendants whose premises were
searched, all that we had was a close association between them, plus
that one little piece of the agent seeing Gayn reading what appeared
to be a Government document on a bus, on one occasion.
Senator McMahon. If you had tried the case — let us assume that
you had gone into court and tried the case — of course, that motion to
suppress would have been a preliminary motion; would it not?
Mr. McInernet. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahon. Would you have exposed at that time, I take it,
your wire-tapping techniques ?
Mr. McInernet. Well, if they had a hearing on it, and a jury was
demanded in connection with this motion to suppress, and if there
was a hearing — our surveillance would have been put in jeopardy by
wire taps.
As you know, telephonic surveillance is a great aid to a physical
surveillance, and the fellow using a phone may say that he will meet
you at the La Salle Restaurant at 6 o'clock, and the agent gets that,
and if they lose him on the tail, or if they know he is not going out
until 6, you can readily see it would be of great assistance. There-
fore, anything you pick up on that tail, if it was learned through wire
tapping, when the surveillance was inaugurated by reason of the wire
tapping, that would be fraudulent testimony.
Senator McIMahon. Now, you see, it is rather hard for the fellows
who have not been trained in the law to understand how, in the midst
of the war, these people could have dealt with the Government's
material the way they did, and get a $2,500 fine.
I called the attention of the committee this morning to the fourth
amendment of the Bill of Rights, the right of people to be secure in
their persons and houses and eilects. I know the answer, but I want
it in the record.
Was the fourth amendment abrogated by anybody at any time dur-
ing a period of war ?
Mr. McInernet. No, sir.
Senator McMahon. Could it be?
Mr. McInernet. I don't believe so. No ; it could not.
Senator Lodge. I want to ask a question there. It must stand to
reason tliat there is some obligation for the security of the troops,
and the security of the men at sea, and the security of all the men
in uniform; and it is just going to be awfully hard to convince an
awful lot of people that here was this great store of information
that was of great military value — at least supposed to be; somebody
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USTV'ESTIGATION 987
thought it was — and here these peo])le had it and they got off with
a ship on the Avrist. It nuist have seemed to a gi'eat many people
that, whei-e there is a will, there is a way, and it will be awi'ul hard
to cknir that, I think.
Mr. MoKGAX. There was one observation made by Mr. Mclnerney
that I would like to ask a question regarding, in order that there be
no misuutlerstanding.
I believe, in the characterization of those documents, you referred
to a great many of them as being "silly to classify them as they were,"
and I am asking you now, if, in connection with that statement, you
had in mind that portion of the espionage statute that required that
material of this character be relative to or relate to the national defense
or defense of the country. I am afraid that our record would appear
otherwise. You used it in one sense, whereas I think you were prob-
ably using it in another. At least you might want to explain what
3'ou meant when you said it was silly.
Mr. McIxERXEY. Yes, sir. It was in connection with the ultimate
standard of relationship to the national defense that the classification
of a great number of these documents was silly.
Mr. Morgan. I think on our record that we might note — and I
would like for your observation on this — that the mere fact that the
document might be classified would not, from the standpoint of the
espionage statute, be related to the national defense, in a court pro-
ceeding.
Mr. McIxERXEY. No, sir ; it would have no relevancy.
Senator Lodge. This comes as a complete revelation to me ; that any-
body could ever think that a top secret or any of those high classifi-
cations could be silly. If those things were silly, and were so regarded
by people, it is just a wonder we didn't have some dreadful military
disasters. That is all I can say, and I think I am sure that Mr. McIner-
xey is telling us the truth, and I know he is a man of such fine repu-
tation, and that is what makes the revelation so appalling to me. It
is appalling to think that things ever got to that pass.
Senator McMaiiox. On the other hand, let us reduce it to an ab-
surdity. Suppose on the other hand, somebody wrote a report on the
weather in France. Let's not take that, because that could be very
secret in wartime; but let us say they wrote a report alwut Cabot
Lodge and said that he is 6 feet 3, and has lost some weight, and then
through mistake, as it went through, it was stamped "Top secret"
and then somebody took it up and handed it out
Senator Lodge. That isn't the way it happened.
Senator McMaiiox. I said, "Let us reduce it to an absurdity." I
am making the point that that would have no relationship at all to
the national defense ; and, if somebody took that and handed it out,
I think that is the point that Mr. Mclnerney is trying to make; there
could be no criminal prosecution made on the basis of that.
Senator Lodge. The regulations in the Army were quite specific as
to the evaluation of documents, and you were supposed to read them
and familiarize yourself Avith the criteria that you were supposed to
apply in evaluating the classification of a document, and the idea that
there were birds sitting around with top secrets, putting them around
carelessly like that, doesn't correspond with my experience at all, and
I have had a lot of that.
988 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Perhaps I can make clear what I had in mind, by ask-
ing the question this way.
What I want to ask, Mr. Mclnerney, is — this is in contemplation of
the Espionage Statute, that provision requiring that the document
shall relate to the national defense — would the fact that the documient
was a classified document stand up in court as evidence that it did
relate to the national defense?
Mr. McInerney. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. That is the point I wanted to make in my question.
Senator Lodge. It is not a question of whether it stands up in court
as a document relating to the national defense. The question is
whether — if the lives of young men were involved and their security,
whether it stands up in court or wiiether it doesn't is one thing; and
another — and it comes as a great shock to people — is that while the
troops were out in the forward area that back there there was such a
careless attitude toward such a vitally important problem.
Senator McMahon. The problem faced was serious
Senator Lodge. I am accepting what he says at its face value, and
just expressing my horror that such a condition should come to pass,
because you never saw anything like that in the service. We took our
classified documents very seriously.
Mr. McInerney. I think the observance of classification or the
classification system was stronger in the military ranks than in OWI
or OSS or the State Department.
If I might read one sentence of the House committee's report with
respect to this subject which we are discussing, on page 7 of the report :
Most of the classified documents, classified items in question, were copies.
There were few if any original documents. Most, if not all, of the documents
listed as originals, or duplicate originals, in the recapitulation heretofore set out
were hectograph, ozaloid, or mimeographed copies. The bulk of the records were
not of recent date. Some were dated as early as 193G, were innocuous in content,
and could have been generally known to anyone interested in the information
they contained.
Senator Lodge. That happens sometimes. There is no human being
made perfect. There is no system that is carried out, without a few
imperfections here and there.
When you have 12 or 13 million men in the service, some of them
are going to make an error at some time ; but the fact that some docu-
ments were evaluated incorrectly certainly does not mean — and I do
not thhik you mean — tliis whole classification system should be disre-
garded and thrown to the winds. I know you don't mean that.
Senator McMai-ion. The jury has the right to weigh the classification
against the content of the documents in the prosecution, you see. In
other words, simply stamping it would not make it prima facie ; would
you say ?
Mr. MoInernet. Not even that.
Senator McMahon. It would not ?
Mr. McInerney. No, sir; as you probably saw in the courtroom yes-
terday, up in your home State.
Senator McMahon. About Adler?
Mr. McInerney. The Adler judge ruled that the fact that he be-
longed to an organization that had been classified as subversive by the
Attorney General — that classification by the Attorney General— was
of no evidentiary value.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 989
Senator McMahon. It would have to stand on its own legs — would
it not — as proof of its seriousness, and its right to that classification ?
Mr. MclxERNEY. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahon. Let me ask you : This case, before it was finally
disposed of, I suppose was the subject of frequent conferences between
you and other officials o fthe Department, including the investigative
branch ?
Mr, McIxERXEY. AVell, I want the Department to assume the re-
sponsibility for this case, and I am not — while we pick up from the
investigative branch on this case, the record won't show that, and
I want it known that the decision was that of the Criminal Division,
and that of the Attorney General, that everything that was done in this
case was approved by the Attorney General, and as you know, the FBI
expresses no view as to prosecution, they take the position that they
are evidence and information collectors, and that they have no official
view with respect to what is done with the case.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Mclnerney, may I ask a question
Senator McMahox. Just as soon as I am through. I'll tell you
when I am through.
Was this subject to any protest from the State Department, OSS,
or any branch of the Government at the time?
]Mr. McInerxey. No, sir. The State Department was very avid for
this prosecution. During that time, that summer, the State Depart-
ment was under continuous attack for spearheading this prosecution.
These people took the position that they were being persecuted, be-
cause they were expressing a viewpoint different than that of the
State Department.
Now, speaking again of Jaffe and Roth — Service made no statement,
Larsen made no statement, and Mitchell made no statement, but this
was presented by them to the public as persecution by the Department
of State, and I know the Department of State did have an interest in
this prosecution, because when we finally indicted these people, they
were disappointed that they could only get 2 years, under the statute.
Senator McMaiiox. Did they file any formal protest as to the dispo-
sition, or informal protest, as to the disposition of the case?
Mr. McInerxey. No.
Senator McMahox^. In looking back over the whole situation, Mr.
Mclnerney, I want to ask you the question — looking back over the
whole situation, having in mind the uproar that this case caused, I
know you will be free in discussing this, was there anything that was
done in the case, or left undone, and I accept, of course, the illegal
searches and seizures, that you would change?
Mr. McIx'i:rney. No, sir; nothing.
May I close this circle now to bring Jaffe into court?
We made that agreement with Jaffe's attorney, and of course he went
out from my office, and from there, on the front pages was the motion
to quash.
Senator McMahox'. It would bo interesting, if we -could have one
of those press clippings for our record.
Mr. McIxerney. I have one here. The only reason I brought it
up was to show this all happened on the one day, September 28.
Senator McMahox'. Will you let this be copied in the record and
returned to you?
Mr. McIxerx'ey. I will furnish a photostat.
990 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Before Arant left my office, I didn't want to give him a cliance to
see the paper, and change his mind, and I thought maybe the motion
to quash might not be in the newspapers until the following day, so, I
asked him the earliest time at which Jaffe could plead, and he said,
"Why, he is in town," or "I could get him, we can plead him tomorrow."
I said, "Well, tomorrow is Saturday, and the judge won't be there,
I'm sure ; but, if I can get a judge, will you have him in ?"
So I called Judge Proctor, who was sitting, I believe, in the Crim-
inal Branch, and asked him if he would take a plea on Saturday morn-
ing, and he protested, and I explained that there were special circum-
stances, and he agi"eed to sit on Saturday morning, and he did sit, and
presumably the transcript of what transpired can be put before the
committee.
The judge imposed a fine of $2,500.
We were then left with Larsen and Roth.
Larsen's motion to quash was still unheard, and his attorney came ii\
and asked if a small fine was imposed, he would plead him. We took
the position that Larsen was a nonentity in this case, he had been cor-
rupted by Jaffe, he was penniless, didn't have any money, and we
recommended a fine of $500 for him, which, as a matter of fact, was
23aid by Jaffe.
That left Roth.
(Senator Tydings returned to the room.)
Senator McMahon. I would like to ask this question: Wlien you
reached an agreement with Arant, and then he did get out on the
street and saw the announcement by Larsen that he had filed a motion
to suppress, did you hear from him again ?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, I did, I saw him in court the following
morning.
Senator IMcMahon. Did you hear from Jafte's lawyer subsequent
to his agreement to plead his man, and before he made the plea?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir, I did.
Senator McMahon. In what way did you hear from him, by tele-
phone or in person ?
]Mr. McInerney. I met him in court.
Senator McMahon. Saturday morning?
Mr. McInerney. In district court, Saturday morning, in Justice
Proctor's chambers, or Justice Proctor's courtroom.
Senator McMahon. Wliat did he say ?
Mr. McInerney. He alluded to the newspaper article which had
appeared in the newspaper after he left my office, the night before,
and he referred to me jokingly as "a son of a bitch," that I had got
a commitment out of him knowing that this motion was on file, I had
got a commitment from him knowing that he probably had the same
motion to quash available to him, and I asked him, "Are you going to
stay hitclied," and he said he would.
Now, I am not pretending to quote his exact words, but he agreed to
stand by his commitment to plead.
Senator McMahon. He did?
Mr. McInerney. He did.
Senator Lodge. Has the FBI continued to watch him, in view of his
being an espionage agent — Jaffe ?
Mr. McInerney. I would certainly say so.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 991
Senator Lodge. Thej^ haven't got enongh yet to indict him for
espionage ?
Mr. McInerney. They consider that when he comes to the edge of
a prosecution. They usually center their efforts. However, on these
cases, we get the reports irrespective of prosecution, and I haven't
looked at Jalle's file, but I know we have received and are receiving
information on Jaffe. I learned of the indication that he may have
been an espionage agent in connection with another matter, not out
of his own file, so I don't know the status of his own file.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the correct pro-
cedure, and I stand to be corrected if I am wrong, I have no experi-
ence in these matters, but — that it would be for us, Mr. Morgan, to
get the copies of all these documents in the Amerasia case, and take
possession of them.
Senator Tydings. I agree entirely with you, and I will ask Mr.
Morgan, through his staff, to ascertain where they are and to get them
if possible and, if you have any trouble and I can be of help in getting
them, let me know and I will do everything in my power to get them.
Mr. McIxERXEY. I think there will be four sets.
Senator Tydixgs. I think we have done one job, maybe we can do
another.
Senator IVIcMahon". If I may suggest, I am looking for a way to
do our full duty, and yet leave the burden as much as possible, in view
of our other duties — see if we cannot make it a little lighter, and it
would seem to me now we have a general over-all view of the Amer-
asia case
Senator Tydings. Would you allow me to interrupt you ?
Senator McMahox. Yes.
Senator Tydix^gs. The only reason I state this is, because you ought
to know this, and the statement I assume from your premise that you
are going to make: I have just received another letter from Ssnator
McCarthy, while I was over to get this, and he wants Mr. Donovan,
and somebody else whose name escapes me, summoned. Of course,
he gave it out to the press ; thev all had it before I got it.
Senator Lodge. William J. Donovan?
Senator Tydix^gs. Yes. Of course, what Bill Donovan will tell is
what Mr. Bielaski told ; they were turned over to him, and he turned
them over to Stettinius. If the committee wants it, we can go for-
ward with that, but we will be here until September if we don't start
to put our targets up.
Senator ^IcMahox'. Let me make my statement— I am glad that you
interrupted me.
Of course, Ave now know that no matter what we do there are cer-
tain members of the committee that are going to be scandalized and
slandered. I am not, therefore, going to give him another excuse.
That is all he needs, he doesn't really need that, to do that by refusing
Donovan at this time. I would rather reserve on that by suggesting
this : That our staff, with this view tliat we have taken, all day, and
the over-all picture, get hold of the documents, and I think Mr.
McInerney was right when he said they had been made available to
the House, and I assume if you got that permission for the 81 from
the President, those things will be made available to this committee,
and I would like this staff start and go over there, start from the first
992 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOIST
page and go to the last page of the record in this case, to give us an
evahiation of what they believe it to be, with the recommendation of
the witnesses that they feel should be called, in view of their evalua-
tion of the evidence, and in view of the evaluation of Mr. Bielaski's
and Mr. Mclnerney's testimony, and, pending that, the Amerasia case,
as far as the committee is concerned will wait pending the return of
this report by the staff, just stay in status quo.
Is that a reasonable suggestion?
Senator Tydings. Well, let me put that in a little simpler form,
and see if we can all agree on it.
What you w^ant is to first get all the documents concerned in this
matter; secondly, what you want is to have our staff start at page one
and go through them all, and make their evaluation. At any place
along where the evaluations are being made, if they want, to call
General Bradley, or somebody like that, if they have the committee's
authority to pass on whether this is A-1, or A-2, or A-3, or what-
ever it is — is that your point?
Senator McMahon. That is my point.
Senator Tydings. And that you want also from the Department of
Justice, the indictment, you want the hearings in the House, you want
all matters connected with this investigation that will throw any light
on it or give us any leads to go in any direction that the committee
may deem it wise to go in.
Senator JNIcMahon. That is right.
Senator Tydings. And that, until this is done, we let the matter
stand, unless the committee feels it wants to proceed with it.
Senator McMahon. We will proceed on the basis of the staff's
evaluation.
Senator Lodge. I didn't understand what was meant by the evalua-
tion of information as A-2 and A-3, and so forth.
Senator Tydings. You said you wanted to call in an expert on
military matters, and I was trying to meet your point of view, to call
in some military personnel to pass on and evaluate the documents,
which is perfectly satisfactory to me.
Now, I don't know who they will call, but I think if Mr. Morris and
Mr. Morgan can agree on an umpire, if one is needed, we don't have to
go into those details.
They can get started on that and get it done in a fairly short time.
I would like to get the staff to do more of this kind of work, rather
than the committee, because I understand that some of those files
are — How thick are some of the files ?
Mr. jNIoRGAN. Mr. Mclnerney can tell you, better than I.
Senator Tydings. How thick would these files be — off the record.
(There was discussion off the record.)
Senator McMahon. My point is, that that, however, does not apply
to the Amerasia case.
Senator Tydings. Oh, no.
Senator McMahon. The Amerasia case and the loyalty files are
entirely
Senator Tydings. That dovetails into our suggestion, because if we
can get started on this, we can work up on the Amerasia case through
the staff, the staff can go through that while we are working on the
other. We can't do both at the same time, as a committee.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 993
I wanted to f^et throufjh Avith the open sessions, becanse I felt that I
could work out a solution with the President on this file business.
Senator JNIcINIahox. Senator Lodge, would you be disposed to per-
mit the chairman to announce to the press the procedure that we have
adopted in tlie Amerasia case, if we adopt it?
Senator Lodge. I'm not going to forclose myself from calling Bill
Donovan. I think he is a great fellow, won the Congressional Medal of
Honor, was head of OSS, and I don't think it is at all out of line for
anvbotlv to sufjo-est that he be called.
Senator Tydixgs. Well, let's call him.
Senator Lodge. Let me finish. You asked me a question.
Senator jMcMahon. All right.
Senator Lodge. I don't mind being interrupted.
Senator i\Ic]\LvHox. Go ahead.
Senator Tydixgs. You're not going to be able to go to Europe on the
22d of IVIav, because we're not going to finish up down there on the
22d of May.
Senator Lodge. I can do it when I get back.
Senator Tydix'gs. All five of us have to be there. We can't have a
divided group.
Senator Lodge. How man we all read the same document at the same
time ?
Senator Tydixgs. They will read them to us.
Senator Lodge. We will sit there and have them read them out loud
to us ?
Senator Tydix^gs. That is the only way you can decide the case.
Senator Lodge. I think that is a poor procedure.
Senator Tydixgs. It is the only procedure the President is going to
stand for.
Senator Lodge. I don't have to accept it, verbatim.
Senator Tydix^gs. We don't have to go down there.
Senator Lodge. I will go. I know that we have a government of
checks and balances here.
Senator McMahox. Don't let us get into that.
You missed my point, I'm afraid.
Bill Donovan is a personal friend of mine and I am very fond of
him. and I will be delighted to hear him on anything at any time.
My point is that we should hear Bill Donovan after our staff has made
an evaluation of the case so that we could get a more orderly view of
it. That is the onl}^ point I make.
Senator Lodge. All I was trying to sa^^ was, I was not going to insist,
was not going to be difficult, but, we were going to call Bill Donovan.
That is what I have been trying to say.
Senator Tydixgs. I don't agree with you. I think if you give
such a statement out to the press, you are going to be misrepresented
as throwing the case out the window, particularly by some people
whose name I won't mention. My suggestion is this, that we simply
say we have asked our staff to assemble all of the documents, all of the
jjapers, and all of the procedures and make the most thorough in-
vestigation while we pursue our own investigation and leave it stay at
that.
Senator McMahox. That is all right with me.
Senator Tydixgs. What do you think of that?
994 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. I think it's all right for the staff to look into that, tell
the staff to do that. I don't want to have the impression go out that
there is any hidden meaning to that, or foreclosing ourselves from
calling any witnesses that we may want to call.
(There was discussion off the record, at the conclusion of which
Senators McMahon and Lodge left the room.)
Mr. MoRGAisr. Mr. Mclnerney, the questions that appear pertinent to
me at this point, and the prior questions by the staff, are, No. 1 — why
was Kate Mitchell not indicted?
Will you state that again, Mr. Mclnerney.
Senator Tydings. You two men go ahead.
(Senator Tydings left the room.)
]\Ir. McInerxey. There was no evidence that Kate Mitchell ever
solicited or received a Government document.
Mr. Morgan. Why was the case against Roth not pursued all the
way?
Mr. McInerney. With respect to Roth, we naturally assumed before
his arrest, that he was supplying ONI documents. However, after his
arrest, and after we had an opportunity to analyze these documents,
we found that there were no ONI documents involved in this case after
September 1944, and that was the date that Larsen left ONI. That
leads us to believe that Roth had never supplied any ONI documents
to Jaffe, anyone else. We had no evidence. We found no docu-
ments on Roth at the time of his arrest or before. We brought him
in the case primarily because, among the effects in Jaffe's office were
found some handwritten notes, I think some of it was on yellow pad
paper, and some of it was on some Statler stationery, and I believe
there was one or two which were written on his typewriter.
The circumstances under which that was copied was something for
us to try to prove. He made no admissions, and we had — Jaffe had
made his agreement through his lawyer, and we also made the same
agreement with Larsen's, that we could examine them as to the com-
plicity of Roth. We were naturally cynical of whatever Jaffe might
give us with respect to Roth, but we did interview him at considerable
length, in December 1945, and while Roth's case was still pending,
and he stated that these documents — and I might interpolate at this
moment, that the documents which were hand-copied and typewritten
were probably the most innocuous of all the documents in the case, they
had to do with speeches in the Indian Assembly, political developments
in India, and things which I believe were in the public domain — and,
he stated, Jaffe stated, that he had obtained those documents, not from
any Government employee, but from some Hindu officials and that he
was under some obligation to return them, and he stated that he was
called, on one occasion, he was at the Statler and the gentleman wanted
the document back and he asked Roth to hand-copy them out, copy
them so he could return them. In other words, his testimony complete-
ly exculpated Roth.
No one else testified, could testify about any document that Roth
ever received, or passed on.
Mr. Morgan. As the responsible prosecuting official in the case, am
I to understand that the case agninst Roth was dropped because you
did not have evidence sufficient to convict him ?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 995
Mr. IMoRGAN. I don't think I need difj into this, in view of the
amount of publicity that luis been ^iven, but by way of su^r^estion
on the point, the attorney, one of the attorneys who handled this case
was IMr. Hitchcock, is that correct ?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
Mr. J^IoRGAN. It has been suiijrested that Mr. Hitchcock, following
the handling of this case, became associated with a law firm in Buf-
falo, N. Y., a firm in which the uncle of Kate Mitchell, one of the sub-
jects in this case, was a partner.
I am wondering if you have any facts, Mr. McInerney, that might
enlighten us on Mr. Hitchcock's relationship with this firm in contem-
plation of his connection with the handling of this case?
Mr. McInerney. Mr. Hitchcock, Eobert Hitchcock was the first
assistant United States attorney in Buffalo, N. Y. ; I think beginning
in about 1935, he was largely responsible for the entire operation of
that office, which I think 1 placed in the record before. During the
war, he was brought down to Washington as a special prosecutor of
internal security cases.
At the time of this arrest, he was in Buffalo, having returned to the
office there, as a special assistant to the attorney general.
On June 12, 1945, at the request of General Grove, he wanted some
investigation conducted in Canada with respect to the atomic energy
program, and I, being his liaison man with Justice, and this investi-
gation being in the vicinity of Buffalo, I asked Mr. Hitchcock to meet
me in Xew York to discuss the atomic energy investigation in Canada.
It was not an investigation, it was a special matter.
And, it was at that meeting in New York, on or about June 10,
that I took occasion to ask Mr. Hitchcock if he would handle this
case. He said that he would.
At the conclusion of the case, he returned to the office in Buffalo
and was in the United States attorney's office, and continued there
until the end of 1946.
He was the outstanding Federal prosecutor in Buffalo, and at the
time had more experience as a trial lawyer than anybody else in
town.
This law "firm which you mentioned is Kenefick, Cooke, Mitchell,
Bass & Letchworth, Marine Trust Building, Buffalo, N. Y.
This firm is the largest firm in Buffalo, and represents most of the
big corporations such as Chrysler, General Motors, U. S. Steel, in
the city of Buffalo.
In December 1946, more than a year after the termination of this
case, IMr. Bass, of this law firm, came to see Mr. Hitchcock. Mr. Bass
stated that his firm, representing so many big corporations, was being
inundated with portal-to-portal suits, and they needed immediately a
Federal trial attornej^
Mr. Bass told Mr. Hitchcok that he had made inquiries in Buffalo
as to the best available man, and that it was the consensus of everyone
he spoke to that IMr, Hitchcock was the best trial attorney at Federal
court in Buffalo, and he then offered Mr. Hitchcock employment in
the firm.
]Mr. Hitchcock told Mr. Bass : No. 1, he said, "Mr. Bass, I want you
to know that I am a Democrat," knowing that the law firm was a very
stanch Republican firm. Mr. Bass said, "I know that."
996 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Hitchcock said, "I want yoii to know, secondly, that I am a
Roman Catholic." He knew that there was no Catholic in the firm.
Mr, Bass said, "I know that."
"No. 3," Mr. Hitchcock said, "I want you to know that I was involved
in the prosecution of the Amerasia case, and one of the persons
involved in that case was Kate Mitchell, who, I believe, is a grand-
daughter of Mr. Mitchell, a member of the firm."
Mr. Bass said that he did not know that.
As a result of those conferences, Mr. Hitchcock was hired and
handled portal-to-portal cases.
Mr. Hitchcock recently asked Mr. Bass whether he had ever in-
formed Mr. Mitchell about Mr. Hitchcock's connections with his
granddaughter's case, Mr. Bass stated that he could not recall that he
had, that he was not on friendly terms with his partner and that
it was unlikely that he had ever mentioned it to him.
Mr. Morgan. For the record, Mr. Mclnerney, how do you know
this ? Is this what Hitchcock told you ?
Mr. McInerney. Yes.
JNIr. Morgan. Another matter I believe that has been bruited about
in the present discussion, is that Mr. Mitchell the father of Kate
Mitchell, proceeded to New York, contacted a Colonel Hartfield,
an attorney in the firm of White & Case, and that Colonel Hartfield
in turn, by reason of his connection in the Department of Justice,
proceeded to Washington and, to put it tersely, worked a fix of this
case.
Do you know anything about such reports, and if so, can you com-
ment on them, one way or the other?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir. I have seen that report. Mr. Hartfield,
to my knowledge, and I might state for the record that to Mr. Hitch-
cock's knowledge, who was immediately in charge of the case, that
Mr. Hatfield never appeared, and never consulted or ever saw either
Mr. Hitchcock or I or Mr. Anderson, who was assisting Mr. Hitch-
cock. The only conference that I ever attended with the Attorney
General, Attorney General Clarke, Mr. Hartfield never attended.
I might say that, to my knowledge, and to Mr. Hitchcock's knowl-
edge, he never appeared at the Department in connection with this
case.
A member of the firm, Lowell Wadmond, I believe, who was a former
assistant United States attorney, in the southern district of New York,
and who has been the number one trial attorney for White & Case for
a number of years, did appear and did represent Miss Mitchell,
whether as a result of Mr. Mitchell's visit to New York, I do not know.
Mr. Morgan. In the entire case, Mr. McInerney, were you subjected
to pressures from any sources to resolve the case one way or the other ?
Mr. McInerney. No, sir. We never dealt or discussed this case
with anyone except the attorneys who were representing these people —
of record.
Mr. Morgan. The suggestion has been made here of the possibility
of White House pressure. Was there such pressure brought to bear
in the case ?
Mr. McInerney. I never received any indication of White House
pressure, or anyone saying they were calling from the White House.
There was one call, which I did not know of of my personal knowl-
STATE DEPARTiVIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 997
ed^re, and I have learned it only recently, and T was told tliat President
Truman had called an official in the DeparTment and stated that he
did not want any interference or anything to delay the presentation
of this case. He wanted this case pressed.
Mr. Morgan. As the responsible prosecuting official, Mr. Mclnerney,
is it proper to conclude from what you have said, that you had com-
plete freedom of rein in handling this case, and that anything that
was done in connection with it, was properly on your own responsi-
bility?
Mr. ]\[cTxEUNEY. Yes, sir, completely.
Mr. Morgan. I think we also might have, in view of the nature of
the inquiry, again, your specific observation in connection with pos-
sible pressure from the State Department.
Mr. McInernet. The only pressures from the State Department
were for the prosecution.
Mr. IMoRGAN. Do you recall who they were, specifically, that sug-
gested the wisdom of that ?
Mr. McInernet. Yes, sir. General Julius Holmes took a very strong
interest in this case, and followed it very closely, and he was the gen-
tleman who was disappointed about some of the people being no-billed,
and that thev only could be subjected to imprisonment for 2 years.
They conferred with us frequently, five or six times a week. I
know that during the proceedings, General Wedemeyer gave a citation
to Service, and they asked us for our permission to convey it to him,
and they consulted with us about restoring him to service, they con-
sulted us as to Avhether publishing houses could accept Roth's book
for publication, and Jaffe's and they were very scrupulous about not
doing anything which might interfere or embarrass this investigation
in any way.
I might make this one little amendment. I want the record to be
complete on this.
With regard to anyone coming in to the Department, the people
who represented Jaffe in New York was the firm of Congressman
Emanuel Celler, and he did come to see me once, in the Department,
immediately after the arrest, and he talked to me in terms which I
understood to be that Jaffe might be in a position to help the Govern-
ment in this case. 1 was left with the impression that Jalfe might
become a Government witness.
After that conference, his associate took over in the case and I
never saw Congressman Celler again.
^Iv. Morgan. Xow, this case of course has been rather celebrated
in the press, and you doubtless are as familiar with various ramifica-
tions of it, that is reports of various ramifications of it, as anyone
here, perhaps more so.
Are there any other considerations that have been expressed in the
press, one way or the other, that you would like to clear up at this
point, of any kind ?
Mr. jMcInernet. Well, I would like to say this : With respect to the
series of articles which are appearing in the Scripps-Howard news-
papers, that these articles are more or less factual, except for the con-
clusions and overtones contained in them ; and, immediately after the
three people in this case were no-billed, the author of those articles
came to Washington, Mr. Woltman, and he was very exasperated
998 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOlSr
and took the view that as a result of the no-bills, someone could be
sued for libel, as a result of newspaper articles published in this case.
The Scripps-Howard papers were subsequently sued for libel by
Mark Gayn, I believe as a result of Mr. Woltman's articles. They
came down to see me, to see if I could help them in their libel suit,
and I did help them, as far as I could.
A representative of the Scripps Howard papers came to see me
within the past month, the same gentleman who had been to see me
before, and he told me that that suit by Mark Gayn was still pending
against Scripps Howard newspapers.
Mr. Morgan. As you know, Mr. Mclnerney, this subcommittee is
charged with inquiring into the possibility of disloyalty in the State
Department. From your consideration of this case, and from your
viewpoint, is there any evidence, to your knowledge, in this case of an
effort to shield or to harbor disloyal persons in our State Department ?
Mr. McInerney. In the Amerasia case ?
Mr. Morgan. Yes ; in the Amerasia case.
Mr. McInerney. No, sir. The only two employees involved, of
course, were Larsen and Service. Larsen having pled guilty, was not
reinstated. Service, having been unanimously no-billed was rehired.
Mr, Morgan. You saw all of the evidence I assume, available in
connection with John Service ?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir. You mean — —
ISIr. Morgan. At that time.
Mr. McInerney. I, personally ?
Mr. Morgan. I mean, at the time of the prosecution, were you
cognizant and fandliar with the evidence against Mr. Service?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
Mr. ]\IoRGAN. And, on the basis of your knowledge of such evi-
dence, did you feel that prosecution of him was warranted?
Mr. McInerney. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. I believe you stated that the grand jury returned no
bills, a no bill there of 20 to 0, is that correct ?
Mr. McInerney. That is right.
Mr. Morgan. In connection with your handling of this case, after
it became apparent to you that the possibility of the motion to quash
might jeopardize the entire prosecution, was it necessary to make any
agreements with the attorneys for these defendants whereby you would
not call certain information to the attention of the court?" Anything
of that character ?
Mr. McInerney. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. I believe those are the only questions I have to ask.
Do you have any, Mr. Morris ?
Mr. Morris. I have three questions, Mr. McInerney.
I have read in the public press, Mr. J. Edgar Hoover is reported to
have stated that he had an airtight case, having presented his evidence
to the Department of Justice.
Could you connnent upon that ?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir. I believe the statement attributed to
him was "100 percent airtight case."
Mr. Morris Yes, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 999
Mr. McIxERXEY. Yes, sir.
I^Ir. INIoHius. That is right ?
Mr. McInerney. Mr. Hoover did not make any such statement.
Mr. INloRius. He made no such statement ?
Mr. IMcIxERXEY. No, sir ; and he has denied it.
Mr. Morris. Do you know the circumstances surrounding Lt. An-
drew Ixoth's leaving tlie service as a United States naval officer?
Mv. McTxERXEY. No, sir.
Mr. Morris. Could you, in your capacity as liaison with General
Grove, could you tell iis what process was undertaken when an ap-
plicant for employment in the Manhattan project came up for con-
sideration?
Mr. McIxERXEY. No, sir.
Mr. ISIoRRis. Those are my only questions.
Mr. McIxERXEY. Thank you.
Mr. MoRGAX. I guess that is about all for the day.
("VVliereupon, at 6 : 20 p. m., the subcommittee stood in recess, subject
to call of the Chair.)
68970—50 — pt. 1 64
STATE DEPAETMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
friday, may 26, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington^ D. C,
executive session
The subcommittee met, at 10 : 30 a. m., in room G-23, United States
Capitol, pursuant to notice, Senator Millard E. Tydings, chairman
of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings and McMahon.
Also present : Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the subcom-
mittee, and Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel of the subcommittee.
Senator Tydings. The subcommittee will please come to order.
We have Mr. Hitchcock, Mr. Mclnerney, and Mr. Ladd here. First
we will hear from Mr. Hitchcock. I will have to swear you first.
Mr. HrrcHcocK. All right. Senator.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT M. HITCHCOCK
Senator Tydings. Please state for the record your full name and
your present business.
Mr. Hitchcock. I am Robert M. Hitchcock. I am a lawyer, and a
member of the firm of Kenefick, Bass, Letchworth, Baldy & Phillips,
Marine Trust Building, Buffalo, N. Y.
Senator Tydings. You are in private practice now ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Are you connected with the Government in any
way now?
Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. At the time the Amerasia matter was being
pushed by the Government, I think it was 1945, wasn't it?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. You were in the United States district attorney's
office in Buffalo, were you not?
Mr. Hitchcock. I was special assistant to the Attorney General,
assigned to the Criminal Division, and had been officially since March
1, 1943.
Prior to that time I had been for a period of 8 years assistant United
States attorney in the western district of New York.
Senator Tydings. So you were in the Department of Justice at the
time the Amerasia matter came to a head ?
1001
1002 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAX. Senator, might it not be helpful to have Mr. Hitch-
cock's professional background in the record at this point?
Senator Tydings. I think so, yes. You may give it at this point, Mr.
Hitchcock.
Mr. Hitchcock. I was graduated from Georgetown University with
an A. B. degree in 1925. I was graduated from Fordham Law School
with the degree of LL. B. in 1928. I taught at Fordham University
between 192G and 1933. Was admitted to the bar in January 1929.
Practiced law in New York until tlie summer of 1933, when I and my
family moved to Dunkirk, N. Y., which is about 45 miles from
Buffalo. I practiced there and on March 4, 1935, had been appointed
and qualified and became an active United States attorney, became
active as an assistant United States attorney for the western district
of New York, where I remained continuously until March 1, 1943. At
that time I became a special assistant to the Attorney General, as-
signed to the Criminal Division, where I continued until January 24,
1947.
I then became associated with the law firm then known as Kenefick,
Bass, Letchworth & INIitchell in the Marine Trust Building at Buffalo.
On January 1, 1948, 1 was made a partner in that firm and have been
with them continuously since and am with them now, with the excep-
tion of between 2 and 3 weeks in late September and early October
1948, when I was borrowed from the firm by the Attorney General at
his personal request to do a special assignment, wliich I did.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Hitchcock, your testimony and the testimony
of all of the others in the Amerasia matter in the House hearings is
now available to us. I tried to get that testimony a month ago and
have been trying to get it ever since. AVhile they didn't seem to want
to turn it over to me, eventually it was all made public. So now we
have it and it is not my disposition to go back over again much which
has been pretty well covered because we can make the House hearings
a part of our hearings by the mere insertion in the record if we so
desire, but what I am interested in doing now is primarily this : To
ascertain from you, who was in charge as I understand it, of the prose-
cution of the defendants in the Amerasia case, after their arrest; as
to why, in your opinion, some persons were not indicted ; why, in your
opinion, the fines were advisable; and why, in your opinion, it was
not possible to prosecute individuals for the actual taking or stealing
of the documents from the State Department ; wliy, in your opinion,
it was not possible to indict and prosecute people for not only stealing
the documents, but actual handing over of said documents to A, B, or
C in the case.
They are the questions which the public seems to be interested in
more than any other detail of the case. So, with that background
showing you what my main questions will be, I would like to start
out by asking you why it was advisable to accept a fine in the case of
Jaffe and Larsen.
Mr. Hitchcock. Senator, night before last I prepared a memo-
randum, because I have been reading the newspapers, which I pre-
i:)ared from a copy of the draft of the i-eport that I liad made to the
Attorney General, I think in early 1940, at the time it was up in the
House investigation, from memory. I believe those questions are
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1003
fully answered in the memorandum, so I would like to offer it and
leave it as an official statement. ,
Senator Tydixgs. How long is it?
Mr. Hitchcock. Some twenty-odd pages.
Senator Tydixgs. "Wliat do you cover in that memorandum?
Ml-. Hitchcock. I cover in that memorandum matters, from read-
ing tlie press, which seem to affect me most directly, and roughly, there
are four matters :
1. On the press publicity and erroneous implication that evidence
was withheld from the grand jury, or grand jurors.
2. There were two which had something to say about why they were
not indicted.
o. The defendants in the case, Kate Mitchell, Mark Julian Gayn,
and John Stewart Service, something apparently sinister in the fact
there were two grand juries in the case.
4. An erroneous implication that I was directed, or ordered by some-
one in high official position to dispose of the case as to Jaffe, as to
Larsen, and as to Roth, who had been indicted by the grand jury._
5. Something sinister or at least unprofessional by implication in
the fact in January 1947 I became associated with a law firm in Buffalo,
the senior partner of which firm at that time, was the uncle of Kate
Louise Mitchell.
Senator Tyt)I*'gs. Now you have got a memorandum with you?
jNlr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. Let me see it, please.
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir. In other words, it narrates from best
1 can from memory at this time my procedure in the Amerasia case.
Senator Tydixgs. I think it would be advisable, if you don't mind
it. to read it. Senator McMahon will be here in a little while, but
Mr. Morgan and Mr. Morris are here.
Mr. Hitchcock. ]Maybe the reporter will be benefited by having a
copy.
Senator Tydixgs. Yes; he can follow it along. Now just go right
ahead.
Mr. Hitchcock. The first I heard of the Amerasia case was June 7,
194.5. the day after the FBI arrested the six defendants in New York
and Washington. I read of it in the papers. I was assigned to the
prosecution of the case about a week later by Mr. Mclnerney and was
assisted by Donald B. Anderson, an attorney in the Criminal Divi-
sion, a foi-tner FBI special agent and a former district attorney and
county judge.
Victor Woerheide. another attorney in the Criminal Division, also
was assigned to assist. The Avarrants for the arrests charged con-
spiracy to violate the Espionage Act.
The FBI, in connection with the arrest of Jaffe and Kate Mitchell
at the Amerasia offices had seized several hundred papers, many of
which were clearly the property of one or more Government agencies,
most of them of the State Dei)artment. Many others of the seized
papers later were clearl}' established to be copies of similar records.
The bulk of them were classified, as, for example, restricted, confi-
dential, secret, et cetera.
In Gayn's apartment, when he was arrested, the FBI seized 60
items, of which 22 were Federal Communications Commission's re-
ports or copies pertaining to interrogation of Japanese prisoners of
1004 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE L'OYALTY INVESTIGATION
war. About 20 were typewritten copies of State Department papers,
and 18 were cori-espcindence or papers which were wholly personal.
Copies of some of the items found in Gayn's apartment were found
in the Amerasia offices.
Senator Tydings. Where was Gayn's apartment?
Mr. Hitchcock. It was in New York. I have no present recollec-
tion of the address.
Senator Tydings. All right. Just so we identify the city.
Mr. Hitchcock. When Gayn was arrested, he made a statement
that he knew some of the material seized was not generally available
to the public.
He said he intended using it for background and no other reason.
When he was asked where he got it, he said that in some instances he
did not recall, and that in others, as a reputable newspaperman he
could not disclose the sources.
Later, after Gayn had requested permission to appear before the
second grand jury, Anderson and I interviewed him in the presence
of his attorney. He told us that he received the FCC reports from
the New York office of the Office of War Information, that the reports
had been lent to him, that many other reports previously had been
lent to him and returned by him and that he intended to return those
which were seized.
We asked him from whom he obtained the reports.
He told us from or through George Edward Taylor, deputy director
of area 3, OWI, and from Taylor's subordinate, Elizabeth Downing.
While the case was in progress, Miss Downing married and there-
after was referred to as Elizabeth Barker. I mention that because
the grand-jury record will show that, and it is the same person. Taylor
and Elizabeth Barker were interviewed and corroborated Gayn's
story. They were called before the second grand jury and again cor-
roborated his story.
Gayn testified before the second grand jury and was no-billed.
FBI surveillance showed that Gayn and Jaffe were rather close.
It further showed that between March 21, 1945, and May 31, 1945,
Gayn met with Jaffe, Roth, and Mitchell separately and together on
several occasions. On two occasions he was with Service. Service
stayed at Gayn's New York apartment one night. At most of these
meetings still others were present. Man^^ of the meetings were obvi-
ously social. These meetings proved nothing except mere association.
These reports of associations, together with the seized documents,
made up the case against Gayn. There was no evidence that Gayn
had ever received any material from any Government employee other
than Taylor and Elizabeth Downing [Barker]. Taylor testified that
he liad authority to release such documents as were lent to Gayn.
Senator Tydings. Would you stop right there ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Did he, or did he not, have such authority as far
as you were able to learn ?
Mr. Hitchcock. As far as I was able to learn, and I read only from
the grand- jury testimony, he said that he had.
Senator Tydings. Dicl he say from whom he got it ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Senator, I don't recall, but those grand-jury min-
utes I have not seen. I understand they are available and will show.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1005
Senator T\T)ixgs. At any rate, it \vonl(l appear from what you have
read what Taylor has said, he, Taylor, did have authority to release
these documents to Gayn, whether rightly given to him or not, and
that Gayn had come by them in an orthodox manner?
Mv. liiTcncocK. That was his testimony and Taylor and Gayn have
testilied that he did not come by those documents through theft or
unlawful removal.
Senator Tydings. Is it your recollection there was no counter evi-
dence that any of the documents Gayn had came from any other source
except through Taylor?
Mr. Hitchcock. There was not.
Senator Tydixgs. I see. Go ahead.
Mr. Hitchcock. Gayn was wholly unacquainted with Larsen.
Furthermore those FCC and OWI reports were somewhat generally
available to writers on newspapers and other publications.
Gayn appeared before the grand juiy in the first week of August.
He waived immunity, testified, was examined thoroughly and was
no-billed.
Now as to the case of John Stewart Service.
Senator Tydixgs. Was that unanimous, as you recall?
]\Ir. Hitchcock. No ; the vote is given later in my report, 15 to 5^
but that is covered in my report later.
Senator Tydix^gs. Yo'i mean it is covered in this later? '
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. I won't anticipate. Go ahead.
Mr. Hitchcock. I am sure it is.
Senator Tydings. If it isn't we will come back to it.
Mr. Hitchcock. Service was a State Department employee who
had spent most of his life in China. He was loaned to General Stil-
well in August 1943 and remained with General Wedemeyer, suc-
cessor to General Stilwell, until he was recalled through General
Hurley in April 1945.
Wlien he was arrested, the FBI obtained from him a written state-
ment. In it he stated that after he was assigned to the Army, he
was engaged in general political reporting, consisting mostly of inter-
views with Chinese leaders.
I might interpolate there. Service, in his statement and also in
his testimony, says, if it makes any difference, while he was assigned
to the Army he was still throughout his term on the payroll of the
State Department.
His reports, he stated, went to the commander in chief of the
United States forces in China and the United States Embassy at
Chungking. He stated that he kept a copy for himself with the full
knowledge of the embassy and Army heachiuarters.
In March 1945 he stated, he was sent to Yenan, the headquarters
of the Chinese Communists who were holding a party congress, and
made further reports, largel}' of conversations with Chinese Com-
munist leaders.
These reports, he stated, were distributed in the same fashion and
in addition a copy was brought back to the State Department. When
he left China in April 1945 he claimed he had permission from the
adjutant general at Chungking to bring back his personal files and
copies of his reports, which he kept in his own desk in the State
Department.
1006 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LNYESTIGATrON
Service stated, and I am still referring to liis statement made to
the FBI upon his arrest, that he met Jaffe for the first time on April
19, 1945, and that they were introduced by Roth. He said that he
knew Jaffe was the editor of Amerasia and assumed that Jaffe wanted
to learn the latest news from China. He took along his personal copy
of the report of a conversation with Mao Tse-tung, chairman of the
central committee of the Chinese Communists. This conversation took
place March 31, 1945, at Yenan and in it Mao Tse-tung detailed the
policies expected to be adopted by the party congress.
Jaffe showed deep interest and asked if he had any other reports,
Service stated. He explained that he regarded them as simply "repor-
torial" and not involving United States policy, or affecting United
States security, he supplied Jaffe the next day with more of his per-
sonal copies.
Jaffe said he did not have time to read the reports and asked if he
could take them to New York. Service consented, saying that he was
going to New York the next week and could pick them up then.
Service did go to New York and stayed at the Gayn apartment.
He stated that he had first met Gayn April 18, 1945, but that he had
previously had some correspondence with Gayn and that he had gone
to college with Gayn's brother.
On xipril 25, Service stated, he called at the Amerasia office and
picked up fhe reports that he had lent to JafFe on April 19 and 20.
He added that Jaffe was in Washington May 3 and that he communi-
cated with Service and said he would like to get a copy of the FCC
monitored report of a broadcast of Mao Tse-tung's recent speech at
the party congress.
Senator Tydings. That was a public document, wasn't it?
Mr. Hitchcock. T had been broadcast and that had been monitored
by the FCC.
Senator Tydings. The reason I wanted to know whether it was
public is that there might be confusion.
Mr. Hitchcock. Service said he took Jaffe to the State Department,
obtained permission, got a copy of the broadcast and gave it to Jaffe
at the State Department. Later in the day, a corrected version came
in, several copies were run off and one was given to Service. Whei^
he left his office, he said, he went to Jaffe's hotel, gave him the copy and
left.
Between April 19, 1945, and May 29, 1945, Sei'vice was observed by
special agents of the FBI to meet with Jaffe, Roth, Kate Mitchell,
Gajni, and Larsen separately and together on several occasions. At
most of these meetings still others were present, which meetings were
to all outward appearances social.
When Jaffe was arrested June 6, 1945 his brief case contained eight
ozalids [copies similar to photostats] of Service's Yenan reports which
were clearly identified as State Dei:)artment property. Before the
grand jury, Service denied any knowledge of Jaffe having these copies
and said there was no reason in the world why he [Service] would
have given them to Jaffe because he could have given Jaffe his own
personal copies.
Senator Tydings. Would you mind waiting a minute there while I
read this again ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1007
Senator Tydixgs. Now, if Service had given to Jaffe his own per-
sonal copies, would he have violated any injunction of secrecy as to
State Dei)artnient documents?
Mr. Hitchcock. To my knowledge he would have viohited no law
whatsoever or injunction the State Dej)artnient may have had with
reference to Service's ])ers()nal copy. 1 don't know. My answer to
that would be "no," which would be my personal opinion.
Senator Tydings. Let me see.
Mr. Hitchcock. ISIr. ]McInerney just reminded me, sir, and which
isn't covered in my memorandum, that Service also testified he didn't
recall whether this was in the statement to the FBI, that he had lec-
tured, after his return from China on Aj)ril 18, 1945, on these very
Yenan reports, at a pul)lic lecture, with the permission of a superior
in the State Department. The lecture was in New York. I do not
recall under whose auspices.
Senator Tydixgs. "What I am really trying to get at is this: That
if these were State Department documents, first of all, they had no
business being in Jaffe's hands.
Mr. Hitchcock. These clearly were State Department documents.
Tliey were not Service's. I am talking about these eight ozalids in
Jaffe's brief case.
Senator Tydixgs. That is what I am talking about. I am talking
about those, the documents themselves. According to what vou have
said Service said he would have given his own personal copies if he
desired to. It would make it appear that these particular eight docu-
ments, while they were illegally, or let us say, improperly in Jaffe's
hands, really weren't the kind of documents that were in the classified
category to any large extent.
^Ir. Hitchcock. I don't remember how those documents were classi-
fied, but it would appear that Service had given them to Jaffe and,
I think, when we turn the page we will have that complete.
Senator Tydix'Gs. "What I am getting at is it would have confused
most anybody if Service said "I could have given those to Jaffe, and
that would be all right" but the fact he got it through the State De-
partment doesn't make it all right?
Mr. Hitchcock. I think that is true.
Senator Tydixgs. That is true, but the point is, even if he did that
improperly, would it have been all right to have gotten permission
to give them to Jaffe without violating any secrets of our Govern-
ment or violating any classification?
Mr. Hitchcock. "\Vell, I don't have those Yenan reports before me,
how they were classified or what. M}- recollection is they were repor-
torial conversations he had with various Communist leaders while he
was spending some months in Yenan.
Senator Tydixgs. In the nature of things, I think at some periods
during the war we classified documents as "secret," "confidential,"
"to}) secret,'' and so on, and you find there were a lot of things that
could be published on the front page of all the newspapers in the
country.
Mr. Hitchcock. I may say in connection with that, that Service,
according to the statements, and I have never heard anything to the
contrary, had discussed the contents of these reports publicly where
he apparently- — or a meeting had been arranged with some oiElicial in
1008 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USIVESTIGATION
the State Department, but the grand jury minutes will show the
precise detail.
Senator Tydings. My point is a great many things classified as
"secret" and "top secret" ought not to be released, but during the war
the impulse is to stamp those things on nearly everything.
Mr. Hitchcock. Service said :
If I wanted to give Jaffe these reports, why in the world would I have taken
those officially stamped or showing on the face that they were the property of
the State Department?
Senator Tydings. He could have given copies of his own, or handed
the original copies over. Go ahead now.
Go ahead now.
Mr. Hitchcock. Furthermore, Larsen subsequently admitted that
he had obtained the ozalids from the State Department and delivered
them to Jaffe. The personal copies which Service admitted lending
to Jaffe never were part of the State Department files.
Reports made to the Department of Justice showed that Service's
promotion and efliciency ratings were way above the average.
With the exception of the incidents on April 19 and 20, we had no
evidence that Service had any dealings, other than social, with any
of tlie subjects in the case.
When Service was arrested, not a thing was discovered in his
apartment.
Service signed a waiver of immunit}^ and testified before the second
grand jury early in August, and he was no-billed unanimously.
Now as to the case of Miss Mitchell.
Senator Tydings. Let me interpolate there again because the House
hearings will show a lot of this, but in order to give this a little
more complete context, when Service was arrested, were there any
other documents found in his apartment other than the copies he was
permitted to have?
Mr. Hitchcock. They weren't even there. There was nothing
found in his apartment. I may have forgotten that he recited he had
his desk in the State Department and there were personal copies of
these reports. I am pretty sure that is true. They were found there.
I believe the agents searched his desk in the State Department and
found these personal copies.
Senator Tydings. I think that is true, and he did have these pei
sonal copies which he was entitled to keep.
jNIr. Hitchcock. That was my understanding.
Senator Tydings. Let me ask you this : Was there any evidence
gathered by the FBI that came to your knowledge that showed that
Service was connected in any manner, shape, or form with the taking
or stealing of documents from the State Department other than we
have had described here in your memorandum?
Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir; other than the clearly identified eight
State Department ozalid copies which were found in Jaffe's brief case
which I assumed, up until the time Larsen had admitted giving them
to Jaife, might well have come from Service.
Senator Tydings. Was he ever detected passing any document to
anybodv connected with this case or anybody on the outside?
Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir ; not to the very best of my recollection.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1009
Senator Tydings. How much surveillance was put on Service? We
will come to that, jMr. Ladd. Go ahead now. You are on Kate
Mitchell.
Mr. Hitchcock. When Kate Mitchell was arrested on June 6 at the
Amerasia oflices, some 81 items were taken from her desk. More than
half of these were correspondence and papers that were wholly per-
sonal. Ten of the others apparently emanated from the FCC.
Senator T^t)ixgs. The Federal Communications Commission?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir. The FBI reported that no attempt was
made to locate their origin as the information contained in them was
in the public domain.
Senator Tydinos. There was no secret?
Mr. Hitchcock. That is exactly it.
Senator Tydings. The public domain means they are not secret? I
doirt know what other interpretation you can put on it.
Mr. Hitchcock. Nor do I.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Hitchcock. Two items were from the OWT. One of these was
a clipping about the Shodo Society. No attempt was made to locate
its origin. The other was a copy of War Department pamphlet 31-2,
entitled "Civil Affairs Handbook — Public Health in the Japanese
Empire November 1944."
There was one item from the State Department. This was a paper
dated October 2*2, 1944, relating to Australian views on Pacific Islands.
Its contents indicated that Curtin, then Australian Prime Minister,
was to insist on Australian rather than British control of the islands
after the war.
In the filing cabinets in her office — to which Jaffe had the keys —
there were many items of Government origin. These were indexed
in about 18 separate folders. The captions were in Kate Mitchell's
handwriting or printing. Some of these were :
''Chinese Claims in Burma; Japanese Who's Who (Military and
Diplomatic) ; War Prisoners' Comments; Kuomintang-Communist
Relations; Chinese Communist Party; Sinkiang (Sino-Soviet Rel.) ;
Interviews with Returned Visitors to China and Japan."
In addition to the presence of Kate Mitchell at places where other
subjects were present, as already mentioned in connection with Gayn
and Service, she was with Jaffe on manj^ occasions, both at the Amer-
asia offices and at their respective homes.
One of these was of significance. On May 5, 1945, Kate Mitchell
went by automobile with Jaffe to Mrs. Blumenthal's home in the
Bronx. Jaffe went in alone. He came out about a quarter hour later
with a large envelope. Jaffe let Miss INIitchell out near the Amerasia
offices and she went into the building with the envelope. Mrs. Blu-
menthal testified before the grand jury that she had lyped for Jaffe
copies of Government documents.
When ]\[iss Mitchell was arrested, she admitted that she had, or
could have had, access to the various files and cabinets in the Amer-
asia offices where Government documents were found Wlien arrested,
she initialed some documents and said that she knew the source of
them but refused to divulge it. Later she told us and the grand jury
that it was her understanding that Jaffe obtained them from Larsen.
1010 STATE DiEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTVESTIGATION
Tliere was no evidence that slie ever received a single document
from any Government employee or from Gayn. She was not in Wash-
ington during 1945 at any time prior to her arrest.
She signed a waiver of immunity, testified before the grand jury,
was thoroughly examined and she was no-billed.
Now as to the case of Roth.
Wlien the arrests were made in the Amerasia offices on June 6 the
FBI agents found a copy made on Roth's typewritter of a -letter dated
March 3, 1943.
The letter was from William Phillips on a letterhead which read:
"Office of the Personal Representative of the President of the United
States, New Delhi, India." It was addressed to the Secretary of
State and it enclosed a copy of a letter of the same date to President
Roosevelt. The subject was the conflicting British and Indian points
of view and the possibility of Indian freedom after the war, and it
suggested a solution of the then present impasse as "a step in further-
ing the ideals of the Atlantic Charter."
The agents also found two letters in Roth's handwriting on plain
stationery. The dateline of one was "American Mission, New Delhi,
January 21, 1944." This letter was addressed to the Secretary of
State and was signed "Merrell." It contained a summary of political
comment in the Indian press for the week ended January 15, 1944.
The other letter had an identical source and addressee. It was dated
March 14, 1944, and contained reports on the vote of the Central
Legislative Assembly on March 13, 1944, passing a motion, 50 to 48,
calling for a reduction in the budget.
They also found in Roth's handwriting, on Hotel Statler stationery,
a copy of a letter bearing the dateline, "American Mission, New
Delhi,' February 4, 1944."
It was addressed to the Secretary of State and was signed "Merrell.'^
It referred to a resolution passed by an informal conference of con-
gress members of the Madras legislature and made comments on it.
They also found two sheets of plain stationery in Roth's hand-
writing with the dateline "Bombay, August 11, 1944, subject: Con-
gress Socialist Reaction to Mr. Gandhi's Recent Political Moves."
It was signed "George D. Lamont, American Consul."
In addition to associations and meetings previously mentioned, there
were some meetings in Washington between Roth and Jaffe, between
Roth and Larsen and between Roth, Jaffe and Larsen. Two of these
had some significance. I want to make a change there. One of
th^m had some significance.
Senator Tydings. One of them instead of two of them. Is that
right?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.
On March 21, 1945, Jaffe and Roth drove to a parking lot at the
Library of Congress in Roth's car. They remained there about 25
minutes, talking and examining papers. They then went into the
Library of Congress. After a few minutes, they came out, got back
in Roth's car and drove to Roth's home in Arlington, Va.
In addition. Roth introduced both Service and Larsen to Jaffe.
The items of documentary evidence, as I have mentioned, were not
of recent date, were innocuous in content, and there was no evidence
as to who first secured copies from the State Dei^artment or where
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA^ESTIGATION 1011
Roth irot thoni. The ones on Hotel Statler stationery indicated that
Roth may have obtained them from Jatl'e, rather than Jatfe from Roth,
Moreover, Roth never worked at the State Department and had no
access to the files of the State Department.
In addition. Roth published a book, Dilemma in Japan, in the
summer of 1045 and when he was arrested, he said it was the manu-
script of that book that he and Jaffe had at the Library of Congress.
If I may interjiolate there, it just occurs to me now, I believe, and
this is to the best of my recollection, that the agents also interviewed
Service's wife very shortly after or at the time of Service's arrest,
and they asked her anything she knew about Jaffe and Roth re-
viewing manuscripts or anything of that kind and my recollection
is she said that it wasn't done, that they didn't do it.
Senator Tydings. That they did not do it?
Mr. Hitchcock. That they did not do it.
Senator Ttdixgs. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Hitchcock. In addition, Roth was never observed giving or
receiving from any of the subjects in the case any material of any
kind.
Both Larsen and Roth were at one time employed in the Office of
Naval Intelligence. Larsen transferred to the State Department Au-
gust 31, 1944. Not a single ONI document or copy after that date
was recovered from any of the subjects. Approximately 50 ONI
source items were recovered at the Amerasia offices. Larsen had more
than 100 such items in his apartment when he was arrested.
Senator Tydings. It would appear from these dates that from the
time Larsen left the ONI, the Naval Intelligence, that documents of
the Naval Intelligence were not acquired or obtained by anybody
associated with Jaffe?
Mr. Hitchcock. It would so appear.
Senator Tydixgs. The time Larsen was in ONI, or during the time
he was in ONI, documents were found in Jaffe's possession during the
tenure of Larsen with ONI?
Mr. Hitchcock. Bearing dates during the tenure.
Senator Tydings. That is a very significant thing. How long did
Roth stay iii Naval Intelligence after Larsen left?
Mr. Hitchcock. I don't know. He certainly was there up until
June 6, 1945.
Mr. McInkrney. They could obtain it for the day he was arrested.
Senator Tydings. At least he had about 10 months after that when
no documents showed up.
All right. Go on.
Mr. HrrcHcocK. After Jaffe and Larsen entered their pleas, I in-
terviewed them both in the hope of making a case with which we
could go to trial against Roth.
Larsen, who manifested considerable animosity toward Roth and
manifested no desire to protect him, could tell us not one thing detri-
mental to Roth tliat would assist us in prosecuting. Jaffe completely
exonerated Roth. Jaffe was a close friend of Roth and may well have
lied to me. However, the point is that we got nothing from either
Jaffe or Larsen.
We nol-prossed the indictment as to Roth on February 15, 1946.
We had to do something then because Roth's attornevs had secured
1012 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INl'ESTIGATION
an order requiring us to supply a bill of particulars against Roth,
and we were ordered to proceed to trial.
It was my opinion then and it is my opinion now that we had no
case against Roth with which Ave could have gone to trial with the
slightest likelihood of success.
On January 23, 1946, I wrote the FBI, reviewing all the evidence
against Roth and stating that it was the opinion of all the attorneys
who had worked on the case that the evidence was insufficient to war-
rant a trial and that a nolle prosequi should be entered. I asked their
opinion as to the proposed disposition. On January 28, the FBI re-
plied in substance that it had no recommendation and, entirely prop
erly, assigning as tlie reason that it was entirely within the province
of the Department of Justice to make such decisions.
Roth did not appear before the grand jury. The grand jury voted
13 to 7 to indict him. Twelve votes are necessary to indict.
Senator Tydings. Wliy would they indict him with no evidence
that he had taken any of the papers or gotten any of the papers or
found any of the papers ?
Mr. Hitchcock. The evidence before the grand jury, sir, was ex-
actly as I have outlined it ; that Service was very close personally with
Jaffe ; that Service had met with some of these defendants with some
degree of frequency ; that there were the papers in Jaffe's office, such
as they were.
Senator Ttdings. One of them on his typewriter ?
Mr. Hitchcock. One of them <m Roth's typewriter, and the other
four or five in his handwriting. Those copies were copies of papers
that the FBI traced to papers that were filed and they were the
property of the State Department.
I might add that Roth had made no exj^lanation of anything, and
that was what the grand jury by a vote of 13 to 7 apparently concluded
was a prima facie case.
Senator Tydixgs. They felt that he was in it, and you felt perhaps
he was in it too, but you could not get the amount of evidence that
would convict. Is that correct ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, I think that is correct, sir, but I have been
reminded that later when I talked with Jaffe, I asked Jaffe about this
Hotel Statler and handwritten copies of this Roth material that was
found in Roth's office, and I took a written statement from Jaffe that
covered that.
Jaffe told me that he, Jaffe, had been given those papers by a Hindu
or Indian by the name of Rahum in Washington, and that while Roth
was with Jaffe in the Hotel Statler he wanted to make copies of those
so he could return the ones that this Rahum had given him, Jaffe, who
wanted them back promptly, so he took Roth to help him copy them.
A nyhow, that was his explanation.
I am also reminded, and it had not occurred to me, that the FBI re-
ports showed that Rahum was a known contact of Jaffe.
Senator Ttdings. It showed there was authenticity to the story?
Mr. Hitchcock. Well, I would never believe Jaffe, Senator Tydings.
What I am telling you is what he told me.
Senator Tydings. I thought you said the FBI had established the
fact Rahum was a contact of Jaffe ?
Mr. Hitchcock. I have just been reminded of tliat.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IlSrV'ESTIGATION 1013
Senator Ttdtxgs. If that is true, that would give some authenticity
throuo-h the FBI to Roth's story?
]Mr. Hitchcock. I have never made any conclusion at all.
Senator Tydings. It would be a guess.
Mr. ISIcIxERXET. ISlay I put a sentence in here?
Senator Tydings. Yes.
Mr. McInerney. The FBI saw Rahum was contacting Jaffe, visit-
ing him at the Statler Hotel, and was reported to be carrying secret
material for Jaffe when he left the country.
Senator Tydixgs. Now let's see. They had one more than enough
to indict?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes.
Senator Tydings. Did you have occasion to take up with the FBI
before the question of whether it was advisable to prosecute where
prosecution did not seem advisable on any other cases?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, I have done it informally in many cases.
Senator Tydings. You say you have a difficult case ?
Mr. Hitchcock. No, I have never taken it up with an office of the
FBI in that way, sir, but with the special agents who have worked on
a case with me, and the cases where the special agent in charge of the
prosecution, or the principal agent in charge. Obviously, I would
discuss it. I would say "Here is what we have, and what do you
think?"
Senator Tydings, Would they always give you a perfectly frank
answer ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Off the record, they would.
Senator Tydings. Oh, they would give you an answer off the rec-
ord, but for reasons of policy they would not commit themselves.
All right, go ahead.
Mr. Hitchcock. I don't like the word "commit," they never did do
that. It just wasn't their practice to do it.
Senator Tydings. They would say, "Our mission is to investigate and
we are not concerned primaril}^ with the prosecution directly and,
therefore, we would rather not express an opinion and won't pass ai>
opinion." That will be your decision, and what you say off the rec-
ord, "Do yoii think we could make the case stick?" — sometimes you
can get an answer from them but it is not an official answer.
Mr. Hitchcock. You can get helpful opinions from them. The
point is one of complete understanding and cooperation. I would
not want to dismiss or nolle a case from any agency that is presenting
it without first laying the cards on the table, and without saying "It
doesn't look like we have enough. It doesn't look like we can succeed."
Senator Tydings. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Hitchcock. The proceeding before the grand jury disclosed that
many documents were declassified for the purpose of releasing the
information, although the documents on their face did not show that
they had been declassified.
In many instances no record was kept as to what documents had been
declassified. One Government officer testified that ad hoc declassi-
fications were made. Many of these documents had wide circula-
tion. By that I mean that many duplicates were made — in one in-
stance I recall .jOO — and distributed to various agencies.
Senator Tydings. So they would still bear the mark "classified," al-
though they had been released to the public at the same time?
1014 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Hitchcock. That is the time he was before the grand jury.
Senator Tydings. I think we all know that is so, but I don't know
whether it was so in these cases, but it is the policy sometimes.
Mr. Hitchcock. Well, the precise testimony on that I, of course,
Senator, don't recall, but the substance of it is as I have stated.
Senator Tydings. Well, I think you have covered it. Go ahead.
Mr. Hitchcock. In this connection we were unable to determine
in many instances from just what agency the seized document had
been taken and in some instances it was not possible to determine
whether or not any copies were missing from agencies to which copies
had been routed.
Testimony before the grand jury showed that classifications were
not standardized. Usually the writer in a foreign country made the
classification. In part, this was governed by his desire to have the
matter transmitted, for example, by wire or plane, because top classi-
fication had precedence.
Apart from the records of the OXI and the State Department,
where La] sen and Roth were employed, we were at a complete loss to
ascribe to any of the subjects arrested the removal of records from
the Offict of Strategic Services, the Military Intelligence Division,
or the Bureau of Economic Warfare, for example.
Except, it occurs to me to say this : My recollection is that the great
majority, and by that I mean practically all of these documents that
were seized, that is, not copies of documents, but the documents them-
selves, eithei' showed on their face that they had been routed, that is,
those which did not emanate from the State Department, had been
routed to the State Department, and copies of them were perhaps
copies that had been routed to the State Department.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. Hitchcock. Several hundred documents were recovered in the
Amerasia offices and Larsen's apartment when Jaffe and Larsen were
arrested. Part of them showed clearly that they were the property
of various Government agencies. Part clearly were established as
being copies of documents originating in various Government agen-
cies. Most of them were from the State Department. Some of those
seized at the Amerasia offices had notations in Larsen's handwriting.
Some bore his fingerprints.
I never had the slightest doubt that if we could use these documents
and copies in evidence at a trial, we had a better than good case
against Jaffe and Larsen.
The New York defendants, Kate Mitchell, Jaffe, and Gayn, after
their arrest demanded hearings before a United States Commissioner,
and by law they were entitled to them.
May I interpolate here and say also that the Washington defend-
ants as well demanded hearings before a United States Commissioner,
and may I also interpolate there and say that I do not recall the exact
date I started on this case. It was at least a week after June 6,
and I would say the date was either the 13, 14, or 15 of June. We
started presenting it to the grand jury on June 21, 1945.
We did not want to present our evidence at that time in a public
hearing because the tremendous work of tracing those documents
back to their sources had by no means been completed, because of our
disappointment that incriminating statements had not been made by
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1015
the det'eiuliiiits wlien they were arrested, and because we did not want
to show how little or liow much we hacl against any defendant.
To avoid preliniinarv hearings we decided to i)resent what we had
t o a grand j urv just as quicklv as possible. This was done, as I recall, on
June 21. 11)45'.
About that time the attorneys representing the various defendants
connnunicated with us and asked for a conference. The matter was
discussed by ]\Ir. Clark. Mr. Mclnerney, and myself, and we mutually
agreed that they should have the opportunity of conferrinc^ with us.
Mr. Clark at that time was the Assistant Attorney General in
charge of the Criminal Division, the post Mr. Mclnerney now holds,
and h was right during this time that he became Attorney General,
and I believe the date was June 30, 1945.
I have never known an instance where such a request was made by
re})utable attorneys in or out of Government service and was denied.
The conferenceVas arranged for June 27, 1945, and Mr. Mclnerney
has refreshed my recollection tluit that was the correct date, and it is,
as I recall. The attorneys representing the defendants were there.
The Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division,
Mr. Clark, Mr. Mclnerney, Mr. Woerheide, and I were present.
The defense attorneys made the claim that their clients had done
nothing more than was the general practice, in that magazines, news-
]^apers, radio commentators, and columnists were constantly obtaining
information from people in vari(»as Government agencies and that,
this being so, if any agency was going to put a stop to the practice,
there should be some warning short of prosecution.
In this connection they argued that their clients were being dis-
criminated against, in fact they claimed that their clients were being
persecuted because they disagreed with the State Department policy
relative to the Far East, particularly China.
The claim was made that these defendants had done no more than
many reputable writers were doing and had been doing in the past.
They asserted that a great injn>tice had been done to their clients
by arrest and the Nation-wide publicity attendant on the arrests.
They argued that a further great injustice would be done if indict-
ments were i^eturned upon which convictions could not be obtained.
The defense attorneys insisted that the information in many of the
seized documents already had been published in whole or in part in
m.any publications.
They pleaded with ns to look into the matter further and, in con-
nection with their claim of the innocence of their clients, they re-
minded us of our obligation to protect the innocent as well as to punish
the guilty.
It was my recollection night before last in Buffalo when I prepared
ihis that the attorneys for five of the defendants were at the June 27
conference. I checked that with Mr. Mclnerney yesterday, and I find
that mv recollection was erroneous, that the attorneys at that June
27 conference were attorneys representing Jaffe, Kate Mitchell, and
Gayn.
The suggestion was made that if the grand jury then considering
the case voted to indict any or all of the defendants, a sealed indict-
ment might be reported, which v.ould mean that there would be no
immediate publicity about the indictment. Attorneys representing
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 65
1016 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
some defendants strenuously objected to this on the ground that even
a sealed indictment would have to be opened sometime.
In addition, one of the attorneys stated that he wanted to request
that the grand jury permit his client to waive immunity and testify.
Such requests are invariably granted, for it gives the prosecutor an
opportunity to thoroughly question a defendant under oath without
defense counsel being present and therefore without objections to
questions. This procedure has at times resulted in making a strong
case of a weak one.
The grand jury considering the case was due to terminate its work
July 2, and Mr. Clark, Mr. Mclnerney, and I discussed the matter
in full detail and mutually, without any disagreement, arrived at
the conclusion that every defendant, through his attorney, should
be advised that if he so desired he would be permitted to testify before
tlie grand jury on signing a waiver of immunity.
We further mutually agreed and without any disagreement arrived
at the conclusion that we would either wait until the latter part of
July, when the next grand jury would be in session, or would obtain
an order extending the life of the grand jury then in session another
month or 6 weeks, and that we would leave it to the grand jury as to
which it preferred. This was done, and the case was withdrawi;i
from the grand jury.
In other words, the grand jury didn't want their time extended.
They wanted to complete their work.
Senator Tydings, my understanding is that the grand juries — I have
been told that the grand juries sit for a period of 3 months here in
tlie District. Whether that is so, I don't Iniow. I never knew of it.
These people had just completed serving their 3 months. It was in-
sufferably hot here in Washington. Many of them had made arrange-
ments for vacations, and they had been away from business and didn't
want to be held over this intervenmg time.
Kate Mitchell's — excuse me. That is the wrong paragraph.
In connection with this conference of June 27, we obtained the assur-
ance of the defense attorneys they would not insist on preliminary
hearings and would produce their clients, if they decided to have
them appear before the grand jury, for examination by us at the De-
partment of Justice before their grand- jury appearance.
Senator Tydings. Hold that a moment.
Mr. Hitchcock, I want to hold that, too. ]\Iay I say this was our
primary reason for getting this case to the grand jury.
Senator TydincxS. You mean by preliminary hearings, hearings be-
fore the commissioner?
Mr. Hitchcock. Before a United States commissioner. That was
our primary purpose, to avoid this, to get it to the grand jury as quickly
as we did, because, once the grand jury had acted, the United States
commissioner lost jurisdiction and we would not have to go to a pub-
lic hearing, and that problem was avoided by the attorneys agreeing
that they would adjourn from time to time these preliminary hearings
they demanded and give us a chance to proceed more leisurely.
Kate Mitchell's attorneys formally rec{uested that she be permitted
to go before the grand jury and agreed that she would sign a waiver
of immunity. We notified every other attorney that such a request
had been made by one of the defendants and that if, under the same
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IlSrV'ESTIGATION 1017
conditions, their clients wanted to waive immnnity and testify before
the grand jury, they would have the same opportunity.
In addition to Kate Mitchell's request, such a request was made in
behalf of Gayn, Service, and Jaffe. As to Larsen and Eoth, one of
them declined and the other did not reply. Which was which I don't
remember.
Jatfe's attorney later withdrew his request.
Senator Ttdings. You mean Jaffe asked to go before the grand
jury?
Mr. Hitchcock. Through his attorney he did.
Senator Ttdings. And Service ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes.
Senator Tydingss And Gayn ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes.
Senator Tydings. And Kate Mitchell?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes.
Senator Tydings. And Larsen or Roth, one of the two, did not
reply ?
Mr. Hitchcock. They either replied or declined.
Senator Tydings. Did Jaffe actually go before the grand jury and
waive immunity?
Mr. Hitchcock. Jaffe's attorney later withdrew his request.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. Hitchcock. Later in July Mr. Anderson and I interviewed, at
the Department of Justice, Gayn, Kate Mitchell, and Service. They
were interviewed separately and on more than one occasion, always
in the presence of their counsel.
The second grand jury heard testimony for approximately 1 week.
As I recall, it started on July 30 or 31 and continued until August 8.
Every bit of evidence we had, including every document seized,
was submitted to that grand jury. We presented all that was pre-
sented on the one day to the first grand jury and, in addition, all that
had been developed since that day.
Gayn was indicted by a vote of 13 to 7. Jaffe and Larsen were
indicted by 14 to 6.
If I might interpolate, yesterday, because my memory was not
up to date on this, I asked ]Mr. Mclnerney if he would ascertain what
witnesses appeared before the grand jury on eacli occasion. In other
Mords, I wanted to completely verify my recollection that we presented
everything to the second grand jury that we presented to the first grand
jury, plus; and ]\fr. ]\lclnerney obtained that information, and I am
Avholly correct on that.
Senator Tydings. Let us pause a moment. Did you have your FBI
agents go before the grand jury ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Have you any recollection offliand about how
many went before the grand jury?
Mr. Hitchcock. I have the exact number, sir, because Mr. Mc-
lnerney obtained that information for me.
Senator Tydings. I would like to have that.
Mr. Hitchcock. I have a carbon copy of the list, sir, as given to me
by Mr. Mclnerney yesterday. I am positive that is correct.
Senator Tydings. It looks like some 35 or 40.
1018 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. McInernet. Twenty-eight.
Ssnator Tydings. Twenty-eight agents?
Mr. McInerxet. No, sir; 28 witnesses, counting, or inchiding, the
3 defendants.
Senator Tydings. How many FBI agents?
Mr. McInerney. I can count them. They are all on the first page.
Senator Tydings. Seventeen FBI agents appeared before the grand
jury in addition to a number of Government witnesses, such as those
from OWI and other agencies of the Government.
Now, after all of the evidence that had been assembled in those
3 months of surveillance by this force all at one time, 17 men, did it
include everything, evidence as to the actual stealing or taking and
passing of the documents or any other matter directly or indirectly
affecting this whole matter? ^Vas it brought before this grand jury
Avithout anything being held back ? Is that it ?
Mr. Hitchcock. The answer is an unqualified "Yes."
Mr. Morgan. You mean the second grand jury ?
Mr. Hitchcock. I mean the second one and the first one insofar
as we had in on the first occasion. Other things developed, as I will
show in a minute, resulting in the calling of additional witnesses
at the second grand jury.
Senator Tydings. I want to ask you a question that I intended to
ask Mr. Ladd, but I will ask it of you.
Did the FBI go into the State Department and observe what went
on there in reference to these persons, or did it just keep this apart-
ment and business place under surveillance?
Could you answer that, Mr. Hitchcock ?
Mr. Hitchcock. From recollection ?
Senator Tydings. Off the record.
(Thereupon an off-the-record discussion ensued at the conclusion
of which the proceedings were resumed as follows : )
Senator Tydings. On the record. Then I would assume whatever
individual evidence from surveillance of the employees themselves in
the State Department and other Government agencies that the FBI
was likewise insofar as it was pertinent and useful appeared before
the second gTand jury?
Mr. Hitchcock. My recollection is with respect to this surveillance,
which for the record I liave just been reminded, was purely negative
evidence and was not submitted to the grand jury.
Senator Tydings. There was no evidence they had taken the docu-
ments ?
Mr. Morgan. With your approval, I would like to suggest we spread
this on the record.
Senator Tydings. Oh, yes; put it in the record at this point, Mr.
Reporter.
(The list of witnesses referred to follows :)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1019
I'nitcd States v. Jaffe ct al. — Orand-jury ti-itnesses and dates of testimony
Flovd T>. Jones (FBI)
Robert A. CoUier (FBI)
Harold Glenn Brack (FBI)
William A. Klow (FBI)
Leo I. PrO'si'^e (FBI)
Robert William Brownell (FBI)
Robert E. Boes (FBI)
Richard J. Gallasrher (FBI)
Earle Uusro Winterowd (FBI)
Commander Snowder Morris Hunt (ONI).
Oscar J. Keen (FBI)
Georae Edward Allen (FBI)
Burton R. Kirby (State)
Augustus Sabin Chase (State)
John Lewis Ames (FBI)
William D. Dunne (FBI)
James C. Cadigan (FBI laboratory).
Mrs. Annette Blumenthil
Suzanne Lobenstine (OWI)
Dorothy Foote Lewis (OWI)
Owen Bernard Chanev (FBI)
Merle C. Wilson (FBI laboratory)..
Kate Louise Mitchell.
Mark Julius Cayn
John Stewart Service.
George Edward Taylor (OWI).__
John Stewart Service (continued).
Elizabeth Coit Baker (OWI)_
Page of testimony
June 21
2
13
15
16
20
28
27
29
30
35
44
46
59
68
79
94
ICl
July 30
3
15
17
20
26
29
32
35
38
45
56
60
76
84
Juhj SI
98
115
145
136
121
129
133
157
Aug. 1
168
239
Aug. S
408
Aug. 6
428
465
Aug. 7
498
]\rr. Hitchcock. I wish to say this, Senator, so that it will be un-
qualifiedly clear, in case it isn't. There was no witness who appeared
before the first grand jury who was not called before the second grand
jury.
Senator Tydixgs. There were some before the second that were not
called before the first because you didn't have them available or had
not developed the case far enough to utilize them?
Mr, Hitchcock. That is correct, and you have the list.
Senator Tydings. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Hitchcock. The House Judiciary Subcommittee report in 1946
stated:
Tho cases were ably presented before tbe grand jury, but the net result of
months of hard work was indictment of only 3 of the 6 accused, and in no
case was the Government able to muster more than 14 of the 20 votes of the
grand jurors.
Between March and June 6 the investigators had made several
entries, not during office hours, in the offices of Amerasia. These,
of course, were without the permission and without the knowledge of
JafFe and Kate Mitchell.
I am getting, sir, to the point of the disposition of the cases as to
Larsen and Jaffe.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. Hitchcock. The investigators had also entered the apartment
of Larsen, and during the same period surveillance of office and home
telephones was maintained.
1020 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
May I interpolate a matter with respect to which my recollection
was refreshed yesterday? Larsen, shortly prior to his arrest, I think
a matter of days, had moved from one apartment to another.
Senator Tydings, In the same building '?
Mr. Hitchcock. I am advised; yes; and I want to say here to be
perfectly correct that the entry into the apartment of Larsen that
had been made between March and June 6 was made in the apartment
from which he moved.
Senator Ttdings. Not the new one ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Not in the one where the records or documents
were seized when he was arrested.
Senator Tydings. Did he use the same furniture in the second
apartment that he had used in the first ?
Mr. Hitchcock. I don't know. I assume so, sir.
Senator Tydings. What I am thinkinp; about is, he probably had
a place in which he kept the documents which he had in his apartment.
Therefore, I would assume, wlien he moved, when the move took place,
maybe he had a cabinet or some piece of furniture that he move there
to the second apartment with the documents?
Mr. Hitchcock. The precise location I don't know.
Mr. McInerney. According to his own statement the document had
been kept in the same receptacle.
Senator Tydings. That is what I would assume. He would have
been going through the hall carrying it and the agent who was watch-
ing the place could have seen him carrying the documents in his arms,
but I would assume the piece of furniture in which the documents were
kept was moved. Otherwise, the FBI would have had a little stronger
case against him if they had seen him carry the documents?
Mr. McInerney. I would say no.
Senator Tydings. I don't mean from the standpoint of the trial.
I mean from the standpoint of the evidence.
Mr. Hitchcock. He was fully qualified to have documents in his
home.
Senator Tydings. Was he ?
Mr. Hitchcock. He had a gold badge at the State Department.
Senator Tydings. But anybody taking those out, even with a gold
badge, don't they have to get a clearance?
Mr. Hitchcock. That depends.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Hitchcock. Nothing is clearer under Federal law than that
evidence secured as a result of illegal searches will be suppressed upon
the application of those whose constitutional right to the privacy of
their homes, their persons, and their effects has been violated.
Senator Tydings. That is under the fifth amendment?
Mr. Hitchcock. I think it is the fourth.
Senator Tydings. The fourth. I think it is the fourth. Go ohead.
Mr. Hitchcock. Moreover, evidence obtained as the result of leads
secured in this manner will be suppressed.
That was our situation with respect to the searches made prior to
June 6 in Larsen's home and the Amerasia offices.
We hoped that no defendant would learn of these activities.
This is said with no criticism whatsoever of the FBI intended.
Between March and June of 1945 this Nation was at war, and it seems
to me that no reasonable person could have anything but praise for
STATE de'part:^ient employee loyalty investigation 1021
the FBI for utilizing this method to secure proof in a case where there
was any basis for believing that the national security was involved.
However, the fact remains that under our Federal laws, evidence
illegally obtained, even if obtained through violation of the constitu-
tional rights of the most degraded criminal, cannot be used.
We were working every da}'^ to get the case ready for trial and it was
not an easy case to prepare. As time passed, our hope increased that
Larsen and Jaffe would not ascertain the source of our evidence.
On Friday, September 28, 1945, we were served with motion papers
returnable in court a few days later, made in behalf of Larsen. There
were several motions, the principal one of which was to suppress the
use of evidence of the documents seized from Lareen on June 6.
The motions were supported by a lengthy affidavit from Larsen from
which it appeared that his building superintendent had told him that
he had given FBI agents access to Larsen's apartment in Larsen's
absence prior to June 6.
Again I want to interpolate and say I am referring to the apartment
not where he was arrested and the documents seized, but the one from
which he moved several days earlier.
Senator Tydixgs. AVliat do you call that, a motion to quash or
suppress ?
Mr. Hitchcock. The principle of the motion was to suppress.
Other motions were made which were wholly subordinate to this, just
to dismiss the indictment.
-Mr. Morgan. Called a motion to quash ?
Senator Ttdings. That is what we would call it in Maryland, but I
hear everybody around here calling it a motion to suppress.
jSlr. Morgan. I should point out in various documents, in one in-
stance we have a motion to suppress evidence and in another a
Senator Tydings (interposing). You put them all in there?
Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ttdings. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Hitchcock. I haven't seen those papers in several years.
The affidavit further stated in substance that the agents who ar-
rested Larsen in his apartment June 6 evidenced complete familiarity
with the exact location of personal effects which they took away.
"We inmiediately called the clerk of the district court in Washington,
and were told that the papers were already filed and that reporters
were examining them. We knew that within a matter of hours the
newspajiers would be on the street with the story. And may I inter-
polate, they were.
We knew that once the story broke, Jaff'e's counsel would undoubt-
edly conclude that similar entry had been made into the Amerasia
offices. We had not the slightest doubt that similar motions would be
made to suppress everything seized June 6 at the Amerasia offices.
When I say "we" it is not to disclaim any responsibility.
Mr. M'clnerney and I realized that the Amerasia case as regards
successful prosecution was collapsing. We concluded that the only
thing to do to save what could be saved, which was the result of at
least 6 months difficult and careful work by the FBI and more than
3 months' work by attorneys in the Criminal Division, was to see if
Mr. Arent would agree that Jaffe plead guilty to the indictment upon
the best terms the Government could get. Mr. Mclnerney called Mr.
1022 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Arent and asked him to come over to the Department. For the record
INIr. Arent was Washington counsel for Mr. Jaffe who likewise had
New York counsel
In the meantime, we decided that we were under no obligation to
tell Mr. Arent either that the motion papei*s had been served and filed
by Larsen's attorney, or that any searches without legal process had
been made at the Amerasia offices prior to June 6.
When Arent arrived we told him we had further considered his
previous offers to plead Jaffe and asked if he had anything further in
mind.
May I interpolate there that Arent had been in touch w^ith us on
occasions before this to feel us out for a disposition of the Jaffe case
on the best terms that he could get. I think Mr. Mclnerney talked
with him more times than I did, and our attitude was with him that we
had a case against Jaffe. We are not interested in making any other
arrangements with you, and furthermore, our position was if we
had to go to trial on this case which we anticipated would be a 3- or 4-
month trial, because everything that was seized would have been ad-
missible clearly as to Jaffe, whereas with Roth with our only remain-
ing defendant, was five or six handwritings and one typewritten copy
of papers, and in our opinion would have been somewhat more mod-
erate as proving a case against Roth.
He repeated the argmnents made on June 27. He further argued
that Jaffe's wife was seriously ill and could get no better while this
case was pending.
Let me interpolate there again. I want it clearly understood that
Mr. Mclnerney and I were playing "a little hard to get" to see what
they had to offer before we started.
After considerable discussion, he said that Jaffe would plead guilty
if the Department would recommend a fine and no jail sentence.
We asked him if he had the authority to make a commitment to
that effect and he assured us that he had the necessary authority. We
told him that we would recommend acceptance of a plea of guilty
and would recommend a substantial fine and no jail sentence.
A figure of $5,000 has been mentioned. The actual details of dis-
cussion there was this: Arent, of course, asked Avhat we meant by a
substantial fine. We told him if the court imposed a fine of $10,000
that that would be substantial, and Mr. Mclnerney and I discussed
it and said $5,000, and we also told him if the court asked for a spe-
cific recommendation, that would be the figure we would mention if
the court did ask us, and I might add to get ahead that the court did
not ask us.
We asked if this was a firm commitment which under no circum-
stances would be witlidrawn. He said that it was. He also said
that he insisted tliat our recommendation as to the fine would not be
perfunctory, but made in good faith to the court, with a genuine ef-
fort on our ]^art to have the court follow our recommendation.
We gave him that assurance, and we then asked him when he could
get Jaffe down from NeAv York City to enter the plea. He said lie
would do it any time we could arrange it. We asked if he could
have Jaffe down the following morning for that purpose. He said
he could.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1023
]\rr. Mcliieniey tlnni called (he district court and ascertained that
Jiul^e Proctor would be available the following morning, which was
a Saturday.
AVe concluded tliese arrangements in this manner because we did
not want Mr. Arenl to leave our ollice unless and until all arrange-
ments had been completed, because we knew that once he left the office
he would read in the newspa])ers that Larsen had filed a motion to
su]>press the evidence taken from him.
In otlier words, we did everything ])ossible within our powers to
insure that there would be no withdrawal by Mr. xVrent of commit-
ments made with respect to Jalfe.
The next morning, Jaffe appeared in court. Mr. Arent in substance
im))]ied that ^Nlr. Mclnerney and I had maneuvered him into pleading
Jaffe guilt whereas, had he known of the Larsen motion, he never
would have done so.
May I interpolate there. Senator, when INIr. Mclnerney and I went
to court that morning, and the occurrence I am going to relate did
not occur in the j^resence of the judge. He (Arent) looked at us and
said "You sons-of-bitches." Mclnerney says, ''You are not going to
back out on your word?" and Arent said, ''No; you are not going
to back out on vours either." We wanted to salvage that much out
of the case, which we believed was collapsing against everybody. We
did not want Arent, as he might well have been justified in doing, to
say that he felt no longer obligated to his commitment, and further-
more, I v>anted the judge to impose a fine on Jaffe, and I would have
done it as the attorney on the other side, I believe that Jaffe would
make application to withdraw his ])lea and claim that we had tricked
him.
Senator Tydixgs. Sharp practice.
Mr. Hitchcock. I don't know, but what he would have had some-
thing.
Senator Tydings. Let me ask you right there. Even as I size up
this matter, after the FBI people did a whole lot, the only evidence
that you fellows had in this case was the evidence that you got at
the time of the arrests when you seized these documents in the pos-
session of these defendants. That is all j^ou had?
Mr. Hitchcock. Plus two other items. This being a conspiracy
case, and was certainly that and, second, plus the association between
the two. plus ^Nlrs. Blnmenthal's testimony, who had typed Govern-
ment documents for Jaffe.
Senator Tydings. I see what you mean, but you had no evidence of
passing of documents. You detected nobody stealing documents.
You detected nobody passing documents. You detected nobody in
possession of documents. That is the very proposition. If you could
say, "Here it is. I got it oflF the person, or saw him pass it." What you
really had was what you found in the ])lace at the time of the arrest,
])lus the testimon.y of tlie rest, plus incidental matters.
Mr. Hitchcock. I had no evidence then l)ut the report of the seizures
and tliese associations and the Blumenthal testimony. That is what
■we had.
Senator Tydixgs. The public is under the impression that some-
body ought to have been caught stealing these documents. The pub-
lic is under the impression that somebody ought to have been caught
1024 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
carryino; t'hese documents. The public is under the impression that
somebody ought to be caught passing these documents from one to the
other. Now I can't see, from listening to this, where you had that
kind of evidence to work on.
Mr. Hitchcock. There was no such evidence, I regret to say.
Senator Tydings. I think that answers one of the things in the pub-
lic mind pretty clearly and, if the FBI supports that, then you will
have narrowed the field of what you had to proceed on and the reason
you proceeded as you did was on the best kind of evidence you could
get.
Mr. Hitchcock. And the source.
Senator Tydings. Do you want to read the remainder of your state-
ment now ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Hitchcock. We asked him if he was going to keep his word.
He said that he was and that he certainly expected we were going to
keep ours as regards doing everything in our power to have the sen-
tence consist of a fine. That is what took place that day in court.
We secured adjournment of Larsen's motion. We took the position
that legally we had enough evidence that had been secured from the
Amerasia offices to make a case against Larsen. I mean by that, even
if we gave him back everything that was taken out of his apartment,
if his motion was completely successful, we still had enough to make
a case. That was illegally obtained. If you will wait just a moment
I will cover that.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. Hitchcock. While Larsen might successfully suppress evi-
dence taken from his own apartment on the claim that his constitu-
tional rights had been violated, he had no standing in court to make
any complaint as to the method by which the Government secured
documents seized in the Amerasia offices. And Jaffe's plea of guilty
was assurance that no motion would be made by him.
By that I mean that it is only the person whose constitutional right
to privacy has been violated who has any standing to assert his rights
successfully. Consequently, we felt there was enoug-'h in the docu-
ments seized at the Amerasia offices, some of which had Larsen's hand-
writing on the mand some of which bore his fingerprints, to warrant
the belief that we had a fair chance to secure a guilty verdict against
Larsen.
After prolonged negotiation with Larsen's attorney, we agreed to
recommend that the court accept a plea of nolo contendre and to
recommend a small fine.
We agreed to do this because our case was not what could be termed
a strong case, but primarily because Jaffe was the principal figure in
the case and he had corrupted Larsen. We felt that Larsen should
not receive as much punishment as Jaffe. Moreover, Larsen had been
discharged from the State Department in the meantime, was out of
a job and had few prospects of getting a job.
I have never believed that Jaffe's sentence was adequate for what
he did. For the record. I don't know what ever did become of Larsen.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1025
Mr. Hitchcock. I know tliat liad we not disposed of Jaffe's case as
we did, there would have been no conviction of Jaffe and, of course, no
punishment, even to the extent of a fine.
That same House Judiciary report in 1946 stated :
After a most painstaking study we certify that there is no evidence, nor hint,
justifying adverse criticism of either grand jury, any prosecuting attorney, FBI,
judicial, or other official.
There was not the slightest connection between the Amerasia case
and my association with my present firm. On the last day of 1946,
Lyman j\I. Bass made an appointment to meet me. My family and I
then resided at Dunkirk, some 45 miles from Buffalo. We have resided
there since 1933, when I left New York, until September 1948, when I
moved to my present address.
Senator McMauox. Miss Mitchell was a relative of a member of
the firm ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Miss Mitchell was a niece of James McCormick
Mitchell, who was senior partner in that law firm and who died
late in 1948.
Senator McMahox. He did die ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.
Senator Mc^Mahon. When you were handling this case you didn't
know Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Hitchcock . I had no acquaintance of any kind with IVIr.
Mitchell until January 2, 1947, which was a year and a half afterward.
Senator McMahox. Why did they call for you?
Mr. Hitchcock. They were hard up for an attorney to help in Fed-
eral court work by reason of this wholly unprecedented load of portal-
to-portal cases, and they made inquiries and ascertained I might be
the man.
Senator Mc^Iahox. Had you not known Mr. Bass for a long time?
Mr. Hitchcock. No : I had not.
Senator McMahon. How long ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Roughly 3 weeks before December 31, 1946. The
circumstances under which I met him were that I had something in
Federal court one morning, and I was introduced to him.
Senator McMaiiox. Was that by a law partner of Bill Donovan?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, a law partner; and we chatted and he said,
"I just have a motion," and Lyman Bass came in and I was intro-
duced to him.
On December 31, 1946, when Mr. Bass called me and asked if I
would have lunch with him at the Hotel Buffalo, I did have lunch
with him and he asked me as we sat down, "I suppose you want to
know what I want." I said, 'T suppose you Avant to give me a job,"
and he said, "Yes; that is it." He wanted to know, among other
things, about my work, about my salary, about my family and the
usual things. It is a very conservative firm and they had made pretty
extensive inquiries which I subsequentlv learned, and at the termina-
tion of the lunch, he said, "I want you in there, but I want to talk
it over with my partners, and I am going to get in touch with you
later, in a day or two." I said, "Mr, Bass, there are several things
that haven't been discussed before j^ou ought to make any commit-
ment." I said, "I am a Democrat. I assume you know that from
holding a job with a Democratic administration." I said, "Mr. Bass,
1026 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOIS
I am a Roman Catholic." He said, "That makes no difference to us."
I didn't know Avhether it would or not and so I mentioned it.
I said, "Mr. Bass, I had charge of the prosecution of a case in which
Kate Louise INIitchell was a defendant. Those are the three things I
want you to know."
Senator McMahon. Did you put them in the oixler you have re-
lated them, or what you thought would be your disqualiiications?
Mr. Hitchcock. 1 put them in that order, Senator, with no par-
ticular thought as to what I might consider to be my disqualifica-
tions.
On January 2, that was 2 clays later, the intervening day being
a holiday, Mr. Bass called me at the United States attorney's office in
Buff'alo, and asked if I could come over. I went over at noon. There
were more than 30 attornej^s in the office. It takes up an entire floor in
a large bank building.
Senator McMahon. Are you still with them?
Mr. Hitchcock. I am. He introduced me to several of the part-
ners. I have racked my brain and so did he, if it makes any differ-
ence, to try to remember whether he introduced me to James Mc-
Cormick INIitchell that morning, and none of us can remember. If
lie was there that morning, I was introduced to him. If not, I met
him after the 24th of that month.
I had never set foot in that office before January 2.
Senator McMahon. That is all.
Senator Tydings. Do you have any questions ?
Mr. Morgan. Yes, I do. At the outset I would like to ask some
questions due to the treatment this case has been accorded in the
press.
At any time during the handling of this case were you under any
direction or instruction to handle it other than in accordance with the
manner in which your professional experience and knowledge indi-
cated it should be handled ?
Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. There has been, as j^ou know, a suggestion in the
press of a so-called fix in this case.
Mr. Hitchcock. I am well aware of that.
Mr. Morgan. At any time during the course of your handling of
the case, from the time you came into it, until the time of its ultimate
disposition, was an effort made by anybody at any time to arrange
a so-called fix ?
INIr. Hitchcock. Unquestionably no.
Mr. Morgan. Now I an.i a little reluctant to ask these questions, but
as you know, this case has been treated by some other than the counsel
in this particular case and the members of the committee, so I am going
to ask these questions in oixler, that is, in the order in which they have
been presented in the press.
The first question is this: Under whose orders and for what reason
did you take the Amerasia case out from the jurisdiction of one grand
jury and present it anew to a second grand jury?
I believe you have covered that question fully. Is that correct?
Mr. Hitchcock. I have covered it fully except I would like to add
this thing because this doesn't appear, although I have already covered
it fully. It was under nobody's orders. The way that happened Mr.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1027
Clark and Mr. ^Mclnerney and I at the June 27 meeting sat there and
discussed this at great length and everyone present thought the thing
to do was to hold it up. They were on our neck deuumding a prelim-
inary hearing. The only qriestion was. Will we withdraw it or get an
order extending the life of the grand jury?
There were no orders. We all agreed we would find out if the first
grand jury wanted to sit for another month or G weeks. If they did,
we would get an order extending their life for that period. If not, we
would withdraw it from them and present that later.
Mr. MoHCAN. The secon<l question is: Did you present to the second
grand jury the same evidence, the same witnesses, and did they give
the sanu> testimou}'?
Mr. Hitchcock. We presented every witness, every bit of evidence,
and the same testimony with perhaps minor and wholly insubstantial
variances that would incidentally occur to the second grand jury that
we i)iesented to the first, plus additional evidence and witnesses to the
second grand jury.
]Mr. MoRGAX. Indictments were returned against Messrs. Jaffe, Lar-
sen. and Roth. Do you think you had enough evidence to convict?
Mr. HrrciicocK. t thought we had enough evidence to convict Jaffe
and Larsen. assuming we could use the evidence.
I did not think we had enough evidence to convict Roth, that gave
me the sanguine belief we were going to convict Roth._
Mr. MoRGAX. Did you or did you not in the Justice Department
enter into an agreement with Mr. JafYee's jittorney to accept a plea of
guilty with the understanding that Mr. Jaffe's punishment would
be liinited to a fine of $2,500 ?
Mr. Hitchcock. If you will leave the $2,500 figure out, the answer
is "Yes," we did.
Mr. ^loRGAX. Under the terms and circumstances explained in your
statement?
Mr. HrrcHCOCK. Yes, sir.
]Mr. MoRGAX. This question is a slight characterization on that
question. On this Saturday morning when you and Mr. Jaffe's
attorney appeared before Judge Proctor, why did you not disclose
to the court the list of Government documents that were stolen and
the nature of their contents?
Mr. HrrciicocK. That question implies some obligation on my part
to do so. Mr. ]McInerney, Mr. Anderson, and I appeared in court.
It never occurred to me to bring over a list of that batch of documents.
I haven't the slightest idea what i)urpose it might have served. AVe
told the court there were hundreds of documents. It didn't occur
to me to furnish the court with a list.
ISIr. MoRGAX. Did you explain to the court there were a great. many ?
Mr. Hi'i'CircocK. Hundreds of them.
Senator Tydixgs. You told the court?
Mr. HrrcHCoCK. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. Did you give the number or nature of them?
Mr. HrmrrocK. I think the comment there was before the court,
both from his counsel and from me. was what this Amerasia nuigazine
was, and whether we described in detail the nature of the documents
I don't know, but it was brought before the court, and they asked him
insofar as we had any evidence we used that it was for the ])nriiose of
1028 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISTESTIGATION
background and for the purpose of getting some additional prestige
and circulation for their magazine, and I might say that it occurs to
me now, Senator, that that is the very way this case broke in its
inception. OSS happened to bring up a copy of Amerasia and
found
Senator Ttdings (interposing) A duplication?
Mr. Hitchcock. Or similarity, which led me to believe that one
of these booklets was being used for that purpose, and from the nature
of the document I assumed that in my mind.
Yes, I am reminded, sir, we be^an June 6. This case had been in
the papers with considerable publicity.
Senator Ttdings. Big headlines ?
Mr. HiTCHC^ocK. Big headlines is one way to put it; and I doubt
now, although it didn't occur to me, that the judge could have failed
to know something about the case, but that was no consideration of
mine at that time. It just didn't occur to me.
Mr. Morgan. Normally when you are before the court intending
to enter a plea of guilty, would you not normally present the evidence
you have in the case ?
Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. "Wliy did you not advise the court of Mr. Jaffe's close
association with the Communist leaders and Communist friends ?
Mr. Hitchcock. There is no question but what he knew that Jaffe
was very communistic, and there was no doubt in my mind about it.
Reports were had from the FBI showing that to my complete satis-
faction without any doubt, and j^articularly during the period of their
surveillance after they went on the Amerasia case.
Reports showed that there were, I believe, two instances where Jaffe
had met with Earl Browder, and on one of those occasions Jaffe and
Earl Browder were with a man whose name I don't recall, but who
was identified as a delegate of the Chinese Communists at San Fran-
cisco at the conference which was being held in June of 1945. Right
at this time, anyway.
Now we discussed this over in the Department about this commu-
nistic angle, and we reached the conclusions that as lawyers there was
no evidence Jaffe used these documents by delivering them to any for-
eign government, or any foreign agents, or any representatives of any
foreign government.
We had no evidence whatsoever about it. In discussing it we reached
the conclusion that at a trial if we attempted to get that into evidence
that Jaffe was a Communist, we would have a mistrial declared and
reversible error in any event.
We concluded likewise that it was not admissible in evidence ; that
it was highly prejudicial from the defendant's side of the case, and
it had no place there, and we didn't present that angle of it, although
I didn't even call it an angle for the grand jury.
Consequently, in court I did not mention it because there was no
evidence in any of these documents which had been brought out and
the only time that any mention was made of it on my part, and I say
again that I am not disclaiming responsibility, but from the state of
the evidence, both Mr. Mclnerney and Mr. Anderson, two of the finest
characters I have ever met, devoted to the i:»ublic service and com-
pletely honorable, were with me in my opinion that the only effect
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1029
it would liave would be to aflFect JafTe not on a factual matter but it
luiirht have militated against the dispositions we were preparing to
recommend.
Mv. INIoRGAX. Was the grand jury aware in any way of the com-
munistic connections of any of these people?
Mr, IIiTCHCoriv. Xot to iny knowledge. My recollection is very
clear as to the grand jury record on that.
Mr. MoKGAX. 1 have here a certitied copy of a transcript of pro-
ceedings before Judge Proctor on Saturday morning, September 29,
and 1 am going to read a portion of the questions propounded to you
by the court and your answers thereto, because they have been treated
of somewhat in the press and are somewhat pertinent here :
The Court. Let me ask this question : Are you offering any evidence that the
use to which tliese documents were put would be a use whereby injury or im-
pairment would come to the Army or Navy in the conduct of the war?"
Mr. Hitchcock. We have no evidence of that, Your Honor, and furthermore
no evidence that they were intended to.
The Court. AVas there anything in the nature of publication that had that
tendency ?
Mr. Hitchcock. There was not, Your Honor, so far as we know. There was
nothing in the use of these documents that showed that tendency, nor is there
anything we have in our possession that would indicate that. In fact, quite
the contrary. * * *
Now, in view of the publicity given this, do you have any comment
you would like to make (
Mr. Hitchcock. Xo, sir. I have stated to the court exactly what I
believed. That it is exactly what I believed to be the fact that I had no
evidence.
Mr. MoRGAX. Did you also have a proceeding with respect to the
plea of Larson before the court. I will just read your statement, be-
cause it has been referred to several times. You stated to the court :
As I said, Your Honor, in the Jaffe case, there was no disloyalty involved. No
element of disloyalty involved.
Would you care to make any observation about the statement, "As I
told Your Honor in the Jaffe case there was no element of disloyalty
involved"?
Mr. Hitchcock. Though I never saw that transcript, or read any-
thing about it at all, but recollection was, coming down on the train,
night before last, when I got a copy of the Congressional Record of
May 22, 1950 — what I had in mind there and what I fully meant at
that time was, and what I remember about it, was the statement that
you read a moment ago that had taken place and that there was no
evidence of the use of these documents, or the use to which they were
intended to be put harmful to the armed forces of the United States.
The transcript shows I used the words "no element'' and I must have
used that in the sense of no evidence in referring to the previous pro-
ceedings before the same judge.
Mr, IVIoRGAN, In any event you made the statement there was no
element of disloyalty as reported here?
Senator Tydixgs. Don't you want to put that in the record?
Mr. MoRGAX. Suppose you make a statement for the record.
Mr, Hitchcock. I noticed that word "element"' for the first time
coming down on the train night before last. I do not wish to make
any, leave an implication that that was not my word. It referred
• >a.ck to the proceeding before where the term "evidence" was used.
1030 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
l-Cvicleiice was what I had in mind in connection with that previous
transcript you just read, and then in connection with that is tlie
nieanino- I attacli now and attached then to use that term "elemerit"'
and again I say I don't want to leave an intimation that there is any
reportorial mistake. The record speaks for itself and I certainly
don't deny it, but the word "element" was used as meanino- "evidence,"
Mr. Morgan. Did you or any superior in the Justice Department
enter into any agreement leading to ]Mr. Larsen's plea of nolo co.n-
tendere and a fine of $500 ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir,
Mr, Morgan, Are you aware Mr, Jaffe paid Mr. Larsen's fine?
Mr, Hitchcock. I have racked my brain on that. I certainly was
not aware that he did at the time. I don't know what diiference it
would have made in any event. I have become aware of it since. Just
how, I don't know. The first time I became aware of it was at the
time of the Hobbs investigation.
Mr. Morgan. Would you tell the committee the reasons for dis-
missing the charges against Lieutenant Eoth. I believe you have dis-
cussed that fully?
Mr. Hitchcock. I have no observation other than I have already
covered. We decided to dismiss the case against Lieutenant Eoth.
We all felt that way but I do not disclaim personal responsibility, and
I am referring to Anderson and Woerheide and Mclnerney. We felt
we didn't have a case.
Mr. jNIorgan. Mr. Hitchcock are you now a member of the firm of
Kenefick, Bass, Letch worth, Baldy and Mitchell ?
Mr. Hitchcock. The successor firm ; yes.
Mr, Morgan. At the time you were handling the Amerasia case
did you have knowledge that one of the partners in this firm, Mr,
^ritchell, was an uncle of Miss Mitchell, one of the six arrested and
one of three cleared by the grand jury ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes.
Mv. Morgan. How long after you left the Department of Justice
did you join that law firm ^
Mr, Hitchcock. The next day. May I modify that, sir?
Mr. Morgan, Certainly.
Mr. Hitchcock. The very purpose that I resigned from the De-
partment of Justice was to go with that law firm. I sent in my letter
of resignation to the Attorney General on January 2, the day we com-
pleted arrangements for me to enter that law firm. My letter of
resignation became eifective by its terms January 24. Between Jan-
uary 2 and 24 I had work for the Government assigned in Ehnira at
the term of court and I arranged to go to argue an appeal before the
Second Circuit Court in New York, arguing that appeal, and cleaned
up my work and left on the 24th of January and went with this law
firm the next business day.
Mr. IVIoRGAN, A great deal of reference has been made also in the
press, Mr. Hitchcock to certain documents that we were told were
seized by Mr. Bielaski and his associates on a raid conducted on the
Amerasia headquarters in New York City and these documents and
their significance has been characterized variously at diiferent times
in the press.
What knowledge did you have of these documents at the time you
entered this case ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EAIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1031
]\rr. Hitchcock. The first time that I even heard that such docu-
ments existed was after they liad custody and T (licbTt oven question
it. One was in connection witli publicity <j;iven to a speech made by
Representative Dondero of ]\Iichi<2:an sometime late in 1945, early De-
cember or late November.
Ml-. MoROAX. In other words, at the time yon were handlinir this
case before the g-rand jury and the court, you had no knowledge what-
ever of the documents to which Mr. Bielaski referred to and stated he
seized in the Amerasia headquarters?
Mr. llTTCTircHMv. Xone whatsoever and they Avere never j-)resented
to the Criminal Division as part of this file, the Amerasia file, wdiile
I was associated with the Government, or I would have seen them.
Mr. MoRGAX. With such knowledge as you have now of these docu-
ments and their nature would it have affected your handling of this
case in any way I
Mr. Hitchcock. I believe not, sir, because the knowledge I have
now, and it is predicated not on first-hand knowledge, is that the OSS
burglarized the Amerasia oilice sometime early in 1945 and removed
these documents at that time, took them away with them.
Now, under those circumstances, there is not the slightest possibil-
ity that we could ever have gotten this in evidence, even if they had
been given to us, and the reason I say that is this : We would have to
\)\\i somebody on the stand through which they could be introduced
into evidence and in putting that person on the stand, it would clearly
appear when and how we got them and obviously we are in the Fourth
Ameiulment case again.
Mr. ^loRGAx^. I am asking the questions from your standpoint.
I would like to know the extent in your opinion, in reference to
this raid on the Amerasia headquarters — I might state it this way,
did the Bielaski raid on the Amerasia headquarters in any way afl'ect
the admissibilit}' of evidence that might subsequently have been ob-
tained by another Government agency with respect to Amerasia?
Mr. Hitchcock. In my opinion the answer to that is definitely
yes. That is, speaking as a lawyer, I have no doubt about it.
Mr. MoROAX. Am I to infer from what you say, therefore, that the
Bielaski raid had the effect, let us say, of polluting the stream?
^fr. Hitchcock. You are just using judicial language with which
1 wholl}' agree. That is my opinion of the efi'ect of it.
Mr. MoRGAx^. There has been some reference to the delay in the
handling of this case in the Department of Justice. Have you any
knowledge of that, jNIr. Hitchcock?
Ml-. Hitchcock. I have no knowledge of that. On the contrary,
my whole knowledge is the rush of the Department of Justice to get
this to the grand jury a week after the case w^as sent to me and pro-
ceed with it with every degree and facility within our power.
INIr. MoRGAX. And for the record, you entered the case at what date?
^h'. Hitchcock. It was approximately a week after June 6. The
loth, 14th or 15th of June. I am infoi-med my grand jury authority
was the 12th of June, so it was on or following the 12th of June.
Senator Tydixgs. Gentlemen, we will have to recess now until 2 :30.
(Whereupon, at 12:45 p. m., the subcommittee recessed until 2:30
p. m., this day.)
68970— 50— pt. 1 — —66
1032 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION
AFTERNOON SESSION
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT M. HITCHCOCK AND JAMES M.
McINERNEY— Resumed
Senator McMahon. There is one question I want to ask. I read
an article somewhere recently, Mr. Hitchcock, in one of the papei-s,
and I always mean to clip these things out. My intentions were good,
and then I forgot and I wish I had the article in front of me, but they
used the word, the outright word "fix" in connection with this case.
"Who put in the fix?"
Then I read another column by a columnist saying "Don't try to
keep this case in the bag because it has scratched everybody that has
touched it, you see, and anybody that tries to bag it is going to get
scratched, too."
I do not know as there is any question that could be asked in con-
nection with a columnist's warnings and admonitions, but on the first
question I think I can ask you a correct question. Is there any ques-
tion, is there anything that you know about this case, anything that
was done with it that would justify the use of the word "fix?"
'. Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir, and uncjualifiedly no, sir, not to any
knowledge of any character that I possess or ever possessed.
Senator INIcMahon. Was there any influence brought upon you or
on anyone else connected with this case from any source to influence
your judgment or the judgment of any of your associates?
Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir.
Senator McMahon. Was there any intervention in this case by any
person in the Government or out of the Government whose duties
did not warrant such connection with the case ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Certainly none with me, and to my knowledge
none with anybody else.
Senator McMahon. I want to make sure that you understand the
last question. No one in the Government or out who did not have
some duty in connection with this case sought to influence its handling
in any way?
Mr. Hitchcock. That is correct, sir.
Senator McMahon. Is there aynthing that you know" of, any cir-
cumstance, which warrants a person in using the adjective "fix" in
connection with this case?
Mr. Hitchcock. Nothing, sir.
The Chairman. Go ahead, Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Morgan. I just have a few questions here, Mr. Hitchcock, that
I would like to clear up for m}^ own mind and also for the record.
This material that was recently made public
Senator McMahon. Mr. Morgan, would you mind if I interrupt
again to finish this.
Mr. Mclnerney, in reading the testimony in this proceeding at the
time you were here — I had to read it rather hastily. If you remem-
ber, I left before you did because I had an appointment. I under-
stand that you were asked concerning any improper influences or any
so-called fix in this case, and you answered bluntly, didn't you ?
Mr. McInerney. That is my recollection.
Senator McMahon. Your answer in the light of Mr. Hitchcock's
answer is the same.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1033
Mr. McIxERNEY. It would be exactly the same to all of the ques-
tions that you put to him.
Senator McMahon. I see. I understand that there was an inter-
vention in the case from the White House. If that is the right word
for it — you correct me.
Mr. McInekxey. I have recently heard of that; yes sir.
Senator McMahox. What direction did that take?
Mr. McIxERXEY. Well, I believe that — and this is hearsay — the
President called Mr. Gurnea of the FBI on June 2, 1945 and stated
that he had heard that there was some suggestion that the prosecution
of this case be deferred until the conclusion of the UN" Conference
then going on at San Francisco, and that he told Mr. Gurnea that it
was his desire that the case go forward without interruption, and
that in the event that any agency should make such a suggestion in
the future, that he wished to be apprized of it.
Senator jSIcMahox. Tliank you.
Mr. Morgan. While we are on that point, Mr. INIcInerney, can you
give us any information for our record that would help us on this
question about the possibility of a delay attending the UN Conference ?
Mr. McInerxey. No, sir, I have absolutely no independent recollec-
tion of it at all. However, a recent Bureau memorandum states that
on May 31, 1945, that I called the Bureau, Mr. Gurnea, and that I
informed Mr. Gurnea that Mr. Clark had been instructed to defer the
prosecution until the conclusion of the UN conference. I have been
unable to recall that conversation myself. I have absolutely no recol-
lection of it.
I searched the file, my telephone book, and every available record
at my disposal. I have talked to Justice Clark, I have talked to Mr.
McGranery, who was assistant to the Attorney General at the time,
and they are completely without any recollection as to the background
of that instruction or where it came from.
Senator McMahon. That was the 29th, you say?
Mr. McInerxey. The 31st.
Senator McMahox. But on June 2 the President's call is supposed
to have been made.
Mr. McTxerxey. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAX. Let me ask this question. Was there any delay by
reason of the UN in the handling of this case ?
]\lr. ISIcIx^ERx^EY. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Now, Mr. Hitchcock, in reading the transcript of the
proceedings before the so-called Hobbs Committee as it now appears
in the Congressional Record, there is an indication apparently by way
of a general characterization of this picture, this Amerasia picture,
that someone was having access to the documents in all Government
agencies, or a great many different Government agencies, and in my
reading of it the thought came that perhaps there was in this case a
wider net of let us say agents seeking information in various Govern-
ment departments.
While my function is not here to testify, we have reviewed, Mr.
Chairman, a great many of the documents in this case, not all of them
but a substantial number of them, and as I recall many of them orig-
inated let us say in FCC, OWI, and OSS and ONI.
1034 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IX^'ESTIGATION
A large percentage of them in each case, however, were routed to
the State Department. Now my question here is — and this is solely
for clarifying the record in the light of the Hobbs record — From your
knowledge of this case was there an indication that documents were
being obtained from other Government departments rather than let
us say the State Department and ONI w^h'ere the subjects we know had
contacts?
Mr. HiTCiiCOCK. I recall none such, sir. I would say that the
answer to thr.t question is "No,'' from my present recollection.
Mr. MoKCJAN. Well, what I am seeking to know here is essentially
whether our investigation and the facts that ^yc are trying to get here
now to make available to the American public, whether there is reason
to believe that there were other persons let us say involved in the
Amerasia picture in these other Government departments, whether
on the basis of the evidence we have it appears that let us say Larsen
and perhaps others of the subjects here had available to them through
the State Department or ONI sources other than the known subjects
for obtaining documents of these other Government agencies, if you
are in a position to answer that question.
Mr. HrrciicocK. Will you read that back?
(The last question was read by the reporter.)
Mr. Hitchcock. By any evidence that I recall that was presented
in this Amerasia case, I know of none such.
Mr. Morgan. ]Mv question I see is of course not clear. What I am
seeking to know here is this. Does it adequately appear, and is it
adequately explained on the basis of information available to you,
that the subjects in the Amerasia case would have been in a position
to obtain the documents that we have in this case ?
Mr. Hitchcock. From my recollection — and I think it is pretty
good on that point — Larsen was in a position available to supply them..
Mr. Morgan. Any of the documents in the case ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Well, now as I said earlier this morning, my recol-
lection is that virtually all of these documents, even those that had
not originated from State, had been routed to State. Now all of
those, from anything I know to the contrary, had to come from Larsen.
Now if there were others that had never been to State Department,
I just do not know where they could have come from.
Mr, Morgan. One of my reasons for asking that, Mr. Hitchcock —
and you may not be in a position to offer us anything on it, but I do
want to ask the question — in reviewing the testimony of Larsen before
the Hobbs Committee, he has made reference to an individual named
^Michael Lee as perhaps being in this picture, and I am wondering if
perhaps in the course of your consideration of this case his name en-
tered into it, or it appeared that he was part of the Amerasia picture
at all.
Mr. Hitchcock. Will you give me a minute on that. I do not recall
his name appearing any place. Now I have heard that name within
the last few days, perhaps from the Congressional Record, and there-
fore that name is in my mind, but whether it is in my mind because'
of having heard it or if there had been any reference at any plac«
in any of these FBI reports to a Michael Lee, I do not recall any, and
my best recollection is that thei'e was not.
STATE D'EPARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY I^TS'ESTIGATION 1035
Mr. ^foucAx. Is it proper to say, < horeforo, that from yonr handlinc:
of the situation, you were athniuately satislied on the basis ol" the
(locunieuts and other Government material you had avaihible to 7/ou,
that the subjects who were beino- considered for prosecutive action
wci'c (hose wlio had a hand in o])tainino; those documents?
Mr. HrrciicocK. Yes; in this sense; that there was nobody else.
Xow, what I mean by that is — I am not trying to quibble, Larsen is
the only person that I could ever attribute from the evidence sub-
niitted to us as ha vino- been able to do this, with the exception of Roth.
That is Koth was in ONI.
Roth was obviously close to Jail'e, and therefore Roth could have
doiu> it. Perhaps he could even have done it from State. I do not
know. I iust do not know. I think he was a liaison man or some-
thiiig like that between 0X1 and State. Certainly Larsen could have.
Perhaps Roth couid have and Service, who came back in April, the
18th or 10th, was in a position where he could have, but I am speaking
of an oj)inion now rather than any evidence, apart from the evidence
that was suljmitted to us.
Senator Mc^NIahon. AVell, let us have that clear in the record,
What are you talking about, a guess, what you might call an educated
guess ?
Mr. Hitchcock. I would say a judgment. It is more than a guess.
Senator McMahon. It is not based on evidence, thougli, or is it?
]\[r. Hitchcock. It is based on the absence of evidence perhaps,
that is no evidence submitted to me that any others were doing it.
These people whom I named might possibly and could have done it.
That is what I mean, Senator. I do not know how to make it any
clearer.
Senator McMahox. That is not admissible in court, you know,
is it ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Of course not.
Senatoi- McMahox. AVell, I think that ought to be plain in the
record. When you see this record printed, you have got to interpret
it. You may find that new rules of evidence have been invented that
Wigmore never heard of, by persons who probably never heard of
Wigmore.
Mr. MouoAX. Again for the record on this line of inquiry, Mr.
Hitchcock, what I am seeking to determine — and it has been sug-
gested in the press — is v\-hether this Amerasia situation was one
where tentacles reached out to all Government departments and
that access thereby was had to material in a great many Government
agencies.
What I want to determine once and for all is this. Insofar as this
case is concerned, did it ai)pear on the basis of evidence available
that even'one who had a hand in obtai]iing these documents was con-
sidered for prosecutive action?
]Vrr. Hitchcock. AVas one of these six who were arrested on June
6, yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAX. In other words, there w^as no one else insofar as the
evidence was concerned, who had a hand or might have had a hand
in obtaining these documents olhoi- than one of the six?
Mr. Hitchcock. I do not know of anybody else.
Mr. MoRGAX. Fine, that is what I wanted to determine.
1036 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Now as I recall the testimony in this proceeding, there has been
an indication that this motion to quash filed on behalf of Larsen by
his attorney was a conditioning consideration in the subsequent ar-
rangements that were made with Jaffe's attorney, is that correct?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Now if it was felt, Mr. Hitchcock, that there was
some aspect rendering this evidence inadmissible, why was the com-
plaint ever authorized in the first place?
Mr. Hitchcock. Mr. Morgan, I simply am in no position to an-
swer that question because I did not come into the case until a week
or more after that happened, and had nothing to do with it.
Mr. Morgan. Fine.
Mr. Hitchcock. And anything that I answered would be specula-
tion.
Mr. Morgan. Can you help us, Mr. Mclnerney ?
Mr. McTnerney. Yes, sir. I might go back a little bit and state
that the FBI during the war had two functions. One was to inves-
tigate crimes for the purpose of prosecution. The second was desig-
nation by the President to have charge and supervision over all in-
ternal security matters in the United States since 1939.
Now in connection with the former, the Bureau exercised certain
functions in connection with its counterespionage activities of which
we were aware, such as technical surveillances or wire taps, each of
which was authorized by the Attorney General and which we knew
about, and each case which had those two things in common pre-
sented somewhat of a problem to us in the criminal arrangement.
We were in a position of wanting to continue these counter-
espionage methods, we were wholly in favor of them, but when the
case came to us for prosecution, we were in the position of having
our cake and eating it too because there was a field of conflicts. What
was suitable for counterespionage purposes might not be suitable for
prosecution purposes.
Now when this case came to us, and when it came to the FBI, in
my opinion it was fatally vulnerable. Nothing the FBI did made it
any worse.
iVIr. Morgan. Why do you say that? You mean the Bielaski
situation ?
Mr. McInernet. Yes, I think that was fatal to the case once it
become public property.
Senator McMahon.' Why ?
Mr. McInerney. Why? Under the fourth amendment. It was an
illegal action, plluted, and since the FBI derived its case from that
source, its investigation and its leads were tainted, not by what it
did but by the inception and conception of this case before it reached
them.
Senator McMahon. There is some case in the back of my head, an
opinion which I think was written by Brandeis or Holmes, which talks
about drinking from a poisoned well. It is back about 20 years, and
that case is Silverthorne versus the United States, right ?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Hitchcock. Silverthorne Lumber Co.
Senator McMahon. And that is back about 1928 or '30.
Mr. McInerney. 1920.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1037
Senator Mc^Mahon. Back as far as that. Do you remember who
Avrote rhe case?
.Mr. McInery. Hobnes.
Senator McMahox. I thought it was Hohnes. I am going to send
to the hiw book library for that.
Mr. McIxERXEY. I have it here.
Senator jMcMahox. Let me see it. Go ahead.
Mr. McInerney. When the case came to me on May the 29th, I
was aware of course of its inception and the nature of the manner in
which it started, and as we had done in other cases during the war-
time, we authorized prosecution even though we knew that the evi-
dence was tainted, and we authorized prosecution because the Bureau
had been very successful in obtaining confessions and admissions
wliich obviated the necessity of having to tender this evidence or offer
it in court, and those were the two conclusions I came to on May the
29th, or three conclusions.
One, that the case was vulnerable because of its inception on the
part of OSS; two, that in evaluating the legal evidence, which largely
consisted of physical surveillances only, that we did not then have
sufficient evidence to authorize prosecution.
The third conclusion was that since the Bureau has obtained con-
fessions and admissions in over 80 percent of its cases, that with the
usual break in the prosecution here, we would get: incriminating ad-
missions and confessions which would obviate a trial, and obviate the
need for presenting or tendering this evidence. Now the Bureau sug-
gested in its original memorandum that four subjects be apprehended.
I authorized on six.
Mr. Morgan. Who were the four and who were the other two?
Mr. ^IcIxERXEY. The three Government employees. Service, Koth,
Larsen, and Jafie, and authorized on Mitchell and Gayn, and if you
ask me why in the light of the other decisions, why I authorized
prosecution, I would have to say that I was guilty of overzealous-
ness in prosecution.
]\lr. MoRGAX. I take it then that nowhere in the course of this
case were there ever any statements, any confessions, obtained from
the subjects ; 'is that correct ?
Mr. McIxERXEY. No, sir. Larsen made a number of admissions.
I would characterize his statement as a confession.
Mr. jNIorgax. Now there is one step here, Mr. McInerney, that is
not quite clear to me. I can see, let us say, why Larsen's motion to
quash might have been a conditioning consideration. I would, how-
ever, like your observations concerning how Larsen's motion to quash
in any way affected the documents, the material obtained in New York
in the Amerasia headquarters.
]\rr. ]McIxp:rxey. Yes, sir. When we first heard that Larsen was
filing or contemplating filing a motion to quash, we discussed it with
the Bureau representatives and the motion did not worry us too much,
and it did not worry me at all from the standpoint of Larsen.
First of all the documents found on his premises had not too much
significance since he has a gold badge and was entitled to have
documents on his premises, so from an evidentiarv^ standpoint they
U'ere not too important, but more than that, with the presence of the
documents in Jaffe's office in New York, with his fingerprints, Larsen's
1038 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
fino^erprints and lianchvriting and initials on them, we could have
ali'orded to give back to Larsen all of the documents so seized, sub-
ject to a quarrel about whether they were Government property and
he was not entitled to their return, so Larsen's motion per se as it
affected Larsen did not worry us too much.
The only thing that worried us was that if the fountainhead of the
evidence, Jaffe's office in New York, should become inaccessible to
us by reason of a motion to quash on Jaffe's part, the whole case
would have been destroyed, so that is why we were most anxious to
preserve the documents in Jaffe's office, and why we were most anxious
that Jaffe should not hear of this application to the court.
He was represented by an attorney who had been in the Criminal
Division for several years and who was acquainted with the Bureau
techniques, and it would not be much of a mental conclusion for him
to come to, in reading of a motion to quash by Larsen, to assume that
a similar practice had been engaged with respect to his client, Jaffe.
1 do not know whether I am responding.
Mr. ]\IoRGAN. Yes ; you are.
Mr. Morris. May I ask a few questions on that point? In order for
that to be so, you would have to be able to trace every one of the docu-
ments seized in Jaffe's Amerasia office back to Larsen ; would you not ?
Mr. McInerney. Not every one of them, sir.
Mr. Morris. Well, just as long as Jaffe had one unauthorized docu-
ment in his possession, it would withstand a motion to quash; would
it not?
Mr. McInerney. On whose part ?
Mr. Morris. On the part of Larsen.
Ml'. McInerney. I am sorry, sir ; I do not follow you.
Mr. Morris. Suppose that Larsen's attorney should come forward
with his motion to quash, and all the evidence procured as a result
of the preliminai-y invasion, so-called i>reliminary invasion of Larsen's
rights, had been recovered; well, then, there still would be some docu-
ments in the Amerasia office that would not have been tainted by asso-
ciation with Larsen. Isn't that so ?
Mr. McInerney. Well, none of the documents were tainted by asso-
ciation with Larsen.
Mr. Morris. I thought you were making that point in reply to Mr.
Morgan's question.
Mr. McInerney. No, sir.
Mr. Morris. Well, why were the documents found in the Amerasia
office tainted?
Mr. McInerney. They would be tainted because entry had also been
made to Jaffe's office.
J\lr. JNIoRRis. By whom ?
Mr. McInerney. By both the OSS and the FBI.
Mr. Morris. But Jaffe's lawyer could not have known that.
Mr. McInerney. If he read the newspaper that Friday night, Sep-
tember 28th, he would have come to that conclusion.
Mr. Morris. Why ? Did the newspaper report that OSS had been
in the office ?
Mr. McInerney. No, sir, but Walter Winchell had.
Mr. Morris. How did he know that ?
Mr. McInerney, I don't know, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1039
]\rr. jMorris. I inenn, as INIr. Bielaski testified, they were very secret
about it. They reported directly to the Secretary of State and then
to the Justice Department; so that was not common knowledge.
Mr. McInerxey. AValtei- Winchell broadcast that the case was to be
quaslied bv reason of illegal searches by an agency other than the
FBI.
Senator ]McMaiion. When did he do that, on Sunday night ?
Mr. McIxERNEY. Yes, sir; several weeks after it.
]\rr. ]\[oRRis. In other words, you just assumed that if you did go
ahead with the case, why, a motion to quash would have been success-
ful, even though you made no answering affidavits to such a motion?
^Ir. McInerxey. As to Larsen ?
Mr. Morris. As to Larsen or Jalfe.
]Mr. ^McInerxey. Well, I believe so; yes, sir.
Mr. ]MoRRis. You were just convinced that the motion to quash
would have been successful ; so, you abandoned the whole project with
respect to every single document?
Mr. McIx'ERX^EY. I am not sure I understand you, Mr. Morris.
]Mr. Morris. You came to the conclusion that a motion to quash
brought either by Jatfe's attorney or by Larsen's attorney would be
successful ?
Mr. McIx'ERXEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morris. You were satisfied. You had that definite conclusion ;
and you made no attempt to go ahead with the case?
Mr. McIxERX'^EY. And we made no attempt to what?
Mr. Morris. To proceed with the prosecution of the case.
Mr. McIxerxey. We certainly did. We brought them down to
the office on a telei^hone call and asked them to plead.
Mr. ^loRRis. Well, do you think that there is any proportionate
punishment in imposing a $2,000 fine on a wealthy man like Jaffe in
consideration of the enormity of crime that had been committed?
]Mr. McIxerxey. No. sir; I do not believe that the punishment was
adequate, but I am sincerely convinced that it was the best bargain we
could make within that 24-hour crisis that we faced on September 28.
Mr. ]MoRRis. Now. how about the thing such as Annette Blumen-
thaPs admissions? How about the results of the FBI surveillances
which I understand showed that people would go in to visit Larsen
with suitcases and come out without a suitcase?
Mr. McInerxey, That latter fact would have none. It is just as
consistent with innocence as with guilt.
Mr. Morris. Now, one other thing that impressed me
Mr. McInerney, Could I say this. You mentioned Mrs. Blumen-
thal. Mrs. Blumenthal's testimony was tainted. Everything in the
entire cnse was tainted on ]\larch 11, 1915. They developed Mrs.
Blumenthal after having gotten the case from OSS.
Mr. Morris. Well, one other consideration now, Mr. McInerney. I
see nowhere in reading the transcript of the proceedings before Judge
Proctor that Mr. Hitchcock presented the seriousness and the impor-
tance of the documents that had been involved in this case. Now, I
just went through a few of them the other day, some of them.
Thei-e was one document classified "Top secret for eyes only." As
far as I know, that is the highest classification we have. One was
found in Ja tie's (office. There were many reports in his office.
1040 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USTV^ESTIGATION
There was the composition and make-np of the Chinese Army, their
invasion routes against the Communists; there were American battle
reports on Japanese airfields. There was a confidential forecast of
the Pacific War by Secretary Grew, which indicated the location of
American submarines, 25 of them, composition of Allied forces in
Manila, and there was even an operations plan for the naval intelli-
gence for their entire counterintelligence organization in the United
States, all of which things are very serious.
Now, nowhere I am sure did the judge realize the gravity of the
case. In addition, there were these followin.o; political reports which
I think are tremendously significant; all intimate secrets of the high
Chinese authorities, including the Generalissimo. There were copious
references to disaffections. There were hundreds of reports from
Service and some from Davis, which showed that both of them, and
apparently with the approval of the American Ambassador Gauss,
would show they were doing everything they could to undermine the
Chinese Government and absorb the Chinese.
In fact, there was one dispatch which I thought was very impor-
tant, and that was a sacret dispatch that went out under Hull's name,
which presented the July 1944 Amerasia article on postwar Japan and
arming of the Japanese Communists, presenting it as if it was the
policy of the State Department.
Now, I just had a chance to go through about two or three hundred
of these things, but the importance of it w^as absolutely amazing as
far as I am concerned, and yet I cannot possibly understand why the
enormity of such things were not presented to the judge on the occa-
sion of that day.
Mr. McInerney. Well, without agreeing or disagreeing with your
characterization of the documents, we were faced with a problem, once
we had made our decision wdth JafFe's lawyer, responsibility as Gov-'
ernment counsel and as lawyers, that we could not make an agreement
with him to recommend a fine and then, wdth our tongues in our
cheeks, describe him as a 24-carat thief and spy and everything else,
even assuming he was such.
Now, this case was in the headlines for 2 months prior to the sen-
tence. The judge was not living in a vacuum. I do not believe it is
a fair statement to say that the court was uninformed of this fact.
Mr. Morris. I did not say that. There was no evidence in the
transcript that it realized the nature of this case at all.
Mr. McIisERNEY. Well, the significance of the case had been enlarged
upon in the press for 2 or 3 months, and I do not know whether that
was a factor. It was not a factor in the presentation to the court,
but the thing as far as we were concerned was pretty cut-and-dried
by reason of our commitment, and by the necessities of our com-
mitment.
Mr. Morris. I understand what you mean when you say you made
the decision and you were going through with it. Ordinarily, you
leave the raising of a defense to the defendants.
It seems to me that j^ou assumed that if they did raise the defense
it would be successful, and you abandoned the whole thing even though
the evidence show^ed matters of great gravity were concerned.
Mr. McInerxey. Well, I would like to say that I did not consider
the documents of great gravity.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISTV'ESTIGATION 1041
Mr. Morris. I could obtain tliein, Mr. Mclnerney.
Mr. McIxERXEY. Yes, sir. Tlie nature of the documents is a ques-
tion of fact, and the classification and their importance so, I do not
think any point would be served by discussing it or characterizing
them.
Senator McMaiiox. Let me ask you this. If you had gone forward
in view of the motion to quash having been filed and tried it out,
I presume that there would be displayed in public view, with the
war still in operation, the fact that technical surveillance was being
had — is that not true — and you would have displayed this entry of
Mr. Bielaski into the offices without a search warrant. I suppose all
of that would have come out in the trial.
Mr. McIxERXF.Y. Assuming the knowledge of Larsen? That he
knew that his premises had been entered?
Senator McMahon. Yes.
Mr. McIxERXEY. And that the defendants knew their premises had
been entered by OSS?
Senator ]\IcMaiiox^. Yes. They filed a motion to suppress; that is
my point. They filed it on the basis of something.
Mr. McIxERXEY. Actual knowledge.
Senator McMahox. Yes. Well, now, that would have come out.
What I am trying to arrive at, Mr. Mclnerney, is policy consider-
ation as to whether one existed or not as to desire of the Depart-
ment not to advertise the fact that technical surveillance was being
exercised.
The reason I ask that question is because I have a recollection of a
very sad affair down there in the district court, the Coplon case, which
I think hurt our internal security a great deal.
Mr. McIxERXEY. Well, on that I can only say that, as far as I
personally am concerned, it does not help the internal security of a
country to have such things advertised. I am speaking personally.
Senator McMahox. For yourself?
Mr. McIxERXEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morris. Do you think, Mr. ISlcInerney, it is better to leave a
man such as Service\-ight on the job ? Is that better for the security of
the country?
Senator McMahox'. Wi\ixt was that question?
Mr. ]MoRRis. Is it better to leave a man such as Service, one of the
six defendants, on his job in the State Department? It seems to me
that would violate security of the country, the welfare of the country,
more than exposing him.
Senator McMahox. We are not ready to judge Mr. Service yet. We
have not reached that point yet. You may have made, a judgment,
but we have not made any judgment on Service yet.
There is a lot of evidence. We have got to hear froni Mr. Service.
You may have reached a conclusion, and of course that is your privi-
lege, but I cannot indulge myself in the luxury of having that kind
of opinion at this time.
I want to ask you a further question. Assistant counsel has asked
you wliether or not these steps should be taken in view of the fact
that the defendants might not have known of the violation of the
fourth amendment to the Constitution. I had what I think is a some-
what honorable and long career in the service of the Department of
1042 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Justice, and I have never conceived it to be the policy of the Depart-
ment in any of its branches to viohite the Constitution of the United
States and to take advantage of its violation and wait only for some-
body to catch them in depriving its citizens of their constitutional
rights. Do you follow me ?
Mr. McInerney. I certainly do.
Senator McMahon. That is a unique view of the duties of the De-
partment of Justice, and a splendid exemplification of the doctrine
that tlie end justifies the means, which, knowing something of your
background, and of Mr. Hitchcock's, too, is not part of your philos-
ophy, I hope. At least, by God, it is not part of mine. Do you follow
me, Mr. Morris ?
Mr. Morris. Yes ; I do. Senator, May I ask one more question ?
Senator McMahon. I hope that you join me in the expression of
those sentiments.
Mr. Morris. I concur in that, yes ; I do indeed.
Senator McMahon. Thank you.
Mr. Morris. At the same time, in connection with Mr. Bielaski's
entry into the Amerasia office, is it flatly concluded, as you indicate,
that that was an illegal entry ? I mean, after all, he went in with the
concurrence of the building superintendent. He went into recover a
document that had been taken away from his office.
Now, I just wonder if a case could not be made to establish the legal-
ity of such an entrance. He is going in there to recover a document
that had been taken from his office.
Mr, McInerney, I know of no such authority, sir, that would justify
that,
Mv. Morris. Is it a foregone conclusion, Senator, that that is an
illegal entry?
Senator McMahon, Pardon me ?
Mr, MoRRTS. Senator, is it a foregone conclusion that Mr. Bielaski's
entrance int.) the Amerasia office with the concurrence of the super-
intendent of the building, is it a flat conclusion, that that is illegal?
Senator McMahon, Well, Mr. Morris, if the President had otfered
to put me on the Supreme Court, I think I would deliberate on the
offer, but I am not there yet, and I do not purport to give you a flat
answer, if it is a matter of last resort, but in my reading of cases —
I should not say "reading" because it has been a long time since I have
had time to read them, but in my memory of cases — there is no such
exception to the fourth amendment.
Mr. McInerney. I know of no case, Mr. Morris.
Senator McMahon. I would suggest that that would be a very valu-
able exercise for you to research the cases, and I would be pleased
with the opinion on that. If you do not mind, will you get for me an
opinion on that specific question with the citation of authority ?
Mr. Morris. That is right. Senator, and I think, bringing down
the doctrine expressed here in connection with tlie Silverthorne case,
bringing that legal prccspt right down to dnte, would also be of
interest.
Senator McMahon. What is the other case, the Nardone case?
Mr, Morris. But my point is I should think these would be argu-
ments you would leave to the defense counsel to bring up.
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir. That is what we did, and they did bring
them up.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IIST^'ESTIGATION 1043
Mr. Morris. Larsen's lawyer was about to briiiii' it iij) ?
INIr. jNIcInkrxey. He actually tiled it. Mr. Morris, I do not mean
to be critical in any sense of tlie OSS. I know they were doing their
duty, and what they did satisfied their requirements, and I would have
done the same probably, so I do not mean to be critical of the OSS
even, and I endorse what they did, but they hobbled us a bit.
Senator McMahox. Mr. Bielaski suggested in a television interview
that there was a special dispensation in time of war from the operation
of the fourth amendment. Are j^ou familiar with that interview ?
Mr. McInerxey. No. sir.
Senator jSIcMahox. AVell, he stated lie thought he got absolution
from the operation of the fourth amendment because the war was on.
Of course, between two lawyers, it is a silly question, but nevertheless
for tlie record I will put it to you. Is any part of the Constitution
rej^ealed by declaration of war?
Mr. McixERNEY. No part, or cannot be repealed under any circum-
stances, with the possible exception of a writ of habeas corpus.
Senator Mc^Iahon. AVell, a specific provision for the suspension
of the writ of habeas corpus in the Constitution itself does not even
appear I believe in the Bill of Rights. I think that that cannot be
hammered home too much.
The rea'ular merits of this case is the conception that some people
have of "What is the Constitution between friends? A declaration of
words only."
AVell, it is one of the things that we are proudest of, that we managed
to fight this war without invading the Constitution or sacrificing it.
I do not say it was not sacrificed from time to time, but at least it
Avas not sanctioned by those in authority.
Mr. ]MoRRis. I have one more question.
Mr. MoRGAX. I have some more, but go ahead.
Mr. Morris. Go ahead. I just wanted to interrupt on that one
point.
Mr. McIxERXEY. You asked me one question.
Mr. MoRGAX. The question I think which precipitated this discus-
sion was m^ question as to why the complaint was authorized, if it
was known that the evidence that would be acquired might be illegal,
and as I understand it from the discussion that we have had here, the
answer to that question is that you authorized the complaint in spite
of that knowledge, is that correct?
Mr. ^IcIxERXEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAx. Now some observations of course have been made
concerning the nature of these documents, and I have read them, Mr.
Morris has read some of them, other members of the staff have read
them.
I am frank to say I doubt if any two people under any given set
of circumstances could have any unanimity of opinion concerning the
characterization of them, but above and beyond that, I would like to
ask this question to you, iNIr. Mclnerney, and to you. Mr. Hitchcock.
Irrespective of the character of these documents, if I understand
your statements here today, that no matter what their character might
have been, your action would have had to be precisely the same, is that
correct ?
Mr. McIxERXEY. Yes, sir.
1044 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATION
Mr. MoRGAX, In other words, liad you found in Mr. Jaffe's office in
New York, or in Mr. Larsen's apartment here, a document that by all
standards would be one relating to the national defense, your state-
ment is that your action would not have been different under the cir-
cumstances, is that correct ?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir, with this qualification. If you are speak-
ing of one document out of some 600 that were found, it would be the
same, because if a man steals documents and he steals a number of
them with the aid of others, and the majority of them are national
defense in content, that to my mind is a conspiracy to steal national-
defense documents.
However, if you have men stealing documents in which less than
10 percent are of national-defense content, then I say the conspiracy
is to steal Government documents, and not a conspiracy to steal docu-
ments relating to the national defense.
Mr. Morgan. Was that fact a conditioning consideration in the
determination to change the offense from espionage to theft of Gov-
ernment documents ?
Mr. McInerney. That was one of the two considerations. One,
that we did not want to put the character of these documents in issue
at the trial, and the second consideration was that if we had, it would
not have increased the maximum penalty under the conspiracy statute.
Whether they related to national defense or whether they related to
just Government matters, the maximum penalty would be 2 years,
and so we just got rid of one very troublesome element in the case
without sacrificing the maximum penalty,
Mr. Morgan. In other words, being a conspiracy charge, it would
have been 2 years in any event, is that correct ?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Back to the question I had in mind, the nature of the
documents manifestly may have an intelligence significance, an aca-
demic significance to us today, but as I understand it the attorneys in
the Depai'tment of Justice were confronted here with a legal problem,
is that right, a problem of law essentially detached from the nature
of the documents ?
Mr. McInerney, Yes, sir,
Mr. Morgan. I want to get this very clear because it will be helpful
in the full consideration of this case. Did the nature of these docu-
ments in any way condition the decision which you and Mr. Hitch-
cock made in this case?
Mr. McInerney, No, sir.
Mr. Hitchcock. May I say "no, sir,'- to that, too, sir?
Mr. Morgan. Now I have just one or two final questions, Mr. Hitch-
cock. That is this. We have had manifestly a great deal of time in
which to reflect on this case, and I want to ask you if you had it to do
over today, would j^ou handle it any differently from what you did?
Mr, Hitchcock. There is not a thing under the conditions that
existed as this case developed, and with which we were met, that I
would have done any differently in the light of the knowledge of 5
years later under my obligations and abilities as a lawyer, and my
professional standards as an attorney,
Mr. Morgan. One further question to implement the record. I
meant to ask it when we were going over it.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IJSTV'ESTIGATION 1045
I think you referred to perliaps another special assignment that you
had Avith the De]iartment of Justice since you have become associated
with the tirni in Buffalo, is that correct?
]Mr. Hitchcock. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. And what was the nature of that assignment ?
]\lr. Hitchcock. In September of 1948, which was about a year and
9 months or a year and 8 months after I left the Department, the
Attorney General called me, and subsequently through my firm this
was done ; asked if I could be borrowed from my firm for a special
mission for him.
The mission was to take a trip to New York City and to the west
coast to ascertain whether in my judgment witnesses, or prospective
witnesses, who had been named would stand up in court with a reason-
able likelihood of being persuasive to a jury, to establish that Harry
Bridges had once been a Communist. He told me that he had reports
which narrated statements made by these people.
He said, "You know and I know that sometimes you read in these
reports that they say so-and-so, but when you get them on the stand, oi-
before 3'ou get them on the stand sometimes, it is hearsay, sometimes it
is conclusions, and it is not evidentiary."
He said, "It is an important matter. We have been beaten on it
twice when we tried to get him."
What he had in mind was the denaturalization case against Harry
Bridges. I had handled a number of those while I was with the De-
partment. M}' firm stated that it was the only time an Attorney
General of the United States had made such a request to borrow a
member, and to go ahead.
I took a trip to New York, San Francisco, North Bend, Oreg.,
Seattle. Wasli., came back and reported to the Attorney General
some time in October.
My report is still there, I assume, that in my judgment Harry
Bridges was a Communist, was a menace to the United States, and
tliat there was, in witnesses whom I named and whom I talked to,
reasonable grounds for me to believe there was sufficient evidence to
proceed to prove that fact.
Subsequently both the Attorney General and Mr. Peyton Ford, the
Assistant Attorney General, called me in Buffalo and asked me if I
would go to the west coast and try the Bridges' indictment, and I was
unable to do so because I did not have time that I could utilize for
that purpose.
Mr. MoRGAX. Well, I personally would like to make an observation
that manifestly, Mr. Hitchcock, you have heard all of these rumbles
in the press implying various things where you are concerned. I have
not heard an}' statement of yours in reply thereto, and I must say
I admire your self-restraint, and I personally appreciate the oppor-
tunity to hear your story.
Mr. Hitchcock. Mr. Morgan, nothing in 1113^ life has hurt me more
than this case, largely from the Scripps-Howard newspapei-s and Mr.
Sokolsky. I kept my mouth shut.
Mr. Morgan. I have no other questions.
Mr. Hitchcock. It hurt my family more than it hurt me.
Senator McMaiiox. ]Mr. Mclnerney, between 1939 and 1910, and
the end of the war, were there any recommendations that you knew of
1046 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
to the CoRfrress of the United States relative to improving or to
strengthening the hand of the Department, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, in espionage cases?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahon. TVHiat were they?
Mr. McInerney. I believe that between 1939 and 1945 we either
proposed or supported some seven bills authorizing the investigative
agencies to have access to wire tapping in respect to espionage and
internal security cases.
I think the Attorney General has testified once or more. I think
Mr. Hoover has testified on several occasions in support of such legis-
lation, but it was never enacted.
Senator McMahon. My memory is in 1942 — I was not a Member of
the Congress but in 1942 — a proposal went to a vote. I did not know
whether it ever got to a vote in the Senate, but I know it was voted
on in the House. My guess is it was defeated in the House. Am I
right about that?
Mr. Nichols. There was one bill passed both the House and the
Senate, but there was a difference and the bill never got to conference.
Senator McMahon. "Was it al)0ut then, Mr. Nichols, that you
remember ?
Mr. Nichols. Yes.
Senator McMahon. The reason I remember it is a little peculiar.
A gentleman with whom I was very friendly, and still am, was a
Member of the House at that time. He is no longer a Member. He
ceased to be a Member in that Congress, and I remember him dis-
cussing the bill with me, so it must have been somewhere along that
time.
Mr. McInerney. I know while this case was pending in March of
1945 there was a bill introduced looking to the protection of Govern-
ment information, particularly such information as had been trans-
lated into code or cryptography, and that bill, after passing the Senate,
was recommitted.
Senator McMahon. Well, it did not get anywhere.
Mr. McInerney. No, it was recommitted on the motion of a Senator
who was critical of this case.
Senator McMahon. Mr. McInerney, one final question as far as
I am concerned. In view of the uproar that this case has occasioned,
if you had been able to act on all this hindsight, it would have prob-
ably been better to go through and try the motion to suppress, would
it not? Are you sure you would have been beaten? It is a silly kind
of a question.
Mr. McInerney. No, it is not. We would not even have to fight
this motion to suppress by Larsen. We would have said to Larsen,
"Take all of your documents back. We are going to try you on what
we have up in the Amerasia office. You cannot complain about what
we have in the Amerasia office," and we put ourselves in that position
by getting the plea from Jaffe and Larsen's counsel said to us, "I am
not going to discuss a plea in this case until I take this motion into
court and litigate."
We told him on each occasion, "You are not going to litigate it
because we are going to consent to your motion. We are going to give
5^ou back and agree not to use any of the documents we seized from
you."
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1047
Senator Mc^Iaiiox. But ho was not satisfied with that?
Mr. iNIrlxEKNEY. Well, that factor was operating on him, and an-
otlier factor was operating on him.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. MoHHis. May I ask a question, Senator?
Senator McMahon. Yes.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Mclnerney, were the documents seized by the Fed-
eral Bureau of Investiiration in the Amerasia office the same as those
documents which were loul^ed at by Mr. Bielaski 7 months previously
when he entered the Amerasia office ?
Mr. McIxERXEY. No, sir.
Mr. jVIorris. They were different documents?
IMr. McIxERXEY. Yes, sir. We never saw Mr. Bielaski's documents
until recently.
Mr. ]\IoRRis. Well, now if you contend that the documents seized
by the FBI men in the Amerasia office were polluted by virtue of ]Mr.
Bielaski's prior entry, it would seem to me that at any time in the
future Mr. Jaffe could never be apprehended by the Federal author-
ities for stealing Federal documents.
Is not the law of the case that polluted documents are certain
documents, and certain documents are polluted by
Mr. MclxEKXEY. No, sir, I am not suggesting that certain docu-
ments were polluted. I am suggesting that the case was polluted.
Mr. Moiiias. In its entiretv ?
Mr. McIxERXEY. Yes. sir, and in answer to your question as to
whether future prosecution of any kind was thereby rendered im-
possible, I do not think it was.
That is if we wanted to bring the matter to a hearing at wdiich we
would attempt to establish that certain pieces and scraps of evidence
were obtained from sources not polluted, that we might succeed
theoretically, but since this case was handed physically to the FBI by
a polluted hand, everything they did thereafter in the case, if they
had it separately under investigation at the time
Mr. Morris. Even though it was an entirely different Government
agency ?
Mr. McIx'ERXEY. If the FBI had it under investigation separately,
and then got it from OSS, I think that we might have had a pretrial
hearing and we would try to strain out the illegal leads fnmi the leads
which the FBI had developed legally, and see whether we had enough,
but it was so completely tainted by the way in which it was handed
to the FBI that we did not have that opportunity.
Senator McMahon. I am not making any final judgment on that.
I want to study that, and I hope to have that develo])ed in this
memorandum, but we must not forget that the OSS and the FBI — there
is a very, very great difference in their caliber but they are both paid
by the United States Government. They were at that time both
agencies of Government.
]Mr. MoRKis. May I ask you a question, Mr. Hitchcock?
]Mr. TIiTciicocK. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morris. You stated that you did not introduce the fact to the
judge that Jaii'e had Communist a.ssociations?
Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir.
^Ir. Morris. Because you thought that that would prejudice your
case. Is that your testimony?
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 67
1048 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr, Hitchcock. No; I did not say that.
Mr. Morris. That he could claim prejudice?
Mr. Hitchcock. I did not say that.
Mr. Morris. What was your testimony ?
Mr. Hitchcock. My testimony was that we considered very care-
fully whether the fact that Jaffe was a Communist — or as I think I
expressed it — so closely identified with the Conununists that there was
not any distinction, that we could not use that in evidence on the trial
of the case, because once we started, we either would have a mistrial
or we would have a reversal.
Mr. Morris. Why would you have a mistrial ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Because it is matter wholly prejudicial as regards
admissibility in evidence on the charges laid in the indictment, just as
it would haA'e been to a Ku Klux Klan or anything else that you might
name.
Mr. Morris. Well, don't you think that membership in an associ-
ation that is allied with a foreign government, particularly if you can
show, as was the case here, that not only did JafFe shortly thereafter
visit Browder but also the Soviet Embassy and the Chinese Com-
munist delegation as well
JSIr. Hitchcock. Would it have been admissible in evidence?
Mr. Morris. Would not that have been admissible ?
Mr. Hutchcock. It certainly would not have been admissible.
Mr. Morris. Why not ?
Mr. Hitchcock. Because it is entirely irrelevant plus the fact that
it is highly prejudicial.
Mr. Morris. It would be admissible to show the intent of his taking
the documents.
Mr. Hitchcock. It would have been admissible for one purpose,
to show that he was a no-good "louse," which I do not believe anybody
will deny, Init it would not have been any more admissible than to
try to put in evidence that Jaffe had a past criminal record, if that
had been a fact.
Mr. INIoRRis. There again you reach an imi^asse on a legal conclusion.
Mr. Hitchcock. Well, I am giving you as a lawyer my conclusion
on that point, and we discussed it pretty thoroughly.
Mr. ]\1cInernev. Mr. Morris, could I make a comment on that?
Mr. Morris. Yes, indeed.
Mr. McInerney. I think against the background at the time, the
situation was far different than now.
On the day this case came to the Department of Justice on May 29,
the Secretary of State, Stettinius, was making a speech before the UN
in which he was saying that despite the defeat of Germany, Eussia
and the United States must continue as allies, and they must con-
tinue their teamwork.
We had just concluded giving Eussia $11,000,000,000 in lend-lease
materials, and all sorts of technical know-how and classified informa-
tion. Before the indictment was returned, the President was at
Potsdam with Stalin.
Mr. Morris. But, Mr. McInerney, you testified a while ago that the
imminence of the United Nations conference and international events
at the time did not move you in your decision.
Mr. McInerney. No, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1049
Mr. MoRras. You testified previously that the imminence of the
United Xutions conference and the international situation did not
inlkience 3'ou in your decision at the time.
Mr. McInernet. Yes, sir. I am making this observation with
respect to the relevancy of calling the court^s attention to the Com-
munist ano-le.
The Connnunists had been our gallant allies, in quotes, at that time,
and at the time of this plea on September 29 we were starting our
first four-power meeting of foreign ministers with them to continue
our alliance with them," so they were not the people that we regard
them to be today, so it was of much less significance then that Jaffe
was a Communist.
We were admitting Communists to the United States Army and
the Navy, and apparently to our intelligence services.
:Mr. ISIoRRis. Well, you had a conspiracy charge lodged against
them. Did not the Communist aspect of it appear at all in the
charges?
Ml'. jNIcInernet. No, sir.
]\Ir. Morris. Not at all ?
Mr. ?kIcIxERXEY. It was no element of the offense. It does not
have the significance.
^Ir. ISloRRis. Would not that element have strengthened your
charges?
Senator McMahox. Probably on that date it would have weakened
them.
^Slr. McInerxey. In what sense would it have strengthened it?
Mr. Morris. Well, if you are pleading that a conspiracy is in force
here, and if you can show that if people belong to a certain organiza-
tion, by instruction and by discipline they are perforce constrained to
turn over their evidence to a foreign power, namely, membership in
the Communist Party imposes a discipline on a person which makes
it necessary for him to do everything that this foreign power wishes
if he is going to be a good Communist, then if at the same time you
can show that he not only was a member of the organization, but at
the same time had associations with officials of this foreign power,
it seems to me you are introducing evidence that is going to strengthen
rather than weaken your case.
Mr. ]\f(TxERNEY. Yes, sir. We had, of course, no evidence of
membership in the Communist Party on that part of Jaffe.
Mr. Morris. Wasn't he known j^reviously as Comrade Phillips?
Mr. McIxerxey. He is known to have used his first name as a
surname.
^Ii-. Morris. I thought it was pretty common knowledge back in
1041 that he was publishing a Comnnniist newspaper under the name
of Comrade Phillips.
Mr. McInerney. I do not know about the appellation "Comrade."
I knew he had the alias "Phillips"' and anybody in the writing business,
if you find liim with an alias, he calls it a pen name.
Senator McMaiion. One thing I would advise, Mr. McInerney, is
that you do not waste any time trying to recreate the atmosphere
that existed in June of 1945, because you would just be wasting your
time, just like a banker in 19:')?) who was fleeing for his life from
something he boasted about before the big crash in September 1929,
and you might just as well whistle up a flue as to try to convince
1050 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
anybody that they at that time, as you put it, in quotes, "were our
valiant allies." They had in every Government building in this town,
the official policy of the United States. I can remember the posters
so well, "Don't criticize your allies. Don't let anyone sow dissension."
