Senator Joseph McCarthy Treason In Washington Exposed nwo illuminati freemasons

1. Senator Joseph McCarthy Treason In Washington Exposed nwo illuminati freemasons

2. INTRODUCTION

3. Service

4. Mr* President, I have before me another affidavit.

5. Sn »lati0Ml,ri/’

6. Air. AIc(;ARTnY. J have,

7. uu

8. $ 1.00

Pages

1. 0

2. 1

3. 2

4. 3

5. 4

6. 5

7. 6

8. 7

9. 8

10. 9

11. 10

12. 11

13. 12

14. 13

15. 14

16. 15

17. 16

18. 17

19. 18

20. 19

21. 20

22. 21

23. 22

24. 23

25. 24

26. 25

27. 26

28. 27

29. 28

30. 29

31. 30

32. 31

33. 32

34. 33

35. 34

36. 35

37. 36

38. 37

39. 38

40. 39

41. 40

42. 41

43. 42

44. 43

45. 44

46. 45

47. 46

48. 47

49. 48

50. 49

51. 50

52. 51

53. 52

54. 53

55. 54

56. 55

57. 56

58. 57

59. 58

60. 59

61. 60

62. 61

63. 62

64. 63

65. 64

66. 65

67. 66

Senator Joseph McCarthy Treason In Washington Exposed nwo illuminati freemasons

This book was produced in EPUB format by the Internet Archive.

The book pages were scanned and converted to EPUB format automatically. This process relies on optical character recognition, and is somewhat susceptible to errors. The book may not offer the correct reading sequence, and there may be weird characters, non-words, and incorrect guesses at structure. Some page numbers and headers or footers may remain from the scanned page. The process which identifies images might have found stray marks on the page which are not actually images from the book. The hidden page numbering which may be available to your ereader corresponds to the numbered pages in the print edition, but is not an exact match; page numbers will increment at the same rate as the corresponding print edition, but we may have started numbering before the print book's visible page numbers. The Internet Archive is working to improve the scanning process and resulting books, but in the meantime, we hope that this book will be useful to you.

The Internet Archive was founded in 1996 to build an Internet library and to promote universal access to all knowledge. The Archive's purposes include offering permanent access for researchers, historians, scholars, people with disabilities, and the general public to historical collections that exist in digital format. The Internet Archive includes texts, audio, moving images, and software as well as archived web pages, and provides specialized services for information access for the blind and other persons with disabilities.

Created with abbyy2epub (v.1.7.6)

EXPOSED BY

i'

■m^:

mmm

MiM

United States Senator Joe McCarthy

K

#

i

This niaiuis(*ript repriiUed in the V.S.A., 1950 by the Christiau Nationalist Crusade

The voiitents of this book, as pertains to Senator McCarthy's speech, liave been quoted verbatim as he delivered his speech on the floor of the United States Senate, This re* print is without the Senator's consent or knowledge on the assunii>1ioii tlial all speeelies made in the Senate are public property.

INTRODUCTION

III the I’nited States there is an mulertrroniul iiiaehme for the piirpase of asMssiiiatiiig tlie eltaraeter atul reputation of anyone %v1k) fiy^hts (Vnomuiikrii effeetively. This machine is eoinposed of such iudividuals as Drew Pearson, Walter Winchell, Edward K. Murrow and numerous unidentified personalities eoimeeted witli Tnptroj)olitaii uewspapei^ and radio Mews-casts, Some of these individuals aetiially pose as antiCommxmists. They even attack Communism with their lips, but they never fail to assasHiiiate the (iharaeter of inclividiials who liave been effective in their opposition to Communism,

Amonj^ those who have heen completely or partially liquidated b\ tiicir conspiracy are the followinf?:: Pojmier f’ongressman Martin Dies; expert investijjator Robert Striplings^ expert investigator Dr, J. B. Matthews; U, S. Congressmnii dohn E, Rankin^ former Congressman J. f^arnell Thomas( imprisoned on a technicality); Father diaries E. Coughlin; Merwin K. Kart^ Upton Close; Gerahl L, K, Smith Hiid numerous others. Although many of these men are still active m the fight against Commmilsm, they have been Kineared, misrepresented, iiiatle to look ridiculous in certain quarters, and millions of dollars have been spent to cripple their nsefuiness.

Supporting the smear and character assassination machine have been powerful organizations inrdiiding the pro('ommnnist fiHwyers Guild; the Communist-control led Writers Congress; and the left-wing Jewish Anti-Defaiuation League, Major Robert 11. Williams ^Military Intelljgenee-RetirefD recently revealed that the Anti-Defamation fjcague had nmde itself one of the most effective instnuiicnts in the world Cominnnist offensive to be found.

These forces, organizations and individinds are now in a campaign to destroy Senator Joe McCarthy, His speech contained in this hook is one of the most sensational ever delivered by any man, anywhere. It accuses! It indiets! It documents! ft i>rovea points! ft demonstnites heyond doubt that 8taliiik pals have been manipulating the policy of our State Department,

Even so, tliis speeefi was not f|noted generously in the

newspapers. Its most vital parag^raphs were omitted. Whv^ e late Harry Hopkins, who exmdsetl a Rasputin-like influeuee over the White House, boasted shortly before he died, H Siiyin.^: I liave a man oii every newspaper in Ameriea/^

I' lime ever eomes that enough statesmanship in either

01 the old parties develops to txo to the bottom of this super conspiraey, America will be sliocked beyond description to learn now many people have been funetioning wittingly or iimvitHngly through cupidity or stupidity in tJits subversive apparatus. The time has come for America to awaken before it ia everlastmgly too late.

(JERALD L, K. HMITH

Mr. President, first 1 sbonld like to pay tribute to people who have been of iiiiiimited tielp to me ia this matter, and vvithout adiose night and day work it w^oiild not have been possible to assemble the facts wliicli Imve been assembled to date If the work is effective iri aceomplishiiig wbat we hope it wdll, the thanks of the Senate should go to those people, who are my staff.

1 shall be glad to yield freely during the speech. However, I crave the indnlgenee of Senators not to ask me to yield until I have reached the point of presenting certain documentaiy evidence in the Lattimore ease, f believe that questions asked of me before timf time would he premature. Therefore, I shall decline to yield until 1 have presented certain documentary endence in the Lattimore case.

Mi\ President, before going into nmttem whicli ( tliirik might he of interest to the Senate in the Lattimore, Jessup, Service, and Hanson eases, I thought it might be welt to clear the air and record in regard to two matters.

As the Senate knows, there has been considerable criticism