You remember them, but do not waste your time on that.
Mr. Morris. Well. I have only one more question then. Senator.
Perhaps I should ask you, Mr. Hitchcock. Why did not Lieutenant
Roth, why was he not brought to trial by the military authorities?
Why didn't he stand court martial rather than to be prosecuted by
the Federal Government? He was a lieutenant in the United States
Navy, was he not ?
Mr. HrrcHcocK. I have not the slightest idea. The only thing I
know about that — and my recollection was refreshed by something
Mr. Mclnerney said — was on his arrest they tore the buttons right off
him. What happened after that I suppose I knew at the time. I
just do not remember.
Mr. Morris. That was never a factor as far as you know?
Mr. Hitchcock. A factor in what, sir?
Mr. Morris. In handling the prosecution of Andrew Roth, the fact
that he was an officer in the United States Navy.
Mr. Hitchcock. No.
Mr. Morris. I should think that would have been the first thing
that would have occured to you. "This man is a naval officer. We
cannot prosecute him. We must turn him over to the militaiy
authorities."
Mr. Hitchcock. As a matter of fact, when the prosecution was au-
thorized. Counsel, I had nothing to do with that, but had I had any-
thing to do with it, I would have done it the same way.
Mr. McInernet. I think that prior to the 'prosecution, Mr. For-
restal's aide consented to his prosecution.
Mr. Morris. Who is Mr. Forrestal's aide ? ■
Mr, McInerney. Mathias Correa.
Mr. INIoRRis. Did he give any reasons why he was inactivated? I
presume he was inactivated.
Mr. McInerney. At the time of the arrest?
Mr. Morris. Yes.
Mr. McInerney. I do not know the Navy regulations, whether they
would suspend a man or inactivate him upon his arrest on an internal
security charge, but I know that at the time of his arrest, I believe
a naval officer was present and took some physical action of striking
his buttons.
Mr. Morris. Ordinarily a military service will vie with civilian au-
thorities in prosecuting a member of the armed services who has com-
mitted a crime while in service.
Mr. McInerney. I have found the opposite experience, Mr. Morris.
We have had to take on the prosecution of Army officials and Army per-
sonnel who have been charged with treason in Brooklyn, you may
recall, and Mr. Provoo in New York, and the Air Corps has asked
us to prosecute it rather than court martial. That colonel in Eng-
land— it has been my experience that they are veiy happy to give them
■to you.
Mr. Morris. Was Service technically in the Army at the time?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY im'ESTIGATION 1051
Mr. McI KERNE Y. No, sir.
Mr. JNloRRis. He was not. You testified earlier — maybe it was you,
Mr. Hitchcock — that Mr. Service was really an Army man who was
beino- loaned to the United States Embassy.
Mr. Hitchcock. Xo, sir; it was just the reverse. He had been in
the State Department for a considerable time and was on loan to the
Army, but still on the State Department pay roll.
Mr. Morris. I see. Thank you very much. That is all.
Senator McMahox. Gentlemen, I am awfully sorry but I told you
I had to leave at four, and it is 2 minutes after now, so I hope that we
can wind it up Monday.
Mr. MoRGAX. I presume we are through with Mr. Hitchcock.
Senator McMahon. I think so. Has anybody got any further ques-
tions of Mr. Hitchcock ?
Mr. Mclnerney, I will want you to come back since you are in town
and 3'ou are on the Government payroll. I want the Silverthorne case
printed in the record. It is not very long and I think that would be a
good thing to have the Silverthorne case in the record, since it seems
to be the basis of so much of your reasoning. It should be printed.
The citation is Silverthorne Lionher Co., Inc., v. United States
(251 U.S. 385).
(The document above referred to is incorporated by reference.)
Mr. Morgan. I might also ask, Mr. Chairman, that 'we incorporate
by reference in our record the Congressional Record of May 22, 1950,
which contains the jDroceedings of the Hobbs Committee.
Senator McMahon. It is so ordered,
(Wliereupon, at 4: : 05 p. m., the hearing was adjourned.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
WEDNESDAY, MAY 31, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Rel.\tions,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington, D. C.
executive session
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment on Friday, May
26, 1950, in room G-23 of the United States Capitol, at 10 : 30 a. m.,
Senator Millard E. Tydings, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings and McMahon.
Also present: Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the sub-
committee; Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel of the subcommittee;
Mr. James M. Mclnerney, Assistant Attorney General of the United
States ; ]Mr. Peyton Ford, the Assistant to the Attorney General ; Mr.
D. M. Ladd, Assistant to the Director, Federal Bureau of Investiga-
tion; Mr. L. B. Nichols, Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Senator Tydings. Senator McMahon, I was called to New York to
be a pallbearer at a funeral on Monday, and while I was there I took
some memoranda that I had been working on and devised 11 questions
that it seemed to me ought to be cleared up in the public interest be-
cause, as I understand the matter, the public is more interested in
finding out why these trials did not take place, whether or not there
was evidence that had never been adduced before any investigative or
judicial body, and other matters in relation thereto, and the questions
I asked that the FBI address themselves to today are the following:
1. The names of all individuals involved in the removal of confi-
dential documents from the State Department, whether innocently or
not.
2. How did the confidential documents get out of the State Depart-
ment ?
3. Were any employees of the State Department detected taking
confidential documents ? If so, give names.
4. Were any of the confidential documents given to agents or rep-
resentatives of any other government ? If so, give details.
5. Were any employees of the State Department seen giving docu-
ments to other persons on the outside ?
6. Was there evidence of espionage? If so, give details.
7. Was evidence essential to convicting the accused obtained in such
manner as to render it inadmissible at a trial?
1053
1054 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
8. What evidence did the FBI 'have that coukl not be challenged
as illegally obtained ^Yhich could be used to sustain the indictments?
9. Why were only three persons indicted?
10. Was all evidence the FBI had given to the grand jury against
all individuals concerned?
11. Why was it advisable to accept pleas of guilty in the fashion of
the two cases of Jaffa and Lai*sen ?
Mr. Ford, Senator, before they testify may I make a brief state-
ment on behalf of the Department ?
Senator Tydings. If you are going to testify you had better be
sworn.
Do you solemnly promise and swear that the evidence you shall give
in the matter pending before this committee shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Ford, I do.
STATEMENT OF PEYTON FOED, ASSISTANT TO THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL
Mr. Ford. I was not in the Department at the time this case oc-
curred. The brief statement I want to make is this :
There has been apparent criticism in the press against the Depart-
ment of Justice and its investigative agency, the FBI. I would like
to state on behalf of the Department that at the time this case occurred
the first information the FBI received on it appeared to be of an
extremely serious nature. There were certain extraordinary methods,
as it were, used to investigate the case. We took certain calculated
risks, I want to state that at no time did the Criminal Division of
the Department or any official be critical of the methods used by the
FBI in making this investigation. We got some unfortunate breaks,
as you get in any case, but that is no reflection upon the investigative
techniques used or the investigation made.
I just want to put that in the record.
Senator Tydings. Thank you, ]Mr. Ford.
Will each of you gentlemen stand and raise your right hand?
Do you solemnly promise and swear that the evidence you shall give
in the matter pending before this committee shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Ladd, I do.
Mr. Nichols. I do.
STATEMENTS OF D. MILTON LADD, ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTOR,
AND L. B. NICHOLS, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Mr. Ladd, give your full name.
Mr. Ladd. D. Milton Ladd, Assistant to the Director, Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation.
Senator Tydings. How long have you been connected with the
Bureau, Mr. Ladd?
Mr. Ladd. Since November of 1928.
Senator Tydings. What have been your various positions therein?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1055
Mr. Ladd. I started as a si)ec'ial a<ieiit invest ijiatin<>' cases in the
field. Thereafter I have been in charoe of fiehl oilices at New Orleans,
St. Louis, St. Paul, the AVashinoton field oflice, Chicago, 111.; then
Assistant Director in charge of the laboratory and the Identification
Division for 2 years. Foilowinji; that I was Assistant Director in
charge of the Security Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
until a year ago, when I assumed the duties of Assistant to the Director.
Senator TvoTXiis. How old are you, Mr. Ladd?
Mr. Ladd. Forty-seven.
Senator Tydings. What is your present address?
Mr. Ladd. 5235 Nebraska Avenue.
Senator Ttdixos. Were 3'ou in charge of the FBI detail that acted
in the Amerasia case?
Mr. Ladd. That is correct; yes.
Senator Tydixgs. When were you first pust on this work ?
Mr. Ladd. I assumed charge of the investigative work in the Se-
curit}' Division in October of '41.
Senator Tydings. When were you assigned to the Amerasia matter ?
Mr. Ladd. On INIarch 14 the matter was referred to the Federal
Bureau of Investigation.
Senator Tydings. 1941 ?
Mr. Ladd. 1945.
Senator Tydings. When did you complete your matters? That is,
when were the arrests made ?
Mr. Ladd. The arrests were made on June 6, 1945.
Senator Tydings. So almost 3 months you were working on the case ?
Mr. Ladd. Tliat is correct.
Senator Tydixgs. How many men did you liave engaged in this
enterprise at the start, approximately, the first week or 10 days ?
Mr. Ladd. About 15 or 20, 1 imagine, the first week.
Senator Tydix'GS. What was the highest number you had at any
one time ?
Mr. Ladd. Probably approximately 70 to 75,
Senator Tydixgs. For how long were 70 to 75 engaged in this work?
Mr. Ladd. That would vary, Senator, because it would depend upon
the surveillance, and so forth.
Senator T-iTux^Gs. Could you give me a general idea of about how
long you used 70?
Mr. Ladd. I would say for about a month.
Senator Tydixgs. That would be toward the end, more than toward
the beginning, as your case was developed?
Mr. Ladd. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Ladd, with any state-
ment you care to make.
Mr. FoiiD. ]May I be excused?
Senator Tydixgs. Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Ford.
Mr. Ladd, It is not our intention to be repitious in presenting cer-
tain phases of the Amerasia case to the committee, so we will confine
our statement to the clarification of a number of situations which may
have raised certain questions in the minds of the connnittee, as we
know the connnittee is desirous of having a complete picture objec-
tively given of this matter.
1056 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
A question has been raised as to the dispatch with whicli the investi-
gation was handled. The facts in this connection are that there was
no delay. The investigation was handled with dispatch. This
matter was first referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation by
the State Department on the evening of March 14, 1945, at which
time information was furnished indicating that Government docu-
ments of top secret character had been found by OSS in the offices
of Amerasia magazine.
The official documents recovered by OSS were of a restricted and
classified nature and at the time were a great cause for alarm by those
having responsibility for security and who were security conscious.
Among these documents w^ere the following :
Targets in Japan — classified "top secret."
Japan Air Force — classified "top secret."
Japanese resources — classified "top secret."
Disposition of Japanese naval units after battle of October
20, 1944 — classified "top secret."
In connection with this latter document it should be remembered
that until the cessation of hostilities one of the most jealously guarded
naval secrets was its ability to intercept and break the Japanese naval
code. In fact, Mr. Robert Hitchcock in the preparation of this case
in September of 1945 requested the details of a document recovered
in the office of "Amerasia" disclosing the fact that the Navy had
broken the Japanese code. At that time, he was informed through
his associate that this and other documents had been obtained by OSS
prior to the Bureau's entering the case in a manner which made them
inadmissible as evidence.
The knowledge of the existence of such documents at the inception
of the investigation, in unauthorized hands, raised many possibilities
from an investigative standpoint. It was entirely possible that their
possession in unauthorized hands reflected the existence of a here-
tofore unknown espionage ring witli highly placed associates in the
Federal services having access to vital information of the utmost
importance to security of wartime secrets. It was also entirely pos-
sible that the existence of documents out of the files where they be-
longed reflected carelessness, cupidity or a lack of security con-
sciousness.
Still a third possibility existed, namely, that unprincipled jour-
nalism which was not characteristic of responsible journalism every-
where in time of war and peace was endeavoring to develop exclusive
stories. No possibility could be overlooked. The situation was
r.rgent. Time was of the essence. It was not unreasonable to consider
that the safety of American lives was at stake. The identities of the
individuals responsible for furnishing "Amerasia" with Government
documents were not known to the FBI or to the State Department.
An immediate investigation was instituted, and as a result it was
determined that Philip Jatfe and Kate Mitchell were the co-editors
of this magazine and that they were in very frequent contact with
Emmanuel Larsen of the State Department, Lt. Andrew Roth of ONI,
and Mark Gayn. On April 18, 1945, approximately 1 month later, a
conference was held between Gen. Julius Holmes, Assistant Secretary
of State, Mathias Gorrea. assistant to the Secretary of the Navy, and
representatives of the FBI, At that time, the FBI advised that it
STATE DEPARTMENT E]\IPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION 1057
was read}' to present the ease for such prosecutive action as tlie Depart-
ment might consider proper. However, the representatives of the
State and Navv De]>artments requested that tlie investigation be con-
tinued for an additional 2 months or so for the purpose of determin-
ing the identities of other employees of their Departments who might
be engaged in submitting material to Jaffe and to determine whether
Jatfe was actually obtaining this material for the use of a foreign
government. As a result of this request, investigation was continued.
Extensive investigation was continued in this matter until on May
29, 1945, full details were furnished to Mr. Tom C. Clai'k, then Assist-
ant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division of the De-
l)artment of Justice. Later that day, Mr. James Mclnerney, then a
special assistant to the Attorney General, conferred with FBI officials
and reviewed the evidence in the case. He was informed of all FBI
investigative procedures employed and pointed out that prosecution
would be authorized. However, on May 31, 1945, Mr. Mclnernej'^
advised the FBI that prosecution in connection with this matter was
to be held in abeyance until the conclusion of the San Francisco Con-
ference of the United Nations. We were subsequently advised that
this request to the Department emanated from the naval aide at the
"\^niite House. On June 2, 1945, a representative of the State Depart-
ment inquired as to the status of prosecution and was informed that
prosecution Avas being held in abeyance pending the outcome of the
United Nations conference. As a result of this, General Holmes, of
the State Department, contacted President Truman concerning this
case and furnished him with the above information. President
Truman then immediately personally telephoned a representative of
the FBI and instructed in no uncertain terms that the prosecution
should proceed as quickly as possible and added that in the event
instructions were received to the contrary from anyone, he should be
immediately advised.
^Ir. ISIcIxERXEY. In my previous testimony about this particular
aspect, as to the holding up of the case, I believe I stated that I was
unable to recall the circumstances under which the instruction was
given. I have since located a note dated May 29, which is in my
handwriting, and which states :
Matter may be held up by Navy. Mr. Forrestal called Mr. Clark.
ISIr. Ladd. We had previously been advised that the President was
deeply concerned about the serious nature of this case and wanted
this case given most vigorous investigative and prosecutive attention.
Innnediately after the President's call, the Criminal Division of
the Department of Justice was advised of the President's instructions
and accordingly they prepared the complaints in this case after a full
discussion of all of the evidence and with full knowledge of the
investigative procedures utilized by the FBI in this case. The FBI
was instructed to make the arrests at a time when a search incident to
the arrest could be made.
On the late afternoon and evening of June 6, 1945, all of the indi-
viduals were taken into custody by FBI agents, at which time a large
number of docuinents, the majority of which were of Government
origin or Government ]:)roperty, were obtained.
These recovered documents rej^resented rei:)orts from the State De-
partment, the Navy Department, OSS, OWI, Federal Communications
1058 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Commission, Foreign Economic Administration, and the "War De-
partment. Some of them dealt with military matters, political affairs,
and so forth. Many of these documents bore the classifications "secret,"
"confidential," or "restricted." Some were originals, some were copies
prepared at the time the originals were made, and others were copied
from the originals. The contents of these documents speak for them-
selves, such as :
An ONI report dated September 17, 1912, reflecting the organization
of Japanese Navy fleets and other operating forces. This bore the
classification "confidential" (found in the Amerasia offices).
A "strictly confidential" communication from Ambassador Gauss,
dated February 17, 1944, entitled "Reorganization of the Chinese Air
Force" ( fomid in the Amerasia office) .
A report of the Military Intelligence Division, dated June 10,
1942, entitled "Airfield, Seaplane Anchorages" pertaining to Japan,
Korea, Formosa. This document is classified (found in Amerasia
offices).
Senator Tydings. "VVliere you say "classified" do you mean it is
marked "Classified" or did it have a secret or confidential marking?
Mr. Nicholas. ONI stated when we checked the documents that this
was a classified document which had been in their files.
Mr. Ladd. It has no stamp showing its classification, but when we
checked it back we received that information.
Senator Tydings. In each of these matters you say "a confidential
connnunication," and so on. Is that an original, or was it a copy?
Mr. Ladd. Some of them were ozalid copies. This is a photostat
of the actual paper.
Senator Tydings. Was the actual paper found ?
Mr. Ladd. It was an ozalid copy.
A Military Intelligence Division report classified "Confidential"
bearing the ])enciled notation "war ])lans" entitled "Chinese Guerrilla
Training School at Manchiang, N. W. Kiangsu" (found in the apart-
ment of Emmanuel Larsen) .
Document dated March 17, 1945, over the signature of John Stewart
Service, entitled "Verification of Communists' Territorial Claims by
Direct American Observations," which also listed some of the places
from which United States airmen had been rescued out of Jap terri-
tory ( found in the offices of Amerasia) .
Senator Tydings. Was that marked "Classified" or anything?
That is the document dated ISIarch 17, 1945. There is no classification
given on that one whatsoever here in your summary.
Mr. Ladd. No ; it is not marked "Classified."
Senator Tydings. Don't you think, in order to keep your record
straight, it ought to be corrected to say "Nonclassified" or whatever
terminology is appropriate ?
Mr. Ladd. O. K. ; "unclassified." That would then read, "unclas-
sified" before "document."
Mr. Morris. In whose possession was that found ?
Mr. Ladd. It was found in the office of Amerasia.
A "secret" document over the signature of John Stewart Service,
dated March 20, 1945, entitled "Yen Hsi-Shans' Dealings With the
Japanese" (found in the offices of Amerasia) .
A document classified "Secret" entitled "Chiang Kai-shek's Treat-
ment of the Kwangsi Clique," dated March 21. 1945, over the signa-
STATE DEPARTMENT e:MPLOYEE LOYALTY im^ESTIGATION 1059
\mv of John Stowart Sorvice (found in the brief case of Phili[) Jaffe
in the otllce of Anierasia at the t inie of his arrest ) .
An ONI document dated March 24, 1944, cUissified "confidential'
entitled ''C'hina Coast Physical Geop-apliy and Coastwise Shipping
Routes." This bore the penciled notation "war plans, coastal areas,
inner-passage, niinetl areas" (found in Larsen's apartment).
A document classified "Very secret"' entitled "One Reason Why
Wedemeyer Returned to Washington.'' This contained a copy of a
memorandum to tlie Joint Chiefs'of Staff, Washington, D. C. (found
in Larsen's apartment).
Document classified "Secret" report of the Military Intelligence
Division dated :\Iarch n, 1044, entitled "Changes to Order of Battle
of Chinese Army as of February 29, 1944" (found in Larsen's apart-
ment).
A document classified "Secret'" prepared by the INIilitary Intelli-
gence Division, dated February 4, 1944, entitled "Order of Battle of
the Chinese Army as of December 31, 1943" (found in Larsen's apart-
ment).
Senator Tydixgs. Of these that you have read, which were copies
and which were originals so far as you are able to identify them now?
You say some were originals, some were copies prepared at the time
the originals were made, and others were copies of the originals. I
would like you to furnish that for the record, rather than to stop now.
Mr. Ladd. We can do tliat.
Senator Tydixgs. Just in case somebody wants to know which of
these were originals and which were copies, so we will have that.
Mr. Ladd. I will be glad to do that.
The FBI made every effort to check on the various documents and
cover outstanding leads with dispatch. Departmental attorneys were
anxious to secure the results of this investigative activity as rapidly
as possible as they desired to ])resent the facts to the grand jury at the
earliest possible date. The Bureau was advised that the facts would
be presented to the grand jury on June 21, 1945, and on that same day,
a clepartmental attorney advised an FBI oflicial that he was of the
opinion that it would be desirable to have this grand jury return in-
dictments charging violation by the defendiints of sections 100 and
101, title 18, United States Code. The term of this grand jury ex-
l)ired July 2, 1945, and no returns were made. The facts were re-
presented to a second grand jury beginning July 30, 1945, and on
August 10, 1945, true bills against Philip Jaffe, Emmanuel Larsen^
and xVndrew Roth were returned. No bills were returned on John
Service, Kate Mitchell, and Mark Gayn.
The only entry which was questioned was revealed by a motion to
quash supported by an affidavit executed by Larsen and filed in the
district coui't on September 28, 1945.
The FBI had advised the Department that its agents had entered
apartment 207, 1650 Harvard Street, occupied by Emmanuel Larsen,.
on April 6, 1945. A sample of ty])writing was taken from a type-
writer found in the apartment. On June 4, 1945, Larsen moved from
apartment 207 to apartment 227. Agents made no entry into apart-
ment 227 from the time Larsen moved in until he was arrested on June
('), 1945. At the time Larsen was taken into custody he was asked
by special agents whether he had any official Government documents in
1060 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
his apartment. He stated that he had. The agents asked where they
were and he then showed the agents where most of them were. In
the search which followed additional documents of a classified nature
were found in a dresser drawer. The agents making the search had
no previous knowledge of the existence of these documents in the
dresser. Upon the disclosure of these documents Larsen told the
agents that he did not know how they had come to be. placed in there.
The FBI made a detailed administratiA'e inquiry into all of the
allegations set forth in the Larsen affidavit and a 21-page summary
memorandum was furnished to Mr. Hitchcock on October 12, 1945, to
be used as a basis for answering the Larsen affidavit.
Senator McMahon. That Larsen affidavit is the motion to quash ?
Mr. Ladd. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. You do not identify that very clearly.
Mr. Ladd. It is referred to at the top of the page :
The only entry which was qiaestioued was revealed by a motion to quash sup-
ported by an aifldavit executed by Larsen and filed in the district court on
September 28, 1945.
Subsequently, on October 22, 1945, Mr. Donald Anderson, who was
associated with Mr. Hitchcock in this case, advised that the Depart-
ment intended to offset Larsen's motion to suppress the evidence by
showing the court that sufficient evidence was placed before the grand
jury to warrant the return of a true bill insofar as Larsen was con-
cerned without considering any of the evidence obtained during the
search of Larsen's premises.
At the time of Jaffe's apprehension, June 6, a large number of
documents were obtained from the offices of Amerasia. As an illus-
tration of the thoroughness of the investigation, a check was made
for fingerprints on the documents recovered. Laboratory examina-
tion of material disclosed latent fingerprints of Kate Mitchell, Mark
Gayn, and Emmanuel Larsen. One document contained six latent
fingerprints of Mark Gayn, one latent fingerprint of Emmanuel
Larsen, and one latent fingerprint of Jaffe, indicating that all three
individuals had handled that particular one. Typewriting examina-
tions disclosed that a number of those documents in Jaffe's possession
were typed by Annette Blumenthal and several were typed on machine
belonging to Mark Gayn. Through typewriting comparisons it was
further determined that two items recovered in the offices of Amerasia
were carbon copies of items recovered in the possession of Emmanuel
Larsen.
A handwriting examination disclosed three items in the known
handwriting of Andrew Roth and a large number of documents which
bore the handwriting of Emmanuel Larsen. Most of the documents
recovered were definitely determined to be of Government origin.
They dealt primarily with Chinese matters, although some of them
dealt with miscellaneous subjects such as India, Thailand, and other
South Asian countries. They originated primarily with the State
Department, Navy Department, Office of Strategic Services. Office
of War Information, Military Intelligence, and Foreign Economic
Administration. The subject matter of these documents included
military as well as political information.
Admissions, both oral and written, made by the subjects reflected
they were fully aware of the fact that they possessed confidential
Government documents.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA'ESTIGATION 1061
Such documents contain ino; wartime secrets were recovered. A stop
was put to an inexcusable practice. A leak of information that could
have reached floodtide proportions was phi*i:ged in a period of grave
national enioreency. We knew then of the Conmninist connections
of flad'e and had every right to assume that the information would
have been used against the best interests of the United States.
It is not our res|)onsibility nor would be ])resume to pass on whether
a case should or should not be prosecuted; that is the responsibility
of departmental attorneys.
Would you want me to go into the questions ?
Senator Tydixgs. Excuse me a minute. Let me read that again.
Now, when you say "Admission, both oral and written, made by
the subjects reflected they were fully aware of the fact that they
possessed confidential Government document,"' do you mean all of the
subjects, or the three who were indicted, or which number of them?
Mr. Ladd. All of the subjects with the exception of Jaffe made
written statements.
Senator Ttdixgs. They made written statements? What did those
statements contain ?
Mr. Ladd. In the case of Larsen, he admitted
Senator Tydixgs. Larsen did admit it?
Mr. Ladd. That's right.
Senator Tydixcjs. Jaile made no statement?
Mr. Ladd. He made no statement.
Senator Tydix-^gs. Kate Mitchell?
Mr. Ladd. Kate Mitchell admitted that she had in her file cabinet in
her office certain Government documents.
Senator Tydix'gs. And Service?
Mr. Ladd. Service admitted that he had taken what he called copies
of his official documents.
Senator Tydixgs. Of his own?
Mr. Ladd. Of his own, to J.{itfee, on numerous occasions.
Senator Tydixgs. What excuse did he give for that, if any?
Mr. Ladd. He made the explanation that at the time he made the
original copies he made a copy for himself, and he considered this his
own personal property.
Senator Tydixgs. I know; but was it classified?
Mr. Ladd. Some of them he had classified, yes.
Senator Tydixgs. Had he given any of the classified ones to Jaffe?
Mr. Ladd. Yes.
Senator Tydixgs. "Wliat was his explanation of that?
Mr. Ladd. His explanation was that he had put the classification on
himself, and that the copy which he had furnished w^as his personal
copy.
Senator Tydixgs. Now let us turn back here a moment, before you
get to the questions, so I can follow you where you describe these
various documents. There was one here, "A 'secret' document over
the signature of John Stewart Service dated March 20, 1945, entitled
'Yen Hsi-Shans' Dealings With the Japanese' (found in the offices of
Amerasia).'' AVho put the word "secret" on it. Service himself?
Mr. Ladd. Service testified that he placed the classification on these
reports himself.
Senator Tydixgs. I do not suppose you would want to pass on
whether the terminology of "secret" was well chosen or not.
1062 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Ladd. No.
Senator Tydings. You just relate what you found.
Mr. Ladd. We just relate what we found. When we get any docu-
ments from another Government agency we accept their classification
and do not question it.
Senator Tydings. With reference to one document which is marked
"secret" — let's see the length of it — just bear with me a minute while I
run over this, will you ? I think we ought to put this document in the
record, May I keep this ?
Mr. Ladd. We cannot make that available. That would be up to
the Department.
Senator Tydings. How about this, Mr. Mclnerney?
Mr. McInerney. We will be glad to furnish photostats.
Senator Tydings. I am not going to pass on it, but from reading it
hurriedly it looks like Yen Hsi-shan is a Chinese general, and the
purport of this was to show his alleged relationship with certain
Japanese who were part of the Japanese Army. However, I haven't
read it in full. That is the document that we have before us. I am
looking for the classification on here at the moment.
]\Ir. Ladd. In the upper left-hand corner.
Senator Tydings. ISow go ahead with the questions on page 11.
These are questions which I asked Mr. Morgan to present to you on
Sunday and asked you to give me your answers in writing so that
they would be availalde for the information of tlie press and country,
and all those who are concerned in this particular part of the investiga-
tion. Read the question and then the answer.
Mr. Ladd (reading) :
Question. (1) The names of all inrtividnals involved in the removal of con-
fidential documents from the State Department, whether innocently or not.
Answer. Emmanuel Larsen and John Service, State Department employees,
have both admitted that they removed snch docnments from the State Depart-
ment. Larsen admitted showing and giving ^'liilip JatVe classified documents.
Service admitted showing and giving Jaff.^ documents. Larsen was seen on
numerous occasions carrying envelopes out of the State Department to the Statler
Hotel where he met Jaffe. On other occasions Service was seen to carry a brief
case out of the State Department into the Statler Hotel where he met Jaffe.
Senator Tydings. Right there, were there any other employees of
the State Department involved in the removal of confidential docu-
ments, that you know of ?
Mr. Ladd. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. That is my understanding, that these were the
only two that your agents and your surveillance turned up. That is
correct, is it ?
Mr. Ladd. That is correct.
Senator Tyding. There were no others, directly or indirectly, that
you know of?
Mr. Ladd. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Ladd (reading) :
Question. (2) How did the confidential documents get out of the State Depart-
ment ?
Answer. The confidential documents were carried out of the State L^epartment.
This is admitted. In addition, Larsen was seen on numerous occasions carrying
manila envelopes and a brief case out of the State Department to his residence,
and to the Statler Hotel where he met Jaffe, Roth, and Service.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY im'ESTIGATION 1063
Qiiestii'u. ( :{ ) \Wn>' any (Miiiiloyccs (if the State Department detected taking
confidential docunientsV If so, give names.
Answer. While not detiH'led in the act, Service and Larsen liave botli ad-
mitted removing chtssitied documents from the State Department. Both were
ol).served leaving the State Department with brief cases and manila envelopes
and both have been followed to the Statler Hotel where they had meetings
with .latfe and Roth. On one occasion Jaffe and S(>rvice visited the residence
of Andrew Kotii. When they entered Jaffe carried nothing. When he left he
was carrying a manila envelope. Roth and Larsen were observed going to the
hotel room of Jaffe on one occasion carrying envelopes. When they left they
were not carrying envelopes. On April 10, 194.5, Andrew Roth, his wife, Mrs.
Roth, and Emmannel Larsen were observed having lunch in Washington. Fol-
lowiuLC lunch ;\Irs. Roth carried two manila envelopes to her home in Virginia.
On April 12 she entered Jaffe's otHce in New York City carrying a large manila
envelope. She went directly to Jaffe's private office and an hour later departed
without carrying an envelope.
Following the arrests of the defendants hundreds of classified documents were
found in their possessi( n.
Question. (41 Were any of the confidential documents given to agents or rep-
resentatives of any other governments? If so, give details.
Answer. Obviously, spies do not pass dociunents in the presence of witnesses
and it is not known whether classified information possessed by Jaffe or his
a.s.sociates was communicated to representatives of any other government. In
the course of the investigation, however, Jaffe was observed to enter the Soviet
consulate in New York City on May 31, 194.5. He met with Earl Browder, then
head of the Communist Party, on four occasions during the investigation.
Senator Tydings. That is your investigation?
Mr. Ladd. Tlie FBI inAestigation.
Senator Tydings. Go aliead.
Mr. Ladd. Jaffe also had meetings with Tung Pi-wu, the Chinese
Communist representative to the United Nations Conference. On
April 1^2, 1945, for example, Browder and his secretary, Harold Smith,
entered Jati'e's residence at 10 a. m. At 10 : 20 a. m. Timg Pi-wu accom-
]ianied by two unidentified Chinese arrived. At 1 p. m. Browder,
Smith, and Mrs. Jatfe left the premises retiu-ning in a half hour.
Shortly after ?> p. m. Browder, Smith, Tung Pi-wu and the two Chi-
nese left Jalfe's home. On another occasion, Tung Pi-wu met with
Service in "Washington, D. C.
Senator Mc^Mahon. Mr. Ladd, you don't know what they talk?d
rtbout. Do vou have anything further on that ?
Mr. LadDi Xo; we have no other information at all. As we say
at the beginning, Senator, we don't know whether any confidential
information was passed. [Reads:]
Question : (-5) Were any employees of the State Department seen giving docu-
ment^ to other persons on the outside'.'
Answer : While actual physical delivery of documents was not observed, the
fact remains that hundreds of classified documents were recovered from unau-
thorized persons on June 6, 1945. Larsen and Service were observed in fretinent
contact with Jaffe and Roth. Service also met with Mark Gayn and has stayed
in liis New York apartment. Both Larsen and Service have admitted giving
documents to Jaffe. Larsen and Service were also observed carrying envelojies
or a zipper case out of the State Department. As a further illustration of the
operations of this group, Service met with Jaffe in his hotel room on May 8,
194.5. Service discussed military, political, and policy matters with Jaffe and
cautioned him l)y saying: "Well, what I said about the military plans is. of
course, very secret."
(Discussion was had off the record.)
Mr. Ladd (reading) :
Question : ((>) Was there evidence of espionage? If so, give details.
An'wer : The answer to this question is one of legal determination and a
question for the Department of Justice to pass upon. The Bureau did file com-
68970— 50— pt. 1 68
1064 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATrON
plaints befoi'e a Federal judge in Washington, D. C, prepared by the Depart-
ment attorneys charging violation of section 88, title 18, United States Code, in
that tliey had conspired to violate section 31, subsections C and D of the
Espionage Act, title 50, United States Code, upon which the arrests were made
on Jiine 6, 1945.
Senator Tydings. What does that section cover ?
Mr. Ladd. That is the conspiracy section.
Senator Tydings. You had two options, the conspiracy and the
espionage. Are they difTerent, or are tliey one and the same thing?
Mr. Ladd. There is conspiracy to commit espionage. I think the
Department conki ansAver the legal question better than I.
Senator Tydings. Illegal possession of documents in wartime is an
oflfense in itself, and espionage is an offense. Is that correct?
Mr. McTnernet. The illegal or unauthorized possession of docu-
ments relating to national defense is a violation of the espionage
section.
Senator Tydings. Wliat is the difference between that and espionage
as we generally know it ?
Mr. ]\IcInerney. There are three sections of the Espionage Act.
One is relating to obtaining information with relation to national
defense ; two, clisbursing it in an unauthorized way ; and three, trans-
mitting it to persons to the prejudice of the United States.
Senator Tydings. So when you speak here of the particular statute,
and in answer to the question, you say the Bureau did file complaints
before a Federal judge in Washington, prepared by the Department
attorneys, charging violation of section 88, title 18, United States
Code, in that they had conspired to violate section 31, subsections C
and D of the Espionage Act, title 50, United States Code, upon which
the arrests were made on June 6, 1945. So in the ramifications of
espionage the answer would be "Yes," would it not ? You see, I asked
the question, "Was there evidence of espionage?" I would first like
to have had "Yes ; there was," or "No ; there wasn't."
Mr. McInerney. There was not espionage in the usual sense.
Senator Tydings. That is what I am trying to develop.
Mr. McInerney. There was no transmission, there was no evidence
of intent to injure the United States or help an enemy or a foreign
government.
Senator Tydings. So what you really got them on was illegal posses-
sion ?
Mr. McInerney. Right.
Senator Tydings. That is what I wanted to bring out.
Go ahead.
Mr. Ladd (reading) :
Question. (7) Was evidence essential to convicting the accused obtained in
such a manner as to render it inadmissible at a trial?
Answer. The passing upon the admissibility of evidence is the responsibility
of the Department of Justice.
(Discussion was continued off the record.)
Senator Tydings. Was evidence sought and obtained by entering the
apartment and premises of the accused without legal process and with-
out the knowledge of the accused ?
Mr. Nichols. In answering this question I would like to point out
the responsibility that was on the Bureau at this time. The war was
still being fought. Information was in our possession indicating a
tr:
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1065
leak of what could be vital military secrets. Our chief and iunnediate
concern at the moment was who was <xetting this information and how
to bring a stop to it. Our internal-security function was one of pre-
vention as well as apprehension and prosecution. We put ih'st things
first, and we did enter the premises of Amerasia, the Mark Gayn
ajiartment and the Larsen ajjartment, where we observed classified
documents emanating from the Government. This, of course, was
prior to the arrest on June 6, 1945.
Senator Tydtnos. Were these entries of the premises before arrest
made by the agents without legal process and without the knowledge
of the subjects^
Mr. XicHOLS. Obviousl}^ the entries were made without the knowl-
edge of the individuals involved.
Senator Tydings. Were these circumstances of the manner and time
of the entries used after the arrests were made as a basis by the accused
for filinor motions to suppress and quash the indictments?
Mr. Nichols. Emmanuel Larsen filed a motion to quash on Septem-
ber 28, 1945. However, the issue was not raised by any of the other
defendants so far as we know.
Senator Tydings. Do you know whether or not there was the fear
that it would be raised by any of the other defendants ?
Mr, Nichols. That is a matter involving the prosecution of the case.
(Discussion was continued off the record.)
Senator Tydings. I would like to say now, on the record, that I
thank you, Mr. Ladd and Mr. Nichols, for giving us this account of
what happened. I understand how during the war your first concern,
and properly so, was to put an end to whoever was getting these docu-
ments, and zeal to that end was more important than anything else,
with men fighting and dying all over the world. So far, if you had a
little more zeal in accomplishing that than maybe in a sober moment
we might think was necessary, I would be the last one to criticize you,
because I think your primary objective of stopping this business was
of major concern, and I think all who know the facts about this are
iioine: to erive you commendation rather than criticism.
Mr. Nichols. Thank you. Senator.
Mr. Ladd. Thank you.
Senator Tydings. Now the last page of your questions.
Mr. Ladd (reading) :
Question : (8) What evidence did the FBI have that conld not be challenged as
illegally obtained which could be used to sustain the indictments?
Answer: The answer to this question involves the expression of a legal opin-
ion by attorneys in the Department of Jiistiee.
Question : Why were only three persons indicted?
Answer: The FBI is unable to answer this question, as it involves a matter of
prosecution, which is handled by the attorneys in the Department of Justice.
Senator Tydings. I would also include in there the District grand
jury. I would put the grand jury first, because they have to indict,
and then there is the prosecution, which is handled by the attorneys
in the Department of Justice.
Mr. Ladd (reading) :
Question: (10) Was all evidence the FBI had given to the grand jury
against all individuals concerned?
Answer: The answer to this question could be secured only by reviewing a
transcript of the grand jury proceedings, checking upon the testimony of the
1066 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
witnesses and making an Inventory of available evidence. Tims, it can be seem
that the FBI is unable to answer this question.
Question: (11) Why was it advisable to accept pleas of guilty in the fashiion
of the two eases of Jaffe and Larsen?
Answer : The FBI does not inject itself into matters involving prosecution and
thus is unable to ex))ress an opinion on this question since it involves a depart-
mental matter.
Senator .Tydings. There are two or tliree collateral things I would
like to clear up there. How many FBI agents appeared before the-
grand jury and gave evidence
Mr. McInerney. We put the list in. I will put it in again. There
were 17, 1 think.
Mr. Ladd. I think that was the figure. Let's say approximately 17,.
for the answer.
Senator Tydings. Do you consider from the investigative angle that
the case was well presented to the grand jury? You had your men
there. Was it well presented ?
Mr. Ladd. That is a question we cannot comment on.
Mr. McInkrney. Their men have not read the grand jury transcript.
Senator Tydings. I would tldnk he would know what men were
called and which witnesses could be pertinent toward developing a
substantial case against these people. That was the sense in which
I asked it. I would like to ask you whether the witnesses called before
the grand jury were such as to present, from youi- knowledge of di-
recting this, a complete picture of tlie e\ idence that you gentlemen
had gathered.
Mr. Ladd. I would say they were, yes. Senator.
Senator Tydings. Do you know, of your own knowledge — so far as
you know, so far as your own knowledge goes, has the Bureau any
evidence that there was any improper influence used in this case in
arresting the securing of indictments or in the handling of the matter
after indictments against any or all of these individuals who were
arrested ?
Mr. Ladd. Obviously that would have to be a question to be an-
swered by the Department.
Senator Tydings. I say of your own knowdedge.
(The question was reread.)
Senator Tydings. Just so far as you know.
Mr. Ladd. That question should be answered by the Department.
So far as the Bureau is concerned, obviously no one has approached
the Bureau or anyone in tlte Bureau in connection with any fix.
Senator Tydings. Then your answer would be, so far as your knowl-
edge goes, there was no such thing. Is that correct ?
Mr. Ladd. My answer is, insofar as the Bureau is concerned, the
Bureau has not been approached at any time in connection with any
so-called fix.
Senator Tydings. And that would include you ?
Mr. Ladd. That includes me ; yes.
Senator Tydings. I would like to ask Mr. Nichols the same question,
Mr. Nichols. I would concur with Mr. Ladd.
Senator Tydings. Do you have any knowledge to the effect that the
Bureau or anyone connected witli the Bureau has been approached
with the purpose of bringing undue influence to bear in connection
A\ith the indictment or trial of any of the six individuals who were
originally arrested ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA'ESTIGATION 1067
Mr. Nichols. I am certain no one in the Bureau has been approached.
Senator Tyoixos. So yonr knowlediie <xoes onl}^ to the Bureau. Do
3'ou have any knowledjie outsitk' of the Jhireau?
Mr. Xu'iioLs. That woukl be obviously a question for the Depart-
ment to answer.
Senatoi- Tvnixr.s. Do you have any knowledge that there was any
fix outside the Bureau^ By that 1 mean by the Government, or
wliatever might be imj^roper.
Mr. Nichols. That is a difhcuh question for me to answer.
Senator Tydixc.s. Why? Do you mean you can't answer it?
Mr. Nichols. It is obviously for the Department to answer on that.
Senator Tydings. I don't just follow you.
Senator Mc^Iahon. You have your primary investigating; func-
tion. If tliere Avas u.r.due i'^fluer.ce in. any Department, it would be
a subject for investigation by the Department of Justice because it
IS a crime within your jurisdiction.
jNIr. Nichols. We have never made any investigation along that
line.
Senator McMahox. Have you ever had any evidence submitted to
you that there was improper influence exerted in this case?
Mr. Nichols. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. INIcIxERXF.Y. The Bureau did send a memorandum in August
talking about rumors in the news})aper world with regard to influence.
They ran it down to the public-relations man in the State Department,
and they suggested that he call me on whatever he was hearing. I
think his name was Blake.
Senator Tydixgs. I am all mixed up here now. I was reasonably
straight a while ago. There was a rumor. There was some state-
ment or something in the })ress here. I read it myself recently, where
the word has been used. You say that then the Bureau sent a memo-
randum ? To whom ?
Mr. McIxERXEY. To the Attorney General.
Senator Tydixgs. Saying what ?
Mr. ]McIxERXEY. That it was rumored in newspaper circles that
this case was going to be "cashed," or some such language.
Senator Tydixgs. This was at tlie time of the arrests, or recently?
Mr. McIxERXEY. The grand jury was on it.
Senator Tydixgs. In 1945 ?
Mr. jNIcInerney. Yes.
Senator Tydixgs. I see.
jNIr. McTxerxey. As a matter of fact, it developed that this infor-
mation had been reported, I believe, by Tom Blake, of the State
Department; and the Bureau told him to communicate with me or
with the Criminal Division and report whatever he had heard. He
never did.
Senator Tydixgs. Have you ever gotten any intimation or informa-
tion or evidence that a fix was attempted at any point in this whole
thing?
Mr. ]\rcIxERNEY. Have I, sir?
Senator Tydixgs. Yes.
Mr. INIcIxERXEY. No, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. That is about as far as we can go this morning
unless, Brian, you or Mr. Morgan have some questions.
1068 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. I have some questions. I will wait until the Senator
or Mr. Morgan have asked theirs.
Senator McMahon. Mr. Nichols, getting back to the question Mr.
Mclnerney just answered — and, if I am mistaken, correct me — it
is part of the investigative jurisdiction of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation to investigate substantive crime such as bribery or a
conspiracy to bribe or any substantive crime of obstruction of justice
or conspiracy to obstruct justice. Has the Bureau any evidence that
anyone, either in the Department, in the Government, or outside the
Government, engaged in any of these things ?
Mr. Nichols. Bribery?
Senator McMahon. Or obstruction of justice.
Mr. Nichols. I don't Imow of any.
Mr. Morgan. I have one question that will be helpful to me par-
ticularly. In the course of testimony that has gone before, particu-
larly that of Mr. Bielaski, there have been quite a few suggestions
concerning possible witnesses to appear before this committee, includ-
ing a great many former agents of the Bureau. I would like to ask
you, Mr. Ladd, or Mr. Nichols, as the case may be, as to whether the
Bureau is in a position to give us, without resort to former agents,
all of the pertinent facts concerning the investigation of this case.
Mr. Ladd. I would say in answer to that, very definitely. The Bu-
reau coordinates all of its work tliroughout the United States through
its central headquai-ters here in Washington, and in that manner I
have coordinated the activities in the Amerasia case from Washington
of the agents in New York or W^ashington or wherever the investiga-
tion might be, and the full facts are available to us in Washington and
can be and will be made available to the committee at any time.
Senator Tydings. You have pretty Avell made them available.
Mr. Ladd. We have endeavored to do so today.
Senator Tydings. Is there any pertinent fact about this case that
ought to come out that has not been brought out that you can recall
right now ?
Mr. Ladd. You have the testimony, and incorporated it, from the
Hobbs committee the other day ; and I think that gave a pretty com-
plete history of the case.
Senator Tydings. That, plus these questions we have brought out
this morning, gives the Bureau's picture of the case pretty clearly,
does it ?
Mr. Ladd. I believe so.
Mr. Morgan. That was my next question. Senator, as to whether In-
spector Gurnea's testimony, as it appears on page T5G0 forward of
the Congressional Record of May 22, 1950, is an accurate statement
of the facts insofar as they are stated there.
Mr. Ladd. It is ; yes.
IMr. Morris. I have before me what purports to be a one-page hand-
written letter dated April 2, 1945, at "Staff, CINPAC, Advance Head-
quarters, Box 5, Fleet Post Office, San Francisco," on the stationery of
the United States Pacific" Fleet and Pacific Ocean areas, Headquarters
of the Commander in Chief. The letter reads :
Dear Jack —
This is 64Q401—
Your returning boss gives me a chance to get this line off to you. I have been
luxuriating here on Guam for almost 2 months. I am in the Future Plans Section
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1069
technically, but mostly am gettins: an education in what goes on in the Pacific
and trying to keep up on China. The former is fascinating; the latter, ditlicult.
If you could (ind a safe way to send me an occasional copy of your memos, I
would he grateful. Maybe you will find it practical, maybe not. So far as I can
find out. this is the only opportunity I will have to conununicate with you until
and imless Lud and Emerson come through.
What goes on these days in the old country? I get a chuckle out of the news
this morning that old Tuiig I'i-Wu is going to be a delegate to the San Francisco
conference.
Best to the boys, especially Sol, if he is about.
Jim.
Senator McMahon. Jim avIio?
Mr. M(iRRis. I don't know. Tliat is wliat I am gfoing to ask. Has the
FBI done any invest i^iatino; with respect to that particular letter?
Mr. Ladd. In connection with that particular letter, that was a per-
sonal letter found in Service's office. The identity of the so-called
Lud in there was believed on check to be Raymond B. Ludden, who was
interviewed in connection with this particular investigation on June 8,
1945. He admitted that he was a close friend of Service's, and he had
been employed in the State Department since September of 1931 as a
Foreign Service officer of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs.
The sender of the letter we don't know. Whether Mr. Mclnerney
can answer that, 1 do not know. Whether these were showm to
Service at the grand jury, I can t say.
]\Ir, McIxER>rp:Y. I don't know.
jNIr. Morris. On the face of it, you would gather that here is a man
who is a future plans officer at Admiral Nimitz" headquarters, trying
to devise a way by which they can send memoranda out to each other.
It would look to me to be at least abortive evidence, at least incipient
evidence, of a conspiracy, and since the people are in the State De-
partment— Ludden is in the State Department — I was wondering if
this Sol is Sol Adler, who was frequently mentioned in connection
with this same group.
Mr. L.\DD. We believe that it was ; yes. He, when interviewed, said
he first met Service in 1941 in Chungking, China, that he was very
well acquainted with China. At that time he was a Treasury Depart-
ment representative in China. •
Mr. Morris. They talk about "I got a chuckle out of the news this
morning that old Tung Pi-Wu * * *." They certainly seem to
be talking in terius of affection in that connection. I was wondering:
to wliat extent that had been investigated by you, jSIr. Ladd.
Mr. Ladd. To the extent of trying to identify these individuals whose
names have been mention. The identity of "Jim" we do not know.
Mr. Morris. Infonnation like this, I grant you. is probably not
testimony in the sense that it would be admissible in a court of law.
A\'ould that be admissible in a loyalty board hearing?
Mr. Ladd. I would gather it would be admissible in a loyalty board
hearing.
Senator Ttdixgs. On Service? Yes; it would, because the FBI
have told me in writing that we have in the files all of the informa-
tion which touches on the loyalty of the individual in question. There
are long, long, long FBI records, sometimes as many as 40 or 50 wit-
nesses interviewed, so I would assume, without knowing precisely of
this case, Mr. Morris, that it would be there. That is only a sup-
position. I am not giving j^ou that as a fact.
1070 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. There are several other such letters as this. I think
they are good leads.
Senator Tydings. If the FBI lias them, we have them,
Mr. Morris. If we can arrange a way by which I can ask questions
of these gentlemen w^ithout having to keep you and everybody here,
I will be glad to do that.
Senator Tydings. I think we will stay.
Mr. Morris. I have a letter which is 60Q397, which is a typewritten
letter dated "Washington, April 16, 1945."
Senator Tydings. Are these parts of the seized records you are
reading now ?
Mr. Morris. That is right. These particular ones Mr, Mclnerney
had sent up here this morning. This is part of a letter. It begins
"Dear Anna Lee and Teddy."' I presume that is Anna Lee and Teddy
White. They are well-known people wdio have been identified in this
whole far-eastern picture. It reads :
The optimistically pleasant speculations we allowed ourselves to indulge in on
that last evening of mine on 879 —
Street blocked out —
were 180° wrong. The paper rode Tiger loudly enough here to drown out the
apparently general —
Apparently "apprehension has been scratched out —
but—
Another word scratched out —
timid opposition, and based on —
And then "nothing but" scratched out, and —
the Tiger's modest account of his achievements.
The big boss said, "Keep it up." After that the table pounding, in regard to
yours truly, was only a matter of course. Especially disappointing was the
'•political sense" in the narrow means by the man I had hoped would fight.
I am now assigned to a safe job here but have been urged to bide my time.
The Tiger's support ended on the 12th, the day of my arrival, and there is a
feeling that —
Several words scratched out —
good jobs should go to good party members.
That apparently is the end of the letter. Has it been determined
that Service wrote that letter ?
Mr. Ladd. I can't answer that for you.
Senator Tydings. Who signed it ?
Mr. INIoRRis. It is an unfinished letter. Senator.
Mr. Ladd. It was a personal letter found in Service's office, "Wlio
pre])ared it, I cannot answer for you. I do not know,
Mr. Morris, AVould an examination of your evidence aid you in
answering that, jSIr. Ladd ?
Mr. Ladd. I doubt that.
Mr. IMoRRis. Do you know wlio "the Tiger" is ?
Mr. Ladd. I haven't the slightest idea who "the Tiger" is.
Mr. INfoRRis. And you don't know who "the big boss" is ?
Mr. Ladd. No.
Mr. Morris. How about the statement "There is a feeling that
good jobs should go to good party members" ? What have you to say —
was there any develo])ment on that?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1071
Mr. Ladd, No.
Sonator ^rc^rAiiox. T^et nie brino- in one question, will you? Mr.
Bielaski, when he was up liere, Mr. Ladd, testified that he discovered
a paper, an envelope, witli "A bomb"' written on it. Did that ever
enter into any of your investigative reports? Do you know what I
am referring to?
Mr. Ladd. Yes. I didn't know you were through with your ques-
tion. I'm sorry.
In answer to that, Senator, none of the documents that were obtained
by the Bureau or that were turned over to the Bureau by OSS at the
initiation of this investigation contained any references to the so-
called A-bomb. Likewise I might add that we have checked with the
Atomic Energy Commission and they have no knowledge of any such
document covered by this investigation.
]Mr. Morris. ]\Iay I say there that the documents perused by Mi*.
Bielaski were not the same documents perused by the FBI when they
made their subsequent arrests. As I understand it, there was ar>
entry
Senator Tydixgs. Some of them were, because he said he only toot
some that he read. You will find that in the testimony.
Senator McMaiiox. You have the answer from Mr. Ladd.
]Mr. Morris. I would like the record to show that after Mr. Bielaski's
entry into the Amerasia office there was an entry made by the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, and at that time it was apparent that the
documents that had been seen by Mr. Bielaski had been completed
removed.
Senator Tydixgs. How do we know that ?
Mr. IMoRRis. It has come out in the testimony somewhere.
Senator Tydixgs. "Who brouglit it out ?
]Mr. ^loRRis. I think you did, didn't you, Mr. Mclnerney ?
Mr. McInerney. No. I think INIr. Bielaski brought it out.
Senator Tytjixgs. Mr. Bielaski brought it out ; nobody else brought
it out.
Mr. ]McIxERXEY. Mr. Bielaski stated that when the FBI moved in
they didn't find any documents and they thought that he had burned
\\\\ the case," and he ex]:)lained it by saying that there was just a lapse
in there in whicli tlie documents had been returned and then a new lot
was coming in.
Senator T^thngs. That is right. I remember his testimony. That
is what you have in mind. But there has been no evidence by any-
body else to corroborate what ]\Ir. Bielaski said, so far as I can recall.
Senator McMaiiox. The whole point of my question in re the
A-bomb and Mr. Bielaski's testimony is simply to point out that no
one else, either in his raiding force, as he testified himself, nor the
Federal Bureau- of Investigation, although they have done their best
to follow up that so-called lead, nothing has been divulged which
would indicate that any A-bomb material was involved other than on
Mr. Bielaski's say-so. It is also significant that the term "A-bomb"
was coined by headline writers months after the A-bomb was dropped
on Hiroshima. That is a matter of historical fact.
Mr. Morris. Will the record sliow that there is no evidence that the
documents examined by the FBI in subsequent entry or entries were
necessarily the same ones used by ^Ir. Bielaski at the time he made
his entrv ?
1072 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. That's ri^lit, and the record will also show that
the records examined by the FBI were not necessarily not the same
records examined by Mr. Bielaski at the time, so you can take it
either way.
Mr. McInerney. If you are going; to go into the presence or absence
of the A-bomb data, I think the record ought to show that the Bureau
was in there 10 days after Bielaski. Otherwise it might appear than
they were in there on June 6.
Senator Tydings. How soon were you in there after Mr. Bielaski
was in there?
Mr. Ladd. We were in there the night of JNIarch 19-20.
Mr. McInerney. Bielaski was in there on March 10.
Senator Tydings. It was about that time.
Mr. Morris. Did the FBI find documents in there at that time?
Mr. Ladd. Yes, sir. A large number of documents were in there
on that night, but as previously stated, we don't know whether they
were the same ones Bielaski saw or not.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Bielaski wasn't with you and did not see
your documents, and you weren't with him, so you can't tell what
he saw, so there you are.
Mr. Morris. I have one more of these that I would like to ask about.
This is a letter in Service's file, S-62/Q399. It is a letter from Max
Knight to Mr. Jack Service :
Berkeley S, Calif., March 7, i545.
Mr. Jack Service.
Care of Neil Broxmi, OWI,
APO 627, care of Postmaster, Netv York, N. T.
Dear Jack Service : I do hope yoi; don't resent that I novr trouble you long
distance. But my conscience bothers me ; I knovp how I would feel if I were
in Dr. S'clm-arz's shoes (and I would be In his shoes save for some fortunate
circumstances, including; J. S.)
I had hoped to have a chance to see you a^ain before you left — you sure move
fast, and it seems you get across the sea sooner than we get across the bay.
Actually I have little to add to Kurt's story ; I just may add his address :
17;> Route Ma.ven (Hwa Ting Lu) — that's the place where the kindergarten is.
Perhaps you may want to add his address to your other addresses, in case there
is a chance to use it. Kurt's name is also known to Carlson who used to work
in Opintell. and to Fitch ; and Lyman Hoover actually knows Kurt. I had a
letter from LymaTi a few weeks ago.
If you think it possible to write to Kurt, even just greetings so he sees he
is not forgotten, I know it would be a great lift for him and Martha. He knows
your name. I feel lousy to suggest this to you, and I would feel guilty if I
didn't. So here you have my dilennna.
Next month I will celebrate the fourth anniversary of my arrival — and last
week my folks (father and mother) arrive in the United States from England
on the quota : it took me all these 4 years to get them here, but now I am the
happiest guy between the two coasts.
From time to time in the office we have a chance to see reports which include
your name, so we are currently reminded of you. Wliat an interesting job
you have.
Well, oTice again, I hope you won't mind all this too much — but I feel if any-
one can appreciate the circumstances it's you.
Very sincerely yours,
Max Knight.
Mr. Ladd, was there any investigation and examination conducted
to determine the nature of 173 Route Mayen and what that address
was ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\^ESTIGATION 1073
Mr. Ladd. I could not answer that without checkintj the files. It
is a little difficult to try to keep the full details of 1,700 documents in
mind.
Mr. Mt^RRTs. I understand it is. That is why I suggested perhaps
it would be better to do this at another time.
Mr. Ladd. I will bo glad to get the answer for the committee.
Mr. Morris. Very good.
May I reserve the right to ask a few more of these at some other
time, Senator Tydings^
Senator Tydings. Oh, yes; sure.
Mr. Morris. In other words, this is something I think will be much
more efficiently handled if these men, Mr. Ladd and Mr. Nichols, could
have all the investigative facts available.
Senator Tydings. Why don't you do this, Mr. Morris: Why don't
you take a list of what you have there, turn those papers over to these
two gentlemen, and ask them what they have developed as a conse-
quence of the papers which you turn over to them, and let them put
a written statement in in full of the matter, so you will have the
whole picture? Will you do that?
Mr. Morris. Yes; I will.
Senatoi' Tydings. Then they can look it up and see what the}^ have
in their files. You just turn them over, and I will ask these gentle-
men to put in the record any data they have wnth reference to the
interpretation of these documents that are authentic.
Mr. Morris. I think I can let these other questions go.
Mr. Morgan. In the course of Mr. Bielaski's testimony, I believe he
makes reference to a statement attributed to a former agent to the
effect that while Mr. Bielaski had not been fortunate enough to find
FBI reports or data in the course of his check of the Amerasia
quaiters, that in fact this ex-agent had been more fortunate and had
obtained FBI reports.
I would like to ask Mr. Ladd if there is any evidence indicating
that that is or is not true.
Mr. Ladd. There were no FBI reports found in connection with any
of the arrests in this case with the exception of a copy of a memoran-
dum from the Bureau to the Honorable Adolph Berle, Assistant Sec-
retary of State, on the subject. Exploitation of White Russians In
Far East for Espionage Activity.
The copy which was found had been checked to the Director of
Naval Intelligence in the Navy Department, Washington, D. C. ONI
has no record of this document, and they believe that this copy that we
recovered was the one that was actually designated for them.
Mr. Morgan. Where and on what occasion was this document re-
covered ?
Mr. Ladd. This was recovered in Larsen's apartment, a carbon copy
of an original.
Mr. ]M ORGAN. At the same time the search w^as made incident to the
arrest of Larsen?
Mr. Ladd. At the time the search was made ; yes, sir.
Mr. Morris. What has been the adjudication on the request for the
memorandum from the FBI to the Department of Justice with respect
to the answering affidavit of the motion to quash papers of Larsen?
I think Mr. Ladd said it would be available and Mr. Mclnerney ques-
tioned the advisability of making it available.
1074 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Ladd. I did not say it would be available. That is a question
to be passed on by tlie Department. The FBI lias no right to make
papers available to anybody.
Senator Tydings. Just before you leave, in order that we have some
coordination here and the story is accurate, the press is going to be
after me on what we did this morning, and without disclosing these
I am going to say that I put a number of what I deemed were very
pertinent questions to the FBI, and the FBI answered those questions
in considerable detail. In the light of the questions and answers
they made rather extensive remarks concerning certain phases of the
case and have stated that they believed the committee now has from
the FBI standpoint an accurate picture of the FBI's knowledge of the
Amerasia matter. Is that correct, Mr. Ladd ?
Mr. Ladd. That is correct.
Senator McMaiion. May I make one further suggestion, that it
would be well if you will say that it is the intention of the committee —
if you agree witli me — to summon the six defendants in this case and,
pending receipt of their testimony, pending the receipt of the whole
testimony in the case, no evidence will be handed out.
Senator Tydings. You think we ought to summon the six men, do
you ?
Mr. McIxi'^RNEY. Twoo of them are abroad. Eoth is in Indochina.
Gayn is in Europe.
Senator Tydings. What is Roth doing?
Mr. McInerney. He is correspondent for The Nation or some other
magazine. Gayn is a correspondent. Jaffe, I think, is available. I
dont' know whether Mitchell is. Service, of course, is here. Larsen
is here. Two of them are out of pocket.
Senator JMcIMaiion. We will do the best we can, but I think we have
got to get them, Senator. I don't see any other way, do you ?
And I regret that we haven't got a quorum, because I would like
to move for the citation of Browder and Field.
Senator Tydings. We will have to put that up to the Foreign Rela-
tions Committee.
Senator McMahon. I think we ought to do it.
Of course in this case, the objective of the Amerasia case as I see it,
is to find out whether or not there has ben corruption involved in
this case, whether there has been a so-called "fix."
Senator Tydings. Why did it go as it went?
Senator McMaiion. Why did it happen? Let's assume that a mis-
take was made by the people in charge of the Department of Justice^
in our opinion, as a matter of judgment. If that were an honest mis-
take, unless there was such gross incompetency, it would not be a mat-
ter of concern for us. The matter of concern for us is whether or not
there has been a "fix" in this case.
Senator Tydings. Are we going to prove that there Avas or was not
by asking the defendants to come in here and testify?
Senator McMaiiox. T ;^uppo3e T linve to say this'Mi an=^wer to that.
There are a lot of people that won't be satisfied until these people are
questioned, Senator. I suppose we have not only got to be right,
but we have got to seem to be right. That is one of the difficulties, as
I gather, that the Department is having. They claim they were right,
but they have got to seem to be right.
(Whereupon, at 1 : 20 p. m., the hearing was adjourned.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
MONDAY, JUNE 5, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington^ D. C.
executive session
Tlie subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment on Wednesday,
May 31, 1050, in room G-23 of the United States Capitol, at 2 p. m.,
Senator Millard E. Tydings, chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings (chairman of the subconnnittee). Green,
Mc^NIalion. and Lodge.
Also present : Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the sub-
committee; Messrs. Robert L. Heald and Robert ]\lorris, assistant
counsel of the subconnnittee.
Senator Tydings. The committee will come to order.
Do you solemnly promise and swear that the evidence 3'ou shall give
in the matter pending before this committee shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Larsen. I do.
TESTIMONY OF EMMANUEL S. LARSEN
Senator Tydings. Give us your full name.
Mr. Larskn. Emmanuel Sigurd Larsen.
Senator Tydings. And your age^
Mr. Larsen. Fifty-two.
Senator Tydings. What is your present address?
Mr. Larsen. The address is 1650 Harvard Street NW., Washington,
D.C.
Senator Tydings. Are you presently employed?
Mr. Larsen. Xo, sir; I am not employed.
Senator Tydings. You are not eini)]oyed? When was your last
employment ?
Mr. Larsen. Mv last regular einplovment terminated on October
22, 1945.
Senator Tydings. Was that the final episode of the State Depart-
ment matter?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir. That was the date on which my resignation
was accepted by Secretary of State Byrnes.
Senator Tydings. 1 have asked Mr. Morgan to go back over the
previous records of testimony concerning the Amerasia matter and
1075
1076 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
to prepare some questions so as to enlighten tlie committee on the
matter, and also to interrogate you on some useful information, so we
will ask Mr. Morgan now to go ahead with his examination.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Larsen, we have, of course, available to us at the
present time the record of the so-called Hobbs committee, before
which you appeared as a witness, I believe.
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. I might ask you at this point, were you under oath
at that time?
Mr. Larsen. No, I don't believe so. I can't say for sure, but I
don't think so. I came in and met a group of gentlemen in a small
room, and we sat around a table and talked in confidence, as I under-
stood it.
Mr. Morgan. We have, of coui-se, a great deal of background in-
formation concerning you. I think, however, we would appreciate
having specifically your connection with the United States Govern-
ment, if you will give us your employment from the outset with the
United States Government, in the various capacities for our record,
we will appreciate it.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir. After my return to the United States in
March of 1935 I came to Washington on a Kockefeller scholarship in
the Library of Congress. My work was to translate Chinese history
and write up Chinese biographical data for the term of 1 year. How-
ever, without having ap]:)lied to Naval Intelligence the Chiefs of
Naval Intelligence approached me in October 1985, and asked me
whether I would like to go over to Naval Intelligence as Chinese
analyst.
Senator Ttdings. In what year?
Mr. Larsen. 1935. As proof that I was not pressing it very much,
I let it slide for 9 days and then Captain Reinecke, under orders of
Admiral Zacharias, who was my first boss, called me and asked me to
come over, and I said, "Well, I will come over one of these days," and
he said, "Why not take a taxi now and come over?"
My reluctance in going was simply the fact that I knew it was
slightly unethical to quit a scholarship before the expired term, and
therefore I sought the advice of Dr. Houmel and Mr. INIortimer
Graves, of the American Council of Learned Societies, and both merL
told me that I was free to quit the scholarship and go to Naval In-
telligence if I wanted to. Then I was employed as an analyst on
October 14, I believe it was, 1935, and I became Chief Analyst in the
Far Eastern Division of Naval Intelligence.
My duties were particularly related with China and Manchuria, on
which I have specialized, very much like Mr. Lattimore has specialized
on Manchuria, and also Korea and Indochina.
Then I wanted at one time to leave Naval Intelligence because I
had been told that my ceiling salary of $4,800, T think it was at that
time, had been reached, and I was ambitious to get into a higher posi-
tion. So I applied to the American Military Government in 1943
and was accepted to all purposes, but just before being commissioned
friends of mine in the Navy Department prevailed upon me to stay
with Naval Intelligence, and I was reclassified.
Then, in 1944. I happened to go over to see Dr. Hornbeck in the
State Department, and I told him 1 had tried once to leave the Navy
Department but they didn't like civilians pulling out during the war.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA'ESTIGATION 1077
He said "There is a ])lace in the Planninor and Research Division.
A\'ouid you be interested T'
I said, "I would, very much. Is it possible ?"
He said, '"It ini<iht be arranged."
So I tiled an application. I happened at that time to be ready to
goon 10 days' amiiial leave. 1 had a k)t of leave accunuilated. 1 went
to Roanoke with my wife, and when I came back I w^as informed that I
had already been transferred by Executive order. Thus I started
to work in the iState Department on September 1. 1944.
]Mr. Morgan, AVould you care to indicate the nature of your em-
ployment with the State Department?
Mr. Larsex. In the State Dei)artment my duties were those of a
country specialist, and a group of country specialists were members
of a small committee known as the -Postwar Policy Committee. We
fonnulated basic postwar policy.
Senator Grkex. Of how many?
Mr. Larsen. I think there were about 11. As a member of that
Postwar Polic}' Conmiittee and as a member of the Research and
Planning Unit of the Far East Division, I had a gold badge. That
gold badge entitled me to take out documents, naturally only for
official purposes.
Senator Ttdixgs. About how many people had gold badges, as
nearly as you can remember — hundreds, or dozens, or scores?
Mr. Larsex'. Scores.
Senator Tydixgs. Scores?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Senator Lodge. To take the documents out of the building?
Mr. Larsex'. Yes.
Senator Lodge, Why would you want to take a document out of
tlie building?
Mr, Larsex', I was asked that by the FBI when I was first arrested,
and I told them I had, as you see from docnments in my house, taken
documents out very frequently. Very many people did that. Win-
did I do it ? My duties consisted of writing papers for the Policy
Committee. In the writing of them I used a rather limited field of
official literature reaching me, namely just the dispatches concern-
ing political conditions in the particular area of which I was writino-,
and I had a deadline for every paper, and policy meetings almost
every day. So it was absolutely impossible to read all the dispatches
that were routed to my desk, and for my attention. Therefore I took
home, as so many State Department people did, and Xaval Intelli-
gence— I am only speaking from experience, from what I have seen —
I had a brief case and I took home dispatches.
Senator Lodge. Couldn't you have gone home for supper and gone
back to the office at night?
]\Ir. Larsex*. No.
Senator Lodge. ^Y[\y not?
Mr. Larsex'. Because the office would be locked.
Senator Lodge. You couldn't have gotten in?
Mr. Larsex. I doubt whether they would have permitted me to sit
until midnight, for instance.
Senator Lowje. You didn't try.
Mr. Larsex', We did work until midnight, but then we worked as a
group, and the office and files were locked up and we walked out. I
1078 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
am not sure on that point; it is possible I could have stayed alone, but
I frankly doubt it.
Senator Lodge. That is all you wish to say on the point of taking
documents out of the building?
Mr. Larsen. No; I will^say more than that.
Furthermore, I was ordered, on a couple of occasions, to take docu-
ments. I remember particularly one occasion on which I was ordered
to take a document home.
Senator Lodge. By whom?
Mr. Larsen. By my superior officer, Dr. Blakeslee, head of the
resarch group.
Mr. Morgan. That is in State?
Mr. Larsen. Yes. I can tell you what the document was. It was
the final paper on postwar policy regarding our position in Korea.
It was, of course, a very impoi'tant document, and I know it would
have been very bad if the i-aid had been made on my house during a
time when I had that document. Dr. Blakeslee told me to take it
home, get it finished and bring it back Monday morning so we could
have our meeting Monday morning, and I did that.
Mr. Morgan. Do I understand, Mr. Larsen, that this practice of
taking material home also prevailed in ONI? Was that done there,
too?
Mr. Larsen. Yes; that's I'ight.
Mr. Mor(jan. And when you toolf this matei-ial home, liow long did
you normally keep it?
Mr. Larsen. Normally I would keep it 1 night. If I could get
through it over the week end, I kept it until the following Monday.
Mr. Morgan. Give us specifically for the record here the purposes
that you had in mind in taking the material home.
Mr. Larsen. I am glad you asked me that. I had not quite finished
concerning the purpose.
When I was arrested by the FBI they asked me that question and
I decided to give them the absolute truth on that. I told them that
in 1923 I was postmaster in Amoy, South China, and I was ordered
by the director general of posts in Pekin to proceed south and meet
the rebels — that was Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek's group at
that time — and find out what their political affiliations were and what
type of men they were. There I got into this hobby of collecting
biographical notes, I photographed about 55 of them, wrote reports
on them and sent them in. Later the army moved northward and I
was told to discontinue the project.
Senator Tydings. Biographical notes?
Mr. Larsen. Biographical notes; yes; on Chinese personalities. So
in 1923 I started a hobby which I have kept up to this date, of gather-
ing biographical material. I think I have a good file. It was at one
time the best in the LTnited States. When I went to naval intelligence
I gave naval intelligence the benefit of that knowledge and that file.
I turned over about 550 copies to them, duplicates I had.
Mr. Morgan. You retained, however, the originals?
Mr. Larsen. Yes; I retained the originals.
Then, in 1941, I met a young man in naval intelligence by the name
of Andrew Roth.
Senator Tydings. What year?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1079
Mr. Larsen. In 1044. I can't say exactly when it was, but it prob-
ably was March. April, or May — in the spring of 1944. It was while
I was still in ONI.
Mr. MoKGAX. It was while you were still in ONI?
Mr, Larsen. That's right.
He was an officer, with aold braid, and I presumed a trustworthy
person. I presumed that, because I know it is considerably more
diilu ult to be conuiiissioned than to become a civilian analyst, for
the simple reason that a civilian analyst must not handle secret and
top-secret material and the officers can handle top-secret and secret
material.
Mr. Roth asked me one day whether I was going to lunch. I said,
"Yes." I walked with him. When we crossed Pennsylvania Avenue
at Seventeenth
Senator Tydings. How did he come to ask you, if he was in Naval
Intelligence ?
Mr. Larsen. I was in Naval Intelligence at that time, to August
31, 1944.
Senator Tydixgs. This was before, when you were both in Naval
Intelligence?
Mr. Larsen. That's right, sir.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Larsen. He asked me whether I still kept my biographical
cards up to date. I said "Yes."
He asked me, "Do you know a man by the name of Philip Jaffe?"
I told him "No, I can't place that name. I seem to have heard it,
but I can't place it."
He said, "Well, he is a good friend of mine and he is the editor and
publisher of Amerasia magazine," and so far as I remember I believe
I told him "I have seen it there, I believe."
Then he said, "This man has been in China and has visited the Com-
munist areas, and you told me one time that you had very little on the
Chinese Communists, such as a very few photographs" that I put on
one corner of my cards.
So he said, "He has all this material, and he would like to exchange
that type of material with you."
I told him, "That's fine; that is exactly the way I built up my file,
through many, many personal contacts," because I can buy a Who's
Who and see all the euphemisms about the career — born, married, and
graduated ; mostly what a man gives himself. But the dirt on a man,
why he double-crossed this and that general, why he joined Chiang
Kai-shek's party eventually, his political affiliations such as he does
not want to brag about, that I like to collect.
So right then and there Roth said to me, "Well, let's not go in and
eat ravioli then. Mr. Jaffe is in town, and I can bring you right to
him today if you would like to meet him, and we might have lunch
with him."
So I went with him to the Statler Hotel, met Mr. Jaffe, and we sat
down around a table. He told me about his interest in Chinese per-
sonalities, and we made an agreement that every time he came down to
Washington — he said he would come about once a month — he would
give me a list of personalities he was interested in, and I could give
him one that I was interested in. I believe I gave him one right then
68970— 50— pt. 1 69
1080 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
that day. Then we started to get together. He didn't come down for
a couple of months. I think it was about July 1944, when we first got
together, I had him up at the house and started to show him my col-
lection, and he picked out cards and said, "These men I would like to
have biographies of, and I wonder whether you could copy them for
me."
I think it was the next time he came back I told him that I hadn't
had time to copy them and I didn't like to loan them because then I
would lose them, and then he asked my wife if she would copy them,
at about 50 cents apiece. That means for some of them one card,
others six or seven cards on both sides, 5 by (), so it would work out
not at too high a rate.
She agreed to do that, because she was not working at that time.
She had resigned from the Navy Department quite a long time ago,
and then we started to work this.
Getting back to the reports
Mr. Morgan. Before we go any further along that line, Mr. Lai-sen,
back to the original question of your purpose in taking these docu-
ments home as you did, am I to infer from what you have just told us
that your sole purpose in doing so was to gather personality data ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir ; I must correct you there. That would be en-
tirely incorrect, inasmuch as I have said my pur])ose was partly to
take material home and read it and partly to further my knowledge
on Chinese ]3ersonalities, and incidentally the State Department and
all the members in the Far East Division did refer to me everything
on personalities — "Jimmie Larsen to see," "Jimmie Larsen to com-
ment on this" — so I got everything funneled to me on personalities,
and much of it, where I had time, I would just make a note of in the
office, or answer it right there : "This is wrong. This man was not
vice minister that year, so he could not have been a member of this
or that."
Therefore my purpose was partly official and correct procedure in
taking material home and reading it, and partly a pursuance of a
private hobby which I admit constitutes a type of irregularity, and
to a certain extent an indiscretion, on my part.
Do you think I have answered that properly ? You are free to ask
me more specifically.
Mr. Morgan. In transporting this material from the documents
which you took with you home to your cards, you were necessarily ab-
stracting official Government documents ; isn't that correct ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, at times. I will tell you, there was very little
from my point of view good and valuable information in the official
dispatches. I am sorry to say so.
Mr. Morgan. Backing up for a moment, when you were Chief
Analyst in the Far Eastern Division of ONI what was the extent of
your access to records of ONI? Was it unlimited, or were you re-
stricted in what you could take?
Mr. Larsen. No, it wasn't unlimited; only China and Manchuria,
and later Korea, and at the very end of my term in ONI I got some on
Siam and Indochina. And, as to classification, I was restricted from
f^op-secret reports.
Mr. Morgan. But you could see all classifications up to top secret ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USTVESTIGATION 1081
Mr. Larsen. I -was not supposed to see secret, but then officers
brought them to me anyway, because I was on that particular day and
night shift that could be called at any time when garbled messages
i-egarding the war in China and certain groups in China came in.
Names would be garbled up in records and officers would come in and
say "Wliat does this meanV' Well, just like the word "run" here, it
would mean "to run" or "Bull Run,"' a little river, so I often told them,
"Take it away : I can't be bothered with it. If it is so secret you can't
show it to me, I can't translate it."
Mr. jNIorgan. In the State Department did you have comparable
access to material, everj^thing up to top secret?
Mr. Larsex. Xo. not top secret.
Mr. MoRGAX. But you had available all classifications up to top
secret ?
Mr. Larsex. Up to and including secret.
JSIr. MoRGAx^. You did take home on occasion documents of a secret
classification, is that correct ?
Mr. Larsex. Yes, I did.
Mr. Morgan. In other words, you freely admit that you took home
any type of document that interested you.
Mr. Larsex. Yes.
Mr. Morgax'. On any occasion that you wished? Is that correct?
Mr. Larsex. That is right ; yes.
Mr. Morgax. Of course, Mr. Larsen, we have your testimony previ-
ously available, but have j'ou at any time indicated that the only docu-
ments you have taken home were those relating to personalities?-'
Mr. Larsex. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAX. You have so testified in the past?
Mr. Larsex. Yes, that's right.
Mr. Morgan. Do you want to correct that testimony now?
Mr. Larsex. No, I don't see any special necessity in correcting that,,
because, except for the few specific occasions when I had a job to do
in the office and it was my official function — when I said that I took
home only documents referring to personality material, I meant
namely in my rather illegal capacity. Is that clear ?
Senator Lodge. In your illegal capacity?
Mr. Larsex. Yes. that's right; without proper authorization.
Senator Loixje. You took the documents home without proper-
autliorization?
Mr. Larsex. That's right.
Senator Ttdixgs. "\Y1io knew that you were taking them home?
Mr. Larsex. Well
Senator Tydixgs. Did you ask anybody if you might take these
documents home ?
^Ir. Larsen. In the State Department?
Senator Tydixgs. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. Xo. I had a gold badge. That was sufficient.
Senator Ttdings. How many were in your office?
]\Ir. Larsen. I put them in my brief case quite openly. I did not
do it surreptitiously.
Senator Tydings. How many were in the office with you?
Mr. Larsen. There were four or five in that particular office.
Senator Ttdings. You put them in your brief case and took them.'
home ?
1082 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Larsen. That's right.
Senator Tydings. Didn't you realize at the time that was possibly
an indiscreet or illegal thing to do ?
Mr. Larsen. No, I did not. Honestly, I did not, because I had
that gold badge.
Senator Tydings. Was that practice pretty general? Did other
people do it ?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes.
Senator Tydings. How many?
Mr. Larsen. It seemed to me everyone did that.
Senator Tydings. Wliat did they do with them after they got back
to their homes, work on them, give them out, or give or bring them
back to the Department ?
Mr. Larsen. Work on them.
Senator Tydings. Why wasn't it possible to go there and work at
night ? I mean, back to the Department.
Mr. Larsen. I would like to answer that question. If I have to
answer it on quite a personal basis, please see no offense in my answer.
I don't like the practice of going back to the office myself.
Senator Tydings. I will say this; I am sorry, Mr. Morgan, I inter-
rupted you, because I think one of us ought to take a crack at a time.
I got off on a tangent.
Senator Lodge. I would like to get the answer as to why he doesn't
like going back to the office.
Mr. Larsen. I am a family man. Wlien I get home I love to be
home. I hope that will satisfy you.
Senator Green. May I ask a question, please? I wish you would
explain to us what this gold badge signified, who gave it to you, and
what the conditions of its use were.
Mr. Larsen. So far as I know, the gold badge signifies that the
wearer is not of the classification "clerical"; that he is an officer in
the State Department, and that he has the right to handle documents
and take them in brief cases to other departments. There was such
a thing as liaison, too, and to receive from other departments docu-
ments, and freely go to the file and apply for documents.
Senator Green. Was this all told to you or given to you in written
instructions ?
Mr. Larsen. There are regulations. I have seen those regulations.
I cannot remember them now.
Senator Green. It was all in the regulations?
Mr. Larsen. Yes ; it was in the regulations.
Senator Green. Was this badge something you wore openly?
Mr. Larsen. Yes. It was generally worn in the lapel here.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, just one or two questions, just to
orient me. How old are you, Mr. Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. I am 52.
Senator Lodge. Where were you born ?
Mr. Larsen. I was born in San Rafael, Calif.
Senator Lodge. How did you happen to find out about the Far East?
Did you go and live there ?
Mr. Larsen. My father went out to China when I was about 9
years old. My father lost everything in the San Francisco earth-
quake. We lived in Berkeley, right across the bay, and he went out to
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1083
TN-est China. As a matter of fact tliere are the elements of a very deep
conspiracv betAveen Mr. Service and me, because we grew np m the
same town. I first met Mr. Service, I think, in 1909—1908 or 1909—
when we were flooded out of our house, and then we fled across the
street to higher hand and there Mr. Robert Service was living with
his family. He was American chief of the YMCA there. At that
time I must have been, oh, about 11 or 12 years old.
Senator Tydings. Are you getting the answer to what you want m
all this ? ^ . -r -. ,.
Senator Lodge. I didn't ask you about Mr. Service. I don t even
know .Mr. Service. I wanted to know your background. You lived
m China at what age?
Mr. Larsex. From the age of 8 or 9.
Senator Lodge. Until 1935?
Mr. Larsen. Until 1935. I lived 24 years m China.
Senator Lodge. In 1935 you went to work for the Government?
Mv. Larsen. I came home here and first went to the University of
Chicago. I took Sanskrit so as to be able to read Chinese Buddhist
texts. I was the only pupil who took the whole course in 3^^ months.
Then I came to Washington.
Senator Lodge. When you were in China were you there as a student,
were voii working, or what ?
Mr! Larsen. I was working. As a boy I went to a Chinese school.
Senator Lodge. Wlien you grew up what did you do ?
Mr. Larsen. When I gi^ew up I was with the Chinese postal admin-
istration.
Senator Lodge. Thank you. I wanted to get that clear.
Senator Green. I would like to ask you more about this gold badge.
I don't quite understand. Were there any regulations as to your re-
moving documents? I don't mean you individually, but generally.
Mr. Larsen. Not that I know of, in regard to regulations that for-
bade the removal of documents at the same time as the regulations
permitted the removal of documents. I do not know^ of any contrary
regulations.
Senator Green. Do you mean there were regulations that permitted
removal ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes : under the gold badge.
Senator Green. Were you obliged to make any memorandum of
wliat you took, leave a note of it or anything of that kind ?
Mr. Larsen. No. You could never remove an original anyway.
You could never remove an original. That is pretty well sewed up
tight.
Senator Green. You did not remove any originals?
Mr. Larsen. No. The original comes to you and a man stands and
looks at you while you read it, and you have to sign the time you start
reading and the time you end the reading, and you are watched all
the time, and they were suspicious. If it was an ordinary report it
didn't matter much, but when it was a pretty important report they
didn't even like you to take a note or two, as I did once in a while. I
took a note. For instance, a new briefing, say, like after the Cairo
Conference. I put down some notes of what had been decided.
Senator Green. Wlien you took a paper out of the file you didn't
leave any memorandum that you had taken it?
1084 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY 1N\'ESTIGATI0N
Mr. Larsen. No, because it was a copy assigned to me. That copy
was sent to me and marked. "For file. Retain or destroy.
Senator Green. Was your name on it \
Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes. ^ i .u 9
Senator Green. On every paper you took, then «
Mr Larsen. Every paper that came to me always had a little clip
and a little piece of paper marked "Mr. E. S. Larsen, Senator.
Senator Green. And it was only such papers that you took«
Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes. . . , . 1 x
I see what you mean. I never surreptitiously stole any from any-
body else's desk. . ^, ,
Senator Green. I just wanted to ask about the regulations. Ihat
was all I was asking. And you were allowed to take all those papers
in your own name out and bring them back again ? Did anyone know
whether they had been taken or not?
Mr. Larsen. Oh. ves.
Senator Green. How could they know ? .
Mr. Larsen. They could see me when I stuffed them m my briet
' Senator Green. They wouldn't know what you had taken.
Did anyone else have access to your files? • wu
Mr. Larsen. We all shared the office together. I organized those
Senator Green. Suppose you wanted to use a certain paper and you
went to the files and it wasn't there. i 1 -,
Mr Larsen. There was a file copy that was there, and they checked
the file That is the thing that hasn't been brought out. The file was
very thoroughly checked after I left the State Department, because
when a document comes in, let's say a report from Mr John Service
in the field that Chou En Li has made an agreement with Chiang Kai-
shek There is one copy for the file. The original has already gone
to the general State Department file. The next one goes to the re-
search and planning unit file. The third one goes to Mr. Larsen, the
fourth goes to Mr. Jocelyn, the fifth to Mr. Jocelyn's clerk. There are
sometimes six or seven that came to the desk.
Senator Green. And each one had a name attached ?
Mr. Larsen. Sometimes they sent two or three marked Extra.
Extra. Destroy or retain."
Senator Green. Were these files in the names of the persons whose
names appeared on them? , ., , i
Mr. Larsen. No . Tliey were for them to work with them and copy
certain sections.
Senator Green. How were they indexed?
Mr. Larsen. So far as I was concerned ? . „ ^^ ^
Senator Green. No. Wliat drawer did you put them m ? U nder
-what head did you put them? i • /. <•
Mr. Larsen. They didn't put them in any drawer. I was chiet o±
the files there.
Senator Green. How did you file them ?
Mr. Larsen. There was a girl there who sifted everything that came
to the planning and research unit, and she took the one marked "File
copy" and put in a book "File copy, such and such a subject, date,
number," and everything, and that book was like an account book.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1085
You could take that book any time and open the drawers, and the files
liad better be there.
Senator Green. Suppose they weren t. i «t. , ,„
Mr. Laksen. Then there would have to be a card marked iaken
bv Dr. Blakeslee." . . . ^ t i ^
■ Senator Green. That is what I was trynig to get out of you. i have
been trying now for 5 minutes.
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Senator Tydings. Try to make your answers a little more responsive.
Senator Green. I was asking you, if you went to look for a certain
l)aper and it wasn't there, how would you know where it was and what
happened to it? . - .-, a^
Mr L\rsen. There was a loan card m the hie. ^ • ,
Senator Green. Then did you put a loan card— now I am getting to
mv question— in the file for every paper you took out?
"Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes. Everybody had to. Otherwise it would be
inuwssible to keep track of them. , i .i , -i
Senator Green. And when you brought the paper back the next day
you took the loan card out ?
Mr. Laesen. That's right. .,, , • • »
Senator Green. And you could do that without any supervision?
Did you do it yourself? t i t^ -di i i jm -f
Mr. Larsen. I was not the only one who did. Dr. Blakeslee did it,
Dr. Borton, Mr. Jocelyn.
Senator Green. On this loan card there appeared your name i
Mr L\RSEN. No. That was the laxity of the system m there. M.r.
Feary would just go in and search in the file. If he couldn t fijid it,
he would ask me. "Jimmie, what did you put that report under ^^
I said, 'T put tliat under 'New Treaties and Foreign Relations.
\11 rio-ht- then he would go in, fumble around; if he found it, he
would tSce a card and put in "Bob Feary" and put the number on it.
If he couldn't find it, if instead he found a card saying Taken out
by Blakeslee", then he Avoukl just go into Blakeslee s ottice and ask
him ":May I borrow that report for a minute" and take it and read it.
Senator Green. If you would only stick to the subject for a minute
or two, I don't want to detain you, but at the same time I don't under-
stand. There is a paper in this file and you decide you want to take
it home to use tonight.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. . . , ,
Senator Green. You take that paper out and put in a loan card
with your name. That shows that paper was taken out by you.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. I follow you, sir. .
Senator Green. Then when you come back the next morning and
bring the paper you put that back where it came from and you take
out the loan card?
Mr. Larsen. I never took any files home from the filing cabinet
and put any cards in. I took home extra copies that were sent to my
desk.
Senator Green. I am talking about the extra copies.
Mr. Larsen. There was no record of the extra copies— never any
record.
Senator Green. Then you didn't do all this.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, when I worked in the office.
1086 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTVESTIGATION
Senator Green. I am talking about taking papers home. You knew
I was doing that, because I asked about putting them back the next
morning.
Mr. Larsen. I thought you were talking about the general prac-
tice.
Senator Green. You told about always taking out the card when
you took the paper home. Then I said, "Did you put the loan card
back when you brought the paper back the next morning?"
Mr. Larsen. Yes, if I had no extra copy, but I nearly always had
too many extra copies.
Senator Green. You evidently don't want to answer.
Mr. Larsen. I am willing to answer that question, because it is an
important point, I am not here to conceal anything.
Senator Green. Then kindly make it clear. With regard to the
things that you took home, did you put any loan card in the file when
you took them home ?
Mr. Larsen. I may have done that on one or two occasions, but I
didn't have to ordinarily because I had so many extra copies.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Larsen, hundreds of documents were found at
your home. I see you say you did it on two or three occasions. Mani-
festly you did not do it on the occasion of
Mr. Larsen. I worked 9 years in Naval Intelligence and I wrote
a fortnightly report, general report on conditions in the Far Eastern
field, as an analyist. Just add that up by simple arithmetic, how many
I wrote in 9 years. I wrote on specific subjects, espically voluntary
subjects. I wrote on military geography on one after the other of
the 24 provinces in China proper. I wrote voluntarily on the various
political groups and their affiliations and the effect upon their rela-
tions to the United States Government, and on many of those subjects
I gathered material that I knew I could not get hold of if I ever
wanted to write on it again, so the best thing was to retain a copy, and
I took copies of those home. If I had 142, as the record says, that is
not much for a period of 9 years.
Mr. Morgan. You are talking now about documents you prepared,
and that manifestly bore your name.
Mr. Larsen. I am telling you the story I have of what you asked
me, the documents I had in my home.
Mr. Morgan. We have those documents available, Mr. Larsen, and
before the afternoon is over I want to go through some of them.
Mr. Larsen. Will you correct your statement of hundreds to 142,
I think I said ?
Mr. Morgan. If that is the proper correction, I certainly would be
the first to say it should be corrected.
Mr. Larsen. We will try to be a little accurate, if possible.
Mr. Morgan. You have made reference to documents you prepared.
Are you implying at this point that there were not other documents
found at your home, other than those which you had prepared ?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, no. There were other documents, but they were
of more recent date, that I had taken home to read, and I hadn't
gotten around to yet, and they had not gotten back yet.
Senator Tydings. How many were in that latter category ?
Mr. Larsen. That is difficult to say now.
Senator Tydings. Could you give a guess ?
Mr. Larsen. I would say 20. That would be a great lot, I think.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION 1087
Mr. IVIoRGAN. You would say 20 ?
Mr. Laksen. I can't stick to it ; I can't swear to it.
Senator Tydings. Earlier in your testimony you indicated you
took those documents home for overnioht reading. Am I now to
understand you retained them for a period of tune?
Mr. Larsen. Some of them I intended to retain as long as 1 was
in the Government. , ,
Mr. Morgan. Even though they were not documents you prepared'
Mr. Larsen. No; only those I prepared.
Mr. J^IoRGAN. And these others you took home for what purpose i
Mr. Larsen. Eor reading and returning.
Senator Green. Now will you tell me about those documents. Did
you put loan cards in for all those?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
Senator Green. Why not? ■
Mr L\rsen. Because half a dozen were sent to me, very generously,
"Retain or destroy," and I thought, Here is a hobby I have been
working on. I will retain one for my own files. Everybody did that
in the Government.
Senator Green. You appropriated it?
Mr. Larsen. I appropriated it, yes, sir.
Senator Green. That was not true of all of them. Some of them
you intended to return, did you not ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I did. That's right.
Senator Green. For those you took out and kept a night or two
nights and then })ut back, did you put a loan card in ?
Mr L\RSEN. If there were not extra copies I had to put a loan
card in, because I might get sick Monday morning and my chief
wouldn't be able to find the document. I kept a good record.
Senator Green. That is the trouble. That is the reason I am ask-
ing you whether you put a loan card in for those documents.
Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes. , . i
Senator Gkeen. And then you took the loan card out when you
brought the document back ? ^ , p .i o. ^ -rv 4-
M? Larsen. And I am proud to say after I left the State Depart-
ment—am I on trial here? Then I have to state these things.
Senator Green. I want you to make clear what you did.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. . , i . i
Senator Green. Then, when you put the document back, you took
the loan card out. What did you do with the loan card ?
Ur. Larsen. You put a pencil mark through that. It has a great
many coimnns, so you can use it again, for economy's sake.
Senator Green.' Did you leave it there ?
Mr Larsen. Yes. They were lying on top of the cabinet.
Senator Green. What was it you put the line through?
Ur Larsen. You put the line through the entry. If you had a card
which said, in tabular form, "Dispatch No. so and so, date, taken by
so and so" you filled that out. it.
Senator Green. And unless there were more than one duplicate
copy, you always made out a loan card ? . n-,-
Mr. Larsen. That's right. I always did, because I set up the hlmg
^Senator Green. "Wlien you came back, did you put the date you
brouaht it back on the loan card ?
1088 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Larsen. I usually did. The others didn't. They usually
struck out "out." We could never tell how long it had been out if we
wanted to trace it. I always put the date, and even the initials, and
then struck it out and laid the card on top.
Senator Green. Were there any regulations as to that ?
Mr. Larsen. No. I made that system myself, because there were
no regulations when I went in there. There were no locks on the
filing cabinets. I took the locks with my own little screwdriver. I
asked Dr. Blakeslee, "Let us please get some locks," and I took four
locks from the four cabinets in our office downtown and had them
made, and I came back, and he initialed the little slip for reimburse-
ment and I got my $10 back and I installed the locks, andT^ had three
keys made for each. There were no keys on them and there was a
lock that didn't work, and I got three keys. I gave one to Mr. Blakes-
lee, one to Dr. Borton, and kept one myself, and that one key prac-
tically all day, when I was in the office, I gave to the filing clerk,
the girl who looked after the files.
Senator Green. Then at night ?
Mr. Larsen. The last man out was supposed to check the drawers.
Whoever that was went around and tested and looked to see that no
keys were stuck in there.
Senator Green. And the first one in in the morning opened it up
again ?
Mr. Larsen. Opened all the cabinets.
Senator Green. Then there were three men that were responsible
for the contents of those drawers ?
Mr. Larsen. Thats' right.
Senator Green. And only three supposed to have access to them ?
Mr. Larsen. No, all five' had access to them. What we called the
junior members, they came in and they did not have any keys, but they
j ust used the files freely, whenever they wanted to.
Senator Green. But they had to put in a loan card just the same ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Senator Green. You established that system of the loan cards?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Senator Lodge. Who did you say hired you, Mr. Larsen ?
Mr. Larsen. In the State Department ?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. I would say it was the Personnel Section.
Senator Lodge. "VN-lio was it who made the decision ?
Mr. Larsen. I don't know who it was at that time.
Senator Lodge. You testified that there was somebody who said
Mr. Larsen. You. mean who recommended me? That was Dr.
Stanley K. Hornbeck.
Senator Lodge. He recommended you ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. His recommendation carried a good deal of weight,
do you think ?
Mr. Larsen. He was not the only one. Tlien, after he had signed
my application, I was examined, and Dr. Bhakeslee and Dr. Hugh
Borton examined me, and they cosigned my final recommendation.
Senator Lodge. Did Mr. Lattimore ever examine you ?
Mr. Larsen. Nobody else examined me.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1089
Senator Lodge. Thank yon.
Senator Tydixgs. Mr. Morgan here is prepared, as a resnlt ot a
crreat deal of research, to ask a series of qnestions. I have been cliiet
offender here nivself, bnt I suggest that the committee members let
him go through and develop a clean case, and we make our notes and
supplement that, if we can.
Senator Gkeen. He knows where they are going. My question was
I'ust to get clear in my own mind what happened.
Senator Tydings. I am not being critical. I am just suggesting it
in the interest of expedition. He has the whole thing there to de-
velop. 1 haven't got it. ^ ^ r. . /-. r
Mr MoRGKN^I might sav too, for the benefit of Senator Cjreen ancl
Senator Lodge, while you 'were in Europe the entire proceedings o±
the Hobbs committee were made public, and we have a great deal ot
information there that we are trying to avoid duplicating here today.
Mr. Larsen. :May I say one word ?
Mr. Morgan. Certainly. -i . -j?
Mr L^RSEN. I want to say to the chairman and all members that it
I seem to get off the track it isn't at all that I am unwilling to answer,
because I have alreadv admitted my guilt m respect to indiscretion
in the handling of these files, and I welcome very specifically questions
and shall trv to answer them very correctly. .
Mr. ]\IoRGAX. The thing that we are seeking here, Mr. Larsen, is to
avoid having anv matters hanging in the air. At this point one thing
occurs to me. "For example, your statement earlier that the office
was not open for you to return to do your work at night, and then
your subsequent statement that your reason for not returning was the
fact that you were a family man and preferred to stay at home.
Mr. Larsen. I did not say that the office was not open. I do not
believe it was open. I may be wrong on that. Remember, I was not
in the State Department main building. We were in an auxiliary
building, namelv the Walker-Johnson Building, and the security reg-
ulations were a'little different there. I remember they shut up, and
the receptionist went home at night at about six, although the offices
were closed at four-thirty. The receptionist was there until six. I
doubt whether you could stay there until after six.
Mr. Morgan. Let's get back for the moment, and I do want to re-
turn to the question of the documents, however, but I would like for
you to pick up vour association with Mr. Jaffe, and from your initial
contact with him give us some idea as to the frequency with which you
saw him.
Mr. Larsen. About once a month.
Mr. Morgan. From the time of your original meeting until the
time of vour arrest ? . ■, ■,
Mr. Larsen. That is right. There were a few months when he
did not come down to Washington at all, but I cannot remember
exactlv when that was.
Mr.' Morgan. During the period of his absence from the city here
in Washington, were you active in preparing material to exchange
with him upon his return?
Mr. Larsen. Xo, not particularly.
Mr. Morgan. When he came back to town, what happened at that
point ? Did he contact you and ask for information ?
Mr. Larsen. He usually called me up by telephone.
1090 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. From New York ?
Mr. Larsen. No ; he called me up f i"om his hotel in Washington.
Mr. Morgan. And would tell you what ?
Mr. Larsen. He would tell me, "'I am in town. Do you remember
the 18 or 20 persons I asked you about last time? Do you have that?"
I said, "Oh, yes; I have it."
Mr. Morgan. We have, of course, available to us, Mr. Larsen, a
record submitted by the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the Hobbs
committee, of your contacts with Mr. Jaffe.
Mr. Larsen. That record would give the dates, whereas I don't re-
member them.
Mr. Morgan. "Physical surveillance March 21, 1945. Upon Mr.
Jalfe's arrival in Washington at noon on the 21st, proceeded to the
Statler Hotel, where he was met in the lobby by Emmanuel Larsen,
and a short time later was joined by Lieutenant and Mrs. Andrew
Roth."
Do you recall that meeting ?
Mr. Larsen. I don't recall it, but I guess it is right. I do recall going
to such a meeting, but I don't recall the particular meeting or the date.
It is impossible to remember these things. If I would ask you, What
did you do on such and such a date 5 years ago?, you woukln't be able
to recall it either.
Mr. Morgan. Would you care to indicate how many occasions you
think you met Jaffe in this period ?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, probably eight times — eight or nine times.
Mr. Morgan. And who were present on the occasion of these meet-
ings?
Mr. Larsen. Generally my wife and I; that is, for dinner. We
usually went out to a Chinese restaurant and had dinner.
Mr. Morgan. After this initial meeting at about noon on the 21st
of March
Mr. Larsen. '45? ^
Mr. Morgan. '45, the surveillance of the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation reveals that "Late in the evening you met with Mr. Jaffe in
the lobby of the Statler Hotel." Do you recall that second meeting
on the 21st?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I think so. I am pretty sure of that.
Mr. Morgan. On that occasion did you give him information of
any kind ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I probably gave him 20 or 30 cards.
Mr. Morgan. Cards, you gave him?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, cards that I had typed for him.
Mr. Morgan. Did he give you anything?
Mr. Larsen. He gave me some notes that he made on Chinese per-
sonalities.
Mr. IMorgan. On April 10, 1045, you and Roth had luncheon to-
gether at the Trianon Cafe with Mrs. Roth?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. "On leaving the restaurant, Mrs. Roth was observed
to be carrying two large manila envelopes."
Mr. Larsen. I remember the event. I don't remember that she
carried manila envelopes. That is nothing new in my life. I carry
them every clay.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1091
Mr. ^Morgan. On A]^ril 15, 194:5, yon woro observed meeting with
Lieutenant Roth, which brings up this question that has been bruited
about somewhat, Mr. I.arsen. You indicated at one point, I believe,
that after your original meeting witli Roth, after he introduced you
to Jaffe, he dropped out of the picture.
Mr. Laksen. He never gave me anything to give to Mr. Jaffe and
I never gave him anything from Jaffe to be returned to him.
Mr. IMoKGAX. Wlien you referred to his having dropped out of the
picture, what did you mean 'i
Mr. Larsex. That lie never mentioned this card exchange that I
had been introduced to Jaffe for.
Mr. jNloRGAx. That does not necessarily mean that you did not have
contacts with him after that time?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, no ; I didn't just drop him as an acquaintance.
Mr. Morgan. Another meeting, on April 18, 1945, between you and
Mr. Jaffe. That is 3 days after the April 15 meeting, again in tbp»
Statler Hotel. Do you recall that meeting ?
Mr. Larsex. I don't recall it, but I presume it must have been while
Mr. Jaffe was still here.
Mr. Morgan. That was the occasion on which Mr. Jaffe went to
3^our apartment and stayed until about midnight. Do you remember
that?
Mr. Larsen. Yes. He did that on several occasions, more than one
occasion.
Mr. MoRGAX. AVhat hai)pene(l at the apartment on that occasion?
Did you give him information ? Did you give him documents I What
did you give him?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I did, on a few occasions.
Mr. Morgan. You gave him documents?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Classified documents?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I believe they were classified. They were per-
sonality material. I discussed with him at one time — I remember one
particular instance and reported it quite truthfully to the FBI —
and in discussing this he brought out a theory which I didn't believe
in concerning the personalities, and I argued about it with him and
I committed the indiscretion of showing him a document, a very long-
winded one. I do not recall at this time who it w^as about, but it prob-
ably concerned Mao Tse-tung or Chou En Li, who was the chief Com-
munist representative in Chungking, and he said, "Well, I would like
to make an extract of this," and I told him, "I don't like the idea of
that."
He begged me. He said, "This is very important. This has an im-
portant bearing on his personality, as to whether he favors this or not,'^
and I did loan him the document for the simple reason that I did not
want to, did not feel like sitting right there and going over the whole
thing and taking out those pertinent points, and that is the con-
fession that I gave to the Justice Department. I allowed him to take
it away, and this happened on a few other occasions, and that is the
indiscretion that I referred to when I told you that I am quite willing
to tell my part in this business.
ISIr. Morgan. We appreciate your assistance.
1092 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Ttdings. I have asked Mr. Van Buren to come down here
•on Wednesday. I would like to have a meeting tomorrow at 10 : 30 m
the morning, if that be satisfactory.
Mr. Larsen. I cannot be here. Would you excuse me?
Senator Tydings. We have to have you. All of us are busy men.
Mr. Larsen. I am starving and I have a job to do.
/Discussion was continued off the record.)
Mr. Morgan. Having admitted, Mr. Larsen, that you did give to
Jaffe copies of classified documents— that you have admitted, correct i
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. How many documents would you say that you gave to
Mr Jaffe?
Mr. Larsen. W^ell, I estimated at one time eight or ten, of which all
^ere returned except two or three. How did I arrive at that esti-
mate'^ I arrived at that very recently, namely, before the loyalty
board in the State Department the day before yesterday. 1 was
permitted to go over all the copies or photostats of copies ot docu-
ments found in Mr. Jaffe's office.
Mr. Morgan. What was that, again?
Mr. Larsen. All the photostats that were found in Mr. Jaffe s
office. . J J.U ^ 9
Mr Morgan. And where were you permitted to do that ?
Mr. Larsen. Before the State Department Loyalty Board.
•Senator Ttdings. Is that General Snow ?
Mr. Larsen. General Snow, investigating Mr. Service.
Mr MoRGYN. You appeared as a witness before the loyalty board?
Mr L4RSEN. Yes, I appeared as a witness before the loyalty board
and, strange to say, although I volunteered to appear bexore the loyalty
board, I was somewhat surprised to find that at 1 he loyal ty board ^ here
I was to testify regarding Mr. Service, whether I knew liim or whether
I knew anything bad about him, I was confronted by Mr. Service s
attorney. Both Mr. Service and his attorney were permitted to be
present at the loyalty board, and Mr. Service's attorney was permitted
to cross-question me. i^,,„u,r
Senator Green. That is customary procedure before the loyalty
Mr.' Larsen. It is? All right. I made no objections. I am just
mentioning it. ■ • -r \
The point is that during that cross-questioning I was shown a
^reat number of Mr. Service's reports, and I recognized my writing on
two or three of those reports, and I said, "These I remember. I even
marked them for Mr. Jaffe: "Note page so and so, ' and there is my
.writing on it. , , , , , t j ^i, ^^
Mr. Morgan. So there can be no doubt but what you supplied those
°Mr Larsen. That's right, and he had not returned them at the time
of the arrest. I never gave him any to keep. I want to make that clear.
I loaned them to him, just like when you lend $10 to a man and he
doesn't return it, you didn't give him $10. , , , ^ ^ ^ ;,
Mr. Morgan. Did he have any documents that he had not returned
to you at the time you and he were arrested?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. He did have documents at that time ?
Mr. LiVRSEN. Yes : he did.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1093
Mr Morgan. Am I to understand that at the loyalty proceeding
you were permitted to see all of the documents found in Jaiies pos-
session at the time of the raid on the Amerasia head(iuarters i
Mr. Larsen. No, sir. I don't think they could have been all of the
documen-ts, because they were only, m number, I would say 20 oi 5U
that thev showed to me. , , ■ i.i i. „
Mr. .AloRGAN. Did you recognize all of them as documents that you
'^Ir^ltEx' Oh! no, not at all. Some of them I didn't recognize
as cate«Torv 1. ever having seen; others, in classification 2, as docu-
ments that^ would never have come to me in the ordinary course of
"' M°r. Morgan.^ So you saw documents there that you did not supply
Jaffe, is that correct?
Mr. Larsex. Oh, yes ; I did.
May I make an amendment to that statement «
Mr. M: RGAN. Certainly. ^
^Ir Larsen. While I was called to many conference's with the Jus-
tice Department in 1945, and even after the case had been settled m
court akinst me in November, on November 2, 1945 I was invited
into the Justice Department and I saw two or three stacks ot documents
on Mr. Hitchcock's desk, and Mr. Hitchcock asked me to look over
these documents, and I saw in there documents that ^^'o^^/tl never have
come to me, and I saw hundreds-I asked him at that time, Good
God. how many are there liereT' and he said, "Well, there must be
three or four hundred." i. j; j •
JSlr. Morgan. Did he indicate that those were documents found in
Jaffe's quarters or your quarters ?
Mr. Larsen. Jaffe's quarters.
:Mr. ISIoRGAN. Is that all that you care to say now i
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir; that's all. „ , ,. a -i io
Mr McRG^N. On April 19, the day after the meeting on April 18,
according to the FBI surveillance, at 3 p. m. you were observed to
enter the Statler Hotel, at which time you were carrying a large, well-
filled maiiila envelope. You met Jaffe m the lobby of the hotel. Jaffe
had a brief case in his possession, which he opened while talking witli
you, and after thumbing through some papers you removed several
papers from your manila envelope. Do you recall that occasion i
Mr L\RSEN. I don't recall the details of that occasion.
Mr.' :MoRgan. Do you recall ever having passed any documents to
Jaffe in the lobby of "the Statler Hotel?
.Mr. L\RSEN. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. You never did ? n • .i . n. ^i u 4.
Mr. Larsen. No, sir; I don't recall ever doing that. lo the best
of my knowledge and memory, I do not recall that.
Mr. Morgan. And if the surveillance indicated that that was the
case, that would not be right ?
Mr. Larsen. I do not even recall passing to him any cards, except
on one occasion, in the lobby of the Statler.
Mr. Morgan. Is your answer that you don't remember or that you
did not pass them ?
Mr. Larsen. I do not remember that specific occasion.
Mr. Morgan. All right.
1094 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Again, on April 20, and this is 3 days running, you were observed
to enter the Statler Hotel where you again met Philip Jaffe. You
had dinner with Jaffe at the Cafe Cathay in company with Lt. Comdr.
Charles Nelson Spinx and Dr. Joseph Goldstein. Do you remember?
Mr. Larsen. That's right.
Mr. Morgan. Did you pass any documents to Mr. Jaffe on that
occasion ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Do you remember anything about the nature of that
meeting ?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes ; I do.
Mr. Morgan. What is the story ?
Mr. Larsen. My wife and I refreshed our memories on that when
we read that report, and I can tell you what was passed at that meeting.
Dr. Goldstein employed a girl in his office, Eleanor something, and
she was an expert in drawing greeting cards, these little sketches that
go on greeting cards, and we had told Dr. Goldstein, or told Mr. Jaffe
about Dr. Goldstein's girl, office girl, who could really draw greeting
cards, and Philip Jane has a greeting card business, and we were
trying to get her a part-time job supplying these sketches for his
greeting card company, and she brought along her little folder, and
if you will ask the FBI for a correct report on that meeting I am sure
you will find tliat she sat there with a little folder and showed the
greeting cards that she had drawn.
Jaffe, however, did not like her stuff, and was very polite to her,
but told us afterwards it was very amateurish. That is the explana-
tion of that.
Mr. Morgan. Again, on May 7, 1945, you were observed meeting
Mr. Jaffe in the Statler Hotel along with Lieutenant Roth. Do you
recall that meeting?
Mr. Larsen. 1945 ?
Mr. Morgan. Yes, May 7. You were both carrying, according to
the surveillance, manila envelopes, and you left the hotel and neither
of you had any envelopes.
Mr. Larsen. That might be approximately the last day, the last
time I ever met Mr. Jaffe before the arrests. I cannot be sure of that
date, because I kept no record of it.
Mr. Morgan. On the very next day you were observed meeting Mr.
Jaffe again in the afternoon in the lobby of the Statler Hotel.
Mr. Larsen. Was Mr. Service there ?
Mr. Morgan. According to the report — I will read the surveillance
to you [reading] :
At noon on May S, 1945, Roth was observed to visit Jaffe at the Statler Hotel.
When he entered he was carrying a large manila envelope. He remained for
appi'oximately 2 hours. Later that afternoon Larsen met with Jaffe in the lobby
of the hotel, and after a very brief conversation Larsen departed and Jaffe was
immediately joined by Roth and his wife, John Service, and Rose Yardoumian.
Do you recall that meeting ?
Mr. Larsen. No, I don't recall that meeting, but I am sure it is
right, that I did meet him in the lobby, because there was another
occasion in May before the last arrest.
Mr. Morgan. The FBI surveillance report reflects that on May 28,
1945, Jaffe again visited Washington and was met at the Statler Hotel
by you and Lieutenant Roth. Do you recall that meeting ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LNWESTIGATION 1095^
Mr. Larsen. That is the one I refer to.
Mr. MoRGAX. You were again carrying a hirge manihi envelope.
Eoth carried a parcel 12 by 1-i inches and 1 inch thick, as well as some
loose typewritten papers. Do you remember seeing any of Roth's
papers at any time ?
Air. Lakskn. No, sir. T never saw him hand anylhing to JafFe.
Only on one occasion did Roth hand me anything in an envelope that
might have aroused suspicion. He was writing a book, and I think
he gave me 20 or 30 pages of that part, that chapter, that concerned
Japanese relations with China, and I looked over it and I thought
it was very ludicrous and poorly written. He has never been in China
or Japan, and I did not make any written comments. I returned it
to him and said, "Well, I don't agree with it," because it was a very
peculiar ideological nature that I did not subscribe to.
Mr. MoRGAx. What are you trying to say by that?
Mr. Larsen. I am trying to say that we did meet. There is a record
in there where they watched him come to the Walker-Johnson Build-
ing and stand outside there and hand me something. I think that
was the occasion when he handed me the 20 pages of his book, and I
was to take them down to Manassas to the little farm I had there and
read them over the week end, and see whether it was correct or good
or not. That was the galley copies, so far as I remember.
Mr. Morgan. On the occasion of this May 28 meeting with Jaffe
in his room, it is indicated you spent about 2 hours in his room with
Jaffe. Do you remember that?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Did you exchange documents at that time?
Mr. Larsen. I don't think we exchanged any documents. I possibly
brought him the last lot of cards that I had made for him.
Mr. Morgan. Then, on the very following day, 'May 29, the sur-
veillance reflects that you again met with Mr. Jaffe, at which time
you had with you a large manila envelope. Do you remember having
passed any documents to him on that occasion?
Mr. Larsen. Xo, I don't remember any large manila envelope,,
either, but I do remember a small manila envelope. I don't wish to
ciuibble, but there is a point in that.
Mr. Morgan. At any rate, on May 29, which was approximately 8 or
9 days before your arrest, you did meet with Mr. Jaffe here in Wash-
ington at the Statler Hotel, according to the FBI surveillance.
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Now, as to the occasion of your being arrested by
agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Mr. Larsen, I believe
we have the record of that rather clearly in our proceedings here. I
Avould, however, appreciate your indicating for our record who your
attorney was in that proceeding.
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Arthur Hilland.
Mr. iVIoRGAN. An attorney here in Washington, D. C. ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. He is the one who filed on your behalf a motion to
quash, a motion to suppress the evidence in the proceeding, is that
riglit (
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. We have heard testimony concerning the nature of
that motion, and I don't believe at any point you have yet indicated in
68970 — 50— pt. 1 70
1096 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
any proceeding how you became acquainted with the circumstances
that were set forth in the affidavit attached to that motion. Would
you care to enlighten us at this point? . ^i n
Mr. Larsen. Yes. sir. The first indication that my apartment had
been illegally entered was during the evening of June 6, when
Senator Lodge. What year?
Mr Larsen. 1945, when the P3I men came to my apartment, iney
knocked on the door, and they asked me, "Are you Emmanuel Lar-
sen?"
I said, "Yes." , ,^ .-,,,, ut^ ^ u
They said, "You are under arrest," and I said to them. It must be
a ioke," and they said, "No, it is not a joke," and they showed FBI
credentials. Then they asked me whether I had any official material
in the way of dispatches. Government documents, in my house, and
I said "Yes, I had."
They said, "Will you show them to us?" , ., , . ,„
I said, "Let's just get it straight. Is it right that I show it to you i
They said, "Oh, yes ; we have these badges." ^^
So I said, "Do you have a search warrant?"; and they said iNo.
Then I said, "And what am I under arrest f or ? " -r , i i
They said, "We will tell you that later." So all right. I looked
at my wife and I said, "In a case like this there is only one thing to
do. "Tell them the truth." And they began to separate her; they
took her out on the porch and took me into the deeper recesses of our
small apartment, and as we parted I said, "Remember this : Nothing
much can happen if we stick to the truth. There can be no contra-
diction, no contradictory reports." -, -r . 1 t.- c ^
Then he said, "Where are the documents?", and I took him hrst
to a steel cabinet that I had in the large closet between the living room
and the dining room, and I opened and took out, and I had m various
folders, "Read; finished work to be returned"; I had some marked
^'Outstanding," "Work file," and "Suspense," and clips with papers
on them, "Read to page 8; personality material not entered yet.
That means not entered on my card, and such references. So they
went into the question of why I took these files, and so on, very
thoroughly.
Then thev said, "Do you have any more ?
I said, "i have a few more," and I went to my own clothes closet,
a very small closet in the bedroom, and that has two shelves at the
top, and I had some files stuck up on the shelves ; and while these two
investigators, namely, Mr. Winterrowd and Mr. Zander, were question-
imr me about files and asking me to take down the manila file covers
with those files in, one said to the other, "Wliat is m that brown
leather case?" i -: u
He whispered it in a very low voice, and I am rather hard ot hear-
ing, especially in my right ear, because I had a boil there some years
ago and I don't hear very well, but as fate would have it, I heard
verv clearly both the question and the answer to that.
The answer by Mr. Winterrowd was, "That's a vase.'
Now, what vase was that? My father bought in 11)09 a very rare
black and white vase in China, and he since then presented it to me,
and I sent it to Henry Ford once and he offered me $5,000 and I held
out for $10,000. We still have the vase. I had that in an old hat
box that my father originally had his top hat in when I was a boy.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1097
The top hat is lon<? gone, and the case has reposed in a leather box
since 1909. Now it was on my shelf, and now these two men stood
behind me and spoke about it, one sayinjjj, ''What is in that box i and
the other sayinoj, "That is a vase." He whispered it to the other man.
I stopped dead in my tracks and I thought to myself. What is go-
in*-- on here^ They know what is in closed boxes m my house. But
that was no time "to follow through that thought or any legalistic
ar<niment with them about it. Remember, gentlemen, my whole
world, so to speak, had tumbled down over me that moment, and 1
proceeded with the answers to all their questions and ignored the
question of the vase. .
Then later, when I had made my confession to the J^ 131 and 1 heard
that they had considerable evidence on me and my relations with
Jatle I thought, "So what? It's all right." But someone told me,
"TheV have tapped your 'phone." Then I acted on a hunch, purely
a hunch, and a little bit of bluff that I learned since I came home to
this country, and I went down to the manager of the apartment house,
Mr Sager," who was a pretty good friend of mine. He did many
little favors for us, but he always exacted a little price for every favor.
He loved Southern Comfort. Whenever I wanted the house redeco-
rated or the apartment fixed up a little, it cost me a quart of Southern
Comfort. 1 J! o i^i
So I went out and, broke as I was, I bought a bottle ot Southern
Comfort and then went down to Mr. Sager, and I said, "I have owed
you this from last time." ■ n ao q
We sat around, opened it, had a drink, and I said, feay, bager,
how many times did you let those FBI men in here?"
He said, "Oh, do you know about that f '
I said, "Sure I know about it." ,, , , . ,• i^^i
Then he told me the specific occasions, and he looked up his little
record, and he told me what they said and what they asked, and he
told me how they wired the 'phone and wire tapped on me for how
maiiv months.
As soon as I had that, I called my attorney, Mr. Hilland. I ac-
quainted him in detail with the story, and he immediately made that
motion. Tt took us a couple of days, and when it was ready we went
down and filed it, and it happened on that day that it was filed that
we had another consuUation with Mr. Hitchcock, of the Justice
Department. «i i i.
Senator McMahon. Were you with the attorney, when you tiled it,
that went to the courthouse and filed it personally ?
Mr. Larsex. I was in his office, and I signed it, and I think I went
down with him.
Senator McMahon. Did some newspaper reporters go with you
when you filed it?
Mr.'LARSEX. No, sir; I don't remember any newspaper reporters.
Of course, one thing that I have always maintained that has been
in mv defense as regards the accusation that I conspired with the
other five members is that I did not tell Mr. Jaffe, I did not tell Mr.
Service or Miss Mitchell or anyone else, that I had filed that. ^A hy?
Because I had nothing to do with them in regard to the defense.
The very first day when I was arrested I was handcuffed to Mr.
Service, and when we sat down in the marshal's car and we were on
1098 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
our way to the District Jail at about 4 o'clock in the morning, after
all-night grilling without counsel, I said to him, "What the hell is
all this about?" in Chinese.
He said, "Shut up," in very, very rude — we don't swear like that in
Chinese. It doesn't sound very rude in English, but it is awfully bad
in Chinese. So we went to the jail. He never spoke to me, never
looked at me. Afterward I told Hilland, "What is this case?"
He said, "Espionage."
I said, "Let's get together. Ask Jaffe, what did he do? Whom
has he been trafficking with. Let's ask Roth's attorneys."
They did not want to have anything to do with us.
Furthermore, Mr. Mortimer Graves, of the American Council of
Learned Societies, invited me over and said, "You don't have a joby
Jimmie. Why don't you do a little research work for the council?
I will do everything I can for you. I will give you $75 at least for
the first week's job."
On the third day he called me in and said, "Jimmie, I have bad
news for you. The State Department employees of the Foreign
Service have taken up a little collection." As far as I remember he
said it amounted to about $5,000. "But I have the bad news that
you are not to participate in that. You are not to benefit from that
defense fund."
I said, "Then it goes only to Service."
He said, "I presume so."
Also, I was never invited to Mr. Lattimore^s house in Baltimore,
That is another item to record in the process of my proving that I
had nothing to do with them in the defense or in the general discussiom
of the defense.
Senator Lodge. The defense of what ?
Mr. Larsen. The defense of the Amerasia case after our arrest.
Senator Green. How did you laiow that there- was anything to be
invited to?
Mr. Larsen. I read it in the papers recently.
Senator Green. You just learned the fact that you were omitted
from these meetings ?
Mr. Larsen. I do not know Mr. Lattimore. I know of him —
plenty — but I don't know him. I don't believe I have ever shaken
hands with him.
Senator Green. Is that all you know about it, what you read in
the papers ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir; that is all, except perhaps an item picked
up from a few persons who told me about a professor being present at
that Lattimore barbecue, and that the professor's wife brought the
baby along because they had no baby sitter, and that the wife placed
the baby in an upstair bedroom, and that during the party Mr. Latti-
more disappeared upstairs and Mr. Service disappeared upstairs and
Mr. Roth disappeared upstairs, and the lady went up to see how her
baby was faring and she went into the wrong bedroom, according to
this person who told me the story.
Mr. Morgan. Who told you the story ?
Mr. Larsen. The man I just talked to right out here, Kent Hunter.
Senator Lodge. He is a reporter, a newspaperman.
Senator Green. How did he know about it?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INl'ESTIGATION 1099
Mr. Larsen. I don't know. He has been snooping, I believe.
Senator Green. Didn't you ask him?
Mr. Larsex. I did ask him, but he didn't tell me.
Senator Lodge. What is his address?
Mr. Larsen. I have his card here.
Moreover, when she broke into that wrong room there were docu-
ments spread all over the bed, and Lattimore said, ''What the devil are
you doing in here?"
Mr. Morgan. You are telling us what Mr. Hunter told you ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes. I am just describing the meeting as it has been
described to me.
Senator Green. How did you know Hunter?
INlr. Larsen. I met him in "Mi-. Dondero's office, George A. Dondero,
of Michigan,
Senator Green. How did he happen to tell you this?
Mr. L.VBSEN. Mr. Dondero invited me over to his office, and wdien I
got over there he told me, "JNIy purpose is to bring you to Senator
Wherry and you can tell INIr. Wherry anything you know about
Lattimore."
Senator Lodge. What was the date of this conversation?
Mr. Larsen. About May 1.
Senator Lodge. Of this year?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
I said I didn't know anything about Lattimore — "I'm sorry I can't
help you."
He said, "Do you know Mr. Kent Hunter?"
I said, "No ; I am glad to meet you," and we sat down, and he
asked me a few things, like everybody has asked me about any
involvement in the Amerasia case.
He said, "Why were you not at that party?"
I said, "Do you mean that one we read about in the paper?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "The only answer is that I am apparently not persona grata
with that group. Anyway, I was not invited."
Senator Green. What was the occasion of his telling you all this?
Mr. T^ARSEN. Then he wanted to know^ whether I knew about it. I
didn't know, and he explained the whole story to me.
Senator Green. What else did he say?
Mr. Larsen. Nothing else, as far as I remember.
Senator Green. What did he say further about seeing Senator
Wherry ?
Mr. Larsen. That was Congressman Dondero who asked me to go
over to see Senator AVlierry. Then I said good-by to Kent Hunter,
and I walked over to the Capitol, and we walked still further to the
Senate Building, and I saw Mr. Wherry, and Mr. Wherr}^ merely
asked me whether I knew Mr. Lattimore, and I told him that I hon-
estly didn't know him.
Senator Green. Did you tell him this story that vou had heard from
Mr. Kent Hunter? *
Mr. Larsen. No; I didn't.
Senator Green. Did he know about it ?
Mr. Larsen. I don't know. We didn't get on the subject at all.
Senator Green. How long did the conference last?
1100 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATION
Mr Larsen. It lasted only, say, 10 or 15 minutes.
Seiiatoi Geeen. And lie didn't ask you to do anything or get any
information or anything else? ^ ^ _ . , , . ... _„.
Mr. Larsen. He said he would send for me again, but 1^^ hasn t sent
for me I told him that I had been called by Senator McCaithy-
that?s what our conversation hinged on-on March 18, and he asked
me, ''How did you get along?" ^^ _ . , , ^„
i said, "I had some difficulty at McCarthy s place.
He said, "What was it?" ., -. ..
fsaid, "Mc. McCarthy is a very busy man, with many pl^o^^^, ^f J^'
and we didn't get around to a proper discussion. He would ask me a
question, then he would have an interruption, so he turned me over to
a young man by the name of Don Surene.
Senator Green. Why, Wherry? i. is o,.rl
Mr Larson. No; Mr. McCarthy turned me over on March 18, and
this was the story I was telling Mr. Wherry on May 1. I went down-
stairs to room 5- A. _
Senator Green. After seemg Senator W herry ?
Mr. Larsen. No ; before seeing him. That was ^^^ ^f ^V.Pn vH^^^
downstairs with Mr. Don Surine, an investigator of Mr. McCarthy s,
SS I got into a little bit of a hot dispute with Mr. Don Sunne
iust after he had started to question me.
^ He had a list of questions, and he got no further than, "How did you
getinvolved in the spy cas^" or "the Amerasia espionage case?' and
I obiected I said I preferred to have it known as the Amerasia leak-
ac?e of information, or stolen documents, case, rather than the spy case.
^He said, "But you wrote an article m Plain ialk.
I said I objected to Mr. Don Levine's labeling that story "The State
Department Espionage Case." I said "If you put 'espionage' m lor
goodness' sake put it in quotation marks, because I .^o^/^^^e a fool o
call it an espionage case when I do not know and claim that I ceitamly
know nothing .J^mt espionage, and I have yet to see the Government
'Thenir.'^n!p^lnd pointed his finger at me: "Are you de-
^'f said,^No,'sfr ; I am defending myself I am sorry to say, in spite
of double jeopardy, I still have to defend myself. And now I think
^ Then'the phone rang, and I could clearly understand that Mr. Mc-
Carthy was on the phone, and I also could very well conjecture that
Mr McCarthy had had a little recording device upstairs and had heard
every word that had been said and was now calling Mr. Surine to tell
him ""The heck with that questioning of Larsen. He is going to be no
good to us." • . 0
Mr. Morgan. That is a personal conjecture ^ _
Mr Larsen. That is personal and purely a conjecture, because then
Mr. Surine promptly said to me : "Yes ; you can go. I have to go, too.
And he never sent for me again.
Senator Green. Hive ym ary other reason for suspecting that
there were any hearing devices used ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes ; I have another reason.
Senator Green. What was it? « . t cof
Mr Larsen. When I first went into Mr. McCarthy s office, I sat
in the front room and waited. My appointment was for 5 o clock
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USTVESTIGATION 1101
sharp, and I sat and waited and I heard IMr. INIcCarthy in there, saw
tlioni come and <ro, and tliey could very well have called me in, since
it was not an ollicial liearing, at 10 minutes to 5, 5 minutes to 5, or 3
minutes or 1 minute to 5, but they didn't. They waited until exactly
6 o'clock.
One man stood at the door. The door was open to his office. I sat
with my back to that wall. He stopped and watched me and watched
the clock, and at 5 he went over and took me and brought me in and
he said, "This is Mv. Lirsen. Mr. Larsen, this is Senator McCarthy."
Then I said, "How do you do? I am very glad to meet you, Sen-
ator."
Then he said, "Sit down and tell me what you know about the
Amerasia espionage case."
I thought to myself, "It is very formal, and I have a feeling that
something is being recorded around here." There was no one with a
pad or no one with a machine like this here, but I was pretty sure.
1 had a hunch. I may be wrong.
Senator Green. That is all?
Mr. Larsen. That is all.
Senator Green. Then you were questioned by two, Senator Mc-
Carthy and Senator Wherry.
Mr. Larsen. That's right.
Senator Green. About your knowledge of the case. Were you ques-
tioned by anyone else?
Mr. Larsen. Yes; Senator Ferguson.
Senator Green. Tell us about that.
Mr. Larsen. I cannot remember the date, but it must have been
May 20. If I could see a calendar, I could probably identify it.
Senator Green. Was it after or before these other talks?
Mr. Larsen. It was after the last one. That was the 26th. No ; it
couldn't be. It was the Saturday before, the 20th of May. That
would be the closest to it.
Senator Green. What day of the week ?
Mr. Larsen. A Saturday.
Senator Green. How did you happen to see Senator Ferguson?
Mr. Larsi^n. He sent for me. His secretary, whom I don't know, a
Mr. Reed, telephoned my apartment and said, "My name is Reed, and
Senator Ferguson is very much interested in the case and wonders
whether you would voluntarily come up and see him," and I told him,
"I have been asked to come voluntarily to a great many people and
I am, frankly, sick and tired of it, but, lest I be thought to be hiding
from any inquiry, I will come. But may I come on my own time?
That is, at my own convenience, because I am doing little jobs now,
and I would like to get my work done and then come in."
He said, "Come at 3 p. m. on Saturday, the 20th." I am pretty sure
that was the date. And I went up there, and Mr. Ferguson was ex-
tremely nice to me and he asked me exactly the same questions as Mr.
Morgan asked me. "But tell me honestly, did you or did you not
give Jaffe any documents?"
I told him "That's the trouble; I did give him some. I did lend
him some, and I have gone through hell for it, too." But I did not
conspire and I did not associate with the group. I did not know Mr.
Gayn at all. I never spoke one word to Mr. Service concerning Jaffe
1102 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
or regarding documents, and I made it clear to him that I had met
Mr. Service only on three occasions : One, when I was ten years old
and he was 6 months old. We couldn't have conspired. Second,
when my boss in the State Department, Mr. Ballentme, who is now
with Brookings Institution, introduced me to him after a meeting.
He said, "Larsen, do you know Service ?"
I said, "I am glad to meet you. I have read many of your reports."
I didn't tell him that I didn't like his reports too much. That was all.
Third, when Mr. John Carter Vincent sent me a note one day and
said, "Would you like to go to lunch with me?'' That was about the
middle of April 1945. Service had just returned from China, and
when I went to Mr. Vincent's office he was then chief of the Chinese
desk. Then I saw Mr. Service there, and as far as I remember, the
three of us walked together to the Tally Ho Restaurant. There was
one other person. I cannot remember whether it was Mr. Emerson
or who it was, but there were four of us all together.
Mr. Morgan. You mean you never did see Service on any of the
occasions that you met Jaffe?
Mr. Larsen.' Yes, I did once. I will tell you about that later.
Senator Green. That makes another.
Mr. Larsen. Then we walked to the Tally Ho Restaurant, and got
our trays, and when we sat down, Mr. Vincent started to discuss ways
and means of getting rid of Hurley as Ambassador to China. He said
he had made an ass of himself and he was not the man, and the up and
coming political group in China was the Communist Party, the so-
called Communist Party, and Mr. Service made a few small remarks
and Vincent asked me, "What do you think about this?" and I an-
swered something to this effect : "Well, I am small fry in the State
Department. I am new there. I am very generously classed as a
country specialist and as a member of the Postwar Basic Policy Com-
mittee, but I feel that I shall start to hire and fire ambassadors when
I am made full Secretary of State."
Then there was a general chill around the table and they didn't like
it very much, and I hardly remember that we discussed anything after
that. We broke up. I went my way to the Walker-Johnson Building
and Service and John Carter Vincent went back to the main State
Building, and I never had anything to do with them after that.
Senator Green. Did that make four or three times?
Mr. Larsen. That made three times ; the first when he was a baby,
the second when we were introduced, and then this. The fourth was
when I had a meeting with Jaffe one day. That must be the 28th of
May. I didn't kee]) a record, but I can place it approximately there.
Then Mr. Jaffe called me on the phone the following day and said,
"Jimmie?"
I said, "Are you still in town?"
He said, "Yes, I stayed on another day." He said, "I remembered
that I wanted the l)iogra])hies of four men, and I forgot to ask you
Avlien I saw you. You gave me all else, but I want those."
I said, "All right; if I have them I will make copies for you."
I went to my file and went back and said, "Yes, I have them."
He wanted me to copy them. He said, "I am leaving on a 1 o'clock
train," or 2 o'clock, whatever it was, and I said, "What do you want
me to do?"
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LNVESTIGATION 1103
He said, ''This one time loan me your personal copies of your cards
and I Avill mail them back to you from New York."
1 don't think I ever ,<iot those cards back, and I didn't make a record
of wliat they were. But I took them down there, and when I walked
into the hotel I didn't know what room he was in, so I went to the
desk and I said, "Where is Mr. Jaffe registered?"
They said, "Koom so-and-so," so I walked over to the elevator shaft
there, and when I got there, John Service and Philip Jaffe were stand-
ing outside.
Senator Green. Outside the elevator ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, right outside the elevator in the Statler lobby,
and Jaffe said, "Do you know Mr. Service?"
I said, "Yes, I have met him." I do not remember whether I shook
hands or not. I asked John Service the day before yesterday at the
loyalty meeting '"Did I say anything to you?"
He said, "No, not that I remember." He said, "I remember you
came there and delivered a small envelope."
That is why I said, "The point is, it was a small enevelope." There
were four cards in it.
I said, "Philip, don't forget to send them back to me," and then
I went away.
Senator Lodge. Why did you think he wanted to have them ?
Mr. Larsex. Apparently he had something he was writing about
that concerned the men.
Senator Lodge. You thought his interest was entirely journalistic?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I did at that time.
Senator Lodge. Do you think differently now.
Mr. Larsen. Yes ; I do think differently now.
Senator Green, When you say you delivered no documents at any
time, you do not call these cards documents?
Mr. Larsen. No, I never called them documents.
Senator Green. Those are the only things you ever delivered?
Mr. Larsen. No. I think I told you, sir, that I did deliver some
documents to him, which I loaned to him and he took away and re-
turned, with the exception of three that I identified, or two that I
definitely identify and one that I could not say for sure.
Senator Green. There may have been more ? You said you did not
remember those until you saw them,
Mr, Larsen. There may have been more.
Senator Green. You used the word "conspire" several times, that
they accused you of conspiring and you did not conspire. AVhat do
you mean by "conspire" ? AVhat does it mean to you ?
Mr. Larsen, I have in mind the charges preferred against me in
court on November 2. I do not remember the technical designation
of the charges, but they were "conspiracy to remove Government
documents," or "Government property," I think it was termed. I
know that term because my attorney went into it very carefully and
explained that that was the charge.
Senator (^reen. When you delivered these Government documents
you did not consider that conspiring?
Mr, Larsen. I have never been asked that question. Do you mean
conspiring with one man, Jaffe?
Senator Green. Yes.
1104 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Larsen. Technically, I suppose that would be to conspire with
liim. T IT 0
Senator Lodge. How long had you known J atte «
Mr. Larsen. Since the spring or summer of 1944. , , , ,
Senator Lodge. You had not known him very long, then had you?
Mr. Larsen. About a year. The arrest was made m 1945.
Senator Lodge. You feel you knew him quite well?
Mr. Larsen. Yes; as well as you could know him from, say, 8 or 9
or 10, perhaps, meetings. , . , ,
Senator Lodge. But you feel now that there were some thing about
him that you did not know then, don't you?
Mr. Larsen. That's right; I do feel that.
Senator Green. Have you told us the whole of your conversation
with Senator Ferguson ? • i o -
Mr. Larsen. Yes; I think I have. I merely mentioned to Senator
Ferguson that I had been indiscreet in the illegal or unauthorized
loaning of some documents to Mr. Jaffe, and that at the time of the
arrest some of those had not been returned, and that I had made a
clean breast of it to the Justice Department and that in the final analy-
sis I had been taken to court and had entered a plea of nolo con-
tendere, which I did not know of as a plea before. I had heard the
term, but it was suggested to me by Mr. Hitchcock. He made a very
straightforward suggestion, it seemed to me at that time.
He pointed out to me, "Larsen, do you see that you have removed
Government property? Let me make it still plainer to you. If you
had taken one pencil marked 'United States Government' and then
taken that home, or given it to someone else, you had removed Gov-
ernment property or conspired to remove Government property, and
we are going to fight this case to the bitter end and you will not get
out of it."
I tried to bluff. Actually, I had a Chinese friend who sold his six
laundries, including his factory out at Front Royal, and he said,
"Jimmie, I will put ^ 10,000 in' the bank for your defense." I had
helped him at one time. The Chinese are good that way.
I went to the Justice Department and I said to my lawyer, "Let's
bluff Hitchcock a little bit."
I said, "I will go to the Supreme Court and I will fight the docu-
ments in my house. I will fight that end of it and say, 'All right, I
had authority to have them there. There is no proof that those docu-
ments you found had been given to Jaffe. On the contrary, the fact
that they are there should show they have not been given to Jaffe.'
I will confess my guilt so far as the actual loaning of some docu-
ments, and then we will find out whether I am a spy or conspirator,
or whether I have given information that was essential to the security
of the United States" and let me repeat under oath right here that I
never gave anything that was essential to the security of the United
States, for several reasons. One, I would never get that.
Mr. Morgan. Of course, that was by your interpretation of what
the information purported to be, was it not — insofar as your analysis
of the information was concerned, it would not be information of that
type. Ts that what you mean?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes; I see. That would be in my interpretation.
STATE D&PARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISTV^ESTI CATION 1105
Senator Lodge. Is it not true that you mifrht not be able to judge
•whether a document involved the security of the United States or not ?
Isn't that right?
Mr. Larsen. That would be an exceptional case.
Senator Lodge. You are not a military man, are you?
Mr. Larsen. I am not a military man ; no sir.
Senator Lodge. So you might liave a document that involved the
security of the United States and you might not know it.
Mr. Larsex. I will concede that. That is possible.
Senator Lodge. You gave these documents to Mr. Jaffe because you
thought he was going to use them for a journalistic purpose. Did
you give them to any other journalists or any other educators?
Mr. Larsen. Xo. sir.
Senator Lodge. Why did you happen to pick him? If you were
going to start issuing documents to the press, why did you pick this
particular man ?
Mr. Larsen. I will answer that question. I met Mr. Jaffe through
Mr. Roth, and the purpose was to exchange personalities, and it was
not intended to be a pipeline, as it is commonly called. But I suspect
that there was, if there was any conspiracy, it was on the part of Mr.
Jaife and Mr. Roth to secure me as an eventual pipeline. I cannot
prove that. It is a mean accusation, but what I have subsequently
heard would indicate that there is a possibility of that.
Senator Lodge. That doesn't quite answer my question.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, inasmuch as I said no, I did not give anything
to anyone else, and I would not have given anything to anyone else,
any other journalist, with whom there w^ere not the relations for
'Chinese personality and biographical material.
Senator Lodge. Why did you pick these people ?
Mr. Larsen. I didn't j)ick them.
Senator Lodge. You did.
Mr. Larsen. They picked me.
Senator Lodge. Why did you want to give them the documents?
Mr. Larsen. I thinl<: I have stated tliat already.
Senator Lodge. You haven't stated it so it is clear.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I think I made it quite clear. I stated I didn't
^•ant to be bothered with extracting a conclusion from a long-winded
memorandum or dispatch and instead I let him draw his own con-
clusions.
Senator Lodge. That isn't what I mean at all. Why did you give
those documents to Mr. Jaffe? That is what I want to know. It is
a perfectly simple question. You did not give them to any other
journalist. AAHiy did you give them to him ?
Mr. Larsen. Why did you marry your Avife and not any other
woman ?
Senator Lodge. You answer my questions! I am not here to be
ijuestioned.
Mr. Larsen. I am here vohiiitarily. I will answer it if I like to.
I am sorry; I don't want to be in contempt of anyone here. I am
answering to the best of my ability.
I gave him the documents because he asked me to loan him that
particular document. There was no blanket agreement.
Senator Loixie. If the New York Times had come and asked you
to give them a document, would you have given it to them ?
1106 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Larsen, No, I wouldn't.
Senator Lodge. Why do you prefer Mr. Jaffe to the New York
Times ?
Mr. Laksen. I can't answer that question. I would still ask you^
why do you prefer your present wife to another woman.
Senator Lodge. You don't ask me questions, at all.
Mr. Larsen. I know I am out of order.
Senator Green. Get back in order, please.
Senator Lodge. Why do you prefer Mr. Jaffe to the New York
Times ? What is so wonderful about Mr. Jaffe ? Why did you give
him this material and you did not give it to any other journalist?
That is a perfectly simple question.
Mr. Larsen. I have to think of an intelligent answer to that.
Senator Lodge. Yes, I want an intelligent answer.
Mr. Larsen. I had become associated with Mr. Jaffe.
Senator Lodge. Why ? Why did you like him ? Why did you want
to get associated with him?
Mr. Larsen. You ask me, why did I like him ?
Ssnator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. He was, as an individual, a very pleasant person.
Senator Lodge. So any other journalist that had a pleaant person-
ality you would have given these documents to, is that right?
Mr. Larsen. No.
Senator Lodge. Then why did you prefer him ?
Mr. Larsen. We had a hobby in common there, and it was purely
based on the personality discussion and exchange. There was no other
reason.
Senator Lodge. What do you mean, "exchange of personality"?
Mr. Larsen. Exchange of personality material, notes, biographies.
Jaffe did give me some very valuable biographies on Chinese Com-
munists. I don't think anyone was up on them as well as he was.
Senator Lmix;'-. He gave you material?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. A good deal of material ?
Mr. Larsen. Quite a good deal in the beginning, and there was a
slight disillusionment on my part when he did not give me very much
later.
Senator Lodge. Did he give you material that was useful to the
State Department ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, he did.
Senator Lodge. Do you know Michael Lee?
Mr. Larsen. I know him slightly.
Senator Lodge. How many times have you seen him ?
Mr. Larsen. Three or four times.
Senator Lodge. In what connection did you see him ?
Mr. Larsen. I met him by accident a few times. He has never
been to my house; I have never been to his house. He came to
my office and applied for a position, and we turned him down. We
had no position for him in the Navy Department.
Senator Lodge. Did you utilize him in any way in your connections
or relations with Jaffe ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir. The answer is "No," under oath: definitely
"No." ' ^
STATE DEJPARTIVIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1107
Mr. Morgan. In line with some questions Senator Lodge asked you,
during the period of this association with Jaffe, did you kiow him to
be the editor of Amerasia magazine?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I did.
Mr. Morgan. In your testimony before the Hobbs committee I
think you referred to the Amerasia magazine as an "important text-
book." Is that correct?
Mr. Larsen. That is right.
Mr. Morgan. Did you at any time during the period of your asso-
ciation with Mr. Jaffe regard him as a leftist?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I did. I asked him at one time, "Are you a Com-
munist" ? It occurred to me in this manner : After I met him I started
to read Amerasia magazine. I never wrote anything for Amerasia,
and one time when he came down — it was around Christmas time,
1944-^5 — I said to him, "Philip, why is it that you always champion
the Conmiunist cause and you never have a single good word for our
ally, Chiang Kai-shek, in it"?
He said, "Well, I will tell you. The reason is that these agrarian
reformers and so-called Communists out in China have not been given
so very much publicity, correct publicity."
I said, "On the contrary, it seems to me that every single writer
in the United States has boosted them," and I ran off some names :
Agnes Smedley, Edgar Snow, Harrison Foreman, and I believe I
even mentioned Lattimore as championing their cause, and never say-
ing a good word about the Nationalists, and I pointed out that it was
wartime and that the Nationalists were our allies, and it was a bad
thing to make a break between the Nationalist Government of Chiang
Kai-shek and the United States Government during wartime, and he
said, "Well, I am getting around to that in due course, and I shall
put the position of the Chiang Kai-shek Government as clearly and as
impartially as possible."
But, gentlemen, he never did get around to that.
Mr. Morgan. When was this conversation ?
Mr. Larsen. This conversation was around Christmas or New Year,
19M-45.
Mr. IMoRGAN. And you had concluded at that time that Jaffe and
his magazine were leftist, let us say ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I had concluded that they were rather leftist.
Mr. Morgan. Yet you continued to exchange information with him
up to and including May 29, 1945 ?
Mr. Larsen. That's right, and you probably ask me why.
Mr. Morgan. I am just intrigued by Senator Lodge's questions here.
As I understand your position, Mr. Larsen, all along in your testi-
mony, it is that you were pro-Chiang, let us say. and we have the anom-
alous situation here of you being pro-Chiang in association with a man
that you recognized as pro-Communist, and yet you continue over an
extended period of time to give him information. I don't understand
it.
Mr. Larsen. I was, or was trying to be, an impartial analyst. That
means an analyst who must look at both sides, at both reports, l)ecause
we were dealing with China as a whole. And whereas I grew up with
the Kuomintang boys in China and I know them ver}^ well — I know
all their faults — I am one American who does know their good points,
1108 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTTGATION
too, and I had a few battles with Philip Jaffe on that snbject. I
pointed out to him that it is true there is plenty corruption in the
Chiang government, but there is in every government, and I believed,.
I told him, that there was probably less corruption in the Chiang gov-
ernment than there had been in many hundreds of years of Chinese
government, and that I knew the good points that Chiang Kai-shek
had to his credit, namely, the unification of the country, the unification
of tax systems, and many other things. And he didn't say anything-
to that, and I felt that ideologically we were not on the same basis.
But let me add one thing that you and many other people in Amer-
ica seem to lose sight of. We were at that time at war with Japan
and Germany, and our allies were the Chinese, including the Chinese-
Communists, and Soviet Russia. And we were being briefed on care-
ful relations with Eussia, diplomatic careful relations, that would pro-
long the good relations we were enjoying, and I believe we all were
pretty happy to have as an ally Soviet Russia, although I never liked
the Russians.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Larsen, you have testified before the House com-
mittee rather fully about an alleged pro-Communist group in the
State Department.
Mr. Larsen. That's right.
Mr. Morgan. I intend to ask you some questions about that, but
that brings me back again to this question I would like to have ans-
wered if you can, and that is why, after you assmned that Mr. Jaffe
was pro-Communist in his tendencies, yon continued to give to him
restricted, classified documents of the United States Government.
Mr. Larsen. I shall answer that. Then my next question to Mr.
Jaffe was, "Philip, I want to ask you a question. Don't get mad with
me. Are you a Communist or a pro-Communist ?"
To that Mr. Jaffe answered "No, definitely not. I would like to call
myself a Liberal or a Socialist, but I am not a Communist."
And I took his word for it. Since then, when the case broke, Mr.
Dondero and others have pointed out to me the record of Mr. Jaffe,
namely, that he has taught in Communist schools and he has been
affiliated with pro-Communist front organizations. That I did not
know previously. I did not suspect it because I worked in a United
States Government institution where 20 co])ies of his magazine would
come in and would be distributed to evei';^' desk.
Mr. Morgan. You were familiar with the magazine ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I was fairly familiar with the magazine.
Mr. Morgan. Was that the only magazine you and your people
referred to? Was that the only research magazine?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, no. We referred to all magazines, all papers.
Mr. IVloRGAN. From your reading of the Amerasia magazine, did
you conclude that it was a pro-Communist magazine?
Mr. Larsen. I couldn't conclude that very definitely, because there
was never anything in the magazine out-and-out pro-Soviet.
By the way, there is an inaccuracy in the record. I never used
the word "pro-Soviet" in there.
]VIr. Morgan. You did refer to it, in answer to a question by Mr.
Fellows, as an important textbook ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I did.
Mr. Morgan. In what sense did you make that statement ?
STATE DEPART-MENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\ESTIGATrON 1109
Mv. Larsex. In the sense that it Mas read very carefully, and we
■svere often recjuested to connnent on it.
^Ir. MoRGAX. Was it read more intensely than other publications
relatiufx to the Far East?
Mr. JvARSEX. No, 1 don^t think so.
Mv. ]\IoRGAN. So, in your association with Mr. Jafl'e, you had no
reason to think of Mr. Jatl'e or of Anierasia in any peculiar sense,,
is that rig-ht ?
Mr. Larsex. I had occasion, of course, to consider it as one of the
leftist magazines. I definitely decided that when I had read it for-
some time.
^Ir. JNIorgax. Was that during the period of your association witk
Mr. Jatfe^
Mr. Larsex-^. Yes. That was after I came over to the State De-
partment.
j\Ir. JNIorgax-^. Yet you continued to maintain your contact witk
him and to supply information to him?
Mr. Larsex, Yes, but I did not suspect that he was a spy or a pro-
Conmiunist, especially after he said that he was not a Communist and
not pro-Communist.
iSlr. Morgax^ Getting back to the line of inquiry from which we were-
diverted somewhat
Senator Greex. INlay I get back to where I was ?
Mr. MoRGAX. Certainly. I am sorry.
Senator Greex^. You were telling us about one of the Senators,.
Senator ^Mierry, sending for you. Were you given any reason why
he sent for you ?
Mr. Larsex. Yes, he told me, somewhat laughingly, that he was
the expert on homosexuality in the State Department, and we laughed
quite a bit, and I said, "Well, in that case I am definitely veiy sorry.
Senator, I cannot help you, because I am not a homosexual myself
and it has gone completely over my head, this homosexual business,
and I don't know Lattimore."
Senator Greex*. How did you get word from him ?
INIr. Larsex'. That was from jNIr. George Dondero, who took me over
there, the day I met Kent Hunter.
Senator Greex. Was it a message from Senator Wherry that he
wanted to see you?
Mr. Larsex. I presume so. I didn't know what the purpose of the
call was when Congressman Dondero sent for me, so I just wentto his
office and he patted me on the shoulder and said, "Larsen, I know you
are no Communist, and I told your wife the other day that I think
you are a fine man."
Senator Greex'. Senator Wherry said this ?
Mr. Larsex-^. No; Mr. Dondero said it. He said, "I know you will
help us in this matter and tell us the truth."
Senator Greex'. WHiat matter?
Mr. Larsex. The investigation of the Amerasia case. He said, "In
that connection I wanted to introduce you to Senator Wherry."
I said, "What does he want to ask me about?"
He said, "As far as 1 know it is about Lattimore. Do you know any-
thing about Lattimore?"
I said, "No."
1110 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Then lie said, "Do you know tliis gentleman here?"
I said, "No."
He said, "My name is Kent Hunter."
Then Congressman Dondero said, "I will go outside for a minute
while you talk together."
I said, "I don't like to give any statements to the press."
He said, "This is not for the press. This is just a little off-the-
record talk. I just want to know your story of Amerasia. How did
you get involved ? Did you ever know Lattimore, and what were your
relations with Service?"
Senator Green. We are getting away from Senator Wherry, are*we
not?
Mr. Larsen. Yes ; and then we went to Senator Wherry.
Senator Green. Kent Hunter and you ?
Mr. Larsen. No ; Congressman Dondero and I.
Senator Green. What was Congressman Dondero's interest in the
whole matter?
Mr. Larsen. He had apparently had a call from Senator Wherry
and had obliged him by saying he would bring Larsen to him.
Senator Green. You understood that Dondero was drumming up
witnesses for Senator Wherry?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes ; definitely, sir.
Senator Green. Were you promised anything in return ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
Senator Green. Or threatened if you did not go ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
Senator Green. It was just your general good nature that made you
give your time to this ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, Senator Wherry is a very charming man, I con-
sidered.
Senator Green. Did you know him ?
Mr. Larsen. No.
Senator Green. You did not know him as a charming man then, did
you ?
Mr. Larsen. No, but I met him and he was very pleasant and I
thought I would not conceal anything from him, as I had not con-
cealed anything from the others.
Senator Green. You have a very generous and open disposition to
oblige a perfect stranger by putting yourself out and giving of your
time.
Mr. Larsen. That's right. I am of that disposition. Incidentally,
I have been through the mill on this. I have been sentenced ; I have
suffered considerably. I have been without employment since 1945,
and I figure that in the way of double jeopardy nothing in particular
could happen to me.
Senator Green. Do you mind going back? We seem to go off on
sidetracks.
In your conversation with Senator Wherry, after you got through
with that one subject which you disclaimed any knowledge of or ability
to help him with, what trend did the conversation take?
Mr. Larsen. Then I related to him my experience with Mr. Mc-
Carthy and his assistant.
Senator Green. Then what happened ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1111
Mr. Larsen. I told him, "I don't like jVIcCarthy *? methods, or rather,
the methods of his assistant. I had a little clash with him."
Senator Gkeex. Then what ?
Mr. Larsex. Then he said, to the best of my memory, "Oh, Mac
has fjone out on a limb and kind of made a fool of himself, and we have
to back liini up now,'" and with Cliinese mental reserve I said to my-
self, ''You back him up. Leave me out of it."
Senator Green. What did you say out loud?
Mr. Larsen. I said nothino;.
Senator (treen. Was that the end of the conversation?
Mr. Larsen. That was the end of the conversation, and Mr. Wherry
said, ''Thank you very much for coming in. Would you come in
again if you think of something, or if I send for you would you come
again?"
1 said, "Yes, yes. Good-by. sir," and that's all.
Senator Green. Then you have described, I think, your conversa-
tion with Senator ^McCarthy. That was very brief.
Mr. Larsen. Very brief; yes.
Senator Green. He was disappointed in you too, wasn't he?
Mr. Larsen. Yes; I think he was.
Senator Green. Did you introduce the same general topic that you
did with Senator Wherry, that he thought you were going to give some
information about homosexuality?
Mr. Larsen. That's right.
Senator Green. Did Senator McCarthy have the same expectation?
Mr. Larsen. Xo; he never brought up Lattimore or homosexuality.
He merely asked me what I knew about the Amerasia espionage case,
and the other members involved in it.
Senator Green. That is a long story you could have told him.
Mr. Larsen. Yes; I could have told him a long story. I could
have made it very brief and said I did not know what the other people
involved in the case did, because I did not consj^ire w4th them.
Senator Green. Is that what you said, or what you might have
said {
Mr. Larsen. I could have said that, but he did not ask me.
Senator Green. What did you say to him in reply to his questions?
Mr. Larsen. I said. "I shall be very glad to tell you my end of it."
Senator Green. AVhat did lie say to that?
Mr. Larsen. He didn't get a chance to say anything. Then the
phone rang, and he said to some woman on the j)hone, "I can't be
there at that time ; I'm awfully sorry, I am tied uj). Tell them I have
to go to Cliina, or I'm having a baby." I think that is what he said.
Senator Green. Wliat did he say to you?
Mr. Larsen. He said, "Excuse me, please," and then he started to
ask me another question : "How did you get to know Jafte?"' He did
not iret an answer to that question. Then another phone call, and then
he talked on the phone for about 5 minutes, and then he put the i)hone
down and then the young ^Nlr. Surine came in, and he said, ''Look,
Don. I want you to take Mr. Larsen downstairs and question him. I
am too busy."
I said, "it has been a pleasure meeting you. Senator." I have been
taught to say those falsehoods. And I went downstairs with Mr.
Don Surine.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 71
1112 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Greets\ Then ^yllat happened ^Yith Mr. Surine? He was
" actino; as Mr. McCarthy's agent in the matter ?
lyir. Laksen. Yes; and he had a great many dictaphones and other
contraptions, at least 10 of them, in that office. It was bristlmg with
macliineiy. And I understood that whatever I said would go into
records and on disks. I sat down opposite him and he pulled out a
yellow sheet where he had some questions listed, and he began with the
first one : "What is your name and address and how did you get in-
volved in the Amerasia espionage case ?"
Senator Green. Did you feel under any obligation to answer all
these ?
Mr. Larsen. No ; I did not.
Senator Green. But you answered them ?
]Mr. Larsen. I answered only this way : "I would prefer to call it the
Amerasia leakage of documents or stolen documents case, and not the
espionage case."
Senator Green. That was the conversation you told us about before ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes ; and there it ended.
Senator Green. And that is the whole of all your communications
directly with Senator McCarthy and Senator Wherry, pending fur-
ther calls from them ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir. I had forgotten one thing I remember now.
I cannot repeat the words exactly. I wish I had recorded something
too. Mr. Don Surene pointed to me and said, "You are equally guilty,"
and there he sort of got me a little bit mad. He said, "You are equally
guilty with the others, but if you will testify correctly you can be of
great help to us and everything will be much easier for you."
Senator Green. That is what I said. Were there any inducements
or threats? Apparently there were.
Mr. Larsen. That was the only one, and that was the one that got
me stirred up first. The final detonator was when he said, "Are you
defending Amerasia?"
Then I got ready to go home.
Senator (treex. Whom did you think Mr. Surine represented. Sen-
ator Wlierry ?
Mr. Larsen. No; I think he represented Senator McCarthy, be-
cause he was introduced to me as Mr. McCarthy's man.
Mr. Morris. Did you say you saw a recording machine there at that
time?
Mr. Larsen. I saw quite a number of them around there.
Mr. Morris. What do you mean by recording machines?
]Mr. Larsen. Well, dictaphones, electric typewriters, little electric
gadgets that I hnd never seen before, never used.
Mr. Morris. Did you see anything that was recording the conver-
sation tliat took place?
Mr. Larsen. I looked around for a "mike" but I couldn't find one.
Mr. Morris. So when you made the statement that the place was
bristlinjx with machines you meant it was bristling with typewriters?
Mr. Larsen. And dicta])hones and other equipment.
Mr. McRRis. But nothing to record the conversation that had been
going on ?
Mr. Larsen. I don't know the nature of those machines. I never
used one.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1113
Senator Green. Now let's get on to the third Senator. Don't make
me go into detail as to what you said next and what he said and so on.
How did von happen to a'o there ?
JNIr. Lausex. To Senator McCarthy?
Senator Green. To Senator Ferguson.
Senator Ferguson's secretary, Mr. Reed
Senator Mc]Mahon. Before you get into Senator Ferguson, when
Senator AVherry said he was the expert on homosexuality in the State
De]^artment, did he state his qualifications?
Mr. Larsen. No; he did not.
Senator Lodge. I understood Mr. ^Morgan had a line of questioning
that tlie chairman desired to have finished today.
Senator Green. The temporary chairman desires to have this line
finished first.
Senator Lodge. I wonder how far along Mr. Morgan is.
!Mr. Morgan. I am just getting started.
Senator Lodge. Then, of course, Mr. Morris has a line of questions
to develop, and I think Mr. Larsen had better understand he is going
to be here all day tomorrow.
Senator Green. Let's finish with this line first. We are trying to
find out the conversations with the three Senators, which we had piece-
meal before.
"Will you tell us why you went to see Senator Ferguson — a consecu-
tive story.
Mr. Larsen. His assistant, a Mr. Reed, called the apartment. I
was not at home.
Senator Green. TVas this a social phrase or actually were you not
there ?
Mr. Larsen. I was not at home, and when I got home my wife said,
"There is a ]Mr. Reed who wants to talk to you."
lasked, "AAHioisit?"
'•He said he is an assistant in Senator Ferguson's office. He wants
you to call him."
Not cherishjng too many investigations and questions, I did not call
him, and he called me early in the morning and said, ''Mr. Larsen "'
Senator Green. He himself called you?
Mr. Larsen. No, Mr. Reed. He said, "You don't know me. I am
an assistant in Senator Ferguson's office. Would you please come up
and see me?"
I told him, "Frankly, I don't even have the carfare today, because
I am waiting for a check for an article I wrote."
He said, "Well. T could pick you up."
I said, "I am going down town somehow or other today, and if I can,
I will make it."
He said. "No; let's make it definite," and he begged me to come and
see the Senator. He said, "It won't be but a moment."
Senator Green. Mr. Reed promised to stop for you and take you?
Mr. Larsen. He said it wouldn't be but a few moments, and in the
morning mail I received my check and Mr. Reed called me back again
about noontime.
Senator Lodge. Your check? From whom?
Mr. Larsen. A check for an article I had written.
Senator Lodge. I see.
1114 STATE DEPARTIvIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Reed called me once more that same day, and
asked me, "Could you come down?", and I said, "Yes.' I said I will
come down." . . ,
Senator Green. You must have been getting curious, were you not,
as to what it was all about.
Mr. Larsen. Yes. • ^i. c
Senator Green. Yet I don't know. Perhaps with two other Sen-
ators in the background you aready knew, or suspected.
Mr Larsen. 1 probably was just as willing to talk to an associate
of Senator Ferguson as I was to Mr. Jaffe. I mean that without any
contempt.
Senator Lodge. And for the same reasons i
Mr. Larsen. Yes ; to discuss the interests of the Nation.
Senator Lodge. I thought you said you were discussing it with Jatte
because he was interested in personalities. Do you mean you wanted
to see Senator Ferguson in order to exchange information on Chinese
personalities ?
Mr. Larsen. No. May I answer the question ?
Senator Lodge. I hope you answer it. nr t ^
Mr. Larsen. Just in the same manner I wanted to see Mr. Jaite on
personalities, I was quite willing to see Mr. Ferguson, who I believed
had the interests of the Nation at heart.
Senator Lodge. I can now see you are not serious in your answer.
Mr. Larsen. Certainly I am serious.
Senator Lodge. I think that statement pretty well disqualifies the
witness in his other testimony.
Mr. Larsen. What advantage would it be to myself to see Mr.
Ferguson ? ,
Senator Lodge. You refuse to answer the question, and that is the
end of that.
Senator Green. Answer your own question.
Mr. Larsen. I would answer my own question. I knew that Mr.
Ferguson was interested in getting from me something that would
show tliat there was a conspiracy involving me, and the only personal
interest in it was to go and see Mr. Ferguson and tell him the truth.
I had nothing sinister in mind, and it was not purely that I ran to
anyone wlio sent for me, because let me tell you, others have sent for me
and I have refused to go.
Senator Green. Any other Senators?
Mr. Larsen. No other Senators. Many newspapermen.
Senator Green. Let's get on. You have got as far as Mr. Reed call-
ing for you.
Mr. Larsen. Then I went down there and got there at 3 sharp, and
vne nc;liprpfl into Afr. Fpro-nson's room, nnrl Mr TJppfl wn« nrPSfillt, and
me the
'^Vliat did
I think of the case?"
I told him, "I know there is a considerable move on among you Re-
publican gentlemen to get some information that would pry open the
Amerasia case and sliow it as an espionage case. I am sorry ; I don't
know of any espionage in the case."
Senator Green. You weren't really sorry ; that was just an expres-
sion.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1115
Mr. Larsen. I am not sure, really. I am o:lad that the Government
was unable to jirove it. because it avouUI have been very bad tor me it
I \vere involved with people who en<2:aged in espionage.
Senator Lodge. Do you think the Government tried to prove it i
Uv. Lauskn. That is difficult for me to answer. It seems to me that
they tried. They arrested us. They stuck their necks out quite a bit
when they arrested us on espionage charges.
Senator Lodge. Do you think they stuck their necks out as far as the
necks of the young men wei-e stuck out in the foreign areas in the war i
There was a'war on, wasn't there ^
Mr. Larsen. It is difficult to make a comparison. The war was
foisted on us, as far as I remember.
Senator Grkex. AVe can go back now and pick up the loose threads
of the conversation between vourself and Senator Ferguson.
Mr Larsen. I explained to him that I had told the truth, and i
was willino- to tell the truth if he was interested at all, and he did ask
me and I told you rouo-hlv what I have said here. I did not deny that
I had loaned Jatfe documents, and I felt that I had been punished lor
it, perhaps richtlv, perhaps a little too much, and my only grudge was
that I had been niade the scapegoat in the entire matter, whereas i telt
that surely there must have been others involved.
He asked me. ''Why do you suspect that?"
I said, "Because I saw a stack of documents that I did not give to
Mr. Jaffe, and I have read in papers and other places lists of docu-
ments that would never have come to me."
So he said to me, "I want to ask you this, Larsen : Do you personally
think that this was a widespread plot ?" ^ ., • t4=
I told him, "I have a suspicion, but I can t prove an>^iiiiLg- ^^
I could prove anvthing"— and you may verify this from Mr. J^ergu-
son— "I would consider it my patriotic duty now to tell, to give the
proof." » , T o
Senator Green. And vou still feel that way i
Mr. Larsen. Yes ; I still feel that way.
Senator Green. Toward us? . . iwi
Mr. Larsen. Toward you, too, because you called me here to tell the
^ Sel'iator Green. Then that was the end of your conversation?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. Did he ask you if you would be willing to come
again
Mr. Larsen. Yes; he did. n u i i f«9
Senator Green. And you said you would, you would be glad to^
Mr LARSEN. I didn^t sav I would be glad to. I told him I have
a hard time with these investigations, but if you insist, 1 shall come
ao-ain, and you are free to ask me many other questions, but I would
like to be left out of the case. I have taken my rap already.
Senator Green. Did you understand that these Senators had—
I won't sav conspired ; had talked together about you ?
^Ir. Lassen. Well, I felt very strongly that they were all ea^^er
to use me as much as possible. , . , , , . , i . i ^,.
Senator (treen. I mean, did you think they knew about eacii otliei
having seen you?
1116 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes, definitely, because they asked me "You saw
Mr. McCarthy on such and such a date, is that not right?" Oh, yes;
they all knew where I had been. I enumerated locations to them.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, let me just say that while, of course,
we have a right to develop any of this testimony we want, the fact of
the matter is that it is the job of this committee to find out how those
documents were stolen and why the people who stole them were not
punished, and we can have as many diversions of this kind as wii
wish, but the public will be disappointed unless we definitely find
out who was guilty and find out why they weren't punished, and that
transcends any political considerations.
Senator Green. I was turning the witness over to Mr. Morgan
when you interrupted with that remark.
Senator Lodge. I am not the only one who interrupted, and I think
my remark goes to the heart of this 'inquiry.
Senator Green. Now may Mr. Morgan proceed ?
Senator Lodge. I will be very glad to have Mr. Morgan proceed.
Mr. Morgan. Going back to 'the interjection of the name of Mr.
Lattimore in your testimony, during the period of your association
with Roth, with Jaffe, and on one occasion your meeting with Service,
during the period of your contacts with Jaffe did Mr. Lattimore's
name enter into the picture at any time ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir; not that I remember. I do not remember
ever discussing him.
Mr. JNIorgan. And your injecting the name of Mr. Lattimore into
the picture later on was purely by way of referring to this meeting
of the barbecue at Mr. Lattimore's home which you had been told
about by Mr. Hunter, is that correct ?
Mr. Larsen. That is correct.
Mr. Morgan. I see.
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. In your testimony you made reference, Mr. Larsen,
to the article which appeared in Plain Talk magazine that has been
referred to on numerous occasions. As a matter of fact, I believe it
is the first edition of this magazine, an article which appeared in
October of 1946.
Mr. Larsen. That's right.
Mr. Morgan The article is captioned, "The State DeiDartment's
Lspionage Case" and "By Emmanuel S. Larsen."
Mr. Larsen. That's right.
Mr. Morgan. Did you write this article ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. You did not?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir. I wrote what Mr. Don Levine asked me to
write, my story of the involvement in the Amerasia case, and I wrote
It so that m case they accepted it as such it could be readied for pub-
lication, and I entitled it "They Called Me a Spy."
Mr. Morgan. That was the draft you prepared ?
Mr. Larsen. That was the draft that I prepared.
Mr. Morgan. How did it happen that you prepared this article for
this magazine*
Mr. Larsen. I was down in Florida with mv father, helping him
build a house, and I was knee deep in concrete when two men came
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1117
down there, namelv Mr. Kirkprttrick and ^Ir. Higoins, former FBI
men, who claimed that they had worked on my case m the State
Dei);u-tment (hn-inir 1045 and tliat they had resigned m November
19i:), and had joined Phiin TaUc magazine as research analysts in
commnnism. ^ ^ -r^ , i
They came to Florida on the 1st of Angnst 1946, to St. Petersbnrg,
Fla and thev heirued me to accompany them to New 1 ork to write
an article foV Mr. Don Levine. I told them, "I don't want to write
an article, becanse I don't know enough about the case. I wish I
did. and I wonld know whether all these things that are clanned in
the papers are correct or not: namely, that there was a spy ring and
that there was commnnism within the State Department."
So thev milled around for some time, and that evening the answer
was stiir^Xo. I want to be left out. I have been punished, I have
been fined, discredited. I want to be left out."
The next morning they went to my residence,' and I was about 8
or 10 blocks over near Gulfport helping my father, and they pre-
vailed upon mv wife, namelv. bv convincing her that this would entail
several things" of advantaae to me: (1), I would be cleared of sus-
picion. It would be known to the world that I was not the only one
who had had dealings with Jaffe. (-2), that I would, through the
writiu'^ of this article, earn some money and some publicity it 1
wanted to go into writing, and that they would try to put me on the
radio. They would test me for radio voice and put me on the radio
and oet me "some contracts, and they very strongly prevailed on me
that afternoon, and I asked mv father to excuse me from the work on
tiie house— I supervised the carpenters— and they took us downtown
and w^e had dinner downtown, and they impressed me as sincere m
tryino- to help me rehabilitate myself, and I agreed that night to
go up to >;ew York the next dav, and they went and paid for mv
ticket, about $100 it cost by plane, and I got my clothes ready and
the next day I left, -r , i- .i ^u i
How thev went back I don't know, but I believe thev went back
that same night by plane. I gave them my word I would be m iSew
York. ' ^ , -»r T-. T •
Then I went to Xew York, and when I got there Mv. Don Levine
had rented a room for me on the fifth floor in the New \orker Hotel,
and I sat there. I rented a tvpewriter, and I sat there, and ±ollowing
his instructions, I wrote the background of my life and how i had
met Jaife through Roth and what my feelings were about the so-called
leftists within the State Department.
I stated at that time in mv paper— I have the original, or a copy
of it 1 mean— that I did think, or it did appear to me, m 194o, that
there was a group in the State Department that slanted their reports
and their policv rather strondv in favor of the Chinese Communists,
who were our allies at that time, and that they were exceedingly anti-
Chian^^ and I cited some examples from memory ot how they Had
reported. Incidentally, at the loyalty hearing I was criticized by
Mr Service's attorney" for doing that. I told him I did it m selt-
defense. I wanted to prove to the public that I was not a pro-
Communist. . , . , , X 1 -i-i 1 4-1 ^
Don Levine was rather disappointed with me when I admitted tliat
although I knew of a group of men within the State Department who
1118 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
were extremely anti-Chiang, I could not say for sure that their reports
were not realistic reports, for the simple reason that I was in Wash-
ington in 1945 in the State Department, whereas Mr. Service and
these men were out in the field, and it could be that their re^Dorts
were realistic and that they were not partial.
Mr. Don Levine did not like that kind of talk. In fact, he was very
displeased with my story, because my story, he said, defeated the
puri^ose. He did not explain what the purpose w^as, but I felt at that
time that the purpose was to attack the administration, and I let him
know that, although the Justice Department of this adminstration
had prosecuted me and had fined me $500, I still did not have any
grudge with the administration. I was one of the few, when President
Truman became President and people said, "Why, that guy is a — ,"
or ''It's a pity that we get that guy in here," I said, "No, I don't think
so. You can't tell wdiether a man is a good man until you have given
him a trial," and I was a great admirer of President Roosevelt. I did
not always see eye to eye with President Roosevelt's policy, but I
tliought the Cairo Conference and the decisions, to give Manchuria
back to the Chinese properly constituted government, was a good
decision. Remember, the Yalta decision came much later.
Therefore, I had faith in the administration, and I felt at once that
I had fallen in with a group there who were very much against the
administration.
Mr. Morgan. Had you already written the article at that time?
Mr. Larsen. I had written it.
Mr. MoRUAN. I show you a photostatic copy of an article captioned
"They Called Me a Spy, By Emmanuel S. Larsen," and ask you if
that is a copy of the document you prepared as stated.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that the actual
document prepared by Mr. Larsen for this publication be received
as an exhibit in this proceeding at this point.
Senator Green. Very well.
(The document so identified was marked "Exhibit 89.")
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Chairman, may I add to this voluntary statement
that I was considerably sorry about having gone to New York when
I discovered that they had a ]:)urpose in publishing this, and that they
were very frankly disappointed with my story.
Senator Green. When you say "they," whom do you mean?
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Don Levine and Mr. Kohlberg, who, I understand,
owned the magazine.
Mr. INIoRRis. Did you ever see Mr. Kohlberg up there ?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes. He invited me out to his house.
Senator Green. Did you go?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes ; I w^ent out there, and we sat up most of the
night talking about the affair, and he told me very frankly that he
didn't think I had much of a story from their point of view, because
I would not go whole hoii' in saying, "Yes, there is a Communist ele-
ment, and I can prove it."
I always maintained that when it comes to giving an opinion, a
man can substantiate a certain amount, but when he gives his opinion,
it is an opinion, and unless he gives perfect documentation he can
never claim that his opinion is final, and they didn't like that — neither
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1119
IMr. Kolilberg nor Mr. Leviiie — and in subsequent talks witli Repub-
licans I have encountered that same unpleasant antagonism toward
me, namely, that I Avould not go whole hog, that I was concealing
something.
Senator Grekx. Did ISfr. Kohlberg indicate in any way how deeply
h.e was interested in his point of view in putting it over?
]Mr. L.vKSEX. Yes; he did. He said that he and his editor, Don
Levine, had in their liles a great mass of material that would substan-
tiate their viewpoint and their contention that there was such a con-
spiracy and there was a far-reaching plot within the State Depart-
ment to pervert the policy of the United States in favor of the Chinese
Communists. I admitted that there was some evidence, but I did not
admit that I was competent to judge that evidence finally. That was
my opinion, and I still stick to that.
If I were asked, '"All right, Mr. Lai'sen, what would you in the
final analysis produce as evidence that the reporting was not quite
correct from the field by the field officers in the State Department?"
well, I have been through my files and I have come upon one document
that I have thought of all the time and that I had in mind when I
was in the State Department, and I searched the files for that document
and I couldn't find it.
Mr. MoRGAX. You searched your files ?
Mr. Larsex. I searched the State Department files in our depart-
ment and I requested the clerk, or the file room, "Do you have a
document submitting the minutes of the May 26 to July 1, 1943,
Communist Congress in Yenan ?" At that Congress it was announced
in Connnunist China by jNIao Tse-tung that on the 23d of May the
Comintern had been abolished, and at this conference Mao made it
clear that the abolition of the Comintern meant that from now on we
would not take orders directly from the Kremlin any longer, as we
have done in the past, but the difference will not be so great, and I
remember there was a hint that now the Comintern would go under-
ground, and there was another admission by Mao and Chuh Teh, of
the Communists, that Chinese communism is in fact Marxist Leninism,
and that thi^ theory applies to the whole world, and that they were not
just agrarian reformers, as was generally reported, and that they
had had relations with Russia.
Xow, Avhy should Enunanuel Larsen, a small, insignificant research
analyst in there, have the eflrontery to question the State Department
dispatches? AVell, because on the one hand I had evidence, what 1
considered genuine evidence, printed in English, by the Communists
in Yenan, saying that they were real INTarxist Leninists in 1943, and
that they were associated with and taking orders up to that time from
the Kremlin.
At the same time I had showered upon me every day reports stating,
by Mr. John Davis, that the Chinese Communists had a non-Russian
orientation: by !Mr. Service that the Communists w^ere pursuing a
policy of self-limitation and that they w'ere not going to spread and
take over China after the war.
Therefore, Emmanuel Larsen Avas entitled to suspect that there was
something wrong somewhere. I did not make a fuss about it, because
it was not my business. However, I always kept it in the back of my
mind, and therefore I can at any time tell this story.
1120 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Part of what you were telling Mr. Kolilberg and Mr.
Levine ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes. I told Mr. Kolilbero; that, and he wanted that
document and I showed it to him, but I did not give it to him. Mr.
Levine had it on his desk one day, but I know he did not get time to
go into it.
Mr. Morgan. Do you have the document now ?
Mr. Larsen. I have the document.
Senator Green. What was Mr. Kohlberg's relation to the magazine ?
]\Ir. Larsen. He w^as either the proprietor or an angel, as you call it,
in the foundation.
Senator Green. Did he tell you so, that he was furnishing the funds
for it?
ISIr. Larsen. ]Mr. Levine told me that he furnished funds for it.
Senator Green. That who furnished funds for it ?
]Mr. Larsen. That Kohlberg furnished funds for the paper.
JSlr. INloRGAN. You have read and are intimately familiar with the
article that you prepared for the magazine. Have you read the article
as it appeared in the magazine ?
]Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes ; of course.
Mr. INIoRGAN. Does this article as it appears in the magazine con-
form to your article as prepared ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir. I was very disappointed when the copy was
sent to me, and it was clear to me that Mr. Levine and Mr. Toledano,
who was an assistant editor there at that time, and Mr. Kohlberg, had
changed the whole thing.
Mr. Morgan. You said "Mr. Toledano.'' What Toledano is that?
INIr. Larsen. He is the one who has recently been coauthor of a
book called Seeds of Treason.
]\lr. INloRRis. Before you get away from it, Mr. Larsen, you said
you had a book or document you were referring to. Would you
introduce that into the record for us here ?
]\rr. ]\I()rgan. Do you have it with you?
Mr. Larsen. I don't have it with me.
Mr, Morgan. Would you bring it tomorrow ?
Mv. Larsen. Yes. I will find it and try to bring it along.
Mr. Morgan. Wherein does the article as it appeared in Plain Talk
differ from the article you prepared?
Mr. Larsen. In a bhanket statement I can say this : I did not attack
the administration. I did not attack Marshall. You can read that
in here.
Senator Green. You mean they interpolated full paragraphs?
Mr. Larsen. He rewrote it completely.
Mr. Morgan. The article is under your name, is it not?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, it is under my name.
Mr. Morgan. Go ahead.
IVIr. Larsen. On the fifth day in New York Mr. Levine told me,
"Your hotel has been paid up to tonight, so if you are leaving tonight
make your reservation for the train trip back."
INIr. Morgan. Incidentally, what were they going to pay you for
this article?
Mr. Larsen. They were going to pay me $300 and all expenses.
It did not quite work out that way.
STATE DEPARTMEJST EMPLOYEE LOYALTY I]Sr\"ESTIGATION 1121
Mr. MoRGAX. "What did they pay you?
Mr. Larsen. They paid me my expenses, or rather, they paid me
$200 and tohl me my ex))enses had rnu up to $100, and I understood
m}^ expenses, not only the airphme which Mr. Kirkpatrick had paid,
hut I iniderstood also my hotel expenses and other incidentals were
to he paid. That was deducted from mj^ $300 fee.
The hist day Afr. Levine confronted me with the article as he had
rewritten it in manuscript form, and asked me to initial it. Well,
1 had less than 2 hours for my train time. You might ask me why
did I liave to hurry back. I had to hurry back for one reason, that
I feh I would run up expenses on nn^ own, and I was darned poor
at that time.
Senator Greex. Did you initial it ?
JNIr. Larsex. I did initial it, because my father's furniture was
stored in Manassas here, near Washington, and I had a date with
a truck driver who was driving a truck down to Florida and I was
going to ride back with him with the furniture, and the next morning
at 5 o'clock was the date, so I was in a hurry to get down to Wash-
ington and get going with him. Ever3i;hing woukl have gone wrong
if I had stayed. So I made my objections. I said, "You have stated
this and that. I didn't have that in the article."
And they said. "Look, we will show you," and they had proof
in the way of photostatic copies of confidential reports from newsmen
and this, that, and the other, purporting to show that there was such
a correspondence and such movement on the part of the Government
and on the part of the people who were involved in this case.
Many, man}' things they showed me, file after file. I did not men-
tion Stilwell, yet Stilwell was violenth'' attacked in there. They
showed me the Stilwell file they had. They even showed me a photo-
static copy of a letter from General Stilwell in China written to his
wife, in which it said — and they showed me that to show me Stilwell
was pro-Communist — "I get so damned mad sometimes that I feel
like shouldering a rifle and joining Mao Tse-tung's Chinese troops."
Well now, he may have written that in a humorous vein, or said it
just like 3'ou say "I would rather go to hell," or something, which you
wouldn't.
But, anyway, at that time I thought, "These men have a lot I don't
know, and I suppose I have to let it go this way."
I objected to some things. We discussed them, and I remember
Mr. Kohlberg standing with his back against the window. He had
come in late, and it was almost 4 o'clock and I said, "I must have an
agreement with you on this title. I cannot let it go as the Espionage
case. If you let it go as the Espionage case you should do as I done
in here, put it in quotation marks" That is the time I made a ring
around it.
K(jlilberg was ]n-etty nice about it. He said, "I see j^our point,"
and Don said. "Well, it will defeat the purpose. We will see what
we can do about it." Remember, that was the 8th of August when
I left. _ ^
Tlien, sometime in October of that year, the article came out, and
when my wife and I opened it I could have cried when I read that
article. I don't know to this day whether he changed anj^thing in
it, but I do not remember using the word "pro-Soviet" as you have
1122 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
it in there in one place, and I have an idea that they may have changed
some parts of it.
And I also wish to volunteer — somehow or other I have become
wary about volunteering information, because you see the Hobbs
record. They told me, "This is an off-the-record discussion," and I
have lost my respect for the word "confidential." The Hobbs com-
mittee material was published, and I have involved various people
by having mentioned their names.
But I think I owe the committee here, and the chairman, an account
of everything I know ; just as well as I have told you about what tran-
spired with the Senators. I think I should tell you that I went before
the Loyalty Board to testify, merely to testify whether I knew any-
thing against Mr. Service or not. I did testify that. I said, "It is
purely my opinion that his reports had a Communist slant. The only
other thing bad that I know about Service is that he did go with John
Carter Vincent to discuss ways and means of getting rid of Hurley."
Of course, that is not definite proof that he was involved in any
])lot. Many people talked about Hurley. Other members in the State
Department said, "Well, Hurley is a pretty good man, but he blows
his top and he goes off half-cocked," and things like that, and they
were men who had a great deal of respect for Hurley and for Presi-
dent Eoosevelt's choice of Hurle}^
Now, before the Board I testified and admitted that I had criticized
the administration and I had done it under duress of a bad feeling
that had been created within myself, namely, that varous people such
as Republicans and antiadministration people with whom I dealt had
told me that Service had put his finger on me at the grand jury in
1945, and the fact that John Carter Vincent had said, "I wouldn't
touch Larsen with a 10-foot pole." But I was quite willing to help
raise a fund to defend Mr. Service.
But in all fairness to Mr. Service, I balked at perjuring myself
or in any other way assisting a campaign which is very obviously a
campaign to do some harm, if possible, without carefully checking
before. I do not subscribe to that. I do not need to tell you a long
story, but here, I bought this paper at 1 o'clock : "Probers Call Man
Named in Spy Case." In other words, here is an editorial body that
apparently knows so much about the case that they are prepared to
condemn me before the public 3 hours before the hearing here, which
is confidential and secret. That is the type of maneuvering that has
been going on for a long time. I cannot say for certain that it is
political, but I have a very strong suspicion that it is.
I am willing to help any good American who has the interests of the
United States at heart, but not any American who just wishes to
promote his own political party or his own political fortunes.
Now, to come back to this article, when I had initialed the thing
I hurriedly ran 3 or 4 blocks to the Pennsylvania Railroad Station and
went home. I went to Washington and from there by truck to Florida.
I have regretted ever since ; I think I may say that it was imprudent
and unwise to have written what I wrote in here, but I still have that
document. I am in doubt about it.
Mr. Morgan. As you know, Mr. Larsen, we are charged with the
responsibility of inquiring into disloyalty in the State Department,
and, Mr. Chairman, this article contains a great many assertions thai:
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1123
are of "[reat pertinence. If Mr. Larsen lias written this article or any
part of it, I would want to ask him concerning the various statements
made in the article. It is going to take a considerable period of time.
Senator Green. This is a good place to stop. It is 5 o'clock, and
I am the only member of the committee that for the last half hour
has been here, and I think it would be much better to have the others
get the benefit of it.
Mr. Morris. Will the hearing begin at 10 or 10 : 15 ?
Senator Green. We will have the notices sent out for 10 : 15 to-
morrow. , . P 1 i J. £
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Chairman, may I apologize for any hasty tone ot
voice here? I am slightly nervous now. I should control myself
better, but I resent some questioning that appeared to me as sort of
leading up to something that is not within me. I cannot ansAver those
things'^hat way. I must answer them to the best of my ability.
Senator Green. We stand adjourned.
(^Aliereupon, at 5 p. m., the hearing was adjourned until the follow-
ing day, Tuesday, June 6, 1950, at 10 : 15 a. m.)
STATE DEPAKTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
TUESDAY, JUNE 6, 1950
Unitod States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resoluiion 231,
Washington^ D. C
executive session
The subconuiiittee met at 10: 15 a. m., pursuant to adjournment on
IMonday, June 5, 1950, in room G-23, United States Capitol, Senator
Millard E. Tydings {chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings, Green, and Lodge. , . ^, ,
Also present: Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the sub-
committee, and Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel of the subcom-
^^'mi-^'Morgan. Apparently the arrangements for Mr van Beuren's
appearance on Wednesday are not completed He called and has a
board meeting, and wanted to know if Thursday would be al right.
Senator TrmNGS. No; it won't do. I have a conference on the inil-
itarv public works bill. He has to be here on Wednesday. This is
more important than that. He was the fellow who complained that
we were trving very hard to keep him from testifying, so I want to
c^ive him a chance. I don't think he will contribute anything that we
haven't alreadv got from Bielaski, but let's get hini down here now and
o-ive him his chance. Tell him we have to have him on Wednesday.
" Go ahead." ^h: Morgan. How far did you get yesterday^
Mr. ^Morgan. Not too far.
TESTIMONY OF EMMANUEL S. LARSEN— Resumed
^Ir. Morgan. Yesterday we had some preliminary discussion, Mr
Larsen, relative to this article which appeared m the October 1946
edition of Plain Talk magazine. I now would like to direct your at-
tention to some specific statements appearing in this article and ask
your comments on them, and I read :
Behind the now famous State Department espionage case involving the arrest
of .UXsons, of whom I was one, an arrest which shocked the ^afon on June
7 104^ i^ the storv of a highly organized campaign to switch American policy
in tiie Far East from its long-tested course to the Soviet line.
Is that your statement?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir. . -.14.
Mr. ^I( .HOAX. Do you have any observations to make concerning that
statement? ^^^^
11 zo
1126 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Larsen. Except that I presume Mr. Don Levine or Mr. Tole-
dano wrote it.
Mr. Morgan. Yet it appears that this is your article ; is that correct ?
Mr. Larsen. That is correct.
Mr. Morgan. Again, on page 27 of this issue of the magazine is this
statement :
In the course of my own explorations —
that would be your explorations —
I have uncovered sufficient material to convince me that further probing into
the matter might assume proportions even more far-reaching than those of the
Pearl Harbor investigation.
Is that your statement ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir; I do not think that is my statement, as far
as I remember.
Mr. Morgan. I continue to quote :
It is the mysterious whitewash of the chief actors of the espionage case which
the Congress has directed the Hobbs committee to investigate.
The statement "mysterious whitewash"— is that your statement ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir. I have never used the word "whitewash."
Mr. Morgan. This is attributed to you, however, this statement.
Correct ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Going on :
But from behind that whitewash there emerges the pattern of a major operation
performed upon Uncle Sam without his being conscious of it.
Is that your statement ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir. That was inserted by Mr. Don Levine.
Mr. Morgan. Going on, at the top of page 28 :
In consequence of this operation, General Marshall was sent on a foredoomed
mission to China designed to promote Soviet expansion on our Asiatic frontier.
Is that your statement ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
Mr Morgan. Had yoit at any time any thoughts about General
Marshalrs mission being foredoomed ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Going on you ask some questions here, as follows :
How did it come to pass that Washington since 1944 has been seeking to foist
Is that your question in the article ?
nntw Vr'f'i ■ ^^'"^ '' "" composite of a reference I made to American
policy, the policy of suggesting coalition, and on tlie otlier hand Mr
Don Levine's words introducing Earl Browder into the picture T
never mentioned Earl Browder. ^mo me piciuie. i
Mr. Morgan. Another question asked here :
waging a war of nervfs upon us" Communists the world over were
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATiON 1127
Is that vour question ?
Mr. Laksex. No, sir; that is totally Mr. Don Levme s question, be-
cause I objected to it when I saw the draft.
Senator Tydixgs. Is this published over Mr. Larsen's name?
(Mr. Moro-an handed the document to Senator Ty dings.)
Senator Tydincs. It was.
Mr. Morgan. The next question :
Whose was the hand which forced the sensational resignation of Under Secre-
tary of State Joseiih C. Grew and liis replacement by Dean Aclieson. and was the
sanie hand responsible for driving Ambassador I'atrieli Hurley into a blind alley
and retiring?
Now, after these questions this statement is made, apparently at-
tributed to 3^ou:
The answers to all of the questions came to me as I unraveled the main
threads of the tangled State Department espionage case.
Do you have any answers to those questions ?
Mr. Larsen. I do not have the answers and I did not ask those ques-
tions. I wish I had the answers now.
^Ir. Morgan. I see.
Senator Tydings. Did he authorize the placing of those questions
in the article that was to bear his name ?
Mr. Morgan. We went into that somewhat yesterday, Senator.
Senator Tydings. That is all right. Don't go into it.
Mr. Morgan. I of course do not intend to refer to all of these
statements in this article, since you have commented that it is not in
coTiformity with the article that you submitted. However, there are
certain portions that are rather pertinent to our inquiry here. I am
referring to this statement which appears on page 28 :
There I found myself sitting next to John Stewart Service, a leading figure
In the pro-Soviet group in the China Section of the State Department.
Do you have information for us that Service was part of a pro-
Soviet group ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir, I do not. I do not believe that at this time.
I never used the word "pro-Soviet," and my statement was "There I
sat next to John Stewart Service" — cut !
Mr. Morgan. Now, on page 30 of this article :
Probably not one informed American in 20,000 has ever heard of Amerasia,
but those of us who had to do with research or policy-making in the field of our
international relations in Asia were well nw.w of the potent influence this
almost unknown publication exercised upon the conduct of American foreign
policy.
Do vou have anv comment to make on that statement?
^fr." Larsen. Yes. I do. To this day I cannot honestly say that it
had a potent influence. It was present. I mentioned that it was
present as a copy on practically every desk. I never said it had a
potent influence.
Senator Tymngs. Did it have a potent influence?
Mr. Larsen. No, I don't think it did. It had a very slight circula-
tion— -2.000 copies.
Mr. Morris. You say it was on every desk in the State Department
and Navv Department?
Mr. Larsen. Yes. Anythinof on the Far East was on every desk,
even Communist papers, "anti-Communist papers and evei^thing.
68970 — 50— pt. 1 T2
1128 STATE DEPARTMEISTT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. How many different things would there be on
the desk in the course of a month ?
Mr. Larsen. I would say, of monthly publications, 20 or 30.
Senator Tydings. And this would be one of the 20 or 30 ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Senator Green. Were there weekly publications and daily publi-
cations too?
Mr. Larsen, Not including daily. That would run to much more.
Newspapers and so on would be very large.
Senator Tydings. This is only the monthly?
Mr. Larsen. Mouthy and, say, half-monthly.
Mr. Morris. Was Amerasia sent around to the various desks as a
sample of Communist propaganda or as an organ on far eastern
information ?
Mr. Larsen. I don't know the purpose of sending it around, but I
presume it was sent around as information of what was being said in
the press and in magazines.
Mr. Morgan. Was there any peculiar role given to Amerasia or was
it but one of many publications that you referred to on far eastern
affairs?
Mr. Larsen. I don't think there was any peculiar role given to it,
if you mean Ijy Government employees. There was a very strong role
given to it by leftists outside. They pushed it very hard.
Senator Tydings. Let me ask you. Was there put on the desk of
those having to do in whole or in part with far eastern policy, par-
ticularly Chinese policy, all of tlie magazines, monthly or bimonthly
or semimonthly, rather, that were published and available dealing
with this particular area? Was there any magazine that was not
put on your desk that dealt with this area ?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, no. It was very impartial so far as that is con-
cerned.
Senator Tydings. You don't get my question. Was every magazine
that was published dealing with the subject put on your desk?
Mr. Larsen. Yes; every magazine.
Senator Tydings. So that there was not just selected magazines, but
all of them that dealt with it, of which this was one?
Mr. Larsen. That is right, sir.
Senator Tydings. Did it have any more importance than others
had? Was it just like the others, or was it more important or less
important, or what was its status?
Mr. Larsen. I would say no more important, not the least bit more
important than, say. Time or Life.
Senator Tydings. Was it as important as Time or Life or these
others?
Mr. Larsen. Not to me, sir.
Senator Tydings. All right. I don't want to divert you.
Mr. ]\I()Rgan. I shorten this, Mr. Larsen. I don't want to go through
this article in its entirety because it is quite long.
Is it a fair characterization of your testimony here today to say
that this is or is not your article?
Mv. IxXRSEN. It would be fair to say that it is not my article.
Mr. Morgan, And yet this article attributed to you has been re-
ferred to, I believe, many, many times as an indication of subversive
influences in our Government service; is that right?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1129
Mr. Larsex, Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAX. With that statement I think I will pass to some other
matters here, Mr. Larsen.
In testifvin«i: before the Hobbs connnittee I believe you explained
rather fulb' your card system and the purpose of it, is that correct^
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Have you recently familiarized yourself with the
testimony you oave there V
Mr. Larsen. No; I haven't.
Mr. Morgan. Have you read it since its release ?
Mr. Larsex. I never get time to read it. Whenever I get started
on it I get interrupted.
Mr. Morgan. I see.
Suppose I ask you a few questions here that may help us a bit. I
notice on page 7546 of the Congressional Record for May 22, 1950,
which is indicated to be a part of the transcript before the Hobbs com-
mittee, this statement attributed to you :
Let me tell you, geutlemen, while we are at it, that some clay taxpayers in
the United States will demand an accounting for their money that will not
include dozens of men duplicating what newspapermen have written and stamp-
ing it with confidential stamps, which is a lovely racket.
After 9^2 years I would be able to guide you gentlemen to files in the State
Department and the Navy Department that are just a laughing stock of intelli-
gence reporting.
They are 4 months behind the newspapers. They are not correct copies. They
are a product of so many young men who are given commissions and sent out
to do a job about which they know nothing. Therefore, I never considered the
information in my particular field, personalities, oriental personalities, of any
great value.
What were you referring to specifically there, Mr. Larsen ?
INIr. Larsex. I was referring to the practice of trying to have a
great number of secret documents put out. This practice was rather
prevalent on the part of young officers. A man who could say "I wrote
this week four secret documents and he wrote only three or eight
restricted documents'' meant he was a much smaller man. Therefore
a great number of docinnents came in, and what were they? Let
me give an' example. They would come in marked "Confidential.
Speech by Dr. Sun Fo in the Central Executive Connnittee." Xo men-
tion of wliether this was an open session or a closed session, and giving
his speech. Then the document was dated May 11, and tlie speech
was made May 0. and it is '"Confidential. Transmitted for the infor-
mation of the Secretary of the Navy."
The Secretar}" of the Xavy neTer sees it. It goes to Intelligence, and
the Director of Naval Intelligence never sees it. It goes finally to the
analysts' desk. I don't get around to seeing it for some time, but
then I read my Chinese newspaper, and tlien I see, on May 10, pub-
lished in Nanking, Sun Fo's speech in great detail.
I am sorry to say I lose a little respect for the stamping of "Con-
fidential" when that happens over and over. There isn't much liumor
in naval intelligence, but we had our daily constitutional laughing at
the very, very ridiculous things that were said and done.
May I also point out that one of our junior naval men who went out
to China begged me, "Let me copy a few hundred of your cards."
He went out to my cards, and what did he do when he came home?
He sent dispatches home, verbatim copies of my cards, and I sat there
like a fool with orders, "Larsen, enter in personality records."
1130 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Ttdings. Were they sent in "Confidential" ?
Mr. Larsen. They were sent in "Confidential."
Mr. Morgan. The purpose of your statement here, then, is that in
many instances documents were classified without justification. Is
that correct?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Further on in your testimony on the same page to
which I just referred you were asked this question :
"You made notes from that correspondence?", meaning the corre-
spondence in the Department with which you were associated.
You answered "Yes."
Did you remove any of those documents?
You answered :
No. I did take home a number of those that contained lists of personalities,
the new Cabinet, and such lists I took home because I would not waste official
time sitting doing it. I spent my time at home.
I notice your answer here is "No," yet as I understand your testi-
mony yesterday you did take some documents home that did not relate
strictly to personalities.
Mr. Larsen. That is right. That answer "No" means that I did
not take home those documents of which I made note. It was not
necessary, then.
Mr. Morgan. On page 7547 of the Congressional Eecord for May
22, 1950, 1 am quoting from your testimony, now :
When I finished up, we walked out together. We walked up Seventeenth
Street, and we got all the way to Pennsylvania Avenue, and we were about — ^we
had crossed Pennsylvania Avenue. We were near that drug store. We were
about to go into that little restaurant there, Trianon, when he said to me, "DO'
you know Phil Jaffe?"
I said. "No. I don't."
He said, "You mean you never heard of him?"
I said, "It seems to me I have heard of him. I have seen his name some-
where."
He said, ''He is an editor and owner of Amerasia magazine."
You said, "I read that."
In other words, are we to assume, or am I to infer from this testi-
mony here, that the first knowledge that you ever had of Philip Jaffe
was at the time you were introduced to him by Lieutenant Roth ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir ; definitely.
Mr. Morgan. Had you not previously known of him in connection
with Amerasia magazine ?
Mr. Larsen. No.
Mr. Morgan. You had never associated the name "Jaffe" with
Amerasia magazine?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir ; never.
Mr. Morgan. On page 7548 of the Record you have made reference
to information wdiich Jaffe supplied you.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. You say, "He did supply me a lot. On three occasions
I was able to give important information to the State Department,'^
and tlien you go on to relate one instance relative to a conversation
between Edgar Snow and President Roosevelt.
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
STATE DEPARTMENT EIMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESrV'ESTIGATION 1131
Mr. jNIorgax. On wliat other two occasions, if you can recall, did
Jaffe irive you information tliat you regarded as of important signifi-
cance to the State Department i?
Mr. Larsen. I can't remember. I don't know whether I stated it
there or not.
Mr. Morgan. No, you do not. You gave the one.
Mr. Larsex. It is 5 years ago, and it is kind of hard to remember
these things.
Mr. Morgan. If you can't remember, you can't.
Mr. Larsex. If I could, I would gladly tell you.
Mr. Morgan. Here is a statement in your testimony that I would
like you to make any observations on you care to, again on page 7548
of the Congi-essional Record. You are reported to have said :
I relayed that —
meaning the conversation about Edgar Snow and President Roose-
velt—
immediatelj' to the State Department, hoping to observe what the reaction would
be because I knew that the men in my section there in the Chinese Division
■were very, very keen on that policy to make ft more than 50-50 and utilize and
arm the Communists and let Chiang Kai-shek's government drop. I knew that.
I was somewhat outside their gang, because I was not proleftist and pro-
Communist, and they were all a little bit reluctant to confide in me. One fellow
actually told me, "Vinson" —
I suppose Vincent —
"thinks you are reactionary and you are too close to these people."
What I would like to know, Mr. Larsen, apropos our inquiry, is, who
were in this "pro-Communist gang"' referred to here in your section of
the State Department?
Mr. Larsen. I don't like to call them a pro-Communist gang, I
have always tried very hard to call them anti-Chiang. There was one
man in particidar who was extremely busy reporting that the Chinese
Comnumists were then ready to receive arms from the United States
Government. That was Raymond Ludden, First Secretary of the
Embassy- — Ra^'mond Ludden, L-u-d-d-e-n. I don't think for one
moment that he was pro-Communist. I despise the manner in which
these words have always been pushed into my mouth. Whenever I
talk to men who are violently antiadministration they always ask me,
''You mean these pro-Communists?"
I say, "Well, I wouldn't call them that," but I always end up
with this word being put in my mouth. Have you ever heard me
say that?
Mr. Morgan. Of course I have just met you in the last day or two.
Mr. Larsen. I don't like the attitude, because I am not that harsh
and partial. ]\Ir. Ludden I believe was very sincere in recommending
that the Connnunists be armed, because he thought it was in the
interest of the United States. We were in a des])erate war against
Japan and Germany, and I myself was rather inclined to think that
it might be a good thing to arm all the Connnunists, but I was afraid
that they would take the arms and, after the war, just take over
China. That was my fear. The others didn't seem to fear that.
Mr. ]\Iorgax. That is what I am trying to get at here, Mr. Larsen.
According to your testimony reported here you did make reference
1132 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
to this group as proleftist and pro-Communist, and you made ref-
erence to someone i^uttin^^ those words in your mouth. Did someone
put those words in your mouth ?
Mr. Larsen. May I sufiaest, I think someone did put those words
in my mouth by means of leaving out other parts of the context. I
don't think this is complete. Many thino;s I said there I don't see
there. I haven't read the whole thing through carefully yet.
Mr. Morgan. Do I understand at this point that you are correcting
or changing your testimony to the extent that you are not referring
to this group as ])roleftist or pro-Communist ?
Mr. Larsen. I am referring to them as extremely anti-Chiang
Kai-shek, and recommending a policy that would favor collaboration
with the Communists.
Mr. Morgan. And that is the sense in which you refer to it here?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Also, on page 7548, is a statement on which I would
like to have your observations, a statement attributed to you here :
So I think I was much more impartial than these people in the State Depart-
ment who are forcing a pro-Commtmist policy so as to enhance their own little
group at the head of which I consider Dean Acheson stands as a leader.
What comments or wdiat observations do you have for our benefit
concerning that statement ?
Mr. Larsen. No comments.
Mv. Morgan. Do you still regard Dean Acheson as having been the
leader of the pro-Communist group in the State Department?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir ; I do not. That would be fantastic and ridicu-
lous. I have great faith in Mr. Dean Acheson. But at that time I
thought, and I had been told a great deal about Dean Acheson being
the principal person, and a rather highstanding person, who was will-
ing to accejjt the reports of these peoi)le, w-hereas others treated them
with a little bit of contempt or partiality. But Mr. Dean Acheson
was a man to whom Mr. John Carter Vincent's policy made sense.
Mr. ]\IoRGAN. Yet, of course, we have here in black and white a
statement attributed to you indicating that you considered Dean
Acheson as the leader of the pro-Communist group in the State
Department.
Mr. Larsen. No, I never said that he was leader of the pro-Commu-
nist policy in the State Department, because I wouldn't say that. I
may have said that he was the leader of that group in there that
favored collaboration with the Communists.
Mr. Morgan. This purports to be a transcript of the proceedings,
Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. It does? I don't know. I didn't see anybody tran-
scribe anything at those meetings. There was no secretary present.
Mr. Morgan. We have no other observations to make on this state-
ment ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
Senator Green. Excuse my interrupting. For my information,
what is it that you are reading from ?
Mr. Morgan. This purports to be, Senator, the transcript of the
proceedings before the Hobbs committee on the House side of the
Amerasia case.
Senator Green. If that is a transcript it is supposed to be made by
a stenographer, I take it.
STATE DEPAKT.MliXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\'ESTIGATION 1133
'Mv. ^foRGAX. Purportedly.
Senator (Jukkx. Then I think it is more particularly necessary to
ask him about, his statement that there was no stenographer present.
Mr.L.vRSEN. I don't think so. I didn't see any.
Mr. Morgan. Manifestly someone must have taken down this testi-
mony.
:Mr. Larsex. It is possible it was taken m some way or manner, i
don't remember seeing a person with a notebook or Stenotype ma-
chine.
"Sir. ^FoRGAX. Of course we can ascertain those circumstances from
the Hobbs connnittee.
I believe you stated yesterday, at least, that this testimony was not
under oath. Is that correct ?
Mr. Larsen. That is also correct as far as I remember.
Senator Greex. Is that claimed to be under oath ?
Mr. Morgan. There is no indication, Senator, as to whether the
oath was or was not administered in the transcript itself.
]\Ir. Larsex. I am pretty sure it was not.
Mr. MoRGAX. There is 'a statement here, Mr. Larsen, that is not
clear in the reading of it. That is, it is not clear to me, and I want
to refer to it at this point, again from page 7518 of the record:
Mr. Hancock (Congressman Hancock) asked you this question:
Did vou ever hear him say anything to indicate his feelings, Dean Acheson?
Mr Larsex I never met Dean Acheson, but in discussing official affairs, I
was a member of the policv committee for China and Manchuria. We often
discussed things wliicli were pooh-poohed as impossible. You could not put
that over Dean Aclieson will never let that go over. Whatever that was, it
was alwavs not in favor of the Communists. He would not allow it to be put
over I will give vou a concrete example. They are afraid of you gentlemen
UP tiiere We know that. We know that in all our policies. We have to not
onlv consider the public that is what they say, in America, but we have to
consider what Congress would do to us if we went ahead with this.
This portion of it is not clear to me.
Mr. Larsex. That is right. There is a mistake m there, quite obvi-
ously. "Pooh-poohed," and so on, and "always not in favor of the
Conimunists" makes no sense. .
Mr. Morgan. But here is what I am referring to, this statement:
Dean Acheson will never let that go over. Whatever that was, it was always
not in favor of tlie Communists. He would not allow it to be put over.
Mr. Larsex. That is what I meant. He would not allow that to
be put over. When thev had a certain plan for closer collaboration
with Chianff Kai-shek and expanding our aid and so on, then there
was a strons tendency to pooh-pooh it and disregard it, and the word
"Communist" should be inserted, otherwise it doesn't make any sense.
Mv. MoRGAX. Further from your testimony before the Hobbs com-
mittee, as reported here, vou 'say "I was with them at some lunch
meetings.'' Here vou are referring, I believe, to a luncheon meeting
with some of these individuals that you referred to, in the Far
Eastern Section.
Mr. Larsex. That is right.
Mr. Morgax (reading) :
* * * where they talked openly about defeating this crowd like Hurley,
do evervthing to get 'him out. They sabotaged Hurley. Yf)U may take my
word for that. Thev sabotaged Hurley. I have given certain little notes and
evidence to Hurlev that I had committed to memory and helped him with his
1134 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\'ESTIGATIO]Sr
speech. It was a pity he did not launch it more systematically. He spoiled
that for me.
Mr. Larsen, what I would now like to have for our record is any
comments you have concerning your statement that "they sabotaged
Hurley."
Mr.LARSEN. I will make it brief. I think they did sabotage Hurley.
Mr. Morgan. Who is "they" ?
Mr. Larsen. Participating in that plot were John Carter Vincent,
John Davies, John Stewart Service, Raymond Ludden, and John
Emerson.
JNIr. Morgan. Any others ?
Mr. Larsen. I can't think of any others.
Mr. Morgan. Will you indicate for our record the manner in which
they sabotaged Hurley ?
Mr. Larsen. They made reports to the State Department that were
in some instances almost the opposite of what Hurley reported, and
they talked among themselves, and I overheard some of those talks
to the effect that Hurley was making an ass of himself, and if they
could only get I'id of him.
jVIr. Morgan. Who made such a statement to you ?
Mr. Larsen. It is difficult to remember that now, exactly. But they
were made by members of the group in the State Department. I
am not trying to evade the question. For one thing, Mr. John Carter
Yincent did make those statements.
Mr. Morgan. I see. At the time that you are referring to here,
were the men that you have mentioned in this country in the Far
Eastern Section or were they abroad ?
Mr. Larsen. They had, most of them, come home here, because
Hurley had reported unfavorably upon them and demanded that they
be sent home.
Mr. Morgan. Your use of the word "sabotage" here — would you
care to make any further observation on that ?
Mr. Larsen. It is a very exti-eme word to use, but it was the closest
description to the manner in which they worked against him in China
and after they returned home.
Mr, Morgan. You also indicate here something about a speech that
you claim to have collaborated in preparing with Mr. Hurley. Would
you tell us about the details and the circumstances on that? Wliat
speech was that?
Mr. Larsen. I didn't get a chance to collaborate with him in any
speech. _ The speech referred to is one he made before the Senate; I
believe it must have been Ijetween the 1st and the 10th of December
1945, when I was down in Florida. I read about it in the newspapers
while I was in Miami and I came back to Washington, and by that
time the case had already been thrown out of the Senate, namely, Mr.
Hurley's charges that he had been sabotaged! by these young men in
the field that I mentioned. So he originated that word and I sort of
took it up and used it.
Mr. Morgan. In point of time, is this roughly at the time that Mr.
Hurley appeared before the Senate Foreign Eel'ations Committee?
Mr. Larsen. That is right. I was not in Washington at that time.
And may I add that wlien I came back, since I know Hurley very well,
I went to see General Hurley at his office and I said, "I ani very sorry
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USTS^ESTIGATION 1135
that you kind of Aveut out on a limb. If you wanted to make any
statement on that you shouhl have liad some documentation or some-
thing vivid in your memory and fresh in your memory that you could
use to pin dowii the contrary actions of these men you attacked."
I had a few things jotted down on the way home from memory,
things that Service had said in his reports that were just suspiciously
contrary to what I knew to be the truth.
Mr. ^loRGAX. In other words, any implication here that jou did
collaborate with Mr. Hurley in the preparation of his speech is in
error ?
Mr. Larsex. In error. I did not collaborate, because I do not know
of any speecli he had made after I saw him.
^Ir. MoKGAx. Also in your testimony here you have made reference
to a paper prepared on Manchuria, and you testified :
A man caUed Robert Feaiy. an economist, working in Japan, he had an un-
adulterated nerve to write a paper on Manchuria. They let liim write it. not
nie, because he was the man wiio would supply them with the motion they wanted.
Would you care to elaborate on that statement ?
Mr. Larsex'. Yes, sir.
Bob Feary, a young and wealthy boy from a good family, and I
M'ould say a very fine boy, definitely not a Communist and with no pro-
Connnunist leanings, was in the Research and Planning Unit and on
the Policy Committee. His position was, by virtue of the fact that
he had at one time been Ambassador Joseph Grew's secretary in Japan,
private secretary. He was placed on the Policy Committee and he
knew nothing about China nor about Mancluiria. He had never
worked with it, never studied it. I had studied Manchuria all my
life. I am one of the few Americans who had attended Chinese mili-
tary academy to specialize in Chinese military geography. I taught
that to naval officers during the war, and I was sure I would get to
write the Manchuria paper.
It is a very important point that at that time we did not know^ about
the atomic bomb, and the plan was to invade China and move north-
ward and capture ]VIanchuria from the Japanese, and the problem
posed in the Policy Committee was, "What shall we do if we take
Manchuria and Chiang Kai-shek's troops cannot get up there and take
it over, because the Connnunists are in between. To whom shall we
hand it? Would Congress and the Senate consider at all our inde-
finite holding of Manchuria? They probably would not, so we must
evolve another policy.
Should we hand it to any local group qualified to take it over, even
the Communists ?
I did not see those problems and those questions until the day of
the meeting. Then Dr. Blakeslee handed me a copy, and I looked at
it and I said, '"Cood God, Bob Feary wrote this paper. What the
hell does he know about Manchuria?"
Well, I discussed it with various people around there, and it was
generally whispered to me that Mr. John Carter Vincent had written
it for him.
Mr. Morgan. Did you know that Mr. Vincent did write it in fact?
Mr. Larsex. I do not know, but I was told so up there.
Mr. Morgax'. You resented the fact that Mr. Feary wrote the
article ?
1136 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I resented the fact. I didn't care otherwise. I
just thought it was a mark of inefficiency in the Division.
Then I noticed that Mr. Feary recommended, "If there are no other
local groups in Manchuria to take over after the war, we should hand
Manchuria to the Communists." So when we got into the meeting I
sat next to Mr. Drumwright, and I whispered to him, "Are you going
to let this go?"
He said, "No."
So I said, "Make a motion."
I know how the State Department men hate to be the first to make
a motion on a very critical problem, because next year they find that
fellow over their head as Ambassador and have unpleasantness, so he
nudged me. I wasn't a career man. He nudged me and said, "You
make the motion." So as soon as the paper had been read and Dr.
Blakeslee asked the question, "Any remarks?" I held up my hand and
said, "I think that this paper should be thrown out, for the simple rea-
son that we have recently been briefed on the decisions of the Cairo
Conference, whereby Manchuria ami Formosa are to be given back to
China, and I understand that to mean the properly constituted and
legally recognized Government of China, and not a minority group or
the group in rebellion against that government."
And then Dr. Blakeslee said, "Do you care to make a motion?" and
I said, "Yes, I make a motion that it be thrown out on those grounds."
I thought that was perfectly fair.
Tlien he said, "Well, we have gone this far. Does anj'one want to
second this motion?"
Mr. Drumwriglit said, "I second the motion."
Eleven men voted on it. Fortunately there were a number of men
from the Japanese section who were present at that meeting and they
never had the slightest leanings toward favoring Communists or even
utilizing them. They were wary of the Communists, and they voted
in favor of my motion and it was promptly dropped, and Mr. Feary
got rather mad and tore it up.
Mr. Morgan. I believe someone has indicated, in your testhnony,
you were told, you would get it in the neck for that. Is that right?
Mr. Larsen. Yes. There w\as a young gentleman there, Beppo
Johanson. Just like myself, he was of Danish parentage, born in
Clearwater, Fla. He was a very, very tall man. I think he was six
feet five and a half, and he came up to me and said, "Jimmie, I just
heard the boys say they will get you for that." I never did ask
Beppo Johanson exactly what boys said that, because I had a fairly
good idea.
]Mr. Morgan. Did anybody get you, or did you get it in the neck
as a result of that ?
]\Ir. Larsen. Well, that wouldn't be fair to say, that they got me.
They have certainly ostracized me and in accordance with evidence
that I gave you yesterday I want to be quite fair on that subject. I
was responsible for my own removal from the State Department.
Mr. Morgan. You yourself was responsible ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I was. For one thing, I resigned. But of
course I would have been dismissed after the November 2d hearing in
court, I am sure of that.
Senator Lodge. Because of the documents, you mean?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\^ESTIGATION 1137
Mr. Laksf.x. Because of the admission tliat I had loaned doc-unients
to Jati'e. Therefore I am not the vindictive type that will go around
and chiim that those men got me. I don't maintain that. I don't
think they like me to this day, but it doesn't worry me. It is not of
political significance.
Mr. MoRGAX. Again you state here, Mr. Larsen, and I quote —
It was liis reports —
meaning John Stewart Service's reports —
and John Davis' reports and John Emerson's report and Loftin's reports
Mr. Larsex. Ludden's.
Mr. MoRGAx. It is *'Lof tin's" here. Should it be Ludden's?
Mr. Larsex. Yes.
Mr. Morgax (reading) :
* * * and Dick Service's brothers reports that flooded the State Department
with pro-Communist aiguments
^fr. Larsex. See how inaccurate !
Mr. MoRGAx (reading) :
* * * namel" that China, the Chinese people, had had political tutelage
under the one-party government too long, and it was time for China to have a
vote and a constitution and be free.
In view of this characterization of their arguments as pro-Commu-
nist and in the light of the testimony that you have given previously
on such observations, what do you have to say concerning this testi-
mony here, if anything?
Mr. Larsox. I would say that I did say "pro-Communist" because
I had in mind the transmission of the exact wording of Mao Tse-tung
and Chu Tih's opinions on the Chinese Government. I considered
that.
Mr. MoRGAX. Are we to infer from this statement that you regarded
these men as individuals as being pro-Communist?
Mr. Larsex. No, but they transmitted pro-Communist statements.
That does not necessarily say they were pro-Communist.
Senator Tydixgs. Are you referring to them or to the statements
that the}^ transmitted?
Mr. Larsex. To the statements they transmitted.
Senator Tydix'GS. Do you mean by indirection that they, too, were
in the same category, that is, pro-Communist, as the statements which
they transmitted, or do you not mean it? What do 3'ou mean?
Mr. Larsex. I do not mean it.
Mr. MoRGAX". In your tesimony before the Hobbs committee as re-
ported on page 7549 of the Congressional Record. May 22, IDoO, we
have reference made to Michael Lee, an employee of FEA, in which
you say —
* * * I discovered he was one of tlie closest contacts with Jaffe. When O'affe
came down he sjient most of his time with him.
Have you met Michael Lee ?
Mr. Larsex. Yes, I met him on a few occasions.
Mr. !MoRGAX'. On occasions when you were with Jaffe?
;Mr. Larsex. Xo.
Mr. Morgax. How do you know of the fact that when Jaffe came to
Washington he spent most of his time with Michael Lee?
1138 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION
Mr. Larsen. Jaffe told me so — not most of the time. That word
I don't like. That would be stupid— "most of his time." I didn't
say that.
Mr. Morgan. What did Jaif e say ?
Mr. Larsen. He spent time with him. He met him. He told me on
several occasions, "I am meeting Michael Lee today. Do you know
him?"
I did not want to comment on him, so I just said, "I know him."
Mr. Morgan. After your comments on Michael Lee you say this:
Where do you suppose he
meaning Jaffe —
got the FEA material ? He certainly has his contacts.
You asked that question ?
Mr. Larsen. That's right. He didn't get it from me. I saw it in
the FBI, and I presume he got it from Michael Lee, who was in the
FEA.
Mr. Morgan. Did Jaffe ever indicate to you that he did get it
from Lee ?
Mr. Larsen. I do not have any recollection of it, no clear recollection
of that.
Mr. Morgan. You cannot, of your own knowledge, I assume from
your statement, help us any as to where Jaffe might have received
these FEA reports other than the suggestion that he knew Michael
Lee?
Mr. Larsen. No; I cannot say for certain. I knew he also knew
Michael Lee's boss, namely Benjamin Franklin Ray.
Mr. Morgan. At any time did you receive any information that Lee
was given Jaffe reports ?
Senator Tydings. I think you ought to ask Mr. Larsen whether
Jaffe ever disclosed where he got any one or more of the reports that
he might have seen or discussed together, other than the ones he
brought.
Mr. Morgan. Wliile we are on the question, do you have any in-
formation, Mr. Larsen, that would assist us in ascertaining how Jaffe
obtained any of the documents or material other than that which you
gave him ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir ; never.
Senator Ttdings. He never told you ?
Mr. Larsen. He never told me.
Mr. Morgan. And you have nothing to assist us in that respect?
Mr. Larsen. Nothing at all.
Mr. Morgan. You did testify, I believe, before the Hobbs commit-
tee, on page 7550, as follows, referring again to Michael Lee and to
Jaffe:
He did not state what he was getting from them. He said to me, "I am meeting
Michael Lee this afternoon. I want to get from him the story of whether T. V,
Soong raised 200,000,000 men."
Mr. Larsen. Two hundred million dollars.
Mr. Morgan. What did you understand that observation of Jaffe
to mean ?
Mr. Larsen. I did not know what it meant. He merely said that,
and I wondered. It aroused in me some suspicion, but that is all.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IIsTV^ESTIGATION 1139
Mr. JNIoRGAX. Aoain referring to Jaffe, liere is some testimony.
Congi-essman Springer, I believe, asked you this question:
After you became conviiu*ed that he was a Communist, then you went ahead and
dealt with hiinV
Mr. Lausex. No; that was after having dealt witli him from March 1044. I
had very little to do with him at the time this arrest occurred.
And yet, Mr. Larsen, tlie FBI surveillances show that you were with
Mr. Jaffe on May i2S and May 29 of 1945, only 7 or S days before the
arrest. What conunent do you have to make in light of this statement
before the Hobbs committee ?
Mr. Larsex. I think that is an unintentional misstatement that I
had very little to do with him. There was at the time a discussion be-
tween mv wife and me concerning Jalfe. We read an article — I don't
remember what article it was — in Amerasia that was so very pro-
Communist that we talked about dropping Jaffe, and I decided then
that I would limit myself to the very meagerest personality informa-
tion and try to eventually get out of dealing with him. My specific
idea was to confront him one day with the fact that he had given me so
little information on the Communists, which he had agreed to do, that
I M'asn't getting from him what I wanted.
Mr. Morgan. It still remains, however, that according to the Hobbs
committee record you indicated that in March of 1945 you became
convinced of Jaffe "s pro-Communist connections.
Mr. Larsen. March 1945 ?
Mr. Morgan. Yes.
Mr. Larson. Yes. That is the beginning of my suspicion. To say
"convinced"' is a little too strong. It would take a lot to convince me.
I was convinced after the case broke, when a number of people showed
me Jaffe's record; namely, in the Un-American Activities report,
which clearly showed that he had been a member and even president of
a number of front organizations listed as such b}^ the Justice Depart-
ment, and that he had taught school in the Jefferson School, which I
am convinced is a pro-Communist organiation.
Mr. Morgan. Of course, you did not know that back in March of
1945.
Mr. Larsen. No; I didn't. I was not an investigator, and if I had
been anywhere and asked them, "Give me a report on Jaffe," no one
would have given it to me.
Mr. Morgan. Irrespective of those considerations, the fact remains
that after March of 1945, when you have here indicated that you con-
sidered Jaffe as being disposed toward communism, you did continue
to make contact with him right up until 7 or 8 days before you were
arrested.
Mr. Larsen. That is about the time when I confronted him with
the rather blunt question, "Are you a Conmiunist or pro-Communist?"
and he denied it.
Mr. ^Morgan. Also in the Hobbs committee record there is some-
thing I would like to get cleared up. You were asked a question by
(Jongressman Hancock as follows :
The charge says you unlawfully removed documents and records from the
departments and agencies of the Government.
You did not take any originals?
Mr. Larsen. That is right.
Is that a correct statement, Mr. Larsen?
1140 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LSTVESTIGATION
Mr. Larsen, Yes ; to the best of my memory that is a correct state-
ment.
Mr. Morgan. Isn't it true that a great many of these documents
in the State Department were ozalid copies or hectograph copies;
that any one of them might have been regarded as the original?
M'r. Larsen. Oh, no, sir. No, sir. The distinction is, the original
Is signed by the ambassador or the reporter out there in the field, and
the ozalid'copies are reproductions of them made in tlie State De-
partment.
Mr. Morgan. You regard, tlien, that the distinction is to be drawn
between the document as such and the information which the docu-
ment contained?
Mr. Larsen, Yes.
Mr. jMorgan. What distinction is there that is meaningful in a situ-
ation of this kind? It is the information that has the significance,
isn't it?
Mr. Larsen. The distinction is that the original was intended for
the State Department file as a permanent record. It eventually goes
into the Archives, and it is inviolable, whereas the copies are rather
freely distributed.
Mr. Morgan. You meant also in the Hobbs record that there was
great laxity in the State Department insofar as security was con-
cerned ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Two members of our committee particularly are very
much interested in that problem. Would you care to give for us some
indication as to wherein the security- regulations were very lax at
that time?
Mr. Larsen. For one thing, the filing cabinets were not good. I
won't liave to repeat, I think, what I said about putting keys and
locks on them.
Another thing was the too free distribution of copies. Very often
when I requested one photostat or ozalid copy I got three instead,
and then usually I would turn around and say, "Does anybody here
need a copy of this here? I have an extra copy, or two extra copies,"
Then someone would say, "Yes ; let me have a copy of tliat." \Vliat
happened to those copies, I don't know. If they didn't want them,
I tore them up and put them in the "burn" basket."
Mr. Morgan. Anything else?
M'r. Larsen. With regard to laxity?
Mr. Morgan. Yes.
Mr. Larsen. I hate to involve personnel in general, but there was
quite a lot of ])urloining of copies by members of the staff whom I be-
lieve to have been quite sincere in their attempt to keep things that
they specialized in in their private files, because in the official files they
very often went to Archives and it became very hard to get hold of
them when they wanted them suddenly. There were their pet hobbies
and reference files, in other words.
Senator Green. Are you finished with that ?
Mr. Morgan. With that point ; yes.
Senator Green. I would like to ask a question or two on this question
of security.
Were you given any general instructions as to security ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1141
jNIi'. Laksex. Yes; Ave were <j;iveii iiislruclioiis to lock the cabinets
and all containers of documents before leavin*^ the office, and to leave
nothing on the desk and nothing in drawers. I think we all took
pretty o()od care of that, althono-h the system, as I said, Avas not quite
adequate, physically speaking. AVe left the oiiice every day punctually
at 4 : 80. Onl}- when Ave Avere in meetings and Ave got back to the
"Walker- Johnson Building AA-ere Ave actually late in the office, some-
times until 5 or 5:80 or 0, even. But I knoAv that at 6 o'clock the
whole i)icture in the olKce Avould change; namely, that the night staff
Avould come on duty. I mean the night Avatchmen, and they Avere
responsible for what they called a secure oflice; namely, that eA^eryone
Avas out of the office and that all files Avere locked.
Senator Greex. What instructions Avere given you as to security?
Mr. Larsex. There Avere some instructions circulated referring to
exactly that system ; and, of course, there Avere also suggestions ; there
Avere also instructions to the effect that documents Avere not to be
carelessly handled.
Senator Greex. Were there any instructions given you as to keeping
secret Avhat you learned ?
Mr. Larsex. Yes.
Senator Greex. Who gaA'e them?
Mr. Larsex. I don't remember exactly Avho issued the instructions.
Senator Greex. AVere they in Avriting or oral?
Mr. Larsex'. There Avas a securitj' staff that issued those instructions.
Senator Greex. Were they in writing?
Mr. Larsex. Yes; they were in writing. They came from time to
time when certain laxity had been discovered. Then there were new
reminders.
Senator Greex-^. Did any of these refer to taking copies from the
office?
Mr. Larsex'. No, sir: I don't remember any instructions to that
effect. But, to be quite fair, I am sure that would be implied in the
general security instructions.
Senator Greex. Do you think they Avere adequate?
Mr. Lar^ex". Yes ; I think they Avere adequate, and I cannot blame
the instructions for my oavu violation of them. I cannot say that I
found a legal loophole. I don't Avant to do that.
Senator Lodge. Have you concluded?
Senator Greex'. Yes.
Senator Lodge. Do I understand, Mr. Larsen, that in March 1945
you came to the conclusion that Jaffe Avas a Communist? Is that
right ?
Mr. Larsex. Xo; that is not quite right. I started to suspect that
he Avas, if anything, strongly pro-Communist.
Senator Lodge. Did you come to a more definite conclusion later?
;Mr. Larsex. Yes: I did.
Senator Lodge. When about ?
Mr. Larsex. Inmiediately after the case broke, when I read the
papers and found that his Avife was a member of the Communist Party,
according to the papers, a card-holding member.
Senator Lodge. About Avhen Avas that?
Mr. Larsex. Oh. I have a lot of clii)pings. I suppose it Avas about
June or Julv 1045.
1142 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. Did you cease giving him any information at that
point ?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes.
Senator Lodge. Did yon?
Mr. Larsen. Completely.
Mr. Morgan. That was after the arrest ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Senator Lodge. But you were giving him information right up to
that time ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. In your testimony before the Hobbs committee there
is reference to former Ambassador Grew that I would like to com-
ment on. You say, "I want to add something about that Bob Feary
story, the story on Manchuria. Bob Feary is said to be the nephew
of Mr. Grew, the one who suggested that we throw Manchuria to the
Communists."
Would you care to make an observation concerning that statement
til at Mr. Grew suggested throwing Manchuria to the Communists?
Mr. Larsen. Not Mr. Grew ; Mr. Feary, you mean.
Mr. Morgan. The statement is, "Bob Feary is said to be the nephew
of Mr. Grew, the one who suggested that we throw Manchuria to the
Communists."
Mr. Larsen. That is bad grammar. It refers to Mr. Feary.
Mr. Morgan. Then you are not referring to Ambassador Grew ?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, no; definitely. I have great faith in Mr. Grew
as a very strong anti -Communist.
Mr. Morgan. Congressman Hancock asked you this question :
Did you ever observe any activity on the part of David Niles?
Mr. Larsen. I heard his name mentioned. I know Mr. Roth is rather sick
witli liim —
is the way it is reported here.
Mr. Larsen. "Thick."
Mr. Morgan. Will you give us a little more information concerning
tlie relationship between Mr. Roth and Mr. Niles as you know it ?
Mr. Larsen. Before the case broke I didn't know Mr. Niles' name,
even. Wlien the FBI questioned me on the night of June 6, they asked
me, "Do you know a man by the name of Niles ?"
I said," "No."
"Now come on, come on, Mr. Larsen. Do you know a man by the
name of David K. Niles?"
"No, sir. It doesn't ring a bell anywhere to me."
"You must know a man by the name of David K. Niles."
"No."
Then I heard tliem say to the stenographer, "Strike that from the
record."
So, when I was released from tlie District jail and went home, I said
to my wife, Avho is much better up on American politics than I am,
"Who is David K. Niles?"
She said, "Oh, don't you know him?"
I said, "No, I don't. I don't even know of him."
She said, "He is said to be an adviser to the Wliite House."
"Oh," I said, "now I understand why they struck it from the rec-
ord."
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY im^ESTIGATION 1143
Then later, after tlie case had broken and after tlie case had been
settled, sometime eitlier late in 1945 or early in 1940, 1 heard that Eoth
was very thick with David K. Niles, and I merely made that state-
ment because they asked me about David K. Xiles. That accounts for
this.
Mr. MoKGAX, This statement in your testimony that Roth was
thick with David Xiles was not obtained through your relationship
and association with Roth ; is that correct ?
^[r. Larsex. No, sir. He never mentioned it.
Mr. Morgan. You said someone told you that later on?
]\rr. Larsex. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Who told that to you?
Mr. Larsen. I don't remember who told me.
Mr. Morgan. We have in the record here, Mr. Larsen — and this
is the reason I am commentino; on it — the point-blank statement, "I
know Mr. Roth is rather thick with him," meaning Niles. Now, would
you indicate again how you know that?
!Mr. Larsen. I am trying to think of who it was who told me that.
Mr. Morgan. Someone told you ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes; someone told me that. I cannot be sure, but
there was a Jewish lady by the name of Loretta Aprill who lived very
near our apartment house, and they were friends of the Roths. I
knew tlmt before the case broke. The Roths very often came to see
them, and while they were both right there near Harvard Street, just
half a block from our apartment house, Roth on two occasions came
down to see us, and I remember after the case broke I met Loretta
Aprill on the street and she told me a great deal about Roth and
poured out her story about how she thought Roth was a Connnunist,
and that her husband had been somewhat inclined that way, and she
was divorcing him, and a lot of gossip and a lot of talk, and I merely
made tliat statement.
]\lr. Morgan. Are you saying now that she is the one who told you
this?
]Mr. Larsen. I remember that she told me a lot about Roth, but I
do not remember clearly whether she was the one who told me that
Roth and Xiles were friends.
Mr. Morgan. Your statement, "I know Mr. Roth is rather thick
with him," meaning Xiles, that statement, must be qualified by the
observation that someone now unidentified told you that after the
arrest ; is that right ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
]\lr. Morgan. Can you give us any further help on that at all ?
Mr. Larsen. Xo, sir ; I can't.
Mr. Morgan. You also state here that you came to the conclusion
that Roth is the real Communist, and Phil Jaffe is a man who has
money. Have you clianged your mind about Jaffe, from your testi-
mony i)reviously, where j'ou indicated he was pro-Connnunist ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir ; I have not changed my opinion about Jaffe. I
suspect that he has been involved with Connnunist organizations, or
front organizations, l)ut I have to this day to see anyone prove that he
Avas a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Morgan. Have you seen anyone "prove" that Roth has been a
member of the Commimist Party ?
Mr. Larsen. I have not had anyone prove that.
C8970 — 50— pt. 1 73
1144 STATE DEPARTMENT EI^IPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. What did you mean, then, when you said that you
came to the conchision that Roth is the real Communist, and Phil
Jatle is the one who has money? -d i •
]Mr. Larsen. That is my personal opinion, and still is, that Ivoth is
a Communist, and he is the principal conspirator in this case.
Senator Tydings. You have formed that opinion based on what
thino"?
Mr. Larsen. I formed it based on his actions after he was arrested
in the Amerasia case.
Senator Tydings. What was his action after he was arrested ?
Mr. Larsen. Teaching in a pro-Communist school, the Jelferson
School, and his presence right now with Ho Chih Minh in Indo-
china, the Communist leader of Indochina.
Senator Lodge. Is that where he is now ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, that is where he is now.
Mr. Morgan. On page 7551 of the record you make reference here
to some difficulty that you liad in securing Federal employment,
and you state tliat Mr. Eay Richards, of the New York Journal-
American, a friend of Congressman Dondero's, had spmething to do
with your failure to secure employment.
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Would you give us a little information on that ?
Mr. Larsen. In March of 1946 I had the very happy experience
of being called to the War Department. They wanted men to go
out to Korea. The plan at that time was that the northern and
southern zones were to be amalgamated and governed jointly. The
plan fell through, and although I had already been given my shots
and was ready to go, I did not go. I was told, "You are not needed
now."
However, the manner in which I believe I really lost that appoint-
ment was as follows : Just when I was ready to go, Mr. Dondero started
a move to reinvestigate the Amerasia case, and the first newspaper
contact was Mr. Ray Richards, of the New York Journal-American,
and he published a little article just a day or two after I had had my
shots and said, "Now why should the administration send a Com-
munist to Korea ?"
So I rushed up to Dondero, and Dondero wouldn't talk to me. He
treated me like a. Communist, and lie started to walk away from me,
and I ran after him on the floor and begged him, "Please listen to me.
I am no Communist."
That was my introduction to Dondero. And from Dondero's office
I went straight down to Mr. Ray Richards, and when I went in and
introduced myself he said, "So you are Larsen. How much did Joe
Stalin give you to betray this country"?
And I had a royal row with Mr. Ray Richards, and told him that
I thought he stank as far as American newspaper reputation was
concerned. "I came home from China with the idea that American
newspapermen investigate before they make statements. You are a
bad example of one. You haven't asked me a single question."
So he said, "All right, I will ask you some question."
So I said, "Would you care to ask me to sit down?" and he did,
and we talked over this matter and I gave him as impartial views as
possible. He also tried to make me state that the State Department
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1145
■vvas filtli}' M-ith Communists, and I told him I didn't believe so. I
do believe that there were a jireat number of them enthused with the
Communists, and I said. "Don't forovt, Ray Richards, that we were
at war and they were our allies. AVhether it is a conspiracy as you
think, and whether it is a pro-Conununist group, that is yet to be
proved."
"We have since become friends, and Mr. Ray Richards very often calls
me; he wants a little material, a little information, and 1 am sure Mr.
Ray Richards will tell you I am no Connnunist, but I had terrible
trouble with these people and I lost my job.
Mr. MoKGAx. In the Hobbs record also there is somethinor I would
like to get cleared up. There is an indication here that you were going
to supply to that conmiittee the names of other individuals, other con-
tacts of Jaffe, that may have supplied Government documents to him-
Mr. Larsex. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. I refer particularly to Congressman Chelf s state-
ment—
The main thing, as I see it, is that you give us, for the record, a list of the
names of the fellows from whom Jaffe was getting these other data and secret,
confidential information. He said he could get those for us.
As I understand your testimony, you have nothing further to give
on that score, is that right?
Mr. Larson. I do not have anything further to give on that score.
]\rr. Morgan. You do not know of anyone else, other than yourself,
who may have supplied documents to Jaflfe, is that right ?
Mr. Larsen. That's right. What I had in mind was to tell them sim-
ply the names of the people that Jaffe has said he frequently saw
when he came to "Washington.
Mr. Morgan. Who were they, for our record ?
Mr. Larsen. They were Mr. Benjamin Franklin Ray, of FEA.
Mr. Morgan. That is the superior of Mr. ^lichael Lee, or was then ?
]Mr. Larsen. Of Michael Lee, and John K. Fairbank and his wife
AVilma. John K. Fairbank was in OWI and his wife Wilma was in
the Educational Cooperation Section. By no means are they being
alleged by me to be suppliers of information.
Senator TVdings. Or alleged to be Comnumists?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. I mean, when you say they are friends of Jaffe's,
do vou connote anything that is un-American, disloyal, Communist,
suppliers of Goveniment information, or any of those things? I
would like to know it.
Ml-. Larsen. I do not. I will take them one by one. I do not
think John Fairbank is a Communist.
Senator Tydings. You do not have to take them one by one. Take
the ones that you do think are Communists. If the others aren't, you
can blanket them together. I want an answer one way or the other.
Mr. Larsen. The only one whom I did at one time think was
favorably disposed toward the Chinese Communists was Michael Lee.
J do not know the others. I never had anything to do with thenu
I merelv know them as names.
Mr. Morgax. Any others, besides the three you mentioned ?
Mv. Larsen. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Those three?
1146 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IlSn^ESTIGATION
Mr. Larsem". I can't think of any others.
Mr. Morgan. Are the extent of Jaffe's friends here, so far as you
know?
Mr. Larsen. That's right.
Mr. Morgan. After having made some statements back in your
testimony here, Mr, Larsen, about the expression "pro- Soviet" and
^'pro-Communist" and "proleftist," which you have to a degree disa-
vowed here this morning, I notice on page 7553 of the Hobbs com-
mittee record you make this statement:
"These fellows are selfish." You are here referring to the indi-
viduals you mentioned in the Far Eastern Division of the State De-
partment. 'T do not believe these men are truly pro-Communists. I
do not think Vincent is really pro-Communist in his heart. He is just
an ambitious person meaning to utilize that at some future date just
like they say Acheson has schemed to use it."
In view of this testimony there, how do you reconcile that state-
ment with the obvious inferences from what you said previously
concerning the pro-Communist gang or proleftist gang in the Far
Eastern Division of the State Department ?
Mr, Larsen. I reconcile it in this manner, that I was not well up on
American politics, but I was told by quite a number of people that
Mr. Acheson was extremely ambitious and that he would sometime
become Secretary of State. I remember when I repeated that to Don
Levine he said, "Oh, nonsense ! He will never be Secretary of State."
Well, it so hap])ened that he did become Secretary of State.
I knew that John Carter Vincent was very ambitious. His back-
ground was that of a clerk who eventually became an officer of the
State Department. He is a brilliant man.
Senator Ttdings. He is a brilliant man ?
Mr. Larsen. He is a brilliant man. Some of his dispatches that I
read, or rather some of his summaries, were excellent. They were
clear, and I agreed with him in many points, and I disagreed on some
points. But in general I would say that he was a darned good man in
that position there.
There were other men that I thought less of. I didn't think they
were very clear or well-informed.
Mr. Morgan. Inasmuch as the names of several individuals have
been mentioned in the course of your testimony here, I woulcl like to
ask you a specific statement with respect to each one of them, and of
course you can elaborate as you care to in your answer.
Do you regard, or did you ever regard, John Service to be a Com-
munist ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir ; nor do I now.
Mr. Morgan. Did you ever regard John Davies to be a Communist?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir ; never.
Mr. Morgan. Did you ever regard Emerson to be a Communist?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Did you ever regard John Carter Vincent as a Com-
munist ?
Mr. Larsen. No, never.
Mr. Morgan. Did you ever regard Ludden as a Communist?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
STATE DEPARTMEjS;T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1147
Mr. Morgan. Any one of these men to whom you have referred in
the Far Eastern Section of the State Department, do you regard any
of them now or in tlie past as being Communists?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir ; I do not.
Mr. Morgan. I have a few questions that I think will wind up my
interrogation on this point, Mr. Chairman. I would like to go back
to the proceedings following your arrest, the proceedings affecting you.
I believe j^ou entered a plea initially of "not guilty."
Mr. Larsen. That is right.
Mr. Morgan. Is that correct ?
Mr. Larsen. That is right.
Mr. Morgan. xVnd that the plea was subsequently changed to "nolo
contendere" ? Is that right ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Will you relate for this committee the circumstances
attending the change in that plea from "not guilty" to "nolo con-
tendere"? How did that come about?
Mr. Larsen. I don't remember the exact date when Mr. Hitchcock
of the Justice Department first broached the subject to myself and my
attorne3% Mr. Arthur Hilland. But I believe it must have been late
in September, just around the time when Mr. Jaffe entered his plea of
guilty and was fined in the court — somewhere around the 26th or 28th
or 29th of September 1945. Mr. Hitchcock pointed out to me that in
legal history the connotation involved in a nolo contendere plea was
such as would relieve the person involved of having the responsibility
of pleading guilty, and that after the plea it was possible to enter a not
guilty plea on collateral subjects or questioning.
I did not like the idea. My attorney advised me against it, and
briefed me considerably on the legal points.
Senator Ttdings. This was before you filed a motion to quash,
was it?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir. That before I filed the motion to quash.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Larsen. Then I might mention I filed the motion to qunsli. nud
immediately the proposal was brought to me a little more strongly by
the Justice Department, and my acceptance, my final acceptance, of
that plea oi" that proposal to make that plea, was guided by several
facts. One, I was very sick at that time. I was extremely thin. I
was losing weight. I normally weight 162. But I was down to about
130. And I could not sleep at night. I worried about what would
happen to me and to my family.
I also had no money. I had no more income. And I tried des-
perately by being a salesman and so on to pick up $5 here and '>\0 there
and get the groceries in. I owed my lawyer $2,000, and Hilland is
a good soldier. He said, "All right, I will fight the case for you, and
don't worry about the money."
But, then, when the Justice Department made the proposal I talked
it over with my wife very lengthily for a few days, and we finally
decided when the Justice Department suggested that I could got out
of it very easily by allowing Mr. Jaffe to pay my fine, I told them
"Xo, I don't want to get involved any more with him," and they said,
"Mr. Jaffe has been to us and explained that he feels very guilty about
having sought you out through Mr. Roth, and he feels that if he had
1148 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
never started this exchange of personality business you would never
have been involved in the Amerasia case."
I certainly believed that.
"He has money and you have nothing, and he doesn't feel legally
responsible but a certain moral responsibility. He likes you, and
he would like to pay your fine and remunerate you for your expense,
namely $500 on a $10,000 bail." That was a really hard thing to raise
over night. And the court transcript expenses, $20 or $30, and the
$2,000 fee to the attorney.
Well, I went back one day and told the Justice Department, "I am
going to make such a plea. To hell with the consequences. I will
move out of Washington and I will drive a taxi or do anything to
earn a living."
So we went ahead with that, and very quickly thereafter I was in-
formed to appear before Justice Proctor. But, gentlemen, I did not
know that there was a side play ; I did not know that I had caused
quite an explosion by making that motion to quash the case, because
of illegal entry and the illegal obtaining of evidence. I did not know
that I had caused such a commotion, nor did I know that when I went
with my lawyer some time in September, late in September, about a
week before Jaffe's case was settled, nor did I know that while I was
talking to Hitchcock, in the next room Jaile and his lawyer were pres-
ent discussing their possible plea.
Senator Ttdings. But this was after you filed the motion to quash
that the two of you were in adjoining rooms?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, that's right. I did not know that, and of course
I love to emphasize that fact that I did not associate with Jaffe and
run to him and tell him "Here is what I am doing. What are you
doing?" because I never had any relations with other members in-
volved in the Amerasia case nor their attorneys.
Mr. Morgan. Were there any other considerations responsible for
your going along with this plea of nolo contendere ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir ; I don't believe there were.
(Discussion was off the record.)
Mr. Morgan. Are there further considerations responsible for your
having pleaded nolo contendere in this case?
Mr. Larsen. Yes; there is one other consideration which nearly
slipped my mind, namely, that when I went to Mr. Dondero he said
to me, "I am going to let go a hell of a blast at this Amerasia case,
and if you are to a certain extent innocent, as I believe, and you are
not a Communist, you go ahead with your nolo contendere plea, be-
cause it might be much worse for you later."
Senator Tydings. At what time? Was that after you had filed
your_ motion to quash or before you filed your motion to quash, or
was it after the Department of Justice first suggested to j^ou that a
motion of nolo contendere would perhaps be wisest?
Mr. Larsen. I am trying to remember the date of that.
Senator Tydings. Was it before you paid the fine and settled ?
Mr. Larsen. I believe it was.
Senator Tydings. It would have to be, otherwise, if you had already
done it, there would be no point In the discussion.
Mr. Morgan. Is there anything further on that ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IX\ESTIGATION 1149
Mr. Morgan. For the record, I believe you indicated tliat your
change of plea from "not guilty" to "nolo contendere" was before the
filing of your motion to quash. Would you like to correct, that, ^Ir.
Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. Yes; I would like to correct that. It was after.
Mr. Morgan. It was after ?
INIr. Larskn. Oh, yes. That was actually oflicially done in court
on November 2.
Mr. Morgan. At the time of your arrest did anyone in the State
Department attempt to intervene on your behalf, or to stop the arrest
in any manner, to j^our knowledge?
JMr. Larsen. I don't laiow. Hearsay is not of much value. I think
Mr. Grew, according to hearsay, objected to my arrest. I Avas flattered
to hear that, but I am not sure of it.
Senator Tydings. You don't know whether that is true or false, you
just heard it?
Mr. Larsen. I don't know whether it is true.
Mr. Morgan. Have you anything further to add with respect to
the circumstances under which Jaffe was to pay your fine and attor-
ney's fee ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Am I to understand from your testimony that that
arrangement was made through the Justice Department attorneys?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. And who of the Justice Department attorneys told
you that ?
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. Donald Anderson, who were
working on the case.
Mr. Morgan. The fact that ]\Ir. Jaffe was in the adjoining room you
did not know at that time, and now know it, do you attach any sig-
nificance to that ^
Mr. Larsen. I presume that he may have made the suggestion right
there.
]\Ir. Morgan. Mr. Larsen, yesterday I made reference to the docu-
ments that were seized at your home at the time of the arrest, and
with some feeling you corrected me on the number. I might say
that since yesterday's proceedings I have checked the documents and
I find that there were 322 documents seized at your home that were
not in any way related to personal material of yours, and that a total
of well over 700 documents all told were found.
Mr. Larsen. In my residence?
Mr. Morgan. In your residence. I have them itemized and listed
here.
Mr. Larsen. I am glad to hear that you have them. If that list will
be available to me, I would like to reclaim some of those documents.
I haA'e a right to reclaim them.
Senator Tydings. You mean they are your personal papers?
j\Ir. Larsen. They were my personal pro]ierty.
Senator Tydings. Not the State Dei)artment"s?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir; not ONI, either.
For instance, there was a complete file on the Japanese use of
Mohammedans and Mohanmiedan mullahs in the Northwest, and
Japanese use of Buddliist priests.
1150 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. I tliink this, without your going into all these
details. I don't know as we can give you the documents, but I think
it might be wise if we would have Mr. Larsen check over those that
he claims are his private papers, and differentiate them from the
State Department's.
Mr. Morgan. We have those very well identified ourselves.
Senator Tydings. Is it in line with what he is saying?
Mr. Morgan. Yes, there are a great many that clearly appear to
be personal documents, newspaper clippings.
Mr. Larsen. They ran to the hundreds, if you include newspaper
clippings.
Senator Tydings. What I am trying to get at, when he says there
are hundreds of documents
Mr. Morgan. We have ilentified ?)22 documents as what may well
be called official Government documents.
Senator Tydings. I think of the o22 Mr. Larsen ought to be per-
mitted reasonably to go over those and show that we have made a
mistake, and add his viewpoint to whether or not any of the 322
could be his private papers. We claim, or the agents claim, they are
Government papers?
]\Ir. Morgan. I might say, ISIr. Chairman, in the case of each of
the 322 there is a specific marking on each, "State", "OSS", "ONI",
so I really don't believe there is any problem on that score.
Senator Tydings. How do you account for that, that there are
322 of these documents and you thought there were only 120, accord-
ing to your testimony yesterday ?
Mr. Larsen. I did not count tliem.
Senator Tydings. You were just testifying from what you thought
was the case ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Senator Tydings. And you could be wrong ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Senator Tydings. There could be as many as 322 ?
Mr. Larsen. Did you include newspaper clippings in those ?
Mr. Morgan. Among the 322, Mr. Larsen, are all documents that
bear the imprint of one of the Government agencies on it.
Senator Tydings. How in the world did you ever get so many
documents over in your quarters? Did you take them all there
yourself ?
ISIr. Larsen. Yes ; I did.
Senator Tydings. Nobody else took any of them ?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, no.
Senator Tydings. How long had you had these 322, or parts of
them ?
Mr. Larsen. Some of them I had probably had since, oh, 1936 or '37.
Senator Tydings. Were they copies, or were they originals?
Mr. Larsen. They were copies.
Senator Tydings. Did they all come out of your office, or did you get
them from ONI or some other offices ? Did they funnel through vour
office?
Mr. Larsen. They funneled through my office.
Senator Tydings. Did you have any documents in the 322 that you
got from any other place except through your own office?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1151
Senator Tytuxgs. You are sure of that ?
Mr. Larsen. I urn sure of that.
Senator Tyi)ixgs. Xobody oave you any from any other source ?
Mr. Lausen. Nobody gave nie any.
Senator Tydings. And you did not go into any other office and get
any of them ?
^Ir. Laksex. No, sir.
Senator LonoE. As I understand it, there was a total of 1,700 docu-
ments in the Amerasia case.
Mr. Morgan. I am referring to those found in ISfr. Larsen's apart-
ment. There were over 700 there. The over-all total may well reach
that number.
]Mr. Larsen. That would mean about five or six hundred newspaper
clippings.
Senator Lodge. As I understand it, there are 1,700 documents,
roughly, and I wanted to ask you whether you knew liow those docu-
ments were obtained.
Mr. Larsen. No. I wish I knew.
Senator Lodge. You have no theory about them ?
Mr. Larsen. If I knew, I would consider it my patriotic duty to
come forward voluntarily and accuse the men who delivered them to
Jalfe.
Senator Lodge. Thank you.
Mr. Morgan. Your admission extends to how many of the docu-
ments, Mr. Larsen, that you passed on to Jaffe ?
Mr. Larsen. "Well, I think I mentioned the other day rather guard-
edly, because I do not recollect now, how numy were still outstanding,
that Jaffe had received. But let us limit it below 20.
Senator Ttoings. That is what you said the other day ; not more
than 20.
Mr. Larsen. Not more than 20.
]Mr. Morgan. Do you recall ever having indicated to anyone that
you maintained a check-off list indicating the documents you passed
on to Mr. Jaffe in order that you might know when he returned them?
jNIr. Larsen. Yes, I did have a check-off" list. It was in my little
notebook that I kept.
Mr. Morgan, Is that check-off list available to us?
Mr. Larsen. I don't know iiow what happened, whether I turned
that in to the FBI or whether they seized it, because they seized every-
thing I had in my pockets and returned it to me some time later,
idr. Morgan. I believe those are all the questions I have at the
moment, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Morris. In the first place, have you brought in that sununary
that you said you were going to bring in yesterday regarding Chou
En Li and ]Mao Tse-tung ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I have brought that.
Mr. Morris. Will you make that available, please ?
Mr. Morgan, will we have available to us the FBI memorandum to
the Justice Department setting forth the 18 points which they recom-
mended be used in refutation to Mr. Larsen's attorney's motion to
suppress ?
Mr. Morgan. As I understand, that was made on the record and
the request was referred to Mr. ^Iclneniey, and as I recall, subject to
correction, he had indicated that the FBI's memorandum was directed
1152 STATE DiEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
to charges of personal possible niiscondiict on the part of FBI agents,
and the P'BI was answering to those allegations, and he did not re-
gard it as being pertinent to our inquiry here. If we want to make a
formal request for it. I suppose we can, if it is felt that it has perti-
nence here. As I recall, and I think a-ou will bear me out in this, that
was Mr. Mclnerney's observation about the document.
Mr. jMorris. That is right; that was Mr. Mclnerney's observation,
that it was interdepartmental. I maintain that inasmuch as it is the
FBI's version of the facts in connection with the arrest made of Mr.
Larsen, it is pertinent to our inquiry.
Mr. Morgan. We can certainly request it of the Chairman if it is
felt vital. Go ahead and request it.
Senator Tydings. What is this, now? "China's Resistance in Its
Sixth Year. Emmanuel S. Larsen. October 1043."
Mr. Larsen. I pasted on. That is my book mark.
This contains the minutes of meetings held between May 26 and
July 1, 1943. This, Mr. Chairman, is what gave rise to my suspicion
that the reporting from the field was not quite complete ; namely, the
reporting from the field emphasized that the Chinese Communists
were not real Communists and that they had no Russian orientation.
Mr, Morris. Mr. Larsen, I am going to read to you
Senator Tydings. Do you want to put it in the record ?
Mr. Larsen. Can't I have it back ?
Senator Ttdings. I will instruct Mr. Morgan to return it to you
after we have completed our hearing. (This document has no indi-
cation of its source, authorship, or publisher whatsoever.)
Mr. Larsen. Could a photostat be made of it? I am writing some-
thing on that subject right now. It is my own private paper, given
to me by a Chinese.
Mr. Morgan. If I might ask a question here, it might be helpful
to me.
Is there any reason to believe, Mr. Larsen, that this document was
ever presented to the State Department by anyone ?
Mr. Larsen. No. I tried to find it, but I couldn't find it in the State
Department.
Mr. Morgan. Where did you get it ?
Mr. Larsen. It was given to me by a Chinese, a member of the
Chinese Embassy.
Mr. Morgan. At what time ?
Mr. Larsen. About Christmas, 1944. It might have been New
Year's, 1945 — just at that time.
Mr. Morgan. Is the point of your discussion on this that this docu-
ment should have been transmitted to the State Department by
someone ?
Mr. Larsen. My point is that the field officers such as Service and
Ludden and Davies should have known about this. It exploded the
myth that the Chinese Communists were not real Communists, be-
cause it is stated in there on page 59, I think it is — I have marked
these down here
Senator Tydings. How do we know that this is an authentic thing?
Who printed it ? Wlio got it up ?
Mr. Larsen. The Communists in Yenan printed it and intended to
circulate it.
STAT-E DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA'ESTTGATION 1153
Senator Tydings. How do you know that?
Mr. Larsex. I don't know it for certain.
Senator Tydixgs. Yon were told, tlien?
Mr. Larskn. I was told.
Senator Tydixgs. That the Communists had this printed and cir-
cularized?
JNIr. Larsek. And wanted to circularize it. but decided to suppress
it because they were doiiijr so well in this country with the propaganda
that the Chinese Communists were not real Communists.
Senator Tydings. What was the purpose of it?
Mr. Larsex. The purpose of it was to announce to the Chinese Com-
munists that the Comintern, the Communist International, had been
liquidated, and that whereas the Chinese Communists formerly re-
ceived their instructions from the Comintern, they would no longer
do so.
Senator Tydixgs. The purpose of it, then, was to show that they
were not attached to Russia ? You said the Comintern had been liqui-
dated and they would act independently?
IVIr. Larsex'. Yes; but there were further statements mentioning
that they would continue to operate in very much the same manner,
in spite of the liquidation.
Senator Tydix'gs. Yes; but I just don't follow your logic. Maybe
I am fuzzy on it. "What was the i^urpose of this, printed in English?
Mr. Larsex'. I think it was primarily Communist propaganda in
the United States, or the English-speaking countries.
Senator Tydix^gs. And it was circularized for what purpose in the
United States?
^Ir. Larsex'^. It was finally not circularized in the United States.
Senator Tydix^gs. It was intended to be circularized to show either
one or two things, I take it from your testimony. First, that the
Chinese Communists were independent of Russia, or that the Chinese
Communists were working with Russia. Now, which of the two
things, to your knowledge ?
Mr. Larsex". I am glad you made that point very clear, sir. It was
intended to point out that they were after 1943 not to be tied in with
Russia officially.
Senator Tydixgs. And you were told
Mr. Larsex'. And the secondary purpose was to show that the
Chinese Communists had done a very good job in the war.
Senator Tydixgs. I understand; it was to sell the Chinese Com-
munist efficiency and successes to the American people on the one hand,
and to show that they were not directed from Russia on the other.
Mr. Larsex-^. That is my opinion.
Senator Tydix^gs. And this was given to you by somebody in the
Chinese Embassy?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydix^gs. And the person who gave it to you, was he or she
a Communist?
Mr. Larsex^. Oh, no.
Senator Tydtx^gs. It was given to you from other sources? Did
he say how he came to have it, and for what purpose he wanted to
give it to you ? I imagine it was "he."
1154 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Larsen. He said he saw a bunch of them in Chungking and that
he thought of me at once, because we had discussed the subject of
the Communists.
Senator Ttdings. I haven't read it. I want to ask you one more
question and then I am not going to interrupt Mr. Morris. I will
put it this way : Does the document itself reflect favorably upon the
Communists, or adversely upon the Communists, in China?
Mr. Larsen. So far as performance during the war, it reflects very
favorably. But so far as their intentions of carrying on as a Chinese
Communist Party, secretly associated with the Comintern, which was
supposed to have been liquidated
Senator Tydings. If the latter conclusion is justified, it might very
well have been a very subtle piece of propaganda put out by the anti-
Communists.
Mr. Larsen". It might, sir, and that is the reason I never brought
it out.
Senator Tydings. We have nothing, so far as you have testified,
so far as it shows, to show that its genesis was either pro-Communist
or anti-Communist. In other words, if one part is pro-Communist
and part would lead you to believe it is anti-Communist, from your
description
Mr. Larsen. That is right.
Senator Tydings. You could not say with accuracy whether it was
or was not Communist propaganda. It might be either.
Mr. Larsen. It might even have been Nationalist propaganda.
Senator Tydings. That is what I mean.
Mr. Morgan. Before we discuss this any further, or accept it as an
exhibit or otherwise in our record, Mr. Larsen, you have referred
to this document as, I believe, the one documentary evidence of the
fact that you do not feel that the men reporting from China were giv-
ing the entire picture to our State Department, isn't that right?
Mr. Larsen. Tha's right.
Mr. Morgan. Well, now, what reason do you have to believe that
these men ever had this document available to them to transmit to
the State Department?
Mr. Larsen. 1 have no reason to believe that they should have had
it, except that they did pick up a tremendous volume of Communist
propaganda and Nationalist propaganda and sent it in, but I failed to
see that among it. It may have been just inefficiency, or that it was
purposely kept from them.
Mr. Morgan. If it should develop that this had been transmitted
to the State Department, your entire line of thinking in this vein
would be erroneous; is that correct?
:Mr. Larsen. It would be erroneous, except for the fact that the
statement has been made from time to time, particularly by Mr. John
Davies, that there was a non-Russian orientation, that the history of
communism in China proved a non-Russian orientation, and this
:admits here — I will read it to you —
The Communist Iiitei-national was liquidated on May 23, 1943. Hereupon the
'Chinese Communist Party releases itself from obligations ensuing from the con-
Mitution and decisions of congresses of the Connnunist International.
That statement by the central committee of the Chinese Communist
Party aroused in me the suspicion that what principally the public
writers like Edgar Snow and so on had stated, that there was no Rus-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1155
sian orientation, and also specifically the statement of INfr. Davies in
'45 suggested tliat these statements were either wrong or due to
ignorance.
]Mr. Morris. And in this regard, may I suggest that rather than
have ]\Ir. Larsen go into that further, that we get some of these formal
rosohitions of the Chinese Communist Party showing that they are
allietl to the Comintern, from official Soviet journals.
Senator Tvdixgs. AVhat would be the point of getting them?
What did it do to prove what we are here investigating?
jMr. Morris. It would show what the official Chinese Communist
policies were.
Senator Tydings. We are not incpiiring into that, are we?
Mr. Morris. I think it is a good thing for background. I will just
put them in as exhibits, without going into them at all.
Senator Tydings. All right : go ahead and ]:ut them in.
Mr. JNIorris. I am doing this to shorten the record.
Mr. Larsen. May I mention that I did not intend to introduce this?"
I merely explained how I substantiated my suspicions on this. It is
still a disputed question whether this document is genuine.
^Ir. Morgan. This brings to mind something I wanted to ask you'.
^Ir. Larsen. You did have close contacts with the Chinese Embassy
here in Washington; is that correct?
Mr. Larsen. No; not close contacts. Sometimes I didn't visit the
Chinese Embassy for 2 years.
Mr. Morgan. Did you ever sui)ply documents to an^'one associated
with the Chinese Embassy?
Mr. Larsen. Xo, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Only to Jaffe ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. INIoRRTS. I am going to read several excerpts from your testi-
mony before the House committee, and I am going to ask you several
questions about them. Talking about Jaffe, page 7548 :
He did supply me a lot. On three occasions I was able to give important infor-
mation to the State Department. One time he relayed to me conversations be-
tween Edgar Snow and President Roosevelt. If you want to know the exact de-
tails of it, I can give it to you. Snow is a writer who has, in the past, been very
pro-Communist. He is changing a little bit now. He went to see Pi-esident Roose-
velt about 20 days before he died. He asked him about the policy toward China,
and President Roosevelt made an important statement, that whereas he intended
to continue to back the Chinese properly constituted government, he had in mind,
and it was the policy of the administration, he said, to utilize the Communists if
and when it were practicable.
I relayed tliat immediately to the State Department, hoping to observe what
the reaction would be because I knew that the men in my section there in the
Chinese Division were very, very keen on that policy to make it more than HO-oO
and utilize and arm the Communists and l(>t Chiang Kai-shek's government drop.
I know that. I was somewhat outside their gang, because I was not pro-leftist
and pro-Communist, and they were all a little bit reluctant to confide in me.
One fellow actually told me, "Vinson [Vincent] thinks you are reactionary ami
you are too close to these people."
Mr. Larsen. The man who told me that was not Vincent.
Mr. Morris. Please !
I grew up with those boys, and many of them are now big generals. I went
to school with some of them. I know them well, but I can judge them fairly
and impartially, because I am not tied in with them in any particular way right
DOW. I earn my money from the T'nited States Government. I do not have
to be partial to them, ob.serving them at a distance. So I think I was much mor©'
1156 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
impartial than tliese people in the State Department who. are forcing a pro-
Communist policy so as to enhance their own little group at the head of which
I consider Dean Acheson stands as a leader. What his ambitions are, I do not
know I heard lie wanted to become Secretary of State and President of the
United States, and that he hopes to do so with the aid of the liberal elements and
the CIO and all the people who are making our greatest miseries right now.
Also on page 7548, talking about John Stewart Service :
It was his reports and John Davis' [Davies'] reports and John Emerson's
reports and Lof tin's [Ludden's] reports and Dick Serviss' brother's reports that
flooded the State Department with pro-Communist arguments, namely, that
China, the Chinese people, had had political tutelage under the one-party govern-
ment too long, and it was time for China to have a vote and a constitution and
be free.
One page 7548, speaking of Michael Lee :
Later he came to the United States, became an American citizen. He denies
he was a Communist, He was always very close to them.
At the time when the arrests were made, I discovered that he was one of the
closest contacts to Jaffe. When Jaffe came down he spent most of his time
with him.
On page 7549, speaking of Jaffe :
He was sometimes rather provoked in specific questions about specific per-
sonalities. What burned me up was that after Service's reports had started
pouring in from China, he meutioned to nie subjects that he could not have
known of unless he read those reports.
Speaking of Michael Lee :
He did not state what he was getting from them. He said to me, "I am
meeting Michael Lee this afternoon. I want to get from him the story of
whether T. V. Soong raised 200,000,1100 men."
Mr. Larsen. That should be dollars.
Mr. Morris. On page 7551, Mr. Hancock's question :
Did you ever observe any activity on the part of David Niles?
Mr. Laksen. I heard his name mentioned. I know Mr. Roth is rather sick
[thick] with him. He is writing some putrid articles, ignoring the political
propaganda ; the stufC is no good.
I ask you, Mr. Larsen, if those views 3^ou expressed at that time are
your views today.
Mr. Larsen. That is rather a big order. You put a great many
things in there.
Mr. Morris. I read them to 3'OU. You can distinguish if tliey
aren't your views today.
Mr. Larsen. I answered Mr. Morgan on that subject a little while
ago, and I would say that now my view on Roth is still that he is, if
not a member of the Communist Party, certainly very pro-Communist
and very much involved with the Communists.
Mr. Morris. These are purported to be your views in 1940, based
on your experience of 10 years with the Naval Intelligence and State
Department, isn't that so?
Mr. Larsen. That's right.
Mr. Morris. Have you changed those opinions?
Mr. Larsen. I have changed my opinions about Service and Davies.
Even such an extreme anti-State Department person as Don Levine
told me at Christmastime in 1948 that he had heard Davies was tlien
extremely anti-Communist.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Larsen, to get back to this, now, don't you think
the views you expressed here in 1946 were more sweeping than the
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1157
views you have expressed in the counterattack article that was pub-
lished under your name? Aren't they more swee})ino? 1 mean, you
have the President of the United States pro-Connnunist
]Mr. Larsex. No, no. The President i
Mr. Morris. You have the administration supportinj^ the Comnm-
nists. You have Dean Acheson head of a in-o-Coiiiiuunist leiifjue.
You have the adviser to the President of the United States in league
with the man you call the principal conspirator. Aren't those views
more sweeping than the views you expressed in that article?
Mr. Larsen. I didn't mean them to sound more sweeping.
Mr. Morris. Aren't these views, expressed in the Congressional
Record, more sweeping than the views that you expressed ?
Mr. Larsen. Quoted out of context, I would say they sound more
sweeping.
Mr. Morris. You mean I have taken these things out of context?
Mr. Larsen. Yes; because there were other statements I made at
that time ameliorating those statements to the effect that I did not
know definitel}^ of these things.
Mr. Morris. Where do you say that ? Will you call my attention to
that, Mr. Larsen?
Mr. Larsen. I don't know whether it is in that Record or not.
Mr. Morris. That is the point I am making.
Mr. Larsen (reading) :
Dkl you ever bear him say anything to indicate his feelings, Dean Acheson?
]\Ir. Larsen. I never met Dean Acheson, but in discussing official affairs I was
a member of the policy committee for China and Manchuria. We often discussed
things which were pooh-poohed as impossible —
namely, proposals to give a bigger hand to Chiang Kai-shek in the
prosecution of the war. And such proposals were generally put down.
We talked about it in the office, and then in private whisperings it
would be said to me, "It is a good proposal, but you haven't got a
chance to put it through. Mr. John Carter Vincent would never for-
ward it to Acheson, and Mr. Acheson would never approve of it."
Mr. Morris. You are not reading from the Record now.
Mr. Larsen. Xo ! I am not reading from the Record.
Mr. Morris. You are now picking out from the record extracts
u-hich show-modifications of that view.
Mr. Larsen. ''You could not put that over." That is a quotation
of what I said before the Hobbs committee, and in turn a quotation of
what members within the State Department said to me when I dis-
cussed a certain plan.
Mr. :Morris. 1 don't want you to be able to say I have taken things
out of context. I want to be sure it is in context. Mind you, everything
in that Congressional Record will be the in the record of this sub-
committee.
Mr. Larsen. I see. In that case I will let the record go as it stands.
Mr. Morris. Are your views as expressed in that Record your views
as expressed today?
Mr. Larsen. Not exactly.
Mr. Morris. What has made you change ?
Mr. Larsen. What has made me change is the absence of any per-
sonal rancor toward Mr. Service.
Mr. Morris. You mean vou had rancor at that time ?
1158 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir ; mainly based on statements made to me that
Mr. Service had pointed the finger at me before the grand jury.
Mr, Morris. Your conversations with Mr. Peurifoy have not in-
fluenced your decision at all, have they ?
]\Ir. Larsex. No, sir,
Mr. Morris. On how many occasions have you discussed these mat-
ters with Mr. Peurifoy ?
Mr, Larsen, On only one occasion.
]Mr. ]\IoRRis. ^Miat was that instance?
]\Ir. Larsen. That is when I went to see Mr. Peurifoy and told him
that I could not testify against Mr. Service, that he was a Communist
or pro-Communist, but that I could not hold back testimony that I did
suspect him of slanting his reports in favor of the Chinese Com-
munists, who were then our allies. And he (.lid not reproach me and he
did not make any remarks.
Mr. Morris. Yesterday you stated here, off the record, Mr. Larsen,
that you said to Mr. Peurifoy, "Don't fear that I am going to testify
against Service."
Mr. Larsen. That is right.
]Mr. INIoRRis. Did Mr. Peurifoy j^romise to make any legal assistance
available to you ?
Mr. Larsen, He said that if I required any legal assistance involv-
ing questions of the State Department I could call on Mr, Fisher
and ask him questions.
Mr. ]\IoRRis. Wlio is Mr. Fisher ?
Mr. Larsen. Mr. Adrian S. Fisher.
Mr. Morris. Have you an application in the Department of the
Interior ?
Mr, Larsen. No, I have no written application.
Mr. Morris. What is the nature of your application in the De-
partment ?
Mr. Larsen. It is merely that I went to see Dr. IVIeredith Berrill and
asked him whether tliere would be any chance of a position for me
as geogi'apher on China.
Mr. Morris. Have you discussed that application with Mr. Peuri-
foy ?
Mr. Larsen. No, I have not discussed it. I have merely mentioned
to him that I have filed an a]^plication and then immediately when I
filed this application the McCarthy charges were brought.
Mr. IMoRRis. Did Mr. Peurifoy indicate to you in any way that
your record was clear witli respect to Governm'ent employment ?
Mr, Larsen. In general ?
Mr. Morris, In general.
Mr. Larsen. No, sir. He merely indicated that my record in the
State Department had no annotation as to disloyalty,
Mr. IVIoRRis. Did that include your participation in this Amerasia
case?
]\rr. Larsen. I suppose— I presume— it does.
Mr. Morris. When you had your conversation with Senator Wlierrv,
didn't you report that conversation back to Mr. Peurifoy ?
Mr. Larsen. Not that I know of.
Mr. :M()rris. I wish you would try to recall, Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen. It was before I went to Mr. Wherry. It was March
20 that I went to Mr. Peurifoy.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1159
Mr. Morris. Have you spoken to Mr. Peuiifoy since that date?
Mr. Larsen, I have not seen him since (hat date.
]Mr. Morris. Have yon spoken to him?
^Ir. Larskx. I don't remember. It is possible that I have called him
on the telephone.
Mr. Morris. Yon did not tell Mr. Penrifoy that you had interviewed
me. did you, or that I had interviewed you, in connection with this
case i
Mr. Larsex. Tliat^s ritrht.
]\Ir. Morris. That was subsequent to that date.
Mr. Larsen. That's ri<rht. You are the gentleman I met at the
Statler, in the Statler. Is that rights
JNlr. Morris. That is right, yes.
You testified that Jolm Carter Vincent and others financed the
legal defense of John Service. Can you testify who some of the others
were, Mr. Larsen ?
Mr. Larsen. Some of the other — who?
Mr. Morris. Other contributors to Service's defense.
Mr. Larsen. I don't know avIio the othei-s were.
Mr. Morris. You have testified previously that John Carter Vin-
cent contributed.
]\Ir. Larsen. Members of the Far East Division of the State De-
partment contributed. I do not know that Mr. John Carter Vincent
contributed, because I have never been told so.
Mr. Morris. But you did testify to that fact yesterday.
Mr. Larsen. No, sir; I did not." I mentioned Mr. Mortimer Graves.
Isn't that correct ?
:Mr. Morris. We will have the testimony available. We can go back
to it.
Mr. Larsen. I see.
Mr. Morris. Were you ever a member of the Institute of Pacific
Relations?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, I was.
Mr. Morris. How long were you a member of the Institute of Pa-
cific Relations ?
:Mr. Larsen. The moment I entered the State Department I got an
invitation to become a member.
Mr. ]\IoRRis. Who gave you the invitsition?
Mr. Larsen. It was sent to me my mail.
Mr. Morris. Was the name of the sender apparent on the invitation ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes. It was the Institute of Pacific Relations that
sent me a card.
Mr. ]MoRRis. The secretary?
Mr. Larsen. I suppose so.
Mr. Morris. Did the Institute of Pacific Relations invite all mem-
bers of the State Department to become members of the Institute
of Pacific Relations?
Mr. Larsen. I am sure they did. because they would be good read-
ers. They are interested in international prol)lems.
Mr. Morris. How long did you remain a member of the Institute
of Pacific Relations?
Mr. Larsen. Throughout the year 1945, just 1 year. T i)aid 1 year's
subscription.
G8970 — 50 — pt. 1 74
1160 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. Did anyone ever ask you to join the Communist Party ?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir.
Mr. Morris. At any time ?
Mr. Larsen. Never at any time.
Mr. Morris. What was the first time that any member of the Justice
Department suggested to you that you plead guilty in connection with
the Amerasia case?
Mr. Larsen. Plead guilty? No one ever suggested that I plead
guilty, so far as I remember.
Mr. Morris. When was the first time that any member of the De-
partment of Justice suggested that you make a settlement of your case
before the Justice Department?
Mr. Larsen". Some time in September 1945.
Mr. Morris. I wish you would think carefully, to tell me exactly
what date.
Mr. Larsen. I would say I do not remember the date on which I
filed that motion ; you know the one I refer to, namely, to quash.
Mr. Morris. Yes, I understand.
Mr. Larsen. It was just at that time, immediately subsequent to the
filing of the motion.
Mr. Morris. Did you believe that the five defendants other than
you in the Amerasia case were participants in a conspiracy?
Mr. Larsen. I didn't know about some of them.
Mr. Morris. You made the statement here this morning that Com-
mander Roth was the principal conspirator.
Mr. Larsen. I still believe that if there was a conspiracy, it was
between Mr. JaflFe and Mr. Roth. I did not know Mr. Gayn; I did
not know what Kate Mitchell's position was in Amerasia. I had met
her very casually once or twice. I did not know of Service's involve-
ment in the Amerasia case.
Mr. Morris. Why did you testify that Senator McCarthy had re-
corded your conversations with him and with Mr. Surine ?
Mr. Larsen. I did not testify that he did record it, but that I believed
he had recorded it.
Mr. Morris. And then you did make the statement that the room
was bristling with recording machines, and then I asked you what
one did you see, and you admitted that you had seen none?
Mr. Larsen. I cannot certify that I recognized any definitely as a
recording machine, because I do not know. I have yet to see a record-
ing machine.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Morgan, I suggest that on that score, just so that
the record will be straight. Senator McCarthy and Mr. Surine be
here to be asked one question, namely, did they at any time have any
recording devices?
Mr. Morgan. If it appears pertinent one way or the other we will
submit it to the chairman for his opinion.
Mr. Morris. One of the documents found in your possession, Mr.
Larsen, was the counterintelligence plan of the Naval Intelligence of
the United States, a document marked "Confidential," and it is a docu-
ment that I know from my own personal participation in the Navy
Department was a very important and highly confidential document.
Why did you have that in your possession ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1161
Mr. Larsen. I do not remember that document. I tell you, under
oath, I do not remember that document at all. If I am confronted
with the document 1 will be very willing to state whether I recognize
it or not.
May I add something to my statement?
Mr. MoRKis. By all means.
j\Ir. Larsen. A little while ago I brought up the matter of some
personal papers of mine that were missing, and without any attempt
at bragging, I have developed a very concrete theory on the subject
of ellicient intelligence among Chinese, because I know the Chinese
intelligence system, and I had written a paper, \ oluntarily — that is,
not asked for by the Navy Department — and I had not yet completed
it. It contains suggestions made quite unofficially. I worked on it
at home and I occasionally worked on it in the office. It was pure
theory on organization, and in doing that I am sure that I perused
a number of documents on intelligence systems and counterintelli-
gence systems to make comparisons or improve on the system. And it
is possible that I had such a document in my home. I know I had
a ver3^ complete file in the office marked "Intelligence systems."
Mr. Morris. I think if it becomes necessary we can show you the
precise document, Mr. Larsen, but the reason I do mention it is that
the tenor of your testimony a while ago w^as that for the most pai-t
the documents in your possession were neither highly classified, and
that all of them related to personalities. I haven't had a chance to
go through all the files and all the documents, but there was one I
did see that I know came into neither of those two classifications, and I
wanted to call it to your attention.
Mr. Larsen. You are perfectly right in that, and I do admit that
they were not all relative to personalities, because I did have that
specialty subject, namely intelligence.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Larsen, you testified that you had an interview
with Senator McCarthy. Did he call for you ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Morris. You mean he asked you to come in ?
Mr. Larsen. Oh, yes ; yes. I didn't know Mr. McCarthy before.
Mr. Morris. Did you volunteer to see Senator McCarthy at any
time?
Mr. Larsen. No, sir ; not that I know of. I certainly did not call
him up or ask anyone to arrange an interview. If that was arranged,
may I give you a hint wdio might have arranged it without my knowl-
edge and without my permission? Mr. Otto Deckham, who was asso-
ciated with me for some time in my far eastern information service,
called me the day I had been informed by McCarthy that he wanted
to see me.
Mr. Morris. And is it your testimony you never phoned Senator
McCarthy?
Mr. Larsen. You mean before that time?
Mr. Morris. At any time.
Mr. Larsen. I do not think that I ever phoned Senator McCarthy.
Mr. ]\[0RRis. Oraskedtoseehim?
Mr. Larsen. Or asked to see him. I believe that is correct, is it
not ? Do vou have evidence to the contrary? I cannot imagine it.
Mr. Morris. I think that is all the questions I have.
1162 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. I liave one question here, Mr. Larsen, in connection
with the questions Mr. Morris asked you relative to your alleged state-
ment that Mr. Peurifoy need not fear that you were going to testify
against Mr. Service. Had Mr. Peurifoy indicated any fear that you
would testify one way or the other concerning Mr. Service ?
Mr, Larsen. No. 1 merely felt sorry for Mr. Peurifoy when I saw
him attacked in the newspapers, and I thought Mr. Peurifoy was the
first man who gave me a lift in this city of Washington, namely when
I went to General Wedemeyer, and I wrote a little paper for him and
then I asked him, when I delivered that paper, "AVliat are the chances
of my doing a little more permanent work for you or for military
intelligence?" and he introduced me to the Chief of Naval Intelli-
gence— I will think of the name in a moment — General Boling, and
he said in my presence, "I know Larsen for quite a long time and I
have great faith in him, and I do not have such just superficially. I
have had him investigated and I have been told by Mr. Peurifoy that
there is no record against him in the State Department." That is all.
You can imagine 5 years of attack, persecution, plastering in the
paper, "spy," "thief of documents," and then to have one man stand
out. You feel like going to the man and kneeling before him and
kissing his hand.
Mr. Morgan. Am I to understand from one of the answers to a
question ]\Ir. Morris asked you that wlien you testified before the
Hobbs committee you were incensed and embittered against Service,
and that consideration conditioned to a great extent what you said in
your testimony there ?
Mr. Larsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Am I to understand that you subsequently found out
that Mr. Service did not "put the finger" on you, so to speak, in the
Amerasia case?
ISIr. Larsen. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. With that in mind, Mr. Larsen. are we to understand
that what you told the Hobbs committee is to some extent not correct,
and was conditioned by reason of your feeling ?
Mr. Larsen. It was based on a great deal of talk on the part of
people who interviewed me and who insisted that I had been the goat
in the case, and that others had gone scot free, and that they in fact
liad i:»ointed the finger at me, allegedly making me the sole culprit,
which I am not.
Mr. Morgan. What did you do in your testimony there, set out to
make some other people goats?
Mr. Larsen. No ; I set out to encourage a damned good investiga-
tion of the Amerasia case, lioi^ing that something else would come to
light than merely my friendship with Jaffe, and it was in that spirit
that I became friendly with Mr. Dondero, whom I look upon as an
extremely fine and sincere man. I believe I mentioned to you that
Mr. Dondero has since on several occasions told me that he feels bad
about having put me into such great difficulty at that time when he
exploded his intention of, or expose his intention to make an inves-
tigation of the Amerasia case, thus making me lose my job for the
Army in Korea.
Mr. Morgan. The testimony before the Hobbs committee, as you
know, is now a part of our record, and I do want to have some indication
STATE DEPAPxTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTTGATION 1103
as fo the extent to wliich we can depend and rely upon what you said
then. From wliat I understand at the moment, your testimony before
the Hobbs connnittee was conditioned (1) by a feelinjz: that Mr. Serv-
ice had endeavored to put the finger on you, and by reason thereof you
were incensed, is that correct?
Mr. Larsen. That is right.
Mr. Morgan. And, (2) , that your testimony there consisted not only
of information in your own knowledge, but also things you were told
by various peo})h^ before your testimony at the Hobbs committee.
Mr. Larsen. That is correct. Furthermore, I was encouraged to
tell every little bit of unsavory liearsay that I had, in the interest of
the Nation, and I still believe they sincerely meant that, and I was
guaranteed perfect immunity and confidential handling of that infor-
mation.
Mr. Morgan. Wlio encouraged you to give every bit of unsavory
information ?
Mr. Larsen. ISIr. Hobbs and the other members of the committee
wlio questioned me at that time. They told me, "You can tell any
little bit of chit-chat that you have, and we shall piece it together."
I said, "Well, I hate to do that, but I can tell you what I know and
what I have heard," and that has been the line of questioning right
along, and subsequently it has been given to the public, this informa-
tion, and I still maintain that that is a very dangerous practice, be-
cause you and other investigative committees will not receive coopera-
tion any more. I am not saying that I am concealing anything now,
but I am answering at this hearing "I do not know" to a great number
of questions.
I have some suspicions, but I don't like to answer them, because I
don't want to involve anyone unnecessarily, and have it smeared all
over the papers afterward involving these persons.
For example, I did not give you the name of the person who gave me
this. He is above reproach. He is not politically minded. But he
knew that I had this hobby.
Mr. Morgan. AMien you say "this" you mean the document you
obtained from the Chinese Embassy?
Mr. Larsen. Xot from the Embassy itself, but from a member of
the Embassy who was my personal friend. I had nothing to do with
him so far as the Embassy was concerned, but we went out and
enjoyed dimier together, and so on. I knew him since he was a young
officer in China.
Mr. Morris. Since that last question was asked, and since you have
indicated that an emotional consideration may have been the factor
in causing you to give the testimony as you gave it before the Hobbs
committee, do yon believe that an emotional factor again, namely, the
deep gratitude that you have expressed to ]Mr, Peurifoy, could be a
factor in your testimony today?
Mr. Larsen. Xo, sir; because I have not colored my testimony in
the slightest bit. I have been brutally frank befoie the loyalty com-
mittee, and I also mentioned this at the loyalty committee.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Morgan, are we going to ask ^Nlr. L"vine if he has
any written transcript of the Larsen article as originally written?
Mr. iSIoRGAN. Mr. ^Morris, my feeling on that is that all of these
collateral considerations that have been brought into this case are
1164 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
mfitters that the committee is goin,2: to have to consider in order to
make a determination as to whom tliey want to have called, and cer-
tainly that will be one of the things that anyone will be privileged to
bring up before the committee when it meets. We can't at this time
make a determination as to whether we are going to call any witness
on any matters, since just you and I are present.
Mr. Morris. I am just making the suggestion that we ask to see if
they have any written article or signed article from Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Morgan. I think Mr. Larsen stated in the testimony that he
initialed the article.
Mr. Larsen. Yes; I did.
Mr. Morgan. Li your haste to return to Washington.
(Whereupon, at 1 p. m., the hearing was adjourned until Wednes-
day, June 7, 1950, at 11 : 15 a. m.)
STATE DEPAKTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 7, 1950
United States Senate,
commiti^ee on foreign relations,
Subcommittee .Vppointed Undek Senate Ivksoeuiton 2;^>1,
Washington^ D. C.
executiat: session
The subcommittee met pursuant to adjournment on Tuesday, June
6, 1950, in room G-2o of the United States Capitol, at 11 : 15 a. m.,
Senator JNlillard E. Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) pre-
siding.
Present : Senators Tydings, Green, and Lodge.
Also present : Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the subcom-
mittee; and Messrs. Robert L. Heald and Robert Morris, assistant
counsel of the subcommittee.
Senator Tydings. The meeting will be in order.
Hold up your right hand, please.
Do you solemnly promise and swear that the evidence you shall give
in the matter pending before this committee shall be the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
General Holmes. I do.
TESTIMONY OF JULIUS C. HOLMES
Senator Tydings. General, give us, for the record, your full name
and your occupation.
General Holmes. Julius C. Holmes— —
Senator Tydings. And your occupation ?
General Holmes. I am a Foreign Service officer, presently assigned
as minister, in London.
Senator Tydings. How long are you back here for?
General Holmes. As long as I am in consultation.
Senator Tydings. I mean, you are not back here on this case, but are
back here on other matters?
General Holmes. Back here on other matters, in consultation.
Senator Tydings. Your present address is care of the American
Embassy, London?
General Holmes. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. Were you in the Department here prior to your
assignment to London ?
General Holmes. Only for a very short time.
Senator Tydings. Wliat were your duties?
1165
1166 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
General Holmes. From the 1st of September to the 13th of Sep-
tember in 1948— you see, there was a period when I was out of the
service.
Senator Tydings. How about before that ?
General Holmes. Immediately before that, I was Assistant Secre-
tary of State, from early in January 1945.
Senator Tydings. The 30th?
General Holmes. Early in January. I don't remember the exact
date — until the I7tli of August 1945 — both of those dates.
Senator Ttdings. You were Assistant Secretary of State?
General Holmes. Yes, sir.
Senator Ttdings. Wlien did you first come into the State Depart-
ment, as an employee of the State Department ?
General Holmes. I entered the Foreign Service in April of 1925 —
the Foreign Service office.
Senator Ttdings. Have you been in the State Department service
ever since ?
General Holmes. No, sir. I resigned in 1937, and then was brought
back and appointed Assistant Secretary of State from the Army in
January of 1945 ; and resigned in August of that year. I then was
reappointed in the Foreign Service in September 1948.
Senator Ttdings. Mr. Morgan, here, has some questions that he
would like to submit to you on matters that have been developed in
the course of our investigation, matters that he would like to interro-
gate you about.
General Holmes. All right.
Mr. Morgan. General, as you probably have gathered, we are con-
sidering at this time in our inquiry the so-called Amerasia case, with
which I imagine you are more or less familiar; and. in pertinent point
of time, I wish you would indicate for the record, just now, what
3^our position was in 1945, in the Department ?
General Holmes. I was Assistant Secretary of State.
Mr. Morgan. Have you ever testified before, concerning the Amer-
asia case?
General Holmes. Never.
Mr. Morgan. At no point ?
General Holmes. No.
Mr. Morgan. And for nobody ?
General Holmes. No.
Mr. Morgan. Would you just, in your own manner, give us your
best recollection of the circumstances under which the case came to
your attention, and then go on, as you wish? Or we can interroo-ate
you as you go along— just as you wish. ^
General Holmes. Very well.
First, you will recall that this was 5 years ago.
It first came to my attention by a telephone conversation or tele.-
phone call trom General Donovan
Senator Ttdings. About when ?
General Holmes. To the best of my recollection, it was about March
oi 1945.
He^asked me to meet him in Ed Stettinius' apartment at the Shore-
ham Hotel that night, which I did.
STATE D'EiPARTMEXT EiMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1167
General Donovan handed over several documents wliich he said had
been obtained by some of his people from the office of the magazine
Amerasia, in New York. I examined the documents in a rather cur-
sory way. The}' were classified documents. Some of them were of
State Department origin, and some were from the Navy ; and it was
a clear case that the}' had been purloined.
AVe discussed it and decided that it was a case for the law-enforce-
ment agency of the (Tovernment and ought to be turned over to the
FBI — so I took them the next morning
Mr. Morgan. Eight at that ])oint would you indicate again who was
present at that meeting at Mr. Stettinius'? "
General Holmes. As I remember, only Stettinius, Donovan, and
myself. There may have been
Senator Tydixgs. Was Mr. van Beuren there, if you remember —
the security officer of the OSS ?
General Holimes. Not to my recollection, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Was Mr. Lyon there ?
General Holmes. Mr. Lyon was not, because I sj)oke to Mr. Lyon
about it the folloAving morning, and to Mr. Fletcher Warren, both of
whom had security responsibilities in the State Department.
I went over then and saw the Secretary of the Navy, and he agreed
that something ought to be done about this right away, of course, and
assigned
Mr. Morgan. For our record, who was the Secretary of the Navy,
then ?
General Holmes. Mr. Forrestal.
Mr. MoRr'AN. All right.
General Holmes. And he assigned, I believe it was a major, to work
with us on it ; and we then went to see Mr. Hoover, in the FBI, and
laid the case before him, and said ''Here it is."
Mr. Morgan. This was the following day?
General Holmes. I cannot remember whether it was that day or the
following day.
Senator Lodge. How did you happen to go to the Secretary of the
Navy, rather than to the Secretary of War?
General Holmes. There were naval documents
Senator Lodge. No Army documents ?
General Holmes. I can't say whether there were no Army docu-
ments.
Senator Lodge. The ones you saw were Navy ?
General Hollies. The reason we went to the Secretary of the Navy
was because there were nmnerous naval documents.
Senator Lodge. Do you remember the nature of any of them?
(xeneral Holmes. I cannot recall the nature, sir; except that they
were classified and should not have been in the hands of unauthorized
people.
Mr. Morgan. Do you make that same reply to all of them, that you
are not able to tell, at this time, as to the character of them or give
us the nature of the contents?
Senator Tydinc.s. ]\Iay 1 ask this, so that we will be able to follow
closely : About how many documents were exhibited at Mr. Stettinius'
apartment, roughly ?
General Holmes. To the besjt of my knowledge, 70 or 80.
1168 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOOST
Senator Tydings. Seventy or eighty ?
General Holmes. Yes.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Morgan. Well, as we go along here, you might indicate for the
lecord, General, as to whether you do, at this point, recall the contents
of any of these documents ?
General Holmes. No ; I do not. I did not examine them with great
care. The main thing that impressed me was that they were of such
character, some of them, that they should not have been in unauthor-
ized hands, and I knew something was wrong.
Mr. Morgan. Do you recall what Mr. Forrestal's reaction was, at
the time you talked to him ?
General Holmes. Yes. His reaction was that there should be an
investigation, and run down and find the person responsible.
We then went to see Mr. Hoover and turned the case over to the
FBI, saying that the facilities, any facilities at all, that would help
to tind the guilty people, or find out how the documents disappeared
in the State Department, were entirely at his disposal.
Mr. Myron Gurnea was assigned by the FBI to be in charge of the
case, and he said "We want to investigate it for a time."
Senator Tydings. Where did this conversation take place with ilr.
Gurnea ?
General Holmes. There were several. Mostly — the first one was in
my room, or my office in the State Department.
Senator Tydings. In other words, after you left Mr. Stettinius'
apartment, you proceeded to handle the matter from then on ?
General Holmes. Yes, sir. *
Senator Tydings. And you sent for j\Ir. Gurnea, or sent for the
FBI?
General Hol^vies. Yes. I went over to Mr. Hoover's office and
discussed it with him.
Senator Tydings. So I can follow you: Now, from the time you
took jurisdiction of it, was the OSS in the picture again, so far as
you know, or did you and the FBI continue the masterminding?
General Holmes. The FBI did it. The OSS was not involved, to
my knowledge.
Senator Tydings. All right. Go ahead.
General Holmes. The FBI then took charge of the case. They did
come— agents did come and I assigned Fred Lyon, who had responsi-
bility for security matters in the State Department, to assist them
in any Avay possible; and the FBI did then send agents and examined
reports and tilings in the State Department, and, as I understood it,
shadowed people who were involved.
From that time on, it was made pretty clear, I made it clear con-
stantly, that this was a matter of law enforcement. We felt that there
was something very mucli wrong there. We didn't know who the
guilty parties were, didn't care. We wanted them apprehended if
they had violated the law, and expected the Department of Justice to
conduct the investigation and start any prosecution that was to follow.
Shall I go on ?
Mr. Morgan. Go right ahead.
General Holmes. I might have an odd thought.
Mr. Morgan. Go ahead.
STATE DEPARTA'IENT E.MPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1169
Senator Tydings. Go ahead and tell the story as best you can recol-
lect.
General Holmes. From time to time I o;ot little reports, informal
reports from Lyon about what was c:oing on. I do not remember the
details of those. I do not think they are pertinent.
It Avent on until one day — and 1 have subsequently looked at the
record, and apparently it was the 2d of June, I would not have recalled
that date, I don't believe, otherwise — I got word that the FBI had
said that they received instructions to hold up the prosecution of the
case.
Senator Tydixgs. The FBI?
General Holmes. Yes ; and they received it from the Attorney Gen-
eral's office, and because it might interfere with some of our rela-
tions with the Soviet Union, i recall the Conference at San Fran-
cisco w^as on at the time.
Mr. Morgan. Eight at that point, General, can you help us any as
to who advised you of that?
General Holmes. Yes. That advice was given, in the first instance,
to Freddy Lyon, who brought it to me, by ]\Ir. Gurnea — and when 1
heard that, I inquired where this instruction had come from, and they
said it had come from the Foreign Office; and I said "How did that
happen?"
Here, I must be very careful about what I say, because I am not
absolutely certain.
Senator Tydixgs. You are doing the best you can, from your own
recollection, I suppose.
General Holmes. My understanding at that time was that this in-
struction had come from the White House.
That surprised me. I hit the ceiling, and said to Lyon, "I think
it's a damned outrage."
I then went to Mr. Grew, who was the Acting Secretary of State,
and told him what I had heard, and his reaction was similar.
I said, '"The only way to handle this is to go right to the President."
and he agreed with me. He telephoned to get an appointment with
the President and he and I went over to see him.
It was late afternoon. The President was not in his own office, he
was in the study upstairs
Mr. Morgan. June 2d ?
General Holmes. I have since verified the fact that it was June 2d.
Mr. Grew asked me to tell the President the circumstances, and I
did ; and the President's reaction was similar, and he said, "Well, get
Mr. Gurnea on the phone for me." So, I picked up the telephone, got
Gurnea and told him that the President wished to speak to him. and
handed the receiver to the President, who said "This is the President
speaking"; and I, of course, do not remember the rest of his words but
what he said was "I don't care who has told you to stop this. You are
not to do it. Go straight ahead with this and it doesn't matter vrho
gets hurt. This has got to be run down. Go right ahead with it,
and if anybody suggests that you })ostpone, or anything else, you are
not to do it without first personal approval from me."
And then he grinned and said "Does that suit you?" And I said
"Yes, sir."
1170 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Was there anything in the conversation with the
President that might have indicated, one way or another, as to whom
the suggestion of holding up did come from in the White House?
General Holmes. Again 1 must put in a statement that I cannot be
sure, absolutely certain of this, and I certainly could not prove this',
and I certainly could not prove it, for what it is worth.
The impression that I have in my mind, of that time, was that the
person who had telephoned from the White House to the Department
of Justice, was the President's naval aide.
Senator Tydings. "Wlio?
General Holmes. The President's naval aide.
Mr. Morgan. Who was that?
General Holmes. I believe it was Vardaman.
I want to emphasize the fact that that is onlj^ an impression that
I have, and it was 5 years ago.
Senator Tydings. You mean you could not, that is, or is riot a fact?
General Holmes. I could not be absolutely certain of it. Senator,
in all fairness to the truth ; but that is my recollection that I gained —
that the person who did telephone was the President's naval aide.
Again, I say I will not swear, as I am under oath, that it was he.
I know that is not very good evidence, but that is' the best honest
evidence that I can give.
Mr. Morgan. Go ahead.
General Holmes. Then the affair went ahead, again wholly in the
hands of the FBI. They were in consultations with us about it all
the time. Finally they came, at one point, I do not remember the date,
and said they were about ready to proceed to arrest the people involved,
and they furnished a memorandum of the case, which they gave to me,
and we looked at it and it looked to us as if there was a case.
I decided again that the responsibility of the decision about the
arrest and prosecution of the people was clearly within the Depart-
ment of Justice, and from there on I had nothing more to do with it,
except to follow it in the newspaper, about the grand jury and the
indictment of some of the people, and finally— ves; the failure to
indict other people — and finally the decision of the court where two
of the people, I believe, were fined.
Mr. Morgan. Did the FBI clear with you, or the Department of
Justice clear with you the fact that these arrests were going to be made,
and that State Department personnel would be involved?
. General Holmes. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Did you discuss that consideration with anyone in
the Department?
General Holmes. Yes; I did. I certainly discussed it with Mr.
Grew.
Mr. Morgan. Do you recall vour conversation with ]\Ir. Grew ?
General Hollies. No, no. The only thing that I recall of that con-
versation was Mr. Grew's atonishment that John Service was in-
volved, and was about to be arrested.
Mr. Morgan. Was it normal for you to have cleared the matter
with Under Secretarv Grew at that time?
General Holmes. He was Acting Secretary.
Mr. Morgan. I see ; and you were clearing the fact that these ar-
rests would be made and State Department personnel were involved,
with the Acting Secretary of State?
STATE DEPARTMENT E-MPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATION 1171
General Holmes. That is correct.
INIr. MoROAN. And what Mr. Grew said was
(Tpneral IIoLivrES. He said, in fact he was amazed that Jolin Service
was involved; that he Avas olad tlie case was boin<r hronirht to jnstice;
and that he hoped the j^uiUy peo{)k^ would be caught and punished.
That was the purport of wliat he had to say.
Mr. Morgan. General, we have, in our records, an inference, I be-
lieve, or sncgestion that in the late part of ]\Iarch, maybe early Ajiril,
some consideration was given to eiiVcting these arrests at that time,
and that the matter was held np pending an effort to determine if
tliere were other suspects possibly in the picture. I believe our rec-
ord will reflect testimony that the suggestion was made and that it
came probably from the Na^^.
As I further pursue it, I think that is right.
Do you know anything at all about that situation ?
General Holmes. I know nothing about a suggestion from the Navy
on that score, but the FBI agents said "We must keep this very secret,
to give us time to investigate this thing more thoroughly, and to see
who else is involved."
And, as a matter of fact, it did go on, I believe, for 2 or 3 months,
in order that they could thoroughly investigate the case without let-
ting the people who were suspected know of it; but I don't remember
any influence from the Navy.
Mr. INloRGAN". Now, back to this.
As you know, General — I don't know whether you know^ it or not,
as I understand that you have been out of the country, but there have
been suggestions macle of the possibility of, we will use the word, a
"fix"' in the x\.merasia case, in one aspect or another.
Do you have any information that would assist this committee in
its inquiry with respect to the possibility of a fix anywhere in the
picture ?
General Holmes. No; I have not. I have no information on that
subject except the same suggestion which I read about in the press.
Mr. Morgan. I have no further questions.
Senator Ttdings. Senator Green?
Senator. Green. I am sorry to have been late on the first part of
the witness' testimony.
I have no questions to ask.
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge?
Senator Lodge. I gather, Mr. Minister, that as far as you w^ere con-
cerned, when you heard of this event you took every step that you
could take to see to it that the law-enforcement agencies of the Gov-
ernment went to work on it; and, having done that, your connection
with the matter, in eif ect, ceased ; is that right ?
General Holmes. That is about it, but my interest in the matter
did not cease.
I was in the process then, having just really been in the office there
for a rather short time, of doing what I could to tighten ui) the security
of the State Department, which T found was not very good : and. if it
is of any help, I was disappointed that it was people who, if they were
o-uilty of stealing these documents, were not punished — in order that
it would be a lesson.
That was the personal reaction that I had, and I followed it very
closely and was interested in it, but I had no responsibility.
1172 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. And you don't know Avhy — do you— that the guilty
parties were never really found and punished; don't know why; do
you ?
General Holmes. I don't know. That is a matter for the Depart-
ment of Justice, of course.
Senator Lodge. Very mysterious
General Holmes. I don't mean to suggest any m3^stery; I mean ta
suggest my disappointment.
Senator Lodge. I will say for myself — mysterious and disappoint-
ing.
Mr. Morgan. In that regard. General Holmes — it might be helpful
to us — after the case was disposed of the w^ay it was, did you make any
inquiry at all to ascertain the circumstances attending the dismissal of
the case, and the manner in which it was disposed of?
General Holmes. Only in respect to John Service.
Mr. Morgan. Can you help us on that?
General Holmes. He was a member of the Foreign Service. When
he was arrested, he was suspended from active duty until the court
could decide whether he was guilty or not; and the grand jury did
not indict him ; and, thereiore, he was cleared — was not tried.
However, something had to be done with respect to his position in
the Foreign Service; and so, as Chairman of the Personnel Board,
Foreign Service Personnel Board, I had the responsibility there.
I sent Mr. N. P. Davis, who was then Chief of Foreign Service Per-
sonnel, to see the appropriate person in the Department of Justice;
and I believe, although I am not certain of this, that the person he
saw was the man who prosecuted the case, whose name, I believe, was
Hitchcock.
Is that correct ?
Mr. Morgan. Hitchcock was one of the prosecutors.
General Holmes. I think he was the man Mr. Davis saw. He went
to him and said : "We have a problem in respect to this man in the
Foreign Service. Is there anything that you know of now, now that
it is out of the hands of the court, is there any evidence, or anything
that you know which really should prejudice his continuance with the
Foreign Service?" And Davis brought back a report that the attorney
said there was not.
So, the Board was convened. I convened the Board. We discussed
Service's implication in this, including the statement by Davis. We
brought Service before the Board and questioned him closely for
quite a long time; and I gave him, as Chairman of the Board, a very
severe oral reprimand for being indiscreet, at least, and told him
that the Board would decide what would be done.
He left the meeting, and we considered it, and the Board unani-
mously concluded that there was no evidence— again, he had been
indiscreet in some of his associations, but there was no reason why
he should not be reinstated in the service.
The Board approved that, and so recommended to the Secretary
of State, and a letter was drafted by the Secretary of State, Mr.
Byrnes, reinstating him in the Foreign Service.
Mr. Morgan. At the time you were considering Mr. Service, there,
the ouly knowledge your Board had before it about the Amerasia
case was the verbal representation by Mr. Hitchcock, made to Mr.
Davis, or did you have other information ?
STATE D'EPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA'ESTIGATION 1173
General Holmes. We had other information as well.
Mr. Morgan, ]\[y jioint is: Did your Board rely upon the repre-
sentations of ]\rr. Hitchcock?
(leiicral Holmes. Oh, no. That was part of the one consideration.
Mr. Morgan. Was it a major consideration?
General Holmes. It was an important consideration. It was a
verification.
Mr. Morgan. What other considerations entered into the decision
to retain Mr. Service?
(General Holmes. That is difficult to answer in detail, Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Morgan. I appreciate that.
General Holmes. Fi-ankl}-, I don't remember.
We went into the thing as thoroughly and carefully as we could,
and the thing that stands out in my memory is what our conclusion
was.
Mr. Morgan. And it was a unanimous conclusion?
General Holmes. Yes, sir; it was.
INIr. Morris. General Holmes, was there presented to you, on that
occasion, FBI evidence to the effect that John Service has been im-
parting military information, secretly, to Philip Jaffe ?
General Holmes. No.
Mr. INIoRRis. If that had been, would it have influenced your opinion
or conclusion ?
General Holmes. Well, that is a rather difficult question to answer;
is it not ? If it had been shown that John Service had given secret
information
Mr. Morris. INIilitary information.
General Holmes. Secret military information to Philip Jaffe,
would it have influenced my opinion ? Yes.
Senator LoDciE. Was Service the only person implicated in the
Amerasia case who was on active dut}' in the State Department, in the
Foreign Service?
General Holmes. The only Foreign Service officer. There was a
State Department employee by the name of Larsen.
Senator Lod;;e. What hapi)enod to him I Didn't they do something
about him? Didn't the State Department take any action regarding
Larsen?
General Holmes. I presume it did; but it was action I would not
take any
Senator Lodge. You did not have the responsibility for that?
General Holjues. I did have certain responsibility for it; but I had
a direct responsibility for the Foreign Service, which was quite
different.
In other words, whatever happened to Larsen was a Department
personnel matter. I don't recall.
Senator Lod<;e. It did not come directly under you?
General Holmes. Xo. Ultimately, it would have; but it was han-
dled otherwise.
Senator Lodge. Service and Larsen, then, were the only two, were
they — the only two persons involved in the Amerasia case who were
connected with the State Department; is that right?
General Holmes. To the best of my recollection, sir; that is right,
sir.
1174 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. Would it be fair to say that Service had shown a bit
of stupidity in his conduct in connection witli that case?
General Holmes. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. That vould be a fair description of it ?
General Holmes. I labeled it, at the time, "indiscretion."
Senator Lodge. How old was Service at that time ?
General Holmes. I would have to just estimate.
Senator Lodge. In his twenties or thirties ?
General Dolmes. I think he was in his early thirties.
Mr. MoKRis. General, who was responsible for presenting the evi-
dence to this Board ?
General Holmes. Mr. Davis.
Mr. Morris. Now, he had access to all FBI information at that time ;
did he?
General Holmes. He had access to all information that the FBI
had made available to the State Department. Wliether or not there
was other information, of course, I cannot say. I do not know.
Mr. Morris. You do not know whether he had asked the FBI if
they had given him all the information and evidence that they had ?
General Holmes. I cannot be certain of that. I think he did, but I
cannot be certain.
Mr. Morgan. In a situation of this character, would it have been
normal to develop all of the facts concerning it?
General Holmes. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. And, was that Mr. Davis' responsibility, to get all the
facts concerning Service's participation?
General Holmes. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Is Mr. Davis still in the State Department ?
General Holmes. He is Minister to Hungary, at the moment, in
Budapest.
Mr. Morgan. I have nothing further.
Senator Tydings. General, do you know of any fact or any circum-
stance that, in itself, shows that there might have been any undue
influence exercised in this case, which you have not testified to, but
which might give us a lead, which we might pursue to develop the fact
that undue influence might have been used ?
General Holmes. No, sir ; I do not.
Senator Tydings. From your talk with the President, at the White
House, when you and Mr. Grew — was it ?
General Holmes. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. When you went over there together, I would
assume, from what you have said here, that this was the first time
that the President knew that there was any action at all to postpone
the arrests, and postpone the prosecution of the case ?
General Holmes. That was my impression. It was very definitely
my impression.
Senator Tydings. Did the President act immediately when the mat-
ter was laid before him?
General Holmes. Instantly, almost.
Senator Tydings. Was the action of a decisive nature?
General Holmes. Very definitely so.
Senator Tydings. Was there any protest, so far as you can recall,
on the part of the man to whom he was talking; that is, concerning
further delay?
STATE DEPAUTiMENT EiMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\'ESTIGATION 1 1 75
General Holmes. No, sir.
Senator TYnixos. Do you know whotlier or not the man on the
■other end of tlie telephone stated (hat he had been asked to hold it
up
General Holmes. To the President?
Senator Tydings. Yes.
General Hol:mes. No, sir; T am not-
Senator Tydixgs. You could not tell ^
General Holmes. I think that he probabl}^ did not; but just took
the President's instructions. That is my impression.
Senator Tydixgs. And the reason you think — I don't believe you
testified to it as first-hand knowled<>e — but the reason you thiidi there
^vas any delay in this matter was because of the pending San Francisco
Conference?
General Holmes. The sugoestion was made that the reason for
the proposeil delay was that it was because of the San Francisco
Conference, and relations with the Soviet Union.
Senator TYmx"^GS. Now, who told you that, specifically as nearly
as you can remember?
General Hol:\ies. As near as I can remember, that was brought
back to me from the Department of Justice by Mr. Lyon, by Fred
Lyon.
Senator Tydixgs. I mean, j-ou did not get any direct word? It
came through an intermediary?
General Holmes. That is right.
Senator Tyt)ix'gs. Thank j'ou.
Senator Lodge. For whom v.'as ]\Ir. Lyon sup]:)osed to be speaking?
General Holmes. Lyon was the State Department's FBI man. He
had been over to see the FBI agent in charge of the case, who was
Gurney.
Senator Lodge. Who was it that said "We want to go easy on the
case, because of the Soviet Union?"
General Holmes. That is where I am not quite certain.
Senator Lodge. Who told you that — Mr. Lyon ?
General Holmes. ]Mr. Lyon said that instruction came to Gurney
from the Attorney General's office ; that they were to hold up prose-
cution of th'e case, and the reason given was that, as clear as I
i-emember it.
Senator Lodge. Yes?
General Hol:mes. But the part on which I am not absolutely
certain, to testify to, is that the person who conveyed that to the
Department of Justice was the President's naval aide.
]My lecollection tells me that; but I canuot be certaiiL
Senator Lodge. The President's naval aide said that to the Depart-
ment of Justice?
General Hol:mes. Yes, sir.
I hope I nuide my ])oint on (hat very clear, because I do not mean
to testify that it was the President's naval aide.
Senator Loikje. But you heard it ?
General H< .l:\ies. I wanted to tell the conuni(tee that, to the best
of my recollection; and give you my memory of what transpired, in
order to get at the matter.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 75
1176 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LUYALTY IlsWESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. You do not know of any instruction coming out of
the State Department that "We ought to go easy on these people,
because of the situation with the Soviet Union?"
General Holmes, I know of no such instruction, and cannot see how
such an instruction could have been given without my knowledge ; and
the additional evidence that there was no such instruction was the
Acting Secretary of State himself, who responded to the suggestion
with the same indignation with which I responded.
Senator Lodge. AVlio was the President's naval aide; what is his
name?
General Holmes. I think it was Vardaman,
Senator Lodge. Is it not true, in spite of the fact that the President
reacted with, or in such an apparently forthright manner at the con-
ference of which you speak — in spite of that fact, the guilty people
were not really punished ; is that not true ?
General Holmes. Well, Senator, the President reacted, I believe, on
this basis — ^that, if there were guilty people, they certainly should
be punished.
Senator Lodge. Yes?
General Holmes. And then the grand jury and the court, on the
evidence before them, decided on the punishment that ensued.
Senator Lodge. The President indicated clearly he wanted to have
them punished?
General Holmes. The guilty people punished.
Senator Lodge. And yet the end result was that they were not
punished ; isn't that true ?
General Holmes. It is true that they were only fined.
Senator Lodge. They got a slap on the wrist, didn't they ?
General Holmes. But it was the court that decided that.
Senator Lodge. I am not saying who decided that, but from the
standpoint of the matter isn't that right — the result is what counts,
a nd the guilty people were not punished ?
I think we ought to find out from Mr. Vardaman whether he did
give this instruction, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. One more question I would like to ask you,
General.
Do you know of anybody who was connected with this outrageous
procedure of getting these documents out of the State Department
whose name has not been brought into this ?
General Holmes. No, sir; I do not.
Senator Tydixgs. So far as you know, all of the people in the State
Department wlio were involved in it have been named and have been
brought into the open?
General Holmes. Oh, yes.
Senator Tydings. Tliere is nobody connected with this, that you
know of or that you have heard of, that has not been brought into
tlie open ?
(ireneral Hol:\ies. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Thank you.
Mr. Morris. ]\Tay I ask a question ?
Senator Tydings. Certainly.
Mr. Morris. General, who was Attorney General at the time of
the alleged request on the part of the Attorney General to defer prose-
cution until the United Nations Conference f
STATE D'EPARTMENT EJMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISTVESTIGATION 1177
Senator Ttdings. I will tiy to get hold of Vardaiuan, Senator, and
see what he knows about it.
Senator Lodge. All right.
General Holmes. There ^vas a change about that time.
Mr. MoRias. Yes (
General Holmes. I believe Mr. Clark had become Attorney General
about that time.
jSIr. MoKRis. He had already become so?
General Holmes. I believe so. I am not certain of that.
Mr. Morris. And now, had Acting Secretary Grew asked you to
make a recommendation to him with respect to whether or not the
Justice Department had a case against the six defendants? Were you
charged with that assignment?
General Holmes. Not specifically that way ; no.
Mr. Morris. AVlien you say, "not specifically," General
General Holmes. He did not say to me, "Will you report back to
me whether they have got a case?"
As I recall it, we discussed it, and we asked the Department of Jus-
tice, for our own information and guidance, to give us the case, which
they did in memorandum form ; and, in our opinion, not being law-
yers, there looked as if there were a case, so we offered no objection
and said, "From the point of view of the State Department, it is your
responsibility."
JNlr. Morris. Were you in the State Department in April 1945 ?
General Holmes. Yes; I Avas.
Mr. Morris. Were you acquainted at that time with the personnel
set-up of the Division of Far Eastern Affairs?
General Holmes. In a general way; yes.
Mr. IMoRRis. Did you know of a recommendation that had been
made that Owen Lattimore be made Deputy Director of the Far East-
ern Division?
General Holmes. Xo, sir; I never heard of such a suggestion.
Mr. MoRGAX. I might say for the record, Mr. Morris, that that is
the first time we have. Do you have any evidence of that?
Mr. Morris. Yes. I heard that that recommendation had been
made. That is why I asked if I could bring in those two particular
people I melitioned about a month ago.
Mr. Morgax. What })eo])le were those?
Mr. Mr)RRis. Well, General Holmes is sitting here now. Shall 1
give you that information in front of him?
Senator Tydixgs. I don't see why not.
Mr. M(»RGAX. That was
Mr. Morris. Mr. Ballantine and Mr. Grew.
Senator Tydixgs. Did Mr. Grew tell you that?
Mr. Morris. No.
Senator Tydixgs. Who did?
Mr. Morris. I am not at liberty to say now.
Senator Tydixgs. Is it authentic?
Mr. Morris. I was told by a man in New York that in April of 1945
arrangements had been completed for Mr. Lattimore to be Deputy
Director of the Far Eastern Division of the State Department.
Senator Tydixgs. What year?
Mr. Morris. April of 1945 : but that IMr. Grew and ]\Ir. Ballantine
protested very vigorously and stopped the appointment.
1178 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Well, one man told yon that, did lie?
Mr. Morris. That is right.
Senator Tydixgs. Was he an emi:)loyee of the State Department?
Mr. Morris. I have reason to believe, althon^h he refnsed to disclose
his source, that he got his information directly from a member of the
State Department.
Senator Tydings. So he does not know that himself; he was told by
somebody else?
Mr. Morris. That is right.
Senator Tydikgs. Did the other man who supposedly told him, and
whom you don't know
Mr. Morris. Whom I don't know.
Senator Tydixgs. Did he work in the State Department?
Mr. Morris. It was my understanding that he was in the State
Department.
Senator Tydings. Did this man tell you that he did?
Mr. MoRR[s. No; but I have a strong suspicion that he was.
Senator Tydings. I see.
Mr. ]\IoRRis. That is why I think there is no conclusive way of de-
termining tliat, Senator, exce])t to bring Mr. Grew and Mr. Ballantine
in and ask them.
Senator Tydings. Suppose it is so, what would it matter?
INIr. Morris. 1 don't know.
Senator Tydings. Does it have anything to do with the Amerasia
case?
Mr. Morris. Conceivably, Senator.
Senator Tydings, I don't see what connection there would be, my-
self. I would be delighted to have any light thrown on it if it ties in
in any way.
Mr. Morris. Senator, the people involved in the Amerasia case,
some were in the Far Eastern Division of the State Department. We
have had considerable testimony duiing the last several weeks •
ISIr. Morgan. I do not want to interrupt the questioning, Mr. Mor-
ris, but I woidd like so say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Heald, who is with
us today and, of course, is assistant counsel on our staff, has inter-
viewed Mr. Grew and we have here a statement signed by Mr. Grew
relating particularly to the Amerasia case, and I think at the ap-
propriate moment I would like to suggest that Mr. Heald read it
into the record, xdth General Holmes here, inasmuch as he and Mr.
Grew were associated at that time.
There may be some questions that this statement will elicit.
Senator Tydings. Have you finished ?
Mr. ISIoRRis. I believe that is all.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead and read the statement.
Mr. Heald, have you ever been sworn?
Mr. Heald. Xo, sir; I have not.
Senator Tydings. 1 suppose, if you are going to read that, that 1
]iad better swear you in.
Do you solenndy promise and swear that the evidence you shall
give in the matter before the committee shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and notliing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Heald. I do.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1179
TESTIMONY OF EOBEET L. HEALD
Mr. ^loKOAX. I ini^lit ask a low pi't'liniiiKiry (jucstions.
Senator Ty'dings. Go ahead, and have hhn give his name, and so
forth.
Mr. AToROAx. What is your name?
Mr. IIkald. R()I)oi-t L.'Heahl.
JNlr. ^NIoKGAx. AMiat is yonr present capacity with this subcommit-
tee ?
Mr. Ukald. Assistant counsel with the subcommittee.
Mr. IVIoRGAX^. In tlie course of your work as assistant counsel with
the subcommittee, did 3^ou have occasion to interview Mr. Joseph
Grew?
Mr. Hkald. I did.
JNIr. MoRGAx^. And as a result of that interview, did you obtain from
Mr. Grew a statement ?
Mr. Heald. I did.
Mr. MoRGAX'. Will you read tlie statement for our records, now,
please?
i\Ir. Heald. This is liis statement, dated May 20, 1950.
(Tlie statement was read, as follows:)
Statement for the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee
In accordance with the request of Mi-. Robert L. Heald, assistant counsel of
the subconiinittee, I have prepared the followinji statement concerning my recol-
lection of the facts relative to tlie so-called Amerasia case, which occurred
when I was Acting Secretary of State.
The first time that I recall the case coming to my attL-ntiou was when (General
Holmes, one of the Assistant Secretaries of State, called on me in the spring
of 1945. He stated that the F'ederal Bureau of Investigation had evidence of the
theft of documents from tlie Navy and State Departments. He wanted my
authority to cause the arrest of the men involved, some of whom wei-e State
Department employees. I specifically requested (ieneral Holmes not to give
me the names of any of the individuals involved until my decision had been
taken, as I believed there should be no discrimination in the administration of
justice. I a.>=;ked (ieneral Holmes only two questions: (1) Did the Fedtn-al Bur-
eau of .Investigation have adequate (wideuce to support tlie charge; and (2)
did (ieneral Holmes believe that pro.secution wouhl almost certainly result in
conviction? When (ieneral Holmes answered both of these questions in the
affirmative I authorized the arrests. I seem to recall that (ieneral Holmes stated
he had consulted with the State Department legal adviser who had advised him
that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had a good case.
After the arrests, I was informed of the iiaiiies and was shocked to hear
that Mr. .Tohn S. Service was among the six. However, when ^Iv. Service was
not indicted, I wrote him a letter advising him that in my opinion he was com-
pletely cleared and was being reinstated to duty without any blemish on his fine
record. It is my understanding that Secretary of State Byrnes also wrote Mr.
Service to this elTect.
I do not r. 'member evei- having been contacted by the ^^'llite House in regard
to this case, nor do I recollect ever having discussed tlie matter of the arrests
with the President, although I may have done so as a matter ot routine infor-
mation. I do not have any personal knowledge that the White House was even
aware of this matter prior to the arrests. I have no other knowledge of the
Amerasia case inasmuch as after the authorization for the arrests had been
given, the matter was entirely out of my hands.
Mr. Heald has asked me to state the facts surrounding my resignation from
the State Department and specifically whether I was forced to resign. In
this regard. I can say categorically that I was not forced to resign as Under
Secretary of State. For .some time I had desired to retire. The war was over;
I was past the retirement age: and I was facing the iirosjiect of a ma.ior opera-
tion. At the time that Secretary I'.yrnes was appointed. I advised him that
I believed each Secretary should apixiint his own Under Secretary of State
because of the confidential relationship betw^n the two posts. Secretary Byrnes
1180 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^^ESTIGATION
asked me, however, to remain in office until the end of the Potsdam Conference,
which I did. At that time I renewed my request to be allowed to resign, and
Secretary Byrnes agreed.
There is attached hereto a copy of a letter which I sent to Mr. Service, at his
request, stating my position in the Amerasia case and containing my reply to the
allegations that I was forced to resign as Under Secretary of State.
Respectfully submitted.
Joseph C. Grew.
Senator Ttdings. The story has been told on the Senate floor and
in the press that he was forced out.
JVIr. Morgan. Off the record.
(There was discussion off the record.)
Mr. Morgan. Back on the record, please.
Mr. Chairman, there is an attachment to the statemoiit of Mr. Grew
which I request to be spread on the record at this point.
Senator Tydings. An attachment?
Mr. Morgan. Namely, his letter relative to Mr. Service.
Senator Tydings. Yes ; put it all in the record.
Mr. Morgan. And we will have it spread on the record at this point.
(The letter referred to is as follows :)
Ouchy-Lausanne, Switzerland,
Ap7-il n, 1950.
Dear Mr. Service : Tour letter of April 13 has this moment reached me and I
hasten to reply without delay.
My letter to you in August 1945, and that of the then Secretary of State,
Mr. Byrnes, after the grand jury had cleared you in the Amerasia case, should
be sufficient to clarify your position at that time and to substantiate the fact that
you had been completely cleared, by the process of law, of the charges against
you. My recollection is that I further stated that you would be reinstated
in the Foreign Service without any implication of an adverse nature against
your fine record, although I have not now the text of that letter before me other
than the part you have quoted. That is the way democracy works.
There are inaccuracies In the public statements quoted in your letter.
I did not "insist on your prosecution" apart from that of the other five persons
involved. Having been informed as Acting Secretary of State by supposedly
reliable authority that an agency of our Government had what it considered
complete evidence of guilt, I quite properly ordered the arrests, which, of course,
presumed prosecution. I did not at that time know the names of the persons
involved, including yours, and I did not wish to know them until the order had
been carried out, for justice must not discriminate. When I learned that you,
who stood so well in the Foreign Service, were one of those charged with the
theft of official documents, I was, as I later wrote you, inexpressibly shocked.
It was a great relief to me when you were cleared by the grand jury, and a great
satisfaction to see you reinstated in the Foreign Service with no stigma whatever
on your record.
I was not "forced to resign" as Under Secretary of State. Myths about this
have arisen. For some time I had wished to retire. The war was then over,
I had completed 41 years of service, I had passed the usual age limit, and I was
at that time in 111 health and was facing a possible major operation. It was
therefore entirely on my own initiative that I insisted on retiring, even though
Secretary Byrnes strongly urged me to continue in service.
Those are the facts, and you may use this letter in any way you wish.
With the best of wishes to you,
Very sincerely yours,
Joseph C. Grew.
Senator Tydings. Well, I think we will recess now until Friday at
10 o'clock for our next meeting here.
Mr. MoRHTS. Is anything scheduled for tomorrow ?
Senator TniiNos. No; because we had Mr. Van Beuren and he has
begged several times, so we have given him another day.
(Whereupon, at 12: 10 p. m., the subcommittee stood in recess until
Friday, June 9, 1950, at 10 a. m.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
THURSDAY, JUNE 8, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington, D. C.
executlvt: session
The subcommittee met at 2 : 30 p. m. in room G-23, United States
Capitol, pursuant to notice. Senator Millard E. Tydings (chairman
of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings. Green, and Lodge.
Also present : Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the subcom-
mittee.
Senator Tydings. All right, the subcommittee will please be in order.
Mr. Vardaman has requested permission to appear before the sub-
committee and give a statement.
All right, Mr. Vardaman, will you please be sworn and give your
full name.
TESTIMONY OF JAMES K. VAEDAMAN, JR.
Mr. Vardaman. My name is James Kimble Vardaman, Jr.
Senator Tydings. And your age?
Mr. Vardaman. Fifty-five. sir.
Senator Tydings. Your address?
Mr. Vardaman. Business, sir?
Senator Tydings. Either one.
Mr. Vardaman. Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D. C.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Vardaman, you have read the accounts that
were published in the newspapers?
Mr. Vardaman. Yes. sir.
Senator Tydings. Have you any statement you desire to make in
regard thereto?
Mr. Vardaman. If it please the chairman, I would like to read a
statement.
Senator Tydings. Is it long?
Mr. Vardaman. No, sir ; about 3 or 4 minutes.
Senator Tydings. Go on and do it.
Mr. Vardaman. Of course, I am at the committee's disposal for any
questions that you may want to ask.
Senator Tydings. All right.
1181
1182 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Vardaman. This is a statement of James K. Vardaman, Jr.^
with reference to the Amerasia case at the time he appeared before
the subcommittee of the United States Senate investigatino; charges
of communism in the State Department at 2 : 30 p. m., on Tliursday,
June 8, 1950.
The committee did not deem it advisable to grant my request that
my testimony in this matter be heard in open session, but has consider-
ately granted me permission to state publicly the substance of my
testimony, which was as follows:
This is in accordance with the discussion with JNIr. Morgan.
Senator Tydings. Yes. Go right aliead.
Mr. Vardaman. I reported to the White House as naval aide to
the President about the 6th of May 1945, having come direct from 90
days' combat duty in the Philippines and the initial assault and
occupation on Okniawa. Prior to that time I had spent 3 years in
hospital and on combat duty in north Africa, Tunisia, Sicily, and
Italy. I make this statement to indicate why I was neither inter-
ested in nor acquainted with matters, other than my naval and Army
duties.
Immediately after reporting to the Wliite House, I was assigned
the duty of supervising the operations of the map room, of receiving
and transmitting to the President all dispatches, both secret and other-
wise, and briefing the President morning, noon, and evening on the
events of the war then going on in Europe and the Pacific. I was
also responsible for the operation of tlie Presidental yacht, the Presi-
dential mountain camp, and the administi'ation of the naval aide's
office, and liaison between the Presidency and the Department of the
Navy on naval matters.
So far as the so-called Amerasia case is concerned I repeat the state-
ments which I made to the press on yesterday to the effect that I knew
nothing about it at that time, nor do I recall having taken any notice
of it until the last several weeks when I had been headlined in the
press.
Senator Green. You mean the past several weeks?
Mr. Vardaman. Yes, sir ; the past several weeks. That is, since this
has been brought out.
Senator Tydings. Wliy don't you say "recent several weeks" and
that will make it plain?
:Mr. Vardaman. The "previous" instead of the "last" ?
Senator Tydings. All right, anyway you wish so that it may be
clearly understood.
Mr. Vardaman. All riglit. Will you change that to the "previous"^
several weeks.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. Vardaman. At no time then or now have I discussed the Amer-
asia case with anybody except informally during the last several days.
At no time have I ever contacted by telephone, by letter, or otherwise
any civilian or military officer of the Government in any department
regarding this case. To be more specific. I have not at any time con-
tacted, directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Navy
Department, the State Department, the Department of Justice, or
the FBI with reference to this case or any similar case.
My M'ork as naval aide was extremely taxing, requiring constant
duty on the jobs pertaining to the office and I did not have at any time
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1183
diirinir my service ;is naval aidi- to tlie President any authority or in-
clination to participate in or interfere Avith any worlv other than the
specific chities for which (he na\al aide was responsihle.
If, as reported in the press. Brigadier General Holmes testified that
he was under tlie impression that I had anythins: wliatsover to do with
tliis case, all I have to say is that such an inii)ression was not correct
and nnist have been based on misinformation. I am not questioning
General Holmes' intentions or his sincerity, but I simply want to make
quite clear that I had nothing whatever to do with this case at any
lime.
Sen.ator Tydings. Thank you. I don't think we have any questions,
unless the committee members desire.
Senator Lodge. So you never did anj'thing to delay prosecution or
action on the Amerasia case in any way, shape, or manner. Is that
correct ?
Mr. Vardaman, I did not. I did not know of the existence of the
case.
Senator Lodge. Thank you.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator Green.
Senator Green. You are basing your statement entirely on news-
paper reports. Have you seen the record of the hearing?
Air. Vardamax. No, sir; I have not seen the record of the hearing.
Senator Green. AVould you like to see the record of the hearing?
Mr. Vardaman. Well, wait. I said I didn't see it. I did see one
copy but I didn't read it carefully. Some ncAvspaper reporter brought
it into my office, but I didn't examine it carefully.
If the Senator thinks I should, I will.
Senator Green. Xo; but I thought you might have.
Mr. Vardaman. I wonld like to get the whole story as to the con-
clusion of any
Mr. Morgan (interposing). I would like to be sure our record is
clear here. May I interrupt your statement a moment?
Mr. Vardaman. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Have you seen a record of our proceedings here?
Mr. Vardaman. Xo.^ Only the Congressional Record. I haven't
seen the committee report.
Senator Tydings. At any rate, you deny in toto any connection in
any manner, shape, or form, to any degree or to any extent, any contact
with this case other than reading the press recently?
Mr. Vardaman. Absolutely.
Senator Tydings. Well, I think we could recess at this time. That
is all. I wanted to give you an opportunity so you could deny it.
Mr. Vardaman. I a])preciate that very much.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Grew sent up .Yesterday a statement, wliich
consisted of a ]iage or a page and a half that deals only with inci-
dental matters. On recollection, he remembers now what he could
not remember yesterday comi)letely. He has sent up a little state-
ment correcting his previous statement. Do you want to hear it read,
or do you simply wish to put it in the record ?
He simply says "I could not remember we had gone to the White
House." and now he does. Is that correct, Mr. Morgan?
Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir.
1184 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IIsTVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. And today he says he remembers he did go to
White House, and he supports General Hohnes' statement he went
over there.
Senator Lodge. The full text will be put in the record ?
Senator Tydings. Yes, so both will be in conformity.
Mr. Morgan. I suggest it be spread on the record.
Senator Tydings. All right, it will be put in the record.
(The statement of Hon. Joseph C. Grew, referred to, follows:)
Supplementary Statement for the Senate Foreign
Relations Subcxdmmittee
(June 7, 1950)
In my statement of May 20, 1950, to Mr. Robert L. Heald, Assistant Counsel
to the subcommittee concerning my recollection of the facts relative to the so-
called Amerasia case I told Mr. Heald that since 5 years had gone by since the
case was brought to my attention and since at that time and thereafter I was
intensively occupied as Acting Secretary of State with difficult problems at a
time of turmoil in various parts of the world, I could not guarantee that my
present recollection of the detailed facts in the case was complete. The points
in my statement were, however, as complete and accurate as at the moment of
my first talk with Mr. Heald I could recall.
In a further talk today with Mr. Heald I informed him of my refreshed
recollection that in early June, 194.5, a report was brought to our attention in
the State Department that the Department of Justice had given orders to de-
lay the prosecution of the six persons under suspicion until the termination of
the San Francisco Conference ; that on learning of this report I went to the
President, accompanied by Brig. Gen. Julius C. Holmes, then Assistant Secre-
tary of State, and that the President on receiving this information immedi-
ately, in our presence, telephoned to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
gave orders that the prosecution of these persons should proceed without delay.
One further point in my original statement is that "I authorized the arrests."
It has correctly been pointed out to me that the arrests could be undertaken
only by the Department of Justice and that my action in the matter was simply
to give the green light for the arrests so far as the State Department was con-
cerned.
Senator Tydings. We will adjourn until 10 o'clock a. m., tomorrow.
(Whereupon, at 2 : 50 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned until 10
a. m. Friday, June 9, 1950.)
STATE DEPAETMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
FRIDAY, JUNE 9, 1950
United States Senate,
CoMMiiTTiE ox Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington^ D. C.
executive session
Tlie subcommittee met at 10 a. m. in room G-23 United States Cap-
itol, pursuant to adjournment on Thrusday, June 8, 1950, Senator
Millard E. Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings, McMahon, and Hickenlooper.
Also present: ]\Ir. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel to the sub-
committee; R. P. HepjMier, Esq., counsel to Mr. Van Beuren.
Senator Tydings. Will you stand up and hold up your right hand ?
Do you solemnly promise and declare that the evidence you shall
give in the pending matter before this committee shall be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Van Beuren. I do.
Senator Tydings. Have a seat, sir.
TESTIMONY OF AECHBOLD VAN BEUREN
Senator Tydings. Will j^ou give us j'our name ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Archbold van Beuren.
Senator Tydings. Your age ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I was born on December 21, 1905. I am 44.
Senator Tydings. And your present occupation ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. President of Cue Publishing Co., Inc., publisher
of Cue Magazine.
Senator Tydings. And your address?
Mr. VAN Beuren. My legal residence is Indian Avenue, Middletown,
R. I. I also maintain a residence at 640 Park Avenue, New York City.
Senator Tydings. Mr. van Beuren, what was your occupation on
January 1, 1945?
^Ir. VAN Beuren. On January 1, 1945, I was Security Officer of the
Office of Strategic Services.
Senator Tydings. And you had been for some time j)rior thereto?
Mr. VAN Bei'ren. I had Iioen Security Officer, Chief of Branch, since
about August of the preceding year.
Senator Tydings. How long did j^ou contimie in that office after
January 1,1945?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Until September, 1945.
1185
1186 STATE DEPARTMElSrT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION
Senator Ttbings. Mr. Frank Bielaski, at our request, came before
tlie committee and gave us an account of his assignment by General
Donovan to look into this Amerasia matter. He likewise detailed the
work that he did in connection therewith, going in the place and find-
ing documents and bringing some of them to Washington and turning
them over to General Donovan and to you. He testified that General
Donovan then told him to do no more in the case, and took it up with
the State Department, as I recollect. He was told he took it up with
the State Department. His connection with the matter then stopped.
The State Department then, as we have had subsequent testimony
to substantiate, turned the matter over to the FBI, who took hold
of tlie case and in due time made arrests. I tell you that so you will
have some general idea of wliat the record shows up to the present time.
I would appreciate it if, first, you would tell us what your connec-
tion with the matter was after Mr. Bielaski came back and reported
the results of his findings to you and to General Donovan.
Mr. VAN Beuren. Well, sir, Mr. Bielaski came back and reported
his findings to me on the morning, during the morning, of March 11,
1945.
Senator Tydings. He reported to you first, did he ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. That is correct, first. Mr. Bielaski did not see
General Donovan in person.
Senator Tydings. I believe he testified he did report to you.
Mr. VAN Beuren. He handed me at that time a bunch of documents
and told me that he had obtained them the night before in the Amer-
asia office in New York, and described to me that there were many other
documents there of a similar nature, that this was a very small sample
of the total group. He laid the documents on my desk one by one, and
I became more and more amazed as I heard him describe the cir-
cumstances under which he had found them and saw the documents
themselves.
I then requested General Donovan, or ratlier one of General Dono-
van's legal assistants, a Maj. J. J. Donovan, to come down to my office
and talk with me and with Mr. Bielaski, to view the matter about
which he had just tokl me. We decided that the documents were of
such importance and the circumstances under which they had been
found were of such importance that we should report the matter to
General Donovan at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. Bielaski spent possibly an hour or two in my office, and then
returned to New York.
Major Monigan and I saw the General at his earliest convenience,
which was some time later on the same day, and went over with him
the facts and gave him a chance, an opportunity, of looking over the
documents and considering the import of the situation.
General Donovan decided that since all tlie documents bore the im-
print of the Department of State, the seal of the Department of State,
as having been received by it in such cases where they were not docu-
ments originally prepared by the Department of State, Mr. Stettinius
shoukl hear of the matter as soon as possible. It was then mid-
evening, and Geueral Donovan called Mr. Stettinius at his apartment
at the Wardman Park and asked whether he could come up and see
him at once. He suggested to tlie Secretary of State that if he could
get hold of him he might ask Assistant Secretary General Holmes, and
STATE DEPARTMENT E.MPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOX 1187
also Mr. Frederick B. Lyons, to be present. The Genersil, Major
Monigan. and I went up to the AVanhnan Park in the (JeneraPs ear,
and arrived m Mr. Stettinius' apartment. By "we" I refer to the
General, Major Moniiian, and myself.
Senator Tydings. How long after Mr. Bielaski reported was this?
Mr. VAN Beuren. This was about 10 o'clock in tlie eveninjr of the
same day, the 11th of March, 1045.
Senator Tydings. That :Mr. Bielaski reported and showed you the
result of what he had found up in the Amerasia oflices?
Mr. VAN Beueen. That is correct.
Senator Tydixcjs. Now uo ahead.
Mr. VAN Beueen. The Secretary, who had been roused out of bed for
this meeting, because he had had an early evening and was probably
getting some much needed rest, was in his dressing gown and informal
attire.
Senator Tydings. That was Stettinius?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes, sir. General Holmes was also present.
Secretary Stettinius said, as I recall, that he had been unable to reach
Mr. Lyons, so that he was not there.
General Donovan had the documents -vhirh ^Ii . B. elaski had brought
down in an envelope with him, and he said, "Gooi evening." They
were on a first-name basis : ''Good evening, Ed. I have got sometWn'^
here that will be of great interest to you."
He walked over and placed the documents in the Secretary's lap,
and as the Secretary went through them explained the circumstances
under which they had been found and the events leading up to that
moment.
The Secretary, after looking through the documents, turned to
General Holmes, who was right beside his chair, and said, "Good
God, Julius, if we can get to the bottom of this we will stop a lot of
things that have been plaguing us.""
There were then some further questions and a discussion of the
circumstances surroundijig the event, and some discussion of possible
ways and means of carrying out or taking subsequent steps. I
wouldn"t say that the visit, our visit, lasted more than three-quarters
of an hour at the outside. Possibly it was somewhat less. And we
left after Mr. Stettinius had thanked General Donovan for giving him
these documents and was saying that he would take all necessary steps
j)rompt]y, as soon as he had had a chance to talk with his associates
the next day.
"We returned home. General Holmes came Avith us in General
Donovan's car and we all went to our respective homes.
Senator Tydings. Let me ask you there, Mr. van Beuren, was there
any tacit or expressed conclusion that the matter then would be han-
dled by the State Department? I mean, that they would get in touch
wihtheFBI?
]\Ir. VAN Beuren. There was no conclusion as to whom the State
Department would get in touch with. There was certainly a con-
clusion that the State Department would handle the matter from
then on.
Senator Tydings. They thanked you for your efforts and what you
had turned up and presented. What was the conclusion that you
generally assumed had been reached as a result of this conference?
1188 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. VAN Beuren. The conclusion that I assumed had been reached
was that the State Department would handle the matter itself.
Senator Tydings. They would try to run it down from there on?
Mr, VAN Beuren. They would try to run it down.
Senator Tydings. Let me ask you this : At that point did you gen-
tlemen more or less withdraw from it and let the State Department
go on with the investigation, or did you continue with it?
Mr. VAN Beuken. We withdrew entirely, sir. We had found the
source into which our missing document had fallen.
Senator Hickenlooper. What do you mean by your missing docu-
ment?
Mr. VAN Beuken. The one that originally started the investigation.
Senator Tydings. OSS had a document that was missing which had
been printed in the magazine and sort of cued and tipped off the whole
thing. That is the document you mean, is it not?
J\lr. VAN Beuren. That's right.
Mr. Morgan. The Thailand document.
Senator Tydings. Did you have occasion to enter the matter again
directly or indirectly insofar as the part of the investigation was
concerned ?
Mr. van Beuren. No, sir. To the best of my knowledge we were
never consulted in any manner from then on about the situation.
Senator Tydings. And, of course, as we all know now and as you
probably knew then, the FBI was called in and took over the active
investigation of the case.
Mr. VAN Beuren. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. You knew that at the time, did you, actually ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I heard it unofficially.
Senator Tydings. You assumed it was so?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I assumed it was so.
Senator Tydings. Of course, we know now it was so.
I don't want to put words in your mouth. I am trying to save time.
You correct me if what I say isn't accurate.
I assume from what you have said that you would not be in position
to testify concretely as to who was actually taking these documents
from the State Department and giving them to the Amerasia people.
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir; I could not testify at all to that. The
first information that I had of that was when the arrests were an-
nounced in the newspaper.
Senator Tydings. Let me ask you, then, four or five questions here
very quickly. Do you know how these documents arrived at Amer-
asia?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Of my own knowledge ?
Senator Tydings. Yes.
Mr. VAN Beuren. Did I know at that time ?
Senator Tydings. Do you know now or did you know then how they
got there? I don't mean from hearsay, but did you turn up anything
that would help us ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Do you know who brought them to Amerasia?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Not except what I have heard.
Senator Tydings. I am only doing this to make up the record.
Mr. VAN Beuren. Not except what I have heard subsequently.
STATE D&PARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LNA'ESTIGATION 1189
Senator Tydings. Do you know what happened to them after they
came to Amerasia ? That is, were they passed on to some other Gov-
ernment or agent of ^ome other govermnent, or did they serve some
disk)yal or ulterior purpose so far as you know 'i
INIr. VAX Beuren. The only information I have on that, Senator, is
what I have heard from Mr. Bielaski.
Senator Ty'dixgs. We had Mr. Bielaski here, and I would rather
you testified to what you know, otherwise we are just compoundin<; the
situation. AVhat I would like to get are facts that we can get hold of.
Mr. VAX Bklkkx. I prefaced my remark for that reason.
Senator Tydixgs. Of course, this was a dastardly, terrible thing,
the fincling of all these documents there, and one thing that we ought
to do in connection with this hearing, in my judgment, is not only to
see if anybody who is guilty esca])ed that ought to have been punished,
insofar as we can, but I would like to try to establish some procedure,
some suggestions at least, so that if w^e ever have aiu)ther war, or even
in peacetime, for that matter, during a critical period like we are
now going through, we could devise some security measures that would
at least minimize the possibility of this happening, so far as human
beings can.
I am going to ask you — not now, because it wouldn't be fair to ask
you now — from your oavu experieu-ce, having charge of a great many
OSS documents and knownig the importance of security, if you would
take the time in the not too distant future, at your leisure, to make
to this committee some suggestions that we miglit incorporate in our
report that would tighten up in i^eacetime and in wartime the whole
surveillance of documents and the custody of documents.
Another thing I would like you to do, I would like you to see if
there isn't a better way of classifying matter. For example. Me both
know that a great many things are marked "Classified*' that ought
not to be classified. We know that that tends to deteriorate the quality
of the things that are classified, because people get careless if every-
thing is marked classified. They say "Oh, well," and therefore some-
thing that is highly secret is probably devalued a great deal from what
its real worth as a secret document would be.
I would like, if you have the time, and it would be appreciated if
you would "give us, too. any kind of fornuila that we might utilize in
connection with the future classification of documents, either in time
of peace or war.
I would also appreciate it, because I would like to see something
constructive come out of this hearing, if you could, out of your own
experience as a security oflicer for OSS, make any suggestions to
prevent a recurrence of this situation insofar as it occurs to you.
I will be very much indebted to you if you will give us that. I would
like to put it in the record. If you could prepare a statement, not too
lonir, but giving us the points when you have time, I will be very
grateful to yon. Do you think you could do so ?
Mr. VAX Beurex. I should try to do so to the very best of my
ability.
Senator Tydixgs. What we ought to do to treat this wound is to
prevent another wound from being inflicted. It might be more im-
portant in the future than it has been in the past, at some critical
time.
1190 STATE DiEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATrON
So that, in sum, your connection with this matter stems from the
fact that Mr. Biehaski was employed, he made his report, you turned
over your information to the State Department, from which period
the State Department and FBI took over. Is that about a fair
summary of it ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Do you have some questions, Senator Hicken-
looper ?
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. van Beuren, this Thaihind document
you spoke about, which was missing, your first knowledge of that being
out of custody at least was when it appeared in Amerasia, is that
correct ?
Mr. VAN Betjren. Yes, sir ; when not a transcript but when a sum-
mary of it, so to speak, appeared in Amerasia magazine.
Senator Hickenlooper. An.d you recognized it was the docmnent
which had been developed by OSS ?
Mr. VAN Betjren. I did not personally do so.
Senator Hickenlooper. I mean it was recognized in OSS.
Mr. VAN Beuren. In OSS.
Senator Hickenlooper. That was called to your attention?
Mr. VAN Beuren. By the man who had prepared it originally.
Senator Hickenlooper. That document, when OSS developed it,
what hands did it go through ? In other words, did you give a coi'ty
of it to the State Department? Did you give a copy of it to the
military ? When I say "you," I mean OSS.
Mr. VAN Beitken. The OSS? It had. sir, a fairly wide authorized
dissemination in the Government, not onlv in our own oroanization,
where it went to several departments from its original source, which
was the Far East Division of Research and Analysis, but also one or
more copies were authorized for dissemination to State, War, and
Navy. I am sure of those three; I am not sure of my recollection,
but Treasury and Censorship may have been in on the distribution
too.
Senator Hickenlooper. Would you know wliat officials in the State,
War, and Navy Departments would have direct charge of that docu-
ment when it got there?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir; I would have no knowledge of their in-
ternal routino; after it reached them.
Senator Hickenlooper. And at the time you seized these docu-
ments, among which was the one you were looking for of your own,
and I am asking because I was not here at the beginning of this so I
may be repeating something, were there any persons in the Amerasia
office or in the place you found these documents ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir; there were no persons except OSS agents.
Senator Hickexloopek. Excuse me ; I should have made that clear —
any persons connected witli Amerasia or anv other persons outside of
the OSS agents?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No.
Senato)- Hickenlooper. Were y(;u ever, or so far as you know was
OSS ever, contacted for information with regard to these documents
or with regard to the proceedings in connection with the seizure of
the documents by the FBI or by any units of Army Intelligence or
Naval Intelligence or the ]Military intelligence establishments after
you had turned these over to the State Department?
STATE DEPARTAIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1191
Mr. VAN Beuren. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. So that so far as you know, is this correct:
Tlie only repoit that OSS made about these documents was directly to
Mr. Steltinius. Secretary of State?
Mr. VAN Beuken. So far as I know, that is correct, sir.
I would like to add just one more item to that. I believe I have been
told— I have no personal knowledge of this— that meetings were held
the follo^ying morning in Secretary Ilohnes" oflice to discuss proced-
ures in this matter, at which :Ma jor Monigan, to whom I have referred,
was present.
Senator Hickexlooper. I see.
But to all practical purposes, this episode of a day or two, and any
discussion afterward, ended so far as the OSS pursuing the matter
any furthw, or being later contacted?
Mr. VAX Beurex. That is correct.
Senator Hickexlooper. Mr. van Beuren, at that time how would
you classif}^ or rate the importance of this particular document of
OSS that you were concerned with, so far as it being of important
military or national significance and public security was concerned?
Mr. VAX Beurex. The particular document with which we were lirst
concerned ?
Senator Hickexlooper. That is the Thailand document, I under-
stand.
Mr. VAX' Beurex. The Thailand document, as I understand it, sir,
was one of a continuing series of studies on Thailand. It dealt in
general with the conflict of interest between the various allied nations
in tlie Thailand situation, particularly tlie British and ourselves. I
would not be able, not being a student of far eastern affairs or those
matters, to evaluate its importance in that regard. Certainly as one
of a series it had a very definite importance.
Senator Hickexlooper. j\lay I ask it this way: At the time, or
now — I want to make the question as broad as possible — do you or
do you not consider that this document contained information which
would be valuable information to an enemy of the T'^^nited States if it
fell into the hands of an enemy of the United States, and could it be
detrimental to United States interests in the hands of an enemy?
Mr. VAN "Beurex. The answer is "Yes, sir," to both of those ques-
tions. I do so consider it.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you care to, or are you sufficiently fa-
miliar with the other documents which j^ou seized, to say whether
any of these documents were documents that in your opinion would
have been of aid or ben.efit to an enemy of the United States with the
possibility of detriment to the United States, being in the hands of
an enemy ?
Mr. VAX Beurex. Of the 12 or 15 documents which I saw, sir, which
Mr. Bielaski brought to me, to the best of my recollection — and I have
been recollecting as far as I can — one was a document dealing with
(lerman order of battle.
Senator Tyuixgs. AA'hat do you mean by that?
Mr. VAX Ijurex. Disposition of German forces.
Senator Tyoixgs. Where?
Mr. VAX Beurex. In Germany.
Senator Tvnixos. At a given date, do you mean?
Mr. VAX Beurex. At a gi\ en date.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1- 76
1192 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION
A second document, of which I recall no details, was marked : "For
the attention of the Director of Naval Intelligence only." The bal-
ance of the dicuments, according to the best of my recollection, dealt
entirely with far eastern matters, principally political and economic
developments. I do not recall any of those far eastern documents
which dealt with battle order or naval dispositions or those matters.
Senator Hickenlooper. With regard to the documents as you recall
them, was it your opinion then, or it is now — or what was your opin-
ion then or what is your opinion now; I will put it that way, as to
whether or not these documents that you recall would have — I am
asking for your opinion as to whether or not they would have been
of benefit to an enemy of the United States, with a corresponding or
comparable detriment to the United States if they had fallen into
the hands of an enemy ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. My opinion, and I cannot state it too strongly,
is that they would have been of benefit to an enemy of the United
States and a detriment to tlie United States.
Senator Hickenlooper. Let me ask you this. I don't know how far
I would want to probe this particular question, but I will ask you
a rather general question first and make up my mind a little later.
Did you at any time, either prior to the seizure of these documents, at
the time of the seizure, or afterward, come into possession of any di-
rect evidence that any person then in the State Department or con-
nected with the State Department had anything to do with the de-
livery to Amerasia of classified documents? I am just asking whether
information came directly to you.
Mr. VAN Beuren. I understand the question to be, did I come into
possession of any such direct evidence?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes.
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir ; I did not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know whether there is any source
within OSS or any other official Government agency that did come into
possession of any direct evidence that any individuals connected with
the State Department had anything to do with the delivery of classified
documents to Amerasia ? I am not asking you for just your guess on
the thing, or any rumor. I am asking for some place where we
might be able to go to investigate
Senator Tydings. Direct knowledge ; something we can get hold of.
Mr. VAN Beuren. I would assume, sir, that since the Federal Bureau
of Investigation ari'ested John Stewait Service and Larsen and Roth,
all of whom were connected with the State Department, that they had
such evidence.
Senator Hickenlooper. But so far as you are personallj^ concei-ned,
or the OSS personnel, so far as you personally know, you did not
acquire direct evidence on your own investigation that any person in
the State Department had anything to do with transferring documents
or delivering documents of a classified nature to Amerasia or any of
its personnel ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was OSS, so far as you know — that is, you
or any other person connected with OSS — contacted or interviewed
either prior to or any time thereafter, the arrests of these persons in
the Amerasia case with regard to evidence or the giving of evidence,
or what evidence you could give? In other words, did anybody come
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LWESTIGATrON 1 1 03
:aml interview you or interview anybody in OSS to your know]ed<^e
about any facts or circumstances wliich nii<j;lit be used as evidence in a
trial or prosecution of either the people wlio were arrested oi- (he
possibility of arrest?
Mr. VAN Beurex. So far as I know, not, sir, with the single exception
that I myself was contacted quite recently by Mr. Service and Mr.
Service's attorney. By quite recently, the date was April 27 of this
year. I was contacted as to Avhether or not 1 had any iulormatioii in
connection with Mr. Service's loyalty hearing.
Senator IIickexloopek. And did they make any representations of
any kind to you at that time, or what was the nature of that contact ?
^Ir. VAN Beuren. The nature of the interview was simply this, sir,
that thej^ asked me whether I had known of Mr. Service during this
period we are talking about, or prior to his arrest, and I told tliem
that I had never heard Mr. Service's name until I had read it in the
newspaper. I gave them an outline of the facts that I have testitied
to here as to ni}' connection with the Amerasia matter.
Senator HicKENLOorER. I ar.i sorry my background is not the best on
this. There might be some other questions I would want to ask Mr.
van Beuren. At the moment, that is all I have.
Senator Tydings. ]\Ir. ]Morgan, do you have some questions ?
Mr. Morgan. Yes, a few.
For our record, Mv. van Beuren, am I to understand that you were
not interviewed by representatives of the FBI either before or after
the arrest?
Mr. VAX Beuren. Either before or after the arrests? I was itot in-
terviewed before or after. I omitted one part of what I should have
answered to Senator Hickenlooper's question.
Subsequent to ni}- conversation here in April, just past, with Mr.
Service and ]Mr. Service's attorney, two representatives of the FBI
called on me at the request of the Loyalty Board.
Senator Tydings. That was in 1950?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes. sir, within the last -3 weeks.
Mr. Morgan. Weren't you interviewed on June 21, 1945, by Special
Agent Oscar Keep, of the FBI ?
I\Ir. VAN Beuren. I may have been, Mr. Morgan. It would have
been in the course of regular business. I have no independent recollec-
tion of it.
Mr. Morgan. I mean, interviewed specifically in connection with
jour knowledge of the Amerasia case and your knowledge concerning
the documents in the case?
]Mr. AAN Beuren. I have no recollection of it. I have since been told
by my associates, although I have no recollection of this either, that
subsequent to the arrests a number of OSS documents were bi'ought
over to the Oflice of Strategic Services by agents of the FBI for identi-
fication, with the understanding at least on the part of those who saw
them that they had been found in the Amerasia offices, and we were
asked to identify them and to check their dissemination and give the
facts about them. That, however, was handled n(;t by me pers(nially.
That was handled by my deputy. I had no recollection of this until I
spoke to him.
Mr. ]\IoRGAN. As I understand your testimony, Mr. van Beuren,
at the meeting, I believe, at Mr. Stettinius' home, reference was nuule
1194 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY EVVESTIGATTON
to the fact that this situation miglit clear up something that had been
plaguing you.
Mr. VAX Beui:i:n. Things that had been plaguing them.
Mr. jMorgan. What was meant by that, do you know ?
Mr. VAN Beueen. I have no idea, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Was it your understanding that that might indicate
that there had been other leakage of information?
Mr. VAN Beuren. It could liave lieen so understood.
Mr. Morgan. Up to this time had you in OSS had any problem
in that respect?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes; we had had some problems.
Mr. Morgan. Had you made investigations concerning them?
Mr. VAN Beuren. We had.
Mr. Morgan. And had you developed any information as to anyone
in OSS who might have been active in abstracting or removing docu-
ments ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No ; we had not developed any such information.
Mr. Morgan. We have had a nasty word tossed into this proceeding,
Mr. van Beuren, in connection witli this Amerasia case, the word "fix."
I would like to know if you have any knowledge concerning a possible
fix, or a fix, in connection with this case.
Mr. VAN B'euren. I have not, sir.
Senator JMcMahon. Could I see Mr. van Beuren's letter that he
addressed to the committee? Didn't I see in the press that Mr. van
Beuren addressed a letter to the committee subsequent to some of you
gentlemen interviewing him ?
Mr. Morgan. You may refer, Senator, to a vrire he sent Senator
McCarthy, and I, of course, v,'Al want to interrogate him a little about
that.
Senator McMahon. That did ]iot come to the committee? Is that
available?
Mr. Morgan. I have a copy as reported in the Congressional Record.
Senator McIMahon. I want to look at it in connection with this
testimony that is apparently now being examined into.
Mr. INloRGAN. Have you given us, JVIr. van Beuren, the full extent
of your knowledge concerning the nature of the documents, their
significance in your opinion?
Mr. VAN Beuren. If I have not so stated I would like to state, sir,
that all the documents which I saw were classified. My recollection is
that the classifications ran from "Confidential" on up to "Top Secret,"
I think I have already said that tlie documents had been originally
prepared by various Government departments, the documents I saw,
including OSS, War, Navy, and State. I know I have said that every
document that did originate in other than the State Department was
an official State Department copy.
Mr. Morgan. Did any of these documents relate in any way to the
atomic bomb ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Of the ones I saw, no, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Do you have any knowledge about the possibility of
one of them relating to the A-bomb ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. The only knowledge I have about that is what
has been — I have since discussed, long since discussed,, with Mr.
Bielaski, about a document which he recalled seeing dealing with
A Bombing Plan for Japan, or some such title.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1 1 95
Mr. MoiiGAN. At any time, Mr. van Bi-uivu, did 3011 coiisidiT any
of these documents to be relative to the atomic bonib, or did anyone
in OSS to your knowledge at any time so consider tliem?
Mr. VAN Bkikkx. Xo, sir; certainly nol. I ccrtainlv had no knowl-
edge of the atomic bomb at that time.
Mr. MoKGAN. In connection with (lie documents and the character-
ization of them, T certainly don't want to get into a legal field on
this, and I presume you are not a lawyer
Mr. VAX Beurex. I am not, sir.
Mr. MoKGAx. Under the Federal espionage statutes, it is my under-
standing that documents to constitute a violation must be related to
the national defense. Did you regard these documents which you
saw as nati(mal defense documents?
Mr. VAN Beurex. I believe I would so characterize them, sir. Xot
being a lawyer, I do not know what the limitations of national de-
fense were, but we Mere at war at that time, and I would assume that
any classified Government document from a war agency would deal
with the national defense.
^h'. MoHGAX. Was it vour understanding, oi- have vou been under
tlie im}n'ession, that these documents were to be utilized by an enemy
of the United States?
]Mr. VAX Beurex. At that time, no.
Mr. ISIoRGAX. Was it your understanding that it was to be used by
any foreign nation?
Mr. VAX Beurex. My answer to that would be, sir, that a very
cursory investigation of Amerasia's affairs indicated that Mr. Jatfe
had distinct Communist connections.
Mr. MoKGAX. "What are we to infer from that in connection with
the question just asked?
Mr. VAX Beurex. Well, I would assume, therefore, and it is nothing
more than an assum])tion, that any documents to which Mr. Jaffe
had access might well be made available to the Russians.
Mr. MoRGAX. Was the Soviet Union an enemy of the United States
at that time?
]Mr. VAX' Beurex. It was not.
Mr. Morgan. We have, of course, a great many documents in the
])icture here — some seized at Amerasia headquarters, and others
seized at quarters of other subjects in the case. We aie tiying veiy
diligently to ascertain who may have been parties to the purloimnent
or the abstraction or the embezzlement, as you might like to charac-
terize the manner in which they were taken out of Govermnent offices.
Some of the documents are OSvS documents. As the security officer
in OSS. could you give to us any assistance as to who may have been
responsible for the removal of the documents of OSS?
Mr. VAN Beuren. To the best of my knoAvledge and belief, sir,
and after a very considerable investigation Avhich was made of the
subject, no member of OSS was responsible for passing those docu-
ments into unauthorized hands.
Mr. Morgan. Did you make a separate invest igation concerning that,
or was that left entirely to the FBI ?
Mr. VAN Beurex. We made our own investigation concerning that.
We were constantly trying to maintain our own security.
1196 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. So would you feel reasonably confident, therefore,
in assuring this committee that it was not OSS personnel that might
have been involved in any way in the removal of the documents ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. There was never any evidence that there was any
OSS personnel involved, to my knowledge.
Mr. Morgan. Have you testified fully this morning, Mr. van Beuren,
to your complete knowledge relative to the Amerasia case ? Are there
any other facts you feel you would like to bring to our attention ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir. I think I have testified to my full
knowledge.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. van Beuren, I would like to pass now to a situ-
ation that becomes pertinent only insofar as there has been an implica-
tion that you have been, let us say, "abused" during the course of your
interview, or that perhaps members of this staff have engaged in
improper conduct incident to an interview of you. In fairness to you
T want to say it does not appear, necessarily, that what you may have
said or done has been solely responsible for this, but nevertheless, it
has been given extensive treatment on the radio, in the press, and it also
appears in the Congressional Record.
With that in mind, I do want to ask you a few questions in connec-
tion with a telegram which it appears that you sent to Senator Joseph
McCarthy on June 2, 1950.
Would you indicate for the committee the circumstances under which
you happened to send that wire to Senator McCarthy?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I sent that wire to Senator McCarthy after I
had talked to Mr. Tyler and Mr. Heald, the two gentlemen who are
sitting across the table from me.
Mr. Morgan. On what day was it that you talked with these
gentlemen ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I talked with them on May 23.
Mr. Morgan. Go ahead.
Mr. VAN Bei'ren. We had a very pleasant conversation. There
was certainly no abuse of me as a prospective witness, nor any impolite-
ness, nor any misconduct on the part of either one of these two gentle-
men. They asked me to outline the facts to my knowledge, as have
been gone over today, which I ])roceeded to do. ^ They asked me sub-
sequently to that only two questions, both of which' dealt with cer-
tain aspects of Mr. Bielaski's testimony which recently had been given.
I then asked them if I was to be called before the committee. They
said that that was not in their jurisdiction to determine, that they made
a recommendation to the chairman and he decided, but that on the
basis of what they had told me
Senator McMahon. Wliat you had told them.
Mr. VAN Beuren. What I had told them ; I beg your pardon — they
would recommend that I could add nothing to the facts already before
the committee.
I formed the impression that, and it is just purely my personal im-
pression, the matter was being treated lightly.
Mr. Morgan. Is there anything else tliat you care to add ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. How did you happen to send the wire?
Mr. VAN Beuren. How did I happen to send the wire ?
Mr. Morgan. Yes.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY I ISTV'ESTI CATION 1197
Mr. VAN Beuren. Well, 1 luul been reading the newspapers, sir, and
I knew that Senator McCarthy was very much interested in pressing
tliis investigation.
Mr. Morgan. Why did yon wait from INIay 23 to June 2, a period
of 10 days, before you contacted anyone about your concern relative
to the interview?
Mr. VAN Beuuen. Because I wanted to think the matter over, and
decide whether I wanted to send the wire or not.
Mr. MoKGAx. Was the wire sent bj^ you on the assumption you
would not be called as a witness ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I had had no evidence in those 10 days that I was
goinjT to be called.
Mr. Morgan. Had you had any indication that you would not be
called as a witness ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No. sir, I had not.
Mr. Morgan. Did Senator McCarthy contact you prior to the time
3'Ou sent this wire?
Mr. van Beuren. He sent me a wire, yes.
Mr. Morgan. Do 3'ou have a copy of that wire ?
Mr. VAX Betjrex\ No, sir.
Mr. Morgan. What did it say?
Mr. VAX- Beurex-. He said that he would like to have an expression
of mv opinion regarding the talk that I had had with Mr. Heald and
Iklr. Tyler.
Mr. ]\Iorgan. Do you know how he might have known that you had
been interviewed by Mr. Heald and Mr. Tyler?
Mr. VAX- Beurex-. No, I don't.
Mr. Morgax-. Had you discussed your interview with these gentle-
men with anyone connected with Senator McCarthy?
Mr. VAN Beurex. No.
Mr. MoRGAN^. Do you feel, Mv. van Beuren, that Senator McCarthy,
or that this committee, would have been more interested in informa-
tion of this character ?
Mr. VAN Beurex'. Obviously, sir, this committee is the one that is
investigating this affair.
Mr. .Morgan-. What I am interested in knowing is why you did not
send youi- wire to the committee if you felt that, or if you had an im-
pression here that, probably indicated the matter was being treated
lightly.
Mr. VAX Beuren. The only fact I had to go on there, sir, was the
statement made to me by Mr. Tyler and Mr. Heald, that they would
reconnnend that I not be called.
Mr. Morgan. You might be interested to know, INIr. van Beuren,
that these gentlemen have made no such recommendation. You say
they said they would recommend it?
Mr. VAN Beurex. They told me that that was what they would rec-
ommend.
]Mi-. ^[( RGAN. I should like at this point, Mr. Chairman, for the bene-
fit of Mr. van Beuren
Senator McMaiion. Before you leave that, have you finished with
your examination with regard to wliat circumstances inclined Mr. van
Beuren to send this telegram to McCarthy?
Did you have a conversation subsequent to the time McCarthy wired
you wilh Senator McCarthy on the telephone or otherwise?
1198 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
INli-. VAN Bei'Rkn. I had a conversation with him on the telephone on
the morning on whicli I sent him the wire.
Senator McMakox. What w\as the pnrpose of that telephone
conversation ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. The purport of that telephone conversation was
that he asked me whether I had received his wire and was replying to
it.
Senator McMahon. Wliat did yon tell him?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I told him that I had already replied to it.
Senator McMahon. What else did he say?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I think he said "Thank you" and that is all, as far
as I I'ecall.
Senator McMahon. He did not ask you what was going to be in the
wire ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No.
Senator Tydings. Did he make any suggestions as to what the wire
should contain?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Did Senator McCarthy make any suggestions?
No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Did anybody — he or anybody talking from his
office?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, neither he nor anybody.
Senator Tydings. He just said, "Are you going to reply to my wire?"
and you said "Yes" and he said "Thank you" and hung up ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. That is the substance of it.
Senator Tydinos. Did anybody come to see you connected with Sen-
ator McCarthy's ojieration?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Did anybody come to see you connected with
this committee other than the two men who are here?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes. I have talked with Mr. IMorris.
Senator Tydings. That's right. Now what conversation did you
and Mr. Moi-ris have together ? Give us the full conversation about
that matter. Did he help you to get up the telegram ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. AVas he there when you sent it ?
Mr. van Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. How long had he left before you sent it?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I had not seen Mr. Morris— wait one moment —
I saw Mr. Morris in New York on May 17.
Senator Tydings. Stop right there. On May 17? Where?
Mr. VAN Beuren. At the University Club.
Senator Tydings. What was the ^lature of your visit with Mr.
Morris about tliis case?
Mr. VAN Bki HEN. It was about this case, yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. And what was the subject? What was the gen-
eral sum of the conversation you had with Mr. Morris ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. In essence, sir, just what we have been talking
about today.
Senator Tydings. Did he make any suggestions to you as to what
you might do?
INfr. VAN Beuren. No; he did not.
Senator Tydings. Did you make any to him ?
Mr.'VAN Beuren. No, sir.
STATE DEPART-MEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^•ESTI^.ATION 1 199
Senator Tydinos. Wliat "would you talk about, (hen ^
Mr. VAN Beukkx. He asked me to see him.
Senator TYnixcjs. Yes^
Mr. VAX Ijkukkx. And told me he was of cdunsel for tiiis coiunnt-
tee, and he would like to discuss the case with me.
Senator Tyoixos. Did he make any observation as to what you
mi«»ht or mijiht not conti-ibute to the case if you came as a witness^
Mr. VAN Beukex. I don't honestly recall, sir.
Senator Ttdings. Did he say that he thou<2;ht you ought to be
called?
Mr. VAX Beukex. 1 think he indicated that. yes.
Senator Tydixgs. Did he say what he thought you could testify to
if you were called as a result of yoni- talk?
Mr. VAX'^ Beukex. No. 1 think that he was principally' interested
in seeing what I could testify to.
Senator Tydixgs. All right. Let's leave May IT. When did you
see Mr. Morris again?
JNIr. VAN Beuken. I talked to him on the telephone over that fol-
lowing week end. May 17 was a Wednesday.
Senator Tydix^^gs. That's right.
Senator McMaiion. Is that a diary you have in your hand?
]\rr. VAN Beurex'. No. sir: it is not a diary. It is a date book.
Senator McMahon. Have you any notes of j^our conversations with
Mr. Morris ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir ; I have no notes anywhere of my conversa-
tions with Mr. Morris.
Senator Tydings. Next j'on say j^ou had a telephone conversation
with him over the week end. What was that about? If you had
already discussed the case on the l7th, why did he call you? Tell us
just what happened in that conversation. What was it about?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Well, Mr. Morris and General Donovan had had a
conversation previous to my conversation with Mr. Morris.
Senator Tydings. Were you there ?
Mr. VAN^ Beuren". No, sir; I was not.
Senator Tydings. Who told you that?
Mr. VAN Beuren. General Donovan.
Senator -Tydings. All right. Was this before that week end, or
after that week end ?
Mr. VAN Beurex". That was before that week end, sir.
Senator Tydings. What was the conversation that you and Mr.
Morris had on that week end ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I am doing my best to recollect, Senator.
Senator McMahon. It is only 10 days ago, or 2 weeks ago.
Senator Tydings. You evidently were building up, then, toward the
time you felt you might or might not be called in the case. You were
thinking about the case, so what was your conversation with Mr.
Morris? Certainly if you remember he called you you must have
some recollection of what took place in the conversation.
Mr. VAN Beuren. It dealt, to the best of my recollection, with some
questions that Mr. Morris and General Donovan had discussed, to
which I had told Mr. Morris in our conversation I would see if I could
get an answer.
Senator Tydings. Can you recall what they were?
1200 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATrON
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir ; I don't recall what they were.
Senator Tydings. Did you ever get an answer ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Did you ever call him back ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Did he ever call you back ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. To the best of my knowledge, that is the last talk
I have had with him.
Senator Tydings. Did you have any communication with him in
any other manner, by letter, by telegram, by emissary, or in any other
fashion ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. So that he asked you to get some evidence, or
answers to certain questions, and you said you would look into it,
and there was no further communication from him or to you ?
j\Ir. VAN Beuren. I told him, of course, in this telephone conversa-
tion, that I had no further information.
Senator Tydings. When did 3'ou see Mr. Morris again, after that
week end, the 21st of May week end ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I have not seen him again since that time.
Senator Tydings. Have you communicated with him ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. HaA^e you conmiunicated with him through an
emissary or by letter ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. With Avhom have you communicated from Wash-
ington on this matter?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I have conmiunicated with Mr. Fred Woltman, of
the World-Telegram.
Senator Tydings. That's right. With whom else ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I have already spoken about Senator McCarthy
and Mr. Morris.
Senator Tydings. Have you visited with Senator McCarthy at any
time within the last 3 months, up to the present?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I have never met him, sir.
Senator Tydings. How many times did you talk with him ?
]Mr. VAN Beuren. Once.
Senator Tydings. And it was a very short conversation ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. That is right.
Senator Tydings. You promised you would send him a telegram, did
you?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I did.
Senator Ttoings. Wliat did he ask you to send in the telegram ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. He asked me to send him a telegram, I have said,
giving my reaction to my talk with Mr. Tyler and Mr. Heald, Avhich
matter Mr. Woltman and I had alreadv discussed over the telephone.
Senator Tydings. Did he say Mr. Woltman had told him ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. He did not.
Senator TiT»iNGs. I have not read the telegram, either in the press
or otherwise, but I know something of its purport, because people
have told me generally what is in it. Don't you think you owed it to
the connnittee to give them the information that their employees, in
your opinion, were this, that, or the other, rather than to seAd it to
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY nSTVESTIGATION 1201
McCarthy? We have two Republicans on (he connnittee and three
Democrats, and we had interviewed everybody and interrogated every-
body tliat had any remote connection with (his case as fast as we
■coukl get to them.
Mr. VAX Beiren. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. AVhat more could we have done ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I ajiologize for anj^ rudeness to the committee, sir,
which I assure you was unintended.
Senator Tydixgs. J appreciate (hat, because we want to be fair
with you, but you brought obhxpiy on the committee and a certain
amount of cahunny on the connnittee without (lie couunittee being in
•any way responsible or a party to anything that went on, and even
so far as I can see nothing improper went on, l)ecause when Mr. Bielaski
told us his stor}' there was nothing, substantially, that you could add
to it. AVe woukl be glad to have you,' but I ascertain from a general
conversation with Mr. JNIorgan that you knew the names of nobody in
the State Department who had taken the documents; you could tell us
nothing that would show who took the documents.
What Ave are really after is to get hold of these very wicked peo-
ple Avho either through carelessness or deliberate design siphoned off
information from the State Dej^artment and other departments that
they had no business to do, and if T could get hold of them I would
put them all in jail. But we have to have evidence to do it on.
Mr. VAX Beurex. Yes, sir.
Senator Ttdixgs. And I ascertained that you could not give us any-
thing, and you have told us your story, and in substance — it has been
of some value ; I wouldn't want to say it had no value — it does not put
US in a position to follow a lead that will take us anywhere. That is
one of our troubles here. We can't get those leads.
Go ahead, ^Ir. Morgan.
Mr. MoRGAX. I would like to ask about tliis conversation with Mr.
Woltman. Tell us about that. What was said during the course of
that conversation? Did he bring up the fact tliat you had been inter-
viewed hj representatives on our staff, or did you bring it up?
Mr. VAN Beurex. I believe I brought it up.
Mr. MoRGAX. What did you say? Do you remember?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I said in effect just what I have said here.
Mr. MoKGAX'. You brought up, then, to Mr. A\'oltman the fact that
you had been intervicAved by these men?
Mr. VAX Beurex. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. I would like fV)r you to hear, Mr. van Beuren, on tlie
theory that you ma}- not have heard it, some characterizations of the
import of 3'our telegram as they appear in the Congressional Ivecord
at page 8114 on June 2, 1950, Senator McCarthy speaking:
Then we find the most fantastic situation conceivable, something unheard
ot in any Senate or House committee, unheard of even in a Icanj^aroo court. We
find that two iiivestijrator.^ went up and interviewed Mr. van Beuren and then
c-arae back and said, "He will not be called."
I was anxious to know what happimed at that meeting, knowing that Mr.
van Beuren was the man in charge of the Amerasia case who sent the men
out on the raids, the man who had lived and slept with this case for months.
I was curious why this man was not called, especially in view of the valuable
information he had. So I sent a telegram asking him whether he had been
interviewed, whether he had refused to testify, or just generally what the
situation was. Let me read his telegram. I think it is important. I have had
1202 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\'ESTIGATION
photostat copies made. Photostats are available to any Senators who want them.
Let me read the telegram to the Senate.
Here is your telegram, dated NeAv York City, June 2, 1950 :
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy.
Senate Office Building:
Messrs. Tyler and Heald, attorneys for Tydings committee, called on me
May 23. I have a strong feeling that they were more interested in my reactions
to Mr. Rielaski's testimony than they were in my knowledge of early stages of
the Amerasia case. At no time did they ask for my opinion as security officer
of OSS of the importance of the documents which I saw. I myself volunteered
that I definitely felt their unauthorized possession constituted a threat to na-
tional security in time of war. I told them that if the Tydings committee was
interested in that I would be glad to testify. I could also confirm and supplement
Mr. Bielaskfs testimony, as well as testify to the circumstances which led Gen-
eral Donovan to hand over the documents taken from Amerasia's office to the
Secretary of State in person. They said that on the basis of what I told them
they felt it was not necessary to call me. and they would so recommend. I feel
they were primarily interested in getting information from me which would
contradict or possibly discredit Br. Bielaski's testimony rather than information
that would further their investigation of the Amerasia case.
I wonder if the attorneys would have urged that I be called had I contradicted
Mr. Bielaski.
Aechbold van Beueen.
Now I would like to know specifically, Mr. van Beuren, the basis
for the statement that you felt these gentlemen were primarily in-
terested in getting information from you which would contradict or
possibly discredit Mr. Bielaski's testimony.
Mr. VAN Beuren. The basis, Mr. Morgan, was the fact that the ques-
tionse that they put to me had to do with two matters in Mr. Bielaski's
testimony : One, the matter concerning the A-bomb recommendation;
and, second, a question regarding the internationally known figure
whose name Mr. Bielaski I believe testified to seeing on certain en-
velopes and papers in the Amerasia office.
Senator Tydings. Only once, on one cover, is my recollection I
could be wrong, but I think that is right.
-Mr. VAN Beuren. Those matters were ih^ ones which were primarily
played u]:; by the ])ress and made the headlines. Those were the only
two questions of any importance that these gentlemen put to me
Mr. Morgan. Would it be of any interestlo you to know that these
gentlemen had never seen Mr. Bielaski's testimony, had not heard Mr.
Ijielaskrs testimony, and even to this day have noVread Mr. Bielaski's
testimony?
Senator Tydings. They have not read it; they haven't even seen it.
Mr. VAN Beuren. I jotted down a memorandum at the time. It
has been m the newspapers.
Mr. Morgan. Don't you think tliat is a rather serious indictment of
members of a senatorial investigative staff, to say that they had set
out to contradict or discredit testimony of a witness that appeared
before the committee? ^^
Mr. v.AN Beuren. As I say, I had that impression. IVfr. IMorgan.
Senator Tydings. Were 3;ou willing to broadcast it all over the place
us on the grounds of an impression? Don't you think you were a
little reckless, to put ,t very, very mildly, to putVourself in a position
ovnl!n l" r" '"" -l'.'"""^ the reputations of ihe^e men and going all
aio md the committee when if there had been anv fraud or attempt
to deceive or conceal, would it not have been highlv proper to have
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1203
brouiihl it U) ouv allention^ Tlien. if we did not take action, ycni
would have been justified in doinjj soniethin<j:. Instead of that you
went I'iixht out with a broadsword and slandered everybody, inebi(Un<;-
me. I dicbi't know about it until I had read it in the jiapers. How
would you like to l)e put in that situation?
JMr. VAN Bki'kkx. I wouldn't like it at all, sir.
Senator Tyoinos. How can one conduct a fair invest ijrat ion with
this sort of niisinfornuition goin<r out to the newspapers all over the
country? How can one do it? What nuin do you know of that we
can call to throw any light on this that has not been called? That is
all you can do, is to call witnesses and tell them to testify and then
interrogate them; isn't it?
^Ir. VAN Beurkn. May I ask, sir. in that connection, whether this
committee has called the former FBI agent who was the so-called
reporting officer in this case?
Seiuitor Tyoixgs. We have had the FBI here on the stand, the men
that had charge of the case, all the documents, everything, for days.
We have had all the Justice people; we don't run out every day and
jjut a hulletin on the board every 10 minutes. But what more can
we do than we have done to make a thorough, complete, examination
of this evidence? Will you tell me?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I am sure you have done that, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. Then you should innned lately correct it. I think
YOU owe it to Yourself as an honorable man. and I don't believe you
were or are a dishonorable person. I believe you Avere impelled by
some emotion or newspaper prejudice. I think you owe it to us to
say that your impression was whatever way you want to sa}^ it. It
will probably make it worse, but nevertheless I would rathev have it
worse and have the record shoAv it, because I want a thorough investi-
gation by this connnittee. I have told everybody h.ere — I want to say
this — that I want these agents to .<xo after evervthing that will bring
any real fact to light that is i)ertinent to this thing, and there is ]io
man in this whole thing that has lieen cautioned by me to go slow —
none of them. I want them to go all the way and get everybody who
is connected with this thing if we can find them.
But I want to be sure of my facts before I go out and grab every-
body and throw mud all over them, because I could just go out and
say. "I believe this fellow van Beuren had something to do with the
theft of these documents. He was a secui'ity officer, and I believe that
they were shown up.'' I would be just as much within the facts as this
telegram was. But I wouldn't do that to you, although I would really
liave more grounds to do it on than you had to do it to this committee.
Senator Hickexluopku. ill". Chairman, may I ask Mr. van Bvureu
a question?
ifr. va7i Beuren. you were a security oHicer in OSS: were you not?
Mr. VAX Beirex^. Yes. sir.
Senator IIickexlooper. The United States was at war at the time?
Mr. VAX' Bel^rex'. Yes, sir.
Senator Htckexlooper. You came into diivct knowledge that some-
body had purloined a large number of liighly secret or classified docu-
ments in the presence of wai" when our Nation was in danger^
Ml-. VAX Beurex'. Yes, sir.
1204 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATION
Senator HicKENLOorER. I would like to ask your opinion. Do you
think anybody was jDrosecnted properly for that treason and traitor-
ism that occurred in the Amerasia case? I am just asking you for
your opinion.
Senator ]Mc]Mahox. Is the gentleman a law3^er ?
Senator Hickeistlooper. He is a security officer.
Senator Mc]Maiion. AVhat difference does that make?
Senator Hicxexlooper. I am trying to find out whether Mr. van
Beuren had some pretty deep-seated feelings of patriotism about what
should be done in time of war or in connection with cases where these
documents were surreptitiously taken out of their official position.
Senator Tydtxgs. I am not going to object, but I don't think we
are really helping ourselves. I abuse it: we all do. I don't believe
we are helping ourselves by putting in the record a lot of opinions^
because I can give you my own opinion, which was that I think that
this is a terrible thing, and I could go on and put in adjectives and
everj'thing else, but I don't think that is what we are after. We are
after facts ; but, if you want to testify, go ahead.
Mr. VAN Beuren. I would like to say very deeply that I was deeply
shocked at the final disposition of the case! I thought that the FBI
did an admirable job in apprehending those who were apparently
guilty of it, and it was what happened subsequently to that that made
me feel as deeply as I do.
I would also like to say that, after talking with you gentlemen and
meeting the chairman. Senator Tydings, and hearing him tell me
across this table of his deep feelings in the matter, my impression has
completely changed.
(Further discussion was off the record.)
Senator McMahon. I have some questions that I want to ask on
the record.
How long have you known Mr. Woltman?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I have known Mr. Woltman slightly for about 3
months.
Senator McMaiton. You met him in connection with this case?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I met him in connection with this case.
Senator McMahon. How manv meetings have you had with Mr.
Woltman?
Mr VAN Beuren. I have never met Mr. Woltman personally. I
have talked with hnn over the telephone.
Senator McMaiion. How long have vou known Mr Morris «
Mr. VAN Beuren. How long have I known Mr. Morris? The 17th
ot May was the first time I met him.
Senator ^McMahon. Who made tlie contact between Mr. Morris and
yourseli?
JVIr. VAN Beuren. General Donovan
Senator McMahon. Wliat did the general sav when he called you
m that he was an investigator for the Tydings committee ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. What did Mr. Morris say?
Senator McMahon No; what did General Donovan say?
Mr. VAN Beuren. General Donovan said he was one of the counsel
tor the Tydings committee.
Senator McM^vhon. And he appeared and talked with vou in that
capacity f "
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTVESTIGATION ] 205
Mr. VAN Beukkx. He iutroducod himself as counsel for tlie Republi-
can minority.
Senator McMviiox. That is a matter that I think will have to be
taken up Avith the full connnittee. We have no counsel for tlu^ Re-
publican minoril}-. i\lr. Morris is one of tlie counsel for this com-
mittee.
Now, in your conversation with Mr. Morris, you went into every
cietail of your knowledge of the Amerasia case?
Mr. VAX Beukkx. Yes, sir.
Senator ^McMaiion. Did he take notes of that?
Mr. VAX Beukex. Xo.
Senator McMajiox. But you i>ave him the complete, whole story
so far as you remembered it ?
Mr. VAX Beukex". Yes, sir; I don't believe as fully as I have given
it to you gentlemen today.
Senator McMaiiox. But no matei'ial fact that you gave us was not
given to him? You gave him everything that was material?
Mr. VAX" Beurex". That's right.
Senator McMahgx'. And you know that he was counsel — at least,
so he said — for the Republican members of this connnittee?
Mr. VAN Beurex". He said he was counsel for the committee, Sena-
tor; ves.
Senator McMaiiox'. Xot just the Republican minorit}^?
Mr. VAX'^ Beurex". I Avouldn't want to leave the impression that lie
indicated that he was only for the Republican minority.
Senator McMahox. I see. So you had reason to believe that every-
tliing that you said to him was reported otlicially to the membership
of this committee. That is a reasonable assumption; is it not?
Mr. VAX Beurex". I have made no assumption in that regard what-
ever. Senator, because my first contact Avith it, v\-itli anybody from this
committee, was that contact.
Senator ]McMahox". Mr. van Beuren, you did not refer to the fact
that you had had an interview wnth counsel for this committee before
May 23 in your telegram to Senator McCarthy.
Ml". VAX Beurex. That is right.
Senator McMaiiox. Why did you not refer to that in the telegram ?
He, too, was an investigator for this committee. That was rather
regrettable ; Avas it not ?
]Mr. VAX' Beurex. He made no representation to me, sir, that he was
calling on behalf of the committee.
Senator Mc^Iahox. Oh: and that is the reason why you did not
p\it it in the telegram. Well uoav, I thought that a moment ago you
said you didn't want to leave the impression that he had represented
himself as representing the minority alone, because you understood
that he came as representing the committee.
Mr. VAX Betjrex'. That is correct, sir; yes.
Senator McMaiiox. You talked with him as a committee in-
vestigator?
Mr. VAN Beurex'. I didn't talk to him as an investigator, sir. I
talked to him at General Donovan's request after he had talked to
General Donovan, to go over Avith him certain of the matters that he
and General Donovan had discussed.
Senator IVIcMahox". Yes. But you knew that he was counsel for
this connnittee ;f
1206 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA'ESTIGATION
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes, sir; that is right.
Senator McMaiion. And you talked with him as counsel for this
committee ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahox. That is true?
Mr. VAN Beuren. Yes.
Senator McMahon. Now, you didn't see fit to say to Senator Mc-
Carthy in your telegram that you had had two interviews with counsel
for this connnittee, did you?
Mr. van Beueen. I did not say it ; no.
Senator McMahon. It might have left a slightly different impres-
sion from the one you sought to leave, might it not ?
Mr. van Beuren. I would have said so had I thought of it.
Senator McMahon. Yes. It wasn't suggested that you say it, was
it, Mr. van Beuren?
Mr. VAN Beuren. No, sir.
Senator IMcMahon. But it was suggested that you send a telegram
concerning your interview with Messrs. Tyler and Heald ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. I have answered that, sir.
Senator McMahon. I know you have.
You tried to give it a "jet assist," is the way it appears to me — the
old rocket take-off.
Have these two gentlemen been sworn ?
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Heald has; Mr. Tyler has not. I would like to
request that he be sworn.
Senator McMahon. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you
give in the matter now in question shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Tyler. I do.
TESTIMONY OF L. L. TYLEU, ASSISTANT COUNSEL TO THE SUBCOM-
MITTEE APPOINTED UNDER SENATE RESOLUTION 231
INIr. Morgan. Will you state your full name, please?
Mr. Tyler. Lyon L. Tyler, Jr.
Mr. Morgan. What is your present employment?
Mr. Tyler. I am assistant counsel to this subcommittee.
Mr. ISIoRGAN. In the course of your work with this committee have
you had occasion to interview Mr. Archbold van Beuren?
INIr. Tyler. I have.
Mr. Morgan. When Avas that interview ?
Mr. Tyler. May 23, 1950.
Mr. Morgan. Where ?
Mr. Tyler. In iSh: ^an Beuren's office at 6 East Thirty-ninth Street,
New York City.
]\rr. Morgan. As a result of that interview, did you submit a memo-
randum to me as chief counsel of this connnittee concerning the in-
formation giA'Cn you and Mr. Heald, who accompanied you, I believe,
on this investigation?
Mr. Tvler. Yes, we submitted it.
Mr. Morgan. Would you read that memorandum into our record
at tliis time, please? What is the date of the memorandum?
Mr. Tyler. It is dated iSIay 25, 1950.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1207
Memorandum fob the Files
lie interview with Archbolcl van Beuren.
Mr. Tyler and Mr. IleaUl interviewed .Mr. van Beuren on Tuesday, May 23, at
his office in the Cue Buildiuir, 0 East Thirty-ninth Street, New York City. Mr.
van Beuren was advised that we desired information as to his lvnowh'd,i;e (tf the
xVmerasia case upon wliich the subcommittee could decide whether it would
call him as a witness.
Mr. van Beuren save the following account of his connection with the Amerasia
case. Mr. van Beuren stated that he was Chief of the I'.ranch of Security for
the Ollice of Strateiric Services at the time that the case broke. To the best of
his recollection, around February 27 or 28. 104."). a member of tbe liesearch and
Analysis Branch of ( )SS, whose name he can't remcmiicr, came to see him.
This man bad a copy of the magazine, Amerasia, and also a copy of an OSS
report in Thailand. This report was restricted but did have a rather extensive
circulation among Government oflices. The OSS man who was the author of
the OSS report had l)een reading Amerasia as a part of bis as.signment. He
noticed that an article in the magazine was written in the fashion very similar
to that of the official report. In some cases the quotations were almost directly
lifted and the tenor and recommendations of the report identical. The OSS
man advised IMr. van Beuren that whoever wrote the magazine article must
have had access to the official report. Mr. van Beuren stated that he knew
nothing of tbe magazine Amerasia, but reported the matter to General Donovan.
Mr. van Beuren recalled that there had lieen a lot of leaks of Government ma-
terial at that time and therefore General Donovan had become very .strict. Gen-
eral Donovan directed van Beuren to initiate an investigation to determine if
any OSS documents had come into unauthorized hands. ]\Ir. van Beuren then
came to New York around March 1. 194.">. and talked to ^Ir. Bielaski, who was
the chief investigator. Mr. Bielaski then went to work on tbe case, upon which
matter he has testified and of wliich Mr. van Beuren only has second-hand
knowledge.
On ]\Iarch 11, 1945, Mr. Bielaski came to Washington eai-ly in the morning.
He placed on van Beuren's desk some 10 to 15 documents that he had found in
the Amerasia office the previous night. Bielaski told van I'.euren that he didn't
write a report because he was afraid no one would believe him, the affair was so
fantastic, but instead brought the documents down personally.
Mr. van Beuren's recollection of the documents is tliat they varied in number
from 10 to 15 and were documents of various classitications. They came from
the Navy, State, OSS and Censorship, but all bore a State Department mark
which meant that even if the document originated elsewhere, it had been a
State Department copy. The matter struck Mr. van Beuren as being extremely
important, particularly in view of the large number of additional documents
which Mr. Bielaski stated he had found in the Amerasia office. He assured
Mr. van Beuren, however, that there were so many that tl'.e ones he had taken
would not be missed.
Senator McMahon. If there are any points at which yon do not
aerree with any of this statement as it has been written, I wish yon
wonld liold np yonr hand.
Mr, AAX Beukex. I have one that I have noted.
Mr. TyIjER (reading) :
Mr. van Beuren then called to his office I\ra.i. J. J. :>ronigan, one of General
Donovan's legal assistants. The three of them went over tbe jiapcrs and the
facts of the situation and all agi-eed as to its seriousness. Mr. van Beuren and
Ma.1or Monigan then went up to see General Donovan and Mr. Bielaski returned
to New l''ork. They saw General Donovan that afternoon, gave him the papers
and discussed the case in complete detail with him. General Donovan decided
to bring tbe case immediately to Secretary Stettinius' attontion and called him
to make an appointment. By the time the appointment w;is made Major Moni-
gan, Mr. van Beuren and General Donovan finally got to the Secretary's apartment
about 10 : 30 p. m.
Mr. van Beuren stated that this was the last that he had anything to do with
the affair officially and as far as he knew was also the last of OSS's connection
with the affair with the exception that Major Monigan went over to the State
Department the nest day to discuss the case with their people.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 77
1208 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INl'ESTIGATION
In response to a specific question as to the details of the documents Mr. van
Benren repeated that all that he could remember was that all were classified ;
all but one dealt with affairs in the Far East; one document (which Mr. van
Beuren says he seems to recall) had to do with the German battle order. Mr.
van Beuren commented that he had particularly remembered this document
because it had been different from all the rest and he wondered why no one else
ever mentioned seeing this document. The bulk of the material was of a political
and economic nature and did not deal with the conduct of the war.
Mr. Heald asked Mr. van Beuren concerning the recent statements by Biela.skj
as to the atomic bomb reference, found among the papers. Mr. van Beuren
stated that some 2 or .3 years later, but not until after the Hobbs committee
investigation. Mr. Bielaski hnd stattnl tliat he often wondered what the docu-
ment headed "A Bombing Program for Jaimn" meant and whether the letter
"A" had been in quotation n arks or not. Mr. van Beuren stated that to the
best of his recollection Mr. Bielaski mentioned this document the morning of
March 11, 1945.
Mr. Heald also asked Mr. van Beuren about Mr. Biela.ski's statement to the
press about the unknown person involved in this case. Mr. van Beuren .stated
he knew to whom Mr. Bielaski was referring and he also knew how he got the
information. Mr. Bielaski had oi'iginally told him he had seen some names on
some manila envelopes in the office of AJnierasia and the manila envelopes con-
tained photo.stats of the Government documents. Mr. van Beuren stated these
names were not taken down by him so that they had not been turned over to
the State Department. Mr. van Beuren added tliat no over-all memo was ever
prepared in OSS.
Robert L. He.vi.d.
This was \Tritten with my concurrence and review.
Senator McMahon. Mr. van Benren has, I think, two corrections.
Mr. VAN Bp:i'ren. I have two minor points, two observations. In
one of the early parag:raphs you report tlie original report reproduced
in Amerasia was classified "secret," not "restricted"; and second, there
is a contradiction in your memorandum repirdinff the "A bomb''
question, because in one spot you say that I testified that Mr. Bielaski
had talked to me about it after he had testified before the Hobbs com-
mittee, and then I think the last sentence was to the effect that I said
that he had told me about that on the day of March 11. He did not
tell me about it on March 11, as I have said just before.
Mr. Ti'LER. I was going to say that, as I recall, the forepart of
that paragraph is correct, and we could have better said here that
Mr. van Beuren, to the best of his recollection, said that there were
documents of that type. Do you recall that being our discussion ?
Mr. VAN Beuren. That would be correct, that Mr. Bielaski had
reported that there were documents of that type, but not specifically
"A bomb." He made no connection then with the A bomb informa-
tion, is the point.
Mr. Heald. The language means to say that he first connected the
atom bomb after the Hobbs committee, but the document entitled the
"A Bomb" was mentioned, but not in connection with the A bomb.
Senator McMahon. With those two exceptions, is this a correct
report of the interview that you had ?
Mr. van Bkuren. Yes, sir.
Senator INIcMahon. Now I am going to put this on the record.
Senator Tydings said a lot of what he said off the record. I am not
gomg to make any protestations of what my intentions are with re-
gard to this case. I will let mv actions speak for that.
But T. too, resented the slander that you saw fit, and the libel vou
saw fit. to put on these tAvo gentlemen and upon me as a member of
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1 209
this committee. In view of that memorandum, and in view of what
you liave said to Senator Tydings, I am rereading this telegram :
Messrs. Tyler and HeaUl, attorneys for Tydinjis committee, called on me May
23. I have a strong feeling that they were more interested in my reactions tO'
Mr. Bielaski's testimony than they were in my knowledw of early stages of the
Amerasia case. At no time did they ask for my ojiinion as seciirity officer of
OSS of the Importanec of the documents which I saw. I myself volunteered
tiiat I (iefinitely felt tlieir unauthorized jjossession constituted a threat to na-
tional security in time of war. I (old tht>ni tliat it' tiie Tydings conuuitttH' wjis
interested in that I would he j^lad to testify. I could also contirm and supijle-
uient Mr. liielaski's testimony, as well as testify to the circumstances which
led General L^onovan to hand over the documents taken from Amerasia's office
to the Secretary of State in person. They said tliat on tlie hasis of what I t<dd
them tliey felt it was not necessary to call me and they would so recommend.
1 feel they were primarily interested in gettinjx information from me which
would contradict or ])ossibly discredit Mr. Bielaski's testimony rather than
information that would further their investigation of the Amerasia case.
I wonder if the attorneys woidd have urged that I be called had I contradicted
Mr. Bielaski.
Are you now prepared to endorse it ?
Mr. VAN Beurex. No. sir. As I previously told Senator Tydingsr,
after appearing before you gentlemen I withdraw any implications
of that sort.
Senator McMahon. I want to say to you that I think (hat is a very
forthright and decent thing to do. I honor you for it.
(Discussion was continued off the record.)
jNfr. MoiMJAN. May I contiinie?
Mr. Tyler, in the course of the interview with Mr. x-aw Beiiren, da
you recall having asked him any questions?
Mr. Tyler. Yes; and as he told the story, of course, questions were
interjected to fill it out and to clarify points, and so forth, so that
there were questions tliroughout the interview, sometimes of a minor
type, others to guide the story.
Mr. Morgan. Did you make any observation to Mr. van Beureii
concerning whether he would or would not be called as a witness
before this committee ?
Mr. Tyler. He asked if he would be called. We told him that that
was up to the subcommittee to make the decision as to whether he
Mould be called as a witness. T liave no recollection of having made
an observation that he would not be called.
Mr. Morgan. Did you make any recommendation upon your returii
to Washington that Mr. van Beuren not be called ?
Mr. Tyler. No: I did not.
Mr. MoRcjAN. Did you do anything by way of characterizing his
< bservations during the interview, apart from submitting this memo-
randum which you have read this morning?
Mr. Tyler. No: I did not.
]\rr. Morgan. I would like to ask you, Mr. Tyler, were you at one
time associated with the FBI ?
Mr. Tyler. I was for V\ years.
Mr. Morgan. During the period of your 13 yeai-s with the FBI
has anyone at any time ever suggested that you endeavor to discredit
or contradict the testimony of any witness that might be under
consideration incident to the Bureau's work, or in any other cou-
nection ?
Mr. Tyler. No, they haven't.
1210 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISTV'ESTTGATTON
Mr. Morgan. This is the first time, is that correct?
Mr. Tyler. That is right. If I understand your question properly,
it is, is tliis the first time I have been, shall I say, charged with having
indicated that a witness should be not called or discredited in any
way ? This is the first time.
Mr. Morgan. This is the first time ? Do you have any other obser-
vations you would care to make, Mr. Tyler, concerning your interview
with Mr. van Beuren or concerning the discussion here this morning?
Mr. Tyler. Well, I don't think I would. I think that the observa-
tions in the memorandum and what is on the record so far speaks for
itself.
I might say that in no case, as to any witness that is being considered
before this committee, have we been in the habit of making recom-
medations as to whether they are or are not to be called. We felt that
that was a matter of policy for the subcommittee and that we were to
write in the facts and lay them before the subcommittee through the
counsel, and they would then come to a decision as to who would be
called and in what order.
When we talked to Mr. van Beuren, we asked him to give us the
whole story, which he did. Our questions were designed only to
amplify that story and make it clear to us. We were not familiar,
as has been said before, with Mr. Bielaski's testimony, nor any testi-
mony, so far as I am concerned, of any witness in executive session,
before today, so absolutely we had, of course, no intention of trying to
get Mr. van Beuren to discredit Mr. Bielaski as such. We were inter-
ested only in the facts, whether they would corroborate or whether they
would not corroborate, any other witnesses.
Mr. Morgan. Did you regard the matter lightly, Mr. Tyler, at the
time you interviewed Mr. van Beuren ?
Mr. Tyler. No, I certainly did not, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Were you under any instruction, or were you impelled
in any way, to so disregard it ?
Mr. Tyler. No, sir. The only instructions we had on that were that
he was a logical person to be interviewed to find out what he knew
in the case.
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. HEALD, ASSISTANT COUNSEL TO THE
SUBCOMMITTEE APPOINTED UNDER SENATE RESOLUTION 231
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Heald, you are also assistant counsel to this com-
mittee, is that correct ?
INIr. Heald. Tliat is correct.
Mr. Morgan. Did you accompany Mr. Tyler to New York City in
the course of this interview ?
Mr. Heald. I did.
Mr. Morgan. You have heard Mr. Tyler's observations concerning
the interview. Do you have anything to modify or correct in any
manner ?
Mr. Heald. I do have a little more recollection of the conversation.
I specifically recall Mr. van Beuren asking us whether he would be
called, and Mr. Tyler again pointed out to him that it was a matter
for the subcommittee; we had no jurisdiction in that matter, and that
the intent of this interview was to report the facts to the subcom-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1211
mitee. I recall Mv. van Beuren stating that the reason he wanted to
know was to determine whether he should make any statements to the
press, and that if he was to be called he thought it would be more
proper not to make an}' statements.
We were unable to give him any further information, and my recol-
lection is that it was my intention to leave him with the impression
that we could not give him any answer as to whether or not he would
be called.
Mv. Morgan. Mr. Heald, you too at one time were associated with
the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Mr. Heald. I was.
Mr. ^Morgan. During the period of your association with the Bu-
reau, have you at any other time had a suggestion that you have en-
deavored to color testimony in the course of an interview, or to
discredit witnesses or similarly to mishandle an interview?
]Mr. Heald. No ; I have never been charged with any conduct of that
nature.
Mr. Morgan. Do you have any other observations you would care to
make concerning this situation?
Mr. Heald. I would like to point out that at no time w^ere we advised
that Mr. van Beuren had previously been interviewed, and it was our
impression that we were getting the initial information for this
committee.
J\lr. Morgan. And, on the record, I would like to state now, Mr. van
Beuren, in view of this matter and your observation that it may have
been regarded "lightly," that I have never seen any report from Mr.
Morris submitted to me as chief counsel of this committee concerning
the interview with you, so if I may be sacrastic for a moment, if these
gentlemen handledlt lightly, certainly he handled it in an ephemeral
fashion.
That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McMahon. I wish, Mr. Counsel, that you would call on
Mr. ]Morris for a report on his interview with Mr. van Beuren.
We are adjourned.
(Wliereupon, at 11 : 55 a. m., the hearing was adjourned, to recon-
vene on Monday, June 12, 1950, at 2 : 30 p. m.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
MONDAY, JUNE 12, 1950
United States Sex ate,
Co:mmii-tee ox Foreigx Relations,
Subcommittee AproixTEo Uxder Senate Resolution 231,
W ashing 1 071^ D. C.
executive session
The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment on Friday, June 9,
1950, in room G-23, United States Capitol, at 2 : 30 p. m., Senator
Theodore Francis Green presiding.
Present: Senators Green, McMahon, and Hickenlooper.
Also present : Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the sub-
connnittee; Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel of the subcommittee;
Mr. O. John Rogge. counsel, and Mr. Herbert J. Fabricant, associate
counsel, for Mr. Philip J. Jaffe.
Senator Green. Will you stand, please, and hold up your right
hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give at
this hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Mr. Jaffe, 1 do.
Mr. Rogge. May I identify myself as counsel for the record, O. John
Rojige. I would like to inquire whether under Senate Resolution 180,
whTeh provides that each standing connnittee and each subcommittee
of any such committee is authorized to fix a lesser number than one-
third of its entire membership who shall constitute a quorum thereof,
whether such lesser number has been fixed ?
Senator Hickexlooi'kr. ^Ir. Chairman, I suggest that the resolution
speaks for itself, and this committee is not called upon to pass on the
legality or illegality of the resolution. The resolution will have to
stand for itself.
Mr. Rogge. I am not challenging the validity of this resolution, but
the resolution says that each standing committee is authorized to fix
a lesser number 'than one-third of its entire membership who shall
constitute a quoium. and I just wondered whether a lesser number
had been constituted a quorum in this particular case, I am not chal-
leniring the validity of the resolution.
Senator Grekx. For your infoimation. may I say this is not a stand-
ing committee. This is a subconiinitteo of a standing committee.
Mr. Rogge. That is also included. It says "each standing commit-
tee and each subcommittee thereof." I wondered whether a lesser
nnml)er had been fixed. I think you understand that in the vSupreme
Court decision in Brj/an v. Fleishman I should make that inquiry.
1213
1214 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Greejst. The standing committee numbered five, and there
are three present. Does that answer your question?
Senator Hickenlooper. I was not objectino; to Mr. Rogge making
the point, but I would say I must object, or I would object, to this
committee attempting to interpret the terms of any resolution.
Senator Green. I am just giving him the facts.
Senator Hickenlooper. The resolution will have to speak for itself.
He has a right to make an objection on the record.
Senator Green. He was asking for information, and I gave it. I
hope it was correct.
Mr. RoGGE. Now, I should like to say, beyond that, that in these
times of hysteria, and I submit unfounded charges, I have advised my
client that except for identifying questions, such as his name and his
residence, I felt that I sliould. and I have, advised him to claim his
privilege under the fifth amendment to the Constitution of the United
States.
TESTIMONY OF PHILIP JAFFE, NEW YORK CITY
Senator Green. Will you give your name?
Mr. Jaffe. Philip Jaffe.
Senator Green. Wliat is your address ?
Mr. Jaffe. 49 East Ninth Street, New York City.
Senator Green. Mr. Morgan ?
Mr. Morgan. What is your present occupation, Mr. Jaffe?
Mr. Jaffe. On the advice of counsel I claim my privilege under the
fifth amendment.
Mr. Morgan. Would you care to state for our record what the
privilege claimed is, with respect to this question?
Mr. Jaffe. The privilege is possible self-incrimination.
Mr. Morgan. You feel that by indicating your present occupation
to this subcommittee you may be thereby incriminating yourself?
Mr. Jaffe. I am not a legal authority and I am following the advice
of my counsel in the matter.
Mr. Morgan. You might consult with your counsel with respect to
that particular question, as to whether or not you want to help us that
much.
Mr. Jaffe. What was the question, again?
Mr. Morgan. What is your present occupation ?
Mr. Jaffe. I am in the business of manufacturing greeting cards.
Mr. Morgan. Where?
Mr. ,Taffe. In New York City.
Mr. TVIoRGAN. Would you give us the address in New York City,
please ?
Mr. Jaffe, 225 Fifth Avenue.
Mr. Morgan. You are also a resident of New York City; is that
correct ?
Mr. Jaffe. That is right.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Jaffe, as a matter of background information, for
your possible assistance, this subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Re-
lations Connnittee has been empowered and authorized to conduct an
investigation with respect to whether persons now employed, or past
employees of the State Department of the United States, may be
disloyal. As a part of that inquiry we have initiated an investi-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATIOX 1215
gation into a case that is popularly known as the Aniorasia case and
I propose at this point to propound certain questions to you with le-
spect to that case, which it is the feelii.o- ot the sul)connn.ttee I be-
lieve has pertinence to the inquiry under the resolution authorizing it
to operate as a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Com-
imttee
Would you indicate for us, please, what your occupation was in
^^Mr.' jlFFE.''on the advice of counsel, T claim my privilege under
the fifth amendment. , ,, ,• ^
Mr. Morgan. That again is the feeling that to answer the question
might constitute self-incrimination, is that correct?
Afr T \FFE Yes sir
Ml'. MoEOAX. Were von at any time an editor of the magazine
•^Mrjr^k''6:^ J^^'eoi connsel I clain, my privilege under
*Mf MoZn'' Wn^e yon ever indicted by a Federal grand jury in
the District of Columbia, particularly m the year l.)45«
Mr Jaffek. On the advice of counsel, I claim my privilege under
'^M? M^r A^ ^^^^^^^^ enter a plea of "Guilty" to an indictment in
the rear 19i5 in the District of Columbia? , ^ , . . ..
Ail' Jaffp:. Similarly, on the advice of counsel, I claim privilege
under the fifth amendment. .,..-, , ^r. r.^fl-^ u„ fv,^ name
Mr. :^Iorgan. Do you know an individual, Air. Jafle, by tne name
''^^;.'^i™!' On the advice of counsel, I claim my privilege under
^^^^li" Mc^ol^'^vou know an individual named Obaic^r Hahman ?
Mr.' Jaffe. Under the advice of counsel I claim my privilege under
the fifth amendment. . i- • i i ..i T.mo- Pi AVn?
Mr :^roRGAX. Do YOU know an individual named lung i^i \\ u i
Mr. jAin^.. On the advice of counsel, I claim my privilege under the
fifth amendment. .■,■■-, ^ „i ni,^w Qir-V TTnno-2
Mr Morgan. Do von know an individual named the^^ S ck ilong
Mr' J vX:! Undei- the advice of counsel, I claim my privilege under
'^n' Mo^^^^i to presume that if I were to ask you tlie luimes of
let us saj'a dozen individuals in any category, that would be your
same answer, Mr. Jaffe?
Mr. Jaffe. Yes, sir. ,, ^ >,
Mr. Morgan. That you would not answer «
Mr. jAra. That is right. o -n • i ..9
Air ^roRGAX. Do vou know Irving S. Friedman ? i t .1 .im
Mr'. Jaffe. For the same reason, on the advice of counsel, I claim
my privilege under the fifth amendment.
Mr. :^IoRGAX. Do you know Alix Simon Reuther?
Mr JvFFE. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Philip C. Curtis?
Air JvFFE. The same answer. \ ■ „ a
Mr MoRG X. Of course, Mr. Chairman, my ques ions are being ad-
dressed to activities of this witness in the year 104o. I respectfully
1216 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IJSR^ESTIGATIOK
bring to the chairman's attention the fact that the statute of limita-
tions has manifestly run with respect to the charges that obtained
with respect to this witness insofar as the acts committed in 1945 and
prior thereto may be concerned. With that in mind, I would like to
ask the chairman to direct this witness to answer the questions as
they are being proj^ounded, and with that in mind I would like to
repeat a few of these questions.
No. 1, Mr. Jafl'e, during the year 1945, specifically in March of 1945,
what was your occupation ?
Mr. RoGGE. Mr. Chairman, may I point out that there are at least
two exceptions to the statutory period to which counsel has referred ?
This occurred in 1945. We were still at war. There is a charge, and
as a matter of fact it was stated m the Hobbs report, that there could
still be made a charge of espionage, on which in wartime there is no
statute of limitations, and there is a further exception to this par-
ticular statute, so that the period does not run until the end of hos-
tilities, and the President has not yet declared an end of hostilities^
so there are two reasons why the statute of limitations to which coun-
sel refers does not apply.
]Mr. Morgan. In that regard, Mr. Chairman, I would like to sug-
gest and ask the witness if it is not a fair implication, therefrom^
that the refusal to answer by reason of that portion of the statute
which carries the death penalty may not to this committee constitute
at least an inference of guilt within the terms of that provision of the
statute. I realize that a jury cannot draw such an inference, but,
Mr. Chairman, we are not limited by the terms of the law with respect
to inferences which a jury may draw.
Mr. RoGGE. I submit that that is an unfair question to ask a lay
witness. Even a lawyer might have difficulty answering it.
Mr. Morgan. At least for our record, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to suggest that the committee might well consider and bear that con-
sideration in mind, that the failure of the witness to answer is predi-
cated on that portion of the statute which presumes that a transmittal
of information relative to the national defense to some foreign power,
or with reason to believe it may be to the injury of the United States;
that he is claiming his privelege on the basis of that portion of the
statute.
Senator Green. Have you requested the chairman to direct the wit-
ness to answer ?
Mr. Morgan. I have. I have requested, Mr. Chairman, that you
direct this witness to answer the question as to what his occupation
was m March of 1945.
Senator Green. I so direct.
Mr. Jaffe. On the advice of counsel, T claim my privilege under the
ntth amendment.
Mr Morgan. I would like to ask the witness if, during the vear
1945, he was acquainted with one John S. Service.
Mr. Jaffe. On the advice of counsel I claim my privilege under the
littli amendment.
I\Ir Morgan. Mr. Chairman, I would request that the witness be
directed to answer that question.
Senator Green. I so direct the witness.
.J^niA^ '''''''''■ P"" ^1'^ ^^^'""^ ^* ^^^^"sei I claim my privilege under
the nith amendment. *=
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION 1217
Mr. :Morgan. Did you during tlie year 1945 know one Kate Mitchell H
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Jaffe, if I were to ask you concerning your asso-
ciations witli anyone during the year 1945, would you answer the
question ?
Mr. Jaffe. I don't think so.
Mr. INIoRGAN. For the same reason ?
Mr. Jaffe. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. I am wondering, INIr. Chairman, and you may care to
put this question to the witness for your own guidance in this matter,
whether the witness and his counsel regard the questions that are being
asked at this point relevant and pertinent to the inquiry being con-
ducted by this subcommittee.
Senator Green. Do you regard these questions as pertinent to the
inquiry ?
Mr. Rogge. You are calling now for a legal conclusion as to which on
this brief notice I cannot give you an answer one way or the other. I
can tell you what ni}' general
Senator Green. Excuse me; you were not asked the question. I
asked the witness the question, and you can advise him, if he chooses,
and then give his reply.
j\lr. Jaffe. I simply state that I am not a legal expert and I would
not knoAv how to ansAver that question.
]Mr. IMoRGAN. Am I to understand, Mr. Jaffe, that incident to the
deliberations of this subconmiittee you are declining to answer any
questions which may be propounded to you apart from the statement
of your name, your present address, and your present occupation ? Is
that correct ?
j\lr. Jaffe. That is true.
Mr. Morgan. In this regard, Mr. Chairman, I would like to call
attention to the witness and read at this point in the record the provi-
sions of 62 Statutes 833. which is, of course, 180 United States Code
348G :
No testimony given by a witness before either House or before any committee
of eitlier House or before any joint committee established by joint or concurrent
resolution of the two Houses of Congress shall be used as evidence in any criminal
proceeding against him in court, except in a prosecution for i)erjury committed
in giving such testimony, but an official paper or record produced by him is not
within the said privilege.
Now, I am asking you, Mr. Jaffe, and of course you may consult with
your counsel, as to whether you are refusing to answer these questions
m the light of and witli knowledge of this provision of the Federal
statutes.
Mr. RoGGE. This is a legal question, and I will be vei-y happy to
answer it. I would simply have to tell him, and I don't think he would
get the answer right. 1 can tell you what my own researches show, if
the committee would like to hear it.
Senator Green. "We would rather have you answer through the
witness.
Senator McMahon. Suppose we have him state it, Mr. Chairman,
and he can adopt it or disavow it.
Senator Green. You may take that procedure, if you wish.
Mr. RoGGE. This section 'which you have read is not a complete ini-
munity statute. If it were, it would be another matter. All that this
1218 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
statute provides is that this man's answers given before this committee
may no be used in court. It does not mean that leads or other testi-
mony of other people may not be used. We have examined into this
question. This statute is not a complete immunity statute, and would
not protect this man, and for that reason I can say to this committee
that we have taken this statute ino consideration in reaching our con-
clusion.
Mr. Jaffe. I would accept my counsel's statement.
Senator McMahon. You adopt that statement as your own?
Mr. Jaffe. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahon. May we have a conference?
(The committee and conmiittee counsel retired from the hearing
room.)
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Jaffe, have you ever been known by any other name
thanPhilip J. Jaffe?
Mr. Jaffe. On the advice of counsel, I claim my privilege under
the fifth amendment.
Senator McMaiion. I ask Mr. Rogge, as his counsel, whether he be-
lieves, arid was so advising him, that that question, if answered, would
be sell-incriminatory, or tending to be self-incriminatory.
Mr. RoGGE. In normal times it would be one thing, but in these times,
with a grand jury that they call a runaway grand jury in New York, I
feel, and I would like to also add another comment to, that I would like
to make clear: The committee counsel asked whether Mr. Jaffe would
refuse to answer all questions except identifying questions. That is
correct, but within this framework. I think that anything the com-
mittee is authorized to inquire about is in an area, aside from identi-
fication, in which Mr. Jaffe should claim this privilege. If this com-
mittee, for instance, were to go beyond the Amerasia case into other
matters, Mr. Jaffe would probably answer them, but anything in any
way connected with the Amerasia case, or what this committee is in-
vestigating, and even, yes, whether he has used other names, in my
opinion, and I have gone over this very carefully, I think in these
times he should claim his privilege under self-incrimination; yes.
Senator McMahon. Do you adopt that ?
Mr. Jaffe. Yes ; I do.
Senator MaMaiion. In toto?
M'r. Jaffe. In toto.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Jaffe, during the year 1944 was the publication
Amerasia a corporation or a proprietorship or a partnership?
Mr. Jaffe. On the advice of counsel, I claim my privilege under the
fifth amendment.
_ Mr. Rogge. Here ngain, if I may, I have, since this is on the topic
in which I did wish to submit a couple of documents, there were
charges that Amerasia was a corporation in 1945 or 1946, whatever
the time was. I can to this committee, and I have documentary evi-
dence here, that it passed to private ownership as of January 1 " 1944
and I have here au issue for October 20. 1944, which shows that it is'
in private ownership: I have an issue for the preceding vear which
■shows that it is Amerasia, Inc.
So that although the witness will give the same answer, since I had
these two documents, which I wanted to leave with the committee,
I wiJI be very happy to supply them on that question.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1219
Senator IIr'kenlooper. I would like to ask whether counsel on be-
half of J\Ir. Jaffe submits these two documents as part of the testimony
of Mr. Jall'e.
Mr. RoGGE. No. I simply brou<rh( these alon<; because (he charge
was made, and I was goinp; to hand them informally to the chairman.
Since the question was asked, I pivscnt them. I do that informally.
Senator Gkeex. You can't do anythino- here informally today. You
either present them formally or not at all.
Mr. RoGGE. Then I shall take them back.
Senator McMaiiox. I would like to make a note of this.
Mr. ^Morgan. Now, Mr. Jaffe. I intend to ask you a series of ques-
tions here with resj^ect to individuals whose identities have distinct
pertinence to the investigation presently beinfj conducted by this
subcommittee. They nuiy or may not have a relationship to the so-
called Amerasia case. I will ask you with respect to a few of them.
I am going to ask you Avith respect to some others in addition to those
concerning whom I have already asked you.
Do you know Alvin Barber?
]Mr. Jaffe. On the advice of counsel I claim my privilege under the
fifth amendment.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Joseph Bernstein?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer. Can I say "the same answer"?
Mr. Morgan. Yes.
• Do you know Chao Ting Chi ?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
]\Ir. MoR(JAN. Do vou have a cousin who is the wife of Chao Ting
Chi?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
]\Ir. Morgan. Is it your feeling that to answer that question w^ould
incriminate 3'ou, Mr. Jaft'e?
Mr. Jaffe. As I said before, I am not a legal authority, but on the
advice of counsel I am giving the same answer to all questions.
Senator Green. Do I understand you to say that on the advice
of counsel you refuse to answer any other questions than those you
have already answered?
Mr. Jaffe._ Xo; I wouldn't know how to answer that. May I con-
sult my counsel ?
I can't tell until the question is asked, but on anything that relates
to the subject under discussion I must claim my privilege under the
fifth amendment.
Ml". ^NIoRGAx. You appreciate, ^fr. .lafl'e, I assume, that the scope
of the inquiry of this subconnnittee extends far behind the Amerasia
case. Some of the questions that I may be asking you ma}' have
pertinence wholly unrelated to the Amerasia case.
Mr. Jaffe. I am not eimugh of a lawyer — in fact, I am not a lawyer;
I wouldn't know enougli about that. On the advice of my counsel
I have been answering all of the questions taking my [)rivi]ege uiuler
tlie fifth amendment, after T have seen what the qut^stions Avere.
Senator Green. Do you take the i)osition that yom- answers to all
tlie questions so far luive been on the basis that they are connected
with the Amerasia case?
Mr. .Iaffe. I believe on the advice of counsel I would have to claim
my privilege under the fiftli amendment.
1220 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Green. That they all relate to the Amerasia case?
Mr. Jaffe. No. I don't answer the question.
Senator Green. You don't answer that question ?
Mr. Jaffe. No, by claiming my privilege under the fifth amend-
ment.
Senator Green. My question was whether your answers were based
on the fact that these related to the Amerasia case. You certainly can
answer that.
Mr. Jaffe. My answers to the questions are based on my claimmg
privilege under the fifth amendment.
Senator Green. But your counsel has made a speech in which he
stated that you would not answer them if they related to the Amer-
asia case, that you might be willing to answer questions that did not
relate to that case.
Mr. Jaffe. I don't remember that.
Mr. RoGGE. I did say I didn't want us to be understood here as
refusing to answer all except identifying questions. I also said if I
understood the purpose of this committee, I did not think there were
any questions — I mean I couldn't conceive of any questions — that
could be asked Mr. Jaffe as to which he wouldn't claim his privilege.
I don't know. This committee may have a purpose far beyond what
I understand it, and if there are questions that have no relation in
any way to — I can't base it on the Amerasia case, really, Mr. Chair-
man, i know that we are down here from statements in the press
that relate to the Amerasia case, but the real claim here is the claim
of privilege under the fifth amendment. That is what it is based
on. I am not going to say there aren't other questions that this com-
mittee might ask him as to which he would give an answer. I don't
know. But certainly I can say to you that up to this point his refusals
have been based on his claiming privilege under the fifth amendment.
There may be questions as to which he Avon't assert it. I don't know.
Senator Green. Not only under the fifth amendment, but because of
relation to the Amerasia case, so far. Is that what you mean to say ?
Mr. Rogge. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I can't tell whether all the
questions and all the names, and I don't think I should be asked and
I don't think my client should be asked, whether they all relate to
Amerasia. I think it is enough if Mr. Jaffe feels these particular ques-
tions, in his judgment, would tend to incriminate him. There are
some of these names that are wholly foreign to me. I don't think I
should be asked, I don't think he should be asked, ''Are you basing
your claim because that relates to the Amerasia case?"
The question is, "Are you basing your claim to privilege under the
fifth amendment?" and your answer to that question is "Yes."
Senator Green. His answer in every case w^as under the advice of
counsel, and that means on your advice. I do^i't see how you can claim
that you may not agree with him.
Mr. RoGGE. Up to this point he has followed my advice. That is
correct. I don't think he should be asked to answer, "Is it because it
relates to the Amerasia case?" He and I have discussed the factual
situation. We have discussed the law, and I have said that any ques-
tions in this area, I have advised him in these times, to claim his privi-
lege, I am not going to say that there aren't questions — possibly, Mr.
Counsol. if yon even were to ask him, "Wliat is your education?" I
would tell him "Go ahead and answer that." There may be still other
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA'ESTIGATIOlSf l22l
questions you would ask liim. I would say "Go ahead and answer
that." Certainly where they relate to this area into which the com-
mittee is inquiring I shall advise him to claim his privilege under the
fifth amendment.
Senator HicKENLOorER. I would like, Mr. Chairman, then, to ask,
What is your education, Mr. JaflFe ? What schools have you attended ?
Mr. Jaffe. I have gone throngh the public-school system of the
city of Xew York, and I finally attained my bachelor-of-arts degree
from Columbia College, and my master-of-arts degree from Columbia
University.
Mr. MoRGAx. Have you ever gone to any schools sponsored by the
Communist Part}^ for the purpose of training in Communist doctrine
or Communist economic affairs, at any place?
JNIr. Jaffe. On the advice of counsel I claim my privilege under
the fifth amendment.
Mr. ^Morgax. Mr. Chairman, m view of the statement of counsel
that he would direct and advise the witness to answer questions about
his education, I would ask that the chairman direct him to answer my
last question.
Senator Green. I direct the witness to answer the question.
Mr. Jaffe. I must answer the same way, that I claim my privilege
under the fifth amendment.
Senator HiCKEXLOorER. By refusal to answer the question, is that
correct?
Mr. Jaffe. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAx. It is your understanding. INIr. Jaffe, that to answer
that question as to whether or not you had attended a school would
be designed to incriminate you?
Mr. Jaffe. I am not a sufficient lawyer to answer the technical legal
questions.
Mr. RoGGE. I can make a statement and the committee can then,
pursuant to the procedure that Senator McMahon suggested, ask him,
and he can say whether he adopts it.
In these times, and this happens to be in view of the Foley ScjuaT-e
trial, which in my opinion will be affirmed, the teaching or the ad-
vocacy, and maybe even the attendance of classes taught by Commu-
nists, in my opinion will become a crime in this country, or are a crime
todav. if the Foley Square verdict is affirmed, and in my opinion it will
be, so my advice on this question, too, is that under the fifth miikmuI-
ment he should claim his privilege.
Senator McMaiiox. Do you adopt that answer?
Mr. Jaffe. Yes, sir.
Senator McMahox. Without reservation?
Mr. Jaffe. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAX. Do you know Philip C. Curtis, Mr. Jaffe?
iVfr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. MoRGAX. Do you know Frederick Vanderbilt Field?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. jNIorgax. Do you know John Thomas Find?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. MoRGAX. Do you know Irving S. Friedman?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Julian Richard Friedman?
1222 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA^ESTIGATION
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Mr. Rogge ?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Donald Porter Geddes?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Eandall Gould ?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Michael Greenburg?
Mr. Jaffe. I want to go back to the question on Mr. Rogge, and say
I do know Mr. Rogge.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Michael Greenburg?
Mr. Jaffe. On the advice of counsel, I claim my privilege under the
fifth amendment.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Owen Lattimore?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. You refuse to answer that question on the ground
that it might incriminate you to achnit acquaintance with Owen Latti-
more ?
Mr. Jaffe. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Emmanuel S. Larsen ?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Y. Y. Hsu ?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Howard Salsam ?
Mr. Jaffe, The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Howard Selsam?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Paul Salter?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Charles Nelson Spinks?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Jaffe, have you ever at any time traveled to
China ?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. What is that answer ?
Mr. Jaffe. On the advice of counsel, I claim my privilege under
the fifth amendment.
Mr. Morgan. Have you ever traveled abroad at all?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, it is obvious to me that the witness
does not intend to answer any questions of pertinence to this inquiry
today. As a matter of fact, he declines to answer a great many ques-
tions which may or may not be pertinent to this inquiry today. I
may say, however, that in my opinion, and I think our record will re-
veal, that all of the questions that have been asked do have a degree
of pertiuence in one way or another to this proceeding today. It is
also manifest to me that if witnesses appearing before congressional
committees are permitted this blanket refusal to testify that congres-
sional hearings may as well cease.
Bearing that in mind, with the committee's indulgence I would re-
quest that I be privileged to submit a report recommending a citation
of contempt against Pliilip Jaffe for his refusal to answer questions
properly witliin the province of the inquiry of this subcommittee.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\ LSTIGATIOX 1223
Senator Greex. I think we had heller have a nieelinir <>f the nieni-
hers of the conunittee. We will willulraw for a few niiiniles.
Senator HkivKni.ooi'ER. Mr. Chairman, may I ask counsel if it is
necessary for this matter to he decided precipitously at this moment ?
Is there any particular technical reason ? If there is. you don't need to
give it noAV. If there is any reason why, 1 will he <rlad to take it up.
Otherwise, I think it is a niatter for proper consideration.
Mr. Morgan. It is mv mulerstandino- that we can proceed m one
of two ways. We can either reciuest that the contemi)t he handled at
this particular moment, or we can take it under advisement and refer
it to ai)propriate authorities in the district attorney's office here m the
District of Cohimhia. I helieve the latter procedure is the one nor-
mally followed, and it would he the one that I would personally rec-
omniend to the committee. . .. , ,
Senator Hickexlooper. I have no reason for not discussing it, but
I would like to get a little advice myself on the matter.
Senator Greex. I suggest we have this discussion in the adjoining
room. Would vou come. Senator, and Mr. :Morris?
(Members of the subcommittee and counsel retired from the hear-
ing room.) , . ^ 1 1 Ti i. 1 -\r
^Ir :Moro\x I have just one final question I would like to ask Mr.
Jaffe"for our possible assistance. Do you own any property m the
State of Connecticut, Mr. Jaft'e? . , ^, , „ ^ ,. ,
Mr. Jaffe. Yes : I own property m the State ot Connecticut.
Mr. ISIoRGAX. Where?
Mr. Jaffe. Stamford, Conn. . , . ,
:Mr. :Morgax. What type of property is this (
Mr. Jaffe. A home.
Mr. MoRGAX. Is that your residence? -r . • at v ^
Mr. Jaffe. No; it is not my official residence. I vote m New lork
Citv I am an official resident of New York City.
Mr AIoRG^x Having declined to answer a great many questions
alon- tile wa\^ Mr. Jaffe, I, of course, feel that I anticipate the answer
to this one, but I nevertheless intend to ask it: Are you now, or have
vou ever been, a member of the Communist Party ^
Mr! Jaffe. On the advice of counsel I claim my privilege under the
fifth amendment. -, , v ivr t #« ^Lof U ic n v5n
Mr MORG4X. Is it your understanding, Mr. Jaffe. that it is a mo-
lationof the law to be a member of the Communist 1 arty f
mJ' Jaffe. I don't know how to answer that question. I am no
^"^MrRoGGE. I would be very happy to state, pursuant to Senator
]\rcMahon's suggestion previously, and to see whether he will adopt
mv 'statement : T don't knoAV. ,. . ~ , it
Vndei nv oi.inion, if the Foley Square verdict is affirmed and I
think t will be, I think that to be a Communist will be illega m the
Sed sTa es. That is mv opinion of the length to which that decision
c,i Ties us on the road to an authoritarian system over here and there-
fore I would advise him to refuse to answer, as he has done, on the
basis ofthe fifth amendment. ., . ^ . ,9
Senator ^^IcMaiiox. Do vou adopt that statement?
Mr. Jaffe. Yes; I adopt that statement. of course
Mr. Mor(;ax. Is it your understanding, ^h. Jaffe, and, ^^ ^""^«^;
you have the privilege to confer w,th your counsel, that the I oley
68970— 50— pt. 1 78
1224 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Square proceedings, to which reference has been made, relate to mere
membership in the Communist Party ?
Mr. Jaffe. I don't know anything about that. I really don't. I
have no opinions on it.
Mr. Morgan. In chiiming your privilege against self-incrimination,
are you claiming that on the theory that your refusal to answer, or
the answers you might give, would incriminate you under existing law ?
Mr. Jaffe. I claim my privilege under the fifth amendment not to
reply to that question.
Mr. MoRCxAN. I repeat my question again. Is it your understanding
that the Foley Square proceedings related to individuals who were
members in the Communist Party, or to those who were advocating
violent overthrow of Government?
Mr. Jaffe. I don't know the legal aspect of that question, and I
can't answer it.
Mr. Morgan. Would you care to explain, therefore, for the chair-
man of this committee, wherein you feel that it might incriminate you
to answer the question, if you do not know ?
Mr. Jaffe. May I consult with counsel ?
Mr. Morgan. Certainly.
Mr. Rogge. Again I would like, under the procedure that Senator
McMahon has suggested, to say it is true that section 10 of the Smith
Act makes a crime out of the advocacy of the overthrow of the Gov-
ernment by force and violence, but the Government has contended in
the Foley Square case that Communists advocate the overthrow of
the Government by force and violence and has gotten a conviction
which, as I have said, in my opinion will be affirmed, with the result
that anybody who belongs to the Communist Party belongs to a group
which, according to the Government, advocates the overthrow of the
•Government by force and violence, and I think membership alone
might very possibly subject them, and probably will subject many, to
prosecution under tlie same section, if that decision is affirmed
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, I would request that the committee
take official cognizance of the fact that section 10 of title IS of our
code, which IS the Smith Act, provides no sanctions, no penalties, to
mere membership m the Communist Party.
I would also like the reporter at this" point to note on the record
tliat throughout these proceedings there have been present Senators
Greeii McMahon, and Hickenloper, in addition to which also present
are Mr. Morris, assistant counsel to the committee, Mr. Jaffe, Mr.
Kogge, and Mr. Fabricant, in addition to the speaker
I would also, Mr. Chairman, like to repeat my request as chief
counsel of this committee to make a study of this matter, and submit
an appropriate report to the subcommittee relative to the possibility
of Mr. Jaffe s being m contempt by reason of his utter failure to answer
questions regarded as relevant to our proceeding
remarksTo mX? ^''''^''' ^^^^^^^^^^P^^^ ^^^« yo^ any questions or
Senator Hickenlooper. I have no objections to the request.
Sena or McMahon. Counsel has made a proper request, I think.
Senator Hickenlooper. I would like to ask one question.
Mr. Jafte, have you ever gone under the name of John Philip or
I
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1225
Mr. Jaffe. Under the advice of counsel, I claim privilege under the
fifth amendment. .
Senator Hickexlooper. Have vou ever Avritten any articles under
the name of John Philip or Pliilips? Or under a name m which
both the words "John'' and "Philip" or "Philips" have been com-
bined with others?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you ever made any speeches or ad-
dresses to any groups of people under any such name, a name similar
to that, or using the exact surname or Chritian name such as^I men-
tioned in the last question, in the past?
Mr. Jaffe. The same answer.
Senator Htckenlooper. What is the address of your house m Stam-
ford ? .111
Mr. Jaffe. It is Erskine Road. There is no other address.
Senator Hickenlooper. When did you acquire that property (
Mr. Jaffe. A little over 2 years ago.
Senator Hickenlooper. Had you leased it or lived there prior to
acquiring the property as your property?
Mr. Jaffe. No, sir. .
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you own any real estate m any other
States, Mr. Jaffe?
"\T« Tat^fk N'o sir
Senator Hickenlooper. What is your public registration as to
political party affiliation in New York?
Mr. Jaffe. INIav I consult counsel on that?
Mr. Morgan, 'tes. . , ,. .i t^
Mr. Jaffe. In the last election I registered for the Democratic
Partv and voted for Truman. , , i ^ j
Senator Hickenlooper. I did not intend to ask whom you voted
for. I am not interesting in delving into the secrecy of your ballot in
the booth. But you registered as a Democrat last time^
Mr. Jaffe. Yes, sir, „ , n-
Senator Hickenlooper. In the election before, what was your public
registration as to party affiliation?
Mr. Jaffe. May I consult my counsel?
Senator'HiCKENLOOPER. Yes, sir. -r • ^ i i
Mr JvFFE. Mv memorv isn't clear on that. I registered perhaps
once or twice in the past four or five elections in the American Labor
Party and voted for President Roosevelt. I don t recall exactly
whether it was once or twice. • i. „j „.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you at any time publicly registered as
a member of any other political party or party tliat was carried as a
political party on the political tickets of ]Sew \ ork or anywhere else^
Mr. Jaffe. '^May I consult counsel ?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. , i . i
Mr Jaffe. I don't remember, but I dont think- so. _
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you ever ])ublicly registered on the
public record at anv time or in any place as a member of theCommunist
Party or any party that had within its name the word Communist
as a political party, carried as a public political party ?
T^lr Jaffe. May I consult my counsel ? .
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes. That is at any time or m any place.
1226 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXYESTIGATION
Mr. Jaffe. The question, Senator, is so broad — any public place-
however you put it.
Senator Higkenlooper. Any registration that is a public registra-
tion, a document open to the public.
Mr. Jaffe, The question is so broad I must claim my privilege
under the fifth amendment.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I want to emphasize to you
and to the committee I am asking for no secret actions on the part of
this w^itness. I am asking for any registration which he may have at
any time in the past put on a public record, wliich is public, as to
whether or not he has at any time registered as a member, on a public
record, of either the Communist Party or any party that had within
its name the word ''Communist."
Mr. KoGCxE. Even if he says he doesn't remember, in these days of
unfounded charges I don't know^ whether a perjury indictment might
not result, when they come forward with witnesses like Budenz. In
the circumstances, on this question I advise my client to claim his
privilege under the fifth amendment, in view of the broadness of the
question, "any public record.''
Senator Higkenlooper. Do you adopt that ansAver, Mr. Jaffe ? Do
you adopt the statement of counsel ?
Mr. Jaffe. On the advice of counsel I claim my privilege under
the fifth amendment.
Senator Higkenlooper. I may just observe for the record that in
response to counsel's statement about lUidenz, I believe proof of public
records is by public officials rather than by nonpublic witnesses, as a
rule, and I am confining my questioning to public records or public
registration that is open to the public, and that is subject to proof by
competent public officials in charge of those records.
Mr. RoGOE. Yes, but I doivt know but what this man's name hasn't
been signed some place, and we then get into a question of whether
It is his signature or not, and it is my opinion in these times the Govern-
ment gets witnesses to testify to many things that I think are ques-
tionabJe, and I can only protect this man by advising him to claim his
privilege on a question that is as broad as that.
Senator Higkenlooper. Mv. Chairman, I think for the record I
would like to submit to you and to the committee a request that in
view of the nature of tlie question which I am inquiring, and again
calling attention to the fact that I am confining it to a public record,
that the chairman direct the witness to answer the question
Senator (treen. You might add to the reasonino-
Senator Higkenlooper. I doivt want to add toS much to the reason-
ing, at the moment.
Senator Creex. The fact that he has already answered the question
as to another political party.
Senator Higkenlooper. That appears in the record, and I thank
the chairman for calling it to my attention
Senator Green. In view of those facts, I direct you to answer the
Mr Jaffe. The question is so broad that I am obliged to answer
that I don't remember. ^
Senator Higkenlooper. Would you recall it, Mr. Jaffe if you had
actually so registered with such a party ? it , n J on naa
I
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1227
^Ir. J.vFFE. I have jxiven tho best tniswer T know liow.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think (hat is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Green. Senator Mc^Iahon, have you any questions?
Senator ^McMahon. No question. I don't think there is much profit
in asking them.
Senator Green. I think it is the opinion of the committee that it
is futile to continue this hearing, and therefore I will declare it con-
cluded. The committee will take such action as it decides is best
after you have left.
Mr. RoGGE. We are excused?
Senator Greex. Temporarily. You may be recalled.
Mr. RoGGE. Yes; but I understand we are excused, and unless we are
subpenaed again, we -srait for another subpena. We live in New York.
Senator HiCKEXLOorER. I would suggest. Mr. Chairman, that rather
than leaving it to the issuance of another subpena. that the Chair de-
clare that the witnesses are excused for this time, but they are subject
to call under the same subpena at another time.
Mr. RoGGE. A telephone call and we can be here.
Senator Hickexlooper. I think the committee will not be unrea-
sonable about that.
Mr. RoGGE. We are free to leave now and go back to New York, sub-
ject to being recalled by the committee?
Senator Hickenlooper. I want to make this clear on the record,
that it is mv thought, in making the suggestion, that a notice or a
request, a telephone call or otherwise, to Mr. Jaffe or his counsel,
could not be refused on the basis that no subpena accompanied it or
was served, that :SIr. Jaffe is still under the compulsion of a sub-
pena. Let us have that understood.
]Mr. RoGGE. That is agreeable to me.
Senator Greex. They are excused, subject to being recalled on rea-
sonable notice.
Senator Hickexlooper. At such time and place as this committee
may desire.
(Whereupon, at 3 : 50 p. ni., the hearing was adjourned, to recon-
vene upon the call of the Chair.) /
STATE DEPAETMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 21, 1950
executiat; sessiox
United States Sex ate.
Committee ox Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington, D. C .
The subcommittee met. pursuant to tlie call of the Chair, in room
G-23, United States Capitol, at 10 a. m., Senator Millard E. Tydings,
chairman of the subcommittee, presidinjr.
Present: Senators Tydings, Green, McMahon, Hickenlooper, and
Lodge.
Also present : ]Mr. Edward P. ISIorgan, chief counsel of the subcom-
mittee; Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel of the subcommittee;
Hon. John E. Peurifov, Assistant Secretary of State, and Mr. Samuel
D. Boykin, Director of the Office of Consular Affairs of the State
Department.
Senator Tydings. The meeting will please come to order.
Mr. Peurifoy. I would like to be sworn.
Senator Tydixgs. Haven't you been sworn ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Xo, sir : I want to be sworn.
Senator Tydings. Stand please, and hold up your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give at this
liearino; shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Mr. Peurieoy. I do, so help me God.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN E. PEURIFOY. DEPUTY UNDER SECRE-
TARY OF STATE, IN CHARGE OF ADMINISTRATION
Senator Tydixgs. State your full name.
Mr. Peurifoy. John E. Peurifoy.
Senator Tydixgs. Please state your residence.
Mr. Peurifoy. Arlington, Va.
Senator Tydixgs. What is your address?
Mr. Peurifoy. 3425 North xVlbemarle Street.
Senator T ydi xgs. What is your present occupation ? .
Mr. Peurifoy. Deputy Under Secretary of State m Charge ot
Administration.
Seiuitor Tydixgs. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. :Morgax. Mr. Peurifoy, you are appearing here today at your
own request, as I understand.
^ 1229
1230 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\'ESTIGATION
Mr. Peurifoy. That is riglit, Mr. Morgan.
Mv. Morgan. AVoiild you care to indicate at the very outset, Mr.
IViu'ifoy, the circumstances Avhich occasioned your request to appear
liere this morning?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir ; I have no pre])ared statement on this. The
reason, Mr. Chairman, was that I was charged last Aveek in a speech
in New London, Conn., of engaging in a pay-off, attempting apparently
to influence a Mr. Larsen in his testimony concerning John S. Sei'vice.
It was also indicated that I offered him free legal advice. The pay-
off was the free legal advice, I take it. I liave not seen the transcript
nor have I read his speech in full ; and the other was that I had given
him security clearance in the Government for a job.
My reply to that is that that accusation is absolutely false ; that I
do not have much in this world but my name, and I resent it very
deeply.
In the first place, Mr. Larsen called me.
Senator Tydings. Did you call him and arrange for this confer-
ence ?
Mr. Peurifoy. He called me. I did not speak to Mr. Larsen, and
he asked if he could see me. He came to my office on March 20.
I had invited into my office when Mr. Larsen came for observation
one of my assistants, Mr. B. O'Neal Bryan, and he sat during the whole
conference with Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen came in.
Senator Lodge. What was the date of this ?
Mr. Peurifoy. March 20.
Senator Lodge. He requested the appointment?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir.
He started out by saying the reason for it was he wanted to tell me
of a meeting he had had on Saturday. He said he had been called to
Senator McCarthy's office. He implied and indicated that Senator
McCarthy had talked to him awhile and turned him over to a man by
the name of Sureme. I do not know him.
He told me that Senator McCarthy had indicated that if he would
testify favorably for Senator McCarthy, in other words against Mr.
John S. Service that he. Senator McCarthy, would not include Mr.
Larsen in his list of 81 names which he was going to give to the Senate.
He also told me what he knew and he also told Mr. Bryan what he
knew of the Amerasia case. I made no comment. I listened.
At the end of the conversation I said, "If you have any information
which you wish to give to this Department on the case I suggest that
you might go and talk to Mr. Fisher."
Senator Tydings. Who is Mr. Fisher?
Mr. Peurifoy. Mr. Fisher is the legal adviser of the Department.
In other words I wanted Mr. Larsen to give his story of whatever he
had to tell about Amerasia to Mr. Fisher. I was not sending him to
Mr. Fisher for legal advice and I did not expect Mr. Fisher to give him
legal advice. I haven't sent any employee of the Department to Mr.
Fisher for legal advice, and certainly 1 would not send an outsider
who I did not know except by telephone.
Senator Lodge. Had you ever seen Mr. Larsen before ?
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir: I don't recall; this was the first visit.
Senator Lodge. You did not know him before?
STATE DEPARTAIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1231
Mr. Pkurifoy. Xo: T only talked <o liim Ly tolophnno.
Senatoi- TYi)i>^cis. Why clid voii soiul liim to Mr. FisluT^
Mr. l*KURiFOY. I had 'asked Mr. Fisher to look into the Amerasia
case for the Department and so I said, "If you have any information^,
I would like to have you aive it to tlie lepil adviser of the Department."
Senator TyniNtiS. Yes.
Mr. Peurifoy. He then asked me if I would accept a memorandum
from him. I said, "Yes, bring it in." Later that day he brou«rht a
memorandum in the Department and irave it to Mr. Bryan, si)ecial
assistant of the Department. He did not hand it to me. I took the
orijiinal of that memorandum and kept it for the file and when the
Lovaltv Review Board took jurisdiction in the Service case I sent the
memorandum to the Loyalty Review Board without any comment
whatsoever.
Senator Hickexloopek. Mr. Chairman, what is :Mr. Peurifoy talk-
ing: about? lit ,^
Senator Tydixgs. He is answering the charge of Senator Mctarthy
that he did something improper. He is now talking about his conver-
sation with Mr. Larsen in the State Department.
Senator Lodge. I understood you to say, :Mr. Peurifoy, that before
]\rarch 20 you had one conversation with Mr. Larsen on the telephone?
Mr. Peurifoy. In person I have had one conversation Avhen he came
to my office on March 20.
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. Peurifoy. And he called on April 4 to inquire as to whether or
not Mr. Peurifoy received the memorandum he left with Mr. Bryan,
the material "To whom it may concern," and I told him over the
teel phone "Yes." , . ,
Then on April 11 Mr. Larsen called, to leave a message for me which
I have a record of, if you are interested in it, although I don'tjhmk it
pertains to this case. However, if anyone wants to see it I have the
memorandum here. „ , , • . a^
Prior to that, Senator Lodge, I do not recollect having met Mr.
Larsen.
Senator Lodge. Before the 20th of March?
Mr. Peurifoy. That is right. .
Senator Lodge. You don't recall having any previous conversation
with him? ^, . n ,
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, I do, maybe a year or two ago, this man called
me.
Senator Tydixgs. Who, Larsen?. , , i , .
Ml- Peurifoy. Yes, sir; Mr. Larsen called me and asked me about
his record in the Department, that he was seeking a Government ]ob.
He wanted to know whether he was clear securUy wise, et cetera.
Senator Loix;e. Was that the first conversation you ever had with
him ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. And it was by telephone?
Mr. Peurifoy. Telephone. ^ , ^ . o
Senator Lodge. And this was approximately what date?
Mr. Peubifoy. It might have been a year and a halt or two years
ago. ' I have no record on it. I just remember. n i ,
Senator Lodge. Did you remember him when he called up.
1232 STATE D'EPARTAIEXT EAIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Peurifoy. I did.
Senator Lodge. Did he call before ?
Mr. Peurifoy, A Member of Congress called me and asked me if
I would look into Mr. Larsen's record, that he knew Mr. Larsen and
wanted to know if the Department had anything in its record other
than the plea of nolle contendere in the Amerasia case. I looked into
the Department record and that is all there was on his record.
Senator Lodge. So it was called to your attention by a Member of
Congress a year and a half or two years ago ?
Mr. Peurifoy. That is right,
Seantor Lodge, That is the first time you became aware of his ex-
istence, is that right ?
Mr. Peurifoy. As far as I am conscious ; I may have read when they
arrested these people, but it was the first time it came to my attention.
Senator Lodge. So you became aware of this man long after hig
connection with the State Department had been settled, is that correct?
Mr. Peurifoy. That is correct, sir, and I assume as a result of my
conversation with the Congressman subsequently he did call me about
that time and he said he appreciated what I said. I did not say any-
thing that I would not say anywhere else. I told him what the record
indicated which was it showed that Larsen had resigned in late 1945.
There was a notation in the file of course about his connection with
Amerasia. I was not passing on his security. He is not an appli-
cant for a position in the Department; so I was not passing on it
at all.
Senator Lodge. You were transmitting information vou had, is
that it? "^ '
Mr. Peurifoy. That is all.
Senator Tydings, Did you commit yourself in any way on the se-
curity matter ? Or did you just read the record ?
Mr Peurifoy. I just called Personnel and got the record and re-
peated it.
Senator Tydings. You transmitted it?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes.
Senator Tydings. Did you add or subtract to the record ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Oh, no, sir.
Senator Tydings. Did you make any recommendation or statement
to the Congressman on Mr, Larsen ?
Mr, Peurifoy, No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Was that the sole content of the conversation you
had with the Congressman over the telephone ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Did you say it was the sole content?
Senator Tydings, Was this the substance of it, or was there any-
thing else? *^
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir; the Congressman was open and aboveboard
and so was I.
Mr, Morgan. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record,)
Senator Tydings AH right. Now go on the record again,
Mr Peurifoy. Well, so far as I am concerned that is all I have to
say about this, I play this game as straight as I Imow how. Ire-
sent these charges. I do not know what I can do about it except to
tell you gentlemen under oath there is not one iota of truth in either
ot these charges that I promised Mr. Larsen anythino-.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1233
Senator Tydings. Tlieii your statement is catefj:orically that you
did not make any promise to ^Mr. Larsen indireolly or of any kind or
in any war, sliape or form as an inducement to inlluence Mr. Larsen
in his testnnony in rejj^ard to the Amerasia ease or in regard to any
other matter under inquiry in the State Department?
Mr. Peurifoy. Absohitelv and most emphatically.
Senator Tydings. Neither that nor in any manner ever dealt with
him through any agent or man ?
Mr. PEURiroY. 1 want to say , i. i i
Senator HiCKENLOorER (interposing). For the sake of the i'e«>i-tl-
The Chairman asked the question have you done these things, ihat
is what the Cliairman emphatically asked in that question and there
was no cue on the answer. Without the "No" it would otherwise be
hanging in the air. i x- n
Mv Peuritcy. I repeat absolutely and most emphatically no.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Peurifoy, you are probaably not fa^mihar with
what was stated in our record on the matter and I would like your
observation concerning Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Larsen said :
I went to see Mr. Peurifoy and told him that I could not testify against Mr.
Se rvTce that he was a Communist or pro-Communist but that I. ^^^^j^J^ not hold
bick testimony that I did suspect him of slanting his reports m favor of the
Chinese Communists, who were then our allies.
Do you have any observation or comment to make concerning that
statement?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir ; I told Mr. Larsen :
T rin not know whether you are going to be called before the subcommittee
or not, o? before^ the L^^alty Boai'l.^ I assume you might be caUed before both
but whatever you say, you tell the truth. I don't care who it affects.
Tliat was niv replv to Mr. Larsen on that.
Mr. Morgan. Do you recall his ever having made this statement to
you :
Don't fear that I am going to testify against Service. ^
Mr. Peurifoy. As a matter of fact I do not i;ecall «^f I dont
care what he says about Mr. Service I wanted hnn to t^ ^h^ ^^ ^;:
Mr. ^loROAN. Do you now or had you ever ^^ ^^"J ^ "^VaJsen to
knowledge of the pending application on the part ot Mr. Laisen to
secure Government employments n+fom,^tino- to crpt
Mr Peurifoy. He mentioned to me that he was attempting to get
anothef Government job in an agency that I believe he described as
nonessential to the sJate Department, and he was applying and he
wanted to know what the Department would say. .
T told him the normal request would come in my personnel othce ana
umler m To icie , and the complete files of the Department of State
are ava^We to an'y agency in Washington that wants to see them.
Senator Lodqe. And they make up their own mmds i
SeL^o^lS^E. iTi'd you don't make a recommendation one way or
the other ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes.
1234 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Another statement I would like your observation
on, Mr. Peurifoy, is Mr. Larsen's comment when he said:
General Wedemeyer introduced him to General Boiling- of military
intelligence, who said : "I have known Larsen for quite a long time
and I have great faith in him, and I do not have such just superficially.
I have had him iiivestigated, and I have been told by Mr. Peurifoy
that there is no record against him in the State Department."
Do you know a General Boiling of the military intelligence?
Mr. Peueifot. No, sir.
Mr, ]SIoRGAx. Have you ever had any contact with anyone in the
military intelligence relative to Mr. Larsen ?
Mr. Peuritoy. I do not recall any contact at all in the military
intelligence.
Mr. Morgan. Did you ever to anyone observe, "There is no record in
the State Department against Mr, Larsen"" ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Only insofar as what I have indicated earlier. I told
the Congressman that the record indicated he had resigned. Obviously
there was a notation in the files concerning Amerasia. The record
states he resigned voluntarily. He says— I have a letter on that, I do
]iot know, I haven't seen the language
Mr, Morgan. Have you ever made the statement to anyone, Mr.
Peurifoy, there was no annotation in the State Department files of
disloyalty on the part of Mr. Larsen ?
Mr. PEtJRiFOT. Not insofar as I can recall. On the other hand, I
nnght say now that technically I doubt if there is a notation of dis-
loyalty, because there was no loyalty program at that time. This was
in 1945, when he resigned from the Department.
Senator Tydings, When was the lovalty ])rogram instituted?
Mr, Peurifoy, Li the fall of 194T; wasn"t it. Mr. Boykin?
Mr, BoYKiN. The Executive order was issued March 21, 1947, and
it got m oper;dion in October.
Senator Tydings, That is right. That is just for the record.
Mr. Morgan. Have you any other observation on that?
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir.
Mr, Morgan, Now, I think I must refer here to portions of this
address to which you have made reference, Mr, Peurifov, the address
of Senator McCarthy of June 15, 1950, in order to obtain your obser-
vations on it.
Senat^or Tydings, You mean Senator McCarthy's speech.
Mr, Morgan. The statement is made, referring to your contact with
Mr. Larsen : ^ -^
This is a picture of this top security officer consortln- and dealing with a thief
of Government secret documents * * *_
A? ^ ^v/''^T *r™ y"""?" testimony, you have had one contact person-
ally with Mr. Larsen ; is that correct ?
Mr. Peurifoy. That is right, I want to make another statement
on that, 1 am a public official, and anvone who wants to see me can
see me. I have always had that policy. I want to point out to you
tl^it a inember of my staff was present when this man came into my
office. 1 will see anyone who wants to see me on public interest. He
did not come to my home; he came to my office, which is public
property and anyone who wants to see me can come and see me
anytime they like, if I have the time to see them physically
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INAESTIGATION 1235
He did not point, however, tliat I saw this man before.
Senator Tydincs. Did lie come voluntarily to the Department?
]Mr. Peukifoy. 1 never saw him alone, Mi'. Chairman, and I don't
ever intend to.
Mr. Morgan. Another statement that I would like io liave your
comment on, Mr. Peurifoy, is this:
Ladies and gentloiuen, heiv/is tlit^ wliolo malodorous stm-y :
* * * Tlio thief of Siato 1 tepaitiiu'iit secTots, in a discussion \vilh tbo Slate
Department's top security officer says. "Don't worry, John. I wau't testify against
my codefendant, John Service, whom yon liave been pnl>licl}' defeudlny."
Mr. Peukifoy. That is not true. Mr. ^loroau, 1 never met the man
before. I don't call ])eople by their first names when they come in.
Senator Ty'dings. He is sayinj; this to you.
Mr. Peurifoy'. He does not call me that.
Senator Tydings. He said, ''Don't worry, John * '■' *".
Mr. Peurifoy'. Yes; I luiderstand.
Mr. jMorgax. There is a further statement here :
Acheson's top security officer then rewards this man convicted in the Anierasia
espionage case by oft'ering liim at taxpayers' expense tlie legal services of the
State Department's chief counsel. In addition, Larsen got full loyalty clearance
for any job in the Government.
Now, in your testimony thus far, have you made all the comments
you care to make concerning this statement ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Well, I have no authority to give anyone security
clearance in this Government. Obviously, I could not have made that
statement. But, speaking for the Department of State alone, where
I do have authority, my answer to you is, I did not say that, or give
him loyalty or security clearance. He was not an applicant for a job,
and I had no occasion to pass on it.
Then, on the question of free legal advice, I think I attemiDted
to cover it in my opening statement by saying when he left my office
I asked him, if he had any further information on the Amerasia case,
I wished he would give it to the legal adviser of the Department. Mr.
Fisher. I was not sending him to Mr. Fislier for legal advice. Tliat
was so we wanted to get all the facts pertaining to Amerasia in our
hands. Th^t was the purpose of that remark. I think it is significant,
as I really did not call Mr. Fisher and ask him to see him. He went
out of my office and told my secretary Mr. Peurifoy wanted him to
see Mr. Fisher, so she sent him down to the office. jSIr. Fisher did
not see him for some time, and subsequently mentioned he had seen
Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Morris. "\Aniat was the discussion between Mr. Fisher and Mr.
Larsen about ?
Mr. Peurifoy^ I do not know, sir. I am sorry ; I do not know. I do
not know, Mr. Morris. I assmne it was pertaining to the Anieiasia
case, because that is the only thing I asked him to talk to Mr. Fisher
about, and nothing else was reported back to me.
Mr. ]MoRRis. Just a second, Mr. Peurifoy. I understood you said
you did not tell him to see Mr. Fisher, and then you said you told him
to see him about Amerasia. I just want to get that clear.
Mr. Peurifoy. I said, if he had any further information. He spoke
of a memorandum he wanted to leave, and I said if he had any furtlier
information pertaining to the Amerasia case I suggested that he talk
to Mr. Fisher.
1236 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY I X^ESTI CATION
Mr. Morris. I just wanted to get that cleared up.
Mr. Peuritoy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Again referring to the speech, I liave one observation
that I want your comment on :
Peurifoy is not to go unrewarded. When his job in "Operation Whitewash" i&
completed, he is to be appointed ambassador to some lucky country.
Senator Tydtngs. Off the record.
(Discussion otf the record.)
Mr. Morgan. Do you have any comment to make oi^ that Mr.
Peurifoy ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I might suggest. Mr. Chairman, for the
moment Mr. Peurifoy might be the wrong felloAv to comment on the
possibility of his appointment in the Department. I might be em-
barrassing for him to comment on it at this time. I would not hesi-
tate, if I though he had something on this matter, but I can conceive-
that it might be embarrassing for Mr. Peurifoy to comment at this
time on what his future might be.
Senator Ttdings. I think that is a sensible suggestion, and, without
objection on the part of the committee, I don't think Mr. Peurifoy
needs to comment on it if he does not desire to do so.
Senator Hickenlooper. I may say that it is possible that it might
subsequently be pertinent to ask him about it. I don't want to close^
the door on it.
Mr. Morgan. Senator, my purpose in asking tliis was as a result
of the fact that Mr. Peurifoy is appearing before the committee today
at his own request to answer some of these charges.
Mr. Hickenlooper. I am not objecting, INIr. Morgan. If you feel
that the answer to the question is something that you want, I will
witlidraw my objection. I merely call attention to the fact that in
that particular field at this moment I personalh^ would not ask that
question about his future, unless tliere is some specific reason. If you
want to go ahead and ask the question, I will not criticize it.
Mr. Morgan. I have no desire to pursue the question further. If Mr.
Peurifoy wislies to comment on it, it is all right ; and, if he does not,
it is quite all right, as far as I am concerned.
Mr. Peurifoy. Mv. Morgan, they have taken no action on my future^
and I don't think that I, perhaps, should really comment on any
possibility.
Senator McMaiion. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Tydings. On the record.
Inasmuch as you raised the question a moment ago. I can say that
1 consider here that it might be entirely desirable for Mr. Peurifoy
to re])ly to the allegation that he may or may not have been promised
a reward for some particular action or course of conduct in connection
with the Amerasia case. We only raised the question as to any specific
job, any connnitment he might be inquiring about. The subject matter^
I think, is rather broad.
Mr. Pkirifoy. I appreciate the opportunity to reply to the accusa-
tion, and I will say, under oath, I have been^ promised nothing as a
result of my actions in the Amerasia case or any of the loyalty
or security cases in the Depa rtment .
Senator Hickenlooper. I do not waut to attempt to shorten up your
examiiiat ion on any particular job.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION 1237
]Mr. MoROAx. I think the answer as given, Senator, is ample.
Senator Hickexlooper. He should be jxiven an o])i)ortunity to can-
vass that alleji'ation Avithout at thisnioniont decidiiiir the case.
Mr. MoncAX. ]\lr. Chairman, 1 woukl like to ask some (juestions of
Mr. Peurifo}' in connection with onr over-all invest ijiat ion, but ^lerhaps
other members of the subcommittee woidd care to pursue this line of
interroii-ation somewhat before I ask those questions.
Senator Tydinc;s. Does any member of the connnittee wish to ask
any questions pertaininjij to the things Avhich are now before us?
Mr. INforiian has asked questions on it. Do you prefer to ask now or
wait until he finishes?
Senator Hickexlooper. ^Ir. Chairman, I have a few questions.
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead. I see.
Do you have any questions, Senator Green ?
Senator (treex. I have no questions.
Senator T'iT)ixGS. Do you have any questions, Senator McMahon?
Senator Mc^NIahox. I have no questions.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator Lodge, do you want to ask any ques-
tions?
Senator Lodge. I have no questions at this time.
Senator Tydixgs. You may proceed, Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickexlooper. In your talks with Mr. Larsen. either on the
telephone or personally, did you and Mr. Larsen discuss the article
he wrote, carried under his name, in Plain Talk magazine ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, Senator Hickenlooper. Xot on the telephone.
Senator Hickexlooper. "Will you give us the conversation in regard
to that article?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir; this was in the conversation on March 20
in my office. He hold me that he had written an article for Plain
Talk. He told me that ^Ir. Levine and ^fr. Cobert. or a name some-
thing like that, got him in Florida and took him to a hotel in Xew
York and paid his expenses, and he spent several days in this hotel
room writing this article. He said they came in and objected to the
article — that it was not strong enough — and he then told me that
rliey changed his article; and, as it appears, it was not the article that
he had written.
That was the sum and substance of it.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did he tell you in wliat particulars or with
respect to what particulars they changed the article?
Mr. Peurifoy. I don't recall that he did, Senator; he may have.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did he say anything to you about being
motivated by personal reasons or a grudge or anger in writing the
ai-ticle?
Mr. Peurifoy. I believe he said a grudge against Service; that he
felt Service ''put the finger on him before tlie grand jury," as I recall
it. That was the only case of grudge or ar.ger.
He did mention, in regard to this article, in a luncheon that he had
with some other people, that he had been in the Far Eastern Office, on
policy
Senator Hickenlooper. Did he say anything to you, or infer in tlie
conversation, as far as any understanding you had. that he had either
changed his mind, that he was not of the same opinion, or the article
he had wi-itten was completely wrong, or anything of tliat kind.
1238 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Peukifoy. He did indicate that the article did not conform
to liis original manuscript, and, therefore, he thought they put more
emphasis on certain individuals than he had put in his original
manuscript.
Senator IIickenlooper. Did he tell you that he had never been
critical of General AVedemeyer or had never been critical of General
Marshall or had never been critical of Dean Acheson ?
Mr. Peukifoy. I don't recall that he made that statement to me, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Peurifoy, have you seen a cojDy of the
testimony of Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Peukifoy. No, sir; I have not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you seen any notes or resume?
Mr. Peukifoy. No, sir; I have not.
Senator Hickenlooper. Except in the papers?
Mr. Peukifoy. That is all.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did Mr. Larsen say anything to you about
whether or not the statute of limitations had expired, or did he inquire
into the phase of the situation?
Mr. Peurifoy, No ; I don't believe so.
Senator Hickenlooper. Or in any statement had had made there-
tofore ?
Mr. Peukifoy. No, sir. I am not a lawyer. Maybe he knew that.
He did not raise it with me.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did he say anything to you that led you
to believe in any way that he was seeking or desirous of obtaining
legal advice on the situation?
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, I take it that the only reason why,
so far as he desired to see Mr. Fisher, or that you desired that he see
Mr. Fisher, was that he furnish such information as he might have on
the Amerasia case that you did not already have.
Mr. Peurifoy. That is absolutely correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. And he did not discuss the legal situation
with you at all ?
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did he discuss— and this may have been
fully covered earlier— did he discuss what the attitude of the Depart-
ment would be upon his application for a position with some other
Government department ?
Mr. Peukifoy. Yes ; he did, insofar as he wanted to know what the
records of the Department indicated ; and I told him that the records
indicated that he had resigned and obviously there would be reference
in the files to his part in Amerasia.
Senator Hickenlooper. You are aware, then, and the Department
was aware, that the plea of nolo contendere involved the allegation
of his participation in the clearing house of taking out of documents
from State Department files ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir; I knew it.
Senator Hickenlooper. You and the Department were aware that
was a complete breach of trust and faith in a very sensitive part of
our Government; were you not?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. He had resigned «
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, in 1945, in the fall.
8TATE DEPARTMK.XT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1239
Senator Hickenloopek. Do you have any reason, or do you have any
opinion, based upon conversations with otliers in the Department, or
acquired in any way. as to why this man who stood in court and —
while lie did not actually plead guilty, it was tantamount to a plea
of guilty, and he accepted a sentence for taking out these documents —
was permitted to resign and was not discharged as a disloyal in-
dividual^
]Mr. Peurifoy. I am sorry ; I do not know that.
Senator Hickenlooper. Is it the policy of the State Department in
cass of this kind to give these people an easy way out, rather than to
bring connnensurate punishment on them for their breach of trust?
' Mr. Peiiufoy. Well, sir, I think I have proven that I have the desire
anci the will to do whatever justice calls for. If it calls for firing, I
have no compunction in firing these people. I have done it and I
will do it again, sir, if the occasion arises.
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, the basis of my question is that in
a number of the Government departments they have permitted a per-
son to resign in the face of proven and established nnfaithfnl acts,
whether you call it disloyalty or whatever you call it. They are acts
of unfaithfulness to their trust which have been proven. That has
taken place in Government departments, to my personal knowledge,
and I happen to be violently opposed to it. I think if there is no proof
or if there is a suspicion or a matter of judgment that someone is not
desirable, perhaps a resignation is in order ; but where there is proof
of that fact, where it has been established, then I definitely oppose the
device of permitting any culprit to resign, because I am very much
of the opinion that they have gone to other departments in the Gov-
ernment and on the basis that they voluntarily resigned have been able
to get other positions. That is my own philosophy on the thing. I
am not raising a question about it.
Mr. Peurifoy. May I join with you in saying that I agree with your
philosophy. Senator Hickenlooj)er ? There is no question about it.
Seriator HiCKENLOOivR. Then let us take the Larsen case. I am not
holding you respons ble for the Larsen resignation; you w^ere not
there; yon were not around, in that vicinity, at the time; but let us
take the Larsen case. As far as I am concerned, there was complete
proof. The plea of nollo contendere is a device perhaps justified.
I don't say that it isn't, in the proper case. But it is complete proof.
The culprit is found and accepts whatever punishment the court metes
out. and does not defend himself, and takes no steps to defend himself.
Xow. on the 12th of May, the State Department release is given to
the public.
Senator Green. What year?
Senator Hickexlooper. May 20, 1050, in which the State Depart-
ment analyzed the speech of Senator ^McCarthy. Senator ^NlcCaithy.
among other things, made the statement in that speech, according to
this, as carried in the press, and I assume he did make this statement —
I haven't actually checked with him. If you will turn to page 3 of
that, under No. 7
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir. Under Xo. 7 ?
Senator Hickenlooper. Senator McCarthy said, in effect :
* * * Mr. Service, you will recall, was picked up by the FBI iu connection
with the Amerasia case. Papers carried tlie story that J. Ed^'ar Hoover, who
C8970 — 50 — pt. 1 79
1240 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
is not noted for overstatement — that J. Edgar Hoover stated "that this is a 100-
percent airtight case of espionage."
Now, you wrote a letter, then, according to this bulletin, you wrote
a letter to Mr. Peyton Ford. 1 believe your letter is in here, I think
you will find it on page 8.
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir; Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. You wrote a letter to Mr. Peyton Ford in
which you quoted from Senator McCarthy's speech and referred to the
allegation :Mr. Hoover said publicly at^the time of the arrest; Mr.
Hoover said this was a lOO-percent airtight case of espionage.
You asked Mr. Ford about it, and Mr. Ford replied as shown by
his coi^y of his reply on page 9 of the report, in which he said, in his
letter to you :
You are advised that Mr. Hoover did not make that statement which has
been attributed to him.
Mr. Peurifoy, have you ever checked directly with ilr. Hoover as
to whether or not he had ever made such a statement ?
Mr. Peurifoy, I did not ; no, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. You did not pursue that inquiry further,
then, than Mr. Ford, in the Department of Justice?
Mr. Peurifoy. No, I did not. I assumed that the Deputy Attorney
General would talk to Mr. Hoover and get it direct from him on
espionage.
Senator Hickenlooper. May I ask you, for the record here, why
you wrote to Mr. Ford instead of writing direct to Mr. Hoover, who
was claimed to liave made the statement? Mr. Hoover would be the
best evidence of what was said.
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir. I think the answer to that is that nor-
mally our office clears — we deal with the heads of the departments
and agencies, and on matters of statements like this, it seemed to be
the normal thing to address it to either Mr. McGrath or Mr. Ford.
Senator Hickenlooper. Of course, Mr. Hoover is head of a bureau.
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. And, of course, tlie Bureau is under the
Department of Justice.
Mr. Peurifoy, Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. I am aware of that.
Mr. Peurifoy. Perhaps, Senator Hickenloo])er. tliere was really
no reason why I should not. On second though, I should have. My
relations with Mr, Hoover are good. Maybe it is just one of those
things.
I wrote Mr. Ford rather than Mr. Hoover —
Senator Hickenlooper. I am not necessarily indicating a criti-
cism, or a lack of criticism. I am raising the question as to why
you did not write directly to Mr. Hoover and get Mr. Hoover's state-
ment on this matter.
Mr. Peurifoy. I might well have.
Senator McMaiion. Could I interject and say at this point in
relation to tliat, that v^dien the State Department connnunicates with
the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General rather than
with the division of the FBI or the Bureau, that is the normal pro-
cedure, to address the Department head?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1241
Mr. Peurifoy. That is true. Senator MdMahoii. I must say, Sena-
tor llirkenlooper. airain, that Mr. Hoover and we are not stian^^ers
to each other. I think he is a tine, hi«j:h-tyi)e man.
I miaiit well have picked up the telephone and called him, myself,
but it was just one of tliose thin<;s.
Senator Hu'kf.xl(H)1'kr. Have you ever, at any lime since, talked
directly to Mr. Hoover about this?
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir.
Senator HirKKXLCOPER. Or have you ever had any connnunication
indirectly with Mr. Hoover? By that 1 don't mean rumoi-s, but
intlirectly received a message from Mr. Hoover on that statement?
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir.
Senator Ty^dinc.s. Orf the record.
(Discussion oil' the lecord.)
Senator Hkki.xloopek. I am sorry, Mr. Peurifoy, but I haven't
been able to see a copy of Mr. Larsen's testimony here; so, I do not
know wluit Mr. Larsen said.
Mr. Peurifoy. Neither did I.
Senator Hickenlooper. My reason for that remark is that I might
have a great many questions to ask you if I knew what Mr. Larsen
testified to.
Mr. Peurifoy. I would be veiy ha]>py. Senator Hickenlooper, to
come back at any time that you would like me to.
Senator McMahox. Mr. Chairman, Senator Hickenlooper has just
said to Mr. Peurifov that in the absence of his havin<>: seen the tran-
script of Mr. Larsen's testimony, which has not l>een made available
to him, that he has no more questions to ask at the moment. He added,
however, that if he had available Larsen's testimony he might have
some more questions. I asked him if he did not have that testimony,
and he informed me that he did not have it.
Senator Tydings. He did not ask for it. While he was out in
Iowa, I did not feel like sending it to his office; I did not want it
kicked around. I thought before I release any more transcii])ts we
should consider leaks in the committee. The committee is entitled
to what we have. I think we should have better security. There
is no use in having executive sessions if things leak out. It has been
somewhat disturbing, with what has gone on in this case.
Senator Hickenlooper. I made the further comment, mentioned by
Senator IMcMahon, that I did not have any more questions to ask
Mr. Peurifoy, but T could ask some more of IMr. Peurifoy if I had a
chance to see Mr. Larsen's testimony. I have been informed by three
responsible men, news])apermen, that the newspapers had full access
a few days ago to the transcript of the testimony which Mr. Larsen
gave.
Senator Tydixos. Not with my consent.
Senator Hickexloopek. 1 haven't had access to it. I haven't seen
it. I do not know what is in it. And I said to Mr. Peurifoy, if I
had been able to read Mr. Larsen's testimony T might have some more
questions that that testimony would raise and that I might want to
ask him.
Senator Tydixgs. All right.
Senator McMahox. Might I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that^ I am
somewhat interested in this statement of Senator Hickenlooper's, that
he might have some more questions to ask if he had the transcript ?
1242 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IJV\'ESTIGATION
I siijrgest, Senator, that the transcript be gotten to him. I don't
like the Senator to have an opportnnity to compLain.
Senator Ttdings. That is right. The only reason that the tran-
script was not furnished to him was that at the time it was made up
the Senator was in Iowa and, of course, I did not want it kicked
around.
Senator McMahon. Yes.
Senator TydincxS. And, when he came back, it did not occur to me,
and he did not ask for it, I don't think.
Senator Hickenlooper. There have been several requests from my
office to your office for the Larsen testimony, and I even wrote a letter.
Senator Tydings. Yes ; I got your letter yesterday, but, knowing we
would be meeting liere, I wanted to simply caution everybody, the
counsel, the investigators, and the members of the committee, of the
matter of the prestfge and the dignity of the Senate, if we just could
have a little tighter control over our transcripts.
Any man who is an employee or a member of the committee is on no-
tice that it is up to him not"^to give out any of the testimony taken in
the executive sessions of the committee. It should not be given outside
the committee, until the contents of any of the testimony here given is
released by the vote of the committee.
Now, we have voted to take all of this testimony in executive session.
I think the vote was unanimous. And I therefore must ask everybody
to please respect the position of the committee, and there must be no
more leaks, directly or indirectly, and the testimony will be made avail-
able to all members of the committee.
Senator Hickenlooper. I haven't publicly complained about not get-
ting a copy, but I appreciate the opportunity to canvass this story.
This transcript was made available to the press, and copies made
available by the press, and the only observation I made yesterday to a
press representative was, I said, "It is a rather peculiar situation that
I haven't had it available to me and the press seems to have had it."
Senator Ttdings. All right.
Senator Hickenloofer. When was the time that you said you talked
to Mr. Larsen, Mr. Peurifoy ? Did you speak to him personally?
]Mr. Peitrifoy. ]\Iarch 20.
Senator Hickexlooper. March 20?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you speak to him after that on the tele-
phone or personally?
Mv. Pefrtfoy. Yes, sir: on April 4 INIr. Larsen called to inquire
whether or not Mr. Peurifoy received the material he left with Mr.
Bryan.
Senator Hickenlooper. He called on the telephone?
Mr. Peitrifoy. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. You did not see him personally?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes. I said I had received it, that Mr.* Bryan had a
memorandum, "To whom it may concern", which I will make avail-
able to the committee if you would like to see it. I turned it over to the
Loyalty Review Board, which was getting ready to have a session.
Mr. Morris. Was that your last conversation with him ?
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir;' Mr. Morris. He called on April 11 to leave
a message for me.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1243
Mr. Morris. What \va^^ tlu' nu'ssaiie?
Mr. Peurifoy. It was a iiiessa^jjo in ro<j:ar(l to a conversation he
had with yon.
Mr. ^foKKis. "Why do yon think ho called to tell yon that?
Mr. Pki'kifoy. I have no idea why he called me, Mr. Morris. As
I said, I did not talk to him on this occasion. He left this message
with my secretary, to give it to me.
Mr. Morris. Have you put that message in the record ?
Mr. Peijrifov. I have not. I did not want to. It pertained to
other names that I did not think have any relation to this, or any
connection with this.
Senator Hickexi.ogper. Mi-. Peurifoy, I will ask you a question
in the nature of a hypothetical question, as far as these propositions
are concerned : It is possible that it might not be a proper question,
but 1 will ask it, anyway, and. if it is not proper, we can discuss that —
assuming that Mr. Larsen testified before this committee to the things
that Mr. ^Morgan has stated he testified to — I am assuming that to
be true, of course — especially with regard to the conversation that
Mr. Larsen claimed he had with you on a mnnber of subjects that
he said you discussed — Do you believe that Mr. Larsen is a truthful
man and could be relied upon ? I say, assuming those premises.
Mr. Pefrifoy. Well, sir, being charitable, I woukl say that I
would perhaps say that he stretched our conversations a little bit.
Senator Tydixgs. What is that ?
JMr. Peurifoy. Perhaps he stretched our conversation a little bit.
Senator Hickenlooper. I don't believe we are dealing with charity,
or the reverse of charity; we are trying to ascertain facts, and we
have to get at the facts.
]Mr. Peurifoy. I certainly want to give you facts.
Senator Hickenlooper. The purpose of my question is, whether
this man Larsen can be believed in any particular, on the theory
that if a man lies on some details, is his testimony to be trusted in
any details, without complete corroboration from other sources? I
am trying to see whether you think
iSIr. Peuiufoy. I certainly
Senator Hickenlooper. In your opinion, he falsified in some of
the statements ?
^Mr. Peurifoy. He certainly misled this committee, if he quoted me
the way I get it, because
Senator Hickenlooper. Let us use a little milder term. He mis-
stated the facts.
Mr. Peurifoy. He made misstatements.
Senator Hickenlooper. Would you say that he misstated facts,
alleged facts, to be facts, which are not so?
INlr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you familiar with the testimony of
former Ambassador Grew before the House committee^ Have you
read that? , . o ^ tt- i
Mr. Peurifoy. I haven't read all that testnnony. Senator Hicken-
looper. I read part of that in the Congressional Record.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you familiar with the testimony Mr.
Grew gave, which, I believe, I interpreted, in effect, that in his
opinion it was a case of espionage, that is, the Amerasia case?
Mr. Morgan. Off the record.
1244 STATE DEiPARTlVIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IJSTV'ESTI CATION
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. Peurifoy. I am really not familiar with that, Senator Hicken-
looper.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you discussed it with former Am-
bassador Grew ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir; I saw him recently and he told me his part
in the case, that he was then, I believe. Acting Secretary, I believe, at
the time. He told me he had not heard anything about it, and he told
me General Holmes came up to see him and told him it was a case of
certain people, and asked for his authority to go ahead and pursue it,
and Mr. Grew said, "Go right ahead," as far as he was concerned.
He told me that he was not familiar with the details of the case,
that it was liandled by the man who was the man in my position,
General Holmes, at that time.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, it would be hearsay to ask you what
Ambassador Grew or Secretary Grew told you.
Mr. Peurifoy. I tried to relate it briejfly, in a few minutes.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you say anything to Mr. Grew as to
3 our then opinion in this case and the manner in which it was handled?
Mr. Peurifoy. Well, I had no opinion. I was not in this position
at that time. I was not handling it. I had no access to tlie files.
All I saw was what in the papers at the time.
Senator Hk^kenlooper. What was the occasion of Mr. Grew's
conversation with you?
Mr. Peurifoy. Mr. Grew had been in Europe and returned and he
Avanted to tell me what he knew about the Amerasia case, which was
very little, except what he did when it was called to his attention.
I tliink he would be the best witness of what he did.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, the Department of State is manifestly
inviting publicity, and all the rest of the things that have recently
come up in the Amerasia case — that is correct : isn't it?
Mr. Peurifoy. IVliat do you mean by "publicity" ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I am referring — you went to the trouble, on
May 20, certainly when you were under attack, that you replied.
I think that it is manifest that you have taken a very substantial
stand.
Mr. Peurifoy. We are not interested in publicity, but in defending
ourselves.
Senator Hickenlooper. Since the publicity came out, you became
reactivated in this matter.
Have you been assigned in any way by your superiors in the State
Department to handle this Amerasia case? That is, in the past few
months ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Only that I Avould handle any details pertaining to
loyalty or security in the Department of State. That is a standing
instruction. Those are my instructions.
Senator Hickenlooper. I cannot ask for the details of conversations,
but have you discussed this Amerasia case in the last 3 months or 4
months with the President of the United States or with the Secretary
of State? I mean this matter w^hen it originally came up. Let us
go back to tlie Lincohi Day speech Senator McCarthy macle.
Mr. Peurifoy. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^VESTIGATION 1245
Mr. l^EURTFOT. On the record, my reply Avould be, sir, that never
liave I discussed this case with the President, never have T discussed it
with the Secretarv of State in any detail. I may have just mentioned
it in a casual coiiversation. Never have I discussed any of the im-
l^lications, or individuals involved, with the Secretary, sir.
Senator Hickexlooi'er. Have you discussed the case with any mem-
ber of the President's staff or anybody s])eaking on behalf of or with
the authority of the President (
Mr. PErRirov. I am sure I have not, except maybe at a luncheon
or conversation where you mijiht have to refer to what was going on
in the newspapers, but never in detail, or any type of detail.
Senator Hickexlooper. Have you had full charge of the respon-
sibility for the method and program of handling the State Depart-
ment in this — let us say. the Amerasia case and the other matters
raised in this connection?
Mr. PKriuFOY. Yes, sir.
Senator Htckenlooper. Has it been your responsibility or have you
been connected with other phases of this matter, so far as handling
State Department atfairs? By ''ati'airs" 1 mean meeting and dealing
with this whole proposition. ,
Mr. Peurifoy. I think it is a double-barreled question. First, i
do have res])onsibilitY. Yes, I have talked to many people about
different problems, when this one came up, but with respect to the
loyalty and security of these case files, et cetera, I have. I have talked
these cases over with Don Nicholson and Don Barkin.
I miirht add. Senator Hickenlooper, when questions of legal import,
et cetera, were involved, in those instances I would ask Mr. Fisher to
look into it. n -.i ^i ta j. 4-
Senator Hickexlooper. Have you discussed with the Department
of Justice or anybody in authority in the Department of Justice the
situation surrounding the Amerasia case, that insofar as the original
features are concerned and the prosecution was concerned—
In other words, what I am interested in, by way of illustration, and
what I am trying to oet at, have you ever said to the Department of
Justice, '-How come these peoi)le in this situation who you are prose-
cuting?"
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir. .i ^ i
Senator Hickexlooper. Did you ask them how come that only
fines were meted out in a few cases? -,, , , r^ i
Mr Pefrifoy. No, sir, I have not; it was handled by Ueneraf
Holmes : and I understood he testified before this committee. I do not
know whether you asked any questions of hmi about that or not. 1
haven't seen his testimony, either.
Senator Hickexlooper. I haven't either.
It appears to ine, Mr. Peurifoy. inasmuch as this Amerasia case was
so very much concerned with the State Department and the records ot
the State Department, it would appear that these people were not
sufficiently punished. Can you explain why these people were not
punished more severely and why more people were not brought to
iustice on that? -,-,., , i ,. 4. ^
Mr Peurifoy. I think, Senator Hickenlooper, you have got to ap-
preciate the tremendous task that I have there. This thing was han-
dled by my predecessor and handled by the Department ot Justice.
1246 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTTGATTON
These people went before the grand jury; I came in a couple of
years later. I had a perfectly terrific job, setting up screening-
machinery procedures and establishing standards for these people that
had been blanketed into the State Department,
Senator Hickexlooper. I understand that, and I do recognize the
fact that you were not there.
Mr. Peurifoy. I was concerned with the people who were then on
our rolls, and trying to do the job the best I could. I was working
night and day, and I have been on the pressing problems, and I had
no reason — the Department did not come to me and tell me, "This thing
ought to be looked into again"; and I was just trying to do my job the
best I could with the people that we had on the payi-oll. It seemed to
me that that was my primary concern. I felt that if we had anyone
that was undesirable, that we ought to get those people off the paja-oll,
before I go into a case that was decided some time ago, and I did not
know any more than what I just read in the newspapers in recent
months about the Amerasia case.
Senator Hickexlooper. I want to make it clear that when you took
your job, I do not claim that you should have gone into Amerasia. I
am not raising that question. I am not suggesting that you should
have taken up that case. That has been discussed in the last 3 or 4
months,
Mr. PzuRiroY. I asked ]\Ir. Fisher to look into all phases of the
Amerasia case, as far as I was concerned.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Fisher has not been before the com-
mittee, has he, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think I have no other questions.
Mr, Morris. May I ask a question?
Senator Tydixgs. Yes.
Mr. Morris. Some weeks ago, Mr. Peurifoy, you made a public state-
ment which in substance referred to John Service, and there was an
expression of great surprise or regret that he should have been men-
tioned in this proceeding. Was that opinion expressed at that time
your opinion today ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Mr. Morris, I made that statement because of the
headlines. Mr. Service is still a human being. I think that that
statement was probably misinterpreted. Maybe I went too far, but
I really meant it from my heart, about the headlines; not under nor-
m_al law, and the review program, that I should have brought Mr.
Service back. I agree I should have. It was addressed to the nature
m winch it was brought about, not concerned with the problem about
Mr. Service one way or the other,
Mr. Morris. Did you know, at the time, that Mr. Service had passed
secret documents to Mr. Gatley, the Soviet secret agent ?
Mr, Peurifoy. At that time, I did not know it. I am not sure
about that, about those documents. I haven't seen the complete hear-
ings about the loyalty board. He is before the loyalty board.
Senator Tydings. He will be before them tomorrow,
Mr, Peurifoy. I still do not know the substance of it,
Mr, MoPxRis, Shouldn't you have been apprised of what those facts
were that took jDlace in 1945?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1247
Mr. Peurifoy'. Under our system, under which we live, under oiir
Constitution, I have been informed, and 1 do not know whether it is
true or not — niaylie you know — I have been informed that as to all the
])eople who went before the grand jury, the grand jury voted twenty to
nothing to clear Mr. Service. That was a remarkable decision.
Senator Tydixgs. That is correct.
Mr. Peurifoy. This man was working for the Department, and,
until I knew anything ditlerent, or anything else comes up, why, I
would like to be as fair as possible.
Mr. MoRms. But we have testimony before this conunittee that Mr.
Service transmitted secret military information in a hotel room to a
man who I can describe as a Soviet agent, a man who under surveil-
lance moved freely Avitli Soviet agents, the Soviet Embassy, and Com-
numist delegates in the convention. This took place not recently but 5
years a<:o. AVhat disturbs me is that nothing was done to kick him out.
Mr. Peurifoy. I understand, Mr. Morris, and I would like Mr.
Boykin to check me. As I understand, he has been investigated four
times and been cleared four times. I did not see his testimony, but I
assume they evaluated this information that he is alleged to have
passed this information, and they evaluated the men who appeared and
testified, and it was a question in regard to his acts. I do not have
his testimony. I assume that the people who investigated it looked
into all those matters.
Senator HiCKEXLOorER. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Hickenlooper. I have no more questions.
Mr. Morris. I have one more question. 1 would like an opportunity
to continue this examination after I have seen a record of the transcript
taken of :SIr. Larsen. I can't recall all the things that were said.
I would require that in order to ask my questions.
Senator Tydixgs. I am going to go to my office immediately and
have whatever we have got sent around, and I ask, when they do come
to you, that they be safeguarded, and that these leaks be stopped.
Senator Hickenlooper. :Mr. Chairman, my records are kept at all
times under lock and key, and nobody else in the oilice has access to
them but me,. ^,, . . . ^ . . ,
Mr. Peltjifot. ^YivAt we want, Mr. ( hairman, if I am going to be
asked questions about the testimony of this man Larsen— 1 ask that 1
be permitted to see what he said, too. . , ^ ^,, . .i . -^ t i
Senator Hickenlooper. I can say this, Mr. Chan-man, that it i have
the opportunitv or desire to interrogate ^Ir. Peniifoy on what Mr.
Larsen testified, I am perfectly willing for Mr. Peurifoy to see the
testimonv; I have no objection to that.
Senator Tyt>ixgs. All right. , ,. t. -^ i r
Senator Hickenlooper. I mav want to ask Mr. Peurifoy some addi-
tional questions after I have seen what Mr. Larsen testified to.
Senator Tydings. I will see that you get the transcript as soon as it
is available. I will have to look them up.
Mr. Morgan. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Tydixgs. On the record. ,. t i \r^A
Mr MoRGVN Mr. Chairman, m aiu)ther connection I have asked
the State Department to supply for our records a statement concerning
1248 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IjS^'ESTIGATION
the handling of this influx of employees of the emergency agencies in
1945 and 194G, and I would like to ask Mr. Peurifoy if he has pre-
pared such a statement and if he has it with him now.
Mr. Peurifoy. I do.
Senator Tydings. How long is it?
Mr. Peurifoy. About five pages. I will be glad to submit it for
the record.
Mr. Morgan. I would like to request, Mr. Chairman, that Mr.
Peurifoy read this statement into the record, because I think it is
in line with the scope of our investigation.
Senator Green. Do you want to identify the statement?
Senator Tydings. Yes. Mr. Peurifoy will now read into the record
a statement in regard to the influx of employees in various emergency
agencies.
Mr. Peurifoy. I have deep and profound interest in our democratic
w^ay of life and I have, on many occasions, expressed myself both
publicly and privately that I have a vital interest in the security of
Ihese United States and particularly in the secui'ity of the Department
of State. Therefore, gentlemen, I think you should know how the
security program of the Department of State was developed and of
the action being taken to provide security to the Department and the
Foreign Service.
On February 18, 1947, General ]\larshall, who was then Secretary
of State, delegated full responsibility to me for the security of the
Department and the Foreign Service.
Eealizing the seriousness of this responsibility, I immediately under-
took to acquaint myself with the security problems of the Department
and with the facilities that were available to handle these problems.
The Department had suddenly had its staff increased by approxi-
mately 4,000 employees in the latter part of 194.5 and early 1946.
These persons had been blanketed into the Department, by Executive
orders. They came from the Office of War Information, Foreign
Economic Administration, Office of Strategic Services. Army-Navy
Liquidation and part of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs.
Such a wholesale blanketing of employees into the Department had
placed upon the Department's security facilities a burden which such
facilities were not capable of handling. Definite steps had been taken
by my predecessor to correct this situation and definite progress had
been made.
Surveys which my predecessor had instituted indicated that a, great
deal more would have to be done in order to provide adequate security
to the Department and the Foreign Service. There were only 47
special agents available to conduct investigations. Obviouslv ' this
number was not sufficient to investigate these employees. Further-
moi-e, there investigators, while experienced, had no operations manual
to guide them in their investgiations. While there was a security
screening committee in existence, as an emergency measure, this com-
mittee did not have any standards of security or loyalty which it
could use as a guide in making security and loyalty determinations.
Organizationally the situation did not appear to be satisfactory
inasmuch as there was doubt as to the adequacy of the security pro-
cedures both from an investigative and evaluation point of view.
There were indications that the security function was divided among
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN'VESTIGATION 1249
too many divisions and offices and that there was a very definite need
for an inij)rovod t'orei<rn security i)r<)<irani as well as a need for im-
jn-ovinir tlie security consciousness of every employee both.at home and
abroad. At this point, let me assure you that the conditions which
I have just mentioned do not exist today. Corrective measures have
been taken.
One of the first steps which I took was to request the Federal
Bureau of lnvestioati(m to make a complete survey of the security
operations and inform me not only of the adequacy of the existing
procedures but also to make reconunen<hitions for improvement. The
Federal Bureau of Invest ijj;at ion furnished me a repoit on April 28,
11)47. Their recommendations have been acted ui)on. The report,
the recommendations and the actions taken on tlie recommendations
have recently been made available to a member of the subconuuittee
of this committee.
In June 1047 I abolished the security screening committee on per-
.sonnel, which was a secret connnittee. At the same time I announced
to all employees the establishment of the Personnel Security Board
and the procedures under which it would operate. Loyalty and se-
curitv standards were established as a guide for the operations of
this Board. "When the Government's loyalty program went into ef-
fect the name of the Personnel Security Board was changed to the
Loyalty Securitv Board and it was given authority to act as the De-
partment's Loyalty Board. I appointed Gen. Conrad E. Snow of
New Hampshire as Chairman of the Board. Today this Board has
nine members, all of whom have been carefully selected by me after
receivinir recommendations from the security people of the De])art-
ment. these men are outstanding, thoroughly competent, and fully
capable of discharging their responsibilities.
I want to add in here that I do not personally go out and pick
these people Avho serve on this Board. I ask my security officer to
make recommendations to me as to who should serve on these boards.
In order to expedite the screening of the persons who had been
blanketed into the Department, a strong evaluation unit Avas estab-
lished which directed, on a priority basis, the investigations of the
individuals on whom there was any security question. This security
screeninii- has been completed. All of those i)ersons on whom some
quest ion'~existed have either left the Department or have been cleared
and processed mider the Govermnent's loyalty program. Inciden-
tally, I might mention that all employees of the Department are
screened for securitv and ])rocessed through the lovalty program.
Inasmuch as the security responsibilities of the Department were
divided among several organizational units, I determined that a
reorganization of the entire set-up was necessary. Several organiza-
tional changes were made. This reorganization has been completed.
Today the present Division of Security under the direction of D. L.
Nicholson, an attorney and former FBI agent, is the only organiza^-
tional unit having responsibility for directing the ])ersonnel jind
phvsical securitv pro<iram of the Department and the Foreign Service.
It "has been strengthened by recruitment of thoroughly experienced
and competent professional security personnel. The present investi-
gative staff has been provided with a complete manual of operations, is
trained by means of periodic conferences, and is kept up to date on all
new investigative techniques.
1250 STATE DEiPARTMENT EiT^IPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
All employees have been given security indoctrination. This has
been accomplished through motion pictures, lectures, posters and a
system of unit security officers in each operating unit throughout the
Department. Physical security regulations have been revised and re-
issued for both the Department and the Missions in foreign countries.
The foreign security program has been reorganized during the past
year and a sound foundation has been laid upon which an expanded and
improved program can be developed.
The need to provide adequate technical equipment such as safes,
locks, alarm systems, et cetera, is constant. Today, facilities exist
Avithin the Division of Security to adequately provide for and develop
such equipment to insure the physical protection of classified
information.
Certainly I need not tell you gentlemen that the maintenance of
adequate personnel and physical security is continuous. Therefore,
■we have provided for continuous screening of personnel and this
program is well established and is in operation today.
There has been tremendous progress made by the Department of
State in the security field and I have full and complete confidence in
the people associated with the program.
Recently a subcommittee of this committee has investigated our
policies and procedures and in a spirit of helpfulness has submitted
their recommendations for improvement. At the moment a thorough
analysis of these recommendations is in process. Wlien the analysis is
completed I will furnish this committee with my comments on the
recommendati ons.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Peurifoy made reference to one
member of the committee having questioned the FBI recommendations
as to the administration security of the State Department. I am a
member of that subcommittee and I am studying the report now, and,
as soon as I have finished it, studying it, I will send it to you.
The subject interests me very much.
Now, I would like to ask Mr. Peurifoy this : Is it broadly true that
in the fall of 1945 and the early part of 1940 there were blanketed into
the State Department by Executive order some 4,000 persons without
adequate screening?
Mr. Peukttoy. That is correct, sir.
Senator Green. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it would be wise to
have copies of that report available for all members of the committee.
I think tliere is only one copy available. Could we have copies made ?
Senator Tydinos. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Lodge. As soon as I finish reading the report, I will send it
to you, in a day or two.
Senator Tydixgs. If you make a thorough studv, we would not
liavetogo into it.
Senator Lodge. I will send it over to you today.
Mr. INIoRGAN. Some time ago, in a discussion on the Senate floor,
Senator McCarthy introduced a one-page photostat copy of a paper
or a document which was prepared in the State Department, appar-
ently, relative to this problem of the screening of emplovees and con-
tinuing appropriate investigation with respect to them. "
I liave made a request to the State Department for that document
and I wonder if it will be made available to us and, if so, when.
STATE DEPARTMENT EAIPLOYEE LOYALTY I]Sr\^ESTIGATION 1251
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, ISIr. Morgan. I think the full document should
be made available to you. There was a report made in August of
194G and submitted to my then predecessor.
Senator Tydixgs. You "will make it available ?
Mr. Peurtfoy. I will make it available.
Senator Tydixgs. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Peukifoy. But, for one thing, I will probably strike the name
from the report, that is, the names mentioned in it.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. ]\IoRGAN. INIr. Peurifoy, we have in our record now the proceed-
ings before a subconmiittee of the House Appropriations Committee
in 1948, when you appeared.
Senator Tythngs. You better make that specific, in that there were
three of them.
Mr. INIoKGAN. This is a subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee, dealing with the appropriation for the State Department.
Senator Tydixgs. That is right.
Mr. Morgan. And, as Mr. Peurifoy stated, he appeared before that
committee and testified with respect to certain cases identified by
^lumbers, as I remember.
Mr. Peurifoy, have you made any analysis whatever of those cases
discussed before the subcommittee of the House Appropriations Com-
mittee, in the light of the cases discussed on the Senate floor on
February 20, 1950, by Senator McCarthy ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir ; we have.
Mr, ]\IoRGA^r. And what was the result of your study ?
Mr. Peurifoy. The speech of the Senator from Wisconsin on Feb-
ruary 20 was concerned with the report of the investigators of the
House Subcommittee on Appropriations factually, the factual in-
formation ; the nonf actual — it is perfectlj^ clear that these names came
from that report, as far as we can determine.
Senator Tydix'GS. Are they the same cases ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Those that he factually described; yes, sir; there
were several cases.
Senator Tydixgs. All right.
Mr. MoRGAX. Eeference was made, Mr. Peurifoy, to the fact that
you have been overruled at various times with respect^ to security cases,
or loyalt}^ cases, in the State Department.
Have you, or have you not, on occasion, been so overruled ?
INIr. Peurifoy. Not by the present Secretary of State.
;Mr. IMoRGAX. Is there anything else you care to say on that subject ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Well, some time ago I was overruled on cases that I
had acted on several j^ears ago. I returned to New York from a trip
to Europe, accompanying a group of Senators to Europe. The day
I returned to New York, before I reached Washington, the pa]:)ers
indicated that the action I took had been reversed, notwithstancling
that I had exercised the McCarran rider, and they were permitted to
resign
Mr. IMoRGAx. There have been some references treated rather ex-
tensively in the press to the effect that the loyalty files now available
to review by the members of this subcommittee have been doctored,
tampered with, altered, changed, as the case may be.
Have you any information, Mr. Peurifoy, that such has been done
with respect to the loyalty files ?
1252 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Peurifot. I want to say to you, sir, that I specifically gave
orders that nothing in the files be deleted and no file should be re*
moved, should not be tampered with, notes should not be erased, and
everything in our files should be made available to this committee.
Mr. Morgan. Are you in a position to say everything in the files
pertaining to loyalty has been made available to this committee?
Mr. Peurifoy. Insofar as a human being can. I issued an order to
that effect. I can so state.
Senator Lodge. At this point, I may say that I have read a repre-
sentative cross section of those files, and, in their present state, or
unfinished state, they do not furnish the basis for me to reach any
firm conclusion. I do not challenge the statement that everything on
the case is in the file, but I do say that the allegations are not followed
up in many cases, neither confirmed nor denied. To expect a Senator
reading one of those files to reach a conclusion, it is a very difficult
procedure. I am not criticizing you at all but inasmuch as the ques-
tion of the adequacy of the files came up I want the record to show
in my opinion that the files are inadequate.
Mv. Peikifoy. I don't think you asked if they are adequate.
Senator Lodge. I did not ask it.
Senator Tydings. I woidd like to put in the record and will furnish
for the record a statement tliat immediately upon the charge of
Senator INIcCarthy that the files were tampered with I wrote to the De-
partment of Justice and asked them to make a thorough examination as
to whether the material furnished by the FBI for these files was in-
tact, whether any of it was missing, and so on, and I was advised yes-
terday that all files liave been examined and there was no erasing or
tampering or altering of the records according to the FBI. There
is no evidence in any way, shape, or form that the files are different
now from any time when they were created other than to add new
material and they are intact and their integrity is not questioned. I
will put that statement in the record.
Mr. Peurifoy. IVIay I revert to the question asked when I will make
the report available and say that in the report there was a chart
prepared by the FBI. This morning I received clearance from Mr.
Hoover to read into the record a letter he wrote on this subject.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead. It may be read in the record.
]\Tr. Peurifoy. This is a letter from the United States Department
of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D. C, under
date of June 14, 1950. It is marked "Personal and confidential, by
special messenger." It reads as follows :
Hon. .Tames E. WioTtn,
Under Secret anj of State, Depart iiient of State,
Washinf/ton, D. C.
r)B;AK Mil. AVehh: Recent newspaper articles have come to my attention con-
taining statements made by Senator .Tosepli R. McCarthy, wherein he quoted
excerpts from the State Department report prepared by Mr. Samuel Klaus of
your department, which referred particularly to an alleged FBI chart.
The comments made by Mr. Klaus in his report concerning this alleged FBI
chart, as they appeared in the newspapers, were completely erroneous. This
Bureau did not send any such chart to the State Department, and, of course,
made no evaluation of information as was indicated in the report. The author
of the report took occasion to criticize the FBI in its report. This Bureau does
not claim to be infallible; however, it appears that, if the State Department had
any questions concerning the report, the matter should have been discussed with
us at that time. I want to point out that the erroneous statements made by Mr.
Klaus were highly embarrassing and prejudicial to the FBI.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN'VESTIGATION 1253
As yon ;ire ;nv:iro. this* 'Rnrean ooopreates fully with your Department
thronsh estalilisluMl liaison channels. I thought you wonkl he interested in
knowing tlie true facts in this matter, and they are being furnished to you for
whatever action you may deem desirable.
Sincerely yours,
J. Edgar Hoov'er, Director.
Mr. MoKRis. Was that a State Department document which you
referred to (
Mr. Pkuripot. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mouias. Was tliat a State Department document, that FBI
document i
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir.
iSIr. Morgan. Do you have any other documents or observations
concerning security factors in the Department other than the state-
ment you liave read, sir?
Mr. Peurifot. I don't think so. I think anyone in this job of mine
would be always conscious of the fact that the Soviet Union and its
satellites perhaps prefer to penetrate the State Department over any
other agencies in the Government.
Senator Tydings. Outside of the Department of Defense, probably.
Mr. Peurifoy. That is right. Well, there are other agencies as for
example the Atomic Energy Commission.
Senator Tydixgs. I would assume they would rather get in the De-
partment of Defense.
Mr. Peurifoy. But I say on that problem I think it is a problem
which requires vigilance on our part continuously. We must be con-
stantly on our toes, and insofar as humanly possible I am trying to do
that job.
Mr. Morgan. To your knowledge, Mr. Peurifoy, are any members of
the Communist Party employed in the State Department?
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir.
Mr. ^Morgan. What under existing regulation would be the pro-
cedure in the event it was ascertained members of the Communist
Party were employed in the Department?
Mr. Peurifoy. If I knew a member of the Connnunist Party was
there, I would exercise the right that we have in firing him
immediately.
Mr. Morgan. Suppose there is a complaint, what happens then?
Mr. Peurifoy. It depends on the seriousness of it. The employee
would be suspended. Of course, I would obviously consult with the
security people, and the chances are I would take their recommenda-
tions on it. They are dealing with it all the time. They would know
whether there are other activities going on. They may not want
to move right away on a certain case which might lead to somewhere
else. It was just a matter of consultation. If they said a certain
man was dangerous, he would be out.
Mr. Morgan. What I want to know under existing regulations is it
mandatory to dismiss a member of the Communist Party if it is
established and then proven that he is a member of the Communist
Party ':
.Mr. Peurifoy. Not absolutely ; but whether mandatory or not, I
don't care whether mandatory or not I would get rid of him, but it is
mandatory.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Puerifoy, what standard do you use to determine
whether or not the man is a Communist ?
1254 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTVESTIGATION
Mr. Peltrifot, We have the security standards which General
Snow put in.
Senator Tydings. They are all in the record. I do not know
whether you saw them or not. They were put in when we had the
Loyalty Board before us.
Mr. Peurifoy. But there miglit be other ways of expressing it. I
would exercise my judgment in a matter of that kind.
Senator Hicivenlooper. Mr. Peurifoy, I formed the impression
from various sources and from various, i-easons that it is almost im-
possible to produce nowadays actual proof of membership in the
Communist Party except in a few cases because the Communist Party
has gone underground and physical proof is usually very difficult to
find. I am also of the opinion that security risks, while it is a matter
of judgment, it is far easier to establisli a case of security risk. I think
the exercise of that judgment in protecting the public interest is fully
as important as trying to establish that an individual is an actual active
member of tlie Communist Party or is not. The suri-oundings, cii'cum-
stances, conduct, or associations or historical activities of individuals
finally decide the question of whether or not in good judgment that
person is a security risk.
I frankly am of the opinion in our Government departments, which
is the State Department as well as other departments, that we have
leaned over backward in the exercise of that judgment to protect
individuals, and we have done it to the prejudice of the interests of the
public. In other words, our Loyalty Boards have held too rigidly to
the "proof beyond all reasonable doubt"' theory, which is tlie way we
use in criminal cases. They have demanded a gi'eater degree of proof
than is often possible to produce, and frankly in some of the depart-
ments they are very sensitive and they have kept people on where
the evidence seems strong that they are a bad security risk. Even in
your own Department you have kept them on because of the failure
to be able to produce unquestioned proof of overt acts of disloyalty or
unquestioned proof of membership in the Communist Party. I think
we have gone on this pseudo-liberal philosophy in this country and
all the things that this raises when a hue and cry is raised about it to
the poiut where we are not vigorous in many cases in safeguarding the
over-all, overriding public interest.
I am not throwing that solely to the State Department, but I have
read some of these files. I haven't been able to read them all, and I
don't hesitate to say on this record that the ones I read I would say
almost without exception I would not keep them in the State Depart-
ment. I would not have them around. They just did not smell good
to me based on the evidence and their associations, as a matter of
individual attitude and judgment. Maybe I am going too far on that
line; T do not know. I realize there are administrative problems that
are difficult to meet. That is true, but we are dealing with a pretty
big thing here in the administrative part of the Government, which
is very, very important.
I have reached the conclusion that in protecting the public we have
got lost in the woods of confusion through thinking about private
i-ights. All of us have constitntional rights, but there is no over-all
]mblic clearance in th*' ]n!blic interest. I can't avoid that conclusion
in manv cases.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1255
Mr. Peurifoy. INfay I say a few words?
Senator Tydixgs. Is this on the record?
Mr. Peurifoy'. Yes, sir. I tliink yon probably know where I come
from and my backgronnd. M}- people came to this conntry in 1619
on the Maylfoirer.
I don't think that makes a person any more loyal than someone
else who may have jnst became a citizen, bnt I jnst want to also say
I went to the Unitect States Militar}^ Academy, where I do not believe
thej' teach Comnnniist beliefs; and my whole background is against
this i)hilosophy.
1 myself believe anyone who believes in communism does not believe
in God. I ma}' go further than some people, but that happens to be
my own personal belief.
I started in the State Department as a clerk. I believe and I think
it is a privilege to work for this Government. I don't think it is a
right to work for this Government. I believe I am a servant of the
people. I try to regard it that waj^ so that I regard the Appropria-
tions Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee as my board of
directors and I am the general manager, and when they call me up
before them I am in that capacity. So, I only want to say that my
whole feeling, my whole instinct, is opposed to anyone who is sabo-
taging this country or the Department or its institutions. Off the
record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator PIickenlooper. Mr. Peurifo}', anybody who knows any-
thing about 3^our background knows there is no question but you are
very vigorous and fundamental in your attitude toward it. There is
no criticism of your personal attitude in this matter.
]Mr. Peurifoy. I understand it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I understand you cannot take every loyalty
case and go through it personally and make a report. No one in-
dividual can. My observations were directed to the philosophy that
seems to manifest itself on the attitude toward Government employees,
and I would like to make it clear it is not alone in the State Department
but in all departments of the Government. It is a philosophy that
the Government owes somebody a job, and you have got to prove them
guilty of a heinous crime in order to get him out.
Senator Lodge. I understand that in the FBI, if there is the slight-
est question or suspicion of any kind, that the party can be transferred
from the job that he is going ahead with to another job, or he can be
dismissed.
Senator Ttdixgs. "For the good of the service."
Senator Lodge. Have you ever done that ?
Mr. Pei^rifot. He is talking about in the FBI.
Senator Lodge. I will ask IVIr. Morgan. He has been in the FBI.
Mr. iVIoRGAX. Yes. My o[)inion for Avliat it is worth is that the
Bureau has taken very summary action in any cause where there
was any question concerning an employee.
Senator Lodge. Any question of any kind?
Mr. ]\IoRGAx. That is right.
Senator Lodge. My question then is why should not the same pol-
icy be followed right along in the State Department?
68970 — 50— pt. 1 80
1256 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Peurifoy. I tliink, if there is was any reason to doubt someone,
we should take steps to get rid of them,
I, myself, Senator Lodge, do not subscribe — my people disagree
with me — I do not subscribe to the theory if you have something
against someone that you transfer them to some other job. If that
pei^on is not qualified to do a job by reason of the question of his loy-
alty or security, I really don't think they should be in the Department.
Senator Lodge. Then you agiee that the FBI method would be a
good one?
Mr. Peurifoy. I do think it is a good one.
Senator Tydings. All right, we will take a recess until 10 : 30 o'clock
tomorrow morning.
(Thereupon, at 12 noon, the subcommittee recessed to meet on Thurs-
day, June 22, 1950, at 10 : 30 a. m.)
STATE DEPARTMENT LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
THURSDAY, JUNE 22, 1950
United States Senate,
CoM:\iii"rEE ON Foreign Relations,
Sui5C()Mmitiee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington, D. C.
The subconiniittee met at 10:30 a. m., in the Senate caucus room,
room 318, Senate Office Building, pursuant to adjournment on Wednes-
day June 21, 1950, Senator Millard E. Tydings (chairman of the
subconnnittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Tydings, (chairman of the subcommittee, (Green,
Hickenlooper, and Lodge, and Chairman Connally of the full com-
mittee.
Also present : Mr, Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the sub-
connnittee; Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel of the subcommit-
tee; Mr. John S. Service, Foreign Service officer of the United States,
Department of State, and counsel : Gerard D. Reilly, Esq., and Charles
Edward Rhetts, Esq., of the firm of Reilly, Rhetts & Ruckelhaus.
Senator Tydin uS. The conmiittee will come to order.
The chairman desires to make a brief statement.
It was intended yesterday that we would proceed today in execu-
tive session. Late last night I understand Mr. Service and his attor-
neys requested that he be heard in open session.
I did not know that until I arrived at the Captiol this morning, as I
was up the country last night and only learned of it this morning.
It has been the announced policy of the committee that those who
are charged in the open shall have the right to reply in the open if
they request it.
We further believe it is good American policy to give a man a chance
to answer in the open any charges made against him in the open.
Anything else would violate the spirit of our whole constitutional
form of government.
This is not a criminal trial but it has overtones here where a man's
reputation and living are at stake to a large extent.
Therefore, when I heard this morning through our attorney that
Mr. Service had requested that he be heard in open session the Chair
felt he had no oj)tion except to grant the request in the American tra-
dition and in line with the proceedings heretofore adopted in this
connnittee.
I regret that I had to take precipitate action but as the hour of 10 : 30
Avas drawing near and I oidy heard it a quarter after 10, 1 hope I have
not done anything wrong. I have done it in haste as the circum-
stances permitted me.
1257
1258 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN"VEST'IGATION
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, I think it is regrettable that deci-
sions are made as to holding public hearings without the consent of
the committee.
There is not much point being on these committees if you are not
going to have a chance in taking part in making these decisions.
I don't feel this particular matter before us, the sole question is
the question of just one individual. I think there are a number of
other factors involved.
It was decided to pursue this Amerasia investigation in private, for
reasons which seemed to me excellent. I do not know how I would have
thought of it if I had been given an opportunity, but I think it is a
poor procedure to make decisions on these matters as important as
this without consulting other members of the subcommittee.
Senator Tydings. I think that is a fair observation except I don't
think the committee has any option but to grant an open hearing where
an American citizen is under attack. It is not solely the Amerasia case
but I understand 'the purview of the charges against him extend beyond
that. Therefore I think the Chair could do nothing else but accede to
his request as he is the man who has moi-e to get and lose by it.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, I think the American people have
quite a bit at stake.
Senator Tydings. That is right.
Senator Lodge. And I am for doing justice to all people including
Mr. Service, but that is not the situation here. This is the Amerasia
case. On that the proper method to follow would be decisions by our
committee. I do not see why we should be called upon to make these
hasty decisions. I do not think it is the proper way to conduct these
proceedings.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Service, do you solemnly proclaim and swear
that the evidence you give now before this committee shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Service. I do.
STATEMENT OF JOHN S. SERVICE, EOEEIGN SERVICE OFFICER OF
THE UNITED STATES
Senator Tydings. Take a seat, sir.
Give us your full name.
Mr. Service. John Steward Service.
Senator Tydings. And your present occupation ?
Mr. Service. I am a Foreign Service officer of the United States.
Senator Tydings. And your present address ?
Mr. SER\^CE. National Hotel, I Street, Washington.
Senator Tydings. And how long have you been in the service of the
State Department ?
Mr. SER^^CE. Since June 1943 — excuse me, 1933.
Senator Tydings. Now, just for the purpose of identification, you are
here with counsel.
Mr. Service. I am.
Senator Tydings. I am going to ask your counsel if he will not iden-
tify himself for the purposes of the record?
Mr. Reilly. My name is Gerard D. Reilly. I have an office in the
Tower Building. I have my assistant with me.
Mr. Rhetts. My name is C. E. Rhetts.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOX 1259
Senator Tyhings. You are partners?
Mr. RiiETTS. "We are partiiors in tlie firm of Reilly, Rhetts &
Ruekelsliaus in tlie Tower Buildinii^,
Senator Tydings. Now, ]\Ir. Service, I have before me w^liat I pre-
sume is a formal prepared statement which I imagine you want to read.
Ts that correct?
Mr. Service. If I may.
Senator Tydixgs. If you read it we will try not to interrupt you for
any extensive interrogation except for a date or something- of that
sort, so if 3'ou proceed to read your statement we will reserve interro-
gation until you have completed your statement. You may proceed.
Mr. Service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Before I start may I say it has been my intention all along to coop-
erate to the greatest extent with this committee and to accede to your
wishes in regard to the manner in which this investigation would be
conducted.
When we learned yesterday that there were some requests, some
feeling that these hearings be public, we were glad to request and so
I made the suggestion. I understood from the press that none of
the hearings were public and for my part we were glad to find the
request that they be open.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I wrote a letter to the chair-
man of the subcommittee a couple of days ago suggesting inasmuch
as this matter has been given great publicity and ballyhooed around
I thought there were no reasons why since the matter was of such
interest that it might be well to have Mr. Service appear in open
hearing. So I am the member of the committee who made that
suggestion to the chairman. I did not make it to Mr. Service but I
made it to the chairman.
I have no objection to the letter going in the record if the chairman
wants to insert it. I did make the suggestion and request.
Senator Lodge. But certainly I was somewhat amazed that the
witness should know more about what was going on in the committee
than a member of the committee.
Mr. Service. I read it in the press.
Senator Tydings. He said he read it in the press.
I do not think the witness knows what is going on in the committee.
There is no evidence that he does. That is a pure assumption, Mr.
Lodge.
Senator Hickexlooper. I think yesterday morning or perhaps in
the afternoon in response to the request I said, "Yes, I have no objec-
tion to Mr. Service appearing before the committee in a public hear-
ing," and I wrote to the chairman to that effect.
Senator Tydings. Let us get on with the testimony.
Senator Green. As I understood it after long deliberation the com-
mittee voted unanimously that there should be no further public hear-
ings unless in case of an exception of anyone who had been accused
publicly. ■
Senator Tydixgs. Yes, and that is the case here. Mr. Service served
notice he wanted to be heard publicly.
Senator HiCKENLoopER. Very well.
Senator Ty'dings. Go ahead, Mr. Service.
1260 STATE DEPARTMENT EOVIPLOYEE LOYALTY IISTV^ESTIGATION
Mr. Service. First, I wish to thank this subcommittee for this
opportunity of appearing before you. As an American citizen, there
is nothino- more important to me than my good name and reputation
for loyalty. As a servant of the American Government, I am also
naturally anxious to assist, so far as I have relevant knowledge, in
clarifying matters whicli are under investigation by your committee
and in answering the various charges which, if true, would cast grave
doubt on my suitability for office and reflect on the integi'ity of our
Government.
The various charges against me relate to two periods : first, my duty
from 104:0 to April 1945, as a Foreign Service officer attached to the
staff of the commanding general of the United States forces in China ;,
and second, the ])eriod"from April to June 1945, during which I met
Philip Jaffe and Alark Gayn for the first time and tlius, unliappily^
became innoceutly involved in the so-called Amerasia case.
I should like to describe for this committee something of what I
was doing during these periods — why I was doing it aud under what
circumstances.
I joined the P'oreign Service in 19?>3 and after preliminary studies
as a language officer in Peiping from 19:^5 to 1937, and an intensive
period of combined study and practical service in the American con-
sulate general in Shanghai under the then consul general, Clarence E.
Gauss, I volunteered early in 1941 for assignment to the American
Embassy at Chmigking, of which Ambassador Nelson T. Johnson
was then Chief. AVithin a short time Ambassador Johnson was suc-
ceeded by my former chief, Mr. Gauss, as Ambassador. I served
under him for a period of approximately a year and a half as third
secretary of the Embassy. During this period it was my good fortune
to serve in a direct association with Ambassador Gauss as a general
intelligence officer engaged in gathering political information from
every available source in a highly complex political community. By
this I mean that my "beat" included every shade of political opinion
and person — ranging from the P'oreign Office of the Chinese Govern-
ment through the Chinese press to the representatives, officially recog-
nized by the Chinese Government, of the Chinese Communist Party..
Considering the circumstances of my presence before this com-
mittee, I will perhaps be forgiven if I quote directly from former
Ambassador Gauss as to the nature and quality of my performance as
a servant of my Government at this time. I quote his testimony dur-
ing the course of my hearing before the State Department loyalty
security board.
This is Mr. Gauss answering
Senator Hickexlooper. At this point, ^Vlr. Cliairman, I suggest
as orderly procedure if the witness cares to bi-in<r in part of the testi-
mony before the State Department loyalty security board that I
reserve the right to raise the cpiestion as to whether or not the entire
testimony before the loyalty board shall be bi-ought in. It is entirely
up to the witness. 1 don't waive my right at this moment. •
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. Service. It is my hope to be able to introduce the entire trans-
cript of my hearing before the State Department lovalty board.
Senator Tydings. All right. Go ahead.
Senator Hickenlooper's position will be noted in the record.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATrON 1261
Mr. Service. This is what Ambassador Gauss said, answering:
Answer. Now, I would like to go very positively into that particular question
because the only thiiiu: that I know about of Mr. Service — of complaint against
him — is the iMcCarthy statement that he associated with Comnnuiists. In
Chunskins Mr. Service was a political officer of the Embassy. His job was to
cover the water front. His job was to get every bit of information that he
possibly could, and he went over to the Chuniiking side of the river every day
and he saw everybody that he could. Now it was diflicult to get information
in those days. We had a censorship. They had all these wonderful stories
about Chinese victories which never proved to be true. (They) used to give
out this information to the press and your Chinese press was censored, you
couldn't get information, you had to go out and get it yourself. .Jack Service's
job was to go over to the other side of the river and to see everybody that he
could. He would see the foreign press people. He saw the Chinese press people.
He saw anybody in any of the embassies or legations that were over there that
were supposed to know anything. He saw any people in the Foreign CfRce or
any of the other ministeries. He went to the Kuomintang headquarters and
talked with whoever he could see there. He went to the Ta Kung Pao, which
was the independent newspaper. He went to this independent newspaper, he was
in touch with those people. He went to the Communist newspaper. He went
to Communist headquarters. He associated with everybody and anybody in
Chungking that could give him information, and he pieced together this puzzle
that we had constantly before us as to what was going on in China, and he did
a magnificent job at it.
Question. His contact with the Communists at that point was strictly in
accordance with his official duties?
Answer. Strictly in accordance with his official duties. I didn't tell him to
go there, but I expected him to go there, that was his job, and you didn't have
to tell .Jack Service what his job was, or how to do it. He did it. I would like
to make that very plain (transcript of proceedings. Loyalty Security Board.
in the case of John S. Service, Saturday, May 27, 1950, 2-5: .30 p. m., pp. 9-11).
In the summer of 1943, at the request of Gen. Joseph Stihvell, Sec-
retary of War Stimson arranged wnth the State Department for me
to be detached from the Embassy at Chungking and to be attached to
General Stilwell's staff. I continued to serve on the staff of the Com-
manding General of the China-Burma-India theater from August
194?> until my eventual recall from China in April 194.5, at the
insistence, I am told, of the then Ambassador, Patrick J. Hurley. It
is of considerable importance in connection with my presence here
today to emphasize that throughout this period I was responsible not
to the American Ambassador but to the commanding general — first,
to General Stilwell and, after October 1944. to General Wedemyer, and
that I never received any indication or intimation from either of them
that my services or my political reports were anything but satisfactory.
In fact I was connnended by both of them for my work.
My duties and activities during this period can be appraised only
against the background of that time and of the military and political
situation then existing in China. It has been said with much justifica-
tion that the China-Burma-Indian theater was a relatively minor mili-
tary theater of operations dnring the war but that it was most complex
military political theater of any involved in the war. China was a
theater of vest military i^otential in the war against Japan but at
every point the realization of that potential was conditioned by and
dependent upon the political factors. I cannot, within the permissible
bounds of this testimony, attempt to describe all of these political
aspects of the Chinese situation in relation to the war against Japan.
My own part in the American organization in China was by no
means important. General Stilwell had an extensive knowledge of
1262 STATE DEiPARTMElSiT EiMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
China based on roughly 20 years of service in that country. Although
I was privileged to count General Stilwell as a friend, neither I nor
anyone familiar with the situation regarded myself as an intimate
of the General's or as an important or significant influence on his
thinking. As a matter of fact, on the largest political issues of the
time, I shared and, as a very junior member of his staff, sought to
implement his views as to the best means of winning of the war and
serving American interests in China. I could not be so arrogant as
to suppose that I was the originator of those views, or so foolish as
to have attempted to impose them on the General.
My actual duties were various. I was never fully integrated into
the military staff and, in the rather informal way characteristic of
the theater, performed differing functions from time to time wher-
ever my services could be most useful. Primarily, I acted as a polit-
ical intelligence officer in connection watli certain assigned subjects of
direct concern to the prosecution of the war. One of these fields
which I was under specific instructions to cover, from the very begin-
ning of my assignment, was intelligence concerning the Chinese
Communists.
I served as consultant to headquarters staff sections requiring back-
ground information relative to the highly complex Chinese political
scene in which we had to operate. I assisted in liaison with the
Embassy, with other American agencies, and with Chinese individuals
and organizations.
In accordance with General Stilwell's wishes, I maintained close
relations with the rej^resentatives in China of the American press
to the end that the public interest would be served by intelligent
understanding of the situation as it affected and influenced the war
effort in China.
As the war progressed into 1944, several developments in China
reached a point which could not but cause concern to the American
commander and the American Government. Without minimizing the
7 years of war, hardship, and isolation which China had undergone,
the situation in that part of the country controlled by the Central
Government showed signs of such deterioration — caused in consider-
able part by misgovernment — that its continued ability effectively to
oppose the Japanese was clearly in doubt. This was a matter of im-
mediate concern because of the series of determined Japanese cam-
paigns commencing in April 1944 to seal off eastern China and seize
our advanced air bases.
At the same time, the Chinese Communists, by astute use of united-
front tactics and by mastery of guerrilla w^arfare suited to Chinese
rural conditions and their own limited resources, were rapidly ex-
panding their areas of control behind the Japanese lines. Their suc-
cess in this difficult type of warfare and their ability to outcompete
and exclude the Central Government from any important power in
these areas was a clear indication that they were becoming the more
dynamic force in China.
Unfortunately for the war, tension between the two parties mounted
as the Central Government became more concerned over the growing
streng-th of the Communists. A considerable part of its best forces
were diverted to maintaining a rigid blockade of the Communist
areas. The threat of these forces impelled a lialancing innnobilization
of Communist forces. Far from there being cooperation, neither
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATrOX 1263
Cliinese army was willing to exert its maximum effort against the
Japanese.
The areas of Connnunist control were becoming increasingly im-
]>ortant to American military oi)erations. They adjoined the principal
Japanese continental base of Manchuria, lay along much of the China
seacoast, straddled the Japanese land connnunication lines (now vital
to the Japanese because of the success of our attacks on their shipping) ,
and were close to the })rincipal Japanese concentrations in China.
Furthermore, the expansion of our air operations and the use of bases
in v.-est China for the initial B-29 strikes at Japan and JManchnriu
meant that we would be operating over hundreds of miles of Commu-
nist-controlled territory. In addition to order-of-battle and other
intelligence regarding Japanese dispositions and defenses in north
China, it also became vital therefore to set up facilities such as weather
reporting and rescue of ground crews. Exj)erience had demonstrated
the inability of the Central Government adequately to provide these
services where the Communist areas w^ere concerned. American mili-
tar}'^ requirements dictated the need for direct American access to
the Comnnuiist areas.
Under Army instructions I assisted in the negotiations which were
finally successful in June 1944, in obtaining Central Government per-
mission for United States Army intelligence teams to enter the Com-
munist area. And after consultation with and approval of the Em-
bassy and the Department of State, I was ordered by the Army to
proceed with the first group to the Communist base at Yenan for the
purpose of collecting political intelligence regarding the Chinese
Communists. There was nothing "highly secret"' about this mission.
Nor was it "shepherded" by me. It was an Army group, under the
command of a colonel of the Regular Army, to which I was attached
in a subordinate capacity.
Much has also been said about mj- contacts with Chinese Commu-
nists. Active cultivation of these contacts was a basic and vital part
of my full-time assignment during this period, which was to learn all
that I could, for the benefit of the American Government, concerning
the Chinese Connnunists. Professionally, as an intelligence officer,
it is a matter of pride rather than apology that I was able through
these contacts with all of the important Communist leaders from Mao
Tse-tung down, to obtain valuable first-hand information for which I
have been commended by both the Department of State and the United
States Army.
During the war, the first objective of American policy — in China
as elsewhere — was to win the war as rapidly as possible and with the
greatest saving of American lives. The noncooperation of the prin-
cipal Chinese forces, even in the face of the grave Japanese threat in
the summer and autumn of 1944, was a serious impediment to the war.
Commencing in July 1944, therefore, the President of the United
States recommended that General Stilwell be placed in command of all
Chinese armies as a practical means of furthering a more effective
prosecution of the war and of meeting the Japanese attack. This pro-
posal, which necessaril}- involved American command and some sup-
ply of the Communist forces, was agreed to in principle by General-
issimo Chiang Kai-shek in July 1944.
1264 STATE DE.PARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^^ESTIGATTON
Beyond the winning of the war, American policy sought to pro-
mote the emergence of a strong and independent C liina, friendly to
the United States and not subservient to any other power. The de-
veloping contest for power within China not only caused a stagnation
of the war effort, it also pointed toward a civil war which would be
disastrous for the economic recovery of the country, wliich would
drive both factions to extremes resulting in the elimination of mod-
erate liberal groups which we hoped would be the leaders of the
country, and which, in view of the trend within China, would proba-
bly end in a complete Connnunist victory. In such a civil war, our
military support of the Kuomintang Party would have the effect of
driving the Communists, who at that time showed hopefully inde-
pendent nationalistic leanings, into the arms of Russia. Furthermore,
unless the Kuomintang reformed itself sufficiently^ to regain the pop-
ular support which it was losing, there was no hope that our aid to
it — beyond that necessary for actual prosecution of the war — would
be successful. Such aid, even though of highly doubtful success
woidd have involved a huge and incalculable commitment of Amer-
ican funds and resources. Almost certainly it would have involved
large American forces — a sacrifice which the American people have
not even yet shown an indication of willingness to accept.
If I can interpolate, perhaps in view of all that has happened in
China, this looks like hindsight, but I hope that this committee will
have a chance to see some of the reports which I wrote commencing in
1943, saying exactly these things, and pointing to the danger of the
situation in China.
American efforts, therefore, were directed toward persuading the
Kuomintang to strengthen its own position by i-eform and, when this
persuasion proved of little effort, to promoting a peaceful compromise
between the two parties which might avert the calamity of civil war,
which in turn could only contribute to Soviet domination.
It was to carry out this policy of fostering military and political
unification that both General Hurley and General jNIarshall went to
China and devoted great time and effort. I was not the originator
of this policy — which was determined by the President on the advice
of his principal political and military advisers. However, I did and
still do believe that the policy was the best one for American interests
and the only practical choice which we had under the circumstances.
As an American intelligence officer in the field I observed the prog-
ress of our efforts to implement that policy and it was a part of my
duties to make recommendations from time to time, in the light of
changing circumstances, as to the best means of achieving that fjolicy.
Debate on this policy, never carried to fruition but designed to pre-
vent exactly what has happened in China, has continued. Chinese
and other critics of General Stilwell realized that from the point
of view of public relations in the United States it was not politic to
attack directly an American four-star General. The attack was there-
fore frequently directed at the General's presumed "advisers." I
have long been well aware that I have been persona non grata to Gen-
eral Chiang Kai-shek and many of his advisers and supporters.
But is is important, I think, for me to emphasize that I was
])rimarily a reporter and nevei- a })olicy-forming officer — although
irom time to time I expressed to my superiors my views on policy
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USTVESTIGATION 1265
mutters, My reports and expressions of views, however, s]iould be
available to this connnittee and Avill demonstrate, I am satisfied, that
they were entirely in consonance witli American ])olicy.
In this connection! mijiht point ont to the connnittee that dnring
the conrse of my |)repai'ations for a hearinjr before the State Depart-
ment Loyalt}'^ Security Board, I requested the State Department to
attem])t to locate such of my actual reports and memoranda prepared
d.uring this pei-iod as were transmitted to the Department by the Em-
bassy in Chunokiiio;. Eej^orts have appeared in the press that the
State Department was makino; available to me my loyalty files and
(.rhei- materials denied to this connnittee. I may so that no such
material has ever been furnished me and that what I sou<»;ht was
co))ies of i\\j own work product so that my reporting might be criti-
cally examined by objective experts and by the loyalty boards to
ascertain whether this reporting lacked objectivity or evidenced politi-
cal bias or a disposition to sabotage American foreign })olicy or any
of the other things with wliich I have been charged. I should sup-
pr>s^ this material would be available to this committee. In any cas©,
I liope so, for I think it should be the first resort of anyone seeking
to ascertain the objective quality of my Avork as a servant of the
(lovernment as well as the extent to which I may ever have evidenced
a friendly disposition toward Soviet communism.
At the request of the Loyalty Security Board, ]\Ir. George F.
Kennan, who is Counselor of the State Department, and, I believe,
is recognized both as an authoritv on communism and as one of its
staunchest opponents, studied each of the memoranda and reports pre-
pared by me during the period from INIay 1042 to ISfarch 1945, which
could be located in the files of the Department. These number in
excess of 125 separate memoranda. Because of its important bearing
on this question I should like to make available to the committee for
its use the entire transcript of his testimony on the results of his
study of these reports.
On the basic question of the objectivity of my reporting and its
freedom from any political or ideological predilections for commu-
nism, Mr. Kennan concluded:
'•'Sly conclusion is the foUowing : I find no evidence that the reports acquired
their character from any ulterior motive or association or from any Impulse
other than the desire on the part of the reporting officer to acquaint the De-
l)artment with the facts as he saw and interpreted them. I find no indication
that the reports reported anythinc but his best judgment candidly stated to the
Department. On the contrary the general level of thoughtfulness and inellectual
flexibility wliich pervades the reporting is such that is seems to me out of the
que.stion that it could be the work of a man with a closed mind or with
ifleological preconceptions, and it is my conclusion that it was not. (Transcript
of Proceedings, Loyalty Security Board, in the case of .John S. Service. May 2y,
I'jr.O, 1 : 45 to .5 : 30 p. m.. p. .35.)
In December 1D45. Mr. Patrick J. Hurley resigned as Ambassador
to China and in statements to the press ancl in the course of hearings
before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on December 5,
6. 7, and 10, 1945, charged that certain Foreign Service officers, of
whom I was one, sabotaged American foreign policy in China, sided
with the Chinese Communists, sought to bring about the downfall
of Chiang Kai-shek's government, and improperly communicated
Government information to Chinese Communist Party officials.
1266 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA^ESTIGATION
A fair reading of the transcript of the hearing of the Senate Com-
mittee on Foreign Eehitions where those charges were made and
probed by Senators Connally, Vandenberg, Bridges, La Follette, and
others, will disclose, I believe, that Mr. Hurley was unable to sustain
them. They were refuted by the then Secretary of State, James F.
-Byrnes, wlio, at one point said— and I quote from the testimony of
Secretary of State Byrnes :
The specific action of John Service to which Ambassador Hnrley referred to in
his conversation with me was the preparation of a memorandum on October
10, 1944. I have also read this memorandum.
Before I turn to its contents, I wish to call attention to a few facts, as they
have been presented to me. At the time this memorandum was prepared by
Mr. Service, he was not attached to the Embassy at Chungkins?. Althou-^h he
retained his status as a Foreign Service Officer, he was attaciied to the staff
of (Jeneral Stilwell as a political observer in Yenan. He was at the time admin-
istratively responsible to General Stilwell and not to the Embassy.
****** *
Ambassador Hurley, as of that date was not in charge of the United States
Embassy at Chungking.
Under these circumstances, it seems to me, it cannot be said that anything
Mr. Service wrote constituted insubordination to Ambassador Hurley.
*
The Service report was addressed to General Stilwell. It was also routed
to the Embassy in Chungking. The Embassy forwarded it to the D?partment
without endorsing its conclusions, but with a noncommittal covering memoran-
dum indicating that it represented the views of a single political observer.
* * * * * * ^
It is not my purpose to dwell at greater length upon the two documents.
And in tliis connection Secretary of State Byrnes was also referring
to a second document whicli was a telegram which had been sent to
the pe])artment of State by Mr. George Atcheson, in charge of the
altairs of the Embassy at Chungking. This is continuing with Secre-
tary of State Byrnes' statement:
In my opinion, based upon the information which has thus far been presented
to me, there is nothing in them to support the charge that either Mr. Atcheson or
'^xn r''-'^^ "^'^^ •"""'^•^' °^ ^^^ slightest disloyalty to his superior officers.
W"at It amounts to is that within proper channels they expressed to those
under whom they served certain views whicli differed to a greater or less
degree from the policies of the Government as then defined. Of course, it is the
duty of every oflicer of the United States to abide by and to administer tlhe
declfired policy of his Government. But conditions change, and often change
quickly m the aftairs of governments. Whenever an official honestly believes
that changed conditions require it, he should not hesitate to express "his views
to his superior officers.
I should be profoundly unhappy to learn that an officer of the Department
ot State, within or without the Foreign Service, might feel bound to refrain
tioiii submitting through proper channels an hon-.t repM-t or -v-eom-n-ndai ion
tor tear of offending me or anyone else in the Department. If tliat day shc.uld
arrive, 1 will liave lost the very essence of the assistance and guidance I re-
T^l^JZ.l /T'''''':^''^ discharge of the heavy responsibilities of my office.
^St.itement of Secretary of State James F. Byrnes; hearings before Senate
l^oreign Relations Committee, December 5, 6, 10, 194.5 (pp. 196-199) ).
In the course of his testimony before the Senate Foreign Eelations
Conimittee^m 1945 General Hurley also repeatedly charged that I
and otlier Foreign Service officers improperly communicated to mem-
bers of the Chiiise Communist Party classified Government informa-
tion. At tins hearing Genei-al Hurley was unable to point to any
specific example of such improper activity. In fact, under question-
STATE DEPARTMFNT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1267
iiiii' by Senator Connally, G(Mioral ITurlev could only point to the
fact that I had written a memorandum addressed to the commanding
oeneral of the theater as evidence of the fact that I had shown this
document to members of the Chinese Connnunist Party (see transcript
of hearings before the Senate Foreio-n Relations Committee, p. 180).
AMien questioned on this same point. Secretary Byrnes could only
respond that he had seen no evidence to support such a grave charge
as that preferred by General Hurley (see transcript of hearings
before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, pp. 190-200, 219,
220, 223, 229). As I have stated before the Loyalty Security Board
and as I re])eat here, these charges bj'- General Hurley are false.
Despite this exhaustive inquiry into his charges by the Senate
Foreign Relations Connnittee in December 1945, and despite the fact
that he declined an invitation by the State Department Loyalty
Security Board to a])pear and testify before- it during my recent
loyalty hearing, it appears that General Hurley has repeated these
unfounded charges in a statement released to the press a few days
ago. According to a news story ap])earing in the Washington Eve-
ning Star for Tuesday, June 20, General Hurley has named me as one
of the ])ersons who supplied Chinese Communist Leader Mao Tse-
tung with secret information in 1914. General Hurley has also re-
ported to have stated that the "sabotage"' directed against him was
"only the secondary policy of this group" (referring, evidently, to
unspecified other persons and myself). General Hurley is reported
to have added :
The group was opposed to individual libert.v, free enterprise, justice and
government by the people. They were in favor of imperialism, or communism,
and totalitarianism. The piu'pose of the aroup primarily was to sabotage the
American system of government and the American policy in China.
These charges, repeated in the face of all the evidence which re-
futes them, are as false todoay as they were when they were uttered
in 1945 and when they were repeated by various persons, including
Congre.ssman Judd (Congressional Record, October 19, 1949, p.
15288), Congressman Dondero (Congressional Record, December 10,
1945, p. A540a-A5404: February 5, 1946, p. A515) ; the magazine.
Plain Talk (October 1946), Senator McCarthy on the floor of the
Senate (Congressional Record, January 5, 1950, j). 90) , and before your
committee (transcript of hearings, March 14. 1950) and again on the
floor of the Senate (Congressional Record, March 30, 1950, p. 4437,
et seq. ) .
It is interesting to note that a major portion of the charges which
have been leveled against me stem directly or indirectly from these
original charges made by General Hurley. As I have indicated, they
have })een repeated over and over again, despite their refutation. One
such instance was in an article purportedly written by Mr. Emmanuel
S. Larsen which appeared in the magazine Plain Talk for October
1946. Mr. Larsen is a former employee of the State Department and
one of those who was arrested in connection with the Amerasia case.
He was indicted, and eventually found guilty. In his charges before
the Senate and before your committee, Senator McCarthy relied upon
and quoted extensively from this Plain Talk article entitled "The
State Department Espionage Case." ]\Ir. Larsen was one of the wit-
nesses who appeared at the invitation of the State Department Loyalty
Security Board as a witness in my recent Loyalty Board hearings.
1268 STATE DEiPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATION:
Under cross-examination Mr. Larsen repudiated tlie authorship of
this article in Phiin Talk almost paragraph by paragraph and testified
that the material which appeared was largely written by Mr. Isaac
Don Levine or Mr. Ralph Toledano.
It may also be interesting to note that in his testimony before the
Hobbs committee on May 13, 1946, Mr. Larsen testified :
* * * They went to lunch. They had their meetings. I was with them at
some lunch meet'ii-rs where they talked openly about defeating this cruwd like
Hurley, do everything to get him out. They sabotaged Hurley. You may take-
my word for that. They sabotaged Hurley. I have given certain little notes
and evidence to Hurley that I had committed to memory and helped him witii
his speech. It was a pity he did not launch it more systematically. He spoiled
that for me (96 Daily Congressional Record, 7548, column 2, May 22, 19.50).
In his sworn testimony in the course of my Loyalty Board proceed-
ings Mr, Larsen testified as follows on cross-examination :
Question by Mr. Rhetts : Now I draw your attention particularly to your
statement. By the way, your testimony before the Hobbs conunittee was that
under oath, do you recall?
Answer. No : I don't think it was. It was a little — a very friendly little party.
We sat around a small table all in easy chairs. I think we were six or seven
altogether, and just chatted. There was no, as far as I remember — I was not
at a committee testifying in the full sense of a committee being in session. It was
more that they had invited me in to talk it over with me.
Question. They evidently made a transcript of the testimony, did they not?
Answer. Now, that ; I don't know. I don't remember anyone there taking
notes.
Question. Well, the material before you purports to be the questions and
answers recorded at that time, does it not.
Answer. It appears so, yes.
Question. Now, in that you stated to the committee that the committee could
take your word for it that — you state : "You may take my word for that.
They sabotaged Hurley." Now to whom were you referring by "they"?
Answer. I can't answer that because I am not sure what the conversation
was abcmt. I am reading back here : "You may take my word for that. They
sabotaged Hurley." It is rather incoherent, some of this stuff here.
Question. Did you intend to refer to Mr. Service as one of the persons, one of
the antecedents of this pronoun "they" ?
Answer. I think that would be unwise for me to say now, inasmuch as I
don't remember the details of this here.
Question. Well, why don't you read it over with some care and see?
Answer. Yes, I have read it over.
Question. You have read it over?
Answer. But there is a possibility that I referred to Mr. John Carter Vincent
and Mr. Service, there is a possibility.
Question. Well, now, will you tell the Board what evidence you had that
Mr. Service, or anyone else for that matter, but Mr. Service, in particular,
sabotaged Hurley?
Answer. Well, I believe they asked me about Hurley's testimony before the-
Senate committee in December 1945, and they asked me whether I had any
knowledge of conversations or other intentions to get rid of Hurley.
Question. Well, on that point there is no indication in that testimony that
they asked you that, is there?
Answer. I have a feeling that this is written from memory and I think they
should be asked to produce some sort of a statement before they put this dowii
as legal and dependable testimony. I have not been through this, as I said, and
I liave been advised by an attorney to make no comments on it, and I think I
shall follow that advice.
Question. Well, I ask you again what evidence did you have that Service did,
in fact— well, I will ask you this : Did you or did you not make the statement
that IS ascribed to you here, namely : "You may take mv word for that. They
sabotaged Hurley."
Answer. No, I don't think I will answer that question for the simple reason
that I don't know for sure. If I liad a copy of my testimony— and I am sure-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN'VESTI CATION 1269
yim sontlemeii will aiiiee with me — if I had a copy and I wa.s certain that
lliiit was what I said I would say so. I would have to say so. But I am not
< reiain and 1 don't want to incrinnnate myself and make a statement now about
somethinj; which does not satisfy me.
Question. All right, let me ask you this: Did you, in fact, all apart from
whether this is or is not an accurate transcript of the testimony you gave —
did you. in fact, have any evidence that ^Ir. Service ever sabotaged Hurley?
Answer. 1 have no evidence that he did sabotage Mr. Hurley, but I have a
slight indication that he didn't like Mr. Hurley.
Question. What indication did you have?
Answer. Well, for instance, he attended a lunch one time. We went to the
Tally-IIo restaurant. ]Mr. .John Carter A'incent sent me a note and a.sked me
whether I wanted to go to lumh with him, and I am not sure whether I walked
over wiih Mr. Service or just with ^Ir. John Carter Vincent. But, anyway, we
had lunch together and after we had put our trays down Mr. Vincent mentioned
som(>thing to the effect that Hurley was making a thorough ass of himself, and
that it was about time we thought of some way of getting rid of him. I don't
renunnber my exact answer, but I lielieve I said something to the effect that,
well, I was new in the State Department and I was only a country specialist,
and that I would start to hire and tire ambassadors when I became Secretary
of State.
Mr. Stevens
He was a member of the Board interrogating him then — asked the
question :
Let me see. You went to lunch with Mr. Vincent. Who else was at that
lunch?
Answer. I remember Mr. Service was there. I don't remember whether Mr.
Emerson, or who it wa.s — some third person went with us.
Mr. Stevens. Have you any idea as to the time? Can you fix a time in there?
Answer. Sometime in April 194.5.
Questions by Mr. Rhetts :
Question. What did Mr. Service say on that occasion?
Answer. I don't think he said anytTiing.
Question. What basis can you have for the conclusion that Mr. Service didn't
like Mr. Hurley?
Answer. Mr. Hurley told me that he believed they had worked against him
in the field.
Question. Well, on that occasion, on the occa.sion of this luncheon there was
nothing that occurred that led you to believe that Mr. Service didn't like Mr.
Hurley?
Answer. Except the fact that he was present there.
C)uestion. The fact that he was present at the luncheon at which Mr. Vincent
made this remark?
Answer. And that I do not remember him making any statement to the effect
that he didn't want to be a party to that.
• (Question. Did you have any other basis for believing that Mr. Service tried
to sabotage ^Ir. Hurley?
Then the answer by Mr. Larsen was :
No: I don't remember now any other basis. (Transcript of proceedings,
Loyalty S(Hurity Board, in the case of John S. Service, June 2, 1950, 2:07-5:30
p. m., pp. 11-16.)
I shoidd like to make available to the committee the full transcript
of the examination and cross-examination of Mr. Larsen before the
State Department Loyalty Security l>oard. Examination of this
will also, 1 suggest, remove any question that Mr. Larsen was in any
way appearing as a friendly witness in that proceeding on my behalf.
This transcrij^t will, I bt^lieve, convince the committee that so far as I
was concerned he was treated as a hostile witness.
Despite the sworn testimony which I have just quoted, the news
stor}^ in the Washington Evening Star for June 20 referred to above
indicates that Larsen repeated before your committee on the follow-
1270 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATION
in*; day the charge that I, amoDg others, sought to "sabotage" Mr.
Hurley.
I should like to turn now to the so-called Amerasia case, in which
it was my misfortune to become innocently involved.
During my approximately 12 years of service in China, I had oc-
casion to return to the United States for a few brief periods of home
leave. One of these, after a period of a little more than 5i/^ years in
China, occurred in October of 1938 when I was in the United States
for a little over 2 months. With the exception of about 2 weeks during
■which I was on considtation in the Department of State here in Wash-
ington, I spent this leave with my family and relatives in California.
Again in December 1942, after approximately 3 years of further
duty in China, I returned to the United States for a period of ap-
proximately 3 months, of which 1 month was spent in consultation in
the Department of State in Washington and the remainder was spent
with my family in California. I returned to Chungking in x\pril of
1943, and did not return to the United States again until the end of
October 194-1. At this time I remained in Washington for approxi-
mately 3 weeks, then visited my family in California for about 6
weeks, and returned to Chungking on detail to General Wedemeyer's
staff, leaving W^ashington about January 7, 1945.
According to the recently released testimony of Mr. Frank Bielaski
before the Hobbs committee on May 10, 1946, Mv. Bielaski conducted
a raid on the offices of Amerasia on the niglit of March 10, or the early
morning of March 11, 1945. Mr. Bielaski was then employed in the
Office of Strategic Services and it appears that a larger quantity of
classified Government documents and copies was found in the offices
of Amerasia at that time. Th.en, and for many months prior there-
to, with the exception of the short period of leave which I have just
referred to, I had Ijeen stationed in China. Fr >^ ^March 9 to April
4, 1945, I was at Yenan under Army orders f' purpose of col-
lecting political intelligence. On this latter ch received instruc-
tions to return to Washington, which I did, rej -ning Washington on
April 12, 1945. I call attention of this sequence of dates because it
seems obvious that the raid by the offices of Strategic Services on
the premises of America on ]March 11, 1945, demonstrated that what-
ever channels Mr. Jaffe had for obtaining official documents were al-
ready in existence and functioning very well indeed. At that time I
was almost as far from Washington or New York at it is possible to
be— in Yenan, which is in the northwest part of China. At that time
I also had never met Mr. Jaffe or Mr. Gayn or Mv. Larsen or Miss
Mitchell, and I had had only a casual introduction to Lieutenant Roth.
According to a news story appearino- on page 1 of the New York
Times for June 17, 1950, Mr. D. M. Ladd, Assistant Director of the
Federal Bureau of Investigaticm, has testified before vour committee
(liat on April 18, 1945, 6 days after my return to this countrv, the
FBI had notified the Department of State and the Naw Depart-
ment that it was prepared to submit the Amerasia case to the Depart-
inent of Justice for its approval of the arrest of the suspects who had
been under surveillance. Such action by the FBI indicates that by
that date, having commenced its investigation a little more than a
month earlier— on March 14, 1945— the FBI was satisfied that it
had solved the case and had ascertained the channels by which docu-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1271
inents were apparently flowing- into Jall'e's possession. I could not
possibly have been one of those suspected at that time.
On that (late, I had never met Jatl'e and it was only on tliat date,
coincidentally, that I met Mark Gayn for the first time in my life.
AVhen I did meet Jatfe on the next day, April 19, 1945, 1 did so under
the impression that I was meeting a journalist, whose name was known
to me, in the same manner as I had occasion to meet and talk to many
journalists and representatives of the press. I had no notion or reason
to believe that I was meeting a man who was then under constant
surveillance on suspicion of espionage. My association wdth him
thereafter naturally made me an object of suspicion and ultimately
led to my arrest on June 6, 1945. I should like, therefore, to describe
in some detail to the committee the nature of my association with Mr.
Jaffe and the other persons who were concerned.
There was nothing exceptional about my meeting and becoming-
acquainted with Jatfe, Gayn, and the other i)ersons involved in the
Amerasia case. They were all specialists in the Far East, either as
magazine writers or as Government emploj^ees. I w^as a Foreign
Service officer recently returned from China where I had had prob-
ably more opportunity than any other American to observe the Chinese
Communists, then very much in the news because of the deteriorating
situation in China and the American efforts to promote military and
political unification there.
After my return to Washington, I had been placed temporarily on
consultation, as was customary with officers coming from active field
posts. The purpose of this was to make my fresh knowledge quickly
available to officers of ihe Department of State and the numerous other
Government agencies concerned with China.
It was also, and sti'Vis, the policy of the Department of State that
reputable represe yes of the press are to be supplied with suffi-
cient background n^ 'rnation about events abroad so that the Amer-
ican public may be inve iigently informed. During this i:)eriod, there-
fore, I discussed backgTOund information concerning China with a
considerable number of writers and journalists. Some of these, not
knowing me personally, were sent to me through the Department's
j)ress-relations office. Others knowing me personally or having mu-
tual friends — the number of writers specializing in the Far East is
not large — got in touch with me more directly. This also is cus-
tomary and not in contravention of regidations.
On April 18 I received a telephone call from Mark Gayn. I had
never joreviously met him but had known a good deal of him as we
shared a China background. I had read at least one of his books and
seen articles fm the Far East Avhich he had written for Collier's. On
this occasion, he told me that he was |)]aiining a series of articles for
the Saturday Evening Post. During a lunch together, he said that he
had an extra bed in his apartment in New York City which he would
be glad to have me use if I ever visited that city.
About this time, I had received an invitation from Lt. Andrew
Roth, whom I had met the previous November on an occasion when,
at the request of my supej-ioi's in the State De]iartment, I had given a
talk on Chinese affairs at the Institute of Pacific Relations in Wash-
ington. Roth invited me for supper at his houie on the evening of
April 19. Roth was a naval officer and I knew him to be assigned to
68970— 50— i>t. 1 81
1272 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IX\"ESTIGATIOX
the Office of Naval Intelligence where he was engaged in intelligence
work relating to the Far East. I had no reason to believe I shonld be
suspicious of Lieutenant Roth or of any journalist to whom he might
seek to introduce me.
During that day of April 19 he telephoned me, saying that Philip
Jaffe was also going to be at his home that evening but was anxious
to meet me before then, since there would be a number of people at
the party and probably little opportunity to talk. Roth asked that I
telephone Jaffe at his hotel and I did so. I knew of Jaffe as the editor
of Amerasia but I had never previously met him nor had any contact
by correspondence or otherwise with him. However, as he was the
editor of a well-known specialist magazine on the Far East, I saw no
reason why I should not meet and talk to him on a background basis
as with any other reputable newspaperman or writer. The only time
that we found convenient was for me to stop at his hotel in tUe late
afternoon and go together to Roth's dinner.
In. view of the later unhapp}^ consequences of my meeting with Mr.
Jaffe, I think I should emphasize at this point that my meeting with
him was in no sense abnormal, since it was entireh' conformable to
the policy concerning relations with the press which I had pursued
under instructions in the field attached to General Stilwell's head-
quarters and also the policy of the Department permitting Foreign
Service officers to provide background information to members of the
press.
When I prepared to leave the office before going over to Jaffe's
hotel, I had on my desk a munber of my personal copies of memoranda
written during my last visit at Yenan. Among these was a report of
an interview with Mao Tse-tung about the end of March, in which
Mao had given details of the current Communist position and the
probable line to be taken at the forthcoming Communist Party
Congress.
Senator Tydings. When you say, "Commmiist position,-' do 3'ou
mean political or military ?
Mr. Service. I mean the Chinese Communist political position.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. Service. It occurred to me that Jaffe would probably be espe-
cially interested in recent news from Yenan and particularly in recent
statements of the Communist position in the controversy going on in
China. I, therefore, took with me my personal copy of this memo-
randum which contained nothing except the Connnunists' own presen-
tation of their position. During the conversation, Mr. Jaffe, as I
expected, asked concerning the present Connnunist attitude and in-
stead of trying to remember in detail. I let him read the memorandum
which I had brought with me. Jaff'e was extremely interested and
asked at once if I did not have other similar reports about Yenan
which it would be possible to show him. Since many of these memos
were jxirely reportorial, containing only statements or observations
available to and continually being obtained by newspapermen on the
spot, I agreed to let Mr. Jaffe se'e some of this type of material. It
was agreed that I would bring some of tliese with me the next day
and that I would lunch with him at his hotel.
Tlie following day I went through my personal copies of my
Yenan memoranda and selected several— I think about 8 or 10— which
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESPVESTIGATION 1273
Avere jHirely descriptive and did not contain discussion of American
military or political policy. These I considered it would be ap-
propriate to allow Jaffe, as a writer on China, to see. I probably
took these to the hotel in the early forenoon, expecting to pick them
up at lunch. At lunch, Jaffe surprised me by saying that he had
not had time to read the memoranda, that he was leaving Washing-
ton that afternoon and wished to take them with him for several days.
After considerable discussion and in view of the nonpolicy and
jnirel}' factual nature of the papers, I allowed Jaffe to retain them.
It was arranged that I would pick them up when I expected to
visit New York a few da3's later for another meeting with the
Institute of Pacific Relations research staff there. I may add that
this meeting was also authorized by my superiors in the Dej)artment
of State and was one at which I discussed off the record the political
background of affairs then prevailing in China.
These personal copies I refer to, and from among which I allowed
Jaffe to see selected ones of a descriptive nonpolicy nature, were some
of my file copies of memoranda which I had written in China over
my own signature, recording my own observations and conversa-
tions as a reporter. They did not represent, nor purport to represent
the views of the Embassy, the Army, or the Department of State.
They bore only the unofficial classification which I placed on them
when I wrote them, a classification which by this time was of no
significance since the information contained in them had been ex-
tensively reported by American newspaper correspondents who had
visited the Communist areas. They were not removed from any
official files ; the}' had never been in official files.
It was not unusual to allow writers to have access to this type of
factual material for background purposes, since reading the ma-
terial or taking notes on it was always more satisfactory from the
viewpoint of accuracy than merely relying on one's memory and
oral recital.
Gayn learned that I was coming to New York for the meeting with
the IPR and telephoned me that he was planning a small party
and wished me to spend the night and to arrive early enough for
supper. I agreed to do this and found at his home on the evening
of April 24 about 10 to 12 people, including Mr. and Mrs. Jaffe, Miss
Kate Mitchell, a publisher and a newspaper correspondent whom I
had known in China, and several other persons, all writers or their
wiA'es.
The next day I saw various friends in New York, had my meet-
ing with the research staff of the IPR, and stopped in at Mr. Jaffe's
office to pick up my memoranda.
Early in May, Jaffe again visited Washington and got in touch with
me to refjuest my help in getting him a copy of a Federal Communica-
tions Connnission monitored leport of a broadcast summary from
Yenan of a speech given by Mao Tse-tung to the Communist Party
Congress. I told Jaffe that I did not handle such material and had no
idea whether it would be available to him. I suggested that he come
to the Department and that I would introduce him to the responsible
officer who would be able to give him a copy if permissible. Jaffe did so
and I took him to the appropriate officer in the Division of Chinese
Affaii-s, Avho said that it was quite customary to give such material to
1274 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LSTVESTIGATIGN
interested writers and gave Jaffe a copy on tlie spot. The Yenan radio
was very weak and the reception of its broadcasts often badly garbled.
This was the case with this particular broadcast. Late in the after-
noon, the officer called me and said that FCC had received a much
clearer second broadcast. He recalled that Jaffe had been interested
and asked how he could contact him. I said that I knew where Jaffe
was staying and could take it to him. This was just about closing time
in the afternoon. I picked up the monitored report, walked over to
the Statler Hotel where Jaffe was staying, and called him from the
lobby. My recollection is that he came down in the elevator, I handed
the report in an envelope to him and left.
Some days later, Jaffe telephoned me and said that T. A. Bisson,
whom I had met briefly in China in 1937 and at the IPR, would like
me to come up on Sunday, May 19, for a picnic lunch at his home on
Long Island. At the same time, he gave some excuse w^hy Bisson w^as
unable to contact me directly. I agreed to go and arranged to spend
the Saturday night at Gayn's. Later Jaffe telephoned again and said
that the Gayns were spending the evening at Kate Mitchell's and that
T should coiiie there to meet them. I did not go up to Kew York until in
the evening and arrived at Miss Mitchell's about 10 or 10 : 30 p. m. for a
drink before going home with the Gayns.
The plans, it developed, were that the Jaffes, Miss Mitchell and the
Gayns were also going to Bisson's. Jaffe picked us up the next morn-
ing and clrove us all there in his car. The Sunday lunch was a picnic
inthe Bisson's garden at their home on Long Island. During the after-
noon, we took a short walk down to a nearby beach. Miss jNIitchell out-
lined a book which she was writing on China and said that she was
particularly interested in getting material on the recent trend of the
Kuomintang toward greater emphasis on Chinese classical ethics and
philosophy. She asked for suggestions on recent material and from
memory I mentioned several publications and other public materials
which I knew of. This was the only conversation with Miss Mitchell
of which I have any specific recollection.
On May 29, I was invited by a Miss Eose Yardoumian, whom I
had met "at the "Washington office of the IPR and at several social
functions, to attend a farewell party for Lieutenant Roth, who was
being transferred to the Hawaiian Islands. I had not known that
Jaffe was coming and was rather surprised when he again telephoned
jne and asked me to see him in his hotel and go with him to the party.
Apparently his reason for wanting to see me was to press the request
for information on the trend toward Confucianism of the Kuomin-
tang.
At the time of my arrest on June 6, only 8 days after this occasion,
I described to the FBI my recollection of the events of this evening as
follows :
During our conversations at his hotel before going to dinner, Jaffe said that
Miss IMitflicH was writing a book on China and that be was helping her with
material. Tie asked me something abont the trend toward Confncianism of the
Knomintaing. I recalled that a Confucianism Society had been established in
Chungking under very high official auspices in 1942 or 1943, and suggested that
he look for newspaper files, especially those of Chinese News Service, because
the event was given great publicity in the newspapers of Chungking at the time.
He said that he was afraid be did not have the files that far back, and
wasn't there some way that I could look the matter up. I mentioned that I
may have written a report about the Confucianism Society as I was in the
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1275
Embassy iu Chunjiliing at that time. He then asked whether he could see the
report. I explaiiuHl that it was a part of tiie tiles and, ut cuurse, eould not be
taken out of the State Department but that I would try to look it up if there
was such a report and j^ive him the dates and enough information so that he
could find it in newspapers of that time.
Jaffe discussed the same question on tlie trend of the Kuomintang toward
Confucianism. I mentioned in passing tliat he couUl lind some pertinent ma-
terial in a study of Kuomintaiig- propaganda. Again .laffe asked me for ma-
terial and I remarked that although 1 had made a stu(1y wliich included a long
list of wall slogans, it likewise was a part of the official files and could not
be removed. He pressed me to at least malce the material available to him with-
out necessarily removing it from the files and showing it to him. On the spot
I remembered and told him a few common wall slogans which seemed pertinent
to his subject and mentioned them to him. I gave him to understand that I
would check the files to see if I could locate the date of the establishment of the
Confucianism Society and refresh my memory on some other pertinent wall
slogans.
Several times during the evening Jaffe pressed me to be sure and remember
to do this for him.
This ])artv on May 20, 1945. was the hist time I ever saw Jaffe,
I have had no comniiniication with him since.
My associations with Larsen may be very shortly disposed of. Al-
tliouiih Mr. Larsen has testified that lie first met me in Chengtn,
Cliina. vvlien I was a babe in arms, I have no recollection of this
meetinof. The first occasion on which I recall meeting Mr. Larsen
was some time sliortly after my return to Washington in April 1945.
I was briefly introduced to him by Mr. Joseph Ballantine, Director
of the Ollice of Far Eastern Affairs of the State Department. Some
time later I believe that ISIr. Larsen and I were among a group of
other State Dejiartment employees who had lunch together. Mr.
Larsen has testified tliat this was a luncheon attended by Mr. John
Carter Vincent and that during the course of the luncheon Mr. Vin-
cent made certain derogatory remarks about General Hurley. As
far as my own recollection goes, I am inclined to think that Mr.
Vincent was not present and I certainly have no recollection of his
alleged connnents about (xeneral Hurley. As far as I recall, I had
no particular discussion with Larsen at this luncheon.
I think I may also have seen Larsen on some occasion in Jaffe's
compan3% l)ut I never had any occasion to have a discussion with
Larsen and Jaffe together. Finally, I saw Mr. Larsen in the early
morning of June 7, when we were arraigned before the United States
commissioner here in Washington and the next time that I have
any recollection of seeing him was when he appeared as a witness
at my recent loyalty board hearing.
When I Avas arrested by the FBI on June 6, 1945, I told the ar-
resting officers and interrogating agents that I was innocent of the
charges, that I was mystificvd by th^ arrest, and that I wished to
do what I could to help solve the matter. That has been and still
is my attitude. I gave the FBI a full statement of my associations
with the principals in the case. I waived immunity and appeared
at my own request before the grand jury.
Contrary to the assertion of Senator McCarthy that some of the
grand jurors voted to indict me, Mr. Hitchcock, the prosecutor in
charge of the case, has testified befoi-e this committee that the grand
jury imanimously vote a no true bill in my case.
I have told you, as I have previously told the FBI, as fully as
I am able of my dealings with Mr. Jaffe and of the memoranda
1276 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISWESTIGATION
which I showed to him. During the course of my loyalty board
hearing, a very considerable number of copies of reports and memo-
randa originally ])repared by me were shown to me as having been
found in Mr. Jaffe's possession. I testified in that proceeding and
I testify here that I have no knowledge of how these reports came
into Mr. Jaffe's possession. Certainly I have no disposition to con-
ceal my dealings with Jaffe. I have nothing reprehensible or il-
legal to conceal.
Quoting from the article in Plain Talk, which purports to have
been written by Larsen but which Larsen asserts was written by Isaac
Don Levine, Senator McCarthy has asserted that when the FBI took
over the investigation of the Amerasia case, it was found that I was
in communication from China with Jaff'e. I have s.en no evidence
that the FBI ever found any such thing and, as I have already testi-
fied, this assertion is false. I was never in communication in any
way, directly or indirectly, with Mr. Jaffe prior to the time that 1
met him in person on April 19, 1045.
With greater specificity, and again relying on the article in Plain
Talk, Senator McCarthy has charged :
Another document stolen from Military Intelligence consisted of 22 pages,
and one of the documents, of considerable interest, which was found in his pos-
session and that apparently reached Jaffe before it reached the State Depart-
ment, was John Service's report No. 58, a report higlily critical of Chiang Kai-
shek. Does the Senator follow me? Before that document reached the State
Department from Service, he had first mailed it to Philip Jafte.
Actually, I never prepared any such report. I have never seen
the report No. 58 referred to. I have discovered an identification of
this document and it transpires that it was prepared by the American
consul in Kunming. It occurred to me that that was probably at
a time when I was in Yenan, at least 600 miles away. As I say, I
have not to this day laid an eye on this document and could not, as
Senator McCarthy charges, have mailed it to Philip Jaffe before it
reached the State Department.
Senator McCarthy has charged that I was a friend and associate
of Frederick Vanderbilt Field. Actually, I have never met Mr. Field
in my life so far as I know, and I am certainly neither a friend nor
an associate of his.
Senator McCarthy has charged that Mr. J. Edgar Hoover has
publicly stated that there was a 100-percent airtight espionage case
against me. I have been unable to find any record of such a public
statement by Mr. Hoover. Upon request, he did not refer to any
such statement and the assistant to the Attorney General has recently
advised the Department of State that Mr. Hoover never made such a
statement.
Relying again upon the Plain Talk article, Senator McCarthy has
charged that former Under Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew in-
sisted on my prosecution and was forced to resign as a result of that
insistence. In view of the fact that after my clearance by the grand
jury in 1945, Mr. Grew w^as good enough to write me a personal note
expressing his satisfaction at my clearance, I have inquired of Mr.
Grew whether tliere was any basis for this charge made by Senator
McCarthy. I should like to introduce into the record at this point
a copy of the letter which IMr. Grew wrote me indicating that he never
insisted upon my prosecution apart from his desire that any guilty
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION 1277
person be prosecuted, that us lie had earlier stated, he was shocked
at my involvement and was gratified by my clearance and that his
resiirnation from the Department of State was dictated purely by
pei-sonal considerations.
Senator Tydixos. Put it in the record at this point.
Is that Mr. Grew's letter?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir.
Mr. Chairman, may I point out that I have just handed over the
original of Mr. Grew's letter.
Senator Tttdings. When the reporter has made a copy of it, I will
ask him to return it personally to Mr. Service and ask Mr. Service to
keep the original intact in case the committee desires to see it again.
Air. Service. Thank you very much.
Do you want to read it or do you want it to go into the record with-
out 7'eading it ?
Mr. Reiixy. I til ink it is worth reading.
Senator Tydixos. Go ahead and read it.
Mr. Service. This is a letter from Mr. Joseph C. Grew, dated April
17,1950:
Dear Mr. Service : Your letter of April 13 has this moment reached me and
I hasten to reply without delay.
My letter to you in August 1945, and that of the then Secretary of State, Mr.
Byrnes, after the grand jury had cleared you in the Anierasia case, should be
sufficient to clarify your position at that time and to substantiate the fact that
you had been completely cleared by due process of law of the charges against
you.
My recollection is that I further stated that you would be reinstated in the
Foreign Service without any implication of an adverse nature against your
fine record.
Vlthougli I have not now the text of that letter before me other than a part
you have quoted. 'That is the way democracy works," there are inaccuracies
in the public statements quoted in your letter. I did not insist on your prosecu-
ti(m, apart from that of the other five persons involved.
Having been informed as Acting Secretary of State by supposedly reliable
authority that an agency of our Government had what it considered complete evi-
<JeiH'e of guilt. I quite properly ordered "the arrests, which, of course, presume
prosecution. I did not at that time know the names of the persons involved,
including yours, and I did not wish to know them until the order had been carried
out, for justice nmst not discriminate. When I learned that you, who stood so
well in the Foreign Service, were one of those charged with the theft of official
documents, I was, as I later wrote yon, inexpressibly shocked. It was a great
relief to me that .vou were cleared by the grand jury and a great satisfaction
to see you reinstated in the Foreign Service, with no stigma whatever on your
record.
I was not forced to resign as Under Secretary of State. Myths about this have
arisen. For some time I had wished to retire. The war was then over. I had
completed 41 years of service. I had passed the usual age limit, and I was at
that time in ill health and was facing a possible major operation. It was, there-
fore, entirely on my own initiative that I Insisted on retiring, even though Secre-
tary r.yrnes strongly urged me to continue in service. Those are thfc iacts, and
yon may use this letter in any way you wi.sh.
With the best of wishes to you,
Very sincerely,
Joseph - . Grew
Senator Tydings. Is that the letter you referred to, thtj original
letter. Avhich you Avould like to keep?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. Now that you have read it, unless the ". mmittee
desires to have some other use for it, you may keep it, as it ^^ already
in the record, but we may want it again, so have it available Proceed
with Your statement.
1278 STATE DEPARTMENT EJMPLOYEE LOYALTY LS^ESTIGATION
Mr. Service, Senator McCarthy has charged that I am one of a
dozen top policy makers in the entire Department of State on Far
Eastern policy. Actnally, I have never occnpied a policy-making posi-
tion in the Department of State.
Senator McCarthy has charged that when Chiang Kai-shek was
fighting our war, I sent hack official reports to the State Department
nrging that we torpedo onr ally, Chiang Kai-shek, and stating in
effect that communism was the Jbest hope of China. Actually, as a
reading of my reports will disclose, such recommendations as I have
made were designated to prevent the collapse of Chiang Kai-shek's
government and to resist the domination of China by communism.
Senator McCarthy has charged that I have been in the Far East
trying to turn the whole business over to Russia. Actually, as my re-
ports written from China clearly indicate, I had a full appreciation
of the dangers of Russian domination and sought means of preventing
such domination.
Senator McCarthy has charged that subsequent to my clearance in
the Amerasia case, I was reinstated and placed in the position of
controlling ])lacements and promotions of personnel in the Far East.
Actually, I have never been in charge of, or in a position to control,
either placements or promotions of jiersonnel in the Far East or in
any other area. On one occasion I did serve as a member of a 5-man
board which recommended promotions of certain junior foreign service
officers. My vote was but one of five and the recommendations of our
board were passed upon by the Board of the Foreign Service, the
Secretary of State, the President of the Ignited States, and confirmed
by the United States Senate.
Senator TydinCxS. Have you finished your statement, Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. I have finished it, thank you. Senator.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Morgan, have you any questions?
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Service, at the outset, I believe some reference
was made as to the possibility .of this subcommittee obtaining the
transcript of the proceedings incident to your loyalty hearing. I would
like to ask if we have any assurance, either from you or from your
attorney, as to whether or not that will or will not be made available
tons?
Mr. Service. May I let my attorney answer that question, sir?
Mr. Rhetts. In the first place, I should say that we do not yet have
the full transcript of the Loyalty Board hearings. It is our desire that
as soon as that transcript is completely available, that it be made
available to this committee and its staff for its use. It will be necessary,
however, for us to make it available to the subcommittee on this con-
dition. Many of the witnesses who testified in this proceeding did so
under the impression and under the assurance that they were testify-
ing in a secret proceeding. Before the committee could make public use
of any particular witness' statement, I think it would be necessary for
us to be notified so that we might, in turn, obtain the consent of the
witness who had testified. Nevertheless, so far as the content of the
material is concerned, we wish to make it available to the committee.
Senator Tydings. I will ask you now that whatever material you get
touching on Mr. Morgan's question, you work out the details with him
and then he can report to us, for our approval, just what the under-
standing is, and we can act on it.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1279
Mr. M()i;(;ax. A further preliniiiiaiv question, Mr. Service. Refer-
ence has been made in your statement to the various reports which
you submitted to the State Department. Just for our information
have you prepared a compilation at all of these reports that we might
consider here?
Mr. Service. May I allow my counsel to answer that, sir?
Mr. RiiETTS. If, Mr. Mor^jan, you mean a list of the documents that
have been located, that is, the reports that have been located, we do
have such a list. If you mean do we have a complete set of copies
of them, we do not. There have been used in the Loyalty Board pro-
ceeding]; these documents which are a part of the files of the State
Department. We do not have a complete set of those documents our-
selves. We have a list of them and identification of them which we
can make available to the committee. In that connection, I might say,
as Mr. Service indicated in his statement, I would suppose that those
documents would be available to this committee upon its request by
the State Department.
Mr. MoRGAx. ISIy question is merely directed to expediting the mat-
ter, as to whether or not you have it, and I understand you do not
have the actual reports.
Mr. Rhetts. No, we do not.
Mr. MoRGAx. If you will turn, please, Mr. Service, to page 6 of your
statement, I am calling attention now to a statement therein, the
second full paragraph, to this effect :
It is a matter of pride rather tlian apology that I was al)le through these con-
tacts with all of the important Communist leaders from Mao Tse-tung down, to
ol)tain valuable first-hand information for which I have been commended by
both the Department of State and the United States Army.
Incidentally, at this point, what has been the nature of those com-
mendations?
]Mr. Service. Commendations have been in the form of letters, in
the form of official instructions of commendation and ultimatelv in the
form of promotions.
Mr. JSIoRGAX. Thank you.
Were your reports in any way censored by the Communists or Mao
or anyone under his direction and guidance ?
Mr. Service. Certainly not, sir. They never saw them.
INIr. MoRGAX^. A^liat I am trying to find out, Mr. Service, is whether
you had free rein in submitting these reports without clearing them
in any way through Communist channels.
Mr. Service. I had complete free rein in submitting them without
getting approval from any Chinese source.
Mr. MoRGAX'^. In obtaining the information to which you refer here,
was it necessary for you to undergo any commitments or restrictions
with respect to what your reports would contain ?
Mr. SKR^^CE. I made no such commitments. Occasionally if a
Chinese Communist official was talking to a newspaperman, he fol-
lowed the same practice that, I believe, is customary in the United
States. He specified certain material which could be directly quoted
and which so could not be atti'ibuted, but none of the Communist
leaders to whom I talked made any specification at all about use of
their statements or re])orting of the statements or material which they
gave to me.
1280 STATE DIE.PARTMENT EOMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. On page 7 of your statement, there is an observation
I would like to ask you about. Eeference is made there in the first
full paragraph to the elimination of moderate liberal groups, and I
am wondering if you are referring there to what has been character-
ized at least at one point in these proceedings as a third force in China
as distinguished from Chiang, on the one hand, and Mao, on the
other hand.
Mr. Service. Broadly speaking, that would be correct, but what I
and the others who had similar views were thinking of were these
facts, that within the Kuomintang or the government party, there
was a very large group, many of them American trained, American
educated, devoted to American ideals of democracy, who did not
favor and would have, if they would have been in a better political
position, opposed the policies of the more conservative groups of the
Kuomintang. If I may continue, sir, I think that Secretary of State
Marshall referred to such liberal groups.
There was also in China a very large nonparty group, mainly in-
tellectuals, some of them business people, who again, you might say,
belonged to this nebulous third force. There were also within the
Communist Party strong elements whose orientation was more Chinese
than it was Russian and who had supported the party during the war
because of its united front policies, because of its record of resistance
to the Japanese, who might also, if there had not been a civil war,
been a leavening influence in whatever unified government could be
brought about.
INIr. INIoRGAN. Shortly after this observation in your statement, you
interpolated an additional thought, to the effect that subsequent events,
as we now see them, have borne out to a degree the observations con-
tained in your reports ; is that correct ?
j\Ir. Service. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Is it fair to assume, Mr. Service, that perhaps what
you reported may have had a conditioning influence on what those
results have been i
Mr. Service. I don't see, sir, what I as a reporting officer said in
China, my analysis of the trends there, could be in any way the mo-
tivating cause of the developments that have happened. China is too
large and the forces there are too deep ; the stream is too wide for me
to have directed it or caused what has happened.
Mr. IMoRGAN. On page 10 of the report, Mr. Service, in referring
to the testimony of Secretary Byrnes, reference was made to a memo-
randum dated October 10, 1944. Is that the Report No. 40?
Mr. Service. That is the Report No. 40, yes.
Mr. Morgan. Do you have a copy of that available for us?
Mr. Service. We have a copy here, sir. It was also printed in full
in the Congressional Record on October 19, 1949.
Mr. Morgan. In view of the discussion that has revolved about
this report, if you have it available, I would like to request at this
point, INIr. Cliairman, to have it inserted in our record. Will it be
nijule available, Mr. Rhetts, for that purpose?
Mr. Rhetts. Yes, sir. Here is a copy of it.
STATE DEP.\RTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ENTVESTIGATIOX 1281
(Report No. 40, submitted bj^ Mr. Service, is as follows :)
[Report No. 40]
United States AIjmy Obsekver Section,
APO 879, October 10, 19],.',.
Subject : The need for sroatei' realism in our relations with Chiang Kai-shek.
To- General iStilwell, Coinniandlng General, USAF-CBI.
1. You have allowed me, as a political officer attached to your staff, to express
niy.'jelf freely in the past re.i::arding the situation in China as I have seen it.
Although in Tenan I am only a distant observer of recent developments in
Chungking and Washington, I trust that you will permit the continued frank-
ness which I have assumed in the attached memorandum regarding the stronger
policy which I think it is now time for us to adopt toward Chiang Kai-shek and
the Central Government.
2. It is obvious, of course, that you cannot act independently along the lines
suggested. The .situation in China and the measures necessary to meet it have
both military importance and far-reaching political significance ; the two aspects
cannot be separated. Because of this interrelation, and because of the high level
on which action in China must be taken, there must be agreement and mutual
support between our political and military branches. But this will be ineffective
without clear decision and forceful implementation by the President.
8. It is requested that copies of this report be transmitted as usual, to the
American Ambassador at Chungking and Headquarters, USAF-CBI, for the
♦^formation of Mr. Davies.
John S. Service.
Enclosure : Memorandum, as stated.
MEMORANDUM
Our dealings wuth Chiang Kai-shek apparently continue on the basis of the
unrealistic assumption that he is China and that he is necessary to our cause.
It is time, for the sake of the war and also for our future interests in China,
that we take a more realistic line.
The Kuomintang government is in crisis. Recent defeats have exposed its
military ineffectiveness and will hasten the approaching economic disaster. Pas-
sive inability to meet these crises in a constructive way, stubborn unwillingness
*'^ submerge selfish power-seeking in democratic unity, and the statements of
'^>iiang himself to the Peoples Political Council and on October 10, are sufficient
evidence of the bankruptcy of Kuomintang leadership.
With the glaring exposure of the Kuomintang's failure, dissatisfaction within
China is growing rapidly. The prestige of the party was never lower, and
♦^iiiang is losing the respect he once enjoyed as a leader.
In the present circum-stances, the Kuomintang is dependent on American sup-
T^ort for survival. But we are in no way dependent on the Kuomintang.
We do not iieed it for military reasons. It has lost the southern airbases and
cannot hold any section of the seacoast. Without drastic reforms — which must
have a political base — its armies cannot fight the Japane.se effectively no matter
bow many arms we given them. Bu.t it will not permit those reforms because
its war against Japan is secondary to its desire to maintain its own undemo-
cratic power.
On the other hand, neither the Kuomintang nor any other Chinese regime.
because nf th^ sentiment of the jieople, can refuse American forces the use
of Chine.se territory against the Japanese. And the Kuomintang's attittide
Drevents the utilization of other forces, such as the Communist or provincial
troops, who should be more useful than the Kuomintang's demoralized
nrmies.
We vepfl not fear Kiiominfnvfi Hurretuler or opposition. — The party and Chiang
will stick to us because our victory is certain and is their only hope for continued
power.
But our suuport of the Kuomintang will not stop its normally traitorous
relations with the rnemy and will only encourage it to continue sowing
the .seeds of future civil war by plotting with th" present puppets for eventual
consolidation of the occupied territories against the Communist-led forces
of popular resistance.
We need not fear the eollapse of the Kiioinintnnri Oovernment . — All the other
erouDs in China want to defend themselves and fight Japan. Any new govern-
1282 STATE DEiPARTMENT E3V[PL0YEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
ment under any otlier than the present reactionary control will be more coopera-
tive and better able to mobilize the country.
Actually, by continued and exclusive support of the Kuomintang, we tend
to prevent the reforms and democratic reorganization of the government
which are essential for the revitalization of China's war effort. Encour-
aged by our support the Kuomintang will continue in its present course, pro-
gressively losing the confidence of the people and becoming more and
more impotent. Ignored by us, and excluded from the Government and joint
prosecution of the war, the Communists and other groups will be forced
to guard their own interests by more direct opposition.
We need not support the Kiiomintoufi for international political reasons. — ■
The day when it was expedient to inflate Chiang's status to one of the "Big
Four" is past, because with the obvious certainty of defeat, Japan's Pan-Asia
propaganda loses its effectiveness. We cannot hope that China under the
present Kuomintang can be an effective balance to Soviet Russia, Japan, or the
British Empire in the Far East.
On the contrary, artificial inflation of Chiang's status only adds to his
unreasonableness. The example of a democratic, nonimperialistic China
will be much better counterpropaganda in Asia than the present regime,
which, even in books like "China's Destiny, hypnotizes itself with ideas
of consolidating minority nations (such as the "Southern Peninsula"), and
protecting the "rights" and at the same ti'iie national ties of its numerous
emigrants (to such areas as Tliailand, Malaya, and the Bast Indies). Fi-
nally, the perpetuation in power of the present Kuomintang can only mean a
weak and disunited China — a sure cause of international involvements in
the Far East. The key to stability must be a strong, unified China. This
can be accomplished only in a democratic foundation.
We need not support Chiang in the belief that he represents pro-American
or democratic r/roups. — All the people and all other political groups of importance
in China are friendly to the United States and look to it for the salvation of the
country, now and after the war.
In fact, Chiang has lost the confidence and respect of most of the Ameri-
can-educated, democi'aticnlly minded liberals and intellectuals. The Chen
brothers, military and secret police cliques which control the party and are
Chiang's main supports are the most chauvinist elements in the country.
The present party ideology, as shown in Chiang's own books China's Des-
tiny and Chinese Economic Theory, is fundamentally antiforeign and anti-
democratic, both politically and economically.
FinaUri, ire need feel no ties of gratitude to Chiang. — The men he has kept
around him have proved selfish and corrupt, incapable and obstructive. Chiang's
own dealings with us have been an opportunist combination of extravagant de-
mands and unfilled promises, wheedling and bargaining, bluff and blackmail.
Chiang did not resist Japan until forced by his own people. He has fought only
passively — not daring to mobilize his own people. He has sought to have us save
him — so that he can continue his conqnest of his own country. In the process, he
has "worked" us for all we were worth.
We seem to forget that Chiang is an oriental : that his background and
vision are limited; that his position is built on skill as an extremely adroit
political nianipnlator and a stubborn, shrewd bargainer ; that he mistakes
kindness and flattery for weakness; and that he listens to Ins own instru-
ment of force rather than reason.
Our policy toward China should be guided by two facts. First, we cannot hope
to deal successfully with Chiang without being hardboiled. Second, we cannot
hope to solve China's problems (which are now our problems) without considera-
tion of the opposition forces — Communist, Provincial and liberal.
The parallel with Yugoslavia has been drawn before but is becoming more
and more apt. It is as impractical to seek Chinese unity, the use of the
Communist forces, and the mobilization of the population in the rapidly
growing oceuiiied areas by discussion in Chunking with the Kuomintang
alone as it was to seek the solution of these problems through Mikhailovitch
and King Peter's government in London, ignoring Tito.
We shonld not be swayed by pleas of the danger of China's collapse. This is
an old trick of Chiang's.
There may bs a collapse of the Kuomintang government : but it will not be
tl:e collapse of China's resistance. There may be a period of some confusion,
but the eventual gains of the Kuomintang's collapse will more than make
up for this. The crisis itself makes reform more urgent— and at the same
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1283
time increases the weight of our influence. The crisis is the time to push— not
to relax.
We shouhl not let Chiang divert us from the important questions by wasting
time in futile discussion as to who is to be American commander. This is an
obvious subterfuge.
There i.'; only one man qualified by experience for the job. And the fact is
that no one who knows anything about China and is concerned over American
rather than Chiang's interests will satisfy Chiang.
We should end the hollow pretense that China is unified and that we can talk
only to Chiang. This puts the trump card in Chiang's hands.
rnblic announcement that the President's representative had made a visit
to the Communist capital at Yenan would have a significance that no Chinese
would miss — least of all the Generalissimo. The effect would be great even
if it were only a demonstration with no real consultation. But it should be
more than a mere demonstration : we must, for instance, plan on eventual
use of the Communist armies and this cannot be purely on Kuomintang terms.
Finally, if these steps do not succeed, we should stop veiling our negotiations
with China in complete secrecy. This shields Chiang and is the voluntary
aliandonment of our strongest weapon.
Chinese public opinion would swing violently against Chiang if he were
shown obstructive and noncooperative with the United States. We should
not be misled by the relatively very few Kuomintang, die-hards ; they are
not the people. The Kuomintang government could not withstand public
belief that the United States was considering withdrawal of military support
or recognition of the Kuomintang as the leader of Chinese resistance.
More than ever, we hold all the aces in Chiang's poker game. It is time we
started playing them.
John S. Service.
October 10, 1944.
^Ir. MoiJGAX. For purposes of clarification, referrinof to page 16
of yoitr statement, Mr. Service, you refer to the fact that you re-
turned to Washington on April 12, 1945, and thereby suggest that
inasmuch as the initial entry into the Amerasia quarters was on
March 11, 1945, that manifestly Mr. Jaffe had prior to your return
to this country established channels for obtaining information. Just
for our record at this point, what was your next previous return to
this country, let us say, prior to April 12, 1945 ?
Mr. Skrvice. I arrived in Washington on October 30 or 31, 1944.
]Mr. ISIoRGAN. October 30 or 31, 1944. How long were you here at
that time?
Mr. Service. I felt Washington, I believe, on November 19, 1944,
proceeded t6 California to visit my family, returned to Washington
on or about January 2, 1945, and left Washington about January 7,
1945, on my way back to China.
Mr. Morgan. Those are the only instances in which you were in the
country, let us say, from October 1944, until you returned in April;
is tliat correct ?
Mr. Service. That is correct.
]Mr. Morgan. In order that it may be clear in our record, Mr.
Service, you have, as I understand it, frankly stated that you did
su])ply to IMr. Jaffe copies of your reports prepared in China ; is that
correct ?
]Mr. Service. A few of my reports prepared in China.
jNIr. Morgan. AVere those returned to you prior to your arrest on
June 6. 1945?
Mr. Service. Mr. Jaffe returned those to me on the morning of
April 25, 1945, when I was in New York.
]\Ir. Morgan. In other words, any reports that were found in the
Amerasia headquarters at the time or subsequent to the arrest would
1284 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LSTV^ESTIGATIGN
not have been the reports which you supplied Mr. Jatfe; is that
correct ?
Mr. Service. They would not have been the papers which I gave
him; no.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Morgan, could I ask a question there?
Mr. Morgan. Yes.
Senator Tydings. In your written statement, you say at one place
that you stopped by Jaffe's office to pick up the reports. Prior to that
you said he wanted to take them with him. He did take them with
him and when you would be in New York, you would stop by to pick
them up. Now, did you get all of the things that you gave to Jaffe
at the time you stopped in his office in New York on that day to pick
up the reports? Your testimony did not say whether you got them
or not. It simply said you stopped by to pick them up.
Mr. Service. I did receive back from Mr. Jaffe on that occasion
in his office on April 25, 1945, as far as I know", all of the copies which
I had allowed him.
Senator Tydings. If you will look in your testimony, you will find
you didn't say whether you got them or not. That is the Amerasia
office.
Mr. Service. That was the Amerasia office, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Again, for purposes of clarity, the documents you
gave Mr. Jaffe, as I understand your testimony, were copies of your
reports which you had retained in your possession ; is that correct ?
Mr. Service. That is correct.
Mr. Morgan. As I understand it, you have stated, Mr. Service,
that you were authorized to retain these copies; is that correct?
Mr. Service. I was.
Mr. Morgan. Who so authorized you ?
Mr. Service. The Army headquarters in Chungking.
Mr. Morgan. Do you have any means of verifying that ? I am not
suggesting at all that that may not be true, but is there any means
whereby we can verify whether you were so authorized?
Mr. Service. I am not sure, sir. I have never been interrogated on
that point. I have assumed, since I was not interrogated, that it has
been verified.
Mr. Morgan. Assuming that we have not so verified it here, can
you suggest any way in which we could verify it ?
Mr. Service. The reports were sealed by the Adjutant General's
Office, the Army headquarter's office in Chungking so that I could
bring them home with me and pass them through censorship.
Mr. Morgan. As I gather it, however, at the time you supplied
these documents to Jaffe, you did not secure — from what you have
said, I presume it was not required that you secure — approval there-
for from any official in the State Department; is that right?
Mr. Service. That is correct. I did not secure specific approval in
this instance. It is an acknowledged custom to allow members of the
press or writers or research people to see from time to time certain
types of background information for their background use.
Mr. Morgan. Did you conceive at the time, or have you since con-
ceived, that that probably was an indiscretion in this instance?
Mr. Service. Certainly, I recognize it as an indiscretion. I have
suffered for it for 5 years.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY rNTVESTIGATION 1285
Mr. ^loRGAN. In that connection, Mr. Service-
Mr. Service. It wasn't an indiscretion, I might say, because I
trusted a newspaperman, and I trusted a great many newspaper people
before and had never been disappointed.
JSIr. ]MoRGA>r. We have in our record here, Mr. Service, a consider-
able amount of testimony and evidence respecting the alleged Com-
munist comiections of Jaffe, and to a degree also Roth, and perha]:)S
others in this Amerasia picture. At the time of your association with
them, were you conscious of these Communist connections?
Mr. Service. Xo, sir; I was not. I had been out of the country
almost continuously. Transportation during the war to China was
so ditlicult that we did not receive magazines except a few air-mail
copies of magazines, such as Time or Newsweek. I had not been read-
ing Amera'^ia. As I say, I did not know Mr. Jaffe personally or
know anything about him except that he was the editor of the maga-
zine. I did make inquiry; in fact, the very next day after I met Mr.
Jaffe, I made some inquirj^ Unfortunately, the man of whom I made
the inquii'v was Lieutenant Roth, who assured me that Mr. Jaffe was
not a Communist.
^Ir. MoRGAX. "Were you familiar at all with the complexion of
Amerasia, one way or the other, as to whether it did or did not have
a pro-Communist tinge?
Mv. Ser\'ice. Xo, I really wasn't, sir, because I just wasn't familiar
enough with the magazine.
Mr, Morgan. Were you familiar with any dispatches that may have
been sent from the State Department incorporating data that ap-
peared in Amerasia?
Mr. Service. No, sir. I was not in China during that period as
part of the Embass}' staff and I had relatively little contact with the
Embassy. Eurthermore, from July 1944, until the time I left China,
I was in Yenan.
Mr. Morgan. You. doubtless, have seen the observation in the press,
Mr. Service, that Amerasia was regarded as the Bible in the State
Department. Do 3'ou have unj observation on that^
Mr. Service. I think it is a little, shall we say, foolish. Certainly
we who w^re on the field, seeing the events happen before our eyes,
were not depending for our views or our conclusions on magazines
or publications here in the United States, which could only report and
comment on those events months after they occur. There is just no
basis for any statement that Amerasia was the Bible of the State
Department.
]Mr. Morgan. Now, to go back to the association with Mr. Jaffe.
During the period of this association, did you know that Mr. Larsen
was also supplying him information and documents?
Mr. SeimcE. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. Morgan. Incidentally, where did you keep these copies of your
reports ?
Mr. Service. I kept them in my desk in the State Department.
Mr. Morgan. Did you ever take them home with you?
^Ir. Service. No, sir, I did not usually.
Mr. Morgan. Well, I believe our record reflects this. At the time
».)f your arrest, were any documents seized?
1286 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Ser\t;ce. A large number of my personal copies and personal
correspondence and various other miscellaneous materials of a non-
official character ^Yere found in my desk and all seized; yes.
Mr. JVIoRGAN. I mean, you were arrested at your apartment, were
you not?
Mr. Service. Yes.
Mr. MoRGA^'. Were any documents seized at that time?
Mr. Service. No official documents, sir. I would like to amplify
that last answer. I did not have any official documents in my apart-
ment.
Mr. Morgan. Referring now to a question previously asked, did you
know that Mv. Larsen was in association with Mr. Jaffe at the same
time you knew him ?
Mr. Service. I have mentioned here in my statement that I have
a vague recollection of seeing them in company, seeing the two of
them together once. I believe the occasion was when I went over to the
Statler Ilotel and handed to ^Ir. Jaffe in the lobby the copy of that
radio broadcast. I think that Jaffe and Larsen were there together
in the lobby, standing together and talking, as I remember it, but that
is the only occasion I saw them together, and tliat was the ordy indica-
tion I ever had that they knew each other or were associated in any
way.
Mr. Morgan. You have familiarized yourself, I presume, Mr. Serv-
ice, with the proceedings before the so-called Hobbs committee as re-
cently reported in the Congressional Record ?
Mr. Service. I have read those sir.
Mr. Morgan. You have read, I presume, therefore, the record of
the surveillance conducted of the various subjects in the Amerasia
case ?
JMr. Service. Yes.
jSIr. MoRiJAN. Do you recall each of these meetings mentioned in
tlie surveillance record, without the necessity of my going down
through each one of them ?
Mr. Service. Yes; I recall them, although I don't agree with the
details as they are stated.
Mr. Morgan. Well, I think you should be privileged to indicate
^^ herein you disagree.
Senator Hickenlooper. What is the citation in the Congressional
Record ?
^Ir. Morgan. Jt is the May 22, 1950, edition, page 7562.
Mr. Service. On page 7563, in the middle colmnn, slightlv above
the middle of the page, it states, "On April 20, Service was observed
to enter the Statler Hotel carrying a brown brief case,"' which I might
say I am in the habit of always carrying, whether it contains news-
papers or personal letters or personal" pa|)ers. "On that occasion, he
remained in JafFe's room all morning." Now, I have no recollection
of remaining with Mr. Jaffe for any length of time such as that. It
IS my belief that I went to the State Department and selected these
descriptive memoranda which I thought would be appropriate to
allow a man to see for background use. I took them to the hotel,
expectnig to allow Mr. Jaffe to read them before lunch, so that I
coi;l(l pifk tliem u]) during lunch, and I left the hotel and later re-
turned for the luncheon engagement.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOX 1287
Mr. JNIoKGAX. If you will refer to that record of this surveillance
that you have there, Mr. Service, you will find on page 7563, in the
third cohunn, approaching the bottom of the column, this statement:
At noon on May S, ]!)4:i, Koth was observed to visit .laffe at the Statler
Hotel. A\hen he entered, he was carrying a large manila envelope. He re-
mained for approximately 2 hours. Later that afternoon. Lar.sen met with
.lalfe in the lolihy of the liotel, and after a very lirief conversation Larsen de-
parted and Jaflfe was immediately joined by Koth and his wife, John Service
and Kose Yardoumian. They had dinner together, at which time Jaffe returned
to Xew York City.
Xow, in connection with your meeting with Mr. Jaft'e on this
occasion, Mr. Service, do you recall the nature of your convei-sation
with him at that tinted Si)ecifically, what matters were discussed?
Mr. Service. On this occasion, sir t
Mr. Morgan. Yes.
Mr. Service. My recollection is that there was no conversation
except to say '"Hello" and ''How do you do" to the people that were
with him there, to hand him the envelope, and I left immediately
thereafter.
Mr. MoRGAX. Did you go on that occasion to Mr. Jaffe's room, as
you recall i
Mr. Service. No, sir ; I do not recall anything beyond handing him
this paper in the lobby and walking out.
Mr. Morgan. AVould you say you did not go to his home ?
Mr. Service. I believe I saw him in his room and we had breakfast,
and he later went with me, as I explained in my statement, to the
State Department to see if he could obtain a copy of this broadcast.
Mr. Morgan. "Were just you and Jatle present on this occasion in
his room?
Mr. Ser\t:ce. xVs far as I remember, sir.
Mr. Morgan. I realize this is a burden on memor3^ but do you
recall what the nature of your conversation and discussion with i\Ir.
Jaffe on that occasion was ?
Mr. Service. No, sir. I am afraid after 5 years it is extremely diffi-
cult for me to remember specific conversations with particular people
at particular times. I was talking about China every day, all day, to
Government officials and groups.
]Mr. ]\[oRGAN. Do you recall whether you ever discussed with Mr.
Jaffe military plans in contemplation of future action?
Mr. Service. I don't recall that I ever discussed them with him in
any specific terms, because I did not have detailed knowledge. Certain-
ly, everybody writing on China was interested in how the war was
progressing and how it was likely to progress.
Mr. M('R(;an. Did you ever at any time admonish Mr. Jaffe that what
you were telling him was to be held in secrecy ?
INIr. Sebvice. That is quite possible, sir; yes. In discussing back-
ground information with the press, you often have to specify that cer-
tain things you mention for backgi'ound infoi-nuition either should not
be attributed or shoidd not be used at all.
Mr. Morgan. Did you ever admonish him that what you had told
him about military plans should be held in secret?
Mr. Service. That I do not recall, sir. Of course, everyone was in-
terested at that time on the question of whether or not there was going
to be any American landing on the coast of China. I surely mentioned
68970— .50 — pt. 1 82
1288 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA^ESTIGATION
the fact, which was well known and had been thoroughly reported by
us, that the Chinese Communists were expanding their areas of con-
trol and were trying to move toward the coast, particularly the south-
east coast, in the expectation or hope that we would make a landing
there and that we would be forced to cooperate in some way with them.
Mr. Morgan. Are those the circumstances that gave rise to that ad-
monition, assuming you do recall it now?
Mr. Service. It is possible, sir; I have no definite recollection. I
am speculating that that would have been the normal thing to have
talked about with anyone interested in China in April 1945.
Mr. MoR(}AN. Of what military plans were you in cognizance on
May 8, at the time of your conversation with Mr. Jaffe ?
Mr. Service. I Avas not cognizant, generally speaking, of any mili-
tary plans. That was not my job ; it was not my interest. I never knew
whether or where or when we planned a landing on the China coast.
Mr. Morgan. What would have been the occasion, therefore, Mr.
Service, for your indicating to Mr. Jaffe that what you had told him
about the military plans was necessarily secret?
Mr. Service. I am sorry, but without being able to reconstruct the
conversations, sir, I am at a loss.
Mr. MoiiGAN. I wish you could help us on that. Can you have any
way of recalling this situation at all?
Mr. Service. Can you give me any more information, sir?
Mr. Morgan. I am sorry; that is the extent of my information,
Mr. Service.
Mr. Service. I did not have possession or knowledge of secret plans.
Mr. Morgan. Well, did you have possession of any information con-
cerning military plans on the part of the Chinese, on the part of this
country or on the part of anyone ?
Mr. Service. I certainly had in my head information which would
be contained in classified documents, as practically everything was, but
I had no knowledge of the American war plans.
Mr. Morgan. Is it your statement, therefore, that you did not
discuss military plans with Mr. Jaffe on this occasion ?
Mr. Ser\'Ice. I certainly probably discussed the military situation
with him in a general way, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Is it your statement now that you had no knowledge
of any military plans that you might have discussed with him ?
Mr. Service. We have a broad term, sir, that is hard to handle, and
that is what is "military plans."
Mr. Morgan. I assume from what you have said that you cannot re-
call what your conversation was with Mr. Jaffe on that occasion; is
that correct ?
Mr. Service. That is correct, yes.
Mr. Morgan. Now, among the items found at Amerasia headquarters
at the time of the arrest there on June 6, f 945, was a typed copy of a
memorandum captioned "The Stilwell Affair and Hurley's Appoint-
ment." This memorandum is indicated to contain information of a
top-secret character and to contain the text "Two Messages from the
White House to Chiang Kai-shek." There is indicated on this memo-
randum, which apparently is a momrandum prepared pursuant to
contact with someone having access to this material, a notation thereon
that the information was obtained from Service. Do you recall any
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESI'VESTI CATION 1289
-conversation which a'ou might have had ^Yith Mr. Jaft'e or anyone
else associated with Anierasia that might have occasioned their hav-
ing in their possession in New York a memorandum rehiting to "The
Stillwell Affair and Hurley's Appointment,'' ostensibly top-secret
information?
Mr. Service. I never, as far as I can remember, discussed that ques-
tion with Mr. Jaffe. I do, however, remember having had some con-
versation with Mr. Ga^'n. Mr. Gayn was negotiating with the Satur-
day Evening Post, and he hold me he had an agreement with the
Saturday Evening Post for a series of articles, I believe he said, on
the Stilwell alfair. Again, he Avas very anxious to find out what he
could aboiit the background and to get wdiat material was available.
He came down to Washington, and I remember he had an expecta-
tion of talking to various people, officers in the Army ajid other places,
and he asked me if I knew anything about Stilwell's recall. I told
him I did not ; that I was in Yenan at the time, but I did mention that
I believe the genesis, the beginning of the events that led up to
Stilwell's recall and the initial background of General Hurley being
sent to China, was the American request made by President Roosevelt
that General Stilwell be placed in command of all Chinese forces.
Now, this was not news. It had been published in the New York
Times for October 31, 1944, some 6 months earlier. But in the in-
terim, in those 6 months, there had been a good deal of argument
and debate, half-true statements, misleading statements published
about the reasons, the background of General Stilwell's recall. So I
told from memory; and, knowing that the fact of the American com-
mand was already public knowledge, I told him from memory some-
thing of the original request in July 1944.
Mr. Morgan. How about these two messages from the Wliite House
to Chiang that were also in this memo ? Can you help us any on that ?
Mr. Service. That is what I told him from memory, something about
those messages. I had no text. I don't believe that the classification
was top secret. Certainly by this time they were general knowledge
and had been made known through official sources to a number of news-
papermen, and, as I say, the essential fact was published in the New
York Times for October 31, 1944.
Mr. Morgan. Is that a copy of the Times of that date that you have
there ?
Mr. Ser\^ce. Yes, sir ; this is a copy of the New York Times.
Mr. Morgan. Would you care to make a copy of that available for
our record ?
Mr. Service. When I saw the article in the Washington Daily News
•of June G, 1950— the headline is "Amerasia Got FD's China Plan To
Make Stilwell Boss." I refreshed my memory of some of these things
and I made a search of the New York Times, and that is how I happen
to have this.
Mr. Morgan. It might be helpful, and I would request, Mr. Chair-
man
Mr. Service. I would be happly to. It is an article by Brooks At-
kinson.
Senator Tydings. Is it marked so you can get hold of it?
Mr. Ser%t:ce. It is in the fourth column. It commences in the third
or fourth column, I believe.
1290 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Ttdixgs. For purposes of identification, this is the New
York Times, Tuesday, October 31, 1944, late city edition. In the
third cohnim, reading from left to right, after a large streamer head-
ing which runs across most of the page, there is, first of all, this general
streamer heading: "Stilwell Recall Bares Rift With Chiang."
Under that, in the third column, reading from left to right, is "Long
Schism seen. Stilwell break stems from Chiang refusal to press war
fully. Peace with Reds bared. Generalissimo regards that their
armies fighting Japanese as threat to his rule." The article is by
Brooks Atkinson. Let's get this settled.
Mr. Morgan. I don't think we need to include it in the record, Mr.
Chairman, if we can just have it as information reference.
Senator Tydings. Can we have it as an exhibit?
Mr. Service. Surely.
Senator Tydings. Without objection, it will be filed with the re-
porter as exhibit 00, and he will return it with the copies to the counsel.
]Mr. Morgan. You were starting to say something, I believe, Mr.
Service.
Mr. Service. I don't remember any indication that the classifica-
tion on these was anything except ''Eyes only,'' which is not a security
classification. It is a distribution classification, and after it had been
made known to the Chinese, of course, they were free to use the infor-
mation as they wished, and many of our newspapermen in China
learned of it through Chinese sources.
Mr. JSIoRGAN. Right at that point — we have had some reference here
to this "Eyes only" business— what is your statement concerning that
classification again ?
Mr. Service. I say that it is a distribution classification, not a secu-
rity classification.
Mr. Morgan. Was it provided for anj'wliere in your manuals of in-
struction or anything of that kind?
Mr. Service. It is not listed as a security classification.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, it certainly has a very real bearing
on security, has it not?
Mr. Service. Certainly, sir, at the time that the message was sent
out, but it is sent in a code which can be handed verbatim to a foreign
government, and after it is given to the foreign government, our con-
trol of security is lost. It is a designation put on these messages
which are to be kept private for the time being. However, by the
time I was mentioning these messages for background information
to this man who was going to write the series of articles in the Satur-
day Evening Post, 10 months had elapsed; the Army headquarters
in Chungking had given the full background, including documenta-
tion, to correspondents. The Chinese had also disclosed the back-
ground.
Senator Lodge. But in the military service, isn't it true when a mes-
sage was classified, "Eyes only," that that meant it was a message
of the highest security and that it was important that only very few
people even know about it ; isn't that correct ?
Mr. Service. My point, sir, is that by this time, it no longer re-
tained that classification. The facts had become public knowledge,
through wide disclosure and through publication in the American
press.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1291
Senator Lodge. Isn't it true that the "Eyes only" classitication has
a very direct bearinj^ on the security of the information?
^Ir. Service. At the innnediate time.
Senator Lodge. At the time, yes.
Mr. Service. At the immediate time. The time I am speaking
of was 10 months hiter, after the information had been officially
revealed.
Senator Lodge. Thank you.
Mr. Service. The article in the New York Times was passed by
American censorship.
Senator Hlckexlooper. In connection with that, Mr. Chairman, I
would like to call attention to a photostat which I have in my hand
here, alleging to be a photostat of one of the documents seized in the
Amerasia matter, which bears the identifying symbols, "J118a 27,"
then an esterisk, ''Q316.'' It has various references to examination of
this document, but the significant thing with reference to the "Eyes
only" is on the second page of this particular document, wdiich is
headed, "The Stihvell affair and Hurley's appointment."
The first paragraph says :
This informatiou classified as top secret ("Eyes only") is supplied by John S.
Service. Especial caution must be shown in the use of the two White House
messages to Chiang Kai-shek, whose text is given below.
I have no objection to the entire matter going into the record.
I refer to that as one of the documents seized in the Amerasia case,
and I would like to ask, Mr. Service, whether a document that is de-
livered with the so-called ''Ej^es only" classification can be repro-
duced by the receiving officer.
Mr. Service. May I see the document there, sir? I have never
seen it.
Senator Hickexlooper. I have no objection to you seeing the docu-
ment, but I am asking you about the "Eyes only" classification. Is
the receiving officer at liberty to reproduce that document for his
files?
]\Ir. Service. Cer.tainly not. I never reproduced it, sir. I never had
the document.
Senator Hickexlooper. I am not talking about this document. I
am talking about any document received hj an official with the classi-
fication at the top "Eyes only." Does that receiving official have a
right or is he supposed to reproduce that document in his own office,
make copies of it or is he to pass it on without reproducing it?
Mr. SER\acE. It depends on who the officer is, sir. Normally, he
would not in any case reproduce this document, but I had no docu-
ment.
Senator Hickex'ix)0per. I am talking about the classification of
"Eyes only" not only in this document or any other specific document,
but any document that carries with it the classification, either in the
military or in the State Department. Is that document supposed to
be merely read by the receiving officer and handed on to someone else
to read it or is he authorized to make copies of such a document, and
he retain copies or that document ?
^Ir. Service. Well, the question is hard to answer in specific terms,
because even an "Eyes only" message must go through a great many
channels, and there will be copies kept of it in certain offices. There
1292 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
will have to be some offices where copies of all such messages would be-
retained. Now, I myself never made any copies of these messages;
never retained any of these copies of these messages, and I did not
deliver any such document to JafFe or to Gayn.
Senator Hickenlooper. Would you consider that a document that)
is headed "Eyes only," with that classification on it as a top secret
document, or what would be the importance of a document tliat carries
that classification?
jMr. Service. Very often, sir, it has a pnrely temporal importance,
and after the facts have become public knowledge, as in the case of
Mr. Atkinson's article, being made known to many officially and
passed on officially by the American censorship and printed in the
New York Times, "the content is no longer "Eyes alone" or top secret..
I want to make clear, if I may, that I never gave Mr. Gayn any docu-
ment or Jaffe of this nature, because I had none. I did not even have
notes of it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, may I just take the time to-
read the first couple paragraphs of this ?
Senator Tydings. Let me ask you. Senator — take all the time you
want, but is it contemplated you will be through in the near future
so that we will — - —
Senator Hickenlooper. I think 5 minutes will complete it.
Senator Tydings. All right, go ahead.
Senator Hickenlooper. For continuity, I want to read the first three
paragraphs of this document.
Senator Tyt)ings. What is it, a memorandum ?
Senator Hickenlooper. It is the memorandum attached to this doc-
ument, whose identifying symbols I gave a moment ago, and which
M'as seized in the Amerasia case.
Senator Tydings. As I understand the Senator, for the purposes of
identification, this is not the document itself. This is a memorandum
concerning the document ; is tliat correct ?
Senator Hickenlooper. No.
Senator Tydings. I just glanced at it. That isn't the document but
a comment upon it.
Senator Hickenlooper. This, as I understand it and as I read it, is
a comment upon the document and the information furnished, ])ut this
was seized in the Amerasia office.
Senator Tydings. That is right. I just Avant to differentiate that
it wasn't the document but a connnent on the document.
Senator Hickerlooper. No. As I understand it, this is the docu-
ment seized in the Amerasia office and discussing the Stilwell affair
and alleging ■
Senator Tydings. Just so the press can get it right.
Senator Hickenlooper. This is the document which I have identi-
fied with the symbols a moment ago. It is headed "The Stilwell affair
and Hurley's appointment." The first paragraph is as follows :
This iufoniiation classified as top secret ("Eyes only"), is supplied bv John S-
Service. Especial caution nuist be sliown ia the use of the two White House
messages to Cliianrj; Kai-shek, whose text is given below.
Early in July 1044. the United States command in Chungking refused top-
secret message from the White House to be conveyed to (ieneral Chiang Kai-shek.
The message was taken to Chiang by Brigadier General Ferris. For fear that
the text might be garbled by Chiang's own translator, John Service accompanied
Ferris as interpreter. On arrival at Chiangs' place, the two Americans asked
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESPVESTIGATION 1293
Chiang to exrludo all others from the room. Chiang listened in silence and hiter
said he wonld transmit his reply to the White Ilonse through his own channels.
The message, as paraphrased hy Service on May 10, 1945, was —
and this is alleged to be the paraphrasing by you, Mr. Service, as
contained in this document:
The situation in China is desperate and calls for drastic steps. The Presi-
dent, therefore, suggests that all armies in t'hina, including those of the Com-
munists, be phu'ed under an American conunander. Although the President
knows of Chiang's dislike for General Stilwell, he nevertheless believes that
Stilwell's experience and record makes him the best man for the job. The
President would give Stilwell the necessary rank — make him a four-star general.
Beginning with the words, "Chiang's reply was apparently trans-
mitted," being a part of the memorandum and not alleged to be an
interpretation of Mr. Service, as I read it, I will start the next para-
graph, which is as follows :
Chiang's reply was apparently transmitted through H. H. Kung, who was
then attending the Bretton Woods Conference. About 10 days after the Presi-
dent's first message, another message arrived in Chungking. It gives a fair
indication of Chiang's reply to the White House.
The second message, also transmitted to Chiang by Ferris and Service, said
in essence —
and this is alleged to be an interpretation of what the message said :
I am glad that you are in principle agreed to my suggestion for an American
commander over all the forces in the China theater. Although, as you say,
there are political factors which must be considered, and there is also the im-
portant question of timing, I believe that the situation is so urgent that we
should not delay. The political questions can certainly be solved. I agree
with your suggestion for a high-ranking political representative who can dis-
cuss these military and political matters, and I am looking now to find such a
man who can have your complete confidence.
There is a note here in parenthesis following the last reading that
says, "Service's words are apparently garbled in transcription from
shorthand."
I have no objection to Mr. Service reading this entire memoran-
dum, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. I think this would be a good place to take a
recess now, and we will come back at 2 : 30. I Avill have no objec-
tion to his reading it now, if he will bring it back at 2 : 30, because
we will want to interrogate him about it.
(Whereupon, the committee recessed at 1 p. m.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
Senator Tydings. The meeting will come to order.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN S. SERVICE— Eesumed
Mr. jVIorgan. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one observa-
tion on the record here, not with the idea of indicating that anyone
has violated any responsibility. I presume if it is anybody's it is my
own. But with respect to these docinnents I think we should under-
stand that through the courtesy of the Department of Justice they
have been made available to us for purposes of implementing our
cross-examination, and I do not think I mentioned that to the chair-
man. Of course, 1 think probably in any event we woidd w-ant to let
Mr. Service and his attorneys see the documents. However, it is my
1294 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
understanding that they were interviewed rather extensively by the
press, and while I am sure we want to cooperate with the press, I want
to make it clear that as a matter of courtesy of the Department of
Justice they are made available to us for purposes of examination and
not for general release.
Senator Ttdings. I see. Then I take it that what we ought to do
is interrogate the witness concerning them but not put them in the
record insofar as applicable, but have them available for the com-
mittee and if a question is asked about them, show the witness the
document so he can identify and answer. Is that your thought?
Mr. Morgan. That would be my idea, Mr. Chairman. I realize
it presents something of an awkward situation, but in fairness and
justice to the situation by which we obtained them, I think that is
what we ought to do.
Senator Tydings. I think that is a fair observation. We will try
to work along within that general latitude.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Service, had you completed the statement you
were making at the end of the morning session relative to those letters,
those documents?
Mr. Service. No, sir. I would like very much, now that I have had
a chance to look over this document, to make some further comments
regarding it.
I would like to review briefly the whole incident, as I recall it, and
to try to cover the various threads on which we touched this morning.
I might preface what I am going to say by mentioning that for the
previous several years I have oeen primarily a reporting officer; my
duties in may ways paralleled those of newspaper correspondents and
writers; and that I had worked in many ways closely with the rep-
resentatives of the press. They A'^ery often were able to obtain infor-
mation which I did not have access to which was valuable information.
I also, as a member of General Stilwell's staff was expected and in-
structed to keep them informed of appropriate background informa-
tion so that their analysis and appraisal would be accurate.
Now when I returned to the United States in April 1945, and met
Mr. Gayn, he was, as far as I knew, a well-known and reputable maga-
zine writer on the Far East. I had seen articles which he had pub-
lished in Collier's, and I had no reason to doubt his statement to me
that he was preparing a series of articles for the Saturday Evening
Post. He was anxious to get what information he could, background
guidance on the origins of the General Stilwell recall.
As I mentioned this morning, I told him I was not familiar with the
final stages ; I was not in Chungking.
I believe it was on the morning probably of May 19, after I had
spent the night in his apartment, that he returned to the subject of
these articles for the Saturday Evening Post and mentioned the
various conflicting versions which had been published about the rea-
sons for the Stilwell recall, and asked me again if I did not know
something about the background. So I agreed to tell him from mem-
ory something about what I had considered to be the origin. I had
explained to him that this was background information so that he
would have a clear understanding of how the w^hole affair started,
he would have a solid base point to avoid him going off on a tangent
that some of the writers about China had gone otf on. He said, 'Tt is
important. May my wife take some notes?"
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1295
As I rocnll, we were sittiiifr around the breakfast table and she sat
off to tlie sitle of the room and apparently took notes.
Now the oidy events in the baekor()und that I had knowledge of
were the original telegrams exchanged between President Roosevelt
and Generalissimo Cliiang Kai-shek requesting that General Stilwell
be placed in connnanil of all the Chinese Armies. I had no notes on
those telegrams. I had no copies of the telegrams. The telegrams had
been exchanged 10 months previously. I did know, however, that
American correspondents in Chungking had been very thoroughly
briefed on the whole matter at the time of General Stilwdl's recall by
the highest and most authoritative sources.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Service, if I am not interrupting your story,
so that I can follow it a little more logically, could you give us the
approximate date when General Stilwell was recalled?
Mr. SER^^CE. Yes, Senator, General Stilwell was recalled on October
19, 1944.
Senator Tydixgs. So this was five or six or so months after the
recall I
Mr. Service. This was 8 months afterwards.
Senator Tydings. Thank you, that clears up something.
Mr. SER^^CE. It was about May 19, 1945.
Senator Tydings. I apologize for interrupting.
Mr. Service. The telegrams to which I refer were in July 1944.
Senator Hickenlooper. Before you continue, may I suggest that
you say who the highest authority was that briefed very thoroughly
these newspaper people over there on Stilwell ? ^Miat was the name
of the official so we can get it down in specification ?
Mr. SER^^CE. I was not present, sir, but it was either General Stil-
well or officers immediately under his command. iSIuch of this in-
formation also was given to these American correspondents by very
high Chinese officials.
Senator Hickenlooper. Who?
]\Ir. Service. Including the President of the Legislative Yaun, Dr.
Sun. Much of the background, 1 believe, w^as also given to the cor-
respondents by the President's official representative in China.
Senator Hickenlooper. And who was that?
Mr. SER\^CE. Gen. Patrick Hurlej\
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know that this information was
given to these correspondents of your own knowledge, or is that what
you were told ?
Mr. Service. I know from second-hand information from some of
the people present and from some of the correspondents themselves,
one of whom accompanied me on the plane back to the United States
in October 1944 to publish the story.
Senator Hickenlooper. Who Avas that ?
Mr. SER^^CE. I am referring ro Mr. Brooks Atkinson whose story in
the Xew York Times I referred to this morning, and that story con-
tained the gist and only important part of what I told Mr. Gayii.
Senator Hickenlooper. And did you discuss this matter with Mr.
Brooks Atkinson on the trip back or any other time prior to th*
publication of his story in the Xew York Times?
Mr. Service. I beg your pardon. Senator.
1296 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY HNTV^ESTIGATION
Senator Hickexlooper. Did 3^011 discuss the subject matter of this
newspaper story he later wrote with Mr. Atkinson on the plane back
or at any other time prior to the publication of his story in the New
York Times?
Mr. Service. I read his story while we were traveling back on the
plane.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you discuss it with him and give him
any background information of any kind?
Mr. Service. No, sir ; I was not in position to give him recent back-
ground information because I was, as I say, not in Chungking but in
Yenan.
I think, sir, it might be useful for me to refer you to the transcript
when it is available of the Department of State Loyalty Board hear-
ings in which this matter was gone into in considerable detail and
during which Mr. Brooks Atkinson appeared as a witness.
Senator Hickenlooper. Excuse me, Mr. Morgan.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Morgan. In order that we may be sure that we understand
what we are talking about here, Mr. Service, are your comments with
respect to what you told Mr. Glayn directed to this so-called ''eyes
only" document that relates to this matter?
Mr. Service. That is right, sir.
Mr. Morgan. In other words, does the document purport to be a
memorandum prepared by Gayn on the basis of what you told him?
Mr. Service. I was coming to that. It is my belief, my certain be-
lief, from looking at this, that this is the text of the notes that Mrs.
Gayn took down during the conversation that I had with Mr. Gayn
that morning,
Mr. Morgan. So this particular document is tied in, therefore, with
your conversation with Gayn ?
Mr. Service. That is correct.
Mr. Morgan. I see.
Mr. Service. I think that these must be the notes Mdiich were writ-
ten as a result of my conversation with Gayn.
Mr. Morgan. And do those notes as set forth there, and does that
memorandum accurately reflect wdiat as you recall you told Mr. Gayn?
Mr. Service. It w^as 5 years ago, sir. Generally speaking, I think
it is reasonably correct. I think that there is some things here that
I know that I did not say. I could not have said "this is a paraphrase
of a telegram." After all, I was speaking from memory after 10
months, with no notes, no text of any message, and I would not myself
have said "this is a paraphrase." I may have said, "The gist of the
telegram was about as follows," and I 'don't know why misleading
l^hrases such as paraphrase have been used.
Mr. Morgan. May I see it a moment, please ?
(Witness handing document to Mr. Morgan.)
The reason I have asked you the question about the tie-in. Mr. Serv-
ice— and I want to be corrected if I am wrong — from looking at this
document, and from the identifying data that the FBI has on it in its
cover sheet, I ani unable to find any connection between this as such
and Mr. Gayn. Are you endeavoring here to explain the contents of
the document by saying you discussed this matter with Gayn, or do
you have reason to believe that this was the document that Mrs. Gayn
typed ? Tliat is what I am trying to find out.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION 1297
^Ir. Service. I believe I said this nioniiiin;, sir, that I have no recol-
lection of havin<j; ever discussed this subject with ^Ir. Jaffa. I dis-
•cussed it Avith ^Ir. Ga yn on the basis of his preparing a series of articles
on the Stihvell recall and requiring some background information.
Mr. Gayn is tlie only i)i'rson I discussed it with. Therefore, my only
conclusion is that Mr. Gayn prepared a ver}^ complete and, perhaps, in
some ways slightly distorted set of notes and gave a copy to Mr. Jaffe,
and that that must be what this document is a reproduction of.
Mr. Morgan. That was what I had in mind.
Mr. Service. I notice that this is a reproduction of a carbon copy.
Mr. Morgan. Yes. In other w^ords, if this is the memorandum that
was prepared by Mrs. Gayn pursuant to your discussion with Mr.
(layn, tlien (layn miist have given this document to Mr. Jaffe for it to
have been found in the Amerasia headquarters?
Mr. Service. That is my assumption,
Mr. ]\[oRGAN. T see. All right.
Mr. Service. Xow. as I was saying. I knew tliat the meat of this
information, in fact the full facts and background, had been given to
American correspondents in China and in India for background pur-
poses long before, in fact in October of 1944. I knew also that the es-
sential fact of the President's request in July 1944 had been made pub-
lic knowledge through publication, particularly by the story of Brooks
Atkinson on October 31, 1944.
I think, if you don't mind, if I may be permitted, I w-oiild like to
read the pertinent paragraphs here.
I commence with the second paragraph of Mr. Brooks Atkinson's
story :
For the last 2 months: negotiations had been going on between President
Roosevelt's personal representative, Maj. Gen. Patrick J. Hurley, and Generalis-
,sinio Chiani;" Kai-shek to give General Stilwell full comma :i:'. of the Chinese
Government air forces under the Generalissimo and to increase China's partici-
patiiHi in the counter-offensive against Japan.
Although the (ieneralissimo at first was inclined to agree to General Stilwell's
appointment as commander, he decided later that he would accept any Ameri-
can commander except General Stilwell.
His attitude toward the American negotiations became stiff and hostile. At
a private meeting of the standing connnittee of the Kuomintang (National Party)
Central Executive Committee this month he announced the terms of his personal
ultimatum to Americans who wei-e pressing him for military and governmental
reform.
He declared that General Stilwell must go, that the control of American lend-
lease materials must be put in his hands and that he would not be coerced by
Americans into helping to unify China l)y making terms with the Chinese Com-
munists. If America did not yield on these points, he said China would go back
to fighting the Japanese alone, as she did before Pearl Harbor.
Mr. Morgan. Does that complete your statement on that?
Mr. Service. Well, I was just saying, I would like to say that know-
ing all this background, knowing the fact that these were public
knowledge, having an interest in a correct and factual presentation,
I told Mr. Jaffe entirely from memory, I had no notes, no documents.
Senator Tydings. Do you mean Jaffe ?
Mr. Service. I am sorr}^ Mr. Gayn, the gist of these messages.
And I think if I may continue the final paragraph in what seems to
be Mr. Gayn's memorandum here of the conversation
^Ir. Morgan. You are referring now to the so-called Eyes only
document i
1298 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. No, sir; I am referring now to this documents which
bears the document number J-118A27.
j\lr. Morgan. In order that our record may be clear, the cover sheet
on the document is a cover sheet placed there by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation for purposes of its own identification relative to the
documents that were seized in the Amerasia case. Now, insofar as
the document itself is concerned, is there any identification on it for
our purposes here ?
Mr. Ser\'ice. There is a number — 118A27 w^ritten on it in pencil,
sir.
Mr. Morgan. That would probably be the identification of the man
who seized the document, so that would not be helpful. Wliat is the
heading of the document?
Mr. Service. It is the paper we have been discussing here, headed
"The Stilwell Affair and Hurley's Appointment."
Mr. Morgan. Fine.
Mr. Service. Which, as I have said, appears to l)e a copy of the
notes made by Gayn or Mrs. Gayn of his conversation with me.
Now, I think it is very significant to look at the last paragraph,
which is comment by Mr. Gayn apparently, and he says, I quote :
"There is nothing new in these points, but they give confirmation
to the reports already published in this country."
Senator Hickenlooper. I think, Mr. Chairman, that is a very sig-
nificant statement — the fact that an official of the State Department
confirms what otherwise has been classified as purely a rumor story
and not attributed to any official sources. I think there is great sig-
nificance in that particular confirmation from official sources. I
merely call this to the attention in view of the comment the witness
made.
Senator Tydings. The Chair is reserving his own opinion and will
express it when all the evidence is in.
^Ir. Service. ISIay I nuike a statement to that, Mr. Chairman ? .
Senator Tydings. Yes.
Mr. Service. The Brooks Atkinson story of October 31, 1944, was
held up for some time by the American censorship in this country.
Mr. Atkinson was insistent that the story be published. He had the
story from the highest sources and he had come to the United States
for the particular purpose of publishing it. He had been informed
by the managing editor of the New York Times that the story was
released for publication b}^ the President of the United States on the
grounds that the story was factually correct, and Mr. Atkinson was
here in the country and there was no reason why it should not be
released.
Senator Tydings. Wliat was the approximate date of that occ".r-
rence, as near as you can fixt it ? When was the article published ?
Mr. Service. The article was published, sir, on October 31, 1944.
Senator Tydings. So this incident, these series of incidents which
cleared for publication, which you allege, nuist have happened more
or less simultaneously with the date of the publication of the story
in the New Yerk Times ?
Mr. Service. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. All right, go ahead.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1299
Mr. ]\[oi;gax. Mr. Service, I believe — and correct me if I am wrong
in I his — th:i( you did make some reference to the practice followed
of v.hat we miiiht call "scratcliino; one another's backs'" in exchanging
information in China. Is that correct — a certain nuitnality idea of
passing on information to one party in exchange for information from
another?
Mr. Sf.uvice. That is true to some extent, depending on the kind of
information. News repoj'ting, descriptive informaticm, why, cer-
tainly there was some coo[)eration.
Mr. Morgan. AVhat I had in mind, of course, is this : Yonr relation-
ship with Mr. Jalfe and Mr. (Jayn was purely unilateral, yon were
not expecting to get anything back from them, were you?
Mr. Skkvk'e. That is correct; it was unilateral, but these people,
these men, had not had the opjiortunity to visit China, and therefore
tlie information I was giving to them or making available to them
was somewhat similar to what they would have picked up on the spot
if they had been there. After all, there is a recognized interest in
informing the American public.
I\Ir. Morgan. Did yon at any time, Mr. Service, during the period of
your association with these people suspect in any way that Jatl'e was
endeavoring to obtain official Government documents? I cannot be-
lieve you were so naive as to be completely sucked in on this. Did you
suspect at any point there might be something rotten in Denmark about
it all ?
Mr. Service. The type of information that he was interested in was
not unusual. It was the type of backbround information, descriptive
information, that many ])eople were interested in. He did not ask me
specifically to give him Government documents until the meeting on
May 29 when I flatly refused. But even at that time the documents
which he wanted me to abtain were very innocuous, shall I say — the
establishment of a Confucianism society in Chungking, which is a
public event. I doubt if the dispatches reporting tliat event were even
classified.
Mr. Morgan. Well, of course, copies of your reports which you gave
him had been classified.
Mr. Service. They had been classified, some of them, some of them
were unclassified. They had been classified unofficially by me at the
time I wrote them in that classification.
]\Ir. Morgan. In that connection j^ou manifestly thought the infor-
mation contained therein was proper for purposes of classification or
you would not have so classified them. Is that not a fair statement ?
Mr. Service. That is a fair statement at the time that the material
was written.
Let me explain it this way : When we Avent — when the American
Army observer group went to Yenan in 11)44, July 1944, the Commu-
nist areas had been blockaded for almost 5 years since 1939 and, for
reasons of military security, because we were quite close to the Japa-
nese lines and had to fly very close to Japanese territory, there was
classification })laced even on the fact of our being there. Very shortly,
however, the fact that we were there became unclassified. News):)a]>ei-
corresi)ondents were in Yenan and were contimuiUy visiting Yenan.
They leported the fact that we were there. They reported similar
material to that which was contained in these descriptive reports.
1300 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
By April 1945 a large number of people liad returned to the United
States who had been in the Communist area, newspaper correspond-
ents, American officers, State Department people; an officer named
Raymond P. Ludden, for instance, who had made a long trip through
the Communist areas, had given a press conference, an official press
conference, in the Department of State in March recounting his ex-
perience and summarizing his observations.
There have been several books written. So that the original need
for classification on this descriptive material was by April 1945 no-
longer necessarv- It was material which had become known to the
press through writings, through ]jress conferences, and so on.
Mr. Morgan. That I undei-stancl, Mr. Service, and your explanation:
in that respect is very clear. Wliat I am interested in, however, is
this : Under the regulations, manifestly, which the State Department
had propounded to its various officers with resi^^ect to the classification
of documents, was it understood by the officers that whether they could
or could not release classified information was a subjective matter, or
that it required some formal action on the part of the agency in whose
files the classified material appeared?
Mr. Service. If you w'ill paidon me, I think I will have to make a
fairly detailed explanation of my status and the unusual circumstances
under which I was working.
In some European countries the State Department had political
advisers who retained a definite status and were formal representatives
of the State Department operating an office of the State Department
abroad. Actually, we were not in that status, I and the other officers
assigned to Stilwell. We w^ere just turned over to the Army. We
did not report directly to the State Department, we did not maintain
any State Department office.
Furthermore, in the Army we were not integrated into any partic-
ular stafi^ section, we were handymen available for consultation or
whatever missions might have to be assigned to. Now, if I had been
working in a State mission abroad or in an office division of the State
Department here, or even in a staff section of the Army headquarters,
I would not be writing independent memoranda over my own name.
Anything that I wrote which was to go beyond a particular office or
unit with which I was concerned would have to be signed by the chief
of that office. For instance, if I were working in an embassy, any-
thing that I wrote would be in the form of a dispatch which would
be signed by the Ambassador, and the same holds true for the Army
organization.
Now, as an independent floating operator, I did from time to time,
I was instructed from time to time, to prepare specific telegrams or
reports, memoranda, for the signature of the commanding general.
General Stilwell, or for staff sections. In those cases, I would never
think of retaining a copy. I never did. Because if I wrote a telegram
for General Stilwell, that was General Stilwell's telegram.
But to go back to my own, this reporting work which was fairly a
major part, much of it was independent, voluntary work of reporting
information that came to my knowledge. I would simply write it
down in memoranda from over my own name. By arrangement, I
would give a copy of it to the Army headquarters. Very often it was
not of much use to tliem. 1 would give a copy of it to the Embassy, par-
ticularly if it was of political importance that we were interested.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1301
Now, I would put Oil these my own, as I say, infoiiual, unofficial
classification at the time I wrote them, appraising the need for security
classification of the information as of that particular time.
\A'hen I gave tliese memoranda to the headquarters or to the Em-
bassy. I never knew what use they made of them. If the Em-
bassy felt that the information was of some value, if it was new infor-
mation or if it supplemented some information they already had, an
officer in the Embassy would prepare a dispatch wdiich would be
signed b}^ the Ambassador, which would smiimarize, comment on, and
transmit my memoranda.
Now, they might observe my security classification, my suggested
security classification, the}^ might revise it. Very often they did. But
I was not seeing those dispatches, and I did not have access to the
Embassy files, so that I did not know what comment or what use the
Embassy made of these.
I think the point is important to understand because when I gave
a memorandum, one of these informal memorandums of my own per-
sonal observations, to the Embassy, and when the Embassy then com-
mented on it, evaluated it, said whether they agreed or disagreed, and
forwarded it under copy of dispatch to the Department of State, that
changed the character of nw paper. But I never had access to those
official papers, and I have never shown them to any unauthorized
person.
Similai-ly. the Army would take one of these memoranda which,
you might say, was intelligent working material, and if they thought
that this was worth forwarding to higher echelons, they would also
place on it a cover sheet, assigning it their own official classification,
which sometimes varied from mine, my recommended one, evaluating
the source, an official evaluation of the source, usually summarizing
the material, very often commenting on it. But since I was not work-
ing in G-2 or actually an integral part of the headquarters, I also had
no access to these official evaluations and comments on my material.
All that I had and all that I showed Mr. Jaft'e were the basic original
copies, my personal copies, of these memoranda which had never
passed through official hands, which had never been a part of any
official files. '
Mr. MoiioAx. Let me be sure I understand that. Do you mean to say
that these copies of the memoranda, your reports, that j'ou showed to
Ml". Jaff'e. at no time did any of those reports ever become a part of the
official State Department files?
Mr. Service. They did only if they were transmitted to the De-
partment oJP State by an official dispatch which commented on them
and evaluated them and gave the Ambassador's opinion on it.
Mr. Morgan. But you had never seen them?
Mr. Service. I had never seen those.
Mr. Morgan. Well, insofar as you know, then, a document that you
might regard as. let us say, confidential, might at the time transmitted
to the appropriated department in Washington be regarded top secret ?
Mr. SER^^CE. That is quite possible, sir, and they did raise some-
times the classification on my documents. But there again, part of
the reason, possibly one of the reasons for their raising the classifica-
ti(m would be the Ambassador's comments on what I had reported.
1302 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. ]\IoRGAN. But insofar as you knew at the time you gave them
to Jaffe, documents bearing a low classification may have been resting
in tlie State Department files with the highest type of classification.
Is that not correct?
Mr. Ser\^ce. That is correct, yes, sir; and I didn't even know
whether the memoranda which I allowed Mr. Jaffe to see had ever been
transmitted to the Department. I didn't know whether they were in
the Department files or not.
Mr. Morgan. Going back to this rather anomalous position that
you apparently had in that China set-up, did you have no regulations
with respect to classified material that guided you in the classification
that you made ?
Mr. Service. We knew what the classifications were, sir, but there
were no detailed regulations. I was working in a very informal status.
Of course, the tendency was to classify almost everything and to
grossly overclassify, and many of the classifications were purely, shall
we say, temporary classifications, because since I had good contacts and
did often get advance information, it would be classified or should be
classified only until the events took place or until the newspaper cor-
respondents got the same information and it became general
knowledge.
Mr. Morgan. Of course, that is one of the reasons, Mr. Service, that
I am asking you these questions, not necessarily by reasons of the
content of the material but by reason of the classification system. As
you know, this committee is very much concerned about the classifica-
tion problem because, manifestly, this promiscuous classification of
materials to which you refer tends to vitiate that material which prop-
erly warrants a high classification. Do you have any observations on
that score that might be helpful to us ? For example, why would you
put on a document "Secret" or "Confidential'' or something else?
What criterion, what standard, did you have over there in doing that?
Mr. Service. It is hard to be specific or to be all-inclusive. As I
have said, if I had information of a pending event, I would classify
it, that the classification should continue until after the event took
place. If I obtained information in confidence from one newspaper-
man, I would put a classification on it simply so that I could protect
his confidence or his sources. It would not be given to someone else.
Now, in China a great deal of our information was obtained not
necessarily from critics of tlie Government but from people within
the Government who were unhappy and disatisfied with the situation
and the progress of events. These sources had to be classified.
During the war there was fairly extensive excliange of information
between ourselves and our allies, and if a document had low*classifica-
tion, fairly extensive circulation through our own American agencies^
very often it was wise to protect your sources, to restrict that circula-
tion.
Mr. Morgan. We have had some suggestion here of the possibility
of classifying documents with a view to expediting transmittal. Is
that a consideration?
Mr. Service. I would not say it was a particular consideration in my
case, since I did not transmit anything beyond the headquarters to
which I was physically attached or to the Euibassy which was in the
same city. I tliink vou are correct that that is often a background
8TATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1303
consideration, that people will pay more attention and it will get
faster treatment if hio-lily classified.
Afr. INIoRGAX. Well, here is a qnestion, Mr. Service, that I would like
for you to answer for me if 3^011 can. Bearing in mind your position
thei-e in China, what was your understanding with respect to the
situation or circumstances under which you ])roperly could be per-
mitted to make available, let us say, to people like Jaffe and Gayn
the information which appeared in the reports that you submitted?
^Vas there any point at which it was understood that it was satisfactory
to do that, or was it purely left to the employee?
Mr. Service. It was purely left to the judgment of the employee.
And if he is going to get ahead in the Service, he has demonstrated
that judgment, because his judgment is constantly under scrutiny.
But there is no definition, there cannot be, as to what is background
information or what is permissible background information.
^Iv. ]\[oRGAx. Is that applicable merely to the peculiar situation
tliat you occupied in China, or is that true with respect to all regula-
t ions with respect to classification at that time?
Mr. Service. I would say that is true with respect to everyone — to
the whole scope.
Mr. ]\IoRGAx. "Well, why then did you have to take Mr. Jaffe to the
State Department to seek clearance on the release of an FCC item,
I believe, to him ?
Mr. SER^^:cE. Because, for one thing, I was not interested in being an
errand boy for Mr. JafFe.
Mr. MoTJGAX. I can well understand that but you became more of
an errand boy by going to the State Department and getting it cleared
than if you had just passed it on to him, if it was purely a subjective
matter.
Mr. Service. I did not particularly like Mr. Jaife after the initial
meeting. I was annoyed over the whole incident of his promising
to read the memoranda and then return them, and then saying, "I am
sorry, I haven't had time to read them. Can I borrow them?" He
wanted me really to go over to the State Department and get this
broadcast. I knew nothing about the broadcasts, the handling of them,
it was not my job. It was not material that came over my desk. I
simply said to him, "Well, come on over to the Department with me
and I will introduce you to the man." and I did so.
Mr. ]MoRG.\x. Of course, manifestly in that instance it was your
understanding that clearance was required to get the release of the
document; is that right?
Mr. Service. I did not know. Frankly, I did not know.
Senator LonoE. Mr. Chairman, on that point, I would like to ask
you Mr. Service, why you always went to see Jaffe to turn over the
documents. Why didn't Jaffe come to your office in the State Depart-
ment ?
Mr. Ser\tce. AVell, you say, sir, why did I always
Senator Lodge. That is wliat the testimony indicates.
Mr. Service. That was only one instance when I allowed him to
have them. I Avould say the reason was that I was sharing an office
in the State Department. It was much more convenient — with people
coming and going, and so on — it was much more convenient for me
to let him read them in his hotel room. There was nothing, to my
mind, out of the way about it.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 83
1304 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. I did. not say out of the way, I just wondered.
Mr. Service. In Chungking
Senator Lodge. If he was wanting something and you were not
wanting anything from him, why did he not come to you ?
Mr. Service. It was not far out of the way for me. It seemed like
a simple and convenient way to let him read them.
Senator Tydings. I would like to ask you a question there, Mr.
Service, that I think ought to be cleared up. How many times did
you give any memoranda or other papers of any kind or description
to Mr. Jaffe 'i I mean by that, on how many different occasions. Was
there one, two three, or more ? Now think before you answer — as near
as you can recall.
Mr. Service. I have testified that on April 19
Senator Tydings. That was one time.
Mr. Service. I took with me a memorandum in which Mao Tse-tung
stated the current policy, attitude of the Chinese Communist Party.
Senator Tydings. That was one time.
Mr. Service. The next morning I took over
Senator Tt'dings. That was the 20th ?
Mr. Service. At his hotel a number — I don't have any positive
recollection — 8 or 10.
Senator Tydings. Eight or ten what ?
Mr. Service. Personal copies.
Senator Tydings. Personal copies.
Mr. Service. Of these descriptive memoranda.
Senator Tytungs. Of the kind we have been discussing?
Mr. Service. That is right.
Senator Tyt)ings. And after April 20, when did you give him some
data?
Mr. Service. On May 8, 1 believe it is.
Senator Tydings. May 8 ?
Mr. Service. I took over to the hotel and handed him in the lobby
a copy of an English language broadcast by
Senator Tydings. That was the monitor proposition to which we
have had reference, and was not classified in any way ?
JSIr. Service. That is right. And I have no recollection, as far as I
know I never gave him or allowed him to see any documents of any
sort in any other case.
Senator Tydings. There were only three occasions — April 19, April
20, and May 8 — and on April 19, to summarize, you gave him this
alleged statement or interview from Mao Tse-tung; on the 20th, you
took over some 8 or 10 of your own personal observations and let him
read those, and on May 8 you gave him the broadcast, the Yenan
broadcast, to which there has been reference made. Now, were they
the only occasions in which you gave him documents, and were thev the
only documents that you ever transmitted to him directly or indirectly
by yourself or through an agent ?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir ; although I think on the 20th I also may have
let him see a translation of a Chinese booklet.
Senator Tyding. Well, that was not a document, though?
Mr. Service. No.
Senator Titungs. I am talking about things that had to do with
the matter that brings on this investigation.
Mr. Service. That is correct.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1305
Senator Tydings. So they were the only three occasions?
Mr. Service. That is right.
Senator T^-dtngs. Now, did you ever send liim any papers of yours
or any others other than books— -I don't mean that, I mean books you
coidd* buy in the book shop — but did you ever send him any papers
of the kind you are discussing here, tlirough a messenger or through
any other person or through any other friend or through any other
human being?
Mv. Service. No, sir, I have never had any written communication
with him, nor have I sent him material or communication through any
third party.
Senator Tydings. Now, on the morning of April 20 when you took
over these own personal observations of yours that you had gathered,
that was the time when he was to read them over, as I recall your
testimony, return them to you that day or approximately currently ?
]\Ir. Service. That is my recollection.
Senator Tydings. Instead of that, he took them to New York, and
they are the documents you picked up in New York when you went
up there later?
Mv. Service. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. Did you get all of them back that you gave to
him?
]VIr. Service. As far as I know, I did.
Senator Tydings. And now we have gone over that part of it, I
would like you to summarize the times that he ever gave you any docu-
ments, either your own or any others. As near as you can recall that
now. Think that out and we will get it in the record.
Mv. Service. The only occasion that I have any recollection of is
April 25 when he returned to me these copies of personal memoranda
which I had loaned him.
Senator Tydings. And they are the ones vou let him have on April
20 {
Mr. Service. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. Now, on the dates of April 19, April 20, April
2.5. and May 8, were they the only times that any documents with
Avhich you had any connection passed either from 3^ou to Mr. Jaffe or
from Mr. JafFe to you either directly or through the mails or through
an agent or through a friend or through any other human being?
"Were there an.y other times that you can recall except those four?
]Mr. Service. There were no other times, sir; those were the only
times.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Senator Lodge. On that ])oint, Mr. Chairman, were there any times
when you communicated information to him verbally in conversation?
Mr. Service. "Well, Senator Lodge, we certainly conversed together.
Senator Lodge. "What are the dates when you conversed with him ?
Mr. Service. There was some conversation, certainly, on every date
on which I saw him. I think the record of surveillance and my state-
ment covers those dates. Do you ^^ant me to review tliem. sir?
Senator Lodge. Ves, I want to make this compilation com])]ete. I
think it ought to show all the contact that you had with Jaffe, both as-
to documents and as to occasions when you may have conveyed in-
formation to him verbally.
1306 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. I met him first on April 19, 1945. I saw him again on
April 20. I saw him in a large group of people ^^here, as I remember
it, there was no conversation specifically with him, on the evening of
April 24. I saw him very briefly in the office of Amerasia on April
25. I saw him in Washington, I think, on the morning of April 8.
Senator Lodge. What ?
Mr. Service. May 8.
Senator Tydings. May 8.
Mr. Service. I saw him briefly at Miss Mitchell's on the evening of
May 18.
Senator Lodge, May 18?
Mr. Service. Yes. I saw him during the day when we went out to
Long Island, had lunch, and came back on May 19. I saw him dur-
ing the evening of May 29 at Roth's party, which is described in my
statement.
Senator Lodge. Does that conclude?
Mr. Service. I might say there is some confusion in my own mind
about the May 8 date, and I rely really on the FBI report of surveil-
lance as published in testimony before the House committee. But as
far as I know, those are all the times.
Senator Lodge. Those are the dates to the best of your knowledge
and belief?
Mr. Service. Yes.
Senator Lodge. Were there any times you talked to him on the tele-
phone without seeing him ?
Mr. Service. Yes; there were a number of telephone conversations.
I think all except the very first, when I called him at the hotel, would
be at his suggestion or request. There were a number of times when
he telephoned me asking me to meet him or make arrangements for
my going to Mitchell's, or making arrangements transmitting the invi-
tation from Bisson. There were no cases or no instances of any tele-
phone conversation that I recall dealing with any substantive infor-
mation, they were all conversations concerning arrangements or-
Senator Lodge. Did he initiate most of the telephone calls, or did
you ?
Mv. Service. He initiated all of them except for the first one.
Senator Lodge. He initiated all of them?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. All right ; thank you.
Senator Tydings. Thank you. Go ahead.
Senator Hickenlooper. If I can interrupt, Mr. Morgan
Senator T"iT)iNGS. Senator Hickenlooper would like to interrupt for
a moment because he may be compelled to be absent.
Senator Hickenlooper. Would you pass me that document there,
the Q document ?
Ml". Morgan. The witness has it.
^The document was passed to Senator Hickenlooper.)
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Service, this document that I showed
you this morning and referred to as Q-316, which is on the cover
sheet of the FBI and to which you have referred as, in your opinion, a
transcription of stenographic notes taken by Mrs. Gayn — I believe it
was ?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1307
Senator Hickenloofer. I bolievo you tliouclit in p:eneral this is a
reasonably con'oct reporting of the substance of your conversation at
that time^
Mr. Service. I mentioned several details there, such as the use of the
word '^paraphrase," Avhich I could have hardly used. I have no very
clear complete recollection of the conversation after 5 years. It is
over 5 years.
Senator Hickenloofer. But as far as you know at the moment it
represents a fairh^ accurate resume of that conversation with certain
discrepancies or variations such as you pointed out. Would you say
that is correct?
JMr. Service. I might like to look at it more closely, sir. I haven't
studied it in detail.
Senator Hickenloofer. Well, you had it during the noon hour,
and I thought that was the purpose — that you were examining it
carefully during the noon hour.
Ml'. Service. Well, I would say in general it probably
Senator Hickenloofer. Yes ?
Mr. Service. It may be a summarization, and I am sure it is a
summarization. If it is a summarization, you always have some dis-
tortion and change.
Senator Hickenloofer. I understand that. But that being the
case, and it being a reasonably accurate summarization, with perhaps
some slight distortion, I would like to call your attention to the very
opening paragraph in this statement, in which it says :
This information classified as "top secret — eyes only" is supplied by John S.
Service. A si^eoial caution must be shown in the use of the two White House
messages to Chiang Kai-shek whose text is given below.
Mr. Service. That, of course
Senator Hickenloofer. Of course, the point of my question is this :
You have examined this document. You said it is a fairly accurate
resume of the information you passed on to Gayn at that time. And
as the record stands at this moment, it would seem to me that the
information that it was top secret and a special caution should be used
in certain of these things must have come from you with your
knowledge.
Mr. Service. Thank you. Senator Hickenlooper. I had not
though that your question of whether or not that was a complete or
accurate resume of what I had said commenced with that paragraph.
I consider that as introduction, which was obviously written and
placed there by the writer.
Senator Hickenloofer. Then, would you say that the writer just
pulled out of the clear sky the idea this was top secret after talking
to you ?
;^^r. Service. Oh, no; it is quite likely, in fact, that he may have
said something to me about, "Well, now, how much use can I make
of this material ?" And that I said to him, "Well, this is background
information that I am telling you so that you will know how the
affair started, so you don't go off on a limb as other people have."
Senator Hickenloofer. Is it possible you said :
This is top-secret information and you must be careful about the use especially
of the two White House messages to Chiang Kai-shek.
1308 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. SER^^CE, It is quite possible that I said this material was orig-
inally contained in "eyes alone" message, and "You should confirm
it from other sources or get it from official sources before using it."
I don't believe that that is unusual in giving guidance and back-
ground information, to tell a newspaperman that he is not able to
use it or he is not able to use it without attribution.
Senator Hickenlooper. In the last paragraph of this document
which apparently — that is, at least I assume it is — is a resume of that
conversation, it says :
There is nothing new in these points, but they give confirmation to the reports
already pui)lishe(l in this country. At present, Service says, there is some
improvement in the Chinese Army, for some units had been given diluted
training. Troops thus trained, of course, do not come up to the standard of the
divisions trained at Rangar, India, where the Chinese were given regular GI
training. Every Chinese division is now accompanied by a team of United
States advisers and instructors — perhaps 10 to a division. Unless I am mis-
taken. Service said that the Mars force has been disbanded and split into
teams assigned to instruct Chinese units.
Would you not consider that would be verj' important military
information?
Mr. Service. No, sir; it is not. At that time it was well known
to every newspaper man in China, and I am sure that a study of news
reports and writings at that time would bear me out, that that was
the type of material which was known and was reported.
Senator Hickenlooper- Now, Mr. Service, I confess to being a little
hazy as to the scope of your authority or activity. Since I am some-
what confused on it, I do not believe it will serve any purpose to go
into that and repeat again what you said. But you were actually
in the Foreign Service at the time you served with the Army in
China. Is that not correct ?
Mr. Service. That is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. You were temporarily assigned to the mili-
tary forces there ?
Mr. Service. That is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. That is, on the staff of General Stilwell
or the commanding general ?
Mr. Service. For whatever purposes he might wish to use me.
Senator Hickenlooper. That is correct. Could the Foreign Serv-
ice recall you at any time if they wanted to, back specifically into
the Foreign Service ?
Mr. Service. They could not have recalled me unless I had been
released by the Army, and I assume that it was understood that I
would not be recalled except with Army approval.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now you were engaged in gathering intel-
ligence for the United States Government, whether it was for the
military forces or whether it was for the State Department; is that
correct ?
Mr. Service. That was one of my functions, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. And, as Mr. Morgan brought out a moment
ago, you had no way of knowing generally whether a classification
which you had put on a report which you inay have filed could have
been raised to a more important classification after it left your
hands
Mr. Service. Or reduced.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1309
Senator Hickenlooper. Or reduced or altered. That is correct, is it
not i
Mr. Service. That is correct.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you have any direct information as to
■\Aliether or not the classification had been removed from any of these
documents or from this information wliich you gave to Mr. Jaffe or to
the Gayns, from any official sources, had it been officially declassified in
any way?
^^r. Service. I did not have official knowledge that official action had
been taken to declassify the copies of these memorandums which might
liave been commented on and evaluated and then placed in official
files. However, as an officer familiar with the field, with the whole sub-
ject matter, I did have knowledge that the content of these reports
Avas no loiiffer such that required the maintenance or retention of a
liigh classification.
Senator Hickenlooper. Were you in such a supervisory or admin-
istrative capacity that you could exercise your own judgment as to
when declassification was proper or not proper?
Mr. Service. I was not declassifying any Embassy dispatches. De-
partment of State papers, or Army papers. I was an officer who had
been given a good deal of responsibility and initiative in background,
briefing of the press, and it is customary to allow officers in such posi-
tion to use their own discretion and judgment in determining what
information is appropriate to classify as background.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do I understand you to say that an officer
aaIio goes out to secure information and intelligence for the Govern-
ment, either in the State Department or the Army, and retains a copy
of what he has developed, the originals of which he has forwarded to
his superiors, has a right to go around at his discretion and release or
withhold information with regard to that whenever he deems it proper
within his own judgment?
Mr. Service. I would say that in my circumstances it was not im-
proper, sir.
Senator Green (presiding). Just one question in that connection.
Did you ever know how the State Department had classified the infor-
mation that'you had furnished them?
Mr. Service. No, sir : I did not ; and I did not know how much of
it had reached the State Department or how many of these memoran-
dums had been transmitted by dispatch to the Department of State.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman ?
Senator Green. Senator Lodge.
Senator Lodge. I confess to still a certain amount of curiosity, Mr.
Service, as to why you went to see Jaffe rather than having him come
to see you. I have worked a number of years as a newspaperman and
as an official, and it is customary certainly for a newspaperman to go
and look up the official. Yet in your case you always went to see
liim. Was it because you were suspicious of Jaffe? Is that the
reason ?
Mr. Service. Xo, sir; not at all. Now in the case of Mr. Gayn, he
did come and look me up.
Senator Loix;e. He did look 3'ou up?
Mr. Service. Gayn came to the State Department, and then we went
out to lunch together.
1310 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOISI
In the case of Mr. Jaffe, as I mentioned, I telephoned to him and we
tried to arrange a time of meeting. For some reason it was incon-
venient for him to come over to my office during office hours, and the
only time we could arrange that seemed to be convenient was for me
to stop at his hotel just before the time for Roth's party and for us to
both go together, sharing a taxi.
Now, it is true for some newspapermen, particularly, I would say,
the daily working press, picking up spot news, probably most of his
contacts are in the office. He goes around to see the man on the desk,
check this report or that report. However, for the man who perhaps
corresponds to the British idea of a correspondent rather than new^s-
paper reporter, for the research man, for the newspaper writer, the
man who is interested in background material, in interpretation, I be-
lieve that you will find that most of the contacts are not normally in the
office sitting down one man across the desk from the other ; that they
are usually on a personal basis, usually at meals or at home and so on.
Senator Lodge. Were you very busy when you were in the United
States at that time in April or May of 1915 ?
Mr. Service. Yes; I was quite busy. I had just come hack from
the Communist area.
Senator LoixiE. And yet you took the time to go look up Mr. Jaffe
rather than have him come to see you,
Mr. Service. It was time outside of office hours, sir, I went over
to his hotel, I think that the record of surveillance shows, at 6 : 50
p. m. I was fairly busy, mostly in goino; around to the various Gov-
ernment agencies that were interested in China at their request to be
interrogated by their research people on China.
Senator Lodge. You had no thought that it might have been em-
barrassing to you to be seen in j^our office in the State Department
giving these documents to Jaffe ?
Mr. Service, No, sir.
Senator Lodge. You would have been perfectly willing to give him
the documents in the State Department?
Mr, Service. Certainly,
Senator Lodge. You were perfectly willinar to have your coPeagues
see it?
Mr. Service. Oh. yes.
Senator Lodge. Thank you.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Service, do you know Owen Lattimore ?
Mr. Service. Yes; I have known him slightly for some years.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you know him in China?
Mr. Service. I met him in Peking for the first time, I believe, in 1936,
or possibly at the end of 19.35.
Senator Hickenlooper. Was he at Yenan when you were there?
Mr. Service. No, sir: he was not in China, I believe, during the
periods when T was in Yenan.
Senator Hickenlooper. I see. Have you ever visited Lattimore's
home ?
Mr. Service. Yes ; on two occasions I think, or possibly three.
S^^nator Hickenlooper. Social visits?
Mr. Service. Purely social visits.
Senator Hickenlooper. Meals or anything of that kind ? Have you
ever been there for meals ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1311
Mr. Skrvice. Yes; I have spent — I think I spent one nioht with
him and liis wife in 1944, and I spent a Meek end with other people
at his home in Jnne V.)AiS.
Senator Hickenlooper. Wlio else was present at those times, if
yon recall ?
Mr. Service. I don't have a very clear recollection of the nioht that
1 spent there in 1944. 1 believe that there was a relative or member
of either Mr. Lattimore or Mrs. Lattimore's family, bnt I cannot be
])ositive. Also I was there on that occasion for Snnday dinner, and
my recollection is that they had some guests in. I do not remember
wlio the guests were.
In 194r), as far as I recollect, the other guests that week end were
IJeutenant Eoth and Miss Rose Yarcloumian, and for Sunday dinner
they again, as 1 believe their custom is, had two or three couples in
for dinner.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you ever say to Mr. Jaffe in his hotel
room in the Statler Hotel in Washington this or this in substance —
that the military information contained in these documents is, of
course, secret or top secret and must not be or must be carefully
handled ?
Those might not be the exact words, but those are the substance of
wliat I have said.
Mr. Service. Well, I think, sir, the fact is that I did not give him
any documents dealing directly with military matters nor
Senator Hickenlooper. Let's not confine ourselves to the word
"documents." Either documents or the information, the military in-
formation, which I am giving you, or which is contained herein, is,
of course, secret. Did you ever use that expression to him at all in
his room, or the substance of an expression of that kind?
Mr. Service. I do not recall it, sir.
Senator PIickenlooper. Do you think you would recall it if you
liad used it ?
Mr. Service. Xo; not necessarily; because if we were discussing the
over-all picture, as we very likely may have been, I may have said,
made some general statements for his own background inforaiation
but not for publication in his magazine even without attribution.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you give him any information at any
time that was secret military information?
Mr. Service. Well, the terms are so broad there, sir, the fact that
practically everything that was written in those days was in its orig-
inal form written in a report that was classified, that I could not say
that we never discussed anything that would not be technically con-
sidered secret or had at one time been considered secret, nor can I say,
since military affairs were so inextricably tied up with the political,
that we did not at some time touch on something which had military
significance. In fact, that would be my expectation. I would expect
that we had, because you could hardly discuss any phase of the situa-
tion in Cliina witliont it ])earing on some relation to the war.
Senator Hickenlooper. How much time did yon spend in the Amer-
asia office on the occasion when you called on Mr. Jaffe there?
Mr. Service. My recollection, and it is very hazy, is perhaps half
an honr.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you look over the Amerasia set-up
there and its printing plant?
1312 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. They showed me around. All that I remember seeing^
is a large sort of a library workroom and the office, small office, at the
end of the hall where I briefly met and spoke to Miss Mitchell. I did
not see any other rooms or see any photographic or printing equipment.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know Tung Pi-wu ?
Mr. Service. Certainly. He was the Communist official representa-
tive in Chungking.
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you met him here in the United States
at any time?
Mr. Service. Yes, I saw him briefly, I think, in the very earlv part
of August 1945.
Senator Hickenlooper. Where was that meeting?
Mr. Service. In Washington, D. C.
Senator Hickenlooper. And where in Washington ?
Mr. Service. Well, I went out to dinner with him, a dinner which
was given by someone else.
Senator Hickenlooper. Who ?
Mr. Service. I think Capt. Paul Linebarger, at that time in the
United States Army. As I recall, it was arranged that I would — since
I had known him, it was arranged that I would go to his hotel, which
I think was the Raleigh Hotel, and pick him up and take him to Cap-
tain Linebarger's dinner.
Senator Hickenlooper. And who was there at the dinner in addi-
tion to Captain Linebarger and yourself and Tung Pi-wu?
Mr. Service. I think there was a seci-etary of Mr. Tung's named
Chen, and an American Foreign Service officer named Everett F.
Drumright.
Senator Hickenlooper. And any others that you recall?
Mr. Service. No, sir ; no one else that I recall now.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you meet with him again on any occa-
sion in the United States ?
Mr. Service. No, sir. My recollection is only that one occasion.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you ever discuss landing operations
with Mr. Jefl'e — landing operations of the American or other troops
in China or in that area?
Mr. Service. Well, certainly, as I mentioned this morning, sir,
there was some discussion, must have been some discussion — I am
speculating — simply because at that particular time everyone was in-
terested. Admiral Nimitz himself had made a press statement in
March, I belie^•e, of 1945 saying that we must land on the coast of
China, and I am sure that we must have discussed the general ques-
tion of whether or not there would be landings. But I had no knowl-
edge of if, when, or where those landings might take place.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you have any comparable contacts
with other newspapermen or newspaper writers during this period
of repeated contacts with Mr. Jaffe and the Gayns and Katherine Mit-
chell— and I believe Mr. Bisson was among some of those that you
saw ?
Mr. Service. Yes, I had quite a number of conversations with vari-
ous newspaper people.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you give them copies of your memor-
anda and the information in your possession such as you gave to Mr.
JafTe?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1313
Mr. Skrvice. Oh, I tliiiik that the discussions would be generally
similar. Of course, your conversation with anyone, whether news-
paperman or anyone else, depends partly on his own expertness or
interest or thorough command of the field. Now a new^spaperman or
reporter who is not specializing on the Far East, who is not collecting
information for detailed background newspa])er articles, is much
more interested in spot news and is not apt to want to go into details
in the same serious way or studious, academic way. I talked at great
lengths, for instance, to a couple of editors of Fortune magazine who
were i)repai'ing an article on China.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you give them copies of your memor-
andum that you furnished Mr. Jaffe?
^[r. Service. No. They didn't ask for any. I undoubtedly would
have if they had felt they needed them to cover more thorougldy some
of the points that they were interested in in writing their article.
Senator Hickenlooper. At the time of your arrest in connection
with the Amerasia case, Mr. Service, who posted or was surety on your
appearance bond at tliat time?
Mr. Service. Do you mean, Senator, the name of the bondsman ?
Senator Hickenlooper. The name of — yes, who went surety on
your appearance bond. I assume you posted one?
Mr. Service. I believe that his name was Weinstein, but that is just
out of the back of my mind. I had some ditHculty in communicating
with my relatives, my family was away, and it took me some time to
get in touch with my sister-in-law who happened to be here in Wash-
ington. And she consulted a lawyer who suggested this Mr. Wein-
stein, I believe his name is, who is a professional bondsman. She
raised $500 which was paid to him as his fee, I believe, and he was
the man who signed the bond for me.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know Lauchlin Currie?
Mr. Service. I have loiown him slightly from time to time, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Where has this acquaintance been — in this
country or abroad ^
Mr. Service. Yes, first — it has been entirely in this country. In
19-13 I was here in the Department of State on consultation, I think,
during the month — late January and February — and Dr. Currie, who
Avas — I forfret the exact title — executive assistant in the Wliite House,
especially concerned with China, I believe, requested that I come and
talk to him, and we had some conversation. I have seen him — I think
I saw him on each occasion that I returned to the United States, al-
though by 1915 he was not especially concerned any longer w-itli China
atfairs.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you see him in 1945 ?
Ml-. Service. Yes, I think I did.
Senator Hickenlooper. And what were the occasions of your meet-
ing with him — at the '\^'^lite House or at other places or where?
Mr. Service. His office was in the old State, War, Navy Building,
which was where the State Department offices also were at that time,
and I think that every time I have met him has been in his office except
one occasion when I think I had supper at his home.
Senator Hickenlooper. When was that supper at his home ?
Mr. Seratce. Well, I cannot be positive, but by reconstruction I
believe that it must have been in November 1944.
1314 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. Have you ever discussed at any time or
conferred with Dr. Currie about your connection or association in the
Amerasia case or the facts involved?
Mr. Service. Yes. In 1945 I had some conversation with him for
advice particularly on what I should do.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you know David K. Niles?
Mr. Service. No, sir; I don't believe I ever met him.
Senator Hickenlooper. You never met Mr. Niles?
Mr. Service. Not that I know of.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have a number of other questions, but I
am going to refrain now. I think Mr. Morris might have some of
his own. I have to catch an airplane. That is why I took the liberty
of interrupting you, Mr. Morgan, because I was afraid by the time
you got thorugh, some of these questions I could not ask. So I am
finished for the moment.
Senator Green. You may be excused.
Senator Hickenlooper. I shall stay a little longer, but I do have to
catch a plane.
Senator Green. Senator Lodge ?
Mr. Morgan. I have a feAv questions to conclude my examination,
if that is all right at this point, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Green. Very well.
Mr. Morgan. I presume, Mr. Service, if I were to outline to you
the documents attributed to you, that is as the author of the docu-
ments which were found in Amerasia headquarters, that you could
make no observations with respect to them, is that right, in view of
what you have said this morning ?
Mr. Service. May I hear your question again, sir ?
Mr. Morgan. "Well, I was trying i:)ossibly to cut things somewhat
short here. I have before me a list of a great many documents that
were recovered in the Amerasia headquarters in New York at the
time of the arrest. One, for example, let us say, is a letter from
Service to the Secretary of State regarding conversations with Gen-
eral Lin Win Hu, approved for transmission by George At^heson,
dated March 22, 1945. Do you know anything about that docu-
ment ?
Mr. Service. I have no recollection of it now, except that I know
I could not possibly have shown it to ]\Ir. Jaffe.
Mr. Morgan. That is my point — if I were to ask you concerning
these various documents down here, interpreting your testimony this
morning, as I remember, that all of the documents which you had
shown or given Jaffe were returned to you, none of these documents
I must assume are documents that you had given Jaffe, is that correct?
Mr. Service. I haven't seen the list you have, sir, you see.
Mr. Morgan. These are documents, Mr. Service,* the list that I
have, and it may be that I will have to refer to them— a list of docu-
ments found at Amerasia headquarters at the time of the arrest.
Mr. Service. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Now correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand
your testimony, none of the documents wdiich you had shown to Mr.
Jaffe had been retained by him, they had been returned to you prior
to June 6, 1945?
Mr. Ser\t:ce. That is correct.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1315
]\Ir. INIoRGAN. So Avlieii I refer to this letter, for examj)le, dated
March 22, 1945, your observation is what? This document was found
there at the time of tlie arrest.
Mr. Seuvk'e. Yes, but you mentioned that was a copy of a dispatch.
Now you see I never had any copies of any disjiatches and never showed
anyone any copies of dispatches. So as soon as I realized what you
were referrino; to was a copy of a dispatch from ]Mr. Atcheson, Charge
d'Atf aires of the Embassy, it was impossible for me to have shown it.
Mr. Morgan. Let's go on. Also found in Amerasia headquarters
was a copy of your report No. 14 of the 1945 series dated 3-16-45,
March 16, 1945, on ''The Connnunist Views in Regard to Mongolia."
Do you remember that report which you prepared i
Mr. Service. I remember the report.
Mr. Morgan. Did you give it to Jaffe?
Mr. Service. You see there is an element in here that I don't know
whether Mr. Jaffe made copies of the things.
Mr. Morgan. That is what I am trying to clarify.
Mr. Service. I don't know whether he made them or not. Now the
piece of paper that was found in Mr. Jaft'e's possession could not have
been the paper I allowed him to see. That particular report is, I
believe, an unclassified report purely descriptive of the Communist
thinking regarding INIongolia as they stated it publicly and as they
said in their publications. It would be quite possible because that
is the type of material — it is quite possible that I did allow Mr.
Jatfe to see my personal copy of that particular report.
Mr. Morgan. Incidentally, in that connection, did you keep a list
of the reports that you did let Jaffe see? Do you know which ones
you did let him see?
Mr. Service. No, sir; I did not. Could I ask, sir, is that an ozalid
reproduction ?
Mr. jMorgan. It is.
Mr. Service. You see I never gave Mr. Jaff'e any ozalid copies be-
cause those would have been the official property of the United States
Government. The only thing that I had were my original carbon
copies.
Mr. Morgan. Your testimony is that this ozalid copy of your report
14 was not given by you to Jaffe ?
Mr. Service. That is correct, it was not given by me to Jaff'e.
Mr. Morgan. Also found was your report No. 13 of 1945 dealing
with "Communist Views in Regard to Sinkiang." I suppose since
that is an ozalid copy, you did not give that to Jaff'e either?
Mr. Ser\ice. I did not, although there again, sir, it is possible I may
have allowed him to see my personal carbon copy because I believe
that again is an unclassified report. In any case it is a purely de-
scriptive report. An ozalid copy was not anything which I gave to
Mr. Jaff'e.
Mr. Morgan. Also found was an ozalid copy of your report No.
15 — "The Policy of Chinese Communists Toward the Problem of
National Minorities." I presume it is the same answer w^ith respect
to that, is that correct?
Mr. Service. The same answer — I did not give him that ozalid.
Senator Lodge. What is an ozalid copy?
1316 STATE DEPARTMEIsrT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. An ozalid copy, as I understand it, Senator, is one
in which you reverse the carbon, type the original, with the carbon
thus appearing on the back of the original and thereafter use the
original for producing the copies. It is a process of reproduction.
Is that not correct ?
Senator Lodge. How do you spell it ?
Mr. Morgan. 0-z-a-l-i-d.
Senator Green. Will you answer the question, please?
Mr. MorGxVn. I think he has answered to my question, Senator.
Senator Green. He has not answered since you asked it the last time.
Mr. Morgan. If there is a question pending, Mr. Reporter, you
might read it.
(The question was read by the reported)
Senator Green. Go ahead.
Mr. Morgan. You were going to make some comment, Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. I was going to try a brief explanation for Senator
Lodge of an ozalid process. It is a means of reproducing writing on
thin semitransparent paper by passing it under a strong light over a
sheet of sensitized paper. It is very similar basically to the photo-
stat process, except that I think the impression on the sensitized paper
is brought out by ammonia fumes. It was used a great deal by the
State Department during the war because we typewrote our dispatches
on lightweight, very lightweight paper, flimsy paper, and forwarded
to the State Department only this single copy. The reason for revers-
ing the carbon behind the paper was simply to make impression blacker
so that it would reproduce better when passed under a light and over
the sensitized paper.
Mr. Morgan. It is obvious, Mr. Service, that your indoctrination in
the ozalid process was a little more thorough than mine.
Any other observations?
Mr. Service. Well
Mr. Morgan. Let us go on then.
Your Report No. 18 was also found in Amerasia headquarters, an
ozalid copy. I presume again that you did not give that to Mr. Jaffe.
Mr. Service. I did not give that to Mr. Jaffe.
Mr. Morgan. That related to the establishment of unified labor and
women's organizations for the Communist liberated areas.
What generally would you care to say concerning the contents of
that document insofar as classification might be concerned ?
Mr. Service. Could you repeat it, sir ?
Mr. Morgan. The establishment of unified labor and women's organ-
izations for the Communist liberated areas. Do you remember the
document ?
Mr. Service. I remember the document but it should not have been
classified very high, I would say.
Mr. Morgan. Well, it was not classified at all.
Now with respect to your Report No. 13 which dealt with Com-
munist views, you marked that "secret." I might suggest that to you.
Now going on
Mr. Service. I think if I might point out there though, as an
example of inconsistency, there is a series of repoits there, one on
Mongolia, one on Sinkiang, and one on the Communist policy toward
national minorities. As I recall it, two of them were unclassified and
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1317
one of them was chissified "secret." And I think if you examine them
you will see there isn't any really logical reason why one should have
been classified and the other not classified. The material is taken
mainly from Communist publications and Communist leaders and not
really classifiable material at all.
Mi*. MoRGAX. Also found were your Eeports Nos. 16, 17, 19, and 21,
all ozalid copies. I presume they must have been given Jaffe by per-
sons unknown, is that correct?
Mr. Service. By persons unknown to me. I did not give them to
Mr. Jaffe.
Mr. Morgan. Incidentally, have these documents ever been avail-
iible to you, Mr. Service, in* the course of your loyalty hearing?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir; I have been interrogated on them by the
Loyalty Security Board.
Air. Morgax. I see.
I would like to ask you now with respect to a document dated Janu-
ary 29, 1045. This is unrelated to the Amerasia situation. It bears
the heading "United States short- and long-range policy in China."
Are you familiar with that document?
Mr. Service. The date is Januaiy 29?
Mr. Morgax. 1945. It deals, according to the heading, with "United
States short- and long-range policy in China."
■ Mr. Service. I have no recollection of having written any such
paper at that time.
Mr. ISIoRGAX. I am not suggesting that you wrote this document.
Are you familiar Avith it?
Mr. Service. Xo, sir; I am not.
^Mr. Morgax. Did you at any time supply Mao Tse-tung dispatches,
official Government reports, documents of any kind ?
^h: Service. Xo, sir ; I did not.
Mr. Morgax. Any suggestion or statement to the effect that jou
did so. would be false ? Am I to understand that ?
Mr. Service. Any statement that I gave him official reports or dis-
patches would not be correct, sir.
Mr. Morgax. Did yon pi'esume at any time to keep him informed as
to what United States policy relative to China might be?
Mr. Service. I think that the memoranda wiiich I prepared of my
conversations with him will show that I have discussed American
polic}^ in broad terms with him. He asked, for instance, in 1944
whether the United States would be able to recognize the Communist
Party, and I pointed out the impossibility of our recognizing a
separate pai'ty ; we recognized the Central Government of China. In
a general way certainly I have discussed American policy wuth him
simply because I could not have discussed with him for hours and
hours and hours as I did without touching in a general way on policy.
Mr. Morgax. But this ])articular document you do not recall? It
does not strike any bell at all insofar as you are concerned?
Mr. Service. X^o, sir; I don't believe I have ever seen it. It doesn't
mean anything to me at all.
Mr. ^Iorgan. I see.
How many loyalty boards have you appeared before, Mr. Service,
and how many times ?
1318 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. I have only appeared once before any loyalty board
and that has been the State department Loyalty Security Board before
which I have just been appearing.
Mr. MiRGAN. Yon have never had a hearing of any character with
respect to the question of loyalty other than the one that you have
just completed?
Mr. Service. In 1945, after the jnry returned no bill, I was asked
to appear before the Personnel Board of the Department of State.
Mr. Morgan. That was headed by whom ?
Mr. Service. That was headed, I believe, at that time by Assistant
Secretary Julius Holmes. That was, of course, before "the loyalty
pi'ogram as is now known was set up. But they did discuss with me
some of the background of the case and my actions during that period.
And it was as a result of that hearing I was reinstated and put back
on active duty in the Department of State. That is the one Board
before which I have appeared prior to the present hearing before the
Department of State Loyalty Security Board.
Mr. Mc^GAN. Have the hearings — perhaps this is a fair question —
incident to the first hearing that you speak of, which was before the
Personnel Board, was that limited solely to the Amerasia matter, your
participation in that situation?
Mr. Se:rvice. It was a fairly brief hearing, sir. They discussed as
I recall — I have never seen any transcript or minutes of the meeting,
they discussed something about the background of my work in China,
my relation with the working press, and my expressions of views con-
cerning China and the situation there. Those are all part of the back-
ground, von might say, of the Amerasia case.
Mr. Morgan. Well, the occasion of your appearance before the
Personnel Board in 1945 was your participation in the Amerasia
situation ; is that correct ?
Mr. Sfrvtce. Certainly, sir, but they did not try to re-try the
Amerasia case.
Mr. Morgan. I see. Now, incident to your participation in the
current Loyalty Board hearing, if you are privileged to advise me
of the fact, were the issues there solely limited to the Amerasia situa-
tion, or did they go into other matters ?
Mr. Service. May I ask my counsel to answer that ?
Mr. Morgan. Surely.
Mr. RiiETTS. May we have that question back?
(The pending question was read by die reporter.)
Mr. Service. I am sorry, I didn't understand your question, sir.
They went in the fullest and most complete way into my whole career,
my whole record, and into the China period, into my "work in China
during particularly the years 1943-45. They went in great detail
into what mio-ht be called the Hurley charg"es and finally into the
Amerasia work and into the Amerasia phase and into my work since
that time.
Mr. Morgan. How many days were you before the Loyalty Board?
Mr. Service. The hearings have lasted up to now for" 14 days, and
there have been 24 morning or afternoon sessions.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, at that point, I would like to have
the record show— maybe Mr. Morgan will develop it— the number of
times that various boards or groups of officials in the State Department
STATE DEPARTMENT EiMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1319
liave passed jii(l<>nie]it on Mr. Service. I do not think that has been
l)nt into the record, and I think it is very pertinent.
J\Ir. jMok(jan. Can yon answer the qnestion, Mr. Service?
]\Ir. Sj:kvice. I am sorry, Senator Lodge, I don't know.
Senator Lodge. Is this loyalty proceeding taking place now the
first time you have had a Loyalt}' Board pass yon on that you know
of?
Mr. Service. It is the first time T have been asked to make an ap-
pearance, and I really cannot answer your question in regard to the
nnmber of times which I may have been passed oi- cleared previously
withont appearing.
Senator Lodge. This is the only time you have made an appear-
ance?
Mr. Service. That is right.
Senator Lodge. I understood that after the Amerasia case there
was a group of officials in the State Department who passed on your
case and passed on your participation in the Amerasian case and
cleared you. Is that not true?
Mr. Service. Yes. We are caught on a technicality
Senator Lodge. Was that done without interviewing yon at all?
Mr. -Service. No. I mentioned awhile ago. Senator, that I ap-
peared before the Personnel Board at that time.
Senator Lodge. That is what I mentioned.
Mr. Service. It is not what is now considered the Loyalty Board.
Senator Lodge. I realize that. My ([uestion was not restricted to
the Loyalty Board. I asked liow often have various boards or groups
or aggregations of liuman beings in tlie State Department passed on
you. That is what I am trying to get at.
Mr. Service. I am sorry, sir. I should have said twice, once by the
Personnel Board, once ])y the Personnel Board in 1945; since then, an
indefinite nnmber of times, wdiich I do not know.
Senator Lodge. How many times that you do know about in which
you took part, at which you were present?
Mr. Service. Once in 1945, and the decision of the Department of
State Loyalty Board has not at present been announced, so I do
not
Senator Lodge. This is the second proceeding?
Mr. Service. This is the second ])roceeding.
Senator Lodge. By a State Department group of individuals before
which you are appearing?
Mr. Service. That is correct.
Senator Lodge. Do you know- why tlie loyalty proceeding was begun
now rather than in 1945 ?
Mr. Service. Quite frankly, sir. my knowledge on the early history
of this whole case is only wliat I have read in the newspapers. I have
not been informed in detail.
Senator Lodge. That is not much of an answer.
Mr. Service. I am sorry.
Senatoi- IjOdge. I am asking yon why the qnestion of yonr loyalty
was only raised in tlie State Depailment in 1950 when this whole epi-
sode occurred in 1945.
Mr. Service. Well, I assume, again from the press, that my case
has been considered periodically, perhaps, from year to year.
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 84
1320 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodoe. I mean with your participation in the questioning
and all that. Why was that put oflf for 5 years, I wonder.
Mr. Service. Because the Loyalty Review Boai'd returned the case
to the lower board, the Department of State board, with the sugges-
tion that I should have a hearing.
Senator Lodge. When did they do that?
Mr. Service. Again, sir, from the press, early in March 1950.
Senator Lodge. Well, then, it has been about 5 years thai went by;
hasn't it?
(No response.)
Senator Hickenlooper. Just two questions, Mr. Morgan, and then
I will have to leave.
Senator Lodge. Wait a minute.
Senator Hickenlooper. Excuse me.
Mr. Service. Senator Lodge, it is my understanding that the ques-
tion is not being raised for the first time now, but that in the regular
operation of the loyalty program my case has been considered by the
loyalty boards previously, and in fact several times periodically, and
that the evidence in the file has been such that the loyalty boards have
given mo clearance without requiring a personal appearance.
Senator Lodge. Do you know why your personal appearance was
sought this year?
Mr. Service. No, sir, I do not. I do not know why the Loyalty
Review Board requested it.
Senator Lodge. Thank you.
. Senator Green. Senator Hickenlooper, you said you had some addi-
tional questions?
Senator Hickenlooper. Yes, sir,
I wanted to ask you, Mr. Service, did you report to your superiors
these various conversations and discussions you had with Mr. Jaffe
in the meetings that you had with Mr. and Mrs. Gayn and these other
people in which China policy was talked about? Did you report those
conversations to your superiors in the State Department?
Mr. Service. No, sir, because they were not unusual conversations or
exceptional conversations ; they were the kind of conversations which
were going on from day to day with many people, and my discussions
of China policy were in a general way.
Senator Hickenlooper. Because I have had difficulty, myself, in
seeing original documents in the State Department and found it is
almost impossible to get a view of original documents referring to cer-
tain policy, it occurs to me rather unusual that a member of the Foreign
Service, who by his own statement, as you have made, is not too high
up in the Foreign Service, will concede to yourself the right to de-
classify material and to discuss it with people who apparently were
comparative strangers to you, and I am somewhat concerned about
that particular phase of the matter.
Then there is another observation which I have — at least, I have this
impression from various sources — that if, as, and wdien documents
emanating from officials, let us say, in the State Department or other
sensitive departments are made available to newspaper people or
writers for background purposes, those original documents, or the
copies of those documents, are only made available after serious and
some rather important consideration and a decision at a fairly high
to
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1321
level as to wlietlier or not the documents themselves will be shown for
background consideration. Therefore, it seems a little unusual
Senator Green. Excuse me, but there is a vote immediately. I think
we will recess for a while, anyway.
Senator Hickenlooper. I will have to leave.
(A recess was taken.)
Senator Tydixgs. The committee will come to order. Mr. Morgan,
ofo aliead with the examination.
Mr. Morgan. Will the reporter read the last question before recess
so we will have continuity ?
The Reporter. Senator Hickenlooper was interrupted by the recess.
Mr. Morgan. All right.
Going back to a question that was asked you, I believe by Senator
Hickenlooper, Mr. Service, concerning this meeting at INIr. Lattimore's
on June i2, 1945, which, I believe, was a Sunday, at which Lieutenant
Roth was present
Mr. Service. Yes, but excuse me, sir. Just before we recessed Sena-
tor Hickenlooper had asked a rather long and involved question I
would very much like to have a chance to comment on.
Mv. Morgan. That is the reason I asked the reporter to read the
question.
Senator Tydings. Read the question.
The Reporter (reading) :
Because I have had difficulty uiyself, in seeing original documents in the
State Department and found it is almost impossible to get a view of original docu-
ments referring to certain policy, it occurs to me rather unusual that a member
of the Foreign Service, who by his own statement, as you have made, is not
too high up in the Foreign Service, will concede to yourself the right to declassify
material and to discuss it with people who appai-ently were comparative strangers
to you. and I am somewhat concerned about that particular phase of the matter.
Then there is another obsei-vation what I have — at least, I have this impres-
sion from various sources — that if. as, and when documents emanating from
officials, let us say, in the State Department or other sensitive departments
are made available to newspaper people or writers for background purposes,
those original documents, or the copies of those documents, are only made avail-
able after serious and some rather important consideration and a decision at a
fairly high level as to whether or not the documents themselves will be shown
for background consideration. Therefore, it seems a little unusual —
and then the bell rang.
Mr. Morgan. That is hardly a question.
Mr. Service. I would like very much to have a chance to comment
on it, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Surelj^^- go ahead.
Mr. Service. In the first place, the documents, the papers, personal
memoranda which I allowed Mr. Jaffe to see, were not, by any stretch
•of the imagination, policy papers, or policy documents. They were
descriptive memoranda of my ov»-n observations; they were, in fact,
the only notes that I had of conversations and of observations dur-
ing my period with the Chinese Communists. They were not official
documents. They had never, as I say, been in the Department of
State in the form in which I had them. They contained no official
comments on them, no official expression of views, as to their correct-
ness or as to policy.
If I were to seek to show official documents to any newspaperman,
r would certainly haAe had them fii-st declassified or had approval, but
the.-e were not papers of that character at all.
1322 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IKVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. All right, Mr. Morgan ; you may proceed.
Mr. Morgan. Going back to the question relative to the meeting
at Mr. Lattimore's on June 2, 1945, at which Lieutenant Roth and Miss
Yardoumian were in attendance, do you recall that meeting^
Mr. Service. In a general way, yes, sir.
Mr. MoRGAx. Could you tell us what transpired at that particular
meeting at Mr. Lattimore's home, when you arrived, and so on and
so forth, for our record ?
Mr. Service. My recollection is that I had seen either Mr. or Mrs.
Lattimore in Washington sometimes subsequent to my return, which
had been in April, and that they had spoken of inviting me down for
a week end at their very pleasant home in the suburbs of Baltimore.
Shortly before this particular week end, I had received a note, I be-
lieve from Mrs. Lattimore, inviting me down, and suggesting, and
saying, that Lieutenant Roth and Mrs. Yardoumian had also been
invited, and suggesting that we contact each other, get together, and
come down together to Baltimore. I would say that the reason for
such a suggestion was that the Lattimores live, I think, in Towson,
several miles from the end of the streetcar line, and most visitors, if
they do not have their own car, go to Baltimore by train, and then by
streetcar, and are met at the streetcar line by one of the Lattimores.
My recollection is that that is what happened in this case.
We must have arrived there late Saturday afternoon. I remember
very little about the evening. We had supper there. I believe that
Lieutenant Roth was interested in getting Mr. Lattimore's views on
some parts of the book which he was just writing, and, I believe,
which had already had Navy clearance. My recollection is that he
had some parts of the manuscript, or the galley proof, of the book
with him.
Sunday morning I believe that we took a walk through the woods
near the Lattimore residence. As I have mentioned before, they had
two couples, I think, in for Sunday dinner, which was a sort of a
picnic affair, outdoors, on a terrace. I did not know the other guests,
I had not known them previously. I remember helping with the
hamburgers, opening the beer, sitting around, in general conversation.
At some point in the afternoon, I seem to remember Mr. Lattimore
doing something — cutting some grass, or doins: something nearby
M'here we were sitting, not far enough away so that he was out of the
party, getting some Sunday afternoon exercise. It was a very informal
aff'nr, with people just sitting around, relaxing.
The other tAvo couples, the Lattimore's guests, who, I think, were
faculty members of Johns Hopkins, left late in the afternoon. We
stayed for supper, the evening, and returned to Washington, I think,
by a very early morning train, a commuters' train, on Monday morning.
Mr. M'oRGAX. Did you see the galley proofs of Mr. Roth's book,
yourself ?
Mr. Service. I have no recollection of ever seeing them or reading
them. I was not particularly interested in Japan. The book was
entirely concerned with Japan. I had no specialized knowledge or
interest.
Mr. Morgan. Was consideration given to the study of anv other
papers or documents on the occasion of that visit ?
Mr. Service. Thei-e were no other papers or documents on that
visit. At this previous meeting, which had taken place, as I say,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1323
sometime between April and the end of May, I do not remember the
circumstances — it was a cocktail party, meeting, or something of that
sort — Mr. Lattimore had said that some of his research students,
students Avorking under him at Johns Hopkins, were working on his-
torical material concerning the Chinese Communist Party, ancl he won-
dered if I had any recent-source materials, Chinese publications.
I had brought back with he from China a pei-sonal copy of a volume
of speeches and papers of Mao Tse-tung, and on this occasion I took
this book with me to the Lattimore's and left it with Mr. Lattimore.
We had some discussion of the book. I pointed out the speeches
which I thought of interest. I had read a good many of them in
Chinese.
Mr. Morgan. That was not a Government document?
Mr. Seraice. No, sir; that was simply a personal copy of a volume,
in Cliinese, of speeches and papers of Mao Tse-tung.
Mr. Morgan-. Am I to understand from your testimony, then, Mr.
Service, that there were no other documents considered, apart from the
galley proof of Lieutenant Roth's book?
Mr. Service. I have no recollection of any other papers, myself,
at all.
Mr. Morgan. AYould you have known whether Lieutenant Roth or
Mr. Lattimore possibly did or did not have such papers and
documents?
Mr. Service. I think I would have, because I do not remember them
going off by themselves for any length of time. The discussion was
around the living room there after supper.
Mr. Morgan. Leaving that for the moment, that was on June 2 ; on
June 6. at the time of your arrest, I believe you were handcuffed, so
it has been stated, to INIr. Larsen ; isn't that right?
Mr. Service. My recollection is that we were taken in separate cars
with, I supjiose, the Ignited States marshal on each side of us; I do
not recall — I couldn't be positive.
Mr. ]MoRGAN. Well, at any point did you have a conversation with
Mr. Larsen, either immediately following your arrest or at the time
you appeared before the United States Commissioner (
Mr. SERV^CE. When I was taken to the office of the United States
Commissioner, Mr. Larsen was already there and I was told to sit in
a cluiir along one wall, right next to Mr. Larsen.
Mr. Morgan. AVas tliere any conversation?
Mr. Ser\t[ce. Mr. Larsen made several attempts to talk to me, under
his breath, in Chinese, asking me what it was all about, expressing
his own anger, mystification: and after this went on for some time, I
didn't reply, I finally said to him — there w^ere people standing all
around us, photographers, newspapermen, and so forth ; and I finally
said to him, "Please speak English." because I did not think there
was any point in our carrying on a conversation there in Chinese. My
recollection is, tlie only thing that I said to him was, "Speak English."
Mr. ^foRGAN. Do you know Avhether you told him to "shut up"?
Mr. Service. I did not tell him to shut up. As far as I remember,
it was simply to please s])eak English.
]Mr. ^Morgan. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to monopolize the ques-
tioning this afternoon. I may have some other questions of Mr. Serv-
ice. We haxe obtained for Mr. ]\Iorris, from the Justice Department,
1324 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
a number of documents that appear to have some pertinence here,
and you may like to have him go into those now.
Senator Ttuings. Senator Lodge has a question or two. Then we
will turn the questioning over to Mr. Morris.
Senator Lodge. Do you remember, Mr. Service, when it was that
you first heard of the Amerasia magazine ?
Mr. Service. Well, I must have heard of it very soon after it was
established, which I think was in 1937.
As an officer whose business was the Far East, particularly report-
ing on the Far East, I was, naturally, interested in reading, keeping-
in touch with what other people were saying and writing, and I sub-
scribed for either 1 or 2 years, I think, to Amerasia, in that very
early period. It may have been the year 1938-39, I am not sure.
Senator Lodge. You were really, then, quite considerably interested
in it; is that right?
Mr. Service. I was interested enough in it at that time to subscribe
to it. The character of it in those days, of course, was very different
from what it eventually became.
Senator Lodge. You regarded it as a reputable publication; did
you ?
Mr. Service. Yes. You are speaking of the early period; aren't
you, sir?
Senator Lodge. Well, speaking of 1945, you regarded it as a repu-
table publication ?
Mr. Service. I was not in close touch with it in 1945. I did not
know in detail, for instance, that all of the other editorial board had
had left it and it had become just Mr. Jaffe and Miss Mitchell. In
the early days, the editorial board contained quite a large number of
people.
Senator Lodge. What did you think its circulation was in 1945 ?
Mr. Service. I don't believe that I knew. I certainly didn't expect
that the magazine had any large circulation. I doubt if it ever had a
large circulation.
Senator Lodge. Did you consider that it was an important maga-
zine ?
Mr. Service. Well, it is hard to know just what you mean by "im-
portant," sir. It is a magazine that was read by, I imagine, practically
everybody who was particularly interested in the Far East.
Senator Lodge. Did you think it was important, using your own
definition of the word "important"?
Mr. Service. No, sir; I wouldn't say it was important.
Senator Lodge. You didn't think it was important ?
Mr. Service. No.
Senator Lodtje. Although you didn't think it was important, you
went to this rather considerable trouble to give these documents and
this information to the editor of it, didn't you?
Mr. Service. I wouldn't say that I went to a great deal of trouble.
Senator Lodge. You went to more trouble than Mr. Jaffe did, didn't
you ?
Mr. Service. I suppose so.
Senator Lodge. You went to him all the time ?
Mr. Service. Generally, it was in connection with a meal, which is
quite a normal way of seeing someone. I was living here in Washing-
ton alone, without my family. If I had not accepted his invitation,
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1325
shall we sa}-, to lunch I would have eaten by myself, in some cafeteria
or some lunch place downtown. It was not, as I mentioned before,
goinn; out of my way a great deal. I spent considerable time in talking
to writers, other writers, people who were interested in the Far East.
Senator Lodge. Well, I am familiar with the practice which exists
in the State Department, and in Washington generally of, what you
might say, leaking information to the members of the press, it is a
legitimate thing to do; but 1 am still a little bit puzzled why, having
made up your mind that you wanted to get this background informa-
tion to the press and having made up your mind that you were willing
to put this time and trouble into it, you didn't go to a newspaperman
who was more influential and who could do more for the viewpoint
that you were interested — that is what I can't get through my head.
Mr. Service. May I differ. Senator Lodge, on one implication which,
you made there, that I had made up my mind to get this material to
the press. If writers, specialists, people who had a real interest,
sought me out, I was willing to help give them background, so far as
appropriate.
Now, I have talked to, again without seeking them out, to repre-
sentatives of Xewsweek, Time magazine, I think, the United States
News Report — is tliat it ?
Senator Lodge. United States News Report.
Mr. Service. I have forgotten the exact title.
Senator Lodge. Did you call on them ?
Mr. SER\acE. No, sir ; sometimes they came to me in my office ; some-
times we met at their apartment by their invitation, for a meal. I
talked to a great many people. I can't recall all of them now.
Senator Lodge. I would like to get a little information, for the
record, on your biography, Mr. Service. It is not in the record, so
far as I know. Would you give me a little biographical sketch of
Yourself — where you were born, where you went to school, and so
forth?
Mr. Service. I assume you want it very briefly.
I was born on August 3, 1909, in Chengtu, in the extreme far west
of China. My father was a YMCA secretary and had been there in
that city since 1905, organizing and setting up the work of the YMCA
in west China.
My parents brought me to the United States for the first time in
1915, when I was about six. That was their first furlough after my
birth. My father was assigned to spend a year with the YMCA in
Cleveland, Ohio, and I attended first grade in a public school in one
of the Cleveland suburljs.
We returned to China in 191G and went back to Chengtu. My par-
ents were very anxious that I have an American education and up-
bringing, so far as possible, and my mother taught me at home, by a
home-study course which is very well known to people who have to
live abroad, the Calvert School which, I believe, is located in Balti-
more.
I completed tlie Calvert course and was ready for high school when
I was 11, and my mother could not have feasibly carried me any fur-
ther. Furthermore, Chengtu was a very isolated, small, remote for-
eign community, where I had little opportunity to grow up with other
American children, or to learn the things that most American children
learn outside of school.
1326 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
So I was sent, at 11, to a boarding school in Sliangliai, to the Shang-
hai-American School. This was an institution of considerable size,
about 400 pupils, supported by the American Mission Boards in China,
and by American business hrms, for xVmerican children, almost exclu-
sively for American children. I spent the next 4 years there as a
boarding pupil.
My parents returned to the United States, on furlough, in 1924, and
during tlie ensuing year I had my senior year of high school, at Berk-
eley, in Berkeley, Calif. I graduated from high school at the age of
15 and was determined, myself, that I did not wish to proceed at once
to college. I was so much younger than the rest of my class, and so
much smaller, that I think you can appreciate my feelings.
So I returned with my family to Shanghai, where they were, by
that time, stationed, and worked for about a year and a half as a drafts-
man in an archit'ect's office.
In November 1926, 1 started for the United States by way of south-
east Asia, India, and Europe, traveling alone. My father, in effect,
bought my steamship ticket and gave me a book of traveler's cheques,
and as a boy of 17 I was on my own. I think I got the most out of my
funds. I bicycled thi-ough England, hiked through the Italian lake
section, and generally had a wonderful time; which brought me up to
the time for entry into college, in the fall of 1027.
I attended Oberlin College, at Oberlin, Ohio, took a very general
course. I was not sure, myself, what I wanted to do; took a good deal
of history, political science, English, but ended up with a major in
economics.
However, during my senior year I took a course in the history of
art, thought it might interest me as a career, that I would be in-
terested in teaching it. I, therefore, spent a year in graduate study
in the history of art. However, it was not successful. I became
interested in Foreign Service.
In September 1932 I took the Foreign Service examinations, with
almost no preparation, no formal ]ireparation. I passed those written
examinations; came to Washington and passed the oral examinations.
In January 1933, that was. But I learned that, because of the de-
pression and the retrenchment, there was very little opportunity for
early appointment to the Foreign Service.
So I went out to China, worked for awhile in the American Bank,
and in the meantime applied for a clerkship in an American consulate
in China that might become vacant. One did become vacant shortly
thereafter, in Kunming, which at that time was a very small post in
southwest China — later on became famous as the China end of the
hump.
I served there as a clerk for a little over 2 years. Finally, in Oc-
tober 1935, the first appointments were made to the classified Foreign
Service, and I was made a Foreign Service officer of the lowest
grade.
Senator LonoE. Have you got any brothers or sistei-s ?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir; I have two brothers. I am the oldest. I
have one younger brother, who is a forester in California. I have a
still younger brother wdio is a Foreign Service officer now stationed in
Moscow.
Senator Lodge. You have tw^o brothers ?
Mr. Service. Yes.
STATE DEPARTAIEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1327
Senator LonoE. Are your father and mother still living;?
Mr. Service. Only my mother is livino-. She is living in southern
California.
Senator Lodge. Thank yon.
Senator Tydings. (to ahead, Mv. ^lorris.
]Mr. MoRius. Mv. Service, I liave here some of the documents that
were seized, at least copies of documents seized at the time of the
Amerasia arrests. This particular j^roup purports to be a collection
of some of your writings. I have tried to take a sample cross section.
I will read a few of them at the outset. If you think I have made a
proper selection, you will advise me so.
^Ir. Service. What is it that you wish me to identify?
Mr. Morris. First, I want to read them. Then I will pass them over
to you and you will affirm that they are your writings; and I want
to ask you some questions about the thoughts that you express therein.
I have here rejiort Xo. M. You wrote this from the United States
Army Observer Section. It is dated September 28, 1944. You write
[reading] :
Politically, any orientation wliich the Chinese Communists may once have
had toward tlie Soviet Union seems to be thing of the past. The Commnnists
have worked to nialve their tliinking and program realistically Chinese, and
they are carrying out democratic policies wliich they expect the United States
to approve and sympathetically support.
Economically, the Chinese Communists seek the rapid development and indus-
trialization of China for the primary objective of raising the economic level of
the people. They recognize that under present conditions in China, this must be
accomplished through capitalism with lai'ge-scale foreign assistance. They
believe that the United States, rather than the Soviet Union, will be the only
country able to give this economic assistance and realize that for reasons of
efficiency, as well as to attract American investment, it will be wise to give
this American participation great freedom.
Mr. Service. I believe I wrote that, sir.
Mr. Morris. I will read a few more, Mr. Service [reading] :
This apparent strong orientation of the Chinese Communists toward the United
States may be somewhat contrary to general expectation — which may be too
ready to empliasize the Communist name of the party. Apart from what may
be called the jtractical considerations that the United States will be the strongest
power in the Pacific area and America the country best able to give economic
assistance to China, it is also based on the strong Communist conviction that
C'hina cannot remain divided. * * *
I think that is a sample of that report, I will pass it over to you,
that you may see it to determine if that is correct.
Senator Tydixgs. Do you want to ask him questions about each
one, Mr. Morris ?
Mr. Morris. I think it would be quicker if I brought in a few of
them together.
Senator Tydixgs. All right.
Mr. ]MoRRis. Again. I am reading from Report Xo. 20 — ■ — •
Senator Tydixgs. Give the date of it.
]Mr. Morris. The date of this one, Mr. Service, is September 3, 1944
[reading] :
The giving of any American military support to the Communists, whether
directly or by some indirect means as mentioned above, would be certain to have
an important effect on the political situation in China. The Communist army
is as much a political as a military force. These dual characteristics cannot be
separated. And this political nature cannot be taken away — even by incorpora-
1328 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
tion of the Communist forces into the National Army. Our support would be
generally interpreted as an indication of American approval. And by improving
the military effectiveness of the Communist forces, it would increase their claim-
able share in winning the war. Both of tliese faetoi-s would raise the prestige
of the Communist Party and ultimately its influence in Cliina.
Again [reading] :
The military accomplishments of the Chinese Communist Party during the
present war, and the fact that these depend on a political base of popular support
which the Communists have created, are now fairly well known.
Then yon go on to speak about the democratic phase and the extent
of democracy in all the Connnunist areas.
I pass that document to you, for you to see if I have given a fair
interpretation to it.
This next document is, apparently, your opinion of the Japanese
Communist Party.
Senator Tydings. Give the date.
Mr. Morris. This is undated, Senator. It is, apparently, the last
page of a report, and it doesn't contain the opening date. I am start-
ing with paragraph 6, because the preceding paragraphs are not here.
It is signed by John S. Service [reading] :
The Japanese Communist Party is still small (Mr. Ckano himself does not
claim more than "a few thousand members"), but it has the advantages of strong
organization and loyal, politically experienced membership. If its policies, as
claimed, seek to achieve our own hopes of a democratic, nonmilitaristic Japan,
we may wish to consider the adoption toward it of an attitude of sympathetic
support.
I pass that to you, that you may look at it, because, apparently, it if
only part of a report.
Senator Tydings. Can you fix the approximate date of that from
anything in it ?
Mr. Service. All I can say is that the original memorandum was
probably written in, possibly, September or October.
Senator Tydings. Of what year ?
Mr. Service. Of 1944.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. Morris. I have report No. 26, dated September 10, 1944, also by
Mr. Service. The summary reads :
Communist influence predominates in the guerrilla bases because the Com-
munists took the lead in establishing the governments, because there has been
no important organized political opposition within the areas, and because the
Communists liave been supported by the peasants and liberals. The Commu-
nists have used their influence in a democratic way and to further democratic
ends.
As I say, this is dated September 10, 1944.
Again, in the same vein, September 4, 1944, report No. 22 [reading] :
The growth of the Chinese Communist armies during the present war has
proved them to be an extremely powerful political instrument because this
spectacular development would not have been possible without the support of
the people of the areas in which they have operated. This widespread popular
support must, under the circumstances in which it has occurred, be considered
a practical indication that the policies and methods of the Chinese Communists
have a democratic character.
I have some more documents to the same effect.
May I just take a few excerpts and read them to you as I go through
them ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1329
Mr. Service. I am not quite sure what you wish me to do, sir.
Mr. Morris. All right, Mr. Service. Let's stop at this point.
Will you tell me whether or not the ideas expressed in these reports
represented your convictions at the time?
Mr. SER^^CE. Well, 3'ou have read brief excerpts
Mr. Morris. Yes. ^
Mr. Service. And it is not, I submit, fair to consider something
taken out of context.
Mr. ]Morris. That is what I asked you, if I had given an unfair
impression of your writings.
Mr. Service. I am afraid I would have to say that, sir, and that is
tlie reason why Ave requested the State Department to assemble my
(•om})lete work products and to have all of it carefully read and care-
fully analyzed.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Service, may I ask particular questions then about
your views as expressed in these particular articles:
Do you believe that the Chinese Communists were looking to the
United States for their orientation?
Mr. Service. I believe that at that time, in 1944, the Chinese Com-
munists hoped, the Chinese Communist leaders, or the influential ones,
who were in command of the party at that time, hoped to be able to
maintain a somewhat independent position where they could have
friendly relations and assistance from the United States.
Mr. ]\IoRRis. And do you believe that their strength was the strength
of the people, and that the strength proceeded from the fact that it
was a popular movement ?
Mr. Service. I don't think that any other interpretation could be
put on their spectacular success during the war in fighting guerrilla
warfare under the most difficult conditions. The Chinese peasant has
very little political consciousness — all governments are bad. Further-
more, he has. basically, little developed feeling of i)atriotism, the way
we think of it. He has a strong sense of cultural unity, perhaps; but
they could not have organized the peasants and won their support,
gotten them to engage in and to provide the background for years of
the most harrowing kind of guerrilla warfare, unless they had given
those peoi^le something.
Now, my use of "democracy" requires a great deal of explanation,
and that is why I do not think it fair to take brief excerpts. I would
much jn'efer to have anyone study the whole body of reports.
Mr. Morris. When you use the word "democracy," when reporting
to the American State Department, there is a particular meaning to
^'democracy" in that sense, isn't there?
Mr. Service. I am reporting to people who have a very long and
developed background concerning China, and they know that that
word "democracy" is used in a comparative sense, as compared to con-
ditions, perhaps, in Kuomintang areas, and not as compared to the
United States.
And I believe that if you read all of my reports, or if any person
reads all of my reports, they would have a clear understanding that
I was not thinking of American democracy at all.
Mr. Morris. Well, I read quite a few of them, Mr. Service, and I am
quite sure that a reasonable man, reading these documents, would
become impressed that you were certainly trying to convince the State
1330 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXAESTIGATION
Department that these people were "democratic" people in the sense
that we use the w^ord "democracy."
Mr. Service. I am sorry that that is your conclusion. They were
more democratic in some ways. But, if you remember my report No.
2G, which is one of those that you read from, I say [reading] :
'J'he "democratic" nature of these first governments was "confirmed"' by the
followings of the Communist armies and these liberal groups, and by numerous
mass meetings organized by them — which often went through the gesture of
voting (by acclamation) for the government which had been set up.
And I describe how they proceeded, after thorough organization,
to elect local governments of the lowest unit, smaller than our counties.
Mr. Morris. By "democratic" procedures, in the sense that we use
the word "democratic"?
Mr. Service. By, first, complete, very thorough political indoctrina-
tion, by, in one sense, selecting the candidates, but mainly by giving the
farmer, who had never had a chance to vote before, a chance to vote,
usually by picking a bean out of a bowl and putting it into a box, for
this candidate or that candidate.
I go on to describe how the Communists controlled all of the
propaganda and were very successful ; how they controlled the army,
which was thoroughly politically indoctrinated by a political com-
misar system.
I talk of how there was no opposition, political opposition, in the
areas, since the wealthy landlords had left, and these were backward
rural areas, anyway. And I said, it is natural that the peasants,
who were the great bulk, would tend to gravitate toward the Com-
munist Party.
I mention how the Communists, in effect, in a very real way, had
control of each of these separate guerrilla areas, and through the party
they control the basic policies of all of them.
I think that you get, from a complete reading of this paper, a very
limited idea of "democracy."
I may say that that paper was given a rating of excellent by the
State Department, as an analytical study of how they succeeded in
developing their support and in gaining complete control of their
widespread guerrilla areas.
Mr. Morris. Now, I also want to read from a series of documents
here, that M^ere, apparently, taken by the arresting agency at your
home, at the time of your arrest.
The general tenor of these documents seems to be that you should
well have been informed that the Chinese Communist Party was a
full-fledged member of the ECCI. I shall read from some of those.
The reason that I extend that thought is that you can see what I am
getting at. The ECCI is, of course, the executive committee of the
Communist International.
Senator Tydings. Do you think, INIr. Morris, it would be helpful
if these documents that you are quoting from were put in the record
in their entirety ?
Mr. Morris. Yes; I think the whole thing should go in.
Senator Tydings. May I ask, to keep the record straight, that the
reporter put in the record, immediately following the excerpts that
I read, the whole document, and not put the whole document in out
of context with the testimony.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1331
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, I don't wish to question that ruling
at all, hut I would like to suggest, again, the circumstances under
wliich these documents have been made available to us. I frankly
would appreciate an opportunity to clear it with the Department
of Justice, because they very courteously made tliem available to us
under certain circumstances, and if we are going to incorporate them
in their entirety, in our record, I think I would like to get clearance
on that.
Senator Ttdixgs. Let me modify and rescind and say, do not put
the whole document in the record, but we will keep them as exhibits,
so tliat the committee can look at the whole document if it wants to.
Senator Lodge. I thought we voted, unanimously, to get all of these
Amerasia documents, didn't we?
Senator Ttdings. But we can't get them unless the executive de-
partment turns them over to us.
ISh'. MoRGAX. Except that the Justice Department has made them all
available to the committee and its staff for such study and review as
we wish. These documents we have today, we specifically requested
of the Department for use in the examination. I shall be glad to try
to clear this with them, if 3'ou wish, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ttdixgs. If we can get them cleared, we will put them all
in : if'we can't get them cleared, we will keep them as exhibits.
Senator Lodgk. What objection could the Department have? It
seems to me, if we ought to clear them with anybody, it should be
with the agency from which the documents came, in the first place.
Senator Tydixgs. Only that they are executive documents and
under the three-branch system of government which we have — if they
don't give them to us, there is no way that we can make them do so.
I want to cooperate, and get all of the information that we can, and I
think they will make them available.
Senator Lodge. I can understand that they are executive docu-
jiients. but I think it is extraordinary for the Department of Justice
to attempt to pass judgment on the classification that the Army, Navy,
and State Departments may put on a document.
Senator Tydixgs. All right.
Mr. ^Morris. In line with that, I will read you a few excerpts from
these documents and, again, if you think I have misinterpreted any
of them, I wish you would let me know. It is described here as
[reading] :
This is a first draft rough translation of a speech made in May 1941 at the
meeting of Yenan caclres by Mao Tse-tnng in which he maintains that tlie
method and system of study in the whole party slionld be changed for reasons
which he then discusses.
Apparenth% this is your own translation of Mao Tse-tung's speech.
I will ask you if that is not a fact? This was in your possession at
I lie time of your arrest.
Mr. SER^■T^E. This was a part of the working materials which I had
been collecting. I had been trying, of course, to collect everything
that I could about the Chinese Communists, particularly source ma-
terials which they, themselves, had written or printed, at any time.
I don't believe that this translation is one which I, myself, made.
I think it is probably one that was made in Yenan and given to me.
]\rr. MoRp.is. Is that on your typewriter?
1332 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. No; 1 am sure it isn't. I don't remember ever
typing it.
Mr. Morris. Do you recognize it ? It was in your possession at the
time of your arrest.
Mr. Service. I believe it was. I remember this particular speech
or paper, by Mao Tse-tung. It is quite a well-known one. I am
sure that I had one at one time.
Mr. jNIorris. May I read a few extracts from it. Again, if I make
an improper selection, I wish you would let me know [reading] :
We are learning the teachings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin hut the
way many of us learn tliem is directly in opjiosition to them. That is to say
these people departed from the fundamental principal which Marx, Engels,
Lenin, and Stalin have heen untiringly warning others : The unity of theory
and practice. Accordingly they invented a contrary principle : The separation
of theory and practice. Consequently both in schools and in education of
cadres while employed, the teachers of philosophy never ask the students to
study the logic of the Chinese Revolution, the teachers of economics never ask
students to study the characteristics of Chinese economics, teacliers of military
science never ask students to study the characteristics of Chinese military
problems, etc.
»
Again [reading] :
* * * Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin teach us to start out from real
facts and matter existing in the oh.iecti\e world and then deduce lawa from
them to ser\e as guiding principles for our action.
Again [reading] :
For cadres in offices and schools we ought to take the practical problem of the
Chinese devolution as the center of our study and start out from it to study
Marxism-Leninism. The way to study Marxism-Leninism isolatedly and stati-
cally should be discarded. In study Marxism-Leninism, the central material
ougiit to he the History of the CPSU, assisted by other materials.
The History of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union is a book
that sets forth with utmost clarity the principle that the Chinese
Connnunis Party is a full-fledged member of the Communist Interna-
tional '(
Mr. Service. I am sorry — to go into tliis would require a very long
tims. y\^e are starting out to engage in a rather involved discussion
of history and theory of the Chinese Communists.
Now, the meaning, the intent, of tlie major part of this talk, is
Senator Tydings. Is this Mao's talk 'i
Mr. Service. This is Mao s talk.
Mao is saying here, and he repeats it over and over again, that we
are Chinese, tiiat we must study the facts of the Chinese Revolution,
the facts of Chinese history ; we must not separate theory from prac-
tice. This is one of the basic doctrines in Mao Tse-tung\s program for
the sinicization, in other words, the making of the Chinese Commu-
nist Party Chinese. One of his great arguments was that we must
avoid subjectivism. Subjectivism he defined as merely aping, mimick-
ing foreign ideas and foreign theories.
Now, he goes into that in many of his books in this period, that tiie
foreign students who come back from abroad just become talkiuir ma-
chines, and parrots, and they try to apply what they learned abroad
without any relation to China.
Now, I ha\e repeatedly, m my reports, said— I have always said
that the party was Marxist; they insisted they were Marxist.
Mr. Morris. You don't say they are Stalinists, though?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1333
Mr. Skkvice. Yes; they do.
Mr. Morris. You said they are Stalinists?
Mr. Skrvice. They said, themselves.
Mr. Morris. Mao is saying it there, but your interpretations of the
Chinese Communist always refer to them as "democractic forces"
rather than as Stalinist forces.
Mr. Servick. As 1 say, it is a long and involved subject.
Mr. Morris. I realize that. I am just tr3'ing to get a general im-
pression and idea of this thing.
Mr. Service. They always insisted that they were Marxists, and I
so reported; and as good party members they insisted that they were
Stalinists. However, the leaders were trying to, during a period, to,
shall we say, nationalize the Chinese Communist Party, turn it away
from what they thought was impractical aping of foreign ideas, that
conditions in China are ditierent, we are a primitive agrarian society.
As I say, at the end, of course, here, he comes back, "'Of course, our
basic textbook is the history of the Communist Party in the Soviet
Union.""
Mr. Morris. Mr. Service, do your reports indicate that the Chinese
Connnunists are turning away from the Soviet Union toward the
United States ^ I read several of the reports to that effect. Shall
1 read them again ^ At the same time, reinforcement of the doctrine
of Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism, based on a study of the history
of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, is a complete contradic-
tion; they are direct opposites. How can you reconcile those two
facts? You have Mao Tse-tung, in a speech where he reaffirms the
principles of Marxism, Leninism, and Stalinism, he bases this on the
most basic book of the wdiole Communist Party, namely, the History
of the Soviet Union.
Mr. Service. For the record, he says, "party member." He can
say nothing else.
The intent, as I understood it, of the Avhole movement which he was
espousing was to try to adapt Communist in China to the conditions
of China and to make it independent as far as possible, and not de-
pendent on someone else. Communism in China, I believe, at that
time was different from the Soviet Union Communism. I do not be-
lieve that the Soviet Union had very direct control over it ; had not
had for some years.
Mr. Morris. There is one other thing I would like to introduce at
this point, which was also in your possession at the time
Mr. Service. May I
INFr. Morris, Yes, Mr. Service.
Mr. Service. May I read a section here from the testimony before
the loyalty board of Mr. George Kennan. Mr. Kennan is speaking.
He is referring to this period of 1944 [reading] :
Yes. That the Comnuinists felt themselves nii their own and were themselves
uncertain huw their relationshij) with the Soviet Government was going to shape
up when the war was over. Now, that being the case, I think it quite plausible
that during those years they wandered further from the typical Comintern out-
look of affiliation with the Soviet Government than perhaps any other Commu-
nist Party in good standing. And they we e also at that tune engaged in a war
with the Japanese and in the Far East a very considerable battle
Mr. Morris. Whose quotation is this, Mr. Service?
1334 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. George F. Kenuan, in his testimony before the De-
partment of State loyalty and security board, as an expert witness
called by the loyalty "board to examine all of my reports [reading] :
They were also at tluit time ensaued in a war with the Japanese and in the
Far East a very considerable battle threatened their own power in China against
tlie Chinese Central Governuieiit. For that reason, I think it is no wonder
that they gave an impression of sincerity and concentration of purpose which
is not normally associated with the Communist movement throughout those
years. And, in these reports, which I think reflect quite faithfully what were
the real actions, the actions of the Chinese Communists at that time, in these
reports. I think it quite natural you don't find much reflection of the sort of thing
you asked about.
I think that the complete testimony of Mr. Kennan, which, as I
said before, I hope will be available to this committee, will answer a
great many of your questions.
Mr. Morris. Do you contend that the political orientation that the
Chinese Communists may once have had for the Soviet Union seems to
be a thing of the past, and they are carrying out democratic policies
which they expect the United States to approve and sympathetically
support? Don't you think there is a contradiction between that
thought and the basic thought of Marxism, Stalinism, and Leninism?
Mr. Service. Don't you think that Yugoslavia and Tito are not
oriented toward the Soviet Union at the present time ? The situation
is very similar.
Mr. Morris. In what respect? Do you think that Tito is teaching
Stalinism now ?
Mr. Service. I am sure that th^^y claim that it is Stalinism.
Mr. Morris. Do they adhere to the 21 points, as this material,
source material, that you had in your presence at the time, indicates ?
Mr. Service. I am sorry ?
Mr. JMoRRTS. ^Vell, let me get into the next document.
Senator Tydings. Before you leave that, am J "-^ understand that
your last answer to Mr. Morris' question is that ' . kened the Com-
munist movement in China somewhat to the mo^ vf: ,f the Commu-
nists in Yugoslavia, vis-a-vis Russia ?
Mr. Service. I do, in that they both have a st. , national bias.
Senator Green. I am at a loss to understand ist what your objec-
tive was. Was it not the objective to say what iiao's views were and
what effect those views had on the Chinese ? You were not expressing
your own views ?
Mr. Service. In most cases, I was simply reporting what they told
me and what I read in their books and publications.
Senator Green. But you weren't expressing your own views — you
were reporting his views ?
Mr. Service. That is right. And, in some cases, I commented on
those views. Generally peaking, it was simply reporting what tliey
asserted were their polic es.
Senator Green. As to these matters on which you have testified, it
was objective reporting — wasn't that it?
Mr. Service. That has been the decision of George Kennan, who,
I believe, is the best-qualified person.
Senator Green. Is that what the State Department expressed ap-
proval of, in expressing its appreciation of your work ?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1335
Mr. ]M()i{jas. The reports from which I read those extracts were
reports of your own views ; they were not objective reports. You were
givino; your own opinion in those reports. I think, if you analyze the
record, you will find that is the case.
Let me get to the next material.
I have here a paper found in your possession at the time of your
arrest. I read the official description :
Two small books, one. Study the Material of the Thirteenth Plenum of the
ECCI, and the other, Revolutionary China Today, by Wang Ming and Kan Sing.
Also the following note, "Dear Mr. Service : T had hoped to be able to give you
this copy, but I cannot find my other copy. However, you may keep this one as
long as you need it."
Signed by a man named "Johnson."''
Xow. as i say, this is the official report of the ECCI. Some of the
extracts from this read as follows:
The Commintern and the CPC are fully entitled to demand from our fraternal
parties that they comply with one of the basic conditions of admission to the
Ct'mmiuteru which was adopted by the personal motion of Lenin himself and
reads as follows :
"Every party that desires to belong to the Communist International must give
every possible support to the Soviet Republics in their struggle against all coun-
terrevolutionary forces. The Communist Parties should carry on a precise
and definite propaganda to induce the workers to refuse to transport munitions
of war intended for enemies of the Soviet Republics, carry on legal or illegal
propaganda among the troops, which are sent to crush the worker-republics,
etc."
It goes on and says the same thing about the Japanese Communisf,
Party. It reaffirms all of tlie tenets and dogmas of the History of
the Soviet Union.
I say, Mr. Service, how can you possibly reconcile having all this
material in j^our possession ancl at the same time writing as you did
in tlie reports that I have read?
Mr. Service. M^t I see that, sir?
Mr. Morris. HT t
Senator Tyl. ror the purpose of identification, if I might
interrupt, what is . document you have in. your hand — who is the
author of it? ^ m [
Mr. Service. It iyia photostatic reproduction, I believe, of a
book V,
Senator Tydings. Of a book?
Mr. Service. Of two small books, one entitled, ''Study of the Mate-
rial of tlie Thirteenth Plenum of the ECCI"
Senator Tydixgs. AYhat is that— ECCI?
Mr. Service. It is the Communist International. I can't tell you
in detail what the letters stand for.
Mr. Morris. Executive Committee of the Communist International.
Senator Tti)ix(;s. Who wrote that one? a
Mr. Service. Tliat is hx Wan<r ^Minof. i
Senator Tydixgs. Who is Wang Ming?
Mr. Service. I would like to come to that later, if I may.
Senator Tydixgs. All right. Let's get the other, then.
Mr. Service. The other is, Eevolutionary China Today.
Senator Tydix(;s. "\^"luit ?
Mr. Service. ''Revolutionary China Today."
Senator Tydixgs. Who wrote that ?
68070 — 50 — pt. 1 8.5
1336 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. As far as I can see, by Kan Sing.
Senator Tydings. How did you happen to have these books'?
]\Ir. Service. I would like to give a little of the history. •
Senator Tydings. I hope it Avon't be too long. I am not interested
in the history, but I would like to know how you got it.
Mr. Service. This book was loaned to ine by the man named John-
son, who was an employee, I believe, of the War Department, at tiie
time, engaged in research work.
Senator Tydixgs. There was no crime in having it.
Air. Service. Connected with the Far East.
Senator Tydings. Who are the two authors — are they Communists?
Mr. Service. I do not remember Kan Sing.
Senator Tydings. Who is the other fellow^
Mr. Service. The other fellow, Wang Ming, was a leader, an im-
portant leader, I believe, ranking leader of the Chinese Communist
Party, once, in the early lOoO's.
Senator Tydings. Now, I am up with the thing. Go ahead.
Mr. Service. The date of these books, I see no definite indication,
bufit is about 1934.
The Chinese Communist Party has had a historj^ of considerable
internal dissension and struggle for power. In the early days, there
is no doubt it was completely Ivussian-dominated and dominated by
the Communist International.
Mr. Morris. Do you think it is not now ?
Mr. Service. Will you let me continue, sir ?
Mr. Morris. I am sorry.
Mr. Service. Several leaders were, in effect, designated or sent out
by Moscow to run the show. Their policies were, shall we say, more
traditionally communistic, proletarian uprisings, and so on. The up-
risings which they urged, organized, were put down very promptly.
Mao Tse-tung was a leader of a group within a party ; Mao Tse-tung
had not studied in Moscow — who believed that the only successful
program in China would be a more moderate one, based on the farmer
and his hardships. '
Eventually, about 1935, or perhaps 1934, Mao Tse-tung won the
struggle for power in the Communist Party in China on his more mod-
erate— if we could use ''moderate" in comiection with comnuinism — •
theories. W^ang Ming and the others were discredited. Some of them
disappeared from the scene ; some of them returned to Moscow.
Now, I was very interested, as a student, because I was trying to
find out all I could about the Communists and their history, to get this
book, and to see what Wang Ming had said. Because Wang Ming
was in disgrace, I could not get it.
Senator Tydings. Why w^as he in disgrace?
Mr. Service. Because he was discredited, the leader who had been
discredited by ISIao, and who lost out in the struggle for power.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Service. He was a Russian-Chinese Communist, whereas Mao
represented the Chinese wing of the Communist Party.
This book I found I could not obtain in Yenan when I was there.
I would inquire; "Yes; we will get you a copy." I made various
inquiries. 1 finally found out wdiy they would not give me a copy of
the book. It was proscribed. Wang Ming, himself, was living in
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1337
retirement in Yenan. They allowed us to see him, but allowed no
one to talk to him.
So, when I came back to the United States, I made an eil'ort to,
through other researcli students, to get this book, which is quite a rare
item, so that I could read it. Actually, I had just received it and
never had a chance to read it.
Senator Tydixgs. How long hsul you had it before it was seized?
JNlr. Servick. I am not sure. Perhaps the date is on Mr. Johnson's
note here. I don't knoAv. I would have
Senator Tydings. It isn't important.
Mr. Sekyice. I would have to look through it.
The poiiit is, there was no question, in 1934, when this book was
written, that the Chinese Conuuunist Party was being dictated to and
run by the Communist Party of Russia.
Mr! MoRias. When I read from ISIao Tse-tung's report there, you
found, in INIao Tse-tung's own statement, a reaffirmation of all of the
principles of the Plenum of the ECCI?
]Mr. ii^ERviCK. The speech of Mao Tse-tung you read to me was in
1941.
Mr. Morris. This was a repetition of the speech he made in 1941.
Mr. Service. The speech was made in 1941.
Mr. MoijRis. This is comment on a speecli that he made in 1911.
Mr. S::rvice. This is a speech he made in 1941.
Mr. ]\i0RRis. What does it say after that? It makes comment on
it, doesn't it (
Mr. Sermce. 'T have now received the sketch of the report and have
had it published." In other words, he made, as often was done, a
speech, probably oral speech, without prepared text.
Mr. Morris. AMiat he is doing is bringing it up to date.
Mr. Service. Xo, sir.
]\Ir. Morris. He takes a speech that he made, and republishes it.
Mr. Service. I see no evidence that it is correct to say that it was
re]wblished in 1948, so far as I can see.
Mr. Morris. I didn't say "1948."
]Mr. Service. This is simply a text translation of a speech which
Mao gave in 1941, when ECCI was still in existence. It was not in
1945. Theoi-etically
Mr. Morris. I grant you that the date of the reaffirmation of prin-
ciples expressed in the speech does not appear from that document. It
is at some later time.
Mr. Service. I am sorry, I don't understand the question. I still
come back to the statement I made, that nobody announces more
positively that he is a Communist than Mr. Tito, these days.
Mr. Morris. I have a few more letters here. I wish you would ex-
plain the contents of some of them.
This is described as:
"Typewritten letter dated at Washington, April 16, 1945," and,
apparently, it comes from your typewriter. Would 3^ou look at it and
identify it, Mr. Service? It is written to "Dear Annelee and Teddy."
Is that your letter, Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. Yes. I think it was a start on a letter which I never
finished and never sent.
1338 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. May I read an excerpt from that, and ask for your
interpretation. [Reading:]
Deak Annelee and Teddy : The optimistically pleasant speculations we allowed
ourselves to indulge in on that last evening of mine —
And the street if crossed out —
at 879—
The address crossed off. Do you recall the conversation referred
to therein ?
Mr. Service. In a general way, sir.
Mr. Morris. ^V\\ixt was it, Mr. Service?
Mr. Ser^tlce. That in early April 1945, 1 received very urgent orders
to return to the United States by a certain date; there was no explana-
tion, but the fact that I was told to return here by a certain date gave
ground for speculation that there was another s])ecific job in mind for
me. The war was advancing rapidly in the Pacific. Our pleasant
speculations were that I was going to be sent out somewhere in the
Pacific, perhaps — well, I don't know where — somewhere in the Pacific.
Mr. Morris. The second paragraph reads :
The paper tiger roared loudly enough around here to drown out the very
general —
The word is crossed out.
hut-
Word crossed out —
timid — opposition.
Who is the paper tiger ?
Mr. Service. That is a popular Chinese nickname for General
Hurley. It was well-known to everyone.
Senator Tydings. Order in the court.
Mr. Morris (reading) :
And, hased on the Tiger's modest account of his achievements, the big boss
said : "Keep it up."
"Wlio was the big boss ?
Mr. Service. The big boss was the President.
Mr. Morris (continuing reading) :
After that, the table pounding in regard to yours truly was only a matter
of course.
Mr. Service. After that. General Hurley's demand for my recall
was a matter of course.
Mr. Morris (continuing reading) :
Especially disappointing was the "political sense," in the narrow meaning,
by the man I had hoped would fight.
Mr. Service. I don't recall whom I referred to there.
Mr. Morris. Who was the man you had hoped would fight?
Mr. SER\^CE. I don't remember.
Mr. Morris (continuing reading) :
I am now assigned to a safe job here but have been urged to bide my time.
By whom ?
Mr. Service. Well, by "safe job," I had been working in China, I
was living and breathing it ; I was anxious to get an active job. I had
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1339
been given a job first on consultation and then a job in the office of
Foreign Service, ^vllere I was doing administrative work; but my
friends had said, "Don't worry, 3-ou won't be struggling with this
job much longer; you will eventually get out to the field.*'
I had been told by friends in the Department to bide my time. The
war was on. I wanted a job, something other than what I was doing,
which was research.
Mr. Morris. And jou say :
And there is a feeling that good jobs should go to good party members.
Mr. Service. You have to look at the words crossed out.
Mr. Morris. I can't read them.
^Ir. Service. What I had started to write here — and, I think, if you
look at it carefully, sir, you will see, this was in April, April 16, the
President had died 4 days before. President Truman had just become
President, and I started to write :
There is now some feeling that Republican ofl5ceholders —
And since this was going through postal channels, over the hump, I
thought that that might not be a good way to phrase it; so I simply
said:
There is a feeling that good jobs should go to good party members.
By which I meant that the feeling in Washington, the current gossip,
which I think vou can confirm, was that when the Truman adminis-
tration eame in, there would be more emphasis on giving important
jobs to Democrats, and that some of the Republicans holding important
jobs might lose their jobs.
Mr. INIoRRis. So your reference there was to the good Democratic
Party members?
Mr. Service. Yes ; that is right, sir.
Mr. Morris. I have here a letter which was written from the United
States Pacific Fleet and Pacific Ocean Areas, Stafi' Cincpac, Advance
Headquarters, Box No. 5, Fleet Postoffice, San Francisco, April 2,
1945. It reads : "Dear Jack." It is signed "Jim."
Would you look at that and identify the letter for me, Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. Yes ; I recognize the letter.
Mr. Morris. Who sent the letter to you ?
Mr. Service. I don't want to avoid the question, but I might say
that I have been questioned extensively and in great detail on all of
these items by the loyalty and security board, and we assume that that
full transcript will be available to the committee, should you wish to
have it.
Mr. Morris. Who wrote that letter, Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. Mr. James K. Penfield, Foreign Service officer, class
1, recently with the Embassy in Prague.
Mr. Morris. He writes [reading] :
Dear Jack : Tour returning boss gives me a chance to get this line off to you.
Why does that give him a chance to get this line off to you ?
Mr. SER^^CE. Mr. Penfield was at that time attached to Admiral
Nimitz' headquarters in the Pacific, I think, at Guam, in the same
sort of capacity in which I had been assigned in China — as a political
officer attached to his staff.
This letter, I think, is written April 2, is it not?
Mr. ISIoRRis. That is right.
1340 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. Mr. Penfield thought that I was still in Chungking.
General Wedemeyer, who was my boss, had been here in the United
States on consultation and was returning to Chungking via the Pacific.
Our campaigns, particularly in the Philippines, had progressed by
that time to the stage where we were, for the first time, able to reach
China directly across the Pacific, instead of all the way around the
world, as we had before.
Mr. Morris. He says [reading] :
I'm iu the Future Plans Section technically but mostly am getting an education
in what goes on in the Pacific, tryiug to keep up on China. The former is fascinat-
ing, the latter diflicult. If you could find a safe way to send me an occasional
c(*py of your memos, I'd be grateful.
What does he mean by "If you could find a safe way to send me an
occasional copy of your memos, I'd be grateful'' ?
Mr. Service. We had similar experience even in our own theater.
These ^Yere memoranda which I wrote and which Mr. Penfield was
anxious to receive, since he was, supposedly, advising Admiral Nimitz'
staff regarding China and had very little material there to work on.
These wei-e unusual — I mean, they were different from the normal
type of Arni}^ paper, and there were complications in forwarding them
thi-ough channels to be sure that thev reached the man.
Mr. Morris. Why couldn t they be sent through channels?
Mr. Service. Partly because of the time involved and the chances
of their being bogged down on the way, on somebody's desk, or getting
to the wrong office.
Mr. Morris. You wouldn't use the word "safe'' there, would you?
Mr. Service. That is what he meant, sir. He meant a feasible means,
to be sure that they woidd get to him — not get stuck on the way.
After all, I was in an Army theater. He was in a Navy theater.
AVe would have had to have sent them all the way through tlie States,
presumably. They would have to pass through the War Department
and be transmitted to the Navy Department. And there would have
to be explanations and discussions all the way along among people
who didn't know what my status was or what his status was^ because
we were in a vague sort of status, as civilians attached to, in my state,
A.rmy, and, in his state. Navy headquarters.
And Mr. Penfield simply says :
If you can find a way to get these to me expeditiously and safely, I will be
happy to get some of these reports.
Mr. Morris. Was it an effort to circumvent the censorship laws ?
Mr. Service. Of course not. There was no way to obviate censor-
ship laws. But he was hoping to find a way of supplying himself with
copies of the reports I was writing on China.
Senator Lodge. Did censorship apply to one employee of the State
Department writing to another?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. It did apply ?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir. Everything that we forwarded by State De-
partment pouch was placed in an envelope, an open envelope.
Senator Lodge. And the only way you could have communicated
with you colleague, your opposite member there, with Admiral Nim-
itz, was all the way back to Washington, and then somebody in the
War Department, somebody in the Navy Department, and then shoot-
ing it all the way out again?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1341
Mr. Service. My reports, I would h;ive taken them to G-2, in
Chuni!:kin<r. sliall we say, and G-2 would have written an explanation
and bucked them, shall we say, back to the "War Department, and then
the War De]~)artment. someone would have scratched his head and
bucked them over to the Navy Department; the Xav}^ Department
would have had them forwarded to Ximitz, and even m Nimitz' head-
quarters, which I assume was a very large organization, there might
be some confusion and doubt as to who this man Penfield is, and what
his status.
Senator Lodge. Supposing you had something important about
China that you thought Penfield ought to know ; is the quickest way
that the mind of man devised for you to communicate with each
other? It seems fantastic.
Mr. Service. I was doing background reporting. Now, if there
was anything important that I knew of, that the Embassy or the
Army did not know of, I woidd simply go to the Embassy or, in the
first place, to the Army, and I would say, "Here is something that
looks important.'' And if they aareed, they would dispatch a tele-
gram immediately to the War Department or State Department.
Very often I did come in with information which they forwarded by
telegram. If they thought it should go on to some specific designa-
tion, they would say, "Please repeat for Moscow," or please repeat
some place else. There were telegraphic channels, certainly, for get-
ting information quickly; but that wasn't the kind of information I
was dealing with.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Service, how was this letter delivered to you?
Mr. Service. I am sure that the letter was addressed to me in
Chungking; that it reached Chunirking.
Mr. ]MoRRis. It was sent by mail ?
Mr. Service. To APO.
Mr. Morris. You mean, this went out by mail?
Mr. Service. I presume so.
Mr. Morris. What does he mean by saying : "Your returning boss
gives me a chance to get this line off to you ?"
Presumably, the boss carried it with him.
Mr. Service. I had forgotten that. Maybe General Wedemeyer
carried it to Chungking, but when General Wedemeyer arrived" in
Chungking, I had already left.
]Mr. Morris. There is an im])lication that an air-mail letter sent
from Guam to Chungking is goiuir to arrive as quickly as a man tak-
ing a letter to Chungking — the difference will be slight ?
Mr. Service. Yes: but, as I said, I have no knowledge of how it
was sent to Chungking. I assume, since you have refreshed mv
memory of that first line, that it was carried from Guam to Chung-
king by General Wedemeyer.
Mr. Morris. Let me go on :
So far as I can find out this is the only o;)portnnit.v I'll have to communi-
cate with you — until and unless Lud and Emerson come through.
Why should that be the only opportunity to communicate; why
couldn't he send another letter to you ?
Mr. SER\^CE. Because APO letters from different theaters came
all the way back to the United States, and I do not believe there was
direct
Mr, Morris. That is not so.
1342 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. That is my understanding, sir. I may not be correct.
But, since he was Navy, and I was Army, he was in the Pacific, and I
was in China, and in any case, tliis line which I spoke of, which had
been set up between Guam and China, was not at that time a regular
one, it was simply for VIP's, who might be going through; and I
think all it means is that it won't be convenient for him to write, be-
cause it would have to come all the way back to the States,
Mr. Morris. He says.
So far as I can find out this is the only opportunity I'll have to communicate
with you until and unless Lud and Emerson come through.
What does he mean by that ?
Mr. Service. I am sorry, I don't know.
Mr. Morris. He could write on any other occasion ?
Mr. Service. He could have ; yes, sir.
Mr. Morris. He goes on :
What goes on these days in the old country? 1 got a chuckle out of the news
this morning that old Lung Pi-wu is going to be a delegate to the S. F. conference.
He uses the term "old Lung Pi-wu" as a term of affection, doesn't
he?
Mr. Service. I wouldn't say so. Lung Pi-wu had been Commu-
nist representative in Chungking, the official representative there for
a considerable time during the war. He is an elderly gentleman. You
know, the caricature of a Chinese scholar, a mustache, rather courtly,
old-fashioned manners. Not an impressive, dynamic sort-of-person.
I think that he is simply saying that it is amusing to think of
Lung Pi-wu as a member of the Chinese delegation at San Fran-
cisco, with all of the excitement, and so on, there.
Mr. Morris. And he says : "Best to the boys — especially Sol, if he is
about."
Who is Sol?
Mr. Service. I assume that the Sol he refers to must be Mr. Adler,
who was Treasury attache in China during most of the war, and knew
both of us.
Mr. Morris. He has been identified before several congressional
committees as a member of the Connnunist Party, hasn't heV
Mr. Service. I don't know about that. I understood he had cleared
himself of any such charges.
Mr. Morris. I believe Miss Elizabeth Bentley so testified.
Mr. Service. Following that, he was cleared by his department
loyalty board, I tliink you will find the record on that to be so.
Mr. Morris. I made reference to the fact that there was testimony
introduced before congressional committees that he was a member of
a Soviet espionage ring.
I would like to put this letter into the record.
Senator T\t)ings. All right, Mr. Morris. I suppose that is so per-
sonal that it doesn't need declassification. There would be no objec-
tion to putting it in the record.
Mr. Morris. I liave offered the whole thing; I have read it all. I
think that is sufficient.
Senator Tydings. Put it in, if vou want to.
As a matter of fact, I am not going to make any objection, but
Mr. Service is not being charged with any crime by any court; he has
not been indicted; these are his personal papers.' The fifth amend-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1343
nient, the fourth amenduient, mijilit apply, that a man has the right to
be secure in liis house, as to his personal papers and etFects. We are
away from that a little bit, but I am not complaining about it. These
papers should have been returned to Mr. Service, if he wasn't indicted,
as any person arrested has a right to have his personal papers re-
turned.
Mr. Service. They were returned to me, sir.
Senator Lod(;e. These are j)hotostats.
Senator Tydix(;s. It wouldn't make any ditference; they w^ere got-
ten surreptitiously, or gathered in the course of an arrest; he has
been released, and he has a right not to have his personal papers
flaunted all over the place. That is, if you want to live under the
Constitution. Of course, the Russian system is to take anything you
can get 3'our hands on.
Senator Lodge. Didn't the Department of Justice give this out?
Senator Tydixgs. The Department of Justice has no more right in
this country than I have. I can tell the President what I think of him,
without going to jail.
Senator Lodge. It is too bad if the Department of Justice is break-
ing the law : if so, we are in trouble.
Senator Tydings. I think the Department of Justice is indulging
in a questionable proposition in keeping personal papers. But I
am not making objection to it. Go ahead with the questions. I
wouldn't like it, if I were in similar circumstances, if a crime had
not been connnitted, there had been no indictment.
Mr. Morris. Do you object to our reading these letters, Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. I have no objection, if the committee thinks it will
help them.
Senator Tydixgs. Let them all go in ; put them in.
Senator Lodge. Did Mr. Service ask to appear ?
Senator Tydixgs. Yes.
Senator Lodge. Is he willing to be questioned?
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Senator Lodge. Is he willing to be questioned ?
Senator Tydings. I assume so. He hasn't got much option here.
Senator Lodge. Let the record show that I don't want to constrain
Mr. Service. I understood that he did, because he asked to be here,
and came here.
Senator Tydings. I am not talking about his testifying. We were
talking about his personal property, having been seized and broad-
cast, without any proper authority of law.
Mr. Morris. I think. Senator, I should say, reading these letters,
and not being able to understand them. I asked the FBI, in executive
session, if they would explain the various references throughout.
They said that they would. They asked me if I would make a memo-
randum to that effect. I made out the memorandum, and I passed it on
to the FBI. The FBI. apparently, was not able to answer the ques-
tions unless it had the Justice Department's permission.
Senator Tydings. I am satisfied, (to right ahead with them. Don't
bother to explain.
Mr. Morris. I think I should say. if they had answered the inquiries
I had directed to them, this would not be necessary.
Senator Tydings. I don't see how they could interpret another
man's mail. Go ahead.
1344 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA'ESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. If they possessed additional information, they would
be able to answer some of these things.
Senator Tydings. I am in your camp. Go ahead.
-Mr. ]\IoRRis. This is a letter from a man named Max Knight, to Mr.
Jack Service, care of Xeil Brown, OWI. It is addressed from 1350
Euclid Avenue, Berkeley 8, Calif.
Mav I show this to you, Mr. Service, and ask vou to identify the
letter"?
Ml-. Service. Yes ; I believe I received such a letter.
Mr. Morris (reading) :
Dear Jack Service : I ('o hope yon rtoii't resent that I now trouble you long
distance. But my conscience bot'.iers me : I know how I wouM feel if I were iJi
Dr. Schwarz' shoes (and I would not be in his shoes save for some fortunate
circumstances, including J. S. ) .
Will you tell us that reference, Mr. Service — who is Dr. Schwai'z?
Mr. Service. Well, I don't know Dr. Schwarz. The writer of this
letter was a young man who escaped from Prague, I believe it was, just
ahead of the Xazis, and had a pretty tough time as a refugee, and
came to Shangliai and applied for a visa, inunigration visa for the
United States, I believe, early in 1941, wlien 1 was working in the
consulate general, in charge of a visa unit, handling immigration
visas.
He had a very good case, veiw well documented, good sponsors, anrl
in the normal course of business he received an immigration visa. He
was a rather emotional, high-strung person, as I remember him. I
only saw him in the office two or three times, when I was getting his
visa. And he was very appreciative of having the chance to come to
the United States.
Now, the Schwarz that he refers to — I think that is the name —
was a Czech refugee who was still at that time in Shangliai. I am
not sure — he didn't have sufficient documentation, or what it was, I
don't remember, I don't remember why he had not received a visa for
the United States.
Mr. Morris. Now, one paragraph :
Actually I have little to add to Kurt's story —
WlioisKurt?
I just may add his address : 173 Route Mayen —
Mr. Service. I think that the "Kurt" there refers to this Dr.
Scliwarz.
Mr. Morris. Dr. Schwarz ?
Mr. Service. May I give the bacl^round of the story ?
Senator Tydings. Would you like to read the whole letter?
Mr. Morris. Why don't you look at it, first ?
Mr. Service. Yes.
When I was in the United States in 1944, I had, as I have already
mentioned, gone out to California to spend some leave with my family,
who live in Berkeley, just across the bay from San Francisco. The
headquarters of the Pacific operations of the Office of War Informa-
tion, the operating headquarters, was in San Francisco, and I had been
requested, while still here in Washington, to call on OWI, and to give
tlie people there the same sort of chance that agencies here in Wash-
ington had had to interrogate me about China, particularly, propa-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1345
gaiula matters, tlie effectiveness of tlieir work in China, programs, and
so forth.
'V^Hien 1 met with tlie OWI staff in San Francisco, I saw a youno; man
wliose face was familiar, and after the meetino- he came np and mtro-
dncod liimself to me, and reminded me that lie had met me, he was tliis
JNIax Kni<iht.
At that time, he told me abont these very close friends, Czechs, by the
name of Schwarz, who were still canght in Shanghai, with no hope
of geltiiig ont. He told me something abont the difficulty of their
situation, and he wondered whether it would be possible for me to send
them, after I returned to Chungking, just a greeting from him, saying
that I had seen him, that he was well.
Now, this is an odd matter, perhaps, but it was possible all through
the war to send mail and telegrams from Chungking, in free China,
to Shanghai, in occupied China. The letters usually had to be in
Chinese, addressed in Chinese, but there were regular mail facilities
open. The mail was passed through some neutral zone. And he
asked me if I would be good enough to simply write a letter to this
Dr. Schumacher, trying to give him a bit of good cheer.
This letter is obviously a follow-up to be sure that I knew the address,
and particularly the word for the English name, or French name,
of the street.
Mr. MoKKis. Did you ever violate the censorship regulations, Mr.
Service ?
Mr. Service. Did I, sir ?
Mr. INIoRRis. At any time.
Mr. Service. Xot to my knowledge. This Avas not a question of vio-
lating censorship. It was simply
Mr. Morris. This is an independent question. Have you ever vio-
lated the censorship regulations?
Mr. Service. In putting it in the post office and sending it ? I am
not sure wliether I ever sent a message that he wanted me to send.
]\rr. Morris. Is it your testimony, Mr. Service, that you have never
violated censorship regulations?
Mr. Ser\t;ce. To mv knowledge, I never have.
Mr. Morris. Haven't you been reproved for violating censorship
regulations?
Mr. Service. Not that I know of ; no.
Mr. Morris. Did General Hurley ever reprove you for that ?
Mr. Service. He certainly did not; that I can remember. In fact,
it wasn't General Hurley's prerogative. I was under Army orders,
under Army jurisdiction. The Army never did.
Mr. ]MoRRis. "When you were arrested on June 6, 1945, did you make
a statement to the FBI?
Mr, SER\acE, Yes, sir,
Mv. Morris. Do you have a copy ?
Mr. Service. A voluntary statement.
Mr. Morris. Do you have a copy of that statement?
Mr. Service, Yes, sir ; yes. I have a copy,
Mr, Morris, May I see it, please.
Mr. Service. I have no objection.
(A paper was handed to Mr. Morris.)
1346 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. While you are looking at that, in your written
statement on page 23, you say :
At the time of my arrest on June 6, only 8 clays after this occasion, I described
to the FBI my recollection of the events of this evening as follo\ys.
Is that a part of your statement ?
Mr. Service. That is a quotation from my statement; yes, sir.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Service, have you ever been a member of the Com-
munist Party?
Mr. Service, I have never been a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. Morris. Have you ever transmitted secret military information
toMr.JafFe?
Mr. Service. I don't mean to quibble, sir, but there must be some
definition of terms. I have never knowingly transmitted any infor-
mation which was, we will say, secret military plans, but in discus-
sions at that time, background discussions, it was customary for mili-
tary officers, and other officers, from the highest down, under certain
circumstances, and for sound reasons, to mention and give writers,
for their background guidance, information which certainly was con-
tained in some classified documents.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that the testimony which
this committee has received, to the effect that Mr. Service transmitted
secret military information to Mr. Jaffe, be made a part of the record
here today ?
Senator Tydings. The testimony that we have received ?
Mr. Morris. That this committee has received in executive session.
Senator Tydings. It is already in the record.
Mr. Morris. I ask that it be made a part of the record of today.
Senator Tydings. We will try to get any part you want in the
record. We won't make any of it public, but we will put it in the
record. We will not make it public until it is all in. We will not'
let it go out piecemeal.
Mr. Morris. It is pertinent to this examination today. I want to
confront Mr. Service with this testimony and ask him to comment
on it.
Senator Tydings. We are not going to release testimony of other
witnesses taken in executive session until we release the whole record.
Mr. Morris. It does make an examination difficult; doesn't it,
Senator ?
Senator Tydings. I wouldn't think so.
Senator Lodge. Will we be able to hear Mr. Service in executive
session ?
Senator Tydings. Yes.
]Mr. Morris. At the same time, it may be of such a nature that Mr.
Service could explain.
Senator Tydings. I imagine that all of it will be made public — I
certainly hope so — at the conclusion of our hearings. But, as long
as we are proceeding in executive session, I don't want to let part of it
go out, until the whole story can come out, and the people can get both
sides, and all sides at one time. Inadvertently, there have been too
many stories that haven't balanced well with all the facts.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Service, will you tell us who contributed to your
legal defense?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1347
Mr. Service. A number of personal friends. A number of members
of my famil}' loaned me money. That money was, in most cases,
leturned. In some cases, particularly my own family, they would not
permit me to repay them.
In addition to that, I understand that a group of my friends and
associates, mainly in the Department of State, decided aniong them-
selves, as a voluntary etiort, to raise a small fund to assist me.
I was at that time sensitive about accepting help, and I did not want
to know who had contributed or who had not contributed. The net
fund was completely anonymous. I understand that it was raised in
very small amounts, very small contributions, by various friends of
minfi.
I accepted $500 — rather, I allowed my sister-in-law to accept $500
to reimburse her for the $500 which she had paid to the bondsman, the
professional bondsman.
Mr. Morris. Did State De]3artment employees contribute to your
defense fund?
Mr. Service. There may be some State Department people. As I
say, it was an anonymous fund, and I cannot tell you in detail who it
was.
Mr. Morris. Is it your testimony that you do not know, or that it was
formally an anonymous fund ?
i\Ir. Service. My testimony is that I do not know, in detail, who
contributed to the fund.
Mr. Morris. When you say you don't know in detail, you are qualify-
ing your lack of knowledge?
Mr. Service. I have a very good reason to assume that so-and-so and
so-and-so, who are friends of mine, contributed $10 or $20 or, I think,
in some cases, the highest was $50.
Mr. Morris. Who made that contribution, Mr. Service ?
Mr. Service. Which?
Mr. Morris. Wlio made the $50 contribution?
]Mr. Service. As I say, I do not know the details, sir.
Mr. ^Morris. Now, I have a fcAv questions here in connection with
your address-book. I ask these questions in recognition of Justice
Jackson's recent decision that guilt by association is an inherent and
well-established concept of our law today. Justice Jackson, in a
recent legaV decision, has said that, when we are dealing with a con-
spiracy, one of the things that we must take into consideration is the
theory of guilt by association.
Xow. since it has gotten recognition in a majority decision of the
Supreme Court, I think we can take it into consideration here.
I am going to ask you if you will explain your association with
some of the people who appear on this list :
You have on your address list the name, Eugene Vinogi'adoff ?
Mr. Service. Mr. A'inogradofl' was press attache of the Soviet Em-
bassy in Cliuugking dtuing much of the time that I was there. I had
an acquaintance witli him through diplomatic functions, in the nor-
mal way that you become acquainted with your colleagues. He
spoke English (iiiite well, and 1 became, probably, better acquainted
with him than most Americans, with Soviet officials, even at that
I)eriod, 1944 and 11)45. I borrowed books from him on communism.
I read sevei-al l)ooks by Lenin from his library. And we used to dis-
cuss the situation in China. He gave me, on several occasions, rather
1348 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
frank expressions of the Soviet attitude on China, which I reported
to my superiors in memoranda, which, if all of my reports are made
available to the committee, you will be able to see.
When I was leaving Chunokinf^-, I paw him. and he hoped that we
would have some future contact — that was still during the war, and
there were more friendly contacts then, or social contacts, between
Soviet officials and American officials; and he insisted on giving me an
address, which, apparently, I wrote in my address book. I have never
communicated with him or heard from him.
Mr. IMoRRis. You have the name of Clinton Stein, who has been
named by General MacArthur as a Soviet espionage agent.
Mr. Service. Clinton Stein was re])resenting the Christian Science
Monitor in Cliina throughout the w^ar. He had been in Chungking.
He was up at Yenan during the period that I was there. He had come
back here to the States, and in the spring of 1945 was very busily
engaged in completing his book on his trip throughout the Communist
area. I think that I saw him once, very briefly, in New York, on April
24 or 25, on April 25, probably, 1945. I have not seen him since.
Senator Tydings. I would like to ask, Mr. Morris: "We would be
very glad to give you an opportunity to examine the witness in execu-
tive session tomorrow; and any other questions 3^ou want to ask, apart
from the executive session, we will be glad to furnish you the time.
Mr. Morris. Yes. In fact, I think questions like these, properly
should be in executive session, because there are names in here that 1
would rather not go into in public session.
Senator Tydings. It is a quarter to 7. Let's fix it this way :
Mr. Service, and jonr attorneys, I would like to have your attention.
I would like to have you gentlemen in executive session tomorrow
at 1 : 30, in room G-23, 1 : 30 tomorrow afternoon.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, before we break up, I notice these docu-
ments, which are official Government exhibits, are all spread out, but
I understand that Mr. Morris will want those in his examination ; is
that true?
Mr. Morris. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. I suggest that you get them all together and keep
them. We have them under a qualified privilege.
Senator Tydings. At 1 : 30 tomorrow, in room G-23, in executive
session.
Mr. Reilly. Mr. Chairman, would it be possible to have the session
public ? We had hoped to not have any further mystery about the
Service case. We would like everything against him out in the open.
Senator Tydings. I wouldn't mind its being public, myself. Do you
see any objection, Mr. Morgan, on these documents? I can't see what
objection there would be. Mr. Morris is going to confine himself to
the documents, and not going into the FBI testimony.
Mr. Morris. Senator, the difficulty there is, unless you have all the
testimony accessible— I mean, if certain things have to be kept in
executive session, and certain other things may be out in tl>e open, I
think an erroneous impression is going to be given.
Senator Tydings. I don't want to have the FBI testimony go out
in pieces. I want it all to go out at one time, so that the people will
get the whole picture of the FBI testimony, which I think is one of the
most important links in this whole chain. I think it will educate us
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1349
all as to what hap]~)onofl in the Ainerasia case. I am anxious, when
it goes out, for the whole story to <>-o out, so that the public gets it with-
out any strings tied to it. I don't want to see it go out in pieces.
Therefore, unless we can have some restriction on the open session,
I will have to ask you to protect our record. It is only about some
documents, I luiderstaiul, that jNIr. INIorris wants to ask about. Maybe
we can release it. I don't know. I would have to see what the testi-
mony is, beforehand; otherwise there will be all sorts of false impres-
sions, radio, headlines, and so forth.
Senator Greex. ^Ir. Chairnuin, I thought the rule had been laid
down, and I referred to it this morning the first thing, that if any wit-
ness who had been accused publicly asked for an open session, he would
have it ; otherwise, it would be in secret session?
Senator Tydings. That is right.
Senator Green. The witness has asked for it.
Senator Tydings. Let me say this : This testimony was taken while
you and Senator Lodge were on a subcommittee mission of your own.
it is very extensive, and goes into a great many ramifications of this
whole case. I think it will bring to light the information and evidence
which I believe the people of America are waiting to hear.
Xow, I have no objection to liie examination of the witness on the
documents that are mentioned by the FBI ; but I am a little concerned
that, if we get this out, it will be out in 'gobs'' — it is very long testi-
mony, and a false impression might be created. That is the only
concern of the chairman.
I want to acconnnodate you, and I want to accommodate Mr. Morris.
I think all of that testimony ought to be released at one time. That
is my only thought in the matter, I have nothing else in mind, at all,
except the public interest.
Mr. Reilly. Our concern, ]Mr. Chairman, Avas to end the hearings
at this point. To go into executive session would indicate that Mr.
Service was afraid to answer some embarrassing questions.
Senator Tydings. It won't haA e that connotation. We do it solely
for the reason of the evidence given by the FBI in executive session,
the longest testimony, I believe, we have had in the case.
I am very anxious for the press to have it. I hope, before long,
we can release it. But I don't want to see it released in homeopathic
doses so as to create a false impression.
Senator Loixje. I think we have two propositions. One is to g've
Mr. Service his oi)portunity, in justice to him, as an individual. The
other is to follow up this investigation as efficiently as possible. There
ai-e a great manv things, in the interest of a thoroughgoing investisa-
I 'ill- ' .c5&& O
tion, that are much better done in executive session.
Mr. Service appears before us in a dual capacity — to defend him-
self, and he also appears before us to help us in this Amerasia case.
I don't believe you want to foreclose us from getting the benefit of
whatever hel]) Mr. Service can give us in private?
]Mr. Reillv. No; that is not our purpose.
Senator Tydixgs. Thank you. Senator Lodge, for a very wise obser-
vation.
At 1 : 30 tomorrow afternoon, G-23, wo will proceed in executive
session.
(Whereupon, at 6 : 50 p. in., the committee recessed, to reconvene at
1 : no p. m., Friday. June 23, 1950.)
STATE DEPAETMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
FRIDAY, JUNE 23, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee oit P'oreign Kelations,
SUBCOIMMITTEE APPOINTED UnDER SeNATE RESOLUTION 231.
Washington^ D. C.
The subcommittee met at 1 : 30 p. m., in tlie Senate Caucus Room,
room 318, Senate Office Building, pursuant to adjournment on Thurs-
day, June 22, 1950, Senator Millard E. Ty dings (chairman of the
subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senator Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) ; Green;
and Lodge, of the Foreign Relations Committee.
Also present : Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the sub-
committee; Robert Morris, assistant counsel of the subcommittee;
John F. Service. Foreign Service officer of the United States, De-
partment of State, and counsel, Gerard D. Reilly, Esq., and Charles
Edward Rhetts, Esq.
Senator Tydings. The committee will come to order.
Yesterday when we recessed, it was with the idea of going into
executive session to continue the examination of Mr. Service. This
morning, there were printed in the press numerous stories wdiich car-
ried the connotation that perhaps some effort was being made here —
it was not quite plain in all the press who was making it — to suppress
evidence that ought to be brought out in the open. Inasmuch as Mr.
Service's attorneys read those statements in the press, they com-
municated with us and renewed their wish to continue this hearing
in the open, in fairness to Mr. Service.
After I had a chance to read some of these newspaper stories, I
thought myself we would leave the matter hanging at loose ends,
subject to false interpretations, unless the request made by the attor-
neys of Mr. Service yesterday was complied with.
Furthermore, wiien the committee last voted on this matter, it voted
to this effect: That the hearings hereafter would be in executive ses-
sion except that where a person had been accused in open hearings,
he would have the right, if he wished, to answer in open hearings.
Therefore, this proceeding today is in accordance with the unanimous
vote of the committee taken at that time.
Since Mr. Service's attorneys have renewed their request this morn-
ing for these hearings to proceed in the open, the chairman has called
the hearing in the open in line with conmiittee polic}'.
Mr. Reilly. May I make a procedural request before you begin,
Mr. Chairman? We appreciate very much this opportunity to con-
tinue the hearings in open session. However, in the interest of fair
1351
68970— 50— pt. 1 86
1352 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
play, since Mr. Service already testified he has no specific recollection
of this conversation, it seems to me we gather from the press this
morning, having read the statement Senator McCarthy is quoted as
saying there was a recording of a conversation between Mr, Service
and J alfe, apparently through some device in the room. Now it does
seem to us it is a well-established rule of evidence when a document
is used, you pass the witness the whole document. Since in this par-
ticular instance he has no independent recollection of the conversa-
tion, I submit you should show us either the document you are relying
on or, if it is a record that you have, let us play the record.
Senator Lodge. I intend to make a motion, Mr. Chairman, that we
have an opportunity to listen to this gentleman and question him in
executive session. I think this proceeding of going from public to
private and private to public without a vote of the connnittee — I can-
not give my consent to it. I think it is very bad.
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge, when we decided to have no more
open hearings, a motion was made that hereafter all our hearings be
in executive session, except that where a man had been accused
in the open, he would have the right to reply in the open and, there-
fore, until that ruling is changed by the committee 1 have no option
when a man who has been accused in the open and asks for an open
hearing, but to give it to him.
Senator Lodge. That is not the only thing that is involved here.
Senator Tydings. That is what I am bound by, the policy declared
by the committee, whether I like it or not.
Senator Lodge, I do not think this case falls squarely vrithin that
policy, I do not think it does at all. If we are not going to have the
right to question this individual in private, this investigation will be
extremely incomplete and unsatisfactory and unthorough.
Senator Tydings. We can have him in executive session at the com-
mittee's request after he finishes what he desires to have in the open at
his request.
Senator Lodge. We do not have a quorum here now and I am not
going to make a point of no quorum.
Senator Tydings, All right.
Senator Lodge, I do make a motion that, at some convenient time —
I want to consider everybody's convenience — that we hear this gentle-
man in executive session. It is simply incredible otherwise.
Senator Tydings. I think we should hear him in executive session,
and the chairman will take the responsibility of arranging a meeting
watli Mr, Service with the committee in executive session.
Now what was your point ?
Mr. Reilly, My request was this, Mr, Chairman and members of
the committee: That since it is a well-established rule of evidence
where a witness cannot remember, that the whole document be passed
him. Apparently what Senator McCarthy says that the committee has
is a record. We think that the record should be played and that the
witness should be allowed to explain it.
As Senator Lodge said here yesterday, he wanted Mr. Service not
only to appear to have an opportunity to clear himself, but also to
assist the committee in any way possible. I think that is the only way
he could be helpful, because he has testified he has no independent
recollection of this conversation.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY' INYESTIGATION 1353
Senator Tydixgs. I think that is a fair reqnest, wliere a man is intcM--
ro<rated abont a matter, the whole matter is entitk'd to be considered.
Certainly, if it is 5 years old, he is entitled to refresh his recollection.
I do not know — ^Ir. Morris, have you such a document that we could
have, the conversation between Mr. Service and Mr. fJatl'e?
Mr. MoRHis. Senator, 1 make reference to the testimony of Messrs.
Ladd and Nichols in executive session, and rather than give my ver-
sion of it, we should turn to the miinites of that occasion and present
the evidence.
Mr. ^[oKGAX. In that connection, it occurs to me that in asking
the question yesterday as to whether or not this executive testimony
would be placed in the record, the question was asked in such a man-
ner and the testimony given characterized in such a way that it seems
to me that we have no alternative at this point but to read into the
record now that portion of the executive testimony that related to
this particular matter.
Senator Tydixgs. Just a moment. I am familiar with that execu-
tive testimony and T think it was pretty well decided yesterday when
we recessed that, when we continued today, we would deal only with
that part of the executive testimony which had to do with Mr. Service.
I am willing to hear suggestions on the matter, as to whether we
should or should not, purely limited to Mr. Service.
You want it in, do you not ?
Mr. KripyfTs. Mr. Chairman, in that connection, what, of course, we
have requested is
Senator Tydixgs. Just a minute, please.
^Ir. ^loRRis. At the last executive session the Federal Bureau of
Investigation was pursuing a line of questions, and the indications
on the part of the committee members were that I was taking up the
time of the committee. So it was decided that I would have permis-
sion to contiiuie that line of questioning with the FBI, and the whole
connnittee, so
Senator Tydings. That is why I want to know what it was. This
is the first time I liave seen it. Co ahead, ]Mr. Rhetts.
Mr. RiiETTS. Our request is this: If, for example, as it has been
reported S&nator McCarthy stated yesterday, the FBI made some
kind of a recording of some conversation, we suggest that the fair
and the only helpful thing is to have the full recording and not what
somebod}' characterizes the recording as being.
In short, our suggestion is that we have the full story, so that we
may know what it is and that we may try to be helpful to the com-
mittee in explaining it or in reconstructing it, since the witness has
testified he has no inde]:)endent recollection.
Senator T>i)ixgs. That is a rule of evidence, of course, because if
you permit one sentence of anything to go in out of context, it can
be completely misleading as to what the purport of the whole con-
versation was.
You might say, "I am going to kill Bill Jones' cow," and stop there,
but if you say, "I am going to kill Bill Jones' cow providing he
requ.ests me to do it as a friend and neighbor," that is a different
tiling. That is one of the connnon illustrations made of the use of
])artial testimony.
I thiidi; your request is a proper one. I have already asked the
FBI and the Department of Justice to give me the context of the
1354 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Avliole thing. I have not been able to get it, and I think it was
rather not in the interest of altogether presenting the whole picture
to take one or two little sentences out and put that in the testimony
rather than the whole thing, and I have asked Mr, Morgan, our
counsel, to keep after the FBI and to see if we cannot get the full
text of the matter.
In the meantime, Mr. Service is put to the disadvantage or the
advantage, according to what is read, of having just one little part of
the conversation read, from which you can draw any kind of inter-
pretation that suits the particular passion or emotion or prejudice
you happen to feel at the moment.
Mr. Morris. May I say in connection with the question that was
directed to the witness yesterday, there was implicit in the fact that
we had an open hearing and that I had the obligation of interrogating
the witness, the inherent right to have access to whatever evidence we
had bearing on this particular case. It would be very unfair if, with
the evidence that we possessed, it were denied me in my examination.
Senator Tydings. That is true. But what I am talking about is
evidence that you do not possess and that I do not possess and only the
FBI possesses, from which you will read one sentence, which could
or could not give a clear picture of what that evidence was. That
is my point.
Mr. Morris. I agree with you, Senator. I made reference to Mr.
Morgan's previous statement.
Senator Lodge. I think you are right about that, and that is why I
wondered whether we should not suspend these proceedings until
we can get the whole thing, because what Mr. Morgan has there is
just a piece of it.
Senator Tydings. I agree, I have not seen what the FBI has. I
have seen this one short comment of — is it three lines ?
Mr. Morgan. Two lines.
Senator Tydings. Two lines, which is a part of the testimony of an
FBI witness. I think it would be very unfair, even if it is in your
favor, to use it. I think it is very Unfair if it is not in your favor to
use it, unless the whole picture is presented with it, because the public
ought to get the whole truth when they get it and not something that
serves anybody's purpose who wants to distort it or use it,
Mr. RiiETTS. That is precisely our position.
Senator Tydings. I am open to suggestions, now that we have gotten
into this proceeding, how we can proceed and do it in fairness to the
public, to Mr. Service, and to the interrogating counsel.
Senator Lodge. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we adjourn this meet-
ing until we can get the full substance of this assertion. It seems to
me we have got to.
Senator Tydings. What is your tlioiight. Mr. Morgan?
Mr. Morgan. Well, I suggest this thought, Mr. Chairman. Assum-
ing we are unable to get it all, where does that put us with respect to
our present record ?
Senator Tydings. I do not know.
Senator Lodge. We will have to cross that bridge when we come to it.
Senator Tydings. T have already asked them, and they have not
given it to us.
Senator Loixje. Did they refuse to give it to you or is it because
they cannot find it?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1355
Senator Tydixgs. So far as I am advised, they have refused.
Senator Loixjk. Did they give any reasons for refusing^
Senator Tydings, Part of their own records.
I am willing to hear any suggestions.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, the press of the country today is car-
i-ying a story to the effect that incident to a microphone surveillance
installed at the Statler Hotel, certain conversation took place and cer-
tain things transpired. Now, it occurs to me that we are now in the
])(>sition of having to resolve this one way or another right now to the
satisfaction of everyone.
Senator Tydixgs. What do you recommend?
Mr. Morgax. Abhorrent as it is to me, by reason of what has now
gone before, I think we are in the position of having no alternative
but to present this portion of the record that we now have with the
understanding that it is incomplete, that it does not present the whole
story, and go from there in the hope that maj^be some day we will get
tlie whole story.
Senator Lodge. Before you do that, I would like to know whether
that is satisfactory to you.
Mr. Rhetts. Xo, Senator, it is not.
Senator Lodge. That is why I thought you would be better off in
executive session this afternoon because of this testimony, and yet
you do not want to have an executive session. IVlien we have a public
session, which is what you want, then you do not want to hear this.
Mr. Kiietts. Perhaps I did not make myself clear
Senator Tydixgs. Let me interrupt a moment. Of course, you must
all proceed under the idea that whatever we get in executive session is
very likely some day to be made public. So that all you are doing
wlien you go into executive session, if 3'ou assume a situation that is
not going to be fair to 3 ou in open session, it will not be fair to you in
executive session if we eventually make the testimony predicated on
what we have been discussing here available. So that all we do is
postpone the evil day by going into executive session.
Senator Lodge. You know, a few things in the record are never
going to be made public.
Senator Tydixgs. There will be one or two things in there, but I
doubt if we could take a matter of this magnitude out.
Mr. Riietts. Perhaps I did not make myself entirely clear. What
T am trying to suggest and what our position is is the position which
both Senator Tydings and Senator Lodge have expressed — namely,
that on a matter of this apparent gravity the only thing, not only
in fairness to the individual, but in fairness to your investigation, the
only thing that is of any value is the full transcript or the record of
the actual event about which other people are now proposing to testify.
Senator Tydixgs. We ought to have it all or none of it. There is
no doubt about it.
Mr. Rhetts. Onlj^ that seems satisfactory to us.
Senator Tydixgs. To take one sentence out of a purported tele-
phone or surveillance convereation and utilize it for any purpose is not
fair. It is not good Americanism, it is not good law, and it is not in
the interest of serving the public, who want to know the truth about
this matter.
1356 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. That is exactly correct, but at tlie same time, our rec-
ord here in public session, as well as reports now in the press, have
that particular portion of this information and that is all the public
now has. It occurs to me that the only way we can proceed at all, if
we are going- to go into this situation and finally resolve it, is at least
go into this matter right here at this time.
Senator Ttdings. Let me see if we could do this for the time being.
I suggest, first of all, that the letters which Mr. Morris read to the
witness yesterday were not classified documents. The letters that
were read to the witness yesterday were correspondence for the most
part which Mr. Service carried on with certain acquaintances and
perliaps friends. They were not classified documents, and they were
a part of the so-called 1,700 documents seized in the case, and these
particular documents were nothing more than letters for the most
part.
I am wondering if part of those letters were put in the record yes-
terday, whether it would not have been fair to put the whole letter
into the record rather than just the sentences that w^ere picked out and
read. I would like to hear what counsel for Mr. Service has to say
on that particular point.
Mr. RuETTS. In that connection. Senator, I should like to point out,
first, that those letters were not found in the possession of Amerasia.
They were found in Mr. Service's desk at the Department of State,
along with his other personal effects.
Senator Tydings. I understand.
Mr. Khetts. I want to make that perfectly clear.
Senator Tydings. These were not seized in any connection with the
Amerasia matter at all. They were taken out of Mr. Service's desk in
the State Department.
Mr. Rhetts. Now, I certainly think that coming to your next point,
if the letters are to be put in, they might as well be put in completely.
Senator Tydings. Now that we have covered that, my reason in
bringing this up is we would not be breaking any rule of putting in
classified documents, because these are not classified documents, but
they are a part of the 1,700 papers that were seized or obtained in the
case.
Now, I think we got a little too much latitude yesterday having
])arts of these letters and memoranda, whatever they were, that were
m Mr. Service's desk read without putting the whole thing in. I am
sure Mr. Morris would want them put in, and my reason for bringing
it up now is to ask Mr. Service and his attorneys if they would object
to having them put in.
Mr. Reilly. Emphatically not.
Senator Tydings. I will take that responsibility by trying to correct
the error of yesterday by saying the whole document— it is not a docu-
ment, we are abusing that word— all the memoranda, letters, or papers
that were read yesterday now become a part of the stenographic rec-
ord, and I will ask Mr. Morris if he will, at his convenience, sort
those out, to which he referred yesterday, and give them to the ste-
nographer, and I will ask tlie stenographer if he will not leave space
riglit liere at this point to put them into the record.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INl'ESTIGATION 1357
(The letters referred to follow:)
United States Pacific Fi.ket and Pacific Ocean Areas,
Headquarters of the ("ommandek in Chief,
Staff. CINEPAC, Advanced HEXtVDQUARTERs, Box No. 5,
Fleet Post Office,
San Francisco, April 2, 1945.
Dear Jack : Yonr rotiirnins boss gives nie a cliaiu'e to get tins line off to you.
I've been luxuriating liere on Ciuam for almost 2 months. I'm in the Future
Plans Section technicall.v but mostl.v am getting an education in what goes on
in the I'acitic and trying to keep uy/ on China — the former is fascinating, the
latter diflicult. If you could find a safe way to send me an occasional copy of
your memos I'd be grateful — maybe you'll find it practical, maybe not. So far
as I can find out this is the only opportunity I'll have to communicate with you
until and unless Lud ( '.' ) and Emmerson ( '!) come tlirough.
Wliat goes on these days in the old country? 1 got a chuckle out of the news
Ibis morning that old Lung Pi-win (V) is going to be a delegate to the SF
Conference.
Best to the boys— specially Sol, if he is about.
A (s) Jim.
Washington, April 16, 1945.
Dear Annai^ee and Teddy : The optimistically pleasant speculations we allowed
ourselves to indulge in on that last evening of mine at 879 were 180° off.
The paper tiger roared loudly enough around here to drown out the general
but timid — opposition. And based on the Tiger's modest account of his achieve-
ments, the big boss said "Keep it up." After that, the table pounding in regard
to yours truly was only a matter of course.
Especially disappointing was the "political sense," in the narrow meaning,
by the man I had hoped would fight.
I am now assigned to a safe job here but have been urged to bide my time.
The Tiger's support ended on the 12th, the day of my arrival. And there is a
(now some J feehng that good jobs go to good party members.
Washington, April 16, 1945.
Dear Annai.ee and Teddy: The optimistically plea.sant speculations we al-
lowed ourselves that last evening of mine at 879 were 180° off.
1350 Euclid Avenue,
Berkeley, Calif., March 7, 1945.
jlJt* Tack Service
' Care of Neil Brotm, OWI, APO 627, Care of PM, New York, N. Y.
Dear Jack Service: I do hope you don't resent that I now trouble you long
distance. But my conscience bothers me ; I know how I would feel if I were in
Dr. Schwarz's shoes (and I would be in his shoes save for some fortunate circum-
stances, including J. S.).
I had hoped to have a chance to see you again before you left — you sure move
fast, and it seems you get across the sea sooner than we get across the bay.
Actually, I have little to add to Kurt's story ; I just may add his address : 173
Route Mayen (Hwa Ting In) — that's the place where the kindergarten is. Per-
haps you may want to add his address to your other addresses, in case there is a
chance to use it. Kurt's name is also known to Carlson, who used to work in
Opintell, and to Fitch ; and Lyman Hoover actually knows Kurt. I had a letter
from Lyman a few weeks ago.
If you think it possible to write to Kurt, even just greetings so he sees he Is not
forgotten, I know it would be a great lift for liim and Martha. He knows your
name. I feel lousy to suggest this to you, and I would feel guilty if I didn't. So
here you have my dilemma.
Next month I will celebrate the fourth anniversary of my arrival — and last
week my folks (father and mother) arrived in the United States from England
on the quota ; it took me all these 4 years to get them here, but now I am the
happiest guy between the two coasts.
1358
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
From time to time in the office we have a chance to see reports which include
your name, so we are currently reminded of you. What an interesting job you
have.
Well, once again, I hope you won't mind all this too much — but I feel if anyone
can appreciate the circumstances it's you.
Very sincerely yours,
S. Max.
Max Knight.
Mr. Rhetts. In that connection, niioht I make another suggestion ?
Along toward tlie close of the proceedings yesterday afternoon, Mr.
Morris was relying on the interesting theory of guilt by association
and referring to certain names and addresses found in an address book.
I should like similarly to suggest that all the names and all the ad-
dresses in that address book be made available. If that type of
imputation of guilt is to be indulged in, I think we should have that.
Senator Tydings. I think that is fair.
(The data referred to are as follows :)
27^Sunday :
6 : 30— Terrell
12 : 30— Jones
28— Monday : 2 : 30 Reichne— 2177Q
29— Tuesday :
12 : 30— Weaver
7— Rose Ellen— 3447
S
Wakefield
30— Wednesday : 6 : 30— Senator Pepper
1— Friday : 1 : 00— Rankin— 2DS55
2 — Saturday — Andy
3 — Sunday :
Lattimore
Supper for Rose
4 — Monday : Paid
5 — Tuesday :
12 — Lineboyer
7 : 30— Burns— 4902 S 28 R
Fairlington 12 & Penn.
End line
6 — Wednesday :
10— Gebb OSS here
12 : 30 — Duncan Lea
Sol Adler :
85/5172
85/2026
Ameson, Eliz. Yard : Glebe 2431
Adkinson, Brooks:
120 R Dr. 1
En. 2-5293
Arnold, Carl : Ex. 7700/280
Brown, Lt. Kmil : Ent. 2D 869
Barnett : 86/4725
Carr : Mi. 4,321
Colling, Capt. .T. : 86/6001
Caldwell, .Tolni : OWI 71192
Cowan, Col. Jim :
Co. 0991 >
86/74107
Davis, Dan : Navy 2488
Marty : OSS/639
Dennison : RFC/614
Drunmight : s/2666
Engdahl
Emnierson, ,Tohn K. :
903 N. Wahsatch St.
Colorado Springs, Colo.
Lee:
1725 W. Hampshire
Apt. 4a3
s/2398. Du. 5351
Ficlan : Navy 63037. Ch. 1891.
John Fairbank: 80/5454
The Hon. Gauss :
17 Circle Drive
Balled Bay Sher.
Newi)ort Beach, Calif.
Gayn Mail :
302 W 12
Ch. .3-2743
Griffiths :
Garrisonville 17
Fredericksl)urg, Va.
Gentille: OSS/654
STATE i>epart:ment employee loyalty investigation
1359
Ya. 17: Ask for Tom
Roberts : 86/74107.
24 SS
8514
7700/498
W.
WO 3091
State 459
W. :
Engineer Bd.
NW.
Garrisonvllle,
Waller
Hutchinson : OSS 2547
Hitch. LI. S. H. : Navy
Honiaii, Christine: Ad.
Harris, Capt. : 80/72809
Hatem, Cpl. J.N. :
loS5 Service Unit
^IcGuire General Hospital
Kichniond 10, Va.
Isaacs, Harold :
;«C. P. W. N. Y.
122
.TatTe. Phil. :
225 5th, N. Y., 13
MU ;]-0245
Jones, Col. Paul : Ex.
Little, Herbert
3761 W, N.
OSS264G.
Lyon, Freddy :
Luden :
50 Woodard Rd.
West Roxbury 32
Boston
Lattimore :
Roland View Rd., Huxten, Balti-
more
OWL Re. 7500. 72228. Towson 846
^Ir. W. W. Lockwood :
I'X. 4-0200
119 and Morningside
Capt. Paul Lineherger : S6/5504
HcHugh, Col. : OSS/2014. 2188
Mayer, Col. W. : War 72535
Mertsky (Coleman) Jeannette : Mamar-
oneck 2497
McNally, Col. E. J. ; 86/2772
Penfield, J. K. :
U. S. For. Ser. Off.
Staff Cinepar, 5
Yarderman, Rose: Di. 8665
]\Ir. Morris. In connection with those letters, I believe there were
three of th^m to which reference was made : A letter from CINCPAC
headquarters, the letter from Mr. Service to Annalee and Teddy, and
the third one we had just (rotten to when we abandoned the project.
Mr. Rhetts. One from Max Knight.
Mr. Morris. From Max Knio;ht, just three letters. I will see that
the stenographer gets them in their entirety.
Mr. Morgan. Is this applying merely to the letters or also to the
reports, portions of which were read into the record?
Senator Tydinos. The reports were IMr. Service's OAvn personal re-
ports and not classified documents, as I understand it. Is that correct,
Mr. Service?
Mr. Morgan. At yesterday's proceedings I believe portions of your
reports were read, and you were asked as to whether or not they repre-
sented a fair cross section of your reports. I believe you commented
that in your opinion that did not so represent a fair cross section.
I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, if you desire to extend your ruling
with respect to these matters that have been read into the record to in-
clude the incorporation of the full text of those reports where portions
of them have been read into the record.
Reicliner, Phoebe: OSS/24'i
l^t. Col. Rankin
I'ent. 21)855
Lt. Andy Roth :
Kill N. Queen, Arlington
S10/.3S92
Roger Smith Hotel: Na. 2740
Ray, Frank : FEA 3132
Snow :
Route 1, Madron, Conn.
Or c/o Mrs. Estelle Carlson
Int. House Berkeley
Stevens. Mrs. Harley :
3522 P St. NW.
Wash. OSS ext. 2831
Stein. Gueiithcr: 102 W. 80. En. 2-2900
Sullivan, Phil, s/2633 : Room 609.
17129
Schnulz, Gen. J.
Fort Belvoir
Temple 6800/2201
Service, R. M. : APO 210
Taylor, George : 5530 Broadfrank
Terrell, Gerald :
.3828 Fulton N.W.
Wise. Car N at Fulton
11/, blocks to left
Tolstog : <)SS/248S
Vinogiadoff, Eugene:
Conunissonat F. A.
Chinese Dept.
Moscow
Wilbur :
1625 Fitzgerald Lane
Park Fairfax, Arlington
Al. 0023. OSS. 2050
Watts. Dick:
920 5th
Bu. 8-2109
Weaver, Capt. : OSS 2232
Wolfe : Thelma : Ed. 4-8634 NYC
1360 STATE DEPARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. They are not highly classified or secret docu-
ments, and I feel I could, without impropriety, inasmuch as parts of
them were read, direct that the remainder be put in the record, but I
think we have to draw the limit somewhere.
(The two reports referred to above are as follows:)
[Report No. 22]
United States Army Ousesver Section.
AFO 879, September 4, 19U-
Subject : The Growth of the New Fourth Army : An Example of the Popular
Democratic Appeal of the Chinese Communists.
To : Commanding General, Fwd. Ech. USAF-CBI, APO 879.
1. The growth of the Chinese Communists armies during the present war has
proved them to be an extremely powerful political instrument because this spec-
tacular development would not have been jwssible without the support of the
people of the areas in which they have operated. This widespread popular sup-
port must, under the circumstances in which it has occurred, be considered a prac-
tical indication that the policies and methods of the Chinese Communists have
a democratic chai-acter.
2. This may seem to be jumping to an ipso facto conclusion.
(a) It might be assumed, for instance, that a patriotic desire to fight the
foreign invader was responsible for this popular support. This is partially true.
But to the Chinese peasant (who is the only important class involved, both
because of his overwhelming numerical superiority in China and because the
Communists have had to operate entirely away from the cities) the idea of
active personal resistance was entirely new. In the past the peasant has re-
garded all governments merely as something to be endured ; there was little,
as far as he was concerned, to choose from between them ; and even if one was
slightly better or worse than another, it was no concern of his and there was
nothing he could do aliout it.
So the peasant needed a great deal of education and indoctrination — and
some tangible evidence that it would benetit his own interests — before he was
willing to take up arms. The fact that the Communists were able to accomplish
this while the Kuomintang was not, indicates a closeness to and an ability to
appeal to the commcm people in terms which tlK\v understand. This is something
akin, at least, to democracy.
(b) Furthermore, the people, if they were willing to fight, almost always —
certainly in the early years of the war had two choices : They could fight with
either Kuomintang or the Communists. It would have been more natural for
them to have turned to the Kuomintang because it was the Government. In-
stead they turned to the Communists, who have come more and more to be re-
garded and treated by the Government as rebels. It would seem therefore that
the peasants received better understanding and treatment from the Communists.
This, again, is a prima facie indication of democracy. At least it can be said, on
this basis, that the people must regard the Communists as more democratic than
the Kuomintang.
(f) It might be argued that the Communists have the advantage of a "cause,"
that they use such direct appeals as distributing the land of the landlords to the
peasants, that they spread a rabble-rousing comnuuiism, or that they have found
an equivialent of the fervor which gave such impetus to the Taipings or the
Boxers. But. in fact, this argument is never heard. Even the Kuomintang does
not bother to advance it. If tliey did, it would be refuted by the evidence of
every foreign observer who has traveled through the Communist guerrilla areas.
The Communists are not even actively preaching communism — though it can-
not be denied that they are, sometimes by not too subtle means, trying to create
support for the Communist I'arty.
{(I) It can also be claimed this popular support is chiefly due to the Communist
skill in propaganda. The Communists are masters of this art, and it does have
a part, but only a relatively small one. The war has lasted more than 7 years,
longer than mere propaganda without positive results could hope to hold the
stolid and practical Chinese peasant. Furthermore, the guerrilla warfare into
which the Communists have drawn their supporters is the type which is hardest
of all military forms on the peasant because the whole area is continually a
battleground.
STATE DEPARTxMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1361
(e) Another argument, little heard hecaiise it is so obviously untenable, is that
the Conununists have forced the people to support them and join their armies.
But the Communist armies were small when the war began; they did not have
tlie military power necessary to liave forced the people. Their armies, relatively
sneakiiiu- are still small. They are, for instance, much smalled than the Ivuo-
mintaim uses to garrison areas of equivalent size far in the rear away from any
enemv " It is obvious therefore that the Communist army does not need large
forces to maintain its own rear— as it would if it carried out Kuomintang poli-
cies of conscription and taxation and was plagued by the same resultant prob-
lems ..f banditry and internal unrest. It is also true that these relatively small
regular forces could not successfully fight oft the .Japanese and hold these areas
uidess thev had the active assistance and participation of the people m large
irregular auxiliary forces, which can only, by t^ieir nature, be voluntary The
Communists claim over 2,00(\00() local volunteers, the Peoples !\Iilitia, who aie
an active force in resisting and harrassing the enemy. This hgure may be exag-
-prated— thouiih the evidence wo have so far been able to gather indicates that
Communist statistics of this nature are not intlat.d. But an organization of this
type cannot be created and made effective by the threat of mUitary force. And
the Kuomintang does not even claim to have such an organization.
H.^The cnclusiou therefore seems justified that the peasants support, join, and
tight with the Communist armies because they have been convinced that the
Communists are fighting for their interests, and because the Communists have
created this conviction by producing some tangible benefits for the peasants.
These benefits must be improvement of the social, political or economic condi-
tion of the peasants. Whatever the exact nature of this improvement, it must
be^in the broader sense of the term as the serving of the interests of the majority ,
of the i^ietiple — t(nvard democracy. .... ^ *.
3 1 b^liexe that this success of the Communist forces in winning the support
of the pe pie is particularly well shown in the history of the new Fourth Army
(hereiSer referred to as N4A) . This force has not received the publicity given
o the development of the Eighth Route Army, which was visited by a number
of foreign journalists and other observers early in the war. In many ^^ays,
however, its growth has been even more remarkable. , ^ ,. ,„„f , ^f
r The N4A was not organized until 1938. It was formed out ot remnants of
the' old Red Armv who had been scattered among numerous isolated areas in
Cith and Central China since the withdrawal of the mam Communist forces
fn m K^an-ai at the end of 1934. ( See my Report No. 19, August 31, 1944 par. 2 .
T is wartl^lrefoie an entirely new force with no background of unified organi-
z-ltion: it could hardly compare with the Eighth Route Army, which at the out-
break of the war was already a well-organized army m being.
When organized the N4A had a strength of only 12,0J0 officers and men: Th s
is snrfn • mpared ^^•irh the SO.tlOO of the Eighth Route Army m 193 < . ^\ eapous
4renuil mint were insufiicient and mostly old; many of them were dug up
from the ground where they had remain burie-1 during the years of Kuomintang
suppression The new anus promised them by the C\-ntral Government were
never ?orthconiing; all they eler received was a small amount of aminuni tmm
Likewise the recruits that had been pr-miserl by the Central Government to hU
their ranks were never turned over to them. ■ • i ., . i ,„t..,.
This new army was immediately thrown into action and was assigned the lowei
Yanirtze Vallev, where it was to attack already important and heavily garn-
sone^l Japanese areas. In these areas, or close to them, there were also Ku.,m,ii-
?aSg troo s The N4A army thus had much less favorable opportunities tor
explnsi on than the Eighth K.,ute Army, which had first occupied large ainio.st
Imntv areas lehind the .Iapnnes,> lines, from which the Central Government
Ss Sd withdnnvn and which the Japanese had left very lightly guarded as
^^Having" tWs"greater freedom, the Eighth Route Army was able, as early as
193S to establish stable bases to sui)port its operations. When the Kuomintang
in the vears 1939-12. made au attempt to recover this territory, the P lysical
difficulties of distance and interposing Japanese lines made it impossdilo lor
The Kuomintang to bring great strength against them. But the N4A opfratini.
partlv in Kuomintang territory much more easily accessible to the < ennal
Government, was subjected to much stronger Kuomintang pressure and was
forced to change its bases of operations several times. The result has been that
most of the present N4A bases date from only 1940 or 1941. This is a serious
handicap to the Communist method of growth by the mobilization of local
support through a comprehensive political and economic program.
1362 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
The N4A not only had to move ; it also suffered heavy losses in conflicts with
the Central Government troops. There have been sporadic small engagements
and several of considerable size. In the largest of these, the "incident" of Jan-
nary 1941, the N4A suffered about 7,000 casualties, furthermore, since that time
the N4A has been "illegal" by official mandate of the Central Government.
Recruits .ioining it, therefore, know that they will be regarded by the Kuomin-
tang as rebels and that this official vengeance will extend to their families.
The Eighth Route Army has also suffered under this opprobrium, but to a much
less extent.
What was the actual development of the N4A under these apparently unfavor-
able conditions?
At the end of its first year (spring 1939) the original strength of 12,000 nad
grown to 35,000. Operations extended from Shanghai to Hangchow, from
Nanking to Hsuchow, and from Hsuchow west along the Lunghai Railway to the
vicinity'^ of Kaifeng. Equipment had been brought in by recruits and captured
from the Japanese.
By the spring of 1942 strength had risen to 100,000 regulars. Operations in
the "area between the Yangtze and the Lunghai Railway had been extended to
the Kisngsu coast; it had also moved forces into the Japanese-occupied areas
around Hankow.
By the spring of 1944 the regular strength of the N4A had increased to 152,000
men. armed with 93,000 rifles, and supported by an organized Peoples Militia
of 550,000. Operations had been extended into East Chekiang and into South
and West Hupeh. Stable base areas had been created with a total population,
paying taxes only to Communist-controlled governments, of about 30,000,000.
All of these bases had withstood large-scale Japanese attacks and some areas
had not been penetrated by the Japanese for over 2 years.
In this development the N4A has increased its size by more than 12 times.
In a slightly longer period the Eighth Route Army has increased sixfold.
5. These results have been achieved by a force which started from almost
nothing. It has grown as it went along, out of the people. It has been an
orphan, without any powerful, well-established govenmient with large resources
behind it. It has had to supply itself entirely.
During much of its history it has shared areas with or been in close proximity
to Kuomintang tioops. Despite the advantages of supply, reenforcements and
government support, those Kuomintang forces did not have any such increase.
To the contrary, they grew steadily weaker and most of them have by now
disintegrated, turned puppet, or withdrawn. They have never carried out an
offensive against the Japanese ; and they have shown repeatedly that they
cannot successfully withstand Japanese attack.
6. General Chen Yi, acting commander of the N4A (General Yeh Ting is
still regarded as commander although he has been a prisoner of the Kuomintang
since 1941) insists that the success and growth of the N4A is wholly due to its
policy toward the people. The most important of these were the following:
(a) First it was necessary to win the people's confidence, in a military sense.
Fortunately the original cadres were old and experienced guerrila fighters. In
their fir.st engagements, the Japanese were not used to their tactics and were
unprepared and overconfident because of their easy defeats of other Chinese
troops. During the first year they had uniform success : after that they had
newly trained and capable forces. The Communists always follow the policy
of using their best troops in imjiortant engagements, holding their newer troops
as reserve or to throw in after the enemy is retreating to give them experience.
(b) The first step after coming into an area is intensive propaganda to explain
the war and secure popular support.
(c) This followed by the creation of mass organizations of the people. These
include farmers, youth, women, militia, and so on. All of these are for the
purpose of carrying ouf some function in resisting the enemy. But they are also
encouraged to interest themselves in their own problems. For instance, the
farmers are told that in the well-established guerrilla bases rents and interest
have been reduced.
id) Through and from these mass organizations, democratically elected gov-
ernments are set up. At first these are on the village level. As the area becomes
stabilized the system is extended until the hsien governments, and finally the base
governments are elected by the people. Nominations and elections are carried out
in general village meetings.
(e) As soon as some sort of government control is established, rents and
interest are reduced. This is done moderately. The minimum standard is 37%
STATE DEPAKT-MENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
1363
^ *^,. v^nt Tnf ill tho lir^^t ^ta^re n-nts aro not usually reduced by more
!Mron/quaS^- T s" o aJ^id dl#h.« the landlord, away and into Japanese
• nn In •inv areas into wl.ieh the N4A has gone, the power of he landlo.ds
; ;.en ve ini. and they have been able to hang on to tl-^\^X ?o ';\\'in sts
some areas to dondnate the local governn.ents. in such f ^^'; f.f/;^. ^:^«"^"^^^
move slowly by strengthening the organization of the people until tlu>j ..ain con
trol bv democratic methods. . , , ^,_, . ,
if) Taxes are reduced because of the moderate requiixnmM.ts of the ^4A and
thP ,>l.'nun-ition of corruptu.n through popular election of othciais.
Vj T X t m\ made moderately^irogressive. At present the Poores approx i-
onatelv liO percent of the farmers pay no tax. The highest rate on the iich land-
'""tr^!^:^^ XS^SJy a;;S:d and the welfare of the p.ople is improv^
hv t e n • enance of peac^ and order. In addition to direct a tack the othei
^olic es of 1 r ' im^^^^^^^^ are eflective in removing this old burden of banditry
^ m As im )o rtZ as anv of thes.- is the practical demonstration ot the unity ot
the nrmv 3 1 e people. The army takes as one of its major tasks the protec-
??on of thrneopTe to the degree that this ofteu determines its nnlitary opera-
t o s It takes posith-e measures to prevent enemy interference with the sowing
md harvest It a taUv assists when possible iu farm work. When and where
able its mxps produce a part of their own needs. It avoids any sort ot arbitrary
demaf:ds;:;ime people, pLys for what it takes. f-^r'^-^^^::^^^Z^:T^!^
It helns the people cope with disasters such as breaks m dikes, in tunes oi pooi
c rc^lS U redu e? ^s own rations to the level of subsistence of the people. It con-
tinual v harps on the idea that the army and people are "one family."
''""f ^l,;\!e s uVver anv forced conscription. Except for the encouragement of
the formatk.n on a volunteer basis, of such organizations as the militia, it avoids
i the earlv stages of its control of an area, any attempt at recr itmg
a) W hin ?he armv it takes special measures to care for families of soldiers;
emAa^s given to care of wounded ; such practices as beating ot ^^^l^ers are
prohibfted: an.l there is a democratic relationship-outsKle of purely militaiy
■matters — between officers and men. .
(/) Various other phases of the program in.lude women-s rights, intensive
advancement of popular education, promotion of all types of cooperative societies,
"""t Ge^ieral Chen, with whom I have had several long talks on these general sub-
iects can be excused if he paints an exaggeratedly pretty picture.
The fact remains tliat the Communists have been successful m winning the
stii ort of the^^^^^^^^^^ areas in which they operate, while the Kuom.ntang
ims no Gene -al Chen laughingly says tl:at the Commumsts sh..uld thank e
KTK.m intang for coming into the same areas, because they have provided the
i->pniilf^ with a basis for comparison.
Weclnio vet sav with certainty that the Communists claims of democratic
pomU are rue But that they are at least partially true is the (mly reasonable
exp lanatk.n «f the popular appeal which the Communist armies have shown.
S i s remiested that copies of this report be transmitted to the American
Ambassadoi^rt C^uingking and Headquarters, USAF-CBI for the information
of Mr. Davies. j^^^^^ g sekvice.
[Report No. 34]
UNITED S[\Tr:s Ai:my Orskuvkr Section,
APO 879, Sci)te))ihcr 2S, 19J,1,.
Subject : The orientation of the Chinese Communists toward the Soviet Union
and the United States. ,.., . t^ /-,,.t vxirvc-Q
Tn ■ ( •..nm.anding general. Fwd. Ech. USAB -CBI, APO 8.9.
1 There is attached a memorandum on present policies of the Chinese Com-
munist" as thev affect and are indications of present Chinese Connnunist orien-
tation toward the Soviet Union and the United ^tates.
•> This memorandum may be suiiimari/.ed as follows:
Sumnarv: Uolitically. any orientation which the Chinese Communists may
once have "had toward the Soviet Union seems to be a hmg of the l''^;:t he
. " nn unists have worked to make their thinking and program realistically
Ch "'ese ami thev are carrying out democratic policies which they expect the
United States to approve and sympathetically support.
1364 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Economically, the Cliineso Conminnists seek the rapid development and in-
dustrialization of China for the primary ohjective of raising the economic level
(«f the people. TTiey recognize that under present conditions in China this must
be accomplislied through capitalism with large-scale foreiirn assistance. They
believe that the United States, rather than the Soviet Union, will be the only
country able to give this economic assistance and realize that for reasons of
efficiency, as we;i as to attract American investment, it will be wise to give this
American participation great freedom. (End of summary.)
3. Tlie conclusion, which is the continual siatement of the Communist leaders
themselves, is that American friendship and support is more important to China
than Russian. The Communists also believe, of course, in the necessity of close
and friendly relations of China with the Soviet Union, but they insist that this
should involve no coutlict in interests between the United States and the Soviet
Union.
4. This apparent strong orientation of the Chinese Communists toward the
United States may be somewhat contrary to general expectation — which may
be too ready to emphasize the Communist name of the party. Apart from what
may be called the practical considerations that the United States will be the
strongest power in the Pacific area and America the country best able to give
economic assistance to China, it is also based on the strong Communist con-
viction that China cannot remain divided. I believe that the Chinese Communists
are at present sincere in seeking Chinese unity on the basis of American support.
This does not preclude their turning back toward Soviet Russia if they are
forced to in order to survive American-supported Kuomintang attack.
5. It is requested that copies of this report be transmitted to the American
Ambassador at Chungking and Headquarters, USAF-CBI, for th" information
of Mr. Davies.
Jo UN S. Seuvice.
Policies of the Chinese Co3i[MtTNisTS Affectiko Their Attitudes Toward
THE Soviet Union and the United States
A. political
1. The attcnipt to make Chinese Communist thinking more Chinese. — There
is apparent in the major statements of theory by Communist leaders during the
past several years an effort to get away from slavish attempts to apply Russian
communism to China. The emphasis is laid on realistic study of China itself.
The strongest intellectual movement within the Communist Party has been
against the "three great faults" of subjectivism, sectarianism, and pedantic
formalism. The most important of these, judging from the attention given to it,
is subjectivism, which is interpreted to include the dogmatic application of
foreign theories unsuited to existing conditions in China. The attitude set forth
as correct is "objectivism" — the application of theory on the basis of exhaustive
study of actual facts and true conditions. The general effect of this movement
has been to take the communism out of Chinese Communist thinking, at least
in regard to the immediate future of China.
Examples of such Communist statements ai-e numerous. Perhaps one of the
best is a lecture entitled, "How To Change the Way We Study," given by Mao
Tse-tung to high party workers at Yenan in May 1941. This lecture is now in-
cluded in a volume of selected papers which is required textbook for all Com-
munist Party cadres. The following is a partial quotation : ^
"No one has begun in a really serious maimer the study of the political, eco-
nomic, military, and cultural history of China during the past century, the period
of real significanee. * * * Many of our comrades regard this ignorance or
partial knowledge of our own history not as a shame, but on the contrary as
something to be proud of. * * * Since they know nothing about their own
country, they turji to foreign lands. * * * During recent decades many for-
eign returned students have made this mistake. They have merely been phono-
graphs, forgetting that their duty is to make something useful to China out of
the imported stuff they have learned. The Communist Partv has not e.scaped
this infection.
1 This translation has heen made by Communist sources in Yenan. I have, however,
checked it roughly by readinir the Chinese original.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY im'ESTIGATION 1365
"We study the teacliiiiss of Marx and his followers. But the way tliat many
of us learn those teachiufis is in direct opposition to their spirit. * * * Marx,
En-.'ls Lenin, and Slalin teach us to study seriously tlie existing conditions,
start in'jr from the actual objective circumstances, not from our subjective wishes.
But many of our comrades are acting directly contrary to this guiding principle.
■■* * " * aiany comrades learn the truths of Marx-Leninism merely lor the
sake of Marx-Leninism. * * * Although they can quote at length from Marx,
J^ngels, Lenin, and Stalin, yet they cannot apply their learnings to the concrete
study of Chinese history and llie present conditions in China : They cannot analyze
and solve problems that arise from the Chinese revolution.
'•These people, who are unscientific in attitude, who only know how to recite
dogn:as, who have degrees but no real knowledge * * * are a practical joke
on real Marx-Leninism."
2. The appVuntion of Mara-ixm to China.— I attempted to m my report No. 5 ot
August 3. 1944, to describe the Chiniese Communist application of Marxist
ideology to China. The gist was that the Chinese Communist Party in its present
program has abandoned everything except the doctrine of historical materialism
and the belief in the eventual socialistic society.
That exposition was based on very incomplete study and fragmentary state-
ments bv various Communist leaders. It was conflrmed, however, in a striking
way by Po Ku (aenerally referred to by the Kuomintang by his original name,
Ch'ing Pao-hsien) in a conversation on September 3, 1944. Po Ku"s comments
are of interest, not onlv because of his position as a member of the Political
Bureau and former chairman of th.e Communist Party's Central Committee,
but also because he is a Russian-returned and usually described in Kuomintang
"analyses" of the Communists as the leader of a -pro-Russian clique." My notes
or Po Ku's remarks are as follows :
"We reirard Marxism not as a dogma but as a guide. We accept its historical
materialism and its ideoloaical method. It furnishes us with the conclusions
and the objectives toward which we strive. This objective is the classless
society built on socialism— in other words, the good of the individual and the
interests of all the people.
"But to trv to transplant to China all of Mark's description of the society in
which he found himself (the industrial revolution of Europe in the nineteenth
century) and the steps (class struggle and violent revolution) which he saw
wouldbe necessarv for the people to escape from those conditions, would not
only be ridicuious,"it would also be a violation of our basic principles of realistic
objectivism and the avoidance of doctrinaire dogmatism.
"China at present is not even capitalistic. Its economy is still that of semi-
feudalism. We cannot advance at one jump to socialism. In fact, because we
are at least 200 vears behind most of the rest of the world, we probably cannot
hope to reach socialism until after most of the rest of the world has reached
that state.
"First we must rid ourselves of this semifuedalism. Then we must raise
our economic level bv a long stage of democracy and free enterprise.
"What we. Communists hope to do is to keep China moving smoothly and
steadily toward this iroal. By orderly, gradual, and progressive development
we will avoid the conditions which forced Marx to draw his conclusions of
the necessity (in his society) for class struggle; we will prevent the need for a
violent revolution bv a peaceful planned revolution.
Tt is impossible to predict how long this process will take. But we can be
sure that it will be more than .30 or 40 years, and probably more than 100 years."
3 lite Cojiinivnii^t poUticnl profiram is dPiiiocnicii. — Advancing from the field
of theory to that of practice. the^Communist political program is simple de-
mocracy This is much more American than Soviet in form and spirit.
Communists now are apt to argue that they were not really communistic even
in the davs of their power in Kiangsi. I am not competent to discuss this. But
even thoiiudi they may have distributed the land to the peasants as jirivate proi>-
erty and have left the landlord enough for his own needs, still the fact remains
that their governments were organized as Soviets during that period.
Startinii- in August 193."> the Communists based their policy on a democratic
united front. Since that time— now over 9 years— they have adopted the San
Min Chu I (as set forth bv Sun Yat-sen in the manifesto of the first Kuomintang
congress) have abandoned the Soviet form of government, have sought the
cooperation of all groups based on the democratic rights of the whole people.
This Communist program is well known and there is hence no need for de-
tailed description here. Basic documents are the above-mentioned manifesto of
1366 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
the first Kuomintang congress and Mao Tse-tung's book, New Democracy (a
translation of \Yhich was submitted to tbe headquarters and Embassy under
cover of one of my reports dated early in 1944) .
First we must rid ourselves of this semifeudalism. Then we must raise our
economic level by a long stage of democracy and free enterprise.
"What we Communists hope to do is to keep the country moving smoothly
toward this goal. By orderly, gradual, and progressive development we will
avoid the conditions which forced Marx to draw his conclusions of the neces-
sity (in his society) for class struggle; we will prevent a revolution in the
violent sense of the term.
"It is impossible to predict how long this process will take. But we can
be sure that it will be more than 30 or 40 years, probably more nearly 100."
3. The Coui'iumiist political program is democracy. — Changing from theory
to practice, the Communist political program is simple democracy. This is much
more American than Russian in form and spirit.
Communists now are prone to deny that they were communistic even in the
early days of their rule in Kiangsi. I am not competent to discuss this. But
the fact was their governments were organized as Soviets during that period.
Starting in August 1935 the Communists reversed their basic policy on the
basis of the united front line. Since that time — for over 9 years — they have
adopted the San Min Chu I as set forth by Sun Yat-sen in the manifesto of the
first Kuomintang congress, and Mao Tse-tung's book. New Democracy (a trans-
lation of which was submitted to the headquarters and the Embassy early
in 1944).
Generally speaking, the Communists are faithfully carrying out this demo-
cratic program. There is no question but that in the areas under their influ-
ence they have given democratic rights to the people, and that the party is sup-
ported bv the majority of the population.
Will stick to first manifesto, even if KMT fails.
The question of whether the Communists are willing to share their power with
other parties in a democratic way is a question more difficult to answer. They
are working in backward rural districts with a population without previous
political exiierieiice. This has required tlieni to assume a role in organizition
and leadership which gives them power and influence greater than normal for a
political party as the Americans think it. Furthermore the only other real
political party, the Kuomintang, has generally refused cooperation. Through
their institution of such policies as the three-three system (not more than one-
third of elective officials to be Communist), through their close cooperation with
such liberal groups as the intellectuals, and through their inclusions of such
groups as the landlords and merchant classes in their governments and efforts
to give them reasonable treatment, the Communists seem to have demonstrated
this broad-minded, democratic spirit.
Of course, it can be argued that the Communists are advancing their own
interests and moving toward a goal of control of the country by the use of these
methods. This is true. But it must be acknowledged that the Communists have
not tried to eliminate such groups as the landlords and native capitalists, and
that they realize that their own advancement and the interest of the country are
best served by the cooperation of all groups based on reasonable protection of
the interests of all those groups.
4. There is little aping of Soriet Russia and little evidence of strong ties to
Russia. — Not only in theory and policy, also in the atmosphere and daily scene in
Yenan there is little direct evidence of Soviet influence. Except in speeches
within the party there is litle reference to Communism or to Marx and the other
patriarchs of eonnnunism. In party institutions there are Qiictures of IMarx
and occasionally of Engles and Lenin: but the.se are rare. Stalin's picture is
common but usually placed alongside those of Mao Tse-tung, Chu Teh, Sun Yat-sen,
Chiang Kai-shek, Roosevelt, and Churchill.
The Communist newspaper gives considerable prominence to Russian war news
but not more than it does it news of American victories and much less than it does
to the operations of the Communist armies.
Soviet influence is obvious in the organization of the Communist Party : but the
same can be said of the Kuomintang.
Soviet exami)les also seem apparent in the measures used to promote the
production cami)aign such as the selection and honoring of labor heroes, the
assigning of jilanned quotas, and the stress on competition. But these measures
seem to be effective and are hardly in themselves characteristicallv Soviet.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1367
Siiuv we Imvp b i in V(Mi:in one fi>roisn play has been piwluf-eil (in transla-
tion) This was Uussian. Bnt its clioiec was i.artifnlarly appn.pnatp bocanse
it was a war plav. inv<.lvin{i siucrrillas and old Comnuinist leaders whose mam
claim to position was that they had fought tl-roiigh the civil war and now had to
be removed beeanse they were out-of-date (BudeijnyV). t -<• <-
The Soviet symbols of the hammer and siclde are almost never seen. In tact
the casual observer se»>s little to remitid him of Russia or to make him thiuk that
the (Miinese Communists are particularly attached to Soviet Ilussia m; as sug-
gested by the extreme faction of the Kuomintang, in any way a tront tor the
Russian rcmmmuists. . ^ , .
It cannot be said, on the oth<>r hand, that the Chinese Comnuiuists are trying
to ape American models (except in the surprising ways of social dancing and a
mild interest in bridge and poke)-). In f.act they are imitating nobody 1 heir
emphasis is on being Chinese. And in this they seek to come down to the level
of the common people. There is no hocus-pocus such as the Kuomintang insists
on of weekly Sun Yat-sen Memorial INIeetings, no formal posting of Sun lat-sen s
(or anvone else's) picture to be bowed to before every meeting, no ceremonial of
repeating- Sun Yat-sen's will, no standing every time someone's name is men-
tioned ^The Russian-inspii-ed romanization of the Chinese language has been
■ droiiped Except for limited audiences of the party cadres, the western drama
has been aband<.ned for a popularization and development of the native northern
Chinese folk plavs and dances. Music has been made native. In every sphere
the Communists have made the most strenuous efforts to go native and to
approach the mass of the people in terms that they will understand.
B. ECONOMIC
Following views chiefly Po Ku, supplemented by talks with Mao and Liu
1 The Communists agree that China must industrialize.— The Communists are
just as convinced as the Kuomintang (and everyone else) that China must
industrialize. . . . j.-, . <.- i--^ „^ri
Where the Communists differ from the Kuomintang is m their motivation and
emphasis One i:ains the impression from China's Destiny and much of the
present thinking in Chungking that the primary objective of China's industrial-
ization is defense— in other words, national power. The Communists place
this second First in their minds (at least in their talk) is welfare. Unless the
living standards of the people are raised, there can be no real foundation tor
either economic or political progress. The first great expansion, the Communists
claim should therefore, be in light, consumer industry and communications.
More gradually and slowly there can be built up a heavy industry (or as China s
Destinvcallsit, a national defense) base. ,.,.,. ^, . •,, ,
The Communists also place greater emphasis on the idea that China wnll proh-
ablv alwavs be predominantly an agricultural country, that China's agricultural
resources 'and problems must therefore not be neglected, that China does not
have the material resources to be a first-rank heavy-industry country.
2 China tan industrialize at present only on a capitalistic hasis.— China s
basic condition at present is still semifeudalism. To get rid of this is the
first important step. From this it is impossible to step at once to socialism
because there is neither the political nor economic foundation. The Chinese
people are not vet readv f<.r socialism and will not be for a long time to come.
To talk of socialism now is impractical. The next stage in China's advance
must be capitalism. In this capitalism must be given the freest possible o-ipor-
tnnitv to develo]) the cnintry economically. Ciiina's weakness now is the under-
development of capitalism. .
3 F(,rc\<in assi.'<tanrv irill he vecessarii to hrinfi about this mdnstrializatwn.—
China not onlv lacks enough native capital to inance large scale industrializa-
tion, it also lacks an adequate industry to serve as a starting point of for this
industrialization, it lacks experience and technical personnel. The end ot the
war will see these conditions accentuated. China will be suffering from ruinous
inllation from the disor^'anization and destruction brought by the war. It is
probable that the .Japanese will complete the destruction of the rudimentary
Chinese indiistrv before they withdraw or are defeated.
These conditions make it impossible for China to follow Russia's example of
buildins herself. Backward as Russia was after the Revolution, she had far
more of a modern industrial base than (Tiina will have. Low as were the living
standar.-.s of the Russian people, they were not as low as the irreducible mini-
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 87
1368 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
mum of the great majority of the Chinese people, and it was therefore possible
for the Soviets to deiTress those living standards even further to raise the
capital for their industrialization. But even Russia accomplished what she
did only with terriile sacrifices. She did not do it on her own resources because
she wanted to: but because she. had to. China, even if she were able to accom-
plish such a Herculean feat, will be under no such compulsion to do so. The
attempt would be foolish.
4. Soviet Russia will he enable to give this needed large-seale economic assist-
ance to China. — After the war, Russia will have a great part of her country
to rebuild. Her own reconstruction and the continuation of her own internal
development which was interrupted by the war will continue for a long time.
Published reports indicate that the reopening of the mines in the Donbas Basin
may take as long as 2 or 3 years of work. The report of Mr. Johnson, the
president of the American Chamber of Commerce, of his talks in Moscow indi-
cate that Russia herself will seek large scale assistance from the United States
after the war in imports of materials and machinery. These will have to be
financed by loans.
It is therefore obvious that Russia will Juive neither surplus capital nor tech-
nical personnel available to assist us in the industrialization of China.
5. The United, States is the oiili/ country irliicli irill he ahle to lielp China. —
Even if Russia were able (which she will not be) to assist China, the United
States will be the logical country to play the greatest share. American resources
will be tremendous. They have been geared to huge exports during the war.
America will have industrial plants which will not be needed and can be exported
whole. She will have capital to invest and the necessary technical personnel.
In addition, her sea comnuinications with China are better than those from Euro-
pean Russia. America faces on the Pacific. Siberia is still under development.
American ties with China are strong. America has all of China's good will.
For reasons of China's internal unity it will be better for America to play the
major role in tliis economic development.
"The other European countries will be engaged in reconstruction of their own
countries. They will not have capital to invest. The same will be true to some
extent of Great Britain, whose large-scale participation in China will, in any case,
be less welcome than American.
6. Great freedom must he f/iven to forcirm capital in this economic development
of China. — Since our goal is the most rapid possible development of Chinese re-
sources, communications, and industry, we must make investment attractive to
foreign capital. We cannot reasonably expect China to reap all the profit.
The logic of our moderate treatment of landlords and merchants and limited
reduction of rent and interest in order to obtain the support of these groups in a
united front which can strengthen our bases economically will hold good. If we
carried out drastic reduction of rents, or confiscation of land and restriction of
private business, we would cut off our own noses and weaken our bases by driving
out these necessary capitalistic groups.
We must therefore give foreign capital very wide freedom of opportunity.
Experience has shown us that Government enterprises in our own areas cannot
yet be operated efficiently. Our Army factories are not as efficient as privately
run factories.
We believe that Chungking's efforts to create a bureaucratic industry (for
instance, the enterprises of the National Restmrces Commission and the monopo-
lies of H. H. Kung) are proving the same Thing. They may enrich Kung and a
few others. But they are rotten witli favoritism, graft, and inefficiency. They
are not the best means to bring about this economic development.
Senator Tydings. I would like to make a further suggestion, and
that is that we omit temporarily the page and the circumstance that
Me liave recently been discussing and ask Mr. Morris to go ahead with
other matters until we ascertain whether we can get the whole tran-
sci-ipt of this particular bit of surveillance for the information of the
Senate committee, the witness, and the interrogator.
Mr. Morris. You would like me to ask questions ?
Senator Tydings. On other things.
Senator Green. Before you proceed, I would like to draw attention
to the fact that when other witnesses have had their attention drawn
to derogatory names or so-called, in investigations and lists of spon-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1369
sors and so forth, the witness was authorized to draw attention to
others which were quite tlie contrary.
Xow, in this case attention has been definitely drawn to two names
on the theory that they were derogatory, but I felt perhaps the
witness might like to draw attention to some eminent and respectable
names he was glad to have on his address list.
Senator Tydings. Tliat is a good point, and if counsel at any time
feel in connection with any of these matters they would like to stress
the point brought out by Senator Green, of course, we will be de-
lighted to give you that opportunity.
Senator Lodge. I thought we had already agreed to provide counsel
with that opportunity. I think j^ou are quite right.
Mr. Rhetts. Of course, we have not got the list before us. As soon
as it is made available, I would like to have the advantage.
Senator Tydings. You may either put it in by statement form,
because it is just an extension of things and there is no real controversy
about it
Mr. Khetts. One further question in view of the discussion of the
documents a moment ago — that is, Mr. Service's reports. It was
suggested that it was desirable to put the entire report in.
Of course, one difficulty there is this : Some four or five re])orts were
referred to, one of them only purported to be page 7 of a report which
was crossed out, evidently some type of a first draft. Our suggestion
to the committee throughout here has been that any analysis of these
reports, any attempt to discover what internal evidence thej' bear of
the political orientation of their author must be done on the basis of all
of his reporting that we can locate.
Now, as we have suggested, some 125 of his reports have been located
and have been the subject of detailed study by as objective an expert
as the State Department loj'alty security board could find.
Senator Tydings. And Mr. Kennan read some, did he not ?
Mr. Rhetts. Mr. Kennan is the man to whom I refer. There again
we would urge that this committee somehow obtain the full range of
these reports if it cares to make an anahsis of the internal evidence
they bear.
Senator Tydixgs. Did not Mr . Kennan, after making a survey of
this, for whatever it is worth, give his appraisal of their combined
worth and value, et cetera, and did not Mr. Service read all or part
of that in his testimou}^ yesterday?
Mr. RiiETTS. Yes: but Mr. Keiman testified at great length.
Senator Tydings. Allow me to interrupt you. My suggestion is we
get from Mr. Kennan his appi'aisal of these 125 reports, because I
believe, without binding the conmiittee, they would accept with a good
bit of conviction Mr. Kennan's appraisal of those, and it is doubtful
if the committee will find time to read 125 of these reports of varying
length.
Mr. ]\IoRRis. May I suggest Jn that connection, inasmuch as Mr.
Kennan is associated with Mr. Service, and I think
Mr. Rhetts. I question that, sir. He is not associated with him.
Mr. Morris. At least, he is in the State Department, and I believe
one of his assistants is Mr. John Davies, who is a good friend of Mr.
Service. I think in the interest of impartiality we should have some
outside source make an evaluation of Mr. Service's writings.
Senator Tydixgs. I have no objection.
1370 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Ehetts. So far as the present situation, Mr. Kennan's testi-
mony under oatli is a part of tlie transcript of Mr. Service's loyalty
proceeding, which we have indicated to yon we propose to make avail-
able to the committee.
Senator Lodge. Let me ask yon this. Did the Loyalty Board go
into this FBI material we Avere discussing earlier?
Mr. RHE^rrs. We have been questioned in the same vague terms be-
fore the Loyalty Security Board that we have been questioned here,
first yesterday morning l3y Mr. Morgan, who could not disclose pre-
cisely what he was referring to, and later bv Mr. Morris. We were
also questioned before the Loyalty Security Board on that. _
Senator Lodge. So evidently tliey are aware of this material, too.
Mr. RiiETTS. They are evidently aware of it, but again, when we
requested them to give us some more useful information on the basis
of which we could give intelligent testimony, they were unable to
supply us with anything.
Senator Lodge. "Would the loyalty board know more or less than we
-do about this, do you suppose?
Senator Tydings. They would know more, because the full field in-
vestigation of the FBI would probably be in the file.
Senator Lodge. On the other iiand, the loyalty board has no power
of subpena and we have.
Senator Tydings. Our power of subpena is pretty w^orthless be-
cause every time we have used it it has not brought any fruit. But
I am pretty sure I can say that the loyalty board has all of the FBI
information touching on this case that it asked for. It is in the
executive department, and from reading the files and from the letters
in my office in the 81 cases that we have already examined, I have it in
writing that the full FBI information touching on loyalty is in each
of the files.
Now I would like to ask Mr. Morris if he would, for the time being,
let that part of the testimony remain in suspended animation and take
up other matters that are pertinent until we find out whether the
turn-down of the FBI on this matter is permanent or whether we can
get the whole picture.
I would like to say for the record that I asked for this material, I
think, drawing on my memory, a week ago, to give me the whole
thing so we would have it. I have not to this date gotten it, and
I have received word that I probably will not, but I am still trying
to get it.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN S. SEEVICE— Eesiimed
Mr. Morris. Mr. Service, during the questioning yesterday we had
agreed at several points that you had used the expression throughout
your reports that the Chinese Communists have a democratic charac-
ter. You said, however, that when you were using the Avorcl "demo-
cratic," you were not using it in the sense employed by the reasonable
United States citizen. Will you explain to us the sense in which you
used the word "democratic"' and why you as a Foreign Service officer
of the United States should employ it in a fashion ditferent from what
an ordinary United States citizen would use it .
Mr. Servici'^.. I think you would find, in the first place, that the
hundred fifty million American citizens among themselves have a
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\'ESTIGATIOX 1371
oreat many different definitions of "democracy." It is a very diffi-
cult job to define "democracy'' in a few words that everyone will
aiiree with. ^ . -, i i i i
Mr Mourns. In this connection, Mr. Service, we had developed
some testimony to the effect that at the time of your arrest by the
Federal agencies there were in your possession documents that in-
dicated that the Chinese Cominunists were firm adherents of the
doctrine of Marx. Lenin, and Stalinism; that one of these docu-
ments related to he fact that the history of the Communist Party
of the Soviet Union was a guide and an infallilile teacher of the under-
Ivino- principles of the Chinese Communist Party.
' I "think at this juncture it would be well if I introduced into the
records the volume, the Historv of the Communist • Party of the
Soviet Union, and just simply for the record take out one extract
to show that this is the infallible guide of Communist International
principles. It is a guidebook of the Communist Party, it is referred
to as such by Mao Tse-tung at a time when this particular speech of
Mao Tse-tung*s was in your possession.
Senator Green. Is that a question to the witness?
Mr. :\loRras. This is something I introduced yesterday. I am try-
ino- to resolve what appears to be a contradiction, how Mr. Service can
speak contiiiuouslv of the Chinese Communists as democrats and at
the same time be in possession of evidence that they are members of
the International Communist movement. That is the point.
I think in all fairness, since I made reference to the history of the
Communist Partv of the Soviet Union. I should introduce into the
record in its entirety and just to give the committee an impression ot
the nature of the volume. I would like to read- — - . , -„ . ^
Senator Greex. Do not the members of the Communist i arty ot
the Soviet Union claim that they are democrats? ...
:^lr ^kloRRis. They claim they are, but Mr. Service is claiming they
are not, giving the" opinion of the Chinese Communists rather than
his own. . , _ ...
Senator Green. It is a denomination rather than a description, is
it not ? . n r^ T^ • o •
Mr. :Morris. It is very unusual that a United States Foreign Service
official should be referring to the Coi^^.munists as democrats. I grant
vou when he does that he uses the mm? language the Communists use
when talking about the Chinese Communists. But I say it brings out
an irreconcilable position.
Senator Greex. He uses "Communist" m the same terms as they
Mr." Morris. I do not think so. He says the Chinese Communists
are not really Communists. n n m ^^r
Senator Tydixgs. I think we are getting pretty far aheld. W e are
here to examine into dislovaltv of the employees in the State Depart-
ment, and this witness says he was detailed to go as part of an Army
detail to Yenan to watch and report what went on with the Commu-
nists. Now we have got his reports, and they speak for themselves,
and it seems to me that we are going pretty far afield if we are going
to o-o into Webster's Unabridged Dictionary for the meaning ot
wor'cls. Let the reports speak for themselves. If anybody thinks that
is disloyal, he can say so.
1372 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IX^-ESTIGATION
Senator Lodgk. I do not know whether Mr. Service objects to an-
swering this qnestion or not, but it seems to me that the question Mr.
Morris asked is a type of question that is asked by a gi'eat many citi-
zens of this country. If this investigation is to command public con-
fidence, we cannot just confine ourselves to asking questions that may
seem interesting to us personally. We have to get the questions asked
that are of interest to the public. I think this question is of interest
to the public. I think it is a proper question to ask, and I should like
to have it answered.
Senator Tydings. I thought we asked it yesterday, and he answered
it three or four times. But go ahead.
Mr. Service. I have no objection to answering it. In the first place,
Mr. IMorris, I' have never said they were democrats. I have said that
their policies were in some ways democratic. They were following a
united-front program, very cleverly designed to build up popular sup-
port, and for that reason they did, especially on the very low levels,
as I explained yesterday, of village government, introduce some demo-
cratic methods.
I have never said they were not Comnnmists. You, I am afraid, I
am sorry to say, are looking at only a small selection of my reports,
which number, as we mentioned yesterday, over 125. You are looking
at the ones which happen to be found in Mr. Jaffe's possession, which
I did not give Mr. Jafle, but which presumably he obtained because
he was interested in them.
I think if you read all my reports, you would find I consistently
referred to them as Communist. I wrote in March 1915 describing
their ties with Moscow. I never called them so-called Communists.
I never called them merely agrarian reformers.
Now, in a i-eport which I wrote in September 1944, 1 said the follow-
ing:
The conclusion, therefore, seems justified that the peasants support, join, and
fight with the Communist armies because they have been convinced tliat Com-
munists are fighting for their interests and because tlie Communists have
created this conviction by producing some tangible benefits for the peasants.
These benefits must be improvement of the social, political, or economic condi-
tions of the peasants. Whatever the exact nature of this improvement, it must
be in the broader sense of the term as the serving of the interests of the majority
of the people toward democracy.
I went on to say;
We cannot yet say with certainty that the Communist claims of democratic
policies are true, but that they are at least partially true is the only reasonable
explanation of the popular appeal which the Communist armies have shown.
Now as I explained yesterday I was not writing reports for an un-
informed American public or for publication. I was writing reports
for specialists dealing with Chinese affairs and familiar with the
Chinese background. The fact that they did hold any form of village
elections is a measure of democracy which China up 'to that time had
not known.
Mr. Morris. In connection with your statement, Mr. Service, that
you never called them democrats, this very top report I have here,
which is document No. or report No. 22, which was referred to yester-
day, in your conclusion, at the beginning you say :
This widespread popular support must under the circumstances in which it
has occurred be considered a practical indication that the policies and methods
of Chinese Communists have a democratic character.
STATE DEPARTME^"T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXA'BSTIGATIOX 1373
Mr. Service. That is exactly my point. The policies they were
following to wan themselves support had some democratic character.
I did not say the Conunnnists are democrats.
^Iv. Morris. Yon say their policies and methods are democratic.
Mr. Service. In some respects.
Mr. Morris. Yon did not qualify it in this respect. ^
Mr. Service. You miss my point. I am not sayino- Communists are
democrats. I am sayino; the policies they were following in China at
that time on a united-front basis in an effort to win themselves pop-
ular support had some democratic character in order to win them-
selves support. But it is very far from saying the Communists are
democrats.
Mr. JNIorris. You say policies and methods of a democratic char-
acter.
Mr. Service. I am sorry, sir, we don't have a meeting of minds on
that. I think the only answer is to read all of my reports and read
the careful analysis that has been made of them, the one already made
by Mr. Kennan, or by some other expert whom the committee might
wish to call.
yiv. ^loRRis. And then again in connection with something you have
just said — I will not bring another one of these up :
Politically, any orientation which the Chinese Communists may once have had
toward the Soviet Union seems to be a thing of the past.
Will you comment on that, Mr. Service?
]\Ir. Service. We commented on it yesterday, sir, and the comment
is to read the full text of the report.
]Mr. Morgan. Is it your ruling, Mr. Chairman, that this entire docu-
ment be spread on the record?
Senator Tydings. I think this particular document should be spread
on the record. How long is it ? How many pages ?
Mr. Morris. There are two of them.
Senator Tydixgs. Two of them, then. I think it is unfair, even
in that sense, to take 2 out of 125 as typical, but nevertheless we will
put them in with that reservation.
Mr. Servk^e. I believe in that same report, if I could examine it — —
vSenator Tydings. You may examine it. Put in anything you
want by way of answer to the question of Mr. Morris. I hope this
time you fellows will either agree or agree to disagree agreeably.
Mr. Servtck. I thin.k if you read further in this same report, I
indicate that this is their policy of the moment in their hopes of
maintaining an in(le])endent position and of having American aid and
friendship after the war, but I say :
This does not preclude their tui'niiig back toward Soviet Russia if they are
forced to in order to survive American-supported Knomingtang attack.
I always recognized the fact they could be pushed back into the
arms of the Soviet Union, which at that time I was convinced they
sought to avoid having to be forced into.
Mr. ]\f0RRTS. iVlay I make the suggestion, Mr. Chairman, that we
appoint somebody or designate somebody agreeable to both Mr.
Service and the committee who would be in a position to analyze the
writings and make a decision. I think it will serve no purpose if Mr.
Service and I engage in open discussion of certain selected reports, and
1374 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
it will be difficult for me as well as for him to cany on a discussion of
that nature.
Senator TydinCxS. My thought, ]Mr. jSIorris, is that these 125 reports
ought to be made available as an exhibit for the committee, and the
committee ought to make up its own mind as to whether it wants to
read them in whole or in part and not get the opinion of somebody on
the outside. That is my point.
Senator Loixje. Mr. Service's writings are very pertinent, but one
of the many things this committee has not got time to do is read
all of Mr. Service's or Mr. Lattimore's writings or all of anybody's
writings, and this merely serves to underline the point I have tried
to make before, that a congressional committee is not the way to deal
with this problem. We should have a commission of trained experts
created by act of Congress to concentrate on this type of work. It
shows a congressional committee is a very poor tool to do this kind
of job.
Senator Tydtngs. All right, Mr. Morris.
Mr. ^loRRis. Mr. Service, there has been public testimony before
this committee, and the witness was Mr. Budenz, to the effect that,
and I will quote it. I am quoting from page 519 of the public
hearing of Ajn-il 20, 1950, about five lines from the bottom. Rather,
it is six lines from the bottom. It reads :
Mr. Service was really in China and Mr. Service was referred to in the
Comnuinist discussions as Mr. Lattimore's pupil, but the thing is, I had no
information with regard to Mr. Service's political afriliations.
Now, will you tell the committee, Mr. Service, of your associations
with Mr. Lattimore from the time you first met him ?
Senator Tydings. I do not want to interrupt your answer, but
before we get separated, I wish you and your counsel would hold
yourselves available for an executive meeting of this committee when
we finish the open meeting, at lOi^^O on Monday morning in room
G-23, at which time I hope to have an answer from the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice about this
testimony.
Mr. Service. Mr. Budenz is entirely wrong in saying that I was
a pupile of Mr. Lattimore's. I met Mr. Lattimore. as I said yesterday,
for the first time probably in late 19;>5 or early 19oG in Peiping, where
we were both residing. I was a language officer, very junior member
of the staif of the American Embassy. He was residing there for
research and writing. My acquaintance with him in Peiping was
extremely slight. It was a social one.
I imagine I met him three or four times at large functions. I heard,
I think, one lectiu'e which he gave connected with the history of
central Asia.
The next time I met Mr. Lattimore was in the summer of 1941,
when he was in Chungking as the adviser of Generalissimo Chiang
Kai-shek. He lived on the otlier side of the Yangtze River, on the
city side. The Embassy was on the south bank.
He had very little contact with the Embassy, and I suppose during
that period in Chungking I saw him briefly two or three times. We
shared some intei'est in what you might call central Asia generally.
I had grown up in the extreme far west of China near the Tibetan
borderland. My father had traveled in Tibetan country and had col-
STATE DEPARTMEJS'T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IX^•ESTIGATION 1375
lertod i^robably tlio host collection of Tibetan articles Avhich have been
oxliibited in several nuiseunis in ihe United States.
I had also traveled in northwest China and Inner Monjiolia, and
the only conversations that I had Avith Mr. Lattiniore dnrinj^ that
})eriod were on problems of central Asia and the culture of the no-
mads and ]Mon<2:ols — mv observations and his observations.
Tlie next time I saw Mr. Lattimore was very briefly. I think, in
the winter of 1042 when he was Director of Pacific Operations for
OWI, with headquarters at San Francisco. I called on friends in the
office, and while 1 was there 1 stop))ed by his office and said, "How do
you do'' and had a brief conversation with him.
I saw him airain, I think — well. I know I saw Inm the next tnne m
1944. He was, I think, present at the meeting I had with the IPR in
November 1944, and I spent one eveniuir at his house.
•Now, the important thino- is that I did not see him or have any
contact with him or see, as far as I knoAv, any of his writings, from
1942 until the end of 1944. But that was exactly the important period
of my reporting on China. It was. you might say, the formative
period of my views, my views on policy. It was a period of my con-
tact and reporting on the Chinese Communists.
So that whatever views I had I had arrived at independently and
were completely formed before I ever saw Mr. Lattimore that one
evening toward the end of 1944.
There just is not any justification or basis for the statement that
I am a student of Owen Lattimore.
Mr. Morris. Will you tell this committee of your visit to the Amer-
asia office ? I know you went into it yesterday, but I want to ask you
one more cpiestion about it.
]\Ir. Service. Well, I don't remember a great deal about it, sir. It
was a rather brief visit. I don't think I even sat down.
I came in, he showed me around, I looked in the office, I looked in
the library workroom — the tables, bookcases, some file cabinets. He
introduced me to a woman there named Ralf Sues, who had written a
book called Sharks' Fins and Millet. He said they made it open to
anybody interested in or writing of the Far East and they could use
their library. We went to his office; he showed me the office. I had a
very brief discussion with him.
Mr. Morris. Did you notice the photographic room they maintained ?
Mr. Service. No, sir. As I mentioned yesterday, I did not see any
photographic room or printing equipment either.
Mr. ]MoRRis. Yet in j-our statement you say they showed you through
the whole office.
Mr. Service. They showed me through the whole office. They didn't
tell me wliether they showed me the whole office or not.
Mr. Morris. During the time of your reporting from China and dur-
ing the time of your visit to the Amerasia office did you conclude on
the basis of your study of the Chinese political situation that the maga-
zine Amerasia was a Communist publication?
Mr. Service. I was not seeing Amerasia during the time I was in
China.
Mr. jVIorris. You did not receive copies of Amerasia?
Mr. Service. No, sir.
Mr. Morris. While you were in China at all ?
1376 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. No ; I don't recall ever seeing a copy of it. As I men-
tioned, very little material was forwarded to us in China. We could
not receive magazines because of the limitations of the mail over the
Hump, and the only magazines we saw were a few airmail editions
of magazines like Time and Newsweek. I had no familiarity, recent
familiarity, with Amerasia during the period.
Mr. Morris. What was your association with Sol Adler in China,
Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. Sol Adler was the Treasury attache, and he was the
American member, I believe, of the Chinese Stabilization Board.
After I was attached to the Army, I lived for a while in Army
billets, officers' quarters. They were very cramped. I had to share
a room with another officer. We could entertain
Mr. Morris. Who was that other officer?
Mr. Service. It varied from time to time. There was a great deal
of coming and going. One was Dr. Melvin Cassberg, now dean of the
St. Louis School of Medicine.
Mr, Morris. Sol Adler was not one of those people ?
Mr. Service. No ; he was not attached to the Army and never lived
in Army billets.
I could not entertain Chinese in the Army mess. My whole work
required me to spend most of my time with Chinese.
I suppose that during 1 month I had 50 meals, at least, with
Chinese friends, Chinese contacts, sources of information. 1 spent
most of my clays with Ciiinese. I had to have a place where I could
bring friends, people of that sort, to talk to in the evening.
IMr. Adler had an apartment, a fairly large apartment, in the city
of Chungking. He had an extra bedroom. So he offered mje that
room, and I think for perhaps a year I shared that apartment with
Mr. Adler.
Mr. Morris. Did you during that period of time realize that Mr.
\.dler was a Communist?
Mr. Service. Certainly not.
Mr. Morris. Have you read the testimony that appeared before the
'Congressional committee, testimony by Miss Elizabeth Bentley, to the
effect that Sol Adler was a full-fledged member of her espionage ring?
Mr. Service. I have not, but I have heard second hand, I admit,
that Miss Bentley appeared before the Loyalty Board, and after hear-
ing her testimony, Mr. Adler was cleared. I am told that was the only
Loyalty Board appearance INIiss Bentley was willing to make and that
after that experience she did not appear before any more.
Mv. Morris When is the last time you saw Sol Adler ?
Mr. SER\acE. I saw him socially here in Washington some time
before I left to go to my post in In<lia. It might have been in Decem-
ber 1040 or January 10.50. Our friendshi]) since China has been a
casual and very sporadic one. I have not seen him frequently at
all. I can't even remember the exact occasion on which I saw him.
I think it was a dinner party or suppei- where several other people
were ])resent.
Mr. ISfoRRis. When did you first join the Institute of Pacific Rela-
tions, Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. I am not sure of the answer to that. During the year
1937 — 1036 or 1037 — when I was studying Chinese and preparing "my-
self to be a specialist in Chinese affairs, I was interested, as I men-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1377
tioiied A-esterday, in readiiiji;, keeping np to date as far as possible with
( vervtliinir" tliat was written about the Far East. And I think that
diirin<;- that period 1 became a subscriber to the Institute of Pacific
Kelations.
There are various cate<>ories of nienibersliip, and my recollection is
that my membership was of the h)west and cheapest class, the cate<!;ory
wliicli simply entitled me to receive some of their magazines, par-
ticularly ([uarterly Pacific Afl'airs and biweekly li'ar Eastern Survey.
1 discontinued that membership, as I did all my magazine subscrip-
tions, when 1 went to Chungking because it was simply impossible
because of the wartime dithculties for lis to receive any magazines
there. I i-esumed my membership in the Institute of Pacific Relations
2 years ago or 3 years ago — I am not sure. By membership, I mean
subscribing membersliip.
]Mr. Moinas. In your testimony here this morning you made refer-
ence to a meeting held at the Institute of Pacific Relations. Can you
tell us vvhat the o'-casion of that meeting was ^
^Ir. Service. Duriii"- the war the Institute of Pacific Relations had
an oflice in AVashington, I think it was maintained only during the
war and maintained then primarily because so many of the Institute
of Pacific Relations members were here in various research or other
positions with Government agencies.
It was their custom to have ])eriodical]y, whenever an interesting
speaker might be available, I think, what they called sort of a sherry
party, where members, particularly members of the council of the
Institute of Pacific Relations, were welcome to come and where they
invited some speaker who gave remarks ofl' the record and later an-
swered questions.
Quite a number of Foreign Service officers were guests at those
meetings and also foreign diplomats. Madam Pandit, the Australian
Minister, quite a number of other people had been speakers at those
ofT-the -record talks with Institute of Pacific Relations staff members
and members.
The invitation came to me second-hand. Actually it went to my
superior officer, who gave his approval and provisionally accepted the
invitation for me. Later on he told me he had accepted the invitation
ftnd that I should go over and meet ivith them.
I think the chairman of that meeting ^vas Dr. William Johnstone,
who I think used to be dean of George Washington University.
Mr. Morris. Have vou answered ? Have vou finished?
Mr. Service. Yes. The date of that meeting must have been about
the middle of Xovember 19-14.
Mr. Morris. Do you know Mr. Duncan Lee — L-e-e ?
Ml". Service. I know him very, very slightly. I think I have met
him two or three times.
Mr. Morris. I have part of the records, part of your address Uiok;
in addition to your address book, there was also a schedule of yours
showing vour appointments between the 27th of May and the 6th of
June 1945.
I noticed you have listed — I do not see why — I should give you a
cop3^ of this whole thing anyhow for reference purposes.
Mr. Service. Thank you.
Mr. Morris. You will notice on Vrednesday. June G, you had listed
at least an appointment at 12 : 30 with Duncan Lee.
1378 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Will 3 Oil tell the committee your associations with Duncan Lee and
in particular that occasion?
Mr. Service. Duncan Lee had made a trip to China for the OSS.
He had been in that airplane which was forced down in the jungle over
the Hump, spent something like 21 days walking out.
I had met him briefly at that time. I believe I had met him at least
once here in Washington at one social occasion, mostly wnth other OSS
people. The occasion of this meeting, as I remember it, was to feel
me out to ask me whether or not I ^^ould accept employment with the
OSS.
I had been asked by the OSS several times — I think General Dono-
van himself can confirm this — to accept employment with them, pre-
sumably because of my knowledge and contacts with Xorth China and
the Chinese Communists.
I told Mr. Lee on this occasion that I was not interested in leaving
the Foreign Service and I was not interested in employment with the
OSS. It was the same answer I had given the OSS several times
before.
Mr. Morris. Was that the only occasion on which you ever had
discussion with Mr. Lee?
INIr. Ser\t^ce. That is the only discussion of which I have any recol-
lection, and it is the last time I have ever seen him or talked to him.
Mr. Morris. Did you know Duncan Lee was identified before a
congressional committee as a member of a Soviet espionage ring ? Do
you know he was identified before a congressional committee?
Mr. Service. I read many years subsequently that he had been
named, but my recollection from reading the paper was that the
charges were not substantiated. I certainly had no knowledge
, at the time I saw him in 1944 that he was under any sort of suspicion.
I knew he was a trusted officer of the OSS.
Mr. Morris. The testimony in the Congressional Record, Mr. Serv-
ice, was that he was during 1945 a member of die Soviet espionage
ring.
Mr. Seratlce. I had no knowledge of him in 1945, except that he
was an officer of the OSS.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Service, did you ever meet Agnes Smedley?
Mr. Service. I met Agnes Smedley once very briefly here in Wash-'
ington in 1945. I had lunch with one or two other people and Miss
Smedley was there. That is the only time I have met her to my
knowledge.
Mr. Morris. Do you know now that Agnes Smedley has been iden-
tified by General MacArthur's intelligence organization as being a
member of a Soviet spy ring?
Mr. Service. I do not know that. I have read in the newspapers
that published reports of statements by a Russian spy, who was cap-
tured and executed by the Japanese, include her name among many
others.
Mr. Morris. That is the substance of the testimony.
Mr. Service. Yes.
Mr. Morris. Do you know Mr. Haldore Hanson ?
Mr. Service. Yes, I know Mr. Haldore Hanson.
Mr. Morris. Will you describe to the committee the extent of your
association with Mr. Haldore Hanson?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1379
:Mr. Service. In the fall of 19^7 in Peking, Mr. Haldore Hanson
was representing the Associated Press. He was an extremely active
young man and with a great deal of enterprise. He got on a bicycle
and rode down a railway line, as I remember it, riding the ties or riding
the path beside the railway, right behind the leading Japanese ele-
ments, and he arrived in the city called Paoting immediately after
the Japanese capture.
Paoting, I think, is about 50 miles south of Peking. For some time
he was able to walk around, write reports, and then all of a sudden
the Japanese headquarters arrived. They said, "My goodness, what
is this newspaperman doing here?" And they detained Mr. Hanson,
put him through very grilling detention for, as I remember it, 10 or
12 days, and finally released him.
Mr. Hanson came back to Peking in very bad shape. I had a large
house, my family had been evacuated from Peking, I was living there
alone. 1 had only the most slight casual acquaintance with Mr. Han-
son. But he had been living, as I remember it, at the Chinese YMCA
or some place like that, where he couldn't get good food, and there was
very little comfort, so I said to ]\fr. Hanson, "I have a house with lots
of room, come over and sta}' with me."
He stayed with me, I think, for perhaps a month in my house. I
left Peking at the end of that year. I have seen him casuallj^ several
times since when I have been in the United States.
I have usually seen him around the State Department, once or twice.
I think I had a cocktail at his home on one occasion. But we are
not close intimate friends. We have not maintained that association.
Mr. ISloRRis. Did you know Mr. Hanson operated for a period of
time a newspaper in China ?
ISlr. Service. I believe that he was a coeditor or one of the editorial
board of a small magazine which was published out at Yenching
University, in which a number of faculty members were interested.
Dr. Leighton Stuart, Ambassador to China, was president of the uni-
versity. I do not recall seeing a copy of the magazine. It was not a
very flourishing enterprise.
Mr. Morris. Who was the coeditor ?
Mr. Service. I don't know.
Mr. Morris. Was Nym Wales, wife of Edgar Snow, a coeditor?
INIr. Service. She could have been one. There was a man named
Savior. There was a young Englishman, I am speaking only from
hazy recollection.
Mr. Morris. In all your association with Haldore Hanson did you
recognize he may have been a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Service. I never saw any indication that he might be.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Service, do you know Nym Wales?
Mr. Servtce. I know her slightly. She was living in Peking with
her husband, Edgar Snow, during most of the years 1936 and 1937
when I was in Peking. I didn't know either one of them well.
I saw her certainly at functions in Peking like the Fourth of July
receptions, where most of the Americans would be present. I remem-
ber seeing her at work as a newspaperwoman. She was doing some
writing. For instance, I have a clear recollection of seeing her among
the group of Americans who were watching student demonstrations
in Peking in 1935, but all the newspaper people were there.
1380 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I think I saw her here in Washington once durinof the war, I am not
sure whether it was 1943 or 1944, met her. I think we had a drink
together.
Mr. Morris. In your dealings with Nym Wales did you have any
reason to believe she was a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Service. No, I had no indication she v/as a member of the Com-
munist Party. A rather emotional, high-strung person, always work-
ing for some cause, but I never heard her say anything to indicate she
was a Communist or member of the party.
Mr. Morris. Do you know Edgar Snow, Mr. Service?
Mr. Ser\t:ce. Yes, I know Edgar Snow.
Mr. Morris. Will you describe your association with Mr. Edgar
Snow?
Mr. Service. My associations with him are similar to my associa-
tions with most other newspapermen specializing in the Far East. As
I have already mentioned, he was living in Peking in 1936-37. I saw
him occasionally. I saw him more often than his wife because he came
to the Embassy fairly frequently for news or conversations with offi-
cers of the Embassy for background information.
I saw Edgar Snow from time to time in Chungking during the war.
He didn't spend all of the war in China, but he made several trips
there. I saw Edgar Snow again at least once in the United States. I
saw him again casually and as a newspaperman and writer perhaps
two or three times in Japan in 1945 and perhaps early 1946.
Mr. Morris. In your dealings with Mr. Snow did you have any
reason to believe Mr. Snow was a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. Service. No, I believe he is not a member.
Mr. Morris. How would you know that. Mr. Service ?
Mr. Service. I don't know, but I don't see any indication in his
writings that he is.
Mr. Morris. Were you in Peiping at the time his Red Star Over
China was published ?
Mr. Service. Yes, I believe I was,
Mr. Morris. Were you present at a cocktail party when Mr. Snow
made the statement that the success of his book depended for the most
part on Owen Lattimore?
Mr. Service. No, sir ; I never heard that statement.
INIr. Morris. Were you present at a cocktail party in Peiping at
which yourself, Owen Lattimore, and Mr. Snow were in attendance
:it the general time when the book had been published. Red Star Over
China?
Mr. Service. That was 1937, if I remember rightly, and it would
be very hard for me to remember, since diplomats go to a good many
cocktail parties. It would be very hard for me to remember if I was
ever at a party where those two men were. It would not be surprising.
I have no recollection.
Mr. Morris. You just testified, with what seemed to be a great deal
of detail, your associations with both those two men. Now I should
think you would be able to recall whether or not there was any con-
fluence of associations there.
Mr. Service. I am sorry, I cannot.
Mr. Morris. Do you know a woman named Anna Leise Wang, a
^liinesegirl?
STATE DEPARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1381
Mr. Sekvice. The name (loesn't rinir any bell now. Could yon tell
me when or where I mia'ht liave known her?
Mr. Ah)KHis. In China.
Mr. Service. Anna Leise AVang, a Chinese woman. I am sorry, but
I cannot.
Mr. MouHis. Did you ever have a controversy with any of your
superiors on whether or not you had given access to your files to a
certain Anna Leise Wang?
Mr. Service. I recall no such controversy.
Mr. Morris. In other words, it is your testimony that you do not
recall ever having met, or associated with, or dealt with in any way
Anna Leise Wang ?
Mr. Service. From the information you have given me, I cannot
identify her.
Mr. Morris. Just for background purposes here, Mr. Service, will
you describe how in the period prior to the war it would be possible
for an American group of people to proceed to Yenan i
In other words, Yenan was then in Chinese Connnunist territory and
se])arated from the main part of China by military forces. Could you
tell us, based on your experience in China, how a gi'oup of Americans
would proceed from a city occupied by the Nationalists to Yenan?
]Mr. Service. During what period, sir?
Mr. Morris. AVell, the period that you were there in Peiping, say
1935 to 1941.
Senator Green. Would you mind telling the purpose of the ques-
tion ?
Mr. Morris. I stated it was for background purposes, because there
Avere many of the people involved in this inquiry who did make trips
from Nationalist China to Yenan, and there is a certain amount of
confusion and a certain discrepancy in the method pursued.
Here we have Mr. Service, who spent many years in Yenan, and I
thought this would be a good idea for us to determine
Senator Green. For general purposes or Mr. Service's testimony?
Mr. ]MoRRis. Mr. Service's testimony and the testimony of the people
whose testimony bears on his activities. You see, there is testimony
here. Senator, that Mr. Service was mentioned in Communist circles
as a pupil of Owen Lattimore's. We have addressed our question to
Mr. Service and he has given us an answer. However, there is also
evidence before the committee that a group of three people went to
Yenan in l!)o7, I believe, that the peo]->le involved were T. A. Bisson,
Owen Lattimore, and Phili}) Jaffe. There is also testimony it was
Mr. Owen Lattimore who organized that party.
Senator Green. What has that to do with Mr. Service ?
Mr. AIoRRis. Mr. Service was in Yenan and I thought it was a good
idea while Mr. Service was here that he explain how a group of Amer-
icans could proceed from Nationalist China to Yenan.
Senator Green. It does not seem to me it makes any difference how
they proceeded, from what you have said.
Mr. Morris. I do not think it is fair that I should be draAvn out.
The purpose in asking this is to determine the plausibility of Mr.
Lattimore's statement tliat he was able to arrange for this trip for
Jaffe and himself to Yenan and yet not have any association with the
Chinese Communists.
1382 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Green. You are checking up on Mr. Lattimore's statement
about himself?
Mr. Morris. It is related. I am still ])ursuino- this line of question-
ing here that Mr. Service was a pupil of Mr. Lattimore.
Senator Green. Well, I will not object to j'Our asking this question,
but I am afraid you are going very far afield, and w^e do not want to
check up through this witness on what might have been truth or falsity
of other witnesses' testimony, unless it relates to Mr. Service.
Mr. Morris. Senator, I have explained the reason I have asked the
question. I maintain it is pertinent. However, if you insist. Senator,
1 will withdraw it.
Senator Green. I will not object in this case, but I am just giving
a warning that we do not go so far afield that we will take days on
Mr. Service's testimony.
Mr. Service. Let me make a few corrections. I was in Peiping
during the years 11)36 and 1937, not up to 1941, as you mentioned.
I have not spent years in Yenan. I have spent a total of 4 months
in Yenan.
Now, as I have just said, I was in Peiping and studying Chinese dur-
ing the period I presume you are interested in, the period in which
Mr. Lattimore and others entered, went to the Communist areas. I
have no knowledge of how they made the arrangements.
There were other people who also went in then or fairly soon after-
ward. I Mould point out, though, just a speculation, that the Com-
mimist areas were extensive, they were not at that time rigidly defined
by trenches or military lines, that there undoubtedly were Communist
agents in some of the cities held by the Central Government, and as
a matter of speculation, I don't think it would have been difficult to
have simply gone out in the country and walked through by some
small byroad.
I personally have no direct knowledge of how the arrangements were
made, but knowing China and having a general picture of the situation
at that time, I can see no real difficulty, provided a man was willing
to put uj) with a certain amount of discomfort and hardship in getting
over these very vague and indistinct lines.
Mr. Morris. Will you tell the committee the extent of your associa-
tion with Harold Isaacs?
Mr. Service. Yes. Harold Isaacs was for a good many years dur-
ing the war the correspondent in China of Newsweek. I met him first
in Chungking as a newspaper man. I saw him fairly frequently, as
I saw all the other foreign newsmen in Chungking, tie made a very
brief trip to Yenan. I saw him there and I saw him once in New York,
I think, in 1945. I think I had supper at his home one evening.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Service, do you know Duncan Stein?
Mr. Service. Yes; he was also a newspaperman out in China.
Mr. Morris. Will you give the committee the extent of your asso-
ciation with Mr. Duncan Stein?
Mr. Service. x\s I mentioned yesterday, he was correspondent in
China for the Christian Science Monitor and also, I believe, the Man-
chester Guardian. He was a particularly hard-working correspondent
and he had some excellent contacts with important Chinese officials of
the Central Government.
I had contact witli him in the same way I had contact with the other
j)ress men. He went ui) to Yenan and was a member of the group of
ring
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1383
correspondents who stayed up there for several months, and of course
I saw him up there as I saw the others. I have not seen him since 1945.
Mr. MoHKis. Mr. Service, do you know that General Mac Arthur
lias reh'ased a report that Mr. Duncan Stein has been identified by the
late Richard Sorge as having been a member of the Soviet espionage
?
Mr. Service. I have so read in the newspapers. I have never seen
any substantiation.
Mr. MoRKis. During all your association with Mr. Stein, was there
an.y indication to you that he was a Soviet espionage agent?
Mr. Service, No.
Mr. Morris. Will you describe to the committee the extent of your
association with Andrew Roth?
Mr. Service. When I met with the Washington office of the Insti-
tute of Pacific Relations in November 1944 there were quite a number
of my friends and acquaintances there, and they came up to speak to
me and say "Hello'' after the meeting was over. There were also sev-
eral people that I had not met before who came up to introduce them-
selves. As I remember it. ]Mr. Roth, Lieutenant Roth, was one of those
peoi)le who came up to introduce themselves after the meeting. As I
recall, he was in company of another naval officer. I don't remember
who it was.
Mr. Morris. Did he introduce you to the other naval officer?
Mr. Service. Very likely, but I don't know now who it was. He was
wearing a naval uniform. He told me he was working in the Office
of Naval Intelligence on Far Eastern matters. He mentioned that
he was familiar with some of my reports and, having seen my report-
ing, was interested in what I had said. He mentioned several mutual
friends we had. He hoped that we would have a chance sometime to
become acquainted.
Actually, I left Washington a few days subsequent and did not see
or hear from him until I returned to Washington the next year, in
April 1945. He called me a few days after I arrived, said he had heard
I was in town, he was giving a small party, mostly Far Eastern people,
there would be some of my friends there, and could I come and have
supper with him on that night ? I accepted.
During that day, as I mentioned before, he called up, asked me if I
would be good enough to see Mr. Jaffe sometime during the day. I
don't remember all of the occasions that I saw Mr. Roth. They were
all social after that. In fact, that was a social occasion. He was
present at certainly one and I think two suppers which I had with other
officials in the Government, research people working in some of the
other Govennnent agencies.
I heard something of him. I knew he was acquainted with other
people in the Department of State. I, of course, found that he was
also invited by the Lattimores for that week end in June. I saw him
the night of the arrest, June G, 1945. I have not seen him since.
Mr. ^loRRis. I know you have answered the following question, but
T want to integrate it into this line of questioning, so you can digest
this rather readily. AVill you explain your association with Philip
Jaffe ^ I know you have gone into it, but I would like to incorporate
that into this particular line of questions.
Senator Greex. Isn't this a rather waste of th? coiumittee's time?
68970— JO—pt. 1 88
1384 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr, Morris. Mr. Service can simply incorporate what he said yester-
day in answer to this question.
Senator Green. He mav do that.
Mr. Service. If I could, that would save a great deal of time,
Mr. Morris. I w^ish you would.
Mr. Service. I would like to simply incorporate into the record now
the answer I gave yesterday in regard to Mr. Jaffe.
Mr. Morris. And may I ask you this question. In your associations,
as you described yesterday, with Mr. Jaffe did you realize he was a
Communist?
Mr. Service. I did not. I had been specifically told that he was not a
Communist.
Mr. Morris. Did you know, for instance, that he had published the
magazine China Today under a different name?
]SIr. Service. I did not. I had never been a reader or subscriber to
China Today.
Mr. Morris. The purpose of this line of questions has been to make
use of Mr. Service's address book and several other incidents, several
other documents here, which indicate that the following people I have
asked him about were his associates, and whenever I mentioned the
name of any of those people I indicated whether or not there was
evidence before a congressional committee generally that the particu-
lar person was a Communist.
Now, I submit in the interests of objectivity and in the interest of
further guides in connection with loyalty examinations that we should
look into this phenomenon of a man who is supposed to be an expert
on the political situation concerning the Far East, a man whose
career is in the Government, to be able to distinguish and deal with
people where a knowledge of the various nuances in political associa-
tion— yet, at the same time, here he can be associated with these people
over a long period of time and not have any recognition of the under-
lying facts that these people — I qualify that by saying, by adding,
what I did add after each name — were not Coimnunists or associated
with Communists.
I think it is a situation that we should pu""sue here, and I think
it could well afford to be a guide to a committee such as ours in
determining the loyalty of an employee.
Senator Green. That is an aigument for you to address to the com-
mittee while considering the effect of his testimony. Will j^ou pro-
ceed with your investigation.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Service mav want to comment on that.
!Mr. Service. Yes; I would lilce to comment.
Mr. Morris. Is it your testimony in each case, Mr. Service, you did
not know in one case, Mr. Adlor. You shared an apartment with
him for a whole year and yet you had no idea, as you said, that he was
a member of the Soviet espionage ring, and I submit that that situation
of your not realizing that undei-lying fact is something this committee
should properly pursue.
Mr. Service. The charges against many of these people were made
years later, and the charges, so far as I know, against — I would have
to have a list of the names — but the charges against a great many of
them, most of them, have not been proved.
Mr. Morris. You mean in a court of law?
Mr. Service. Yes.
STATE DKPAHTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1385
Islv. JNIoKRis. I identified the evidence in each case.
Mr. Servick. Or before a loyaU y board. Most of these jieople were
newspapermen. 1 knew a ^loat many other newspapermen. Mr.
Isaacs wtis a one-time admitted Communist. He was a Trotskyite,
and he has been reviled and damned up and down because he hates the
Stalinists and they hate him. Furthermore, these people aiv only a
verv small segment of my associations durins this time.
For this in(|uiry to be complete, we should have a full inquiry as to
who my associates are. One quick and easy way to get one sample
would be the people who have voluntarily testified on my behalf before
the I)ei)artment of State loyalty and security board.
They have included Ambassador Nelson T. Johnson; they have in-
cluded Ambassador Clarence E. (irauss; they have inclided Col. Joseph
Dickey, of the United States Army; they have included Col. Frank
Dorn, formerly Brigadier Geneiai Dorn. They have included a great
many other people whom I have known intimately, who have known
me. and who have demonstrated their confidence in me by being willing
to testify in my behalf.
I have been a person whose work has put me in contact witli a great
many people, and I have known d great many people.
Mr. ^loRRis. That is readily understandable, Mr. Service, but at
the same time, if you are an expert on Chinese Conununists. when you
are dealinjr with somebodv who is at that time either a member of
the Communist Party or a Soviet espionage agent, it seems credible,
at least plausible, that you should be able to recognize such a person.
^Ir. Reilly. May I ask a question? AVas counsel aware when he
put this question about Maj. Duncan Lee, for example, that in civilian
life he was professionally associated with the firm which was the agent
or the purchasing agent for the Chinese Central Government if
Mr. AIoRRis. There is testimony before a congressional committee —
to what extent it is pertinent to this inquiry, I think it is all related
and I think all these things should be thoroughly gone into, but the
testimony was Duncan Lee was a full-fledged member of a Soviet
espionage ring, not as an official,^ Soviet Government official, either,
but as a covert, secret member of a Soviet espionage ring.
Mr. Reillt. AVliat I am getting at is you have asked questions to
bring out apparently that Mr. Service was Avidely acquainted with
journalists who were critical of the Chinese Central Government.
Mr. ^loRRis. Xo; I didn't — Communists or Soviet agents.
Mr. Reilly. And who have been identified or accused at various
times of beino; Conununists. AYhat I am getting at is vou did not briui;
out, though you must know, that one of these people that you men-
tioned— and there is some testimony that he oifered Mr. Service a job
with his agenc}' — was a man professionally who worked with the
Chinese Central (lovermnent. I think that is a matter of fairness; if
you are asking about one facet f)f any of these people, you ought to
bring it all out.
Mr. Morris. I think it was all brought cut. Mr. Service explained
his association with ]Mr. Lee and he said Mr. Lee had invited him to
become a member of the OSS.
Mr. Reilly. I am not suggesting he knew that. He said tliat was
the only time he saw him. But I am suggesting you knew it.
Mr. Service. He. as assistant to (Tcneral Donovan, who had also
spoken to me personally previousl}^ about accepting a positi(,n.
1386 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. And his name appears in your schedule of events in
the week preceding the arrest. But that does not alter the underlying
question one bit.
Senator Green. What is your question?
Mr. Morris. Mr. Service wanted to comment on the situation that
he as an expert on far eastern affairs, an expert on Chinese Com-
munists, should have dealings with a long list of people, and I have used
basically your own address book and your schedule of events at the
time of your arrest as my sample, and yet at the same time I say it
seems incomprehensible to me that you should have no inkling in every
case that any one of these people was a Communist or Soviet espionage
agent.
Senator Green. That is an argument to make to the committee.
Will you kindly proceed with your questioning of the witness.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Service was commenting on that, and I do not
think he has finished and I am giving him an opportunity to finish.
Senator Green. Mr. Service, do you care to comment any further
on this statement of Mr. Morris ?
Mr. Service. I don't believe any purpose is served by further discus-
sion. Most of these are based on allegations, not on proof.
Mr. Morris. I mentioned testimony before various committees.
Mr. Morgan. It would be most helpful if you would indicate for the
record before what committees this testimony was received, where it
may be found, in order that we may incorporate it in our record and
study it incident to consideration of these questions and answers at
this point. Do you have that information ?
Mr. Morris. Not in the detailed sense, but I think it is pertinent
that we should introduce every bit of it into the record.
Mr. Morgan. That is my point. Do we Icnow at this point where
this testimony is to be found 'l
Mr. Morris. I think I could with a little time put it all together.
INIr. Morgan. Do you know what committe the testimony was re-
ceived before ?
Mr. Morris. It varied, and in each case I tried to identify. Iri the
case of Duncan Stein and Agnes Smedley, 1 mentioned it was Gen-
eral MacArthur's disclosure as recalled by the Sorge diary.
In conection with Duncan Lee and Sol Adler, that was testimony by
Elizabeth Bentley, who gave the identity of the members of her
espionage ring. I do not think it right that we should go through
the whole thing now and expect I should be able to give it all in
detail.
Mr. IMorgan. I did not have any such expectation. I merely
thought it might be helpful if we could be directed at this point to
where the testimony is found. If you do not have it. that is all right.
Mr. Morris. I would like the opportunity of presenting to the com-
mittee the full testimony relevant to all the people I have named in
this interrogation.
Senator Green. We will consider the relevancy of the testimony
and also how far it is permissible, how far it is hearsay.
Senator Lodge. Are you going to exclude hearsay here ?
Senator Green. I say how far it is hearsav. To a certain extent, yes.
Senator Lodge. That is a new departure."
Senator Green. Have you any further comments to make, Mr.
Service ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1387
My. Skrvici:. Wc would like to have put into the recoi'd the com-
[ilete list of addresses.
Senator (ikeex. 'J'hat has already been put in, as I understand.
Mr. Keilly. I think there was a request earlier that you put it in,
and I think the connnittce granted it.
Senator (ikeex. If it has not been })ut in, it will be admitted now.
(The data referred to above are to be found at page 2199 of the
record.)
jNTr. AfouRTs. Mr. Service, were you ever punished by General
Huiley for violation of orders while you were in China ?
Mr. Service. Certainly not. I could not be punished by General
Hurley, since I was not at any time under his supervision or juris-
diction.
Mr. Morris. Did j^ou violate an order of General Hurley when he
gave a direction that 3'ou should not be allowed to go to Yenan during
a certain period?
Mr. Service. I know of no such order. He gave no such order to
me. I traveled to Yenan on Army orclei's which were issued by the
Army headquarters under whom I was serving, I went under specific
instructions and orders.
Mr. Morris. So, it is your testimony you never disobeyed orders
of General Hurley not to go to Yenan?
Mr, Serwce. I knew of no such orders, and General Hurley was
not in a position to give me such orders. I Avent there under orders
of United States Army headquarters in China.
Mr. Morris, ^^''oulcl you testify that, therefore, an assertion that
you were sent home from China because of a violation of such orders —
would you testify that statement is incorrect ?
Mr. Service. I was sent home, so I have been told, because Am-
bassador Hurley requested Secretary Stimson to have me relieved and
brought home,
Mr. Morris. What reason did he give ?
Mr, Ser^^ice, I do not know. I was not, of course, present and I
have never heard the details.
Mr, Morris, But it is your testimony that you never w^ent to Yenan
after having been told not to go to Yenan ?
Mr. Service, I was never told not to go to Yenan,
Mr. Morris, When were you told not to go to Yenan ?
Mr. Service. When? I just said I was never told not to go there,
I went there under orders. I could not have done anything else ex-
cept to go since I had the orders to go.
Mr. Morris, So, it is your testimony you were never ordered not
to go to Yenan ?
Mr. Service, No, sir.
Senator Greex, You mean "Yes, sir,"
Mr, Service, I was never ordered not to go to Yenan,
Mr. Morris. Mr, Service, have you ever written any report for a
publication inider any other name?
Mr. Service. Under any other name ?
Mr. Morris, Yes.
Mr. Service, No, sir.
Mr. ^Morris. Any name other than your own name?
Mr. Service, No, sir.
1388 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. Have you ever used another name in any association?
Mr. Service. I am known by a number of nicknames — "Jack" and
"Jake"' — but in any official connection I have always signed my name
"John S. Service."
Mr. Morris. But in any association of SLuy kind have 3'ou ever moved
about with a different name?
Mr. Service. Well, during our assignment to the headquarters in
China there were a group of four Foreign Service officers, political
officers, attached to General StilwelFs staff. We wrote to each other
from time to time, principally it was Mr. Da vies who was the senior
member of the group and the one taking the direct orders from General
Stilwell, and who was stationed in New Delhi most of the time.
Generally it was a case of his writing to one of us and telling us
or suggesting to us that we do such-and-such a thing or cover such-and-
such a subject. Now, because our letters had to go over the Hump
over Japanese territory, we had a little informal list of pseudonyms
which we would use in referring to people. My particular pseudonym,
I think was Hare — H-a-r-e. That is the only occasion I can think
of when I might have been referred to by any other name than my
own.
Mr. Morris. What was the purpose of using that i
Mr. Service. For security.
Mr. Morris. You did not use it officially for security purposes?
Mr. Service. The letters went through official channels.
Mr. Morris. Was that in violation or with the approbation of
official channels ?
JNIr. Service. With the approbation, knowledge, and ap]iroval of
official channels. Just a list of names and places. We didn't talk in
the early days about Yenan. The Army name for Yenan was Dixie.
It was simply that sort of thing. The project for building the air
bases in Chengtu was called IMatterhorn.
Senator Lodge. Wei'e the people who lived there called Dixiecrats?
Mr. Service. It was customary during the war to adopt these code
names and symbols.
Mr. Morris. I would like to resume this line of questioning that I
now come to in connection with these letters in executive session. I
am asking this as a particular request. The reason for it is that
in the first place a lot of these things may be impertinent, a lot of
these inquires in the letters. They may simply be ambiguous, and
with an ex])lanation, they may be all cleared up.
However, others may not be. So I think it is only ap])ropriate that
this next line of questioning — namely, whether or not there is any
significance to the letters found in your possession at the time of your
arrest, Mr. Service — and 1 would like to ask the committee that
that be done in executive session..
Senator Green. Mr. Service, what is your wish? Are you willing
to acceed to that request ?
Mr. Service. We are willing to acceed to that request. We have
been questioned, I believe, on all of this material by the Loyalty
Security Board.
Senator Green. Is that the last line of testimony you have in mind?
Mr. Service. The transcript will be available, 1 "believe, but I will
be glad to proceed in executive session.
STATE DEPARTMENT EISIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1389
Sonator (Jreex. Is that the last
]\lr. ^loKins. It is next to the l:ist .
Senator (ireen. Can we proceed with the other ?
Mr. MoRHis. I have just <rot back an analysis from the Federal Bu-
reau of Investigation, an analysis I asked for in connection with those
letters. Also there is other evidence 1 am not prepared to go into at
this time. Therefore, I ask that tlie next line of questionino; be held
in executive session at a time convenient to the committee and to Mr.
Service.
Senator Lodge. Senator Tydings set 10 : 30 Monday morning for an
executive session.
Senator Green. lie did not determine what was to be taken up
then -i
Senator Lodge. No.
Mr. Morris. What comes up in those letters will be pertinent to
some of the evidence.
Senator (treen. That is as far as you are able to proceed today?
Mr. M( rris. I really submit that request to you, sir. I would rather
not until I have the answers to some of the inquiries in these letters.
Senator Greex. Do you have any conmient or your attorneys, Mr.
Service ?
]\lr. Eeilly. ^Vla}" we have a conference a moment?
Mr. Rhetts. Mr. Chairman, our difficulty is with the suggested air
of mystery Mr. Morris has now introduced about certain FBI analyses
of these letters. The point is we are perfectly willing to be questioned
about them in the full light of day. If it is the desire of the committee
positively to do it, we will acceed to it, but I quite frankly — the con-
sideration that motivates us is that vre do not want
Senator (treen. Mr. Morris made a request, and I am asking you
whether you acceed to that request, and we do not want these "ifs"
and ''buts."
Mr. Morris. ]May I aid Mr. Rhetts possibly in his answer. In con-
nection with the analysis of these letters, I know you have suggested
it, Mr, Service suggested it, that a good deal of investigation has been
undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and by the various
loyalty boards, or by the Loyalty Board.
Rather than have a full display of all the incidents and all the
references in these letters, I suggested in the first place, during the
week I asked the FBI if they v\"ould sup])ly me with whatever perti-
nent facts they have ascertained in connection with the letters. It
was given to me this very day. I do not know what is in it. I have
not had a chance to even look through it.
I say that the appropriate thing to do right now at this juncture
would be for me to go through this, have an executive session on the
basis of that, and then make a decision as to how we will proceed from
there. I think it is reasonable. It is acceeding to your request.
Senator Loufa:. Let me say before you comiiient on that, of course,
you will have the right on Monday at the end of the da}' to ask for
another public hearing and you can can ask for it.
Mr. Rhetts. That is true.
Mr. Morris. In this connection, we do not want to go into any
events in ]Mr. Service's life tliat do not l)eai- on loyalty and subversion.
Mr. Rhetts. As an original proposition, I would have agreed with
1390 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
you on that, but you started off the discussion of these letters, and it
is only that I feel somewhat hesitant to cut it off in midstream in
public. However, I gather that you are referring to more of these
personal letters that were found among Mr. Service's personal effects ?
Mr. MoKRis. Yes. I think in justice to everybody concerned that
things like this should be gone through in executive session and only
those things that relate to subversion or possible subversion be aired.
Mr. Rhetts. Very well. We will acceed to counsel's request.
Senator Green. This hearing is adjourned for this day. We will
continue in executive session Monday at 10 : 30 in room G-23.
(Whereupon, at 3 : 25 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned to re-
convene at 10 : 30 a. m., Monday, June 26, 1950 in room G-23.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
MONDAY, JUNE 26, 1950
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington^ D. C.
EXECUTI^"E SESSION
The subcommittee met at 10:30 a. m., pursuant to adjournment on
Friday, June 23. 1950, in room G-23, United States Capitol. Senator
JNIillard E. Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present : Senators Tydings, Green, McMahon, and Lodge.
Also present : Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the sub-
committee: Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel of the subcommittee;
Charles Edwards Rhetts, Esq., of Reilly, Rhetts & Ruckelshaus, counsel
for Mr. John W. Service.
Senator Tydings. I think we might as well proceed.
I have a letter from the Department of Justice which I will read :
Office of the Deputy Attorney General.
Washington, June 26, 1950.
Hon. MirXARD E. Tydings,
Chairman. Subcomnrittee Investigating the State Department,
United States Senate, Washington 25. D. C.
Dear Skn.\tor Tydings : I wish to acknowledge your letter of .Tune 14. 19.50,
concerning a reported conversation on May 8. 104.5, between Philip .T. .Taffe and
John Stewart Service at the Statler Hotel, on which occasion Service made the
statement, "W-ell, what I said about the military plan is, of course, very secret."
As you well know, it has been a policy of long standing for the Department of
.Tustice to respectfully decline to comply with the demand for the production of
the investigate records of this Department before the various committees of
Congress. The reasons for this policy are, of course, obvious, and have recently
been completely stated before your subcommittee by the Attorney General and
the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
However, in the present situation, the Department is confronted with several
impelling factors not usually encountered in a matter of this Icind. One sentence
from an investigative report has already found its way into testimony token at an
executive session of your .subcommittee and has been widely publicized. In view
of llie significance of the sentence quoted, the Department has concluded that the
pul)]ic interest requires that the immediate context in which this sentence appears
should be made available to your committee. Therefore, there is transmitted
herewith an exact copy of the transcript of the conversation between .Taffe and
Service relating to the sentence in question.
Yours sincerely,
Peyton Ford.
Deputy Attorney General.
Mr. ISrcTnerney brought this up to me at my request. T made request
for the full testimony, and inasmuch as it is secret, I feel that I would
1.391
1392 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
like to ask liini into the room wliile we are discussing this phase of it,
not only that we may ask him any question pertaining thereto but, as
he brought it up and is the man who prepared it, I think it in keeping
that we have him in tlie room.
Senator Lodge. How do you mean : he prepared it ?
Senator Tydings. He is the man who brought it up and the man I
asked to get it for me. He brought it up personally this morning, and
he is familiar Vvith all the background, the getting of it and eveiy-
thing, and he would like to sit in so tliat ^^•e do not get the Department
in a false position because of nobody here to auswer a question that
might come up.
Senator Lodge. I want to be clear that this is a stenographic report
of a conversation. This is not a paraphrase or excerpts.
Senator Tydings. Oh no, no. All right ?
Senator Lodge. Yes; that is all right.
Senator Tydings. Let him come in.
(Mr. James M. Mclnerney, Assistant Attorney General, was ad-
mitted to the hearing room.)
Senator Tydings. I have just finished reading a letter from Mr.
Peyton P'ord to me, and it encloses the transcript of what happened.
I likewise feel that T must repeat now the following, which is a caveat
which goes with this testimony :
Most of the foregoiug information —
that is, what I am going to read shortly or have read —
regarding the contacts made by the vaiions principals and the documents wliieh
were exchanged were obtained tlirougb liighly confidential means and sources
of information wliicli cannot be nsed in evidence.
That is what I am advised by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Senator Lodge. Are they the author of that statement that you just
read?
Senator Tydings. Yes. They gave it to me and said, unless this
was read with it, it would not have its correct connotation.
Senator McMahon. The boys outside want to know whether this is
open or closed.
Senator Tydings. I told them it was closed.
Senator McMatton. I did not have enough information because I
had been away, but they made this request that, if it is going to be
closed, they can be so told so they can go downstairs.
Senator Tydings. It is closed.
This information cannot be used, as I am advised, as evidence in
a court of, law. I am going to request everybody here that there be
absolutely no leak of any kind, manner, shape, or form, direct or
connived at, for the release of this testimony, until the committee
takes action formally on wdiat to do with it.
]\Ir. RiiETTS. May I say for my part, sir, I am perfectly willing to
make a representation to respect that request, if we are going to be in
executive session. We propose to scrupulously adhere to that.
Senator Tydings. In other words, we have gotten the Department
of Justice to break a precedent in order to give us this testimony,
and it is not the kind of testimony, for reasons that are obvious, that
might be used in a court of law. We are not a court of law. We are
not sitting here as a ci'iminal court, and I would appreciate it if every-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION 1393
body would make it a rioid ride that there be absohitely no dividgence
of what goes on here this morning until the committee formally
decides to turn it loose or whatever they want to do with it.
Senator ]\rr^lAiiox. I would like to say this on the record : That of
course I am bound, and would be bound, and always have been bound,
by those kinds of agreements; but I want to reserve — and I think it
is unnecessary ])erhaps to say it — the right to decide whether, because
it isn't available for introduction into evidence, it still might not
prevent us from divulging it. That, of course, is a question which
"will be postponed, and I reserve the right to determine that then,
and in the meantime to keep absolute secrecy.
Senator Lodge. AVait a minute. I didn't understand that remark
of Senator McMahon, You say you reserve the right to release the
testimony ?
Senator Mc]Mahox. I say I am bound by this agreement for secrecy
now. I reserve the right in deliberations of the full committee as
to whether or not this committee should release this testimony.
Senator Lodge. Before the full Foreign Relations Committee, you
mean ?
Senator Mc^NLvhon. Or to the public.
Senator Lodge. You aren't proposing to do it unilaterally yourself ?
Senator McMahox. That is what I am emphasing. I am bound
by the agreement and I keep those agreements, unlike some other
peo}>le that you and I know. What I am trying to say is that, by doing
so, I do not foreclose my right to vigorously urge and vote for a re-
lease of this testimonv at some date in the future. In the meantime,
. 1 ...» . '
with me it IS executive testimony.
Senator Lodge. I would like to say that I take the same position,
and I have been very much shocked at the way in which great pieces
of this testimony have appeared verbatim in the newspapers. Wlien
it happened once I thought, well, that was an indiscretion or a remark-
able illustration of journalistic enterprise. It hasn't just happened
once; it happens all the time, and of course that is another reason
why I consider that a congressional committee is a poor device to
try to do this kind of work, because it is entirely unprofessional; it
means you never can really do a bang-up job if you cannot feel that
when you are speaking in private you are speaking in private. Now,
as it is, when you speak in this committee you have always got to have
the afterthought in the back of your mind that everything you say
is going to be in the papers 3 days later, and if you want to say some-
thing that should not be in the papers you just do not say it, and that,
of course, vitiates largely the effectiveness of this investigation.
Senator Tydixgs. I agree with you.
Senator Lodge. It is very bad, and it is one of the reasons why this
is not a good way to go at this kind of job.
Mr. MoRGAX. Mr. Service, you will recall that during the course of
this interrogation of last Thursday and Friday some reference was
made to the meeting between you and Mr. Jaffe at the Statler Hotel on
]\fay 8. 1945. Do you recall that discussion?
Mr. SERvifK. I remember some reference was made; 3'es.
1394 STATE D'EPARTMEKT EMPLuTEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
TESTIMONY OF JOHN W. SERVICE— Resumed
Mr. Morgan. Since that time, Mr. Service, have you endeavored in
any way to refresh your recollection concerning the nature and details
of this conversation?
Mr. Service. I have been continuously trying to refresh my recol-
lection, sir.
Mr. Morgan. In passing, in point of time. May 8 — let's see; that
was after VE-day and before VJ-day ; is that right ?
Mr. Service. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. By the way, does anybody know precisely when
VE-day was?
Mr. Ehetts. There are two different determinations.
Mr. McInerney. May 8.
Senator Tydings. And VJ-day was August 14 ?
Mr. Rhetts. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. So, this conversation occurred, then, on VE-day; is
til at correct ?
Mr. Service. I have no recollection of the coincidence of the events.
Mr. Morgan. I merely mentioned that with the thought that it
might refresh your recollection to some degree on the conversation.
As I understand, it does not ?
Mr. Service. No,
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Service, there is frankly in my mind some question
relative to the propriety of the divulgence of technical material of
this character, and before I proceed to read into our record, and there-
after ask your comments concerning this conversation, I would like to
know whether I have your permission and the permission also of your
attorney to read and to incorporate the verbatim text of this conver-
sation as reported to us by the Federal Bureau of Investigation into
our record.
Mr. Ehetts. In that connection, sir, could I make a preliminary
inquiry ?
I may say, first of all, I take it whether or not yon have my per-
mission you can read it into the record, but I would like to inquire
whether the material that you have purports to be a transcription of
a recording, whether it purports to be the notes taken by a person
who is alleged to have listened to the conversation, or precisely
what it is, because, as I believe I suggested a few days ago, in
assessing this kind of material a person who is listening with ear-
phones and taking notes may have gotten accurate notes, may have
gotten inaccurate notes, depending upon how familiar he was with
the subject matter under discussion, and so on. So, I would appreci-
ate it if you would possibly tell us whether tliis is an actual re-
cording— —
Senator Tydings. Disk?
Mr. Ehetts. A copy of a disk, or whether it is notes taken by a per-
son who listened, or what it is.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman, I think we have with us this morning
Mr. McInerney, who heretofore has been sworn in this proceeding,
and I think probably he would be in a better position than any of us
to answer that question.
STATE DEPART.MEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1395
Senator Tydixgs. I think wo ouglit to ask ]Mr. JNIcIneiney if lie
could answer that question.
Afr. ^NrclNKRXF.T. It is a record, a disk record.
Senator Tydings. This is a copy of a disk record played back, and
the words taken down for our use; is that correct?
Mr. JMcInehxet. Yes.
Senat(n' I'ydtxos. You still have the record?
Mr. Mc'lxiRXKY. I don't know, sir. This was taken from the
record.
Senator Tyhixos. It was not taken stenographically ?
Mr. jMcInekxey. No, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. It was taken bj^ a device that could be rebroadcast
from the record itself without any other interpretation ?
Mr. McIxERxEY. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. When was this done?
]\Ir. McIxERXEY. Simultaneously.
Senator Tydix^gs. May 8.
Mr. Rhetts. In that connection, Mr. Chairman — and I hope you
do not think I am quibbling — I would like to suggest that, if there is a
record, it would be desirable to have that record played. I made that
request before, and if it is, as Mr. Mclnerney suggests, that type of
material, my own belief is that that would be the most useful method
of assessing the content of it. I nnike that suggestion to the committee.
Senator Tydix-^gs. What is your answer to that, Mr. Mclnerney?
Mr. McIx'ERXEY. I would doubt very much if the actual record is in
existence any longer.
Senator Tydixgs. I would like to ask, too, in order to give every-
body here a "fair shake," Mr. Morgan, whether you think it would be
inappropriate to let counsel for Mr. Service see this transcript before
he binds himself to any answer on it, or whether he should not handle
it in that way.
Mr. Morgan". As I indicated, Mr. Chairman, I think there is a ques-
tion of propriety involved in the divulgence of information obtained
from technical sources of this kind, and I would like, certainly, to
have the concurrence of INIr. Service and his attorney before I read it
into the record, and inasmuch as there appears to be some question as
to the disposition at least to go along with the idea of my reading it
in at this point, inasmuch as the record was made, I personally think
it might be well to let them read this over in our presence and then
commit themselves one way or the other as they desire.
Senator Tydixgs. So long as you haven't the original document here,
■which would be the record itself, and this is a transcript, I would think
that fairness and justice would dictate that before Mr. Service or his
counsel commit themselves to tliis they ought at least to have a chance
to look at it.
Senator Lodge. Supposing Mr. Service's counsel objects to this.
Then what ?
Senator Titjix^gs. Then we can go ahead with it anyway, but it would
be nuich better to get it with his assent.
Senator Lodge. "'Assent'' meaning that he approves the accuracv
of it?
Senator Tydtx'Gs. No; I mean if he says "I am perfectly willing to
have this go into the record for wh.atover it is woi-th. and to be intei'-
rogated about it." That is what we would like to know.
1396 STATE department: employee loyalty investigation
Senator Lodge. Supposing lie says "I am not." Then what?
Senator Ttdixos. We can put it in anyway, but obviously, it would
nave a different standing.
Senator Lodge. Not being a lawyer, these points elude me. It seems
to me
Senator Tydings. It couldn't be offered at all under the rules of
evidence. That is what the caveat on the top of the letter says. So
we are putting something in here that would have no place in a court
01 law.
Senator Lodge. If this was a court of law, I wouldn't be here But
1 don t understand ; if we are investigating the question of whether
there were military plans made available by Mr. Service to Mr Jaffe
it seems to me we have got to look into this, whether Mr Service's
lawyer agrees or not. Therefore, I don't see why he should be asked.
1 don t object to it, on the understanding that I am not agreeing to
the necessity of asking him.
Mr. Service. I am not a lawyer either, Senator Lodge, but my owu
feeling with regard to the question Mr. Morgan asked is that I don't
what IS there. I don't know how ])erf ect the recording was, how com-
plete. It 1 could hear a phonograph record and could recognize my
voice, then I obviously could have no objection.
(Discussion was continued off the record.)
Senator Lodge. I do not feel that it is consistent with my duty as ,
a member of this committee to be bound by any objection that counsel
may make as to the iiitroduction of this verbatim transcript, and I feel
It is my duty, whether he likes it or not, to read that transcript and to
toJlow up the leads that it may develop.
Mr. Morgan. When you used the word "counsel" you meant Mr.
Service's counsel, I presume, Senator ?
Senator Lodge. That's right.
Mr. Morgan Referring again to the observations I made a few
moment^s ago, that m view of the question of divulgence involved in
this matter and my question was directed to the Communications
Act of 19o4 as amended, I would like again to suggest, Mr. Chair-
man, that if we can obtain the consent and assent of Mr. Service and
his attorney to the reading of this in the record, I think it would be
well It they do not so assent, then I think certainly the committee
should determine whether we will incorporate it in our record despite
their nonconcurrence. ^
Senator Tydings. I think that is a good procedure
Senator Lodge. You say the committee should determine: you do
not say the committee should do it? 5 .y ^
^^ll'^f'i '^^''^^''^- ^'"^^ '^^'' "^* *l^ey c^o i^ot give their con-
Senator Lodge. He is not reconnnending that we do it is he«
Mr. Morgan. I would say on that score, Senator, that I would have
some question about recommending that this committee do somethincr
that might constitute an affirmative violation of law and in that
connection I might say I think I have rather intimate knowledge or
acquaintance with the Communications Act and the provision with re-
spect to the divulgence of information obtained throuo-h the intercep-
tion of telephone conversations or the utilization of telephone de-
vices. I think certainly that in the event counsel for Mr Service re-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1397
fuses to extend his consent, tlien the committee can meet, possibly
here, and make a determination on this. At the moment I think we
liave not that bridge to cross, because Mr. Service and his attorney
may certainly agree to it.
Senator Lodce. I am just talking about sup|)osing they do not
agree. That is the point where I don't understantl what you are driv-
ing at. I frankly don't understand it, because I am not a law\ver and
I can't conceive that under S. 231 this committee was directed to do
anything that is prevented by any laws, and it seems to me that all I
need to know, the only law I need to know to do my duty on this
connnittee, is Senate Resolution 231, and that directs me to make
a full and com])lete investigation. I just can't understand what this
tenderness is. I just don't get it.
Senator Tydixgs. Let me see if we can't make progress by first- not
crossing the second bridge if it isn't necessary. We may get over
the first one. I would suggest that we submit the matter to Mr. Rhetts
without binding the committee to any course of action pro or con,
just to see whether or not he will consent to the reading of it on be-
half of his client.
Xow. if he does not consent, we can still read it if we want to read.
it. I would like to know what his attitude is about it. That is all
we have before us at this stage of the game. When we decide that
question, we Avill take up the next one. We can't decide two ques-
tions at the same time.
Senator Lodge. Have we ever done this before? I do not recall
its ever being done before.
Mr. Morgan. I think in our proceeding this is probably the first
time we have ever had this particular problem before us. I frankly
believe that the committee is entitled to this information, and should
have it incident to its deliberations. I do think that if we can grace-
fully avoid any problem under the statute we should avail ourselves
of the opportunity to do so, and that is why I think perhaps we
should obtain, if we can, the concurrence of Mr. Service and his
attorney.
Senator Tydixgs. So that we get it without violating the law, if
possible.
Let me ask, just in order that w^e might make progress, is there any
objection to letting Mr. Rhetts read it and getting his answer as to
whether or not he and his client are agreeable to us presenting it,
witliout binding us to any course of action, no matter what their
course of action might be ?
Senator Lodge. I make the statement I did before, that I consider
it is a duty to examine this document, whether jMr. Rhetts likes it or
not.
Senator Tydixgs. I do, too. I agree with you thoroughly. I think
it is a duty we have, but I think we can proceed in a fashion that can
make that dutv more agreeable than it otherwise would be.
]\fr. ]MoRGAX'. Where do we stand?
Senator Tydixgs. I put it to the connnittee.
Senator L()d<;e. I do not understand what the issue is and, not un-
derstanding it, you can outvote me if you want to, but I am not going
to give my consent to a procedure the full implications of which I do
not understand, and I don't understand all this ap})ears to be on the
surface.
1398 STATE DiEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator TydtnCxS. Senator Lodire desires that we go ahead with the
reading of this transcript without asking counsel or his client, Mr.
Service or Mr. Rhetts.
Senator Lodge. I have made no motion. I just do not want it to
appear on this record that this occurred by unanimous consent, be-
cause I don't want to give my consent to a procedure the full technical
import of which I do not understand.
Senator Tydings. Do you want us to go ahead ?
Senator Lodge. You are trying to get unanimous consent to this
procedure, which is a technical legal procedure the full import of
which I do not understand. I would rather have you vote it.
Senator Tydings. My point is, I am asking you specifically, shall
we go ahead with the reading of an alleged conversation without ask-
ing "for the consent of either Mr. Service or Mr. Rhetts, his counsel?
That is all.
Senator Lodge. I think to me the procedure we have followed right
along is, we have evidence come in and we examine it.
Senator Tydings. Then that answer w^ould be "Yes," would it?
Senator Lodge. I would like to go ahead with this transcript. 1
would be perfectly willing to let him see it as a matter of courtesy.
It is the matter of his disapproval that I don't understand.
Senator Tydings. That would not deny us the right to go ahead,
notwithstanding if they disapproved, but if it was illegally obtained
the caveat says it cannot be used in evidence. If it were obtained,
it would make it stronger.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Morris, will you give me your opinion as a
lawyer on this procedure ?
Mr. Morris. Senator, I think if we allowed Mr. Service to read this
at the beginning, and if he assents to it, then the question doesn't
arise. We can simply proceed. Whereas, if he objects, then we can i
address ourselves directly to the problem and fight it out. I have
many scruples about this whole thing. In the first place, I don't
know whether it is illegal. There is a caveat there, but when the
FBI men were in here they indicated very definitely that this was a
microphone, that it was not a wire tap, and they would have no objec-
tion whatever to its public release.
Mr. Morgan. On the record, I don't think the FBI ever made any
such representation in our record as to that, that there would be no
objection to its public release.
I\Ir. Morris. Are you taking advantage, Mr. Morgan, of the fact
that we were off the record for a period?
Mr. Morgan. I never avail myself of anything, Mr. Morris, but
the truth.
Senator Tydings. You have answered the question for Senator
Lodge. You say it would simplify the matter and eliminate the point
at issue if Mr. Service and/or his attorney would agree to its reading.
Senator Lodge. You don't object to this proceeding?
Mr. ]MoRRTs. I don't. But I want to be sure I make those reser-
vations on my own behalf, that we do not accept the caveat.
Senator Tydings. We are going to put it in anyAvay. It doesn't
malte any difference. But it is a whole lot better to get the assent
of the two yieople over here. There is no question about that.
All rig1)t: give it to Mr. Rhetts to read and let us get his opinion.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1399
Mr. RiiETTs. Mi<rlit I inquire, sir. whethor this purports to be a
verbatim transcript of the entire conversation of that morning?
Senator Tydings. That is my understanding. If you will start
at the beginning you will see why it isn't longer than it is.
Mr. Rhetts. It is not mere excerpts ?
Senator Tydings. It is not mere excerpts.
(Messrs. Rhetts and Service read the document under discussion.)
Mr. Rhetts. AVhile I recognize that you are not interested in the
pros and cons that go through my mind on this, I want to preface
my statement by reiterating what we have said throughout, namely
that to the extent that the committee has or that there exists some ac-
curate transcription of the conversation, we have said throughout
that we would like to cooperate with the committee and certainly let
the committee hear it. My difficulty with this paper here is that it
really reinforces my instinct before seeing it, namely, that the record
is the real thing that this committee ought to listen to.
This paper bears — in the first place, it is for the most part unintel-
ligible. In the second place it is internally inconsistent and, as I
say, largely gibberish. It makes no internal sense.
I am therefore understandably reluctant to consent to the introduc-
tion of this with any implication or suggestion that this is an accurate
transcription of a conversation. I really think that, upon examining
it, you will see that from the point of view of the committee's use the
thing you ought to have is the record, so that we can see whether it does
make any sense.
Senator Tydings. Mr. Mclnerney, how long will it take us to ascer-
tain whether or not a record is available ?
Mr. McIxERNEY. I have called already to ascertain that. I should
get a call here in a minute or two.
Senator Tydings. There isn't any question in the world about it,
that the best evidence, the accurate evidence and the most reliable and
the truest evidence, would be the record itself, that carries the voices,
and there can't be any question about that, this, or tlie other. There-
fore I am reluctant to make any observations about this piece of paper
until we find whether or not we can get the record, and I certainly hope
that the situation is such wherever you have to look for it that they
can tell us "Yes" or "Xo" very soon, because we don't want to wait here
all morning on it. Would you get after them on the telephone?
Senator Lodge. Is anybody disposed to question the accuracy and
the integi-ity of those who transcribed this piece of paper?
(Discussion was continued off the record.)
Senator Lodge. I would like to get an answer on the record as to
whether anybody questions the competence of the person or persons
who transcribed that piece of paper.
Senator Tydings. When you do read it, it might indicate its con-
dition.
Senator Lodge. Is there anybody who questions the accuracy or the
competency or integrity of the persons in the Department of Justice
to write that thing down ?
Mr. RiiEi^rs. Senator, I certainly do not question the integi-ity of
anybody in the Department of Justice who wrote it down, but I think
ordinary human experience tells us it is not inappropriate sometimes
to question the accurac}' of an attempt to transcribe a running conver-
68970 — 50 — pt. 1 89
1400 STATE DEPAETMEJSiT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
sation, and indeed there are places in here whicli simpl}'- have, in paren-
theses, "unintelligible."
Senator Lodge. You surprise me. I would have thought that if
there was one thing the FBI could be depended upon to do it would be
a technical job like transcribing a record into English on a piece of
paper. If they can't be trusted to do that, what can they be trusted
to do?
Mr. RiiETTS. This is not a question of whether the FBI is competent
to do it. The FBI is made up of human beings. It is a human
problem.
Senator Lodge. Any bright girl in my office can do that if they put
their attention to it.
Mr. Rhetts. Let me say this
Senator Lodge. I am trying to find out why you object to this.
Mr. Rhetts. In the first place, I would like to say that I have no
objection to the membei-s of this committee first of all reading this
paper, so that — and I think it will go a long way, Senator Lodge, to
indicate to you what I have in mincl — I think we are entirely agree-
able that you read this document. That is point one, and I urge you
to do so. I think you will then see some substance to my suggestion
that this is obviously a very poor transcription of what must have been
said, and I would like you to read it now; it is short, so you may see
wdiat I have in mind.
Mr. Morris. Even if the record is not available, it is perfectly
proper for us to bring the FBI agent who made this recording here
to testify as to what he did hear, and if some parts of it were unin-
telligible to him he can say so, but at least he will be a direct witness
to the effect. If it is just simply microphone information and testi-
mony it may well be argued that the microphone is simply the exten-
sion of the human ear, and he heard this conversation and he can be a
direct witness to the conversation that took place.
So even if Mr. Mclnerney can't get tlie record, I suggest we have
the FBI agent.
Senator Tydings. I hope we can, because that will solve this prob-
lem more than anything else we can do here this morning.
Mr. Rhetts. I am very anxious that the committee understand that
I am not trying to quibble about this, and I urge Senator Lodge to look
at this paper, so you can understand what I have in mind.
Senator Lodge. You are obviously an intelligent man, perfectly
capable of expressing your tlioughts,'^and I vrould like you to state in
simple English why you do not think the FBI or the Department of
Justice can be trusted to do a simple clerical ministerial thing like
typing out a record.
Mr. Rhetts. I have not suggested that they cannot be trusted, Sen-
ator, but I suggest to you that a reading of the language
Senator Lodge. I would like to get an answer to my question.
Mr. Rhetts. I will come more directly to your question. It is very
difficult to get a verbatim transcript of a running conversation. I have
had certainly considerable experience in that. I imagine Mr. Morgan,
Mr. Morris, and Mr. Mclnerney have. It is not a simple matter.
Senator Lodge. It is a simple matter when you can stop the record
\yhen you are taking it down from the record" and you can take your
time at it. The idea that in the FBI there isn't one person who can
do that accurately is simply fantastic.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATTON MOl
INfr. EiiETrs. If the recordino^ itself is a particularly good one.
There are all sorts of interfering noises which in the room at the time
do not seem very loud, but which when transcribed are deafening.
Senator I^dge. You don't want to answer my question, that is all..
Mr. McInerney. I would say that the only margin of error in
transcribing what is picked up on the record is the identification of the
voices. Perhaps Mr. Jafl'e may say something in a voice which the
listener may interpret to be that of Mr. Service. I would say that is
the onl}' margin of error.
Senator Lodge. That is not the poi nt Mr. Rhetts has made.
Mr. McIn^ernet. I understancl if they are having lunch or dinner
in the room and tJiere is loud clashing of dishes and things like that
the conversation becomes broken. But ihat is not the situation here.
Senator Lodge. Mr. Rhetts doesn't want to answer my question.
Mr. Rhetts. I am sorry, sir ; but I do.
Senator Lodge. My question is a perfectly simple one, and you
always gooff and talk about something else.
Mr. Rhetts. I do not intend to. It is my failure.
Senator Lodge. You do it,
Mr. RiEETTS. You asked me, if I understand it, why I should think
the FBI could not be trusted to make an accurate transcription of a
conversation.
Senator Lodge. No, I did not — an accurate transcription of a record.
It is an entirely different thing. A record you can repeat and repeat
and repeat until you get it right. It is a fundamental distinction..
Mr. Morris. I think 1 see what the difficulty is. I think possibly
your answer should be that the recording of the record is that, and
they have made a perfect transcript of it. However, the record may
not have picked up the whole conversation.
Senator Lodge. I can see how you might say that the record did not
give a faithful depiction of the conversation, but for you to say that
the writing does not give a faithful depiction of the record is what I
can't understand.
Mr. Rhetts. I am obviously in no position to say that, because I
have not heard the record. I only say to you that in view of the
almost unintelligible nature of this paper, the record might very
well be more helpful to us in order to get an intelligible transcription.
Senator Lodge. You are willing to have the record go in but yo\i
are not willing to have the paper equivalent go in ?
Mr. Rhetts. I have not even come to the record, but I do invite
you to read the paper and see if you miglit see my difficulty.
Senator Lodge. I would like to have j^ou tell me why 3'ou don't think
the FBI can be trusted to make an accurate transcription of a record.
Senator Greex. It will be easier for me to follow the discussion if I
can see the record which others have seen.
Senator Lodge. I haven't seen it.
I would like to get an answer to my question. Every time I stop to
get an answer I am interrupted.
Senator Tydixgs. Senator Lodge has asked Mr. Rhetts a question.
Mr. Rhetts, can you give the Senator an answer ?
Mr. Rhetts. I will try once more. I have read this paper. Senator
Lodge, and it makes very little sense. It is for that reason that I have
suggested possibly the record may make more sense. I cannot explain
1402 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION
why this would be an inaccurate transcription of a record, but I suggest
that if this is accurate, two men are talking substantially gibberish
to each other, and I do not make that assumption about the two men
involved. That is really why. It is the internal evidence which the
paper bears that raises the questions in my mind, and I believe the
same questions will be raised in your mind when you read it.
Senator Lodge. And you think it is conceivable that this paper
should be gibberish but that the recording would not be?
Mr. Rhetts. It is conceivable.
Senator Lodge. Just barely, though.
Senator Tydings. Your point is, as I understand your colloquy with
Senator Lodge, from reading this transcript of a recording, not that
the transcript per se is inaccurate in reflecting what is on the record-
ing, but that it would not be a fair representation of the conversation
that actually took place because from reading the transcript which
reflects accurately the recording, there seems to be so much confusion
and disconnection that it is not a logical transcription of the whole
conversation.
Mr. Rhetts. That is my inference.
Senator Lodge. You would therefore, to be consistent, not only ob-
ject to this going into the record — this paper — but you would also
object to the recording, so you are in the position of objecting to the
whole business.
Mr. Rhetts. No.
Senator Lodge. Wliy aren't you, in view of your answer to Senator
Tydings ? I am not trying to harass you at all. I am trying to find
out what you really mean.
Mr. Rhetts. You are not harassing me. I want to try to make
clear what I mean. All I am trying to suggest is that if we are all
interested, as I believe we are, in findiiig out really what Jaffe said
to Service and what Service said to Jane, since this paper is pretty
unintelligible, maybe we ought to see whether the record can give us
any help at all. I have not objected to either this paper or the record
going into the record yet. I have made the preliminary observation
to the committee that this paper is not intelligible.
Senator Tydings. Let me see if I can, with apologies to you, Mr.
Rhetts, get your thought so that I may have it clearly in mind.
Just as it would be somewhat questionable to have a part of the
record put in evidence, which is already the case and which necessi-
tates the bringing of what purports to be the whole thing, if when we
get what purports to be the whole thing we find that, too, is a part
of a greater whole, then you think that your client might be prejudiced
by having an imperfect record read here as purporting to be the whole
conversation that took place when, as a matter of fact, the playing
of the record itself might show obvious and apparent lapses in the
conversation.
Mr. Rhetts. That is essentially my position.
Senator Lodge, Let me observe there that, if this committee fol-
lows the rule of never looking into any part unless it can get the whole,
we won't investigate anything, because Senate Resolution 231 directs
us to look into the question of whether there is any disloyalty in the
State Department or whether there ever has been, and the whole of
that is to go back to Thomas Jefferson's time ; and, therefore, if you
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1403
are going to follow that rule, if you are going to be that lawyerish, we
might as well saw the whole thing off right now.
Senator Tydings. I don't mean to take Mr. Rhetts' point of view.
I simply wished to make the conversation clear in my own mind.
Senator Lodge. If that point of view prevailed, this committee
could not function at all.
Senator Tydings. I want to repeat that I did not accede to Mr.
Rhetts' point of view. I simply was stating it to get what I thought
was the connotation he intended.
Mr. Rheti\s. And could I, INIr. Chairman, add one further thought?
Ultimatel}' ni}" suggestion is based on the proposition, after reading
this paper, that it seems to me not at all unlikely that we might be
uble to give considerably more help to the committee in finding out
what was said if we could hear the actual record. I can't say that
that would be the fact, but it seems to me possible.
Senator Lodge. I would like to hear the record, too.
]Mr. McInernet. They just informed me that they checked with
the FBI, and the FBI states they are quite sure this record has been
destroyed, but they are making a further check.
Senator Ty'dings. Let us approach tliis on a tentative basis, and
I emphasize the word "tentative." Of course, if we can get the record
we are going to send for it and play it. In view of what you have
said, there is a fair chance we are not going to get the record. In the
event we are not going to get the record, what is the pleasure of the
committee?
Mr. Rhetts. Since I have not responded to the primary request
that was made of me, I propose to do that. I was asked whether we
would consent to the use of this paper by the committee, and I have
not yet addressed myself to that question, because I was making
what I thought was a preliminary observation.
We will not withhold our consent to the use of this paper for 1
minute. If the committee thinks that this paper is of value to it in
its inquiry, we will not interpose any objection. We do suggest, as I
have attempted very tactfully to point out, that the conversation as
recorded here seems essentially unintelligible.
Senator Tydings. I make a suggestion, tlien, that in order to get
along we proceed with the paper, and if we can get the record then,
later on, we play the record back and compare it with the paper,
to see if there is any difference. If there is, we will make corrections
at that time. In the meantime, with your consent, I see no reason
why we should not proceed with the paper.
Mr. Morgan, wnthout objection, you maye continue w^ith your inter-
rogation on this record.
Mr. Morgan. I do therefore have your consent, Mr. Service, and
that of your attorney, to read this into the record ?
Mr. Rhetts. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. This conversation is prefaced by this statement:
Juffe and John A. Service entered Jaffe's room after having breakfast in
coffee shop.
Senator Green. How do they know where he had breakfast?
Senator Lodge. "Wlio said this? Who makes the statement?
Mr. Morgan. Perhaps we ought to get that clear in our record.
1404 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Mclnterney, can you help us as to who is responsible for this
statement preceding the verbatim transcript of the conversation?
Mr. McInerney, I assume that statement is based upon a physical
surveillance of the agents watching them in the coffee shop.
Mr. SEm^CE. In any event, it is my recollection that we had break-
fast in the coffee shop. I insisted on paying the bill, and we had
quite an argument.
Mr. Morgan (reading) :
They listened to radio addresses by President Truman and Prime Minister
Churchill.
Senator Tybings. So VE-day had been behind us.
Mr. Morgan. As a ])refatory statement, the parties to the conversa-
tion are identified by "S" and '^J", ''S" for Mr, Service and "J" for
Mr. Jaffe.
Senator Green. Are you reading?
Mr. Morgan. I am reading now, sir :
S. If he did it, it \\\U be translated. Have you been trying to keep track of
what the Chinese are doing at San Francisco?
.7. I can't keep track of them. I'll know later on.
S. They apparently are avoiding any controversy with the Soviet Union. They
are staying, hoping on the Argentina thing. And there seem to be some indi-
cations that they are trying to play up to the Russians, hoping for some sort
of understanding with the Soviet Union.
J. Well, they are not talking privately as if they are.
S. Well, they certainly publicly are avoiding being placed in opposition.
Indian representatives (anyhow) (.)
J. I guess these are the only things.
S. Did you get a chance to look them over?
J. (Unintelligible.)
S. The reason I — I had the same idea out in China before I came home, that
the President might be playing that sort of a game and was playing a very deep
game in not revealing his hand to the Chungking government but when I got
home and found out the violence and bitterness of the argument going on here, I
dropped it. I mean, if so, there wasn't any reason for the State Department
to be smacked down, more or less. There wasn't any reason for Hurley to be
kept in the dark.
.1. Well, I'll tell you what I think happened. .Tack. I've been thinking about
that very hard. I think that Roosevelt recognized after he appointed Hurley,
that it was a mistake to appoint him, but once Hurley did his dirty work, there
was nothing — would have to take time. I think that of the three big nations
we are the only one in which an individual plays such a big role. It is incon-
ceivable that a Soviet aml)assador would operate as an individual but here it
happens frequently. And I think Hurley put Roosevelt and the whole country
on the spot and Roosevelt was trying to tind a way of getting out — sending
Hurley to some very important area where there was some difficulty. So I
can't imagine that Roosevelt changed his ideas about China overnight, and he
would have been delighted if he could have found some excuse for firing the guy,
but of course Hurley put us in such a terrible spot, and has still got us on the
spot where we can't move any longer without openly defying Chungking.
S. Well, what I said about the military plans is. of course, very secret.
J. Yes, well, that was talked around about
S. That plan was made up by Wedemeyer's staff in his absence, they got
orders to make some recommendations as to what we should do if we landed
in Communist territory. They had several
J. To cooperate with them?
S. Well, yes that's what we planned, and they showed me the plans they
had drawn up and if we cooperated with Chimgking troops if we in recovering
territory, in other words, when we were in Chungking territory, we would have
to go on cooperating with them. Tliose were the orders. But if we landed in
territory where the Communists were, without any question they'd be the domi-
nant force.
J. Why would they have to cooperate with the Communists?
STATE DEPAHTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1405
S. Chungking, of course, has been putting pressure on us, trying to get us to
agree to take in Kiinmiiitang ofRrials, government officials wherever we land.
As far as we know we had not l)ecn given any power to do that. But if you get
Hurley tliere, for Hurley to be consistent, why you'd get Hurley putting his
intluence probably behind — Hurley has all the way down the line only recognized
Chiang Kai Shek. and our job is to strengthen Chiang Kai Shek, and to support
him. and to bring all the forces in China under Chiang Kai Shek's control. If
he says all this publicly, he's going to be just sitting there laughing. And he's
going to have a hard time refusing to take in Chungking officials.
J. Hurley's lighting Chungking then'/
S. Oh, yes. — Well, on that line of the Chinese not — with the Russians, Petroff
(ph) the new Soviet Ambassador stopped in (?) and stayed for about 9 days — •
and Award (ph) reports that this is the fir.st time since lie'd been there that
there'd been any attempt to be friendly with the Russians. All Chungking pa-
pers have been carrying practically identically the same wording, and it is
obvious that it was prepared stuff and Chunglcing is avoiding anything deroga-
tory, etc.
Following that verbatim quotation from the record there follows
statements apparently by whoever prepared this particular statement
here, and I might ask yon, ^Ir. Mclnerney, who prepared the latter
part of it ? Was that prepared by the FBI 'I
Mr. McIxERXEY. Yes.
Mr. MoRGAX. I will proceed, then, to read this :
Jaffe tells Service about T. V. Soong's visit to Washington, D. C, recently.
Jalfe and Service continue their conversation along lines of whether or not Rus-
sia will declare war on .Japan. Jaffe says Russia will not do so, as they know
they are not wanted by the British and the United States. Service asked Jaffe
what effect Russia's declaration of war on Japan would have, and Jaffe said
Russia would declare war on Japan on one of two conditions :
1. The San P'rancisco Conference breaks down, and Russia decides that it must
settle matters of its defense in the old-fashioned way :
2. A coalition government (democratic) is formed in Chungking which would
ask Russia to enter the war, which invitation Russia would accept.
(End of record.)
Mr. Service, after having read this statement, do you recall the
conversation with Mr. Jaffe ? Does this refresh your recollection in
any wa^'^
Mr. Service. No, sir ; I have no specific recollection of the conver-
sation or of making those statements. It is over 5 years, and it wasn't
a conversation that would have been particularly noteworthy at the
time.
Mr. MoRGAX. I notice you apparently, referring to this conversa-
tion, have asked Mr. Jaffe as to what he is doing to keep in touch
with what is going on in San Francisco. I presume that refers to the
United Nations Conference there?
Mr. Service. I would assiune so — the general attitudes of the
different delegations. ''Following it" I suppose meant following it in
the press.
Mr. MoRGAX'. As I gather from what you said, you don't recall
ever having asked such question ?
Mr. Service. No.
Mr. Morgax'. Does that mean that any questions I might ask you
concerning tliis conversation as reported here, on the basis of your
having read it and having heard it read, would not call to mind any
of the particulars or the details of the conversation?
Mr. Service. I don't want to seem to be quibbling, but I am afraid
that is so, that I do not have positive recollection of the conversation.
1406 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION"
Mr. Morgan, Initially, I want to ask you about this one statement
here that is attributed to you : "Well, what I said about the military
plans is, of course, very secret."
Mr. McInerney. Excuse me. You used the word "is." I see; O.K.
I was thinking of previous, the word "was."
Senator Tydings. He is reading it verbatim.
Mr. Morgan. The question again, referring to this statement, "Well,
what I said about the military plans is, of course, very secret."
As I read this conversation here, up to the point that you make this
statement about what you said about the military plans being secret,
apparently in this portion of the conversation the discussion I think
by fair standards would not necessarily relate to military matters.
Does this mean, perchance, that prior to your entering Mr. Jaffe's
room you had discussed with him military plans, let us say, at
breakfast ?
Mr. Service. Well, this is half of a conversation, or a continuation
of a conversation which we apparently — of which we apparently do
not have any record. I assume that the refers back to some discussion
earlier.
Mr. Morgan. Assuming this to be correct for the present purposes,
and for the present purposes we are so assuming it, you manifestly
said to Mr. Jafl'e, "Well, what I said about the military plans is, of
course, very secret." Now I am wondering if you have any recollec-
tion of the antecedent circumstances under which you discussed mili-
tary plans with Mr. Jaffe.
Mr. Service. No. I can attempt the reconstruction of what the
earlier conversation may have been.
Mr. Morgan. Would it be speculative, or would it be your rec-
ollection ?
Mr. Service. I am afraid it would have to be speculations based on
various hints here as to what the antecedent conversations may have
been.
Mr. Morgan. Based on the hints as they are revealed to you, what
would have been the whole conversation ?
Mr. Service. The whole conversation, not only based upon that one
sentence, but the whole conversation ?
Mr. Morgan. Wliat comments would you like to make in the light
of that fact ?
Mr. Service. May I glance at that a moment ?
There had been, I assume, a general discussion of what American
policy was in China. Jaffe, I believe or asstime, had been arguing
that American policy was completely committed to exclusive support
of one faction, and I had been pointing out my conviction from public
statements and so on that that was not the case, and that we were
hoping that there would be a settlement in China, accommodation be-
tween the two parties resulting in some sort of unification or Avorking
arrangements between the two. I had mentioned, for instance, there,
that the Chinese were obviously avoiding any oifense to the Rus-
sians in the hopes that they would be able to make some sort of
arrangement with the Russians which they thought would also lead
toward a settlement of the internal problems.
As refutation of what I believe was Jaffe's reasoning, I mentioned
I think during this interview a statement which had shortly before
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY USTV'ESTIGATIOlSr 1407
been repeated to me by n Avriter on the Far East who had interviewed
President KooseveU shortly before his deatli.
Mr. Morris. Wliat was his name, sir?
JMr. Skrvice. His name was Snow, sir — Edgar Snow. He was
writinof at that time, and is still writing, for the Saturday Evening
Post, Snow had asked President Roosevelt some questions about our
policy in China, whether or not we were committed exclusively to
one faction, and President Roosevelt had replied "Certainly not.
We have been doing business witli both sides, and we expect to con-
tiiuie doing business Avith both sides."
And I think that in the conversation with Jaife I may have Used
as an example of the fact that we were tryino- to avoid complete com-
mitment the fact that thinking in Chungking, in the headquarters
there, was that we would probably have to expect as a matter of prac-
ticality that if we landed, although I never knew whether or not we
were, we would probably have to cooperate with whatever force we
found organized and able to be effective in assisting us.
Now, I don't recall ever having seen any military plan. I do have
a hazy recollection that a staif officer or staff officers in Chungking
consulted me at one time in regard to drawing up a memorandum
reconnnending the policy that shoidd be taken. I also had written
several memoranda on the same subject which are included among
the documents that have been presented to the Loyalty Security
Board of the State Department, and it is quite possible that I may
have mentioned to Jaffe that the headquarters thinking is, "As a
matter of practicality we are going to have to work with whoever we
find if we do that."
Mr. Morris. That is not a military plan, is it, Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. No, sir: it is not a military plan, and I do not know
whether that memorandum was ever approved formally. I think it
is obvious from the second page there that there were several different
alternatives drawn up, and that this was one of the alternatives.
Mr. Morgan. You see, ]Mr. Service, why this is very significant to us,
because here on our record is this admonition to Jaffe: "Well, whati
I said about the military plans is, of course, very secret." Now mani-
festly you must have said it to Jaffe, and manifestly what has gone
before, at kast in this conversation, does not enlighten us much on
what you said about military plans. That is why I would like for you,
as much as you can. to help us on what you did tell Jaffe, apparently
prior to this admonition, which we apparently don't have.
Mr. Service. I am trying to explain as well as I can, or to reconstruct
as well as I can, the only kind of statement that I could have made,
and the one which seems to be logically consistent with the content of
this memorandum. I think that it is quite possible that I may have
mentioned to him that a memorandum had been drawn up suggesting
among our various alternatives that we would have to work with
whatever forces we found on the ground. I was not in position in
headquarters in Chungking where I had access to or had knowledge
of the military plans. The only contact I had with that was when I
was consulted by one of the officers drawing this particular
memorandum up.
Mr. ]\IoRGAX. Would you have regarded a discussion with Mr. Jaffe
of this memorandum and its contents as being military plans, in con-
templation of this admonition ?
1408 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. I don't understand why I used the word "plan," because
so far as I knew, it was not a final plan.
Senator Lodge. Wliy did you use the word "military" ?
Mr. Service. Well, everything military and political was tied up,
but this was in a sense predominantly a military plan, although the
decision would have been made here in Washington, not in Chungking,
largely on political grounds, as to whether or not we would cooperate
with one faction or the other.
Senator Lodge. I understand that the military and the political
were mixed up at that level of the command in all the theaters of the
war, but still you did use that word "military," and you must have
used it for the purpose of drawing a distinction, and 1 am trying to
see if you can tell me why you used that word "military" rather than
using the word "political" or rather than using no adjective at all
and just saying "plans."
Mr. Service. I have no definite recollection of the conversation,
even. I can't answer that right now. I did feel more qualified to talk
about the political background in China than I did about anything
away from the strictly political field. Certainly if I had mentioned
even for background information such as this, for the sake of argu-
ment, telling this man in general what our policy was, if I got away
from strictly the Chinese political scene, I would have cautioned the
man against taking what I said as authoritative, or using it in any
way, because I wasn't qualified to talk on those matters.
_ Senator Lodge. But, of course, these words of yours do not give the
impression that what you were saying about military plans was not
authoritative. It gives the impression that you were telling him not
to reveal what you said about military plans because they were secret.
Ihat is an entirely different thing, as I am sure you will recognize.
Mr. Service. I recognize that, and I chose my words in what I was
saying very unwisely, because I was not revealing any military plans
1 had no knowledge of the military plans.
Senator Lodge. You tliink you misspoke?
Mr. Service. I think I misspoke; yes.
Senator Lodge. Was this material here available to the Board in
the State Department that cleared you immediately or soon after the
Amerasia incident? Do you know?
Mr. SER\acE. I do not know, sir.
(Discussion was had off tlie record.)
^ Senator Lodge. I would like to just ask you what your best guess
is as to what you specifically had in mind when you used the word
"military."
Mr Service. Well, this is just a guess, sir, an attempt to recon-
struct what I might have meant by that phrase. I think that what I
meiint was material not connected with the purely political situation
in China. ^
Senator Lodge. Specifically, what?
Mr Service. Such as the niaterial I have just described earlier, that
the thinking of at least some of the officers in the headquarters in
Chungking was that we should preserve freedom of action by being
in a position to cooperate with whatever military forces we mio-ht find
in a position to help us. However, my information on that was not
authoritative, it was not final ; I did not know what definite plans
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1409
were. In any case, that would be background information wliicli I
would caution any man on very rigidly.
Senator Lodge.* You think that is as far as you could have gone m
a military way ?
Mr. Service. I am sure, sir, that is as far as I could have gone.
Senator Lodge. You do not think you gave them any locations of
units or phase lines or troop movements or anything of that sort?
Mr. Service. Let me sav. Senator Lodge, that I did not have such
knowledge, and I think that can be confirmed by people who were
associated with me in the headquarters in Chungking. . .
Senator Lodge. Have you ever had any military training?
Mr. Service. No, sir.
Senator Lodge. You would not understand what a lot of those things
meant even if vou saw them? , ^, ,. i j
Mr. Service. I was not used as adviser in the Chungking head-
quarters on military matters. I was not a member of the staff confer-
ences that dealt with military matters.
Senator LoD<iE. Did you have access to the war room at head-
quarters? . , . ^ . 1
:Mr. Service. I attended occasional morning briefing sessions, where
we saw the situation maps.
Senator Lodge. You did? How often did you do that?
Mr. Service. I only remember attending a few. Generally they
gave a summary of the situation in the Battle of Iwo Jima or Okinawa.
That was going on at the time. "China" seems rather inaccurate.
Senator Lodge. I am not talking about the general situation they
gave you for information, like Iwo Jima or the battle in eastern
Germany.
Mr. Service. Those are the sessions I went to.
Senator Lodge. I am talking about the war room and the situation
map insofar as it regarded the theater in which you were serving.
Did you attend meetings in the war room at which actual tactical
dispositions on the ground were discussed in the theater in which
you were serving?
Mr. Service. I remember one meeting that I went to where there
was some discussion of the very small-scale fighting going on in north
Burma. That would be in the theater. But it was just a day-to-day
briefing of tlie dav's situation.
Senator Lodge.* Did they talk about the disposition of the Air Force^
of the United States Air Force that was out there, and did you see a
map showing where their fields were?
Mr. Service. Well, certainly there were plenty of maps of fields.
Those were well known.
Senator Lodge. I am trying to get at the question of whether you
were present at these conferences that were held in every military
area in which the actual operations on the map in that area were
discussed. I am not talking about background lectures about what
was going on in Iwo Jima or wliat was going on along the Khine.
I aui talking about lectures about the theater in which you were
working. Did you hear discussion of tactics, plans and phase lines,
and all that sort of thing?
Mr. Service. Not being a military man, perhaps I don't understand
your question. I went occasionally to the daily briefing sessions which
1410 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
discussed the situation, wliicli included discussion of the daily situa-
tion in the theater, which was very inactive. I was never in any ses-
sion where plans were discussed or future operations. It was sim-
ply a summary of the day's news.
Senator Lodge. General briefing ?
Mr. Service. That is right, with indications on the map where the
lines were, and so on, but I have never been present at nor have I
taken part in any discussion of future plans.
Senator Lodge. The theater was very inactive; wasn't it, in which
you served?
Mr. Service. It was most of the time ; yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. Insofar as the ground warfare is concerned, it was
almost totally inactive; was it not?
Mr. Service. It was in the spring of 19J:5 ; yes, and of course for
the most of the time I was in China in 1945 I was up in Yenan and
completely separate from Chungking and had no knowledge of what
was going on in Chungking.
Senator Lodge. That was just before you came over here?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir, a month before I came back here.
Senator Lodge. Are you married ?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. How long have you been married ?
Mr. Service. Almost 17 years.
Senator Lodge. When you came here in 1945 where was your family ?
Mr. Service. My family was in California, where they had been
during the war. I was separated from my family for almost 6 years.
Senator Lodge. Wlien you came here, did you bring your family
here?
Mr. Service. There were some technical problems of bringing them
here— questions of assignments and orders. They could not order my
family here because I was only here temporarily, and I did not have
a permanent assignment until in May, when it was possible for the
State Department to bring my family here.
Senator Ttdings. I would like to ask two or three questions.
At any time did you have in your possession while you were in the
Unitecl States any military plans on paper or memoranda devoted
exclusively to military matters on paper?
Mr. Service. No, sir; I did not have any papers of either one of
those categories.
Senator Tydings. Did you at any time give to Mr. Jaffe any other
papers than those which you have generally described heretofore in
your testimony?
Mr. Service. No, sir ; I did not. The only papers which I gave him
were my personal copies of descriptive memoranda concerned with the
situation and political developments in China.
Senator Tydings. To what extent were you reasonably intimately
informed about military matters, either in China or on your return
to the United States here in Washington, apart from the political side
to which you were generally assigned and to which you occupied your
talents, following Senator Lodge's general interrogation there as to
whether or not you were reasonably well informed when you got
home by any departments here about military matters ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1411
Mr Service. I would say that while I was physically in Chungking
I was reasonablv well informed concerning the actual military situa-
tion, the dav-to-day developments, because I was permitted——
^^nator Tydings. Do you mean yoa had general knowledge, or
sDBcific militarv planning knowledge? . -^ ^- i
%r. Service.^I had general knowledge of the situation-situational
knowledge, and not planning knowledge. After 1 left Chungking,
sir, and Was in Yenan, I had no knowledge except what we picked up
over the radio news broadcast. When 1 returnexl to the United States,
I had far less knowledge than I had in China. I really had knowledge
onlv of that which I gained from reading ne\yspapers, because as an
officer on consultation 1 was not assigned any regu ar duties m the
Department of State. I did not even see the daily flow of telegrams
and other communications which came in. I was simply spending my
time beincr interrogated, being questioned, talking to peop e about
China and imparting to them whatever knowledge they wished to gam
from me about China. -n ^^ t m
Senator Tydixgs. I want to ask you this very specifically: 1 would
assume from your testimony that from time to time you had contact
with a irreat many newspapermen, magazine writers, ancl people gen-
erally who were concerned with the business of transmitting public
information. Is that a correct assumption ?
:Mr. Service.' That is correct, sir. That was a very large part of my
assignment. ^ ^ . x i i
Senator Tydixgs. T would assume that these conferences took place
both in China and in the United States when you were here; is that
correct ?
Mr. Service. Continually in both places.
Senator Tidings. Was it a customary thing for you, when you dis-
cussed background of the kind you have before alluded to m your
testimony to say to those with whom you were talking. You must
keep this confidential" or "This is, of course, off the record," or "This
is secret " or whatever connotation you would use at the conclusion ot
the imparting of such information as you deemed to be a part of your
job to these "writers, either newspaper people, magazine people, or
otherwise ?■ Did you have an general statement that you made ?
Mr. Service. I don't think I had any general statement. It de-
pended on the circumstances. It was quite common, in discussing
backcrround, to caution a man that this was something which he had to
keep^nder his hat; that he could not use; that was still secret, or
something of that sort.
Senator Tydings. I suppose— and correct me if I am wrong— that
you o-ave them background so that they could project the events that
were^happening and about which they knew more accurately because
of the backgiTjund you would give them against which those events
would be evaluated. . . -, ^ ■,-
Mr. Service. So they could have a perspective m understanding
the daily events. . .
Senator Tydings. In how many conversations with newspapermen,
either in China or at home, do you think you, at the conclusion of
whatever you may have transmitted, made some cautionary state-
ment ?
1412 STATE DEPARTMEJSTT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. Well, a very great number of such conversations, I
couldn't hazard a guess, sir, because I talked to so many people in the
same general sort of way.
Senator Tydings. Did you treat Jaffe in more or less the same cate-
gory as a man connected with a magazine that you treated the other
people to whom you have background information and who were
writers, or did he have some special consideration ?
Mr. Service. The level of a man's conversation with a writer or
journalist depends on several considerations, of course. An agency
reporter interested in day-to-da}^ news you are not apt to be discussing
background information with to quite the same extent as you are
with the man who is writing a book or who is writing a magazine
article or doin^ what was really a background article. Jaffe, of
course, was, so far as I knew, and I treated him as such, an editor of
a specialist magazine, and he was also in process of completing a book
on the Far East.
Senator Lodge. Was he in good standing with the State Depart-
ment Press Bureau?
Mr. Service. Well, I can't answer that question specifically. I
don't know that he was not in good standing, but I would say, and
"we have had testimony at Loyalty Board hearings to this effect, that
most contacts between the State Department officers and — I use the
word "correspondents" as against spot-news men — most of those con-
tacts with the correspondents, background people, do not go through
the Press Bureau, the Press Section.
Senator Lodge. But their opinion would be worth something. Mr.
McDermott's opinion as to whether Jaffe was a reputable, dependable
fellow would be of interest; would it not?
Mr. Service. Yes; it would have been of interest.
Senator Tydings. Let me put it this way : Do you yourself know
what Jaffe's standing was with the State Department, as to whether
lie was a reliable disseminator of news information from where they
sat, or whether he was not; whether he was trustworthy or whether
he was not ? Had you received any information ?
Mr. Service. I had not received any information. I knew he was
acquainted with various people in the Department, and in other
Departments.
Senator Lodge. Who?
Mr. Service. He was acquainted, of course — my first introduction
to him was through a naval officer. He was acquainted with a man
who was working in Lend-Lease.
Senator Lodge. I thought you said he was acquainted with people
in the State Department.
Mr. Morris. Who was the naval officer ?
Mr. Service. Lieutenant Roth. And I knew he was acquainted with
several other people over there.
Mr. Morris. Who were they ? Do you mind mentioning the names ?
Mr. Service. He was acquainted with a man named Da vies, Donald
Davies.
Mr. Morris. John Davies' brother ?
Mr. Service. I knew he was acquainted with Larsen, who was work-
ing in the State Department.
Mr. Morris. Did you have a high opinion of Larsen ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1413
Mr.' Service. At that time I had no reason for any h)w opinion of
him. All I knew of him was that he was a research analyst working
in that Division of Territorial Studies.
Mr. MoRiiis. And you would take his judgment on a man; would
you ?
'Mr. Skkvtce. I certainly would not now, sir.
Senator Lodge. He is answering your (juestion as to whom he knew
that spoke well of Jall'e. Itis very important.
I^Ir. Service. I didn't say who spoke well of him. It was who i
knew knew him. He knew a man in Lend-Lease named Ray ; he knew
a man in FEA named Barber. I knew he knew a man in the Division
of Chinese Affairs named Friedman.
Senator Lodge. But you didn't know what Mr. McDermott thought
about him ?
Mr. Service. No, sir.
Senator Lodge. You know :Mr. McDermott, don't you ?
;Mr. Service. Yes. He was in San Francisco at the time.
Senator Lodge. Mr. McDermott has been in the State Department
for 30 years, and he has as current a knowledge of members of the
American press as any one living man.
Mr. Service. Yes. But in the far eastern field the magazine was
well known, and there was nothing, so far as I knew, that was deroga-
torv that was known about it at the time.
For instance, when Mr. Jaffe wanted to get a copy of this radio
broadcast, I said, "Well, come on over to the State Department and I
will introduce you to the man who handles that. I don't have anything
to do with that, and I don't know whether or not it is available," and
I took him to the man in the Division of Chinese Affairs in the State
Department and he knew of Jaffe, he had no hesitation in giving it to
him. He said, as a matter of fact, at the time, that it was available to
writers and specialists.
Senator Lodge. I have another question, but I have interrupted
Senator Tydings. -r ^ , i i i
Mr. SER^^CE. Also I knew at this time that Jaffe had had an inter-
view with Mr. Grew, for instance.
Senator Ttdings. I would like to get back, if you don't mmd— and
1 welcome the interruption because it brought out some matters that
I would like to see brought out— to this military thing for a minute.
You have conveyed the impression by your testimony that you were
not well informed on what was going to take place militarily, any
more than general information. You had no specific information.
You handled no plans. You came in contact very remotely with any-
thing in the military line. That has been the tenor of your tesiniony.
Your testimony has been that your field of endeavor was the political
side.
j\rr. Service. The political background.
Senator Tydings. What I want to ask you is this, and I want you to
think before you answer it: As you think back on your conversations,
refreshed in part by this memorandum, together with the chance to
reflect further as questions have been put to you, was your conversa-
tion with Mr. Jaffe at this time devoted just exclusively to the political
field, the matter of general knowledire which cA-erybody had of the
military field, or did you go beyond that perimeter into specified or
secret or other parts of the military picture?
1414 STATE I>EPARTME]STr EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
•
Mr. Service. It- is my belief, sir, that I was trying to orient him,
and as I remember it, arguing with him to try and correct a misappre-
liension of his as to what general over-all policy was.
Senator Tydings. Politically or militarily ?
Mr. Service. The two cannot be entirely separated. The question
of whether or not we were going to exclusively play with one crowd
was intimately tied up with the question of what we would do if •
Senator Tydings. Let me rephrase the question, because that is
what I am after and I probably did not make it specific enough.
I want to ask you whether, refreshed as you are by that memoran-
dum, in that conversation, you did discuss with Mr. JafFe any secret
military plans per se.
Senator Lodge. Of a tactical nature, is that what you mean ?
Senator Tydings. Of a tactical nature, thinking primarily of opera-
tions of troops.
Mr. Service. I say to you, Senator Tydings, in all honesty andj
sincerity, that I could not have discussed any military plans of that
nature with him, because I knew none.
Senator Tydings. I understand that. I think you have said you
were not given that kind of information in the first place, but I think
it is important for the record to show whether or not in spite of that
you attempted to discuss it.
Mr. Service. I did not.
Senator Lodge. In furtherance of your question, in the European
theater they would use the word "bigot" in the technical sense, mean-
ing those who had been cleared for the very highest military secrets.
Were you in that group ? I think we ought to know whether or not
you were cleared for the very highest types of military secrets. I
think it IS very pertinent.
Mr. Service. May I go off the record? I would like to make an
explanation off the record.
Senator Tydings. For a moment, off the record. We will go back
on. What is the purpose of going off?
(Discussion was had off the record.)
Senator Lodge. Were you cleared for the very most secret types
of purely military information?
Mr. Service. No, sir; I was not.
Senator Lodge. Were you cleared for the most secret information
regarding troop movements ?
Mr. Service. No, sir.
Senator Lodge. Regarding dates and hours at which tactical devel-
opments would take place ?
Mr. Service. No, sir.
Senator Lodge. Regarding the location of guns or air fields or supply
depots or other military installations ?
Mr. Service. No, sir.
Senator Lodge. Regarding phase lines?
Mr. Service. No, sir. I do not know what that phrase means.
Senator McMahon. There has been some suggestion or some dis-
cussion about the meaning of "military plans" a^ incorporated in this
memorandum.
Service, according to this transcript, says, "Well, what I said about
the military plans is, of course, very secret."
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1415
The next remark is that of Jaffe :
Yes. Well, that was talked around about.
Skrvick. That plan was made up by Wodonieyer's staff in his absence. They
g:ot orders to make some reconniicndatious as to what we should do if we
landed in Communist territory. They had several
Jaffk. To cooperate with them?
Skrvice. Well, yes. That is what we planned, and they showed me the plans
they had drawn up, and if we cooperated with Chunskins troops, if we were
recovt>ring territory, in other words, when we were in Chungking territory we
would have to go on cooperating with them. Those were tlie orders. But if
Me landed in territory where the Communists were, without any question they
would be the dominant force.
What I "want to find out is, Does the subsequent conversation which
details the phm based upon territory that was invaded refer to this
remarks of yours in which you are quoted as saying, "Well, what I said
about the military plans is, of course, very secret"?
Mr. Service. Yes, I think it was. My recollection is that this refers
to a memorandum which I was consultant about, which was a sugges-
tion of what policy we should follow in the event of a possible landing.
Senator INIcMahon. And did you speak of that in terms of it being
a military plan?
Mr. Service. Yes, a staff memorandum which I saw in the prepara-
tory stages while the officers were working on it.
Senator McMahon. And the essence of the military plan that you
discussed with Jaft'e was the political decision to cooperate with the
Chungking Government if you landed in Chungking territory, and
with the Communist forces if they landed in Communist territory ?
Mr. Service. Precisely, sir, although that was not a final decision.
It was merely something that wasbeing drawn up as recommendations.
Senator McMahox. Well now, the rest of this testimony is along
the same lines. "Why would they have to cooperate with the Com-
munists ? " asks Jaffe, and you said,
Chungking, of course, has been putting pressure on us trying to get us to agree
to take in Kuimintang, Comintern, government officials, wherever we landed. As
far as we know, we had not been given any power to do that. But if you get
Hurley there, for Hurley to be consistent, why you'd get Hurley putting hi*
influence probably behind- — ■
Hurley has- all the way down the line always only recognized Chiang Kai-shek.
Our job is to strengthen Chiang Kai-shek and to support him and to bring all
the forces in China under Chiang Kai-shek's control. If he says all this, public
is going to be just sitting there laughing.
'WHiom did you mean by that ?
Mr. Service. That is incomprehensible.
Senator McMahon. "And he is going to have a hard time refusing to
take in Chungking officials."
Mv. Service. We get into this area
Senator ISIcMahox. That you can't identify ?
Mr. Service. No, sir. It doesn't seem to logically hang together.
Senator ]\ICi\lAiiox. What I want to make clear, so I can understand
it, if I can ixet it clear, is that you are now telling us that the statement,
"Well, what I said about the military plans is, of course, very secret"
referred to the military plan of cooperating with the Communists
where the Commmiists were in control and with Chiang where Chiang
was in control ?
Mr. Service. That is my recollection.
68970 — 50— pt. 1 90
1416 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATIOlS
Senator Loek^e. Mr. Service, did you ever have any highly secret
information regarding proposed utilization of the road net?
Mr. Service. Will you repeat the question, sir ?
Senator Lodge. Were you ever cleared to be a recipient regarding
information relative to proposed utilization of the road net in your
theater ?
Mr. Service. I don't understand the question, sir. I don't know
what you mean. The terms are not intelligible to me ; I'm sorry.
Senator Tydings. May I take advantage of this lull ? I have been
called to my office, and the chances are I won't be able to get back here
before lunch. Can you gentlemen meet this afternoon at 2 : 30 and
go ahead with this ? I apologize for interrupting the interrogation.
We will meet at 2 : 30, and Senator McMahon, if you can preside, I
would like for you to do it. I will be in and out, and we will go along
with the interrogation. I won't be absent all the time, but I may be
called out.
Senator Lodge. I was trying to find out whether you were in that
very small group that received highly secret information regarding
proposed use of roads for military purposes.
Mr. Service. No, sir ; I was not.
'■ Senator Lodge. Do you remember roughly what the troop list was
in your theater, in a general way ?
Mr. Service. It would have to be the wildest guess. I do not re-
member, sir.
Senator Lodge. Do you remember how many American-equipped
Chinese divisions there were?
Mr. Service. As a matter of public knowledge the original pro-
gram was, I think, 20 or 19, and it was later increased to 39, but that
is just from the press, from open sources.
Senator Lodge. Do you think that if you had known as much about
the status of American public opinion and the realities of the Ameri-
can press as you knew about the realities of Chinese opinion and the
Chinese press you might possibly have conducted yourself a little
differently when you got to Washington in 1945?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir; I certainly would have.
Senator Lodge. Do you think it would be desirable for Foreign
Service officers to be at least briefed and kept up to date on develop-
ments in the United States so that they won't be entirely ignorant
of what is going on in this country ?
Mr. Service. I think, sir, that a great deal more is done now than
was done m 1944 and 1945.
(Discussion was continued off the record.)
Mr. Morris. May I ask a question in connection with this paper?
Mr. Service, when you make the statement —
That plan was made by np Wertemeyer's staff in his absence. They got orders
to mal^e some recommendations as to what we should do if we landed in Com-
munist territory. They had several —
and then there is a break, and again you say —
Well, yes, that is what we planned, and they showed me the plans they had
drawn up, and if we cooperated with Chungking troops, et cetera.
Weren't they talking about particular plans there, Mr. Service?
Weren't you talking about particular plans made up by Mr. Wede-
meyer's staff ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1417
Mr. Service. My recollection is only that I discussed it with some
•officers workinj^: on the memoranda.
Mr. Morris." You said, ''They showed me the plans they had drawn
up."
Mr. Service. My recollection is I was simply speak in<r of the memo-
randa they had drawn up as to possible alternatives. They came and
talked to me because I had also written some memoranda on the same
subject.
]Mr. Morris. Wedemeyer is a military man; Wedemeyer's staff is
military men?
Mr. SER^^CE. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morris. And if they showed you a plan in all likelihood it would
be a military plan, or at least partly military ?
Mr. Service. It was a military plan that involved highly political
implications.
Mr. Morris. That is true. I grant you that.
Mr. Ser\^ce. It was not a specific plan in the sense of movements
of troops or numbers of troops. It was simply a memo suggesting
policy under such and such circumstances.
Mr. Morris. So you do recall what happened ?
Mr. SER\^CE. I have a vague recollection, as I have said, of some
of the officers coming to me and showing me the memorandum on
which they were working. It was a brief memorandum, in my recol-
lection. It is very, very hazy now.
Mr. Morris. Wlio were the men on Wedemeyer's staff who showed
it to you ?
Mr. SER^^CE. I don't remember.
Mr. Morris. You remember what was the plan and you don't re-
member who showed it to you ?
Mr. Service. I don't recall with any clarity or completeness what
was in it. It was simply a policy memorandum on what our policy
would be with several alternatives. It was not final, it was not ap-
proved. General Wedemeyer was away. In any case, final policy
would have to be approved at the highest level here in the United
States.
Mr. Morris. But a plan drawn up by a military staff — that is a
military term^would not be a supposititious thing.
Mr. Service. I think, Mr. Morris, my use of the word "plan" was an
extremely loose one, and in its context a very unfortunate one. As
I told Senator Lodge, I misspoke. My recollection of this is simply
a policy memorandum of what should be our policy under such and
such circumstances.
Mr. Morris. Yet you say, "Well, yes, that is what we plan, and
they showed me the plans they had drawn up." That is something
more than supposititious policy, isn't it, "the plans that they had
drawn up"? They are talking about particular plans already accom-
plished.
Mr. Service. I am not a military man, and I have used these terms
extremely loosely. It was not any positive plan. I have never at
any time seen any military plan for landing opefations.
Mr. Morris. May I make a recommendation to the chairman that
we try to determine, if possible — here there is reference to Wede-
meyer's staff, and the time is pretty well defined — that we make an
1418 STATE D-EPARTME;NT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOlSr
effort to find out from Wedemeyer's staff as then constituted what
plans were shown to Mr. Service ? At least we will make an effort..
I think that is pertinent, don't you, Senator ?
Senator Loekje. I think that is a fair request, Mr. Chairman, that
the committee counsel address an inquiry and see whether they have
such a record, and if they have it, we ought to know it.
Senator Green. Is that the consensus of opinion ? Am I supposed
to be acting as cliairman?
Senator Lodge. I have just made an appeal to you, Mr. Chairman,
that Mr. Morris' request that the committee counsel obtain for the
committee a statement gleaned from the records of General Wede-
meyer's headquarters as to what persons were shown these military
plans, if they have such a record.
Senator Green. Is there objection ? If not, counsel is so instructed.
Mr. Morris. When you returned from Chungking, by what route
did you come ?
Mr. Service. I came back via India and north Africa.
Mr. Rhetts. You are talking about 1945 now ?
Mr. Morris. Just prior to this incident.
I just broke in there while we were talking about this particular
thing.
Senator Lodge. I would like you, Mr. Mon-is, to ask whatever ques-
tions you want to ask.
Mr. Morris. You never discussed future plans with Mr. Penfield^
did you ?
Senator McMahon. Mr. who ?
Mr. Morris. We had testimony on Friday, and in fact I would
like to reintroduce into the record at this point a letter Mr. Penfield
has written to Mr. Service, to the effect that they were trying to work
out a safe way of conununicating with each other. I think the stenog-
rapher has it. Mr. Service certainly knows who Mr. Penfield is^
because we had extensive testimony about a particular letter Mr.
Penfield wrote to Mr. Service, in which they were trying to determine
some safe way to communicate.
Mr. RiiETTS. If you are jzoing to reintroduce it, reintroduce the
identification as to who Mr. Penfield is.
(Discussion was off the record.)
Mr. Morris. I think Mr. Service recalls very well the letter I am
talking about. In that letter Mr. Penfield mentions that he is a
Future Plans officer.
Mr. Service. He was attached to, perhaps, the Plans Section.
Mr. Morris. He said particularly, "I am a Future Plans officer."
Did you have any discussions with Mr. Penfield ?
Mr. Service. No, sir. I did not receive that letter from Mr. Pen-
field until after my return to the United States, and I don't believe
I ever wrote to him. I had not seen him for over a year previous to
that time, and I didn't see him until long after that.
Mr. Morris. Had he communicated with you in any other way ?
Mr. Service. No, sir.
Mr. Morris. That was the only letter you received?
Mr. Service. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morris. Even though he said you would have to work out a
safe plan to communicate with each other ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1419
Mr. SEmacE. That letter was taken by General Wedemeyer to
Chiuigkin<»', and did not reach me — it was written on the assumption
that I would be remaining in China, and it would be beneficial to him
if he could receive coj)ies of these background memoranda which I was
writing on the political situation in China, and that was the only
reason, I think, that he wanted whatever copies of my memoranda I
would be able to send him, because they were giving current informa-
tion on the situation in China. But I never had any occasion to dis-
cuss plans with him at all. I never actually discussed anytlii]ig with
him or communicated with him during this period.
Mr. IMoRRis. I think you were asking questions, Mr. Morgan.
INIr. Morgan. Go ahead with your questioning, Mr. Morris.
Mr. Morris. I have finished. I just wanted to ask those questions
about that particular section of the transcript. I have other ques-
tions, but they are not related to that transcription.
Mr. IVIoRGAN. I do want some indication on the record as to what this
specific request was that was made of the chairman. I unfortunately
stepped out at the moment. I suppose, Mr. Morris, being on the
staff, you will indicate specifically what it is you want in connection
with the question you asked Mr. Service, in order that we can intel-
ligently make an inquiry from the appropriate officials in Washington.
Mr. Morris. I say, from reading the transcription, it was apf arently
definite that Mr. Service was talking about some particular plan that
had been shown to him by some members of General Wedenieyer's
staff. Since we are talking about a particular plan that was; at the
time in existence, I suggested that we make a reasonable effort to
determine what the plan was.
Mr. INIoRGAN. We will make the request. I just wanted to make
clear whether we needed to develop any other information 1 o make
our search more intelligible at this time. Do you feel we hav(> all the
information we need to get this now?
Mr. ]MoRRis. I think we should check with Wedeme^^er's staff at
the time, and not confine ourselves strictl)'^ to the record, to see if they
recall the incident.
Mr. Morgan. Being on the staff, I would appreciate your assistance
in helping us develop that information.
Now, Mr'. Service, a question I would like to ask you about h»ire that
I was not clear on. Jaffe says, "Hurley's fighting Chungking then?"
And Service's reply is, "Yes."
INIr- Ser\t:ce. I'm sorry ; it doesn't make sense. I don't kno .v what
it means.
Mr. Morgan. That is what I was disturbed about, on the basis of
jour prior testimony. In what sense doesn't it make sense?
Senator Green. In what sense does it make no sense, then'^
Mr. Service. He might have said logically, and I am onlv trying
to reconstruct and I have no positive recollection, "Then Hi.rley is
fighting Chungking's battles?" or "Hurley is fighting for Chung-
king?" Those are things that possibly a hearing of the record might
help us to bring out. I am not sure. I might be able to und( rstand
something that the stenogi'apher, trying to transcribe it, was unable
to catch. I am not sure.
Senator McMahon. May I break in with one question ?
Senator Green. Yes ; go ahead.
1420 STATE D'EPARTMEAT? EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator McMahon. Mr. Service, did you ever write a memorandnm
expressing your opinion on the specific question as to whether or not
cooperation should be had with the Conununists on landings in Com-
munist territory and with Chiang Kai-shek in Chiang's territory?
Mr. Service. I did not write a memorandum specifically on that
subject, sir, but there is some general reference to the problem in at
least two memorandums which I wrote.
Senator McMahon. Were those two memorandums the ones you"
gave to Mr. JafFe ?
Mr. Service. No, sir. I believe they were not. One of them is a
memorandum which I drafted with Mr. Ludden on February 14, 1945.,
Mr. JMoRuis. Will that go into the record ?
Mr. Rhetts. On that question, Mr. Morris, this is one of that whole
series of 125 documents which have been used and are exhibited in
the Loyalty Board proceedings, of which we have said we hoped and
affirmatively desired be made available to this committee by the State
Department, but we have no authority to do that.
Mr. Morris. I will just request it, inasmuch as we are going to take
an extract out of the whole thing for the record.
Mr. Service. I see this does not mention the disposition of forces
in any landing operations. It is addressed to the general problem of
keeping ourselves free to use all forces who can assist in the defeat of
Japan.
Senator McMahon. That would be a natural corollary of that.
Mr, Morris. Will you identify it further, so it can be produced?
Mr. Service. It is a memorandum on the subject Military Purpose
of Our Far Eastern Policy, dated February 14, 1945, signed by Ray-
mond P. Ludden and John S. Service.
The first paragraph states :
American policy in the Far East can have but one immediate objective, the
defeat of Japan in the shortest possible time v^ith the least expenditure of
American livi s. To the attainment of this objective, all other considerations
should be suboi-diiiate.
It is rather difficult to summarize, but I point out the hampering
effects of working only with one party, and I go on to say that at pres-
ent there exists in China a situation closely paralleling that which
existed in Yugoslavia prior to Prime Minister Churchill's support
of Marshal Tito. That statement was as follows :
The sanest and safest course for us to follow is to judge all parties and fac-
tions dispassionately by the test of their readiness to fight the Germans and
thus lighten the burden of Allied troops. This is not a time for ideological pref-
erences for one side or the other.
That was quoting Mr. Churchill.
I go on to say :
A similar public statement issued by the Commander in Chief with regard to-
China would not mean the withdrawal of recognition or the cessation of mili-
tary aid to the Central Government. That would be both unnecessary and un-
wise. It would serve notice, however, of our preparation to make use of all
available means to achieve our primary objective.
Now, in another paper whicli Mr. Ludden and I prepared just
prior to this, we summarized at the suggestion of General Wedemeyer
all of the various factors that made it wise for us to keep ourselves
in a flexible position and ready to use and able to use any forces that
could be of substantial assistance to us, and in that Mr. Ludden and I
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA^ESTIGATION 1421
listed the ]nx)bleins which might confront us if there were any bind-
ings of the coast of China, of being in a position to use whatever
forces we found organized and able to give us effective support.
Senator McMauon. What was, if you know, General Wedemeyer's
position in this controversy?
Mr. Service. I do not know. He was interested in having our state-
ment of the problem.
Senator McMahon. In military developments what policy was
chosen ?
Mr. SER^^CE. I also do not know what policy was finally chosen.
There never were any landings, and the situation actually never arose.
Senator McMahon. That is what I wanted to get in the record.
My memory was sure that the problem never arose because there were
no landings, but I wanted to make sure that on the record that was
stated, because I though possibly there might have been some brief
skirmishes which I did not remember.
Mr. Service. I do not know what the final policy was, or whether
anv final policy was adopted.
Mr. Morgan. Incident to my contemplated interrogation with re-
spect to this conversation between Mr. Service and Jaffe, I believe a
great many of the questions which I had in mind have already been
discussed. However, since Mr. Mclnerney is here, and in order that
our record may be somewhat complete on this matter, can you indi-
cate for our record, Mr. JMcInerney, as to how long the transcript of
this conversation has been made available to you, or how long it has
been available to you in the Department of Justice?
Mr. ^IcIxERNEY. That transcript which you have before you was
made available to us last week, I believe on June 21, and it was made
available to us pursuant to your request for it.
Mr. Morgan, AVhat I want to know, Mr. Mclnerney, if you can
help me. is whether you and Mr. Hitchcock at the time of the handling
of tliis matter from a prosecuting standpoint in 1945 were cognizant
of this conversation ?
Mr. McInerney. This conversation was contained in the summariza-
tion and contained in an FBI report dated approximately June 1, 1945.
Mr. Morgan. Does the sunnnarization accurately reflect the sub-
stance of this conversation?
Mr. McInerney. I would say generally, yes. It is incomplete, but
speaking generally I would say so.
Mr. Morgan. Did it indicate to you, on the basis of the summary
which we do not have before us, that Mr. Service had said he had
passed on military ]:)lans to Mr. Jaffe?
Senator Green. That does not appear in the transcript, either.
Mr. Morgan. The statement to which I am referring, Senator, is
the one we have been referring to this morning, in which Mr. Service
purportedly said, "What I said about the military plans is, of course,
very secret."
Mr. jNIcInerney. I would say in response to your question that it
contained no more than the transcript you have before you, and per-
haps a little less, because it was a summarization.
Mr. Morgan. Thank you.
Senator McMahon. Did you know when you received this advice-
in 1945 that this was secured by an intercept?
1422 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr, McInerney. From the face of the report it was described as
coming from a confidential informant.
Senator McMahon. It was the choice of that and that they had
somebody nnder one of the desks ?
Mr. McInerney. You could speculate along those lines, although I
must admit that I knew from my experience that such was not the
case.
Senator McMahon. I think that was a fair deduction from the
physical set-up, that it was probably by wire instead of by eaves-
dropping.
Mr. Morris. Mr. McInerney, if there had been a direct microphone
in the apartment, a direct microphone intercept, would you have
proceeded to consider that as evidence admissible in court?
Mr. McInerney. Apart from its inadmissibility, it had been re-
ceived by us with the caveat which was read by the chairman at the
commencement of the session here.
Mr. Morris. Who wrote the caveat?
Mr. McInerney. The FBI. It is the FBI caveat.
That is from the FBI memorandum of May 29, 1945, introducing
the case to us.
Mr. Morgan. Is that the caveat reading,
Most of the foregoing information regarding the contacts made by the various
principals and the documents which were exchanged were obtained through
highly confidential means and sources of information which cannot be used in
evidence.
Mr. McInerney. That is correct.
Mr. Morris. Is that an FBI or Justice Department caveat?
Mr. McInerney. That is an FBI caveat.
Senator Green. Does that end that line of questioning?
Mr. Morgan. I believe so.
Senator Green. It is 1 o'clock. I believe we had better take a recess
until half past 2.
(Whereupon, at 1 p. m., a recess was taken to reconvene at 2 : 30 p. m.
of the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
(The hearing was resumed at 2:45 p. m.. Senator Green, acting
chairman of tlie subcommittee, presiding.)
Senator Green. I think we had better proceed, Mr. Morgan. Have
you any further questions ?
Mr. Morgan. I think, Mr. Chairman, at the last session I had
directed a few questions to Mr. McInerney, and I would like to ask
him this general question with respect to this transcript of the con-
versation, as to whether the method in which that transcript was
obtained had any bearing upon the handling of Mr. Service's case
from the prosecutive standpoint.
Mr. ]M(Tnerney. I would say
Senator Green. I think if you came over here and sat down at the
foot of the table, it would be better.
Mr. McInerney. I would say that it did not, since this transcript
was not available to us from an evidentiary standpoint, and we re-
viewed it solelj^ from the standpoint of background material.
Since it could not be used before the grand jury or otherwise, I
would sa}^ that it did not have any bearing on the prosecution in this
case with respect to Mr. Service.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1423
Mr. IMoKCxAN. I believe those are the only questions that I have to
direct to Mr. Mclnerney, and the only questions that I have for the
moment I have asked Mr. Service already, so the questioning, Mr.
Chairman, you can turn over to somebody else.
Senator Green. Senator Lodge ?
Senator Lodoe. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I understand that there ^vere six FBI reports about Mr. Service
dated December 28, 1948, February 10, 1949, March 10, 1949, April
4, 1949, August 9, 1949, September 7, 1949, and September 21, 1949.
I wonder if we could have copies of those reports, Mr. Mclnerney?
]\Ir. INlclNERNEY. I would have to take that up with Mr. Ford, Sen-
ator. I would assume that they would not be available, sir.
Senator Lodge. Well. I would like to make a motion, Mr. Chairman,
that we request that those FBI reports about Mr. Service be made
available because they are obviously extremely pertinent to this
whole matter in contemplation.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Lodge. I have made a motion which I would like to have
the chairman put.
Senator Green. There are only two of us here, and I do not know
wliether we can act.
Senator Lodge. Would you object to getting those?
Senator Green. No, I would be glad to join Senator Lodge in his
request, but I think we would have to leave it for the others of the
committee also.
Senator Lodge. Did you want to make an observation, Mr.
Mclnerney ?
Mr. McInerney. I was going to ask whether Mr. Service's loyalty
file is included.
Senator Lodge. I do not know.
Mr. McInerney. I wonder if you have had access to those reports.
Senator Lodge. I will have to ask Mr. Morgan the question.
Mr. Morgan. Whether Mr. Service's files is among the 81 ?
Senator Lodge. Wliether it is among the 81.
Mr. Morgan. That were examined by the committee at the Wliite
House ? Probably not. I would have to check. As I recall the list
of 81 names, Mr. Service's name was not on it.
Senator Lodge. Have you not read all of the 81 files yourself?
Mr. Morgan. I have not read one of them, Senator.
Senator Green. They have not been available to him.
Senator Lodge. I would like to ask Mr. Service to tell the committee
the time and place of his meeting with Lauchlin Currie in 1945.
Mr. Service. That is a difficult question
Senator Lodge. What is that?
Mr. Service. That is a difficult question to answer in detail because
I am not sure how many times I saw him, but I have no recollection
of meeting him in 1945 at any place other than at his office.
Senator Lodge. In what city?
Mr. Service. In Washington, D. C. His office was in the old State
Department Building.
Senator Lodge. How many times did you see him ?
Mr. SER^^CE. I am sorry, I am not sure whether it would be two or
three times, perhaps.
Senator Lodge. What did Mr. Currie tell you ?
1424 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY mVESTIGATION
Mr. Service. It is extremely difficult after all this lapse of time to
remember these events in any particular detail.
Senator Lodge. Well, if there are important events, you certainly
ought to be able to remember the gist of them.
Mr. Service. I have an idea that the first time I saw him was prob-
ably fairly soon after I arrived back here in April, and that would be
just general conversation, the situation in China, and he probably told
me something about what he was doing, but I think he was working
on German assets in Switzerland.
Senator Lodge. Did he not ever give you any assignments ?
Mr. Service. Not in 1945, sir.
Senator Lodge. At any time did he give you any assignments?
Mr. Service. I am not sure what you mean by "assignments," did
he
Senator Lodge. Did he give you instructions, tell you things that
he wanted you to do ?
Mr. Service. Well, at one time in 1943, I think it was, he expressed
a hope that I would Idc able to write letters to him occasionally, write
directly to him.
Senator Lodge. Did he never tell you to go to any particular place?
Mr. Service. No, sir ; I do not recall his ever telling me to go to any
particular place?
Senator Lodge. Did he tell you to go to see any particular person?
(Mr. Service confers with counsel.)
Mr. Service. On one occasion he asked me to talk to Drew Peai*son.
Senator Lodge, With what purpose?
Mr. Service. Just to give Mr. Pearson some background information.
Senator Lodge. Is that the only person that he ever asked you to
talk to?
JSIr. Service. No, 1945 there was a question of whom I should retain
for my counsel, and he suggested that I talk to Mr. Corcoran as being
a person wlio might be a good person to advise me on the question.
Senator Lodge. You saw him after the Amerasia case broke?
Mr. Service. That was after the Amerasia case.
Senatoi' Lodge. Did you go to see him to get advice ?
Mr. Service. Mr. Cilrrie?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. Service. Yes, I went to him to talk to him about it, see what
liis advice was. I was talking to a great many people I knew then,
and almost everybody had different advice on this question of counsel
whom I should retain.
Senator Lodge. And you sought him out to get his advice, is that
right ?
Mr. Service. That is correct, sir.
Senator Lodge. What did he say that he could do for you?
Mr. Service. He did not say that he could do anything for me. He
suggested that I talk to Mr. Corcoran.
Senator Lodge. Did Mr. Currie ever do anything for you?
Mr. Service. Not that I know of, except to suggest that Mr. Cor-
coran would be a person who would be able to advise me on this problem
of counsel. Mr. Corcoran advised me to retain the counsel whom I
had already provisionally retained, Mr. Munter.
S«inator Lodge. Where is Mr. Currie now, do you know ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1425
Mr. Servtce. He lias been employed, I think, with the World Bank.
I am not snre whether he is still in Washington or not.
I saw in the newspapers, I think, that he had accepted some appoint-
ment to go to some South American country, perhaps Colombia.
Senator Lodoe. Reading through this testimony, Mr. Chairman, it
-seems to me that there are five persons whose names appear, and who
may have something of value to tell this committee about the Amerasia
case, INIr. Bannerman, Mr. Braunlicht, Mr. Ilartfield, Mr. Geiger, and
Mr. Currie, and I suggest that they be called for questioning.
:Mr. Momiis. Who is Mr. Geiger, Senator ?
( Discussion off the record. )
Senator Lodge. I have just been reading through the testimony
which was taken while I was away. I would add the name of Mr.
Currie who was considered by some people to know a good deal about
this subject.
Senator Greex. Mr. Morgan, do you wish to say something ?
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Bannerman, Mr. Hartfield, Mr. Currie, Mr.
Braunlicht — his name appears in the testimony.
Mv. Morris. Yes, but not in connection with Amerasia.
Senator Lodge. It does not ?
Mr. Morgan. I do not think that is true with respect to Mr. Geiger.
I do not believe our record has anything about him concerning Amer-
asia. Geiger, as I understand it, has been or is an employee of ECA.
Senator Lodge. I know, but I thought he had a connection with tliis
case.
Mr. Morgan. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Lodge. If he has no connection — I thought the evidence
indicated that he did have a connection with this case, but if he has not,
then I do not want to call him.
Senator Green. So the three names are ?
Senator Lodge. Bannerman, Hartfield, and Currie; and if Geiger
and Braunlicht have no connection with the Amerasia case, then I
do not want to bother to call them.
Mr. McInerney. Mr. Chairman, if you are through with the discus-
sion of the record, which I came here to be helpful on and in answer-
ing any questions concerning it, if the questioning with regard to that
record" is complete, why, I can leave, since it would appear as if you
are going into other matters.
Senator Green. Have you any further questions? Are there any
further questions of Mr. McInerney?
Senator Lodge. I have some questions here about this Amerasia
case. I have got a question I would like to ask Mr. McInerney.
Testifying on May 4, before this subcommittee, Mr. McInerney said
with reference to the documents found in the offices of the Amerasia
magazine, and I quote — I am making a partial quotation :
I would say with respect to all these documents that they were of an innocuous,
very innocuous <-hanu-ter. These things impressed me as l)eing a little above
tlielevel of teacup gossip. Classification of documents in this case was nothing
short of silly.
Now, the question presents itself to me, by what right and with what
justification does the Department of Justice presume to pass on wheth-
er a document is properly or improperly classified by some other
agency or department of the Government?
1426 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. McInerney. I would say that generally speaking the classifica-
tion of a document of another agency is not the business of the Depart-
ment of Justice, and I think, perhaps, what I was trying to say there
was to indicate the relationship between those documents and the
national defense as the words "national defense" are used in the
espionage statutes ; and under the law, the relationship between a par-
ticular document and the national defense is a question of fact for a
juryman to decide, and it is not a question of fact or of law for the
agency to decide, and I believe I illustrated my point at that time by
alluding to the trial at Hartford of Draper and Adler, in which I
said that the judge at that trial refused to accept the designation of
the Attorney General as to an organization's being subversive or not
subversive ; so it was in that light against that background that I made
that statement, sir.
Senator Lodge. Well, do you think that the Department of Justice
personnel are sufficiently trained in making decisions regarding the
importance of military matters to be able to say whether a military
document is properly classified or not?
Mr. McInerney. I do not believe so, sir.
Senator Lodge. Is it not true that a document to a person who has
no military training may appear silly, but to a person who has military
training it is not so silly at all ; is that not true ?
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. I have nothing more from Mr. McInerney.
Senator Green. Then you may be excused unless Mr. Morgan or
Mr. Morris have any questions.
Be mindful of that request that we have made, and let us know the
reply.
Mr. McInerney. About the records, sir.
Senator Green. Yes.
Mr. McInerney. Yes, sir.
(Mr. McInerney withdrew from the room.)
Senator Green. Are you ready, Mr. Morris ?
Mr. Morris. Yes. Is it my turn now ?
May I just pursue the line of questioning that Senator Lodge in-
stituted there ?
Did you go to see Mr. Corcoran after Lauchlin Currie had recom-
mended it ?
Mr. Service. Yes.
Mr. Morris. What did he say ?
Mr. Service. He recommended that I retain the lawyer I had al-
ready provisionally retained.
Mr. Morris. Did he give you any other advice ?
Mr. Service. No.
Mr. Morris. Was there anybody in addition to Mr. Corcoran that
Mr. Currie asked you to go to see? Tliere were some others, were
there not ? Did you go to see David Niles in this connection ?
Mr. Service. No; never have met David Niles, so far as I know.
JVfr. Morris. I wisli you would recall very carefully, Mr. Service.
Did you go to see anybody else in this connection ?
Mr. Service. Well, I went to see and talked to a great many people.
Mr. Morris. Would you tell us who some of them were?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1427
Mr Service. Friends of mine. I talked to Ambassador Gauss who
was an old friend of mine, my former diief. I talked to most of my
associates. . 1^-^.0
Mr Morris. Did vou speak to Owen Lattimore about it?
I^Ir Service. I don't recall seeino; Owen Lattimore after my arrest
at all No- I don't recall speaking to Mr. Owen Lattnnore about it.
Mr Morris. Could you tell us some of the other friends of yours
whom YOU discussed the matter with, particularly Government
ofhcials? . . ,1 p r> • J
Mr. Service. That is a very difficult question. All of my friends
were interested in my situation. They were interested m knowing
whether or not they could help me; interested m knowing what my
situation was; almost everybody asked me something about the case.
Mr. Morris. Whom did you seek out? .^ u
Mr SER\acE. Well, I talked to Judge Helmick who used to be
judge of the United States Court for China, and who was m Wasii-
ington at that time. , ,
I spoke to Mr. John Carter Vincent who was a man whom I worked
under in China, and was at that time head of the Division ol Chinese
Affairs. , 1 -r^- j. £ ^i
I talked briefly to Mr. Seldon Chapin, who was the Director of the
Office of Foreign Service.
Mr. Morris. Anyone else?
Mr. Ser%-ice. Those are the principal ones. ^ „ . ,, ^
As I say, it is hard to make an inclusive hst of all ot the people
whom I talked to about the case. ^ ^n a
Mr. Morris. Mr. Service, in open session the other day you testitied
that vou did not recall the name of Anna Liese Wang.
Mr Service Yes ; I was going to raise that. We said we were going
to raise that ourselves. I was thinking of it after you interrogated
me the other day, and I recalled that I know a woman whom I had
alwavs thought of as Anna Wang, but I never knew her middle name.
I always thought it was a German woman. She is married to a
Chinese.
]VTv AToRRis I see.
Mr. SER^^CE. But she was out in China, and if she is a white woman,
she always-^ .
Mr. Morris. I did sav she was Chinese.
Mr. Service. But I do know an Anna Wang or did kno^v Anna
AVaii"".
J^Ii\ Morris. Did you ever give her access to your file ?
:Mr. Service. Certainly not, sir.
Mr. Morris. Certainly not ^
Mr. Service. Yes. What sort of file?
I^Ir. Morris. Well, the official records m your office.
Mr. Service. No. , , . ^, ^ ,,
Mr. Morris. Was a complaint lodged against you on that score, Mr.
Service? „ • j.
;Mr. Service. Not that I have any recollection of.
Mr MoRius. Would vou give the committee here just a brief out-
line of your association with Mrs. Wang; you know, just the extent
of it?
1428 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LNTV^ESTIGATION
Mr. Service. Well, she was the wife of a Chinese named Wang
Ping-nan, who w^as ostensibly the representative in Chungking of a
Chinese general named Yang Hu-ching. It was known to us that Mr.
AVang worked fairly closely with the Chinese Communists, and even-
tually some time subsequent to my departure from Chungking after
the war, actually he came out openly as a member of the Chinese Com-
munist representative's office.
Now, I had very little direct contact with Mrs. Wang. Mr. Wang
Avas an intelligence source, ^nd I had occasion to see him fairly fre-
quently in my work.
Mre. Wang was acting part time, I believe, as a sort of secretary to-
Madam Sun Yat-sen who, of course, is the widow of Dr. Sun Yat-sen,.
the patriarch of the Chinese revolution, and the first leader of the
Kuomintang.
Mr. Morris. She is not with the Chinese Communists ?
Mr. Service. I have no knowledge; I have not heard of her-
since I left China. I have not had anything to do with her since I left
China over 5 years ago.
Mr. Morris. How freely did you discuss political matters with Mrs..
Wang?
Mr. Service. I don't think I discussed them with her at all. As I
say, I had very little contact with her ; it was incidental.
Mr. Morris. There are a couple of other names I want to ask you.
about in connection with the Amerasia case.
(Mr. Service consults with counsel.)
Mr. Service. Well, I did have occasion once to report to Gr~2 that
she seemed to be very friendly with some American enlisted men.
(Mr. Service confers with counsel.)
Mr. Service. Well, the point is that as part of my work with head-
quarters I would advise — I was called in for consultation by G-2:
occasionally on reputation and security risks ©f contact by our en-
listed men with certain women in Chungking city. I had some occa-
sion to report to G-2 that Mrs. Wang was, in my view, a poor person
for some of our military staff to be contacting too closely, shall we say.
Mr. Morris. Did you ever discuss your difficulty in the Amerasia
case with Ben Cohen ?
Mr. Service. After the whole case was finished, after I had thought
it was finished, after the announcement of the grand jury decision,,
several days went by with no public announcement as to what action
had been taken by the State Department in regard to my reinstate-
ment or return to active duty.
I am not sure of the exact date, but it seems to me the grand jury's
decision was announced on the 10th of August. At about the 13th or
14th — at any rate some days later — I think the Washington Post pub-
lished a brief editorial raising the question, "Wliat's happened to this
man who had a no-true-bill returned against him? Has the Depart-
ment of State reinstated him or not?"
So I went to Mr. Cohen, who was the counselor of the Department,
and I showed him the editorial, and I asked him whether the Depart-
ment of State expected to make any announcement since I had already,
in fact, been reinstated, and it was fairly soon after that that some
announcement was made, the letters being published from Secretary
Byrnes and Under Secretary Grew. That is the only time in that
period that I met Mr. Cohen, and the first time I had met him.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^^ESTTGATTON 1429'
]Mr. Morris. "Well, now, when you met Mr. Corcoran, was Mr. Currie
at the meeting^
Mr. Service. I don't believe so ; no, sir.
Mr. Morris. Did you confer with the attorneys in the Department
of Justice in this matter at all?
Mr. Service. ^My counsel and I, Mr. Munter and I, called on Mr.
Mclnerney in coniiection wath my request to appear voluntarily be-
fore the grand jury. I believe that we talked to him only once.
j\Ir. JMorris. You si)oke with whom then?
Mr. Service. Mr. Mclnerney.
Mr. Morris. Did you ask to appear before the second grand jury,
or did the second grand jury call yo'.:'J
Mr. Service. I don't reniember having any knowledge at the time
that there had been a first grand jury.
Mr. Morris. You appeared before only one grand jury ?
Mr. Service. Only before the second grand jury, and that was only
at my request. I don't think that we knew that the first grand jury
was meeting.
Mr. Morris. Did you know before you appeared before the grand
jury or did you have any reason to believe before you appeared before
the grand jury, that you would not be indicted ?
Mr. ServicJg. I w^as confident that I was innocent.
I^Ir. Morris. Did anyone assure you that you were ?
Mr. Service. I was confident in my own mind.
Mr. Morris. Did you receive any assurances other than from your
own conviction ?
Mr. Service. Of course not ; none whatsoever, sir.
Mr. ]\IoRRis. And nobody intimated to you that you were going to
be cleared ?
Mr. SER\ncE. Xo, sir. I don't see how anyone could.
Mr. Morris. Is it your testimony that you were not advised before
you appeared before the grand jury that e^^irything would be all
right ? I wish you would think very carefully on that.
Mr. Ser\ice. That everything would be all right ?
]\rr. ISIoRRis. Think very carefully, Mr. Service, because it is an
important qviestion.
Mr. Service. "Who was supposed to have made such a statement ?
Mr. Morris. I asked you the question.
Mr. SER^^CE. I don't recall any such statement as that. Both my
lawyer and Mr. Corcoran were extremely hesitant to allow me to ap-
])ear. I suppose that lawyers naturally would hesitate to allow any
])ei-son to waive immunity and appear. Mr. Munter finally agreed
to allow me to appear.
Mr. ]\roRRis. Why did he change his mind, IMr. Service? Did Mr.
Currie make any assurances to him or to you that you should appear?
]Mr. Service. Xo, sir. So far as I know he never talked to Mr.
Currie.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Cohen ?
Mr. Service. I don't believe so.
Mr. Morris. "Why did Mr. Munter change his mind, INfr. Service?
Mr. Service. I assume because he was convinced that 1 was guilty,
and therefore I would be all right — I am sorry, I was innocent, was
not guilty, and would be all right. He told me to go ahead, and he
thought it would be all right.
1430 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. So it is your testimony that no one assured you that if
you appeared before the grand jury you would come out all right?
Mr. Service. Well, I have no recollection of anyone telling me that,
and unless I know the context it is hard for me to answer. Somebody,
Mr. Munter himself, may have said, ''Well, I think you are all right,
go ahead if you feel that you can take it, that you will be all right;
why, all right, go ahead."
Mr, Morris. When did you first hear that you were cleared by the
grand jury, Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. I heard it from the press, as I remember it.
Mr. ISIoRRis. Did you not hear it before it was announced formally ?
Mr. Service. I can't recall how I did hear it now. It was the same
day that it was announced.
Mr. Morris. It is not a fact that you knew it before the official re-
turn was made?
Mr. Service. Not that I recall. Can you give me any information ?
Mr. Morris. No, I am asking you the question, Mr. Service.
Mr. Service. I cannot recall now whether my lawyer told me ; but in
any case, it was the same day that the announcement was made.
Mr. Morris. Well, Mr. Service, I think — I call your attention to the
fact that here was a decision on the part of the grand jury that cer-
tainly must have meant a great deal to you and your life.
]Mr. Service. It certainly did.
Mr. Morris. So I think it is reasonable if we ask you to tell us how
you first learned that news. It seems to me the kind of thing that you
do not forget.
Mr. Service. I am sorry, I simply have. There were a great many
things happening to me at that time. So far as I can remember, I
heard simultaneously with the public announcement on the same day
that it was announced.
Now, whether I heard — I assume I must have heard through my
lawyer's office. He may have received word, but I don't remember
actually because I was very disappointed. It was the same day that it
was announced that Japan was going to accept our surrender terms,
and I thought, "This is a guy's tough luck ; when he is arrested it is
all over tlie front page, but when he is cleared on the day that it is
announced that Japan is surrendering, he is lucky if it is going to be
on page 27."
Mr. Morris. Is it your testimony, Mr. Service, that you do not
recall how you first learned the decision of the grand jury that you
had been cleared even though that fact was and should have been a
very important decision in your life?
Mr. Service. I regret that I have no specific recollection now of
how I got the news. I may have gotten it through the State Depart-
ment, I don't know.
Ml-. IMoRRis. Who is the one who was in charge of your defense
fund, Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. Well, as I said the other day, there was a small fund
of $500 raised by various friends.
Mr. Morris. Was there not one person in charge of collecting it?
Mr. Service. There was one person who was not in charge, but sim-
ply acting as a treasurer. It was Dr. Mortimer Graves. That, of
course, was only a small part of my expenditures. That simply cov-
STATE i>epartme:n't employee loyalty investigation 1431
pivd the cost of niv hond. T had to borrow considei'ublo inoiiey from
my family and other people.
Mr. Morris. Altooether what did your defense cost you, Mr. Service '?
iNIr. Skrvice. I think that the lawyer's fee was $2,000, wliich he hxter
reduced to $1,500. I spent. T estimated. $400 or $500 in incidental ex-
penses, and so on, and counting $.'">00 for a bond, that would be $2,500.
Mr. ^loKRis. Did vou discuss the Amerasia case at all with Alp'er
Hiss^
Mr. Service. I beg your pardon?
Mr, Morris. Alger Hiss!' Did you discuss the Amerasia case with
liim ^
Mr. Service. I never had any discussion with Alger Hiss.
Mr. Morris. Or Donald Hiss^
Mr. Service. I never met him at all except on one occasion in Jan-
uaiv or February 1943.
Mr. Morris. What was that occasion, Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. Well, at that time he was working, I think, as an as-
sistant to Dr. Hornbeck, who was called special adviser on Far Eastern
affairs, and while I was in the Department on consultation during
January and February 1943 I w:!s introduced to Mr. Hiss, as I was
to everyone else in the Far Eastern set-up, and we had lunch together
on one occasion.
Mr. Morris. That was in 1943 that you had lunch ?
Mr. Service. That was in early 1943.
Mr. Morris. How about Donald Hiss?
Mr. Service. As far as I know I have never met Donald Hiss.
Mr. Morris. In your testimony, in your statement, Mr. Service, you
quoted from Emmanuel Larsen's testimony before this committee.
Where did 3'ou obtain a copy of this testimony?
Mr. SER^^CE. You don't have the page, do you ?
Mr. Morris. No, I don't know offhand, Mr. Service.
Mr. Service. This is from my preliminary statement, which appears
at page 1982 of the transcript of these hearings, and I quote :
Despite the sworn testimony which I have just quoted —
that is, the sworn testimony which I just quoted was from the hear-
ings before the loyalty board — I contimie with the quotation from the
transcript of these hearings :
The news story in the Washington Star for .Tune 20 referred to above in-
dicates that Larsen repeated before your committee the following day the charge
that I, among others, sought to "sabotage" Mr. Hurley.
I can try to find the Evening Star for j'ou.
^Ir. M( RRis. Is it your testimony that you had no information on
Larsen's testimony other than what you read in the Washington
Star?
Mr. Service. That is right.
Mr. Morris. You had access to no other testimony ?
Mr. Service. We had access to no other testimony, except the testi-
mony that he gaA'e in the loyalty hearing, my own loyalty hearing.
We had no access that he had — no access to testimony that he had given
before this committee.
Mr. Morris. That is from the loyalty board. All right.
68970— 50— pt. 1 91
1432 STATE D'Epartmejstt employee loyalty investigation
In connection with your visit to the Lattimores 2 days prior to your
arrest, Mr. Service, yon testified that you were going over the manu-
script of a book that had been written by Mr. Roth.
Mr. Service. I don't think that I testified that I was going over it.
I said that my recollection was that JNIr. Roth had brought along the
galley proofs, so far as the book he wanted to discuss with Mr. Latti-
more.
Mr. Morris. I see, not wath you ?
Mr. Service. No, I said that I don't recall ever having read the
galley proofs myself; that I was not particularly interested in it. It
Avas a book on Ja])an.
Mr. Morris. What was the name of the book, do you know ?
Mr. Service. It was finally published under the title, as I recall it,
Dilemma in Japan.
Can I refer you, sir, to page 1322 of the transcript of hearing before
this committee in which Mr. Morgan asked me: "Did you see the
galley proofs of Mr. Roth's book yourself?"
I replied :
I have no recollection of ever seeing them or reading them. I was not particu-
larly interested in Japan, and the book was entirely concerned with Japan. I
liad no specialized knowledge or interest.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Service, I notice that very often after you would
render a report to your superiors you would frequently request that a
copy be sent to John Davies. Why did you do that ?
Mr. Service. There were four Foreign Service officers attached to
the China-Burma-India theater as political officers. The senior among
the four was Mr. Davies. who had come to China with General Stil-
well w^hen he took over connnand or i-ather when he established the
theater in the beginning of 1942.
Mr. Davies acted really as the seiiior, and as he was the director of
this group of four officers, it was our established policy, with the
approval of Ai'my Headquarters, to send him a copy of any of these
memoranda which we wrote.
Now, of course, if I was asked to draft a telegram — if I was asked
to draft a telegram or correspondence for General StilwelFs signature
or for actual staff use, I would not retain any copy and, of course, would
not send any copy to Mr. Davies.
It was only these reportorial memoranda that I wrote describing
conversations that I would send a copy to Mr. Davies.
Senator McMaiion. Is Mr. Davies still in the Department ?
Mr. Service. He is still in the Department.
Senator McMahon. Has he got a brother who lives in Philadeljihia ?
Mr. Service. No ; I believe he has only one brother, and that brother
is in the Foreign Service, and is stationed out in the field somewhere.
Senator McMahon. Do you know his first name ?
Mr. Service. The brother ?
Senator McMahon. Is his name Richard ?
Mr. Service. The only brother that I know is Donald Davies.
There is a Richard Davies in the Foreign Service also, but he is no
i-elative.
Mr. ISIoRRis. What is Mr. John Davies' present position ?
Mr. Service. He is a member of the policy planning staff, I believe.
Mr. Morris. Would you say that generally Mr. Davies' reports,
analysis of the Chinese political situation, coincided with yours?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1433
Mr. Service. Yes, I think they did.
Mr. Morris. I am not <i;oino- into tliis extensively, but I would like
to just introduce one report of INIr. Da vies.
Mr. Service. Mr. Da vies, of course, was not in China most of the
time; he was generally stationed in New Delhi at the rear echelon
headquarters, and I, having more experience in China, more recent
experience in China, and being on good terms, and having a good many
contacts in Chungking, I stayed in Chungking.
Mr. Morris. I have here a report of Mr. Davies, How Red are the
Chinese Communists.
Senator McMahox. May I ask what this designed to prove? I
would like to know the connection in your mind.
Mr. Morris. There are two reasons, Senator: I notice that Mr.
Service always sent his reports to Mr. Davies. Also I note there was
an identity of thought expressed in the various memoranda, and in
order to support my statement to that effect, I am just introducing
one cop3', and I want to ask him if his report coincided with his.
Senator McMahon. What I would like to know is what it proves
of interest to our investigation. Is there any allegation that Mr.
Davies gave out any information ^
Mr. Morris. I do not know.
Senator McINIahon. Well, is there any allegation
Mr. Morris. Well, Mr. Davies first came into the discussion the
other day when Mr, Kennan was the one who analyzed the reports of
Mr. Service. Now, Mr. Davies is an assistant to Mr. Kennan.
Senator McMahon. That is right.
Mr. Morris. I would like to point out in fact that here is Mr. Davies
whose reports coincide with Mr. Service, and who is an assistant to
]\rr. Kennan.
Senator McMahox. That is in the record. But what I am trying
to get at is, I realize we are not holding a hearing where we abide by
the rules of evidence, but there is reason not to encumber this record,
I think you will agree with me.
As a lawyer, I do not see any connection between him, Davies, ac-
cepting the views of Service with the allegation that Service was too
friendly with Jaffe or anybody else. I do not know Davies from
Adam, "but what does that prove regarding Service's questionable
conduct ?
Mr. Morris. I do not think it is only Mr. Service's questionable
conduct. It is the whole policy of the State Department with respect
to representatives in the field.
Senator ISIcMaiion. No, that is not the question.
Mr, Morris. If you want to restrict it to the Amerasia case, if you
are restricting this to the Amerasia aspect of it, I say that it true.
Senator McMahon. You see what we are doing here is investigat-
ing disloyalty in the State Department, and we are going over the
Amerasia case so far as it reflects that kind of thing. Now, in some
cases we have gone far afield, and I wish you would not go too far
afield, and if there is any allegation that Mr. Davies was disloyal,
I tliink that would be, perliaps, material. I do not know of any alle-
gation, and that is why I am asking you the question.
Mr. Morris. I think one day we had it out here, Senator, when
someone asked me why I thought the Amerasia case was important,
and I said that one of the reasons was that a summary of the records
1434 STATE DEPARTMEJS'T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
seized in the Amerasia case shows that there were several Foreign
Service officers and State Department ofiicers in the field whose re-
ports all seemed to coincide, and whose reports differently reflected
pro-Communist leanings.
We have had testimony to tliat effect. Now, here in noticing this,
Mr. Service makes np a report, and he would always send a copy to
Mr. Davies, and I tliought it might be pertinent. Perhaps I am wrong,
but I thought it might be pertinent at this juncture for us to intro-
duce one of Mr. Davies' reports into the record. If you think it is
not relevant, I will withdraw it.
Senator McMaiion. Not at all. If it is on the ground of proving
something with regard to this witness. The question is does it prove
something on Davies ?
Mr. Morris. I am not directing this to any individual at all, Sena-
tor. Eemember, when somebody asked me — I did not volunteer the
statement — what I thought was the importance of the Amerasia case,
I said, the Amerasia case to me is one of the cases — the important
aspect of it is that the records seized in the Amerasia office showed
tliat there were quite a number of Foreign Service officers and State
Department officials in the field who were sending reports back to
Washington which indicated a definite pro-Communist bias, and that
is significant.
Senator McMaiion. And you are offering it then in connection with
a reflection to be drawn from that on Davies ?
yir. Morris. Well, I guess you could say that.
Senator Tydings. General Marshall himself went out to China and
tried to bring the Communists and the Nationalists together, as you
yourself know. I do not think that because a man may say one thing
or the other, that necessarily is disloyal. You may disagree with it,
and I may disagree with it, but that in itself, if it is an honest expres-
sion of opinion as to what he thinks the policy should be, particu-
larly when a wax- is going on, as to how we can save our own lives, is
not negessarily disloj^al.
It can be wrong, and I think we have gotten away from our whole
scope of this investigation, and I must insist that the questions be
brought more in line with Eesolution 231 to investigate whether or
not persons in the State Department have been or are disloyal. I do
not want to make it very narrow, but I ask you, not as an order, but
as a request, to try to come back into the general purview.
Mr. Morris. Well, Senator, some of them say this. I think if we
are going to show anything in this investigation it is going to be
and will contain three types of proof. One will be by direct asso-
ciation, if we had somebod}^ who was a member of the Communist
Party
Senator Tydings. Go ahead with your questions, and if they get out
of line I am going to ask that we rule on them so that we can get along
here. I do not want to go into these half-way things, and I do not
want to be
Mr. Morris. Well, Senator, I think a man's writings and a man's
associations are one of the few ways we have of showing whether or
not he has been disloyal.
Senator Tydings. If they show disloyalty; yes. ■
Mr. Morris. That is what I am submitting. J
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1435
Seiuitor Tydixgs. But if they show a difference in point of view;
no.
Senator Lowe. Tlie questions that Mr. Morris wants to ask are
questions which are in the minds of a great many Americans, and
if this investigation is to have validity and carry conviction with the
))eo]>le you want to convince, not the people who agree with you al-
ready, it seems to me that his questions are entitled to be answered.
Senator Tydixgs. I want liim to have a wide latitude, but I want
to see-
Senator ^IcMahox. In view of INIr. JNIorris' remarks, I have no ob-
jection to ]Mr. Davies* statement going into the record, but I thouglit
it proper at this point to try to point out some of the limitations implicit
in our investigation.
Xow. I have been informed, and have never verified it myself, that
General Hurley made a statement after he saw Mr. Stalin one time that
he took Mr. Stalin's word for his statement, and believed in Mr.
Stalin's statement that Mr. Stalin was not interested in the Chinese
Comnuuiists.
Now. I would certainly, knowing General Hurley, not put that in
the record for the purpose of showing that he was inclined to be a
Connnunist. Do you follow me? That is true, is it not, what Gen-
eral Hurley said at one time? I have been informed that w^as his
statement.
Mr. Morris. I do not know.
Senator Tydings. The questions ought to have some relevancy.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead.
Senator ]McMahon. Put in Mr. Davies' statement.
^Ir. Morris. Remember, my reason for going into the personal ef-
fects
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Senator McMahon. Let us put in Mr. Davies' statement.
Senator Tydixgs. Do j'ou want Mr. Davies' statement in?
^Ir. ^Iorris. Yes.
Senator Tydixgs. Without objection it will be put in the record.
(The document referred to follows:)
Document ^^ q ^q^
1. Agency where prepared : OWI.
2. Afcency where routed :
3. Where recovered : Amerasia.
4. Original or copy : Typed copy and carbons.
5. Copies found elsewhere :
6. Abstract of document :
(1) Yenan. November 7. 1944. Subject : How Red are the Chinese Communists?
liy Jol.n Davies. Memo points out moderateness of Communists, their willingness
to cooperate and to make concessions.
(2) Yenan. November 7, 1944. Sub.iect : Will the Communists Take Over
China? by John Davies. Memo reflects Davie.s' opinion that the Comnnmists
are in China to stay, China's destiny is in their hands, and they possess strength
and vitality superior to that of Chiang and his followers. (Original typed copy
with four copies.)
7. Comments of agency preparing document: An item, not an exact copy, but
of the same substance, was located by Helen Groves in OWI files, July 5, 1945;
filed in China Section, room 3036.
8. Comments of agency receiving document : None.
9. Laboratory examination : Latents (iodine), none ; typewriting, ident K4-KB.
10. Comments :
11. Agent who can introduce document : George E. Allen.
1436 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATION
How Red Are the Chinese Communists?
The Chinese Communists are backsliders. They still acclaim the infallibility
of Marxian dogma and call themselves Comuninists. But they have become
indulgent of human frailty and confess that China's Communist salvation can
be attained only through prolonged evolutionary rather than immediate revolu-
tionary conversation. Lilie that other eminent baclislider, Ramsay MacDonal^
they have come to accept the inevitability of gradualness. --^
Yenan is no Marxist New Jerusalem. The saints and prophets of Chinese
communism, living in the austere comfort of caves scooped out of loess cliffs,
lust after the strange gods of class compromise and party coalition, rather
shamefacedly worship the golden calf of foreign investments and yearn to be
considered respectable by worldly standards.
All of this is more than scheming Communist opportunism. Whatever the
orthodox Conununist theory may be about reversion from expedient compromise
to pristine revolutionary ardor, the Chinese Communist leaders are realistic
enough to recognize that they have now deviated so far to the right that they
will return to the revolution only if driven to it by overwhelming pressure from
domestic and foreign forces of reaction.
There are several reasons for the moderation of the Communists.
1. They are Chinese. Being Chinese, they are, for all of their early excesses,
temperamentally inclined to compromise and harmony in human relationships.
2. They are realists. They recognize that the Chinese masses is 90 percent
peasantry; that the peasantry is semi-feudal— culturally, economically, and
politically in the Middle Ages ; that not until China has developed through several
generations will it be ready for communism ; that the immediate program must
therefore be elementary agrarian reform and the introduction of political
democracy.
3. They are nationalists. In more than 7 years of bitter fighting against a
foreign enemy the primary emotional and intellectual emphasis has shifted from
internal social revolution to nationalism.
4. They have begun to come into power. As has been the experienec in vir-
tually ali successful revolutionary movements, accession to power is bringing a
sobering realization of responsibility and a desire to move cautiously and
moderately.
Chinese Conununist moderation and willingness to make concessions must not
be confused with softness or decay. The Communists are the toughest, best
organized and disciplined group in China. They olfer cooperation to Chiang
out of strength, not out of weakness.
.ToiiN Davies.
Yenan, November 7, 1044.
Will the Communists Take Over China?
The Chinese Communists are so strong between the Great Wall and the
Yangtze that they can now look forward to the postwar control of at least north
China. They may also continue to hold not only those parts of the Yangtze
Valley which they now dominate but also new areas in central and south China.
The Comnnuiists have fallen heir to these new areas by a process, which has
been operating for 7 years, whereby Chiang Kai-shek loses his cities and prin-
cipal lines of communication to the Japanese and the countryside to the Com-
munists.
The Communists have survived 10 years of civil war and 7 years of Japanese
offensives. They have survived not only more sustained enemy pressure than
the Chinese Central Government forces have been subjected to. but also a
severe blockade imposed by Chiang.
They have survived and they have grown. Communist growth since 1937
has been almost geometric in progression. From control of some 100,000 square
Ivilometers ^^•ith a population of one million and a half they have expanded to
about S.^iO.OOO square milometers with a population of approximately ninety
million. And they will continue to grow.
The reason for this phenomenal vitality and strength is simple and funda-
mental. It is mass support, mass particijiation. The Communist governments
and armies are the first governments and armies in modern Chinese history
to have positive and widespread popular support. They have this support because
the governments and armies are genuinely of the people.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1437
Only if he is able to enlist foreign intervention on a scale equal to the Jai>
anese invasion of China will Chiang probably be able to crush the Communists.
But foroi.iin intervention on such a scale would seem to be unlikely. lielying
upon his dispirited shambling legions, his decadent corrupt bureaucracy, his
sterile political iiioralisms. and such nervous foreign support as he can muster,
the generalissimo may nevertheless plunge China into civil war. He cannot
succeed, however, where the Japanese in more than 7 years of determined striv-
ing have failed. Tlie Communists are already too strong for him.
Civil war would probably end in a mutually exhausted stalemate. China
would be divided into at least two camps with Chiang reduced to the position
of a regional warlord. The possibility should not be overlooked of the Com-
munist.s — certainly if they receive foreign aid — emerging ivtnn a civil war swiftly
and decisively victorious, in control of all China.
Since 1!)37 the Commuidsts have been trying to persuade Chiang to form a
democratic coalition government in which they would participate. Should the
genei'alissimo accept this compromise proposal and a coalition government be
formeil with Chiang at the head, the Communists may be expected to continue
effective control over the areas which they now hold. They will also prob-
ably extend their political inlluence throughout the rest of the country, for
they are the only group in China possessing a program with positive appeal to
the people.
If the generalissimo neither precipitates a civil war nor reaches an under-
standing with the Communists, he is still confronted with defeat. Chiang's
feudal China cannot long exist alongside a modern dynamic popular government
in north China.
The Communists are in China to stay. And China's destiny is not Chiang's
but theirs.
JoHx Davies.
Yenan, Xoveniber 7, 19Jt4.
Mr. Service. We are going to hear it ?
Senator Ttdings. Do you want to comment on it?
Mr. Service. I don't know what is in it, what it is.
Senator Tydings. If yon did not write it, I do not know what your
comment would be.
Mr. Morgan. I think the question was asked, Mr. Chairman, as to
whetlier or not Mr. Service's ideas coincided with Mr. Davies. He
answered the question, and to that extent
Senator Tyi>ixg.s, There would be some propriety.
Mr. Morris. I think the decision the other day was that, after we
made reference to these various reports by Mr. Service, that they
would be introduced in the record.
Mr. MoRGlvx. As I understand it, the decision was that those re-
ports from which extracts were read into the record, in such cases,
tlie full report was to be incorporated in the record.
Senator Tydings. All right, ihey will be incorporated in the record.
Have you any comment, Mr. Service, to make? Please come to the
point if you can, and let us get along. Go ahead. What is your
comment?
Mr. Service. I would like to point out this was written during a
period when I was not in China, and I do not remember when I saw
this for the first time. When I said that I had genei-al agreement
with I\Ir. Davies, I was thinking of our general philosophy of the
whole situation, and the best means of dealing with it.
That line of thinking, which we shared, is most conveniently sum-
mai'ized in annex 47 of the China white i)aper, which has excerpts
from both of our reports, and I would like to refer 3'ou to that.
Mr. ]M(>Rius. I have read that.
Mr. Service. I was thinking particularly of certain papers which
Mr. Davies had written, wliich I was familiar with, which are incor-
1438 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
porated, or excerpts from it are incorporated, in the transcript of the
hearino-s of the Loyalty Board, where INIr. Davies testified, but those
are rather lengthly and, perliaps, you would not wish to have them
read here.
Senator Tydings. Except to comment on it generally. It is not your
comment ; it is Mr. Davies'. Lst us get on.
Mr. Khetts. In that connection, Senator, I certainly have no dis-
position to extend this. I do have a feeling, however, that if Mr.
Service's views are to be associated as coinciding with Mr. Davies in
some isolated paper written by Mr. Davies, which is to be put in the
record, I have a feeling that it is only proper to
Senator Tydings. You would have to take all of his papers and all
of his views, and take them together and associate them to be useful.
It is just the same principle as letting in one paragraph of a document
instead of the whole document.
Mr. RiiETTS. That is, at least, why I would like to refer the com-
mittee— I would like to request that these writings also be made part
of the record, as has just been made of this paper.
Senator Tydings. I think Mr. Service is in a position where he
wrote a hundred and some reports, and they ought to be judged pretty
well on what he wrote himself, not to give his opinion on what some-
body else's philosophy is.
Mr. Morgan. There was one word that Mr. Service used, although
I do not want to get into the question of semantics. That word some-
times has connotations today that nuiy not be those of normal times.
You used the expression, I believe, that you and Mr. Davies had a
similar "philosophy" with respect to the situation. Wliat did you
mean by that ?
Mr. Service. We shared a generally similar outlook on the long-
range problems that faced the United States, the problems of the bal-
ance of power in the Far East, and the means which our policy should
seek to follow to maintain United States position in the Far East, and
to keep China from falling entirely into the Russian orbit, which we
saw as early as 1943 was the great danger.
Mr. Morgan. Thank you.
Senator Tydings. All right, go ahead, Mr. Morris.
Mr. Service. May I also make some comment on this : Reference
was made to Mr. Kennan recently, and I would like to read from the
transcript of our hearings before the
Senator Tydings. Go ahead and read it.
Mr. Service (continuing). State Department Loyalty Board. Mr.
Kennan was asked :
By the way, Mr. Kennan, will you state to the Board whether you are ac-
quainted with Mr. Service?
Mr. Kennan. I have never met IMr. Service before he returned on this occasion,
and I have never spoken with him excepting concerning the technique or arrange-
ment for my appearing here. I purposely did not discuss anything that I thought
I was going to say on this occasion with him or with anyone that I thought
might be in communication with him, and have never discussed the contents
of his reports. I had also not read the reports before tins except insofar as they
contained in the white paper ; so that they came to me fresh.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead, Mr. Morris.
Mr. Morris. I have a letter signed by a man named "Julian", ad-
dressed to "Dear Jack," which was found in your possession. I won-
der if you will identify this. It is Q-4:04:.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1439
(Tlio letter referred to is as follows :)
Documknt S-(5T
Q-t04
The Uniti.3) Nations Conference on International Organization,
Marj U, 1945.
DhiAR Jack: T met your wife the other eveiiinj;, and your delishtful children
as well. Phil hud arranged with Carolyn to bring Messrs. Tung and Chen to
Berkeley, and we had dinner together, along with Martin Wilbur. During the
course of conversation, Carolyn mentioned her need of a washing machine in
"Washington. I told her that if worse comes to worse you might be able to have
my family's machine which is now up on Long Island. Carolyn got all excited
about this suggestion, and she said that she would write you about it. If you
have been looking for one in Washington, I suggest that you continue to do so.
Y'ou should also inquire about the possibility of new machines coming on the
market in the near future. If your efforts in Washington all lead up a blind
alley, then it would be practical to consider shipping my family's machine — if
you want it — from Long Island to Washington. I just thought that I should
explain this to you in case Carolyn's letter discourages you from continuing
your search for a machine.
The conference is rather dull, and I find it very depressing. I imagine that
this conference may go down as one of the most reactionary international gather-
ings in history. The only consolation I can find is that the fantastic views on
international organization — views which are in essence quite contrary to real
and sound internaticmal organization — may contribute to breaking down such
outmoded concepts as sovereign equality and nation-state system of international
relations. But they offer nothing in place of these traditional elements of world
affairs.
Phil is keeping the most disgraceful company these days. It is practically
certain now that he'll return to Chungking as Minister Counselor and Hurley's
houseboy. He is taking his job seriously and even shows some compassion
over the inconvenience which members of the Chinese delegation occasionally have
to endure. He is first-rate on seeing that T. V.'s car turns up at the right place
at the right time.
John Carter has been introducing me around as the labor attache for Chung-
king. The local liberal and labor groups have had me out for a party to meet
the right-minded people. Saturday I was introduced to Tarasov, Soviet trade-
union representative on the World Trade L^nion Council. He told that he didn't
know that north China was called Communist China. He asked whether they
Avere "Communists" or not. He stated that the Soviet Government favored unity
in China and that the United States and Soviet Union should cooperate in bring-
ing about such unity. I am planning to bring .John Carter together with Tarasov
and another Soviet trade-union leader, Kuznetzov (who is the head of the Soviet
trade-union movement and an important figure in Soviet high policy). We may
not learn nni<''h, but we might get some better line on Soviet psychology on the
Pacific, specifically, the China question.
Not much else to say. I won't go into detail about the conference. It isn't too
difficult to read between the lines in the press to see what is happening here.
Best regards,
Julian.
]Mr. ^loRRis. I wonder if you will look at that letter and identify
the writer and the addressee.
Mr. Service. "Well, I had forofotten all about this letter until it was
shown to me by the Department of State loyalty board. I assume
that the writer must be a man named Julian Friedman, who was an
employee of the Department of State at that time, and was at San
Francisco. I think, as a liaison officer of some sort.
Mr. Morris. And he was writing to you?
Mr. Service. Yes.
Senator Tydings. Speak the least bit more loudly, please.
■Mr. Morris. And the John Carter referred to in this letter was,
I take it, John Carter Vincent?
1440 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Ser\^ce. I assume so.
Mr. Morris. And he says: "Phil is keeping the most disgraceful
company these days."
AVlioisPhil?
Mr. Service. I assume he means Philip Spouse.
Mr. Morris. What was his assignment at that time ?
Mr. Service. He was also a liaison officer. His duties were liaison
with the Chinese delegation, I think.
Mr. Morris. He says :
Saturday I was introduced to Tarasov, Soviet trade-union representative on tlie
World Trade Union Council. He told that lie didn't know that north China was
called Communist China. He asked whether they were "Communists" or not.
He stated that the Soviet Government favored unity in China and that the
United States and Soviet Union should cooperate in bringing about such unity.
I am planning to bring John Carter tosether with Tarasov and another Soviet
trade-union leader, Kuznetzov (who is the head of the Soviet trade-union move-
ment and an important figure in Soviet high policy). We may not learn much,
but we might get some better line on Soviet psychology on the Pacific, specifi-
cally, the China question.
Was there ever any follow-up that you knew of on that proposal ?
Mr. Service. Not that I know of. Mr. Friedman was, as I remem-
ber, a labor economist, and was later assigned as labor attache. I
suppose that is the basis of his meeting with these Russian labor
officials.
The interesting thing there, of course, is that Tarasov, whatever the
man's name is, is reflecting the official Moscow line, which Molotov
and Stalin had been giving General Hurley, wliich Mr. Kennan and
the Embassy in Moscow, and in which I myself reporting to Chung-
king, thought was false.
Mr. Morris. When did you report that, Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. I have here, for instance, a report which I wrote on
February 16, 1945, just about the date of Yalta, of conversations with
a man by the name of Vinogradoff, who was the press attache, in
which I report Mr. Vinogradoff making a statement such as this :
Senator McMahon. October 1944 ?
Mr. SER\^CE. No, this is February 16, 1945. This is Mr. Vinogradoff
speaking :
Our policy is definite and clear. We, Russia, will certainly have a voice in the
affairs of the Par East, but we will do nothing to assist, support, or encourage
the present Government of China.
That is a very different line which I was getting from Vinogradoff
and reporting, very different line from the high level Moscow line at
that time, that they were all for better relations in the Central Gov-
ernment.
Senator McMahon. What line was General Hurley taking?
Mr. Service. General Hurley was saying continually that he had
been assured by Moscow, by Molotov and' Stalin, and he says here
at the hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I
quote from page 31— this is December 19-45, hearings before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee :
Russia has said from the beginning that the Chinese Communists are not, in
fact. Communists at all : that Russia has not supported the Chinese Communists ;
that Russia does support the National Government of the Republic of China, and
the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek; that Russia desires closer and more har-
monious relations with China.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1441
This attitude was the attitude of GcMieral Hurley, and there are
numerous quotations from General Hurley as to where he says the
same thin<2'.
Senator McMahon. Is he reporting- the fact or is he reporting his
belief in the truth of that fact?
Mr. Skhvu'k. T think if you read the hearings and you read the
white paper, that he believed those, and he Avas cautioned by the State
Department not to put too much Aveight in them, and that was one
of his complaints in the State Department that they changed his in-
structions, as he said, on the basis of State Department Embassy Mos-
cow unwillingness to accept the assurances of Stalin and Molotov.
Senator McMahon. And your point is, if I understand you cor-
rectlv, that vou did not believe this line that was coming out of
Moscow ?
^Ir. Service. That is correct.
Senator ]\Ic]M.ui()X. Because you were being told something differ-
ent in the field, which you reported to the State Department.
Mr. Service. A, becjuise it was not logical and did not make sense;
and, B, because my opinion was confirmed by Communist officials,
Soviet officials, in Chungking.
Mr. Mi.r.RTS. "When did you ever report that. Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. I read vou excerpts from a report which I wrote on
February 16, 1945.
Mr. iNIoRRis. In support of that conclusion?
Mr. Service. Yes; I quote Mr. Yinogradoff in saying, '"We are not
going to sup])ort or encourage the present Government of China."
Mr. Morris. I know that, but you just quoted him; you did not give
your own opinion at that time?
Mr. Service. In a re])ort which I wrote on the next day, February
17, 1945, commenting on the Soviet statements on Chinese hopes of
making a deal with Russia, I point out in conclusion —
The Russians in Chungking are being frigid toward a central government and
talking freely of their low opinion of it, and correspondingly high opinion of
Yenan. Furtliermore, there is not much exchangeable quid pro quo —
I had been discussing the early part of the report of the inducements
which the Chinese could offer the Soviets to make a treaty —
The Chinese are not likely to mike concessions in Sinkiang. outer Mongolia,
or Manchuria. Finally the objective circumstances are not favorable. The
Central Government and Chiang are weaker than France and DeGaulle. The
Chinese Communists are stronger than the FFI —
French Forces in the Interior —
and getting stronger rapidly. Botli Russia and tlie Chinese Communists can
do very well, therefore, by sitting tiglit and waiting.
In other words, I did not see that it was to Russia's interest
Senator Ttdings. All right, the next question.
Mr. Service. This mav be off the subject a little bit, but in connec-
tion with the views of Mr. Daviesimd myself concerning the Chinese
Commimists, I think we ought to refer to such statements as this
made to the press at a press conference had by General Hurley on
A))ril 6. 19+5.
Mr. ^foRGAX. What is that you are reading from?
Mr. Serm^ce. This is from the text, stenographic text, of the press
conference, radio and press conference. I am sorry, the date was
1442 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
April 2, 1945, with Ambassador Hurley meeting the press, and I quote.
Mr. Hurley says :
You gentlemen should know, though I believe you all do know, that it is a
matter of common knowledge that the Communist Party of China supports the
principles of Dr. Sun Yat-sen. That was generally referred to as the i)eople's
three principles of China.
Senator Tydings. Sun Yat-sen? You mean the great Chinese
leader for democracy and liberation?
Mr. Service. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Service. Mr. Hurley continues:
The three principles are government of the people, by the people, and for the
people. All the demands that the Communist Party has been making have been
on a democratic basis. That has led to the statement that the Communist Party
in China are not in fact real Communists. The Communist Party of China is
supporting exactly the same principles as those promulgated by the National
Government of China.
I mean I can quote at great length from General Hurley.
Senator Tydings. I think you ought to put the whole thing in the
record.
Mr. Service. There is a great deal of this contained in the tran-
script of hearing before the Loyalty Board, but I have not wanted to
protract things unnecessarily here.
Senator Tydings. Can't you put in the record those parts of General
Hurley's releases which are on all fours which you have just read to
show there was a general point of view shared by many people of a
wide variety of political beliefs at tliat particular time ?
Mr. Morgan. Do you know how General Hurley used the word
"democratic,'' Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. No, I don't except that he has associated with those
principles of government the principles "of the people, for the people,
and by the people."
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Tydings. Go ahead. We will put those in. Let us go ahead,
Mr. Morris, iniless you have got some more, Mr. Service.
Mr. Service. Would you like more of it, sir ?
Senator Tydings. Yes, if it is not too long.
Mr. Service. The next question is :
Sir, I am not sure that I understood that last sentence. You said the Com-
munist I'arty is supporting the same principles as the National Government of
China?
General Hurley's answer was: Yes.
Question. Could you tell us what is the divergence between them? How do
they differ?
Answer. Well, as a matter of fact, the divergence between the parties in China
seems to be not in the objective desired because they both assert that they
are for the establishment of a government in China that will decentralize au-
thority and conduct itself along democratic lines, employing democratic processes ;
the divergence between them is the procedure by which they can be achieved. To
go a little further, the Communist Party would'like for the National Government
to inaugurate certain reforms immediately, and to do that they have suggested
a bipartisan coalition government.
Senator McMaiion. Was he for that? Was Hurley for the coali-
tion, the bipartisan government?
Mr. Service. Certainly, sir, that was one of his basic directives.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1443
Senator McMahox. Did he indicate personal agreement with that
objective?
Mr. Service. Certainly.
Senator ^NIcMahon, Have you got the excerpts which you can put
in the record ?
Senator Green. Are we proceeding?
Senator Lodge. Are we making progress?
Senator jNIcMahon. As far as I am concerned we are making prog-
ress, because I want to know what this man Hurley was doing.
Senator Tydings. I was going to suggest this, Senator McMahon:
Evidently in order to make a compilation with any degree of com-
Ijrehension, we ought to give the witness a chance to supplement his
remarks by putting it in the record later when he can hunt it up.
Senator Lodge. I suggest that the witness be given every oppor-
tunity to prepare a statement, and let it be submitted to us, and then
be made part of the record.
Senator Green. Every opportunity in addition to the present.
Senator Lod'-.e. Yes.
Senator ]\[cMahon. Let me make it clear as to what I want : I want
Hurley's philosoph}', Hurley's views, and I want the documentation
of those views.
Senator Lodge. Tiiat is perfectly all right with me.
Senator Tydings. We do not want them next year, we want them
soon.
Mr. Rhetts. We will be glad to prepare that out of the material we
liave here, including the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee transcript.
Mr. Morris. I think also that we should have General Hurley's testi-
mon}-.
Senator Tydings. I have been in touch v^ith. General Hurley several
times, and the most recent time was several days ago.
He does not want to testify. He tells me he has nothing to con-
tribute to the testimony that he has contributed before the Foreign
Relations Committee ; I have so stated to the committee, in a message,
and so stated in the press.
I urged General Hurley to come and testify, but he does not want
to come because he says he cannot bring out anything that we do not
alread}^ know.
Senator Green. "WHien was that ?
Senator Tydings. That was about
Mr. Rhetts. December 5, 6, T and 10, 1945, Senator Green.
Senator Green. I remember that; I took part in it. I would like
to refresh mv recollection on mv cross-examination.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead, Mr. Morris.
Mr. Morris. Senator, I have here a list of names that appeared in
Mr. Service's address book. Now, I tliink for the sake of expediency,
I would like to give the list to Mr. Service and ask him to go through
ihe list and tell us briefly what his associations have been with the
particular people, and who they are.
Senator Tydings. May I ask you what the point of this interroga-
tion is?
Mr. Morris. Well, a man's address book, Senator, presumably con-
tains a list of his associates.
Senator Tydings. Granted.
1444 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. I think who Mr. Service's associates are is something
that is pertinent to this inquiry.
Senator Tydings. Well, didn't he identify them the other day for
you ?
Mr. Morris. He did not.
Senator Tydings. He did not?
Mr. Morris. I selected 10 or 12 from the list the other day. T did
not want to go into it any further then because
Mr. Service. AVhom did we discuss the other day ?
Mr. Morris. We had Lattimore, Duncan Lee. We had Sol Adler.
There are three on the first page.
Senator Tydings. I would say that if they are in Mr. Service's
addresses, obviously he has some kind of an acquaintanceship with
them. That is conceded. What more proof do you want than that?
Mr. Morris. A complete identity is not here.
Senator Tydings. Does that show disloyalty to the State Depart-
ment? Does it have some relevance to Mv. Service's disloyalty, as a
disloyal citizen?
Mr. Morris. Senator, as I pointed out the other day. some of these
people have been identified before congressional conunittees as Soviet
agents.
Senator Tydings. That is not necessarily so. Some of them have
been designated as Soviet agents, but that does not make them so.
Mr. Morris. I submit that if we have testimony before a congres-
sional committee and I also understand
Senator Tydings. I am not a very strong believer in that sort of
testimony to hang people on, Mr. Morris.
Mr. Morris. I am not hanging anyone on it, Senator, I am sub-
mit t nig
Senator Tydings. I have no objection to its going in and having Mr.
Service making any comment that you want him to make.
Mr. Morris." I think in all fairness, rather than use the expression
"hang someone on it," I think it is a very unfair term. I think that is
something we should take into consideration for future study.
Senator Tydings. All right, go ahead.
Senator Green. How many of them are there altogether?
Senator Tydings. We are getting pretty far afield. What you
want are acts, not people he knows.
I now know Mr. Browder. I met him the other day, and what's
this other fellow
Mr. Morris. That is not in your address book; this is something
else.
Senator Tydings. I may be in his address book, and that might
make me guilty.
Mr. Morris. If I am going too far afield
Senator Tydings. I think you are. It may be somewhat captious.
You may put it in the record, but I do not think you ought to draw
any conclusions.
Mr. Morris. Senator, I draw no conclusions from this at all.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead, let us get along.
What is the question?
Mr. Morris. Well, Senator, as I say, if you think it is not pertinent,
and you do not think we ought to go into it
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1445
jNIr. Mom;AX. Mv. Chainnan, I tliink we should let Mr. Morris ask
the questions.
Senator Tydixos. (jo ahead, Mr. Morris.
Mr, MoKius. ^Ir, Service, just take them up one at a time and tell
us who they are.
Mr. Skrvice. The first name is Terrell, a British diplomat who
was stationed in Washinoton for some time. 1 had known him and
had been a nei<2:libor of his in Shanghai and saw him for supper.
Tlie name Jones is Col. Paid Jones, wlio had previously been public-
rehitions officer, China-Burma, India theater.
The next name, I believe, is copied incorrectly. It should be Reich-
ner. I believe she was a Avoman workincr on biographic information
for OSS, with whom I had agreed to otfer — to whom I had offered to
make available my knowledge, particularly regarding Communist
personalities. I spent several afternoons with her in OSS being in-
terrogated regarding specific people.
The next man Weaver, I believ^e, is a captain working in Army
Intelligence.
The next name Hose Ellen refers to a Yardoumian, and Ellen
Atkinson.
Rose Yardoumian, as I testified, was the secretary of the Washing-
ton office of the Institute of Pacific Relations.
Eik'u Atkinson was employed in the War Department, MIS, as a
researcher on the Far East.
This engagen.ient refers to the party on the 29th of May which I
attended which they gave in honor of Lieutenant and Mrs. Roth.
The next name, Senator Pepper, needs no explaining.
The next name is Rankin. He was a lieutenant colonel, had been
in Chungking as assistant public-relations officer, and at this time
was in Washington temporarily. I saw him for lunch.
The next three entries have to do with a week end at the Lattimores'.
The entr}' for 12 noon on June 5 is a mistake in copying. It should
be Linebearger. who had formerly been professor at Duke Univer-
sity. During tlie war was in Military Intelligence, and during the
war was a member of the stall' at G-2 in Chungking, and was back
in Washington attached to the Psychological Warfare Branch.
The next one was Ray Burns.
The next name is Gebb. I don't remember Mr. Gebb, but it is
written right after his name "OSS" here, meaning that he was com-
ing to my office.
There were a good many research specialists in the other agencies
who weie continually contacting me with respect to some particular
line or field of AAork in which they were engaged where they thought
that I might be able to give them some help, and this was undoubtedly
such a man.
The next name is Duncan Lee, concerning whom 1 liave already
testified. He had arranged to lunch with me.
Now I come to the address book proper.
Mr. Morris. The name "Adler'" begins the address book.
Mr. Service. I am sorry. I come to the address book proper. This
was a new address book, as I remember it, just concerning this particu-
lar period. The first name is Adler, whom I have already testified
concerning.
1446 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
The next name is Arneson, Elizabeth Yard. I did not know Mr.
Arneson well. He was at that time employed with OWI, I believe.
He was a native Icelander, naturalized American.
Elizabeth Yard, his wife, was my friend. She was the daughter of
missionaries in west China, the same age as myself, and I had grown
up with her and kept contact with her. I had seen them, they lived
over in Arlington.
Brooks Atkinson, correspondent for the New York Times, and
probably my closest friend in China.
Carl Arnold was General Stilwell's aide.
Lt. Emil Brown — that is a mistake, it should be Lt. Emily Brown —
was an old friend of my wife's. She was at that time in the WAG.
She had been a college friend of ni}- wife's ajid myself, too, for that
matter, but I had never known her very well. She is a newspaper
woman, was a newspaper woman before the war, and is now with the
United Press in the Fai- East.
Barnett is Robert Barnett. At that time he was in the Army, and
l^resently with the State Department.
Carr, I don't remen;tber what Carr that is.,,
Mr. Morris. Could that be Drew Pearson's assistant?
Mr. Service. It might be, it might well be.
Colling was a joimg captain in the OSS, who had been a member
of the observer group at Yenan. He was, what you would call, a sort
of guerrilla-warfare man, a demolitions man, and he had just recently
returned to Washington to make his reports to OSS, and brought back
a lot of films, and they were trying to put together a picture of Chinese
Communist guerrilla operations, and I went over to OSS and saw
those jfilms several times, consulted with them on it.
John Cakbvell was a friend whom I had known since we were bovs
together in China. He was with OWI, was with me in China, and was
back with me in China on the China desk of OWI.
Cowan was an officer in the lieadquarters at Chungking who hap-
pened to be back here temporarily in the War Department.
Dan Davis — that should be Don Davis, is a cop,ying mistake — he
w\as at that time an officer in Naval Intelligence. Marty refers to C.
ISIartin Wilbur, who was head of the Political Branch of the Far
Eastern Section of Research and Analysis, which is OSS, formerly a
China boy; also a professor and curator in the Field Museum, and
came into the OSS during the war.
Dennison refers to a man whom I had known out in China with
the National City Bank. I think it was the National City Bank or
possibly the Chase Bank, and he was back here with the RFC during
the war. His wife had been a college friend of mv wife and myself.
Drumright was Everett F. Diumright, an American Forign Ser-
vice officer, who was Assistant Chief, Division of Chinese Affairs,
State Department.
Emmerson is a fellow service officer, Japan expert, who had been one
of the four Foreign Service officers attached to General Stilwell's
staff.
Mr. Morris. Who Avere the four, by the way ?
Mr. Service. John Davis, Raymoiid P. Ludden, John Emmerson,
and myself.
Lee Engdahl was tlie widow of a Foreign Service officer who had
served with me at Shanghai, aud wliom we liad knov\-n verv well.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1447
Mv. Morris. "What was his naiiie?
Mr. Service. His name was Kussell EiigdahL He was killed dur-
ing internment in Honjj: Kong during the early part of the war. She
was employed by the State Department at this time on some sort of
a visa review board. She is now vice consul in the Foreign Service
and stationed at Tehran.
The next name I think is a mistake in copying. It should be Fickan.
He was a man who was a house mate of mine at college. He was a
matlienuitician, had been a professor and was employed during the war
bv the Xavy.
" John Fairbanks, noAv professor of oriental history at Harvard Uni-
versity, during the war was head of far eastern operations for OWL
At this time he was in Washington for employment with OWL
Hon. C. E. Gauss, of course, was former Ambassador, and my for-
mer chief in China.
The next name is Mark Gayn.
Griffiths refers to Col. Samuel P. Griffiths, United States Marine
Corps, who had been a Navy language officer in Peking, studying Chi-
nese at the same time I was in Peking in 1936 and 1937. I had kept
up my friendship with him.
(jeiitille is, so far as I can remember, one of those research special-
ists in OSS who came over to see me on some particular project that
he was working on where he hoped that I could give him some advice.
Now, the next item, Garrisonville, Va., "Ask for Tom AValler," does
not ring any bell right now. I don't know who Tom Waller is. That
might be a "mistake in copying. I mean there are so many mistakes in
copying.
The next name is Hutchinson. He was a lieutenant colonel in OSS
in one of their more secret branches, who had been out hi the Far East,
and with whom I had consulted on a number of projects which they
had contemplated undertaking.
Hitch was an assistant naval attache in Chungking during part of
my period there. He had returned to Washington and was on duty
here.
Christine Homan was the wife of an economist who was working
for some Government bureau. I think he is employed at present with
the President's Council of Economic Advisers. I had known the
Homans first in Peking. They had visited there in 1936 or 1937.
I had become acquainted with them there, and I was invited to their
house for dinner or something here in Washington.
Captain Harris was a young man over in MIS, a researcher in the
social branch of or a special branch of something of the sort there
who had been present at some interrogation, ancl had come over to
consult me further on some points he was interested in.
Hatem is Corp. J. W., who is a brother of an American doctor who
had gone out to China about 1936 or 1937, and had stayed with the
Chinese Communists. This doctor in Yenan had asked me to write
a letter to his family back here and let them know he was well, and
this man Hatem, his younger brother, had come up to see me.
]\Ir. Morris. Was Dr. Hatem a Communist ?
Mr. Service. I suppose he must have been to stay there all that
time, but I don't know whether he was actually a party member
or not.
68970 — 50— pt. 1 92
1448 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Harold Isaacs, of course, was at that time correspondent in China
of Ne\ysweek, and he had recently returned to the States and was
livinii: in New York.
Phil Jaife we have already discussed.
Col. Paul Jones, his name I alread}^ mentioned. His name appears
on my date pad.
Herbert Little had formerly been with the Chinese Maritime Cus-
toms in China. Since the war he has been the senior foreigner with
the Chinese Customs Service, During the war he was returned from
internment, I think, and he was with the OSS, and I saw him here
in Washington on OSS business.
Freddy Lvon, of course, was the security officer of the Department
of State.;
Ludden is Raymond P. Ludden, whom I have discussed.
Lattimore I have discussed.
Mrs. W. W. Lockwood is a widow of an old friend of my mother's
and father's, who was associated with them, an associate of theirs,
out in the YMCA in China.
Capt. Paul Linebearger I have already mentioned. I think that
his branch was the Morale Branch of MIS.
Colonel McHugh had formerly been naval attache in China for a
good mjxny years before and during the war. At this period he had
been assigned to OSS and was here in Washington.
Colonel Mayer had formerly been military attache in China and at
that time was, I don't know what the term was, Far Eastern specialist
in MIS, and he asked me to come over and talk to him and to General
Bissell on one occasion.
Mr. RiiETTs. Who is General Bissell ?
Mr. Service. He was Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, for the United
States Army, in charge of intelligence.
Mertsky was a woman who had formerly been on our staif with the
consul general in Shanghai. After marriage to a man named Coleman,
she left the Foreign Service and was living in New York.
She had been my stenographer for a while in the consulate general
in Shanghai.
Colonel McNally was a man I had known in China as a language
student, had known liim during the war. He went out to China
originally in 1034, as aide to General Hurley, returned to Washington
thereaftei', and was at that time stationed at MIS.
J. K. Penfield is Mr. James Penfield. I gave his address at this
time as CINCPAC, commander in chief of the Pacific.
Phoebe Reichner is this woman in OSS who was writing a biogi-aphic
series, biographic data, whom I was assisting.
Lieutenant Colonel Roberts, his name appears in my pad. He was
assistant public relations officer in Chungking.
Lt. Andy Roth we had mentioned.
Ray is a man who had been working for lend-lease out in China,
nn(l I had seen him off and on. He had made numerous trips to
China, and was here in Washington with FEA.
Snow is Edgar Snow.
Next is Mrs. Harley Stevens. I am trying to think of a Mrs.
Harley Stevens. The^name does not mean "^anything to me now, but
is an address with OSS, so it must have been" somebody working in
OSS, somebody in the Research Branch, who had got in touch with^me.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1449
(luonthiM- Stein was :i oonespoiKU'iil for the Cln-istian Science
iMonitoi- and the ^Manchester (Guardian. ^ -r i • ^ n tj
Phil Sullivan was in Shan-hai, and went to St John s College. He
was emi)loved bv the Department of State m the labor en(l
(ien J *W Schulz is l^ri-. (J.n. John Wesley Scliulz, the brother
of niv wife's father. At that time he was a member of the engineerin<r
board. I think the head of the engineering board at Fort Belvoir.
R. M. Service is mv vounger brother. . ^, . , i i i
Georo-e Tavlor is a man 1 had known out m China where he had
tau«dit "-It Yenan University, was in the University of Washington,
aiuf during the war was employed by OWI on Far Eastern operations,
and I had had some contacts with him. ,-„... i v i . ^
Terrell, I have already mentioned, was the British diplomat wlio
was stationed in Washington, attached to the British Embassy, and
1 had known him out in China. n , rr w • tt^
The next name is a mistake in copying and should be lolstoi. Me
wa- at that time Major Tolstoi, an OSS officer I had met first m the
extreme northwest of China in Lanchow. One of my i-easons in
goin<r to Lanchow was to carrv funds for him, and another officer, who
had come from India through Lhassa, up to Lanchow 1 saw a good
deal of him subsequently in China, and at this time he was back in
Washington. n • i +
Vino Gradoss, of course, I have already mentioned, was press at-
tache in Chungkinir at the Embassy. -. 1,'
Wilbur, I have mentioned as C. Martin Wilbur, at that time attache
to the Research and Analysis Branch of OSS.
Dick Watts is Richard Watts, who was for many years drama critic
of New York Herald Tribune. During the war he was m China tirst
foi^he New York Herald Tribune and later for OWI. I saw a good
deal of him in Chungking, and at this time he had returned to the
States. - 1 1. 1 T
Captain Weaver, as I mentioned, was a research analyst whom 1
had met. • i -r,- i i ix^ ^j- q
Senator Lodge. Are you still in touch with Richard Watts?
Mr. Service. No ; I liave not seen him since 1945.
Senator Lodge. How often had you seen him before that *■
Mr. Service. AVell, I suppose in Chungking I saw him fairly fre-
quently. I think I saw him once in the spring of 194o very briefly, i
have not seen him since.
Thelma Wolfe— the name does not mean anything to me now.
The last name is apparently a copying mistake. It should be Yar-
doumian. Rose, whose name I have already mentioned.
Mr. Morris. I have no other questions.
Senator Lodge. I have no questions of Mr. Service. There are some
questions I would like to ask of Mr. Morgan, due to the fact that Sen-
ator Green and I were away as a subcommittee of two. and the rest
of the sulx^ommittee verv properlv went ahead with the development
of this case, and I have "some points I would like to have cleared up.
I have had a chance to go through the transcript that was developed
while Senator Green and I were away, and I have jotted down some
questions I would like to ask you.
This fir^t grou]) can be answered "Yes" or "No" if you want to. You
do not have to if you do not want to.
1450 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Does the subcommittee, or do you as the chief comisel of the sub-
committee, feel that you have obtained clear-cut and convincing an-
swers to the following questions :
Why was Jaffe permitted to plead guilty in a brief and almost un-
noticed trial, and let off with a fine of $2,500 ?
Mr. Morgan. I would like to ask Mr. Service a couple of questions,
first.
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Service, the question I am going to ask you now
is, of course, one that probably calls for a self-serving answer, but it
is one that I like to see any man in a similar situation place on the
record, and that is this : I believe you have testified you have never
been a member of the Communist Party ; is that correct ?
Mr. Service. That is correct. I have never been a member of the
Communist Party.
Mr. Morgan. Have you ever knowingly associated with members of
the Communist Party apart from the association in your official capac-
ity with the Chinese Communists^
Mr, Service. I have never knov.'inglv associated with any Commu-
nists other than Chinese Conmiunists in connection with my work in
China. I am sorry, I have never knowingly associated with any Com-
munists other than Chinese Communists and Kussian diplomatic
officials in connection with my official work.
Mr. Morgan. If you care to, you may, I am sure, at this point
indicate on our record your attitude and philosophy with respect to
communism. I do not put that as a question. I thought, perhaps, you
might want to indicate in our record your sentiments in that respect.
]\Ir. Service. I am not used to talking about my personal intimate
lieliefs, but I will try to summarize them.
One has to start with some faith and, I believe, that life was not
an accident, that there was a divine purpose, if you call it that, in
creation, and particularl}'- in creating man, as the highest and unique
type of life.
What makes man unique is his spirit, his mind, his ability to rea-
son; that our task, our mission, our responsibility, call it what you
will, is to seek to realize our full potentialities as human beings;
that we have had a few insights as to what these potentialities are
through people like Jesus Christ.
This philosophy, if you call it that, is, of cotirse, based on the deepest
and fullest conception of the rights of the human individual and the
dignity of man.
I think that the most important thing in the world is to give the
fullest opportunity for us to improve ourselves and to realize our
potentialities as human beings and as individuals.
Politically this philosophy, of course, is expressed in democracy,
which is based on the rights of the individual, and the dignity of
man. . It is the exact antithesis of communism, which subordinates
a man to the state which denies human rights, and which tries to fit
it into a mold, according to a set dogma, which we know is false be-
cause it ignores the human spirit, based purely on economic terms.
I think that that is a brief expression of my beliefs.
Mr. Morgan. Have you ever knowingly at any time submitted, as an
officer of the Foreign Service of the State Department on your de-
STATE DEPARTMENT EAFPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1451
tac'lied duty, reports other than those which were, insofar as you were
concerned, your lu)nest conviction of the true facts?
Mr. Skkvici:. I never have submitted any report at any time wliich
was not my conception of the truth, of the true facts at the time.
Mr. JMoRGAN. Did you ever at any time seek to undermine the policy
of this Government, as you knew it and understood it?
Mr. Skrvice. I never sou<>ht to undermine the policy of this Gov-
ernment as I understood it. In fact, I think I can conscientiously say
that I always sought to further the achievement of this Government's
policy.
Mr. Morgan. I believe those are the only questions I have.
Senator Lodge. Will you give your definition of the word "Com-
munist" ?
Mr. Service. A Communist, to my way of thinking, is a person who
believes in the infallibility of Marxism, by which I mean a strictly
materialistic interpretation of history; the dialectic of Marxism de-
rived from Hegel, who submits himself to rigid party discipline, who
adheres wholeheartedly to that dogma to which he is willing to sacri-
fice his own i)ersonal interests in tlie interest of following orders of
the party.
Senator Lodge. Will you define for us the words "Soviet agent"?
Mr. Service. Well, a Soviet agent does not necessarily need to be a
Communist. I would say that he has to be so close to communism,
however, that he is willing to forego or to abandon his own family, his
own life, his own country, in the interests of serving the Soviet Gov-
ernment and the Communist Party.
Senator Lodge. I notice in your definition of "communism," you
make no reference to its impact on religion or to its connection with
Russia. Is there anything significant in that?
Mr. Service. Well, economic materialism is a denial of religion. I
did not tie up with Russia completely because I was tliinking of com-
munism in the broad sense as a theory.
Senator Lodge, I am talking about an active modern Communist
today, 1950.
Mr. Service. Well, here again we run into complications which, I
think, confuse the issue. You could be a Yugoslav and be a Titoist,
and still be theoretically a Communist with all the devotion to the
dogma and the cause of Marx and all the economic materialism, and all
the rest of it.
Senator Lodge. I am asking you to give me your definition of these
things. I mean, you must have a definite idea in your mind of what
the word "Connnunist" means to you. Let us take an American Com-
munist, what is the relationship?
Mr. Service. Well, an American Connnunist is certainly committed
to the recognition of the overpowering interests of the Soviet Union,
I have absolutely no doubt of that, and relating my definition to me,
as an American, I Avould say that a Communist would have to be one
who is committed to supporting the interests of the Communist moth-
erland, tlie leading party of communism; which is the Russian Com-
munist Party.
Senator Lodge. Thank you.
Mr. Morris. May I ask a question? Mr. Service, while you shared
an apartment with Adler over the course of a year, as you testified, did
1452 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
you find his views and his conversations and his outlook on life aiiti-
thetical to yours?
Mr. Service. Well, we did not argue very much. I don't remem-
ber discussing American affairs witli him a great deal. I did not al-
ways agree with Mr. Adler or follow liim on economic discussions,
since his knowledge of economics was detailed and specialized, where-
as mine was not.
Mr. Morris. How about his political views?
Mr. Service. Well, as I say, we were so wrapped up in China, the
Chinese theme, that I don't remember much discussion about the
United States. Certainly, on China w^e agreed generally.
Senator Green. Are there any other questions?
Senator Tydings. I would like to request of you and your counsel
that these things you have been requested to put into the record by
Senator McMalion while he was here, and perhaps by others, while I
do not press you after the ordeal you have been through down with the
otlier hearing, and this one. 1 would still, however, while your testi-
mony is current, like to get it with a fair amount of promptness so
that Ave can put it in. When do you think vou could give us that,
Mr. Khetts?
Mr. R.IIEITS. We will prepare it. Since we have these materials
essentially assembled, it will be a question of putting them together.
We will prei)are them tonight, and it is a question of getting them
mechanically produced.
Senator Typings. That is all right.
(Discussion ( ff the record.)
Senator Tydixgs. I have no further questions. If there are no
other questions, we will take a recess, and 1 would like to have the
committee members to stay a minute.
Mr. RiiETTs. Before we leave, sir, I would like to offer for inclusion
in the record at this time a letter addressed to you. Senator Tydings,
and M'hich was transmitted to Mr. Service, from Dr. H. C. Mei.
(The letter referred to is as follows :)
Gkand Lodge of Fkee a^d Acticpted Masons of China,
HlKDiiiJidi. ('lih)ti. April 18, 1950.
Hon. Millard E. Tydings,
Cliairman. Fevnte Foreign Relations Investif/atiny Suhcommiftee,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator: As an American-born Chinese I have known for some 30
years Mr. and Mrs. Robert Koy Service, parents of Hon. .lobn Stewart Service,
and also the latter for over 10 years both in the United States and in China.
The late Mr. Robert R. Service was for probably two decades a secretary of
the International ('ommittee of Y. M. C. A's (headquarters in New York) and
served most <if that time as a Y. M. C. A. secretary in west Cluna and Shanghai.
He had traveled widely in all j arts of China, beloved by thonsands of Chinese
of all classes, Cliristian and non. My family and I ha\e been Tor ma.iy yea:-s
intimate associates of the Service family in Y. M. C. A., Y. W. C. A., church.
Rotary and Masonic activities in China. In all those organizations the Services,
both father and son, always .showed syiupathetic understanding and had a
genius for friendship witli the Chinese people, especially with the underiu'ivileged.
These qualities chacterize tlie whole Service family. I had come to know Robert
and John Service quite closely in community church and Masonic lodges, and
admire tbem for their genuine humanitarian spirit, their devotion to the Protes-
tant missionary enterprises in China and their love of the Masonic craft.
I write this luisought testimonial, sir, not merely as a gesture of confidence in
a brother Mason, nor yet as a friend of Mr. .lohn S." Service and his truly
Christian family, but fundamentally as one who keenly appreciates his char-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1453
acter to be utterly alien to aiiythiim- approachiiiir Coiiuiumist leanings. Who-
ever possessed of sueh a proud educational, cultural, and relii,nous background
cannot easily stomach communism, and I am firmly convinced that Mr. Service's
professional career negates everything connuunism stands for. I feel it is due
to Mr. yervit'e, as well as to your isubconunittee interested in ascertaining the
facts of bis background, that I address you. for it sieaks louder than words his
loyalty to his country and the I'rotestant faith of which all the Services have
been such outstanding exponents all their lives.
Very respectfully,
Dr. H. C. Mei.
(Whereupon, at 4:30 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned for the
purpose of taking up other matters.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
MONDAY, JUNE 26, 1950
executive session
United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington, D. C.
The subcommittee met, following adjournment of the investigative
session, at 4 : ?>0 p. m. in room 0-23, United States Capitol, Senator
Millard E. Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present : Senatoi-s Tydings, Green, and Lodge.
Also present : Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel for the com-
mittee ; Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel. c^ r^ a
Senator Lodge. I can begin now by saying that Senator (jreen and
I were out of the countrv for 11 days in connection with a subcom-
mittee of two, of which we were members, and during that time the
rest of the subcommittee very properly ;
Senator Green. Are you counting the 11 days from when we went
across the Atlantic and came back again?
Senator Lodge. No; that is 12. ■, • j -^i.
During that time, the subcommittee very properly continued witn
that investigation, and I have now had occasion over the week end
to read the transcript of the testimony that was taken while we were
away, and I have jotted down some questions which I would like
to ask Mr. Morgan, and he can answer them "yes" or "no ' if he wants
to, or he could answer them more in detail if he wants to.
Does the subcommittee feel that it has clear-cut and convincing
answers to the following questions:
1. Why was Jaffe permitted to plead guilty m a brief and almost
unnoticed trial and let off with a fine of $2,500?
Mr. Mokgax. Yes, sir. t t r. •
Senator Lodge. You think you have a clear-cut and defanite answer
to that?
Mr. Morgan. Yes. - t, i i
Senator Lodge. AYhv were charges against Lieutenant Roth, who
had been indicted by tlie Federal grand jury, dismissed by the Govern-
ment? „ _ .
Mr. Morgan. You mean insofar as the Department of Justice was
concerned ?
Senator Lodge. They did not prosecute Roth.
Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir. So far as the Navy is concerned, we are
trying to get a statement with respect to them.
1455
1456 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTVESTIGATION
Senator Ttdings. Senator Lodge, if you will allow me to interject
there, I have written to the Navy Department asking them why,
notwithstanding the Department of Justice, did they not do anything.
The letter has come into my office this afternoon, but I have not seen
it.
Senator Lodge. Li the case of Jaife, is it because the evidence was
polluted; is that briefly the reason why?
Mr. Morgan. In answering the question as I did, Senator, we have
obtained a full and complete explanation from the prosecuting officials
who handled the case as to why they permitted the case of Jaffe to be
disposed of as it was.
To my mind, all that we could hope to obtain on that score is now
in our records.
Senator Tydings. We could criticize them, but we have got every-
thing.
Senator Lodge. As I understand it, the question of tainted evidence
is a question on which lawyers disagree among themselves, and not
being a lawyer myself, I feel justified in making the suggestion
Mr. Morgan. I will be glad to answer your question.
Senator Lodge. For whatever it is worth, that an outside legal
opinion be obtained as to whether evidence was tainted, even though
it is obtained pursuant to a seai'ch warrant and everything else, which,
I understand, was true in the case of the Amerasia documents.
Mr. Morgan. Tlie handling of the disposition of it insofar as Jafle
is concerned, yes ; that was the prime consideration so far as the Justice
officials were concerned.
The fact that they regaided the case to be fraught with a taint from
beginning to end, which was exposed by reason of an affidavit by Mr.
Larsen
Senator Lodge. And the fact that they obtained a great many docu-
ments in a perfectly legal way does not, in your opinion, alter the fact
that everything w'as tainted?
Mr. INIoRGN. AVell, in that regard. Senator, there is quite a story
that we can go into on that, but I will handle it briefly in this way by
saying that, as I understand, the Department of Justice's explanation
and, of course, that is all we have, there were entries made of the
premises which served as the predicate for the acquiring of the legal
process employed in entering under a legal guise, and that, as a result
of the prior illegal entries, they therefore vitiated the legality of the
so-called legal entry. That is their position.
Senator Lodge. I would just like to suggest to you one thing.
Senator Tydings. Olf the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Lodge. On the record, do not your investigations disclose
that they made a number of legal entries into the Amerasia offices?
Senator Tydings. No.
Senator Lodge. Does not the record show that they obtained a great
many documents by perfectly legal methods?
Mr. Morgan. The record shows that the searches made in Amerasia
headquarters were made incident to an arrest warrant calling for the
arrests of Jaffe and Mitchell, let us say those two there.
Those warrants — and I am giving you now the version of the prose-
cuting officials — those warrants were based on evidence which, in their
opinion, was not legally obtained and legally admissible, and inas-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1457
much as the warrants were based on illegal considerations, the war-
rants themselves were not valid.
Now, going on, the Department of Justice, according to the testi-
mony of officials who have here testified, authorized the prosecution
of these defendants, knowing those facts on the theory, I presume,
that what the defendants did not know would not hurt them. The
case went on on that theory until one of the defendants, Larsen, found
out what had happened, and filed a motion to quash. That motion,
filed by Larsen, was the predicate for the action that was taken with
respect to Jatfe and with respect to Larsen.
Senator Lodge. Not being a lawyer, I am aware of the fact that
lawyers disagree violently as to whether or not it is true that the fact
that some evidence is obtained illegally vitiates all the rest of it, and
I suggest that we be in a stronger postion if we had a committee of
lawyers who are in active practice of the law, to pass on that question.
Mr. jNIorgax. In that connection, Senator, when I refer to having in
our records the story, I do not mean that they necessarily were right;
I mean that we have th.e conditions and considerations which they
say was responsible for the action which they took.
Senator Lodge. Have you got the answer to the question of why
Larsen was let olf with a "slap on the wrist?''
Mr. ISIoRGAN. Yes ; we have the answers to that.
Senator Lodge. Have you got the answer to why the charges against
those involved in the Amerasia case changed from conspiracy to vio-
late the espionage statutes by stealing highly confidential Govern-
ment documents to a simply' charge of conspiracy to remove Gov-
ernment records illegally?
Mr. Morgan. "We have that evidence in great detail.
Senator Lodge. Have you the answer to what methods were used
to extract secret documents from the files of the State, War, and Navy
Departments, the OSS, and the Office of War Information?
Mr. Morgan. I believe, pursuant to a specific question propounded
by Senator Tydings, we have the FBI's complete version of it.
Senator Lodge. Have you got the answer to the question of what
evidence was presented to the two grand juries?
Mr. MoRbAN. Yes. We have completely reviewed the proceedings
of both grand juries, and in that connection, somewhere along the
line someone has suggested that the proceedings of the first grand
jury were missing. That is in error. We have reviewed the complete
record of both grand juries.
Senator Lodge. Why was the first grand jury dismissed and the
case taken before a second grand jury, despite the fact that Federal
grand juries frequently are extended over their regular terms for un-
completed business?
Mr. INIoRGAN. We have a complete answer with respect to that, if
you would like for me to give it to you.
Senator Lodge. Was that the answer that Mr. Hitchcock gave, that
the weather was insufferably hot?
Mr. ^loRGAN. We have the answer of "Sir. Hitchcock and also the
answer of Mr. McTnerney,
Senator Lodge. Well, the weather was pretty hot out in the Philip-
pines where the soldiers were fighting.
1458 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Have you got the answer to the question as to why the Department
of Justice felt that it had sufficient evidence to go before the Federal
grand jury and move for an indictment against the six arrested de-
fendants, and then subsequently decide that it did not have the evi-
dence to prosecute the three defendants indicted to the fullest extent
of the law?
Mr. Morgan. The answer to that is part of my previous answer that
they were proceeding obviously on the theory of what the defendants
did not know would not hurt them.
One of the defendants, however, found out, which, according to
the statement of the Department of Justice, destroyed their case.
Senator Green. You said what the defendants did not know would
not hurt them.
Mr. Morgan. Perhaps I should have said would not hurt the prose-
cution.
Senator Lodge. Do you know why tlie trial of JafFe and Larsen
was held in an unusual Saturday morning court proceeding without
any newspapermen being present ?
Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir; we have that.
Senator Lodge. Have you the answer to why no evidence was pre-
sented to the presiding judge at Jaffe's trial with respect to Jaffe's
notorious and well-known Communist affiliations?
Mr. Morgan. We have the explanation of the responsible officials.
Senator Lodge. Does it satisfy you ?
Mr. Morgan. That is part of an ultimate conclusion that we will
have to make, Senator. I think on the basis of the record I will be
able to make a conclusion ; yes, sir.
Senator Lodge. Why did Special Assistant Attorney General Rob-
ert Hitchcock permit the lawyer for JafFe to make the statement of
facts in the court i? Is it not true that ordinarily in a guilty plea this
is the job of the prosecutor ?
Mr. Morgan. In that regard, as I understand it. Senator, on the
day prior to Jajffe's plea, every effort was made to prevent Jaffe's
knowing of the fact that Larsen had filed a motion to quash.
As the result of this fact they, the Department officials, contacted
Mr. Jaffe through his attorney, and recalled to the attorney's mind
the fact that he had suggested several times, in discussions at least,
the possibility of a plea, so Jaffe thereupon, with his attorney or, I
believe it was just his attorney at this point, proceeded to the Depart-
ment of Justice. There were Larsen in one room and Jaffe's attorney
in another room, and the latter not being acquainted with what Lar-
sen had done. The attorney for Jaffe connnitted himself positively
to plead his client or tlie defendant Jaffe guilty, with the understand-
ing that the Department of Justice would recommend a substantial
fine.
Now, as I understand briefly the position of Mr. Hitchcock in this
regard, he did not feel that lie could make an arrangement or a com-
mitment, as was made in that case and still go before a judge and lit-
erally attem])t to "throAv the book" at Jaffe, if you see what I mean.
That is his position.
Senatoi- Lodge.. That they had made a bargain ?
Mr. Morgan. Substantially that; and, of course, I do not know
whether you want my observation or conmient on that, but arrange-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1459
meiits are uv.ulc cortaiiil}' every day between United States attorneys
and defendants' counsel.
Senator T.onoi;. Well, with respect to that, (hirino- the war. of a
United States attorney making- a deal with a known Connnunist like
Jatfe, will shock some people.
Mr. MoROAN. That is their ex])lanation.
S(Miator T.onoK. T^o yon know why Mr. Hitchcock told the conrt
that he could complete the case in 5 minutes?
Mr. Morgan. We know what Mi-. Hitchcock had to say about it.
Senator Lodge. Do not worry, Mr. Chairman. T have not aot nmch
more.
According- to a Scripps-Howard dispatch dated May 4, 1950,
Louis F. Bn.(l«Miz has iiotili^Ml the Tydiiiiis (■(unmittee that he i'^ prepared to tes-
tify about a series of frantic meetings called by the top leaders of the Communist
Party after the Anierasia arrests,
and that Budenz specifically mentioned the name of Robert W.
Weiner, formerly national treasurer of the Communist Party, as one
Avho attended these meetings and proposed that the Communist Party
raise funds for the Amerasia defense.
1. Is Budenz' letter a part of the record?
Mr. Morgan. Budenz' testimony is part of the record, and I re-
ceived a letter from Mr. Budenz in which he told me in the letter
that Mr. Weiner apparently had a hand in endeavoring to arrange or
to assist in financing the defense of Jaife. That is all I have from
him, which we can incorporate in the record at any time.
Senator Lodge. Does not the record also shoAv that Jaffe paid Lar-
sen's fine?
Mr. Morgan. Larsen's fine?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. Morgan. I believe that is Larsen's testimony.
Senator Tydings. Larsen testified to that effect.
Senator Lodge. Has the subcommittee called Weiner in connection
Avith the handling of this phase ?
Mr. Morgan. It has not.
Senator Lodge. Do you think we ought to?
Mr. Morgan. I think, Senator, the determination of that question
Tvill rest simply on this basis: We know Jaffe Mas a Communist; we
know it would be logical for the Connnunist Party to try to help him
in this defense. Weiner, being an active Communist, I do not think
yon w^onld get "boo" out of him.
Senator Tydixgs. I would be willing to concede that he did try to
raise money to try to help Jaffe.
Senator (tReen. If he did, you could not believe him.
Mr. Morgan. That is right.
Senator Lodge. Is it true that at one of these meetings that Budenz
refers to, that the suggestion was made that the Communist Party
turn on Jaffe and accuse him of spying for Jai)an? Have you heard
that?
Mr. Morgan. No.
Mr. Morris. Didn't Budenz testify to that ?
Mr. Morgan. I believe, Mr. Morris, whether it was in his testimony
or in his conversation, I l)elieve Mr. Budenz did mention that the Com-
munist Party was trying in every way to disassociate itself from Mr.
Jaffe. I think that was substantially it.
1460 STATE DEPARTMEJvIT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. Their first strategy was to say that Jaffe was a Nazi
agent or Jap agent.
Mr. Morgan. That is right.
Mr. Morris. And then to disclaim him. But then they thought it
over and decided to change their tack.
Mr. Morgan. As I said, Senator, I personally would be convinced
that the Communist Party would break its neck to do everything it
could for Jaffe. I have no doubt about it. I have no doubt about
Jaffe's being a Communist, and I have a pretty good idea that Mr. Jaffe
is an espionage agent.
Senator Tydings, It would be hard to prove, but I am inclined to
agree with you.
Senator Lodge. Something is wrong somewhere, either in the en-
forcement of the law or the writing of the law, wdien in the middle of
a war we have got to make a bargain and a deal with a character like
Jaffe.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Lodge. On the record, has Jack Stachel, one of the eleven
convicted Communists in Xew York last 3'ear, been contacted with
respect to his knowledge of the Amerasia case ?
Mr. Morgan. When Mr. Budenz testified he suggested the calling of
Browder, Field, and Stachel, with a view to going into the question of
Mr. Lattimore's having Communist connections.
We subpenaed all three of them. Field and Browder, as you know,
both testified, and, in pertinent parts of their testimony, declined to
answer questions.
With respect to the Stachel subpena, his doctor certified to the court
that he has a very bad heart attack, confining him to his home. Now,
of course, I do not know how much credence we can place in that.
All the Communists up there sought to obtain permission from the
court to make a Nation-wide tour, of those that were prosecuted suc-
cessfully, and incidentally, I submitted an affidavit in which I stated
that Stachel has said that he had been confined to his home, and I
understand that was part of the reason for the court's denying the
request to permit them to go about the country.
Now, insofar as Stachel himself, as a witness here is concerned, I
think, Senator, that he has probably been the leading Communist in
the country, at least openly, the most effective one, and I do not think
we have any hope of getting anything from him. I personally would
recommend against calling him or insisting upon compliance with the
subi)ena.
Senator Lodge. Have you seen Budenz' testimony before the House
Un-American Activities Committee, that Lieutenant Roth was in-
structed to contact Alger Hiss to see if the latter could use some influ-
ence in the case? Has the subcommittee looked into this angle of
the case ?
Mr. Morgan. That is testimony of Mr. Budenz ?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. JNIoRGAN. I liad not seen it, and if there is such testimony, I
certainly would like to get it.
Senator Tydings. We will get it.
Senator Lodge. I suggest you look it up.
Mr. Morgan. May I ask, for my guidance and assistance, do you
know anything about it, Mr. Morris?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYAL^i' INVESTIGATION 1461
Mr, MoRuis. No.
Mr. Morgan. I am not prying, but what is the source of this?
Senator Lodge. My assistants devehjped tliis. Ask them.
Soiuitor Tydings. The House ITn- American Activities Committee.
Senator Lodge.* According to Budenz' testimony before the House
Un-American Activities Committee, Lieutenant Roth was instructed
to contact Alffer Hiss to see if the latter could use some influence in
the case.
^Y[\^■ liave we not called General Donovan to tell what he knows
about the case?
Mr. Morgan. I will answer it to this extent, Senator. Two of the
members of our staff interviewed General Donovan concerning the
Amerasia case, and the general advised them, asked them if they had
talked to yiv. Van Buren. and they said they had not. He said that
they should talk to him, that he knew about it as much as he, General
Donovan, did. We did call Mr. Van Buren.
Senator Tydings. He did not know anything.
Senator Lodge. I read his testimony.
Mr. Morgan. AVe have the complete memorandum concerning the
interview of General Donovan, which I want to put in the record
before our procedings are concluded.
Senator Lodge. Is that illuminating? Is there much in it?
Mr. Mor(;an. Very little, Senator.
Senator Lodge. Why have we not asked J. Edgar Hoover for his
opinion respecting the evidence in the case, and for confirmation of
the reported statement that he felt that the FBI had an airtight case'?
Mr. Morgan. Well, with respect to the matter of opinion, of course,
I would be very happy to see Mr. Hoover appear at any time, but I
think, consistent with the rather settled policy of the FBI, he would
decline to express an opinion with respect to legal matters affecting a
case in which his men had developed the facts.
I think that is rather a consistent policy, and probably a rather
good one.
Xow. with respect to this 100-percent airtight matter, all I know
about that, of course, is the letter which Mr. Peurifoy read into our
record, in which Mr. Hoover, according to the record, is supposed not
to have macle this statement.
Xow, if it is regarded as of paramount significance, and the com-
mitte Avants ]Mr. Hoover, my felings Avould be purely in the middle on
that. We know all the facts about the case, and irrespective of any
man's opinion as to what it might ])e. and Mr. Hoover's opinion would
certainly be a good one, of couise, 1 think we, having the facts as we
do. certiiinlv ought to be able to pass judgment on those facts.
Senator Lodge. Well, it seems to me that the Amerasia case, every-
one must admit, the Amerasia case, marked a failure in a great many
respects, and Mr. Hoover's opinion as to why the failure existed in
certain respects, would be interesting and, of course, I would be tre-
mendously interested to know ]Mr. Hoover's opinion as to the credi-
bility of some of these people.
Senator Tydin(;s. He would not give it to you, 1 believe.
Senator Lod(;e. Now, the credibility of Budenz' opinion on that,
what his credibility is. I do not knovv- what liasis he would have for
ex]iressing an opinion on that.
1462 STATE DEPARTAllftsT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Incidentally, we requested an estimate of Mr. Bu-
denz' credibility from the Department of Justice, and they have re-
plied that a man's credibility or a witness' credilnlity must be de-
termined incident to each particular proceeding; in other words, they
would not pass judgment on that, and that, of course, would not in-
dicate that he was not a highly creditable and credible witness at all,
but that has been their position, I am quite sure it is rather consistent
with their policy.
Senator Green. It would be unfortunate to call him and not get
any information from him at all, a declination of one kind or another.
Senator Lodge. Well, I am not going to admit that that is what
would happen. I think if he came up here he would be obliged to
inform us.
Senator Green. That is the policy of the Department, we have been
told over and over again.
Senator Lodge. I have been told that the policy of the Depart-
ment is not to make any conclusions.
Mr. Morgan. As to the picture here, I think all matters relating
to situations of this kind are clear. I think Mr. Morris approached
the FBI on some questions, and I believe they had to clear them with
the Department of Justice, and then get the release, so on that score
I think the position has been very consistent, I believe. I do know it
was for the 8 yeai;s I was with the FBI, that the Bureau, by reason
of the fact that it is an investigative fact-finding body, declines to
assume to pass judgment upon those facts, saying that is a responsi-
bility of the prosecuting officials. They have always insisted that the
very minute they assume to pass judgment on facts they become not
an investigative agency, but a body that might conceivably be fraught
with some of the aspects of a gestapo, which Mr. Hoover has certainly
tried to avoid.
Senator Lodge. I do not want him to be a gestapo, but I think there
is something less than satisfactory
Senator Green. That is the distinction. One draws the facts, and
the other prosecutes.
Senator Lodge. I have never studied the set-up of the gestapo, I
am not an expert on it, and I do not know anything about it. But
I certainly think there is something less than a satisfactory handling
in reading these files, and finding this serious allegation of the person,
and reading through the file, and there is no confirmation of it. I
think they could confirm some of these facts without becoming a
gestapo.
Mr. Morgan. Are you referring now to the Amerasia situation or
the loyalty files ?
Senator Lodge. I am off that.
Now, the record indicates, as I read it, that immediately after the
Amerasia raid there was this apparently concerted outbreak in certain
newspapers by certain writers that the issue involved was the freedom
of the press, and it came very quickly and with apparent unanimity,
indicating some sort of teamwork. Have you looked into that?
]\Ir. INIoRGAN. You mean about the press coverage of the Amerasia
case ?
Senator Lodge. About the unannnity of the argument, and the
unanimity of timing.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1463
jNIr. MouoAN. Seiuitor, I have not tlie sli<rhtest doubt but what every
leftist publication or every pinkish publication in this country went
all-out to try to present this case in the least sifjnificant light.
Senator Lodge. And that they were tipped off from a central source ?
Mr. Morgan. You mean after the arrests Avere made ?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
;Mr. Morgan. I have not sought to make any inquiry w^ith respect
to the press coverage, but I would not have the slightest doubt but
what they would try to play it down in every conceivable way.
Senator Lodge. Have you found out who was responsible for per-
mitting Roth to obtain a commission in the United States Navy ?
Mr. Morgan. That is what we were trying to find out.
Senator Tydings. I called the Secretary of the Navy today and
told him I had had an inquiry down there for 2 weeks, and I was very
disappointed. We are getting along with our hearing very well, and
I wanted to get it in. He said, "It is a funny thing ; it is on my desk
now. and I wanted to make sure that we answ^ered your queries thor-
oughly and comprehensively, and that has caused the delay." He
said, "It will be up there today."
Senator Lodge. Have you got any information concerning Roth's
connection with the Communist Party?
]Mr. Morgan. We have in the record — it is incorporated by reference
in the record — the FBI testimony indicating the nature of Roth's
affiliation with Communist groups and organizations.
I think you will also find. Senator, that in the Hobbs' committee
testimonv an indication of the fact that a man's having Communist
connections at the time of the war was not a bar, strange as it may
seem, to his obtaining a comjnission in the Navy.
Senator Lodge. Have you obtained yet that military evaluation that
I requested several weeks ago of the importance of these Amerasia
documents ?
Mr. Morgan. No; we have not obtained a military evaluation of
them. Senator. The staff, however, has reviewed every one of them.
Senator Lodge. Well, what I wanted, when the Department of Jus-
tice came in here and made the astounding statement that in their
opinion these documents w^ere nothing more or less than teacup gos-
sip, and they were silly, I requested that we obtain naval opinion from
the Navy on the naval documents, and Army opinion on the Army
documents to see whether they were silly or not, and I think it is very
pertinent in view of the fact that the Department of Justice took it
upon itself to pass expert judgments on militar}- matters.
Mr. Morgan. Senator, if I may be pardoned an explanation here,
I would like to give it as to that.
The crime which these people were charged with was a conspiracy
under section 88 of the code. The punishment for conspiracy, the
maximum punishment under the law, is 2 years which, incidentally,
happens also to be the maximum punishment for conspiracy to steal
national defense documents.
Now. any conspiracy to violate any Federal law. no matter what
it is, is 2 years.
Under the one statute they had to ]irove as an element of proof that
these documents related to the national defense.
68070 — 50 — pt. 1 93
1464 STATE departmeuSt: employee loyalty investigation
They had another statute under which they did not have to under-
take this burden of proof, and yet under either statute they could
secure the same punishment for the defendant.
They, therefore, laid the predicate for their prosecution on that
statute which did not require the element of proof with respect to
the character of the documents. In other words, they just side-
stepped the problem of having; to make that additional order of proof,
and that was done, as I understand it, by reason of their feelin*? that
in all probability there were a great many of these documents which
they could not sustain as national defense documents in the mind of
a court or in the mind of a jury. That is the only way, as I under-
stand it, in which this question of the character of the documents
enters the picture, because I think everybody admits that Jaife et al.
had no business with the documents.
Senator Lodge. Well, I think, leaving out the legal technicalities,
it must be obvious to everyone that it is a matter of tlie utmost impor-
tance as to whether these clocumeuts were important documents or
whether they were silly teaci p-gossip documents.
It seems to me that is fundamental in this whole thing, because if
they were silly, we are wasting our time, because at the very opening
of this meeting, Mr. Mclnerney made that statement; it was extraor-
dinary statement to make because it, in effect, says "That we in the
Department of Justice are better qualified to pass on military docu-
ments than the military.''
I think it is very important to get military statements on these
documents to see whether they are important or not.
Mr. Morgan. You see, the only consideration from the prosecuting
standpoint that entered into the Department of Justice's view of the
case was whether or not these documents related to the national defense.
Now, the case of Goren versus the United States has laid down what a
document is which is related to the national defense, and by that
standard, with which the Department of Justice was confronted, they
felt they could not sustain a substantial number of these documents,
as such. For that reason they laid the predicate for the prosecution
without having to go into it.
Senator Tydings. The burden of proof.
Senator Lodge. Why did he come in here the first day and presume
to belittle it?
Mr. Morgan. He did so. Senator Lodge, in the light of the require-
ment of the law that they be national defense documents. I think
that is what he was doing, and that was what Mr. Mclnerney, I am
sure, was talking about. It is what he so said today.
Senator Lodge. When the law lays down a criterion as to what is a
national defense document
Mr. MoRfJAN. The law requires that the documents, to come under
that particular portion of the statute, must relate to the national de-
fense documents. Whether they are or not documents relating to tha
national defense, as the statute requires, is a question of fact to be
determined by a jury or by a court sitting without a jury. The case
of Goren versus the United States is, })erhaps, the leading case on
what it takes to constitute a national defense document and, I think.
Senator, upon reading that ease you will fiud and agree that a very
great many of these (1o(•lllHp)lt^. while significant, could not be sus-
t^"
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1465
(iiiiied as national defense documents — as documents relating to the
national defense.
Mr. Morris. E^-en if some of them were?
Senator Green. Yes. Wh}' was it necessary to prove all of them
were ?
Mr. Morris. If some of them were, that is enough.
Senator Tydincs. What INIr. Morgan is commenting on is not that
some of them were not.
Senator Green. If -dwy of them were that would have proved a case.
Senator Lodge. If the War Department had decided that a docu-
ment ought to be top secret would that not tend to persuade the
average member of the jury?
Mr. Morgan. In Goren versus the United States the court pointed
out quite clearly that the fact of the classification did not ipso facto
make the document one relating to the national defense. You see,
that is something that has to be established bj^ independent proof and,
as I have said, the Department of Justice sought to avoid having to
make that additional proof when they had two statutes under each
of which there could be n-eted out the same punishment to the de-
fendant. That is what I aui trying to say.
So, in contemplation of the punishment possible, the question of
the documents becomes in that sense an academic one because the
punishment would have betai the same in either event.
Senator Lodge. Why does he want to run down the importance of
the documents?
Mr. Morgan. I am not here to defend Mr. Mclnerney, but he was
doing that to explain to us just why it was that they changed the
predicate of the prosecution from one section, section 31, to the section
dealing with embezzlement, because the first section required the es-
tablishing as an independent element that the document related to
the national defense.
Senator Ttdings. And the penalty was the same no matter which
one of those statutes they were tried under.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Mclnerney not being here, in fairnass it should
be said that his answer was right in line with the question we
asked. A^Hiy was it that they shifted from the conspiracy to connnit
espionage under section 31, to conspiracy to embezzle documents, and
that was part of the testimony in explaining why he did it.
Senator Lodge. I certainl}^ would like to get a military judgment
on those documents.
Mr. Morgan. I personally. Senator, am willing to concede for the
purpose of our present discussion that every one of them might have
been a military document.
Senator Lodge. All through that record you can see page after page
after page — I have jotted it down wherever it occurred — almost every
witness except Mr. Mclnerney says that these documents were im-
portant.
Mr. Morgan. It is all through the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. Morgan. From reading the grand jury testimony apparently
Mark Gayn made quite a point of the fact that it was a common prac-
tice to pass on information of this kind. As I understand it, the
grand jury was apparently impressed with that, at least they did
1466 STATE B'EPARTAIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
not indict him, and I think that they — ^probably if the grand jury
had the job of also taking those documents and making the additional
finding that they related to the national defense in contemplation of
Such testimony, that it might have been difficult securing the indict-
ments that they did secure. I do not know that to be true, but it is
merely in consideration of the question you just asked. Of course,
I do not know that, it is only a thought.
Senator Green. Then it was a mistake in bringing the lirst indict-
ment.
Mr. Morgan. No. You see, there was no first indictment. At the
time the complaints were filed for the warrants of arrest, they were
filed charging conspiracy to violate that section, conspiracy to pur-
loin documents relating to the national defense.
At that time they felt that was the theory of the case they wanted
to i^roceed on. As they studied the documents subsequently, they felt
they wanted to avoid taking on that burden.
Senator Tydings. And the penalty was the same in both cases.
Senator Lodge, So far as I am concerned the thing was terribly im-
portant. It is important in two things. I think most of the docu-
ments themselves are intrinsically important and could have involved
life and death.
Mr. Morgan. There were important documents ; no question about it.
Senator Lodge. There was no earthly reason for coming up here
and telling us that they were not important.
Secondly, the thing was important because it opened up probably
the most used source for obtaining documents for foreign govern-
ments, and it gave the other departments leads that were useful to
them in preventing the purloining of documents for foreign govern-
ments in the future; so I think the thing is very important, and no
good purpose is served by trying to pretend that it is not.
On May 26 Hitchcock testified that Gayn, one of the six that were
arrested in the Amerasia case, had received Government documents
from two Government employees identified as George Edward Taylor,
Deputy Director of Area 3, OWI, and from Taylor's subordinate,
Elizabeth Downing Barker.
Hitchcock also said at the time Gayn was arrested, the FBI seized
60 items, of which 22 were Federal Communications Commission re-
ports and about 20 were copies of State Department papers.
Has the subcommittee further pursued this line of inquiry, particu-
lai'ly with reference to the two Government employees named, with a
view of determining whether any leads into the State Department
could be established ?
Mr. Morgan. Both of those parties testified before the second grand
jury, and we have reviewed their testimony. Mrs. Barker testified that
she did give those documents, OWI documents, to Gayn, declassifying
them as she did.
The other documents, according to the evidence, Gayn probably ob-
tained from Jaffe. I do not think there is any question that she gave
him copies of the others.
Mr. Morris. How about Tavlor ?
Mr. Morgan. Taylor, there is a discrepancy in the record. Taylor
indicated he did not extend such authority to Mrs. Barker, and Mrs.
Barker said that he did. Manifestly, of course, the grand jury had
J
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1467
them before it, aiul ai)pareiitly chose to believe ]Mrs. Barker because
they did not return a true bill acrainst Gayn.
Senator Lodge. Taylor and Barker are still in the Government?
^Iv. AfouciAx. Not to my knoAvledo;e either way; I do not know.
Mr. ^loKKis. There is some testimony today about George Taylor.
Senator Lodge. Does it not seem to you that we ought to call Mrs.
Blumenthal. who was mentioned several times during the testimony,
and who pui'j)ortedly typed for Jaffe the Government documents?
Mr. ]MttKG.\x. 1 think we have the testimon}' of Inspector Gurnea
on that to the effect that it was admitted that Mrs. Blumenthal did
type the documents, but it was felt she would probably be better in
the capacity of a helpful witness rather than a defendant. We have
that available to us.
Senator Lodge. Have you tried to find out why Lieutenant Roth
was not court-martialed bv the Navy for his complicity ?
Senator Tydixgs. Yes; I have asked for it. It is all in this letter.
I wrote 2 weeks ago and asked them why they had been taking all
this time.
Senator Lodge. There were thousands of people who were court-
martialed for infinitely less.
Senator Tydix^gs. He should have been court-martialed whether he
was guilty or not.
Senator Lodge. "WHien Larsen's motion to suppress was served on
the De])artment of Justice, has the subcommittee determined whether
the FBI was asked to prepare a report of the facts concerning the
seizure of the documents for the use of the Department of Justice in
litigating this question ?
Mr. Morris. May I at that point say, Senator, that I have addressed
an inquiry to the chairman of the committee, and I understand the in-
quiry has been passed on to the Justice Department. I have renewed
it three times that we get the FBI memorandum which was a refuta-
tion of the affidavits set forth by Larsen's attorney.
Mr. INIoRGAX. "Well now, my recollection of that, Mr. Morris, is that
it was a refutation in this sense : In his affidavit Larsen charged FBI
agents with certain conduct which, if true, would be improper on the
part of agents effecting an arrest.
The memorandum which the FBI had submitted, as I recall, was a
memorandum designed to show the true facts, to show that the acts of
the agents were proper under the true facts, and it was not a memoran-
dum directed to the legal sufficiency of Larsen's motion to quash.
Mr. Morris. It was directed to the facts
Mr. Morgax. It also went into the question, also pointed out, of
course, the fact that Larsen had moved from one a]')artment to an-
othei', but I repeat. Mr. Morris, that the FBI's memorandum was
directed to facts, with respect to the performance of its agents rather
than to the question of the legal sufficiency of Larsen's motion.
Now, I am sure if we make an effort. Mr. Chairman, we can get
that memorandum without too much difficulty.
Senator Tydixgs. Of course, I agree with what you said, and we
have, in addition to that, the statement of the Department of Justice,
which is the FBI, showing the number of times they went into these
various places, so that the facts were pretty one-sided on that score.
1468 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. But an entrance there, Senator, is not necessarily il-
legal. That is one of the determinations we have to make here. An
entry into a house or into premises by the FBI is not necessarily
illegal.
Senator Ttdings. Without a warrant ?
Mr. Morris. Without a warrant it is not. If they go into the
premises in order to determine the scope or the direction of enemy
agents and what they are doing, that is one thing. If they go in to
collect evidence to be used in prosecution, that is a second thing. I
think that is the distinction.
Senator Ttdings. I think I will be able to give you in our final testi-
mony a complete picture of all of that, which I am not in a position
to give you today because I have not it complete, but I am having
that complete picture perfected and it will be right in the middle of
the record.
Senator Lodge. Of course, it is customary for the FBI to prepare a
report on the occurrence of such a thing.
Mr. Morgan. I have not seen this complete report except that my
understanding of what it is, because I have been told
Senator Lodge. It does exist?
Mr. Morgan. But, as I understand it, it was a memorandum of the
FBI which it would certainly always want to do if any of its agents
was charged by anyone by having indulged in or engaged in improper
conduct. I think our problem will be resolved when we get it, as we
will.
Senator Lodge. You will have a chance to study it.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Lodge. Let me ask you this. It is apparent to me from
reading this record that tlie attorneys for the Department of Justice
in their heart of hearts thought that Jaffe was guilty, but they thought
the evidence was tainted for some legalistic reason. Why did they
proceed to go before two grand juries with this evidence in an attempt
to obtain this indictment if they thought the evidence was tainted?
Mr. Morgan. That is what I am trying to tell you. If I understand
the testimony, pursuant to a specific question I asked Mr. Mclnerney,
apparently they were operating on the principle, whether rightly or
wrongly, that what the defendants did not know about the prior entries
would not hurt the prosecution.
When one of the defendants did find out about what happened, then
it was quite a different matter.
Senator Lodge. If they had this feeling in their bones, as apparently
they did, that Jaffe was guilty, why didn't they try to get him some
other way I After all those of us who are not lawyers, we constantly
see — take the case of Al Capone; they could not get him from boot-
legging, so they got him on his income tax, and we know that when
lawyers want to get somebody they have lots of ways.
Mr. Morgan, Right now we have a way to get Jaffe if all of yom
gentlemen will sign that contempt citation.
Senator Lodge. It may. Why did they not make any effort to get
him on his income tax, do you know? Does the record show?
Mr. Morgan. No; I do not know that they deliberately set out to
get Jafl'e after the case was disposed of, as it was.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IISTVESTIGATION 1469
Senator Lodge. If they felt, as Mv. Hitchcock apparently does feel,
from readin<r the record, why didn't they try it ^ There was a war
on, after all, and fellows were being killed.
Mr. MoRGAX. Of course, I do not know that the prosecuting officials
of the Justice Department, when a case is disposed of not to their
liking, I do not know whether they try to set out to get a guy.
Senator Lodge. Look, what they dicl to Al Capone, There was not
even a war on. They got him on his income tax. He had not done
anything as bad as these fellows?
Mr. ^loRGAN. I do not know.
Senator Lodge. I am asking you.
Mr. Morgan. I do not know, Senator, why they did not go after him
in some other fashion. I do not know whether Mr. Jaffe violated the
income-tax laws, and I do not know whether they would have been
constantly checking on him.
Senator Lodge. I think they would have told us if they had, don't
3-ou think ?
Well, the record shows that Jaffe bribed Larsen to get the docu-
ments. Why didn't they go after him on a bribery charge? It is ille-
gal to try to bribe somebody.
Mr. MoRGAX. As I understand the record, Senator, it would be a
characterization of the testimony to say that Larsen was bribed. Lar-
sen has said consistently and insistently that he received no money
from it. It is known that ]Mrs. Larsen typed at Larsen's apartment
the documents for which Jaffe gave her money amounting to as much
as $75, $100 a month.
Senator Lodge. There you are, and certainly it must be against the
law to liribe a man who is working in a Government department.
Why did they not go after Jaffe for that ?
]\ir. Morgan. I doubt, Senator, very much on the basis of the evi-
dence and, of course, it would require a check from the particular
standpoint of the bribery statute — I doubt very much if the bribery
evidence in this particular case would sustain a bribery count.
Senator Lodge. You certainly will not accomplish anything if you
do not try. If you take counsel with fears and try to see all the
obstacles, why, of course, nothing is ever accomplished. Thank you.
Mr. Morgan. Correct.
Senator Green. I would like to have a discussion off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
(Whereupon, at 5 : 25 p. m., the subcommittee adjourned subject to
the call of the Chair.)
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPTOYEE
LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 28, 1950
United States Setstate,
Committee ox Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,
Washington^ D. C7.
EXECUTI^^ SESSION
The subcommittee met, at 2 o'clock p. m., m i'oomG-23, United
States Capitol, pursuant to adjournment Monday, June 26, 1J5U,
Senator Millard E. Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) pre-
^^'^Pilsent: Senators Tydings, Green, McMahon, Hickenlooper, and
°aTso present: Mr. Edward P. Morgan, chief counsel of the sub-
committee, and Mr. Robert Morris, assistant counsel of the sub-
committee. , . . » , .
Senator Tydings. We have had prepared citations for contempt
with respect to Browder, Field, and JafFe which will be reported to
the full committee for action, with our recommendation that the lull
committee put them in the hands of the proper officials of the courts tor
^"^Sliall the record show that it is the sense of the committee that that
action be taken ?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Senator Green. I make that motion.
Senator Tydings. Do you second it, Cabot?
Senator Lodge. Yes. i wi . .i ^u
Senator Tydings. It has been moved and seconded that the thr^
citations enumerated be approved as the sense of the committee and
the full committee be asked to take appropirate action thereon.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now I have something I want to say.
Senator Tydings. Do you want to vote on it first?
Senator Hickenlooper. No. I want to make a statement before we
vote I think such action should be taken. I am not hostile to it. The
only point I want to raise is that the citation, drawn by counsel, was
submitted to me the other day, and I didn't sign it at that time becmise
I said I merely wanted to discuss the adequacy of the citation. Now
there are only two or three things in there which are referred to, and
1 wanted to raise the question, because I am not familiar enough with
the citation, as to whether or not we should certify the whole record
of these people or just hang our hat on one of two things.
Senator Tydings. What is your thought ?
1471
1472 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Tlie answer to that, Senator, is this. In the body of
our report relative to the citation, we certify the entire record and
the portions of the testimony quoted by it are ilhistrative of the
predicate whicli we feel properly lies in their cases. In other words,
the entire record is certified, and the United States attorney's office will
have it all available incident to prosecution.
Senator Tydings. Are the pleadings sufficient ?
Senator Hickenlooper. That is exactly what I am raising. Is the
citation for contempt limited solely to the things you set out in our
certification as the things we are supposed to sign, which I am per-
fectly willing to sign if they are adequate, but I merely wanted to be
sure that counsel is of the opinion that we are not circumscribing
ourselves by only referring to these things by way of illustration.
Senator Tydings. Is the citation so drawn that the entire testimony
is a part thereof for the purpose of pleadings?
Mr. Morgan. Yes. There can be no question about that under the
law.
Senator Tydings. That is the answer.
Senator Hickenixioper. That was the only thing I wanted to be
sure was in the record.
Senator Tydings. Where are the signatures you want ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I would like the record to show that we are
not limiting ourselves to two or three specific illustrations or citations.
Senator Tydings. Let's move along. What is your next problem?
Senator Green. We haven't put the motion to a vote yet.
Senator Tydings. All those in favor will signify by saying "Aye."
(Chorus of "ayes.")
Senator Tydings. Opposed ?
(No response.)
Senator Tydings. Present are Senators IMcMahon, Green, Lodge,
Hickenlooper, and Tydings. All votes are in the affirmative.
Mr. MoRrjAN. Pursuant to various requests we have made of different
agencies of the Government, we have received certain replies, most
of which are addressed to you as the chairman of the committee. I
think that this material all has relevancy to these proceedings and,
with your permission, I would like to indicate, one by one, what they
are and, if agreeable, incorporate them in the record.
Pursuant to a request made of the Department of Justice by the
chairman relative to some conflicting information which we have con-
cerning the entries and the character thereof made by representatives
of the Department of Justice in the course of the Amerasia investiga-
tion, we now have a reply, dated June 13, 1950, to the chairman, indi-
cating the occasions upon which the premises of Amerasia, Mark
Gayn's residence, the aj^artment of Kate Louise Mitchell, the apart-
ment of Philip Jaffe, the apartment of Larsen and Andrew Koth were
enteied.
(This letter is retained in the confidential files of the committee.)
Mr. Morgan. At one point in our record, an inquiry was made by
one of the members of the committee — as I remember, it was you,
Senator Lodge; correct me if I am wrong — concerning the depart-
mental observation relative to the credibility of Mr. Louis F. Budenz.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1473
We have a letter, dated May 16, 1950, addressed to the chairman,
as follows:
Reference is made to your letter of May 5, 1950, to the Attorney General re-
questing the Department's observations concerning the credibility of Louis F.
Budenz as a witness.
It is the Department's view that the tribunal before which a witness appears
is and sliould be the complete judge of the credibility of the witness, since this
judgment is based upon the evidentiary matter involved and the numerous ele-
ments involved in the confrontation process.
You will, I believe, completely understand the Department's regret tliat it
cannot be of assistance to you in your evaluation of the testimony of Mr. Budenz.
Peyton Fokd,
The Assistant to the Attorney Oeneral.
Senator Lodge. I do not understand it at all. I think it is a most
unhelpful answer. I don't agree with it, and I think it is a great pity
we can't have J. Edgar Hoover before us. I made the statement many
times and I repeat it now : I regard that letter as most uncooperative.
Senator Hickexlooper. I might say it is a remarkable thing that
the Department of Justice will put this man on the witness stand and
sav to the jury that this man is to be believed as a part of the prosecu-
tion of this case and then say in a letter that they will not pass on his
credibility.
Senator Tydixgs. I understand it is a time-honored custom of the
Department of Justice not to pass on the credibility of any person who
gives information. ...
Senator Lodge. Some customs are held a little too long. I thnik it is
about time they chanced that custom.
Senator Tydixgs. You have a point there, but I am just passing on
to you the facts. Thev say they are an investigative agency, not a
fact-finding agency. Go ahead, Mr. Morgan. Do you have all this to
go through ?
Mr. Morgan. Yes.
Senator Tydixgs. We had better get along, then. Go ahead.
:Mr. ]MoRGAX. Maybe we could expedite this if I would characterize
the documents, unless there is an objection, and we will just let the
reporter copy them.
Senator Tydixgs. All right, do that, then.
Mr. :Morgax. We have here a letter dated May 4, 1050.
Senator Hickexlooper. Just before you go into that, did any of
you gentlemen receive a copy of a letter, either from the prosecuting
'attorney in New York or one of them to Mr. Budenz or to somebody
else, stating his belief as to the credibility of Mr. Budenz? It seems
that I got a copy of it. i -j:
Senator Tydixgs. I haven't got any copy that I recall, but even if
I had, it would only be opinion evidence. It wouldn't be a fact. His
credibility here will have to be judged by us, not in some other case.
Senator Hickkxiooper. 1 am only talking with reference to this
letter of the Justice Department. I have seen a copy of a letter from
the prosecuting attorney.
Senator Tydixgs. To whom was it addressed ?
Senator Hickexlooper. I think it was addressed to Budenz. I think
he sent me a copy of it and said he sent you a copy of it.
Senator Tydixgs. I don't recall getting it.
^Ir. ^loRRis. I think. Senator, in the distribution of it, that was
the letter which was addressed to you.
1474 STATE DEPARTME]S'T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Put it in the record, if you have it. I have no
objection to it. Put it in the record, if any of you have it.
Mr. Mc.RGAX. To make clear why tliis was read into the record, it
was for the purpose of clearing up a specific request on the record rela-
tive to the Department of Justice. That, of course, is why I incorpo-
rated it, to clear that up.
Senator Lodge. It doesn't clear that up at all, I am sorry.
]Mr. Morgan. That is the best we could do.
I have here a letter from John Foster Dulles, making reference to
certain testimony of Freda Utley relative to the employment of Alger
Hiss at a time coincident Avith '^Ir. Dulles' association with the Car-
negie Foundation, which he has requested that we incorporate in our
record.
Senator Tydings. He has?
Mr. Morgan. Yes. Without objection, I assume that is satisfactory,
Mr. Chairman ?
Senator Tydings. We will read any document in full that you want,
but unless you want them read, we will just designate what some of
them are and let them go in.
Senator Hickenlcoper. Does this letter take issue with what she
said ?
Mr. Morgan. Yes. It is short. I "will read it.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. Morgan. It is dated^May 4, 1950 :
My Dear Senator Tydings : I am infoi-mecl that on May 1, Freda Utley in her
testimony before your Foreign Relations Snhfomn)ittee stated that I had rec;om-
mended the appointment of Alger Hiss as president of the Carnegie Endowment
for International I'eace at a time when I had been furnished with information
that Hiss was a Communist.
That is untrue. The tirst intimation I received that Hiss might have Communist
affiliations came to me after, not before, his election on December 9, 1946.
If yon or any memljer of your subcommittee deems the matter of sufiicient
importance, I should be happy to appear i>ersonally and, under oath, to state
the facts.
In any event you may, perhaps, put this letter into the record.
Sincerely yours,
John Foster Dtjixes.
Senator Tydings. That has nothing to do with this case. It is
clearing up his own position.
Let us go off the record for a second.
(Off the record.)
Senator Tydings. On the record.
Mr. Morgan. Next is a letter, dated May 19, 1950, addressed to
Senator Tydings.
Senator Lodge. From whom?
Mr. INIorgan. From the State Department. It reads us follows:
In accordance with your request, this is to advise that the records of the
Department have been thoroughly checked and it has been ascertained that the
following individuals, whose names are included on the McCarthy list, have
never been employed by or connected with the Department of State in any way.
Then I will give you the numbers corresponding to their names
as they appear on the subpena list of the so-called 81. They are
numbers 29, 19 and 20. This letter is signed John E. Peurifoy.
Senator Tydings. How many of them are there?
Mr. Morgan. Three. If you would like the names off the record,
I will give them to you.
STATE DEPAKT.MENT EMPLOYEE LOYA-LTY INA'ESTIGATION 1475
Senator Tydings. No, I don't think it is important, unless the
conunittee wants them. at ..,Ma v^io
Mr Morgan. Pursuant to a request made of me by Mr. Mollis lela-
tive to ai)pearances of Lattimore before the Foreign bervice Institute,
I have a letter here, dated May 25, 1950, from the State Department,
as follows :
Dkvk S.NMOR TYi.iNGs: I un.UMstnncl that your subc'.muuittee is iuterestiHl in
le- rn - ofanv oc-c-asi,.ns on which Mr. Owen Lattimore has lectured tor the
Foreign Service Institute. Mr. Lattiniores only lecture at tlie Foreign Service
St ute wir.me given on .June 7,. 104G as part of the "Meet tlie 1 ul.hc ' ivrograni
ot thriSepartinent-^ Otlice of Public Affairs, as referred to in my letter to >ou of
'^ms^onI?''oiher connection with the Institute arose from the Departiuenfs
contnicTwith Johns Hopkins University in relation to the University's Mongol
laiiiTuage project, which is also covered in the letter of April 1<.
Sincerely yours, John E. PErmrov.
T mioht sav, in passing, that I have the letter of April IT which I
will in?orpoi-ate here in a few moments. This letter I would like to
have incorporated, without objection.
(The letter, submitted by Mr. Morgan, is as follows :)
Department of State,
Washington, April H, 1950.
The Honorable Millakd E. Tydings,
United States Senate.
My Dear Senator Tydings: Following Senator McCarthy's statement on
March 21 that a top Russian espionage agent, whom he privately ideiitified as Mr.
C^^enLatt more was an employee or consultant of the State Department, I sub-
mU?ed to vJur siihcommittee a brief statement of Mr. Lattimore's connections
w h th s Department, as revealed by a careful check of our personne records.
Si^iice M? Lat?imore las been publicly identified and since there has been con-
siderable public discussion concerning his relationship with the Department,
if is now appropriale to give in greater detail the instances of connections b^
iween Mr lS tkiore'and the Department Withovit any intention of reflec mg
y.!! AT. TnfHnnve ind for the purpose of setting the record straight, I believe
Tsh^iid stateTh 't Mr La tfmoi^e does not have a desk in the Department of State
Lr acceS to its files, and is neither an employee nor a top adviser of the De-
^'oToctober' if lolf Mr'owen Lattimore was appointed as an economic ad-
vise? to the Unied States Reparations Mission to Japan. He served witb the
mission mitil Febioiary 12. 1946. While on this assignment he was paid out of
"^rSSl^^^^TTil ^:^!ZlX^-on a program known as Meet
^^''f °Ti nff- iT In Ui^s c^iac Iv. Mr. Lattimore was not an employee of the
SepSe^tlnd i^cived no'remuner^ The following were the speakers on
this program :
r Ei^it K:i:indlS:S?of the Washington bureau of Newsw^k
Mr rh"u-les Px.lte. chairman of the American Veterans' Committee
gofSen L^S^oii^dil^ctor of the Walter Hines Page School of International
Relations. Johns Hopkins University
Prof Frederick L. Schuman. Williams College
Air TTprhprt Flliston editor of the Washington Post ^ ^ 4.- i
Mr. Eugene fieyerpresident of the International Bank of Reconstruction and
Dr Jacob Viner, professor of economics, Princeton University
Dr Harold Lasswell, professor of law. Yale University
Mr Wallace Deuel, editor of the Chicago News
1476 STATE DEPARTME^^T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Wayne IMorpe
Mr. Thomas K. Finletter, vice chairman of Americans United for World Gov-
ernment, Inc.
Mr. James M. Landis, Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board
Senator Warren Austin
Dr. Arthur Compton, chancelor of Washington University, St. Louis
Mrs. Vera Micheles Dean, editor and re.search director of the Foreign Policy
Association
Mr. Kermit Eby, director of education and research, Congress of Industrial
Organizations
Mr. Hamilton Owens, editor of the Baltimore Sun (and Sun papers)
Prof. Franlv Tannenbaum, Columbia University
Mr. Gardner Murphy, American Psychological Association
Rev. Edmund A. Walsh, vice president of Georgetown University and regent of
the School of Foreign Service
Mr. David Lawrence, editor of the United States News and of the World Report
Mr. Robert Watt, international representative of the American Fedei'ation of
Labor
Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt
Dr. Dexter I'erkius, professor of Latin American affairs, University of Rochester
Congressman Mike Mansfield
Dr. James P. Baxter, president of Williams College
On October 6, 7, and 8, 1049, ]\Ir. Lattimore. following preliminary correspond-
ence with the Department of State, was one of a group of 2.5 private individuals
participating in a round-table discussion arranged by the Office of Public Affairs
for the purpose of exchanging views on United States foreign policy toward China.
As a member of this group Mr. Lattimore was not an employee of the Department
and received no compensation but was reimbursed for expenses. Tliis round-
table discussion followed a solicitation of written views on the same topic from
a larger group in response to which the written views of 31 private individuals
were received and analyzed. Some of the members, including Mr. Lattimore,
were in botli groups. Both the written views received and the transcript of the
round-table discussions were made available as some of the background material
for consideration by Mr. Raymond B. Fosdick, Mr. Everett Case, and Ambassador
Jessup, who had been requested by the Secretary to review United States policy
toward the Far East. The 31 who expressed views initially in writing were :
Former Consul General Joseph W. Ballantine, now at Brookings Institution
Prof. Hugh Borton, Columbia University
Former President Isaaili Bowman, Johns Hopkins University
Dr. A. J. Brumbaugh, American Council on Education, Washington
Former Ambassador William Bullitt
Former LTnder Secretary Castle
Former Consul John A. Embry
Prof. Rupert Emerson, Harvard University
Dr. Charles B. Fahs, New York City
Prof. John K. Fairbanks, Harvard University
Dr. Huntington Gilchrist, Kew York City
Prof. Carrington Goodrich, Columbia University
Former Lender Secretary Grew
Col. Robert A'. Griffin, former Deputy Administrator, EGA, China
Former Ambassador Stanley K. Hornbeek
Roger Lapham, former Administrator, ECA, China
Prof. Kenneth S. Latourette, Yale University
Prof. Owen Lattimore, Johns Hopkins University
Oliver C. Lockhart, Export-Import Bank of Washington
Walter H. Mallory, Council on Foreign Relations
Prof. Wallace Moore, Occidental College, Los Angeles
Prof. Edwin O. Reischauer, Harvard University
C. A. Richards, Economic Cooperation Administration
Former Minister Walter S. Robertson, Richmond, Va.
Dr. Lawrence K. Rosinger, New York City ~ ^
Mr. James Rowe, Washington
Mrs. Virginia Thompson (Adoloff), New York City
Prof. Amry Vandenbosch, University of Kentucky
Prof. Karl A. Wittfogel, Columbia University
Prof. Mary Wright, Stanford University
Admiral Yarnell
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1477
The 25 who attended the round-table discussions were :
Jo-soph W. ISalliintiiic. the RrookinjiS! Institution, AYashinjiton, D. C.
Bernard Brodie, department of international relations, Yale Universit.v, New
Haven, Conn.
Claude A. IUkss. Dire<tor of Studies. Army ^Var College, Washington, D. C.
Kenneth Colegrove, department of political science, Northwestern University,
Evanston, 111.
Arthur G. Coons, president. Occidental College, Los Angeles, Calif.
John W. Decker. International iMissionary Ccmncil, New York, N. Y.
John K. Fairhank. committee on international and regiimal studies, Harvard
University, Camhridge, Mass.
\Villiam R. Herod, president, International General Electric Co., New York, N. Y.
ArtlmrN. Holcombe, department of government, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Mass.
Ben.iamin H. Kizer, Graves, Kizer & Graves, Spokane, Wash.
Owen Baltimore, director, Walter Hines Page School of International Relations,
Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Ernest B. MacNaughton, chairman of the board, First National Bank, Portland,
Oreg.
George C. Marshall, president, American Red Cross, Washington, D. C.
J. Morden Murphy, assistant vice president, Bankers Trust Co., New York, N. Y.
Nathaniel Peffer, department of public law and government, Columbia University,
New York, N. Y.
Harold S. Quigley. department of political science. University of Minnesota,
Minneapolis, Minn.
Edwin O. Reischauer, department of Far Eastern languages. Harvard University,
Cambridge, Mass.
William S. Robertson, president, American & Foreign Power Co., New York,
N. Y.
John D. Rockefeller III, president. Rockefeller Brothers' Fund, New York, N. Y,
Lawrence K. Rosinger, American Institute of Pacific Relations, New York, N. Y.
Eiigene Staley, executive director, World Affairs Council of Northern California,
San Francisco, Calif.
Harold Stassen, president. University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa.
Phillips Talbot, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111.
George E. Taylor, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
Harold M. Vinacke, department of political science. University of Cincinnati,
Cincinnati, Ohio
The following were invited to the round-table October 6, 7, and 8, 1949, but did
attend :
AV. Langbourne Bond, Pan American Airways, Washington, D. C.
Monroe E. Deutsch, provost, University of California
Anne O'Hare McCormick, New York Times
Moris T. Moore, chairman of the board of Time, Inc.
Michael Ross, director, department of international affairs, CIO
J. E. Wallace Sterling, president, Stanford University
In order to ascertain whether any facts whatsoever might support Senator
McCarthy's assertions that Mr. Lattimore has a desk in the Department, access to
its files, and a position as a top adviser on far-eastern affairs, a check has been
made witli officers of the Department who have been concerned with the Far
East, and many of whom have come to know Mr. Lattimore, who is widely re-
gai-ded as one of the loading experts in this held. Be.vond the normal contacts
found among persons having a connnon specialized professional training and
interest, this check developed only that Mr. Lattimore. as director of the Walter
Hines Page School of International Relations of Johns Hopkins Universit.v, has
paitici))ate(1 in setting up at Joiins Hopkins a Mongolian language pro.iect in
which the Department is interested. The Department of State, in line with the
policy of promoting and utilizing foreign language and other international stud-
ies in numerous American universities, has, under authority of Public Law 724
(79th Cong.), entered into a contract with the Johns Hopkins University, pur-
suant to which it has contrittuted .$.'',,20(> toward this language project. Very
much larger sums liave been made availalde for this project, it is understood, by
the American Council of Ijcarned Societies and the ("arnegie I-'oundation. lu
Connection with this project, it was possible to arrange foi- three Mongol scholars,
1478 STATE CEPARTMEXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
including Dilowa Hntnktu, or the "Livins Buddha," to enter the United States
and work in the ^\'alter IIin«\s I'age School in Baltimore. Oflioers of the Depart-
ment's Foreisn Service Institute have visited tlie project from time to time to
observe its progress, and a junior memher of the Foreign Ser\ice staff, a spe-
cialist on the Far East, whose salary is $4,650 a year, is studying at the Walter
Hines Page School as part of this project. The end results of the project will
be a descriptive grammar of the Mongolian language and other teaching ma-
terials in spoken INIongolian.
Mr. Lattiniore was recently sent by the Secretariat of the United Nations as a
member of a preliminary economic survey mission to Afghanistan. In this ca-
pacity, Mr. Lattiniore was hired by and responsible to the United Nations and
not the Department of State.
Mr. Lattiniore does not have a desk in the Department of State, nor does he
have access to its files. Of course, in connection with his OWI employment
(1!)42— 15) and his 4-month assignment to the Pauley Reparations Mission which
terminated February 12, 1948, Mr. Lattiniore, like others in such positions, might
have been required as part of his duties to consider some official papers from
other agencies of the Government, including the Department of State.
These are the facts.
Sincerely yours,
John E. Peueifoy,
Deputy Under Secretary.
Senator Tydings. Are 3^011 ntimberiiio; these so he can identify them ?
You want them all in the record here, don't you ?
Mr. Morgan, Without objection, I would like to ask to have incor-
porated in our record a letter to me of May 2, 1950, from the United
States attorney in New York City, pursuant to a request 6i mine con-
cerning the physical condition of Jacob Stachel, whom we had sub-
penaed. As I understand it, we have now determined that we should
not seek to require Stachel's aj^pearance, that is, the members of the
committee here. I would like to have this in the record.
Senator Tydtngs. Put it in.
(The letter, submitted by Mr. Morgan, is as follows :)
United States Department of Justice,
United States Attorney, Southern District of New York,
New York, N. Y., May 2, 1950.
He: United States v. Foster, ct al.
Edward P. Morgan, Esq.
Chief Counsel Suheommittee Ivnestigatiny the Sfn^e Deparliiuetit,
Senate Office BiiUding, Washington, D. C.
Sir: I am in receipt of your letter dated April 28, 1!)50. relating to the subpena
issued by the Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, directed
to Jacob Stachel.
The records of the district court for the southern district of New York disclose
that Stachel is represented on appeal from his conviction l,y George W. Crockett,
Jr. I have received information that Stachel is confined to his home under the
care of one Dr. Louis Finger, and has been a patient at Mt. Sinai Hospital for a
coronary condition. Doctor Finger, of course, has also been physician for Wil-
liam Z. Foster, national chairman of the Communist Party, and has submitted
affidavits in his behalf concerning a heart condition.
Stachel is presently under bond which restricts his movements to the southern
district of New York. However, I ha^e advised his attorney that I will con-
sent to an order permitting his appearance before the Subcommittee of the Sen-
ate Foreign Relations Committee pursuant to the subpena issued by you.
In addition, there is presently pending before the district court a motion made
by Stachel, as one of the 11 defendants seeking a general modification of the
hail bonds of all of them, to permit travel througliout the entire United States for
the pui'pose of making speeches and raising funds.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to call upon me.
Res]3ectfully,
Irving H. Saypol,
United States Attorney.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1479
Senator Lodge. I tliiiik it is just as important to snbpena Stacliel as
it is to subpena Jatfe and Browder. Obviously, he is one of the most
important figures in the whole thing. You don't get anything out of
these felloAvs even when you do subpena them. I think Stachel would
be as good a man to subpena as either Jaffe or Browder.
Senator Greex. I have no objection to it, but they defy you.
Senator Lodge. I thought they defied us after we subpenaed them.
Senator Greex. That is the reason we issue citations.
Senator Lodge. I am not citing Stachel. I am talking about sub-
penaing Stachel.
Senator Greex. I thought he was subpenaed.
Senator Lodge. No.
Senator Hickexlooper. He was.
Senator Greex. Was he requested to come?
Mr. MoRGAX^. He was subpenaed. Senator, and ordered to appear
o* about the same time as Browder.
Senator Greex. That is what I said ; he was subpenaed, and some-
body just contradicted me.
Senator Tydix^gs. He was subpenaed but filed a doctor's certificate
of ill liealth.
Senator Greex. That is it exactly. He was subpenaed but couldn't
come. When he came, he defied us and refused to answer questions.
Senator jNIcMahox". Has any check been made as to his condition ?
Mr. MoRGAX". Yes. That has been verified. He was confined at Mt.
Sinai Hospital with a heart condition; and, while I imagine that his
heart condition is probably not as bad as he might like the world to
believe, he apparently has a doctor who is so certifying, and he is con-
fined to his premises by reason of the heart condition.
Senator McMahox. What do you suggest. Senator ?
Senator Lodge. My position has been right along that if we subpena
Browder and Jaffe, we ought to subpena Stachel.
Senator McMahox. If we subpenaed them, what is your position
in view of this information, which is new to me ?
Senator Lodge. I don't have much faith in a Communist making any
excuse that he is too sick. To me, that doesn't carry much weight.
Senator McMahon. On the theory that all Communists, with which
I agree, are, per se, liars.
Senator Lodge. I doubt if we would get much information out of
them.
Senator Greex. I think the only object in asldng for a citation in
ihese other cases, because we have been defied by people, is to establish
our own self-respect ; but, where a man doesn't come because he is sick,
that is a different reason.
Senator Lodge. I just doubt whether he is that sick, without know-
ing anything about it.
Senator Greex. I know, but I don't think it is the sort of defiance
the way the other is, where you order them to answer questions and
they refuse. That is a defiance of our rights in the matter.
Senator Ttdixgs. We didn't get that other fellow that Senator
McCarthy had summoned and brought down here on a plane. He was
down here in AVashington and went home. We never even got him
down here. He was sick, too.
Senator McMahox'. I forgot about that "bird." Where is that
"bird"?
68970— 50— pt. 1 94
1480 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. I hear he wants to come down.
Senator Ttdings. Wliere did you hear it ?
Mr. Morris. From him.
Senator Ttdings. Where is he ?
Mr. Morris. He is home in Mount Vernon. I spoke to him on the
phone.
Senator McMahon. When?
Mr. Morris. I guess it was about 10 days ago.
Senator McMaiion. What did you talk to him about?
Mr. Morris. He came and consuked me in connection with his ap-
pearance down here. He asked me if, in my opinion, he was in con-
tempt, and I said, "Technically, you are." He submitted a doctor's
certificate. So he said, "What are you going to do?" I said, "Cer-
tainly, if I were you, I would write to Senator Tydings and tell him
you are willing to come down here and testify in executive session."
Senator JMcMaiion. Did you make any report as assistant counsel
to this committee on this conversation ?
Mr. Morris. To Mr. Morgan ? No ; I didn't.
Senator McMaiion. To any member of the committee?
Mr. Morris. I don't know whether I mentioned it to Senator Hick-
enlooper. No ; I don't think I did.
Senator McMaiion. Did you mention it to Senator McCarthy?
Mr. Morris. No.
Senator McMaiiox. Did you mention it to anybody in his office?
Mr. Morris. In Senator McCarthy's office ? No.
Senator McMaiion. I am rather surprised, because I should think
that information concerning a collapsible and disappearing witness —
if you thought it was important enough to talk to him and give him
advice — would be of some importance. I regret very much that you
didn't notify the chairman of the committee.
Mr. Morris. May I explain a little further ?
Senator McMahon. Sure.
Mr. Morris. I haven't been near my law office, I don't know, for a
long period of time, and I got phone messages. I noticed he had been
trying to reach me. He was trying to consult me sort of independent
with respect to my position on the committee. He wanted, as he
called it, some friendly advice as to where he stood and everything
else. So, the advice I gave him was that he should write to Senator
Tyclings and say that he is perfectly willing to come down and testify.
Now, what caused him to be so upset was the fact he had to testify
in open session. Apparently, when he was first served, he was told
by Mr. Tyler that he was going to be heard in executive session. When
he got down here and saw all the klieg lights, he was very much dis-
turbed, and he said he had an emotional upset; and I believe him,
because the guy is very excitable.
Mr. Morgan. For the record, Mr. Tyler told him he didn't know
whether he would appear in executive or open session, but that is
neither here nor there.
Mr. Morris. I am reporting on Mr. Huber's conversation.
Mr. Morgan. Just for the record, I want that to be clear.
Mr. Morris. I said now that he is well again ; that he should come
and send a letter to Senator Tydings.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA^ESTIGATION 1481
Senator Tydixgs. If he came down here does anybody know what
he would testify to ^ AVhut is the point of brinoino- him iniless he is
going to contribute something to the sum total of knowledge essential
to form an opinion on the matter before us? We had Mr. Van Buren
down here who was widely heralded as a man who could tell every-
thing in God's world, and if he had stayed in Xew York — he is a hell
of a nice fellow — we would have known just as much as we know now.
I don't want to take the time to have witnesses come down here unless
we know they have got some pertinent information. There is no
2)oint in getting him down here, then finding he has nothing to
contribute.
Mr. MoRKis. Senator, don't misconstrue what I said now. I am
answering Senator McMahon's inquiry about Huber. Here is the
lirst time it came up, and I spoke of it as soon as I heard about it. I
gave him advice. I didn't think it was in the capacity of assistant
counsel. I think he came to me as somebod}^ he could go to for assist-
ance, and I gave him the best advice I could.
Senator McMahox. How many times have you conferred with him ?
Mr. MoRRTs. Huber? All together, I must have seen Huber eight
times. You see, he was one of the witnesses before the Westchester
grand jury.
Senator Mc^NIahox. And you were connected with that case?
Mr. ]MoKRis. Yes.
Senator McMahox. Is that where you first met him?
Mr. MoKKis. That is where I first met him — possibly before that,
even.
Senator McMahox. Were most of the meetings in connection with
this?
Mr. JNIoRKis. Yes.
Senator jSIcMahox. How many times did you confer with him in
relation to our matters?
Mr. Morris. I would say two.
Senator McMahon. Would you fix the dates?
Mr. Morris. It would be very difficult. Senator.
Senator McMahon. I don't mean the exact dates. I mean in rela-
tion to what was going on in the investigation. In other words, w^as
to^^^'^to
it before he was supposed to appear before our committee?
Mr. Morris. No. I met him once before he was supposed to appear,
but I had no part of it or anything else. I just heard that he was
going to be one of the witnesses.
Senator Tydixgs. Were you alone when you met him?
Mr. ]MoRRis. No.
Senator Tydixgs. Who was with you?
Mr. Morris. I think :Mi'. Sokolsky was present and Mr. Kerley.
;Mr. Sokolsky had nothing to do with it. It happened to be a social
gathering at which these people happened to be present.
Senator Tydixgs. Anybody else?
Senator McMahox. Who is Kerley?
•Mr. Morris. He testified at the same time. It was a social gather-
ing. Senator. I am trying to think of who else was present.
Mr. MoRGAX. Is our question whether or not we are going to call
Huber?
Senator Tydixgs. Let us let the thing go.
1482 STATE D'EPARTJMEJSTT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. I am answering Senator McMahon's question. I am
trying to recall who was present. The two that stand out are Kerley
and Sokolsky. I don't think he even paid any attention to it.
Senator McMahon. Where was the meeting?
Mr. Morris. Jt wasn't a meeting. It was at the home of J. B.
Matthews, 410 West Twenty-fourth Street. He is a man who had —
I know he always used to help me when I was in the ISavy.
Senator McMahon. I know something about Dr. Matthews' back-
ground. That was before Kerley was supposed to appear with this
man Huber?
Mr. Morris. That is right, Senator. ^?v
Senator McMahon. Just a few days before?
Mr. Morris. No. I think this was probably at least a week before,
maybe 2 weeks.
Senator McMahon. Was that before you became associated with
this committee?
Mr. Morris. I don't think so ; no.
Senator McMahon. That was when you were associated with this
committee ?
Mr. Morris. I think so.
Senator McMahon. Did you make that known to the committee, the
fact that you had had this meeting in regard to this witness?
Mr. Morris. I don't think so, Senator. You see, it was a social
gathering. Now, I was not there in my capacity as a counsel of the
committee.
Senator McMahon. But Huber's appearance was discussed;
wasn't it?
Mr. Morris. Naturally, the Lattimore subject was in all the papers
and everyone was talking about it.
Senator McMahon. Lattimore had already appeared.
Mr. Morris. No. I don't know whether he had appeared, but Latti-
more's name had been injected into the picture, and people were gen-
erally talking about Lattimore and evidence against Lattimore. I
saw Huber there and I was rather surprised. I mean I hadn't seen
Huber, I suppose, a month or 2 months, 6 weeks, whatever it was.
So, I listened to what was going on. I just listened to what it was;
that is all. I don't even think I formed a conclusion, because, when
I heard that Senator McCarthy had suggested he be called, I was
rather surprised. They hadn't consulted me on it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I want to clear up one thing, Brien, if I
may.
Senator McMahon. Sure.
Senator Hickenlooper. It just runs in my mind, and I want to be
clear oi; it in my own mind. At the time this fellow failed to appear as
a witness, or the day before or the day after, in discussing the matter,
it seems to me that Mr. Morris may have mentioned that he had seen
this fellow. I think maybe I asked him if he had ever seen this fellow
that failed to appear, and it runs in my mind that he said he saw him
once, or something of the kind. I asked you whether you talked it
over with the committee. I think I asked you that. I can't be ab-
solutely certain. However, we were discussing why this fellow didn't
appear, and I said, "Who is this 'bird'," and you may have said to me
that you had seen him once. I don't recall whether you did or not.
Senator Ttdings. All right, go ahead. What do you want to know ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1483
Senator ISIcMaiion. I may pursue it further a little later.
Senator Lodge, Let me ask you, before Mr. Morgan continues, what
is your program for this meeting today, to clean up a lot of loose ends;
is that it?
Senator Tydixgs. There are a lot of things, some of which have
been requested by me without the authority of the connuittee. I have
been trying to be vigilant, and where things were not buttoned up I
have written and tried to get answers to be put in the record. They
are all self-explanatory, and a mere reading of them will show where
they fit in. There are only one or two things where there could be a
question of keeping them out. One of them is that confidential thing
from the FBI. My suggestion is — and I want to be perfectly open and
aboveboard about' it — that Mr. Morgan be authorized to put in all
papers that are pertinent to our inquiry which fill in the gaps here. I
have written them, without any regard to whether they are pro or con,
to get the information, and it is all here. Some of it, I think, would be
of value to the committee, but there would be no point, in my opinion,
for the conunittee taking every little letter and going through them,
because a lot of them are very routine.
Senator Lodge. I would like to feel that my assistant could go
through them and pick out things that he thinks I ought to see.
Senator Tydings. I have no objection to that.
Mr. MoROAx. These will all be a part of the record.
Senator Tydixgs. They will all be a part of the record, which will
be put in your hands.
Senator Lodge. You are going to make copies of this for everybody ?
Mr. Morgan. "What I hope to do. Senator, except in those instances
where the matter is extremely voluminous, is to indicate to the re-
porter where it is to be incorporated in the record. This will be re-
tained among the official exhibits in the office downstairs, and when
and if we print the record then this can be printed right into the body
of the testimony where it is to be inserted.
Senator Tydixgs. What I am doing— I think I ought to notify the
committee, and I am sure the committee will want to have it done —
I am having the testimony all printed at the Government Printing
Office. I haven't gotten any of it yet, but they have it. Now they tell
me at this stage of the garne, with the session drawing to a close, and
with the Congressional Record, they can't give it to me right away,
but at least they are working on it, and I am very hopeful of getting
it in the not too distant future. Wliat I want to do is to put anything
that is pertinent in, so that, when the record does come, you will have
the whole ])icture.
Senator Greex. I don't understand just what Mr. Morgan meant
by "at the proper place in the record." You can't date these back as
though they were put in 3 or 4 weeks ago.
Mr. ^NIorgax^. No. Senator. What t mean is this : that if we incor-
porate them as exhibits they will still have to be printed: and, as a
matter of convenience, I think it would be better to have them printed
as a part of the testimony record rather than putting them back in as
an exhibit as such.
Senator Tydix'os. So that the exhibit Avill come where it is related
to the evidence in the record.
1484 STATE departmelNt employee loyalty investigation
Senator Green. I don't think that is right at all. It would seem
then, as though we knew it at the time.
Senator Tydings. We asked for it at the time.
Mr. Morgan. Here, for example, is a communication from the De-
partment of Justice pursuant to a specific request made of Mr. Mc-
Inerney for the Larsen affidavit filed in court.
Senator Green. And, at a hearing, it was agi^eed that it should be
furnished us.
Mr. Morgan. That is right.
Senator Green. That is all right. I thought you meant an inde-
pendent letter from the chairman about some matter that we had
discussed at some hearing and, therefore, you would put the whole
thing back in that hearing.
Mr. Morgan. No, sir.
Senator Tydings. Frequently during the course of the hearing. Sen-
ator Green, if you will recall, we were requested to get some informa-
tion, which I have endeavored to do, and it should be put in the record
at the time the request was made, although it came in later, to show its
relativity to what we had under discussion.
Senator Green. That is all right.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead, Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Morgan. If the chairman desires, I will be happy to read all of
this material into the record. However, I would much prefer, if pos-
sible— it is all here, available to anyone who wishes to review it —
merely to indicate to the stenographer, not necessarily here and now,
what it is in order that he can indicate in our record that it has been
incorporated as such.
Senator Lodge. I am interested, Mr. Chainnan, in having access to
these papers while I am still studying this whole subject, so that I
can know what is in it to help me in my study.
Senator Tydings. You sure can, and it will be made available to
you whenever you want it.
Senator Lodge. When can my assistants look through these papers?
Mr. Morgan. You name it — anytime.
Senator Lodge. Anytime ?
Senator Tydings. Anytime at all.
Senator Lodge. All right.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Morgan. I assume, then, that it will not be necessary at this
point to incorporate by reading all of this into the record.
Senator Tydings. I don't see any point in it, but any member of
the committee, anytime, ought to be able to go through this and see
anything that we have here.
Mr. Morgan. Pursuant to the committee's approval of this action,
I am at this point incorporating in the record all of the various items
which we thus far have collected in the office of the staff.^
(Wlierelipon, at 3: 50 p. m., the committee adjourned.)
1 These items are included in the appendix to the record at pp. 1756 to 2509,
X
N
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05018 346 4
i;:\U
V* .'
■mi
I ; '
* » ' ♦
l;::
!)!:'»
•t**;i.u' y'
:'!{»»•■»;
;•>!■%
.»'.,).
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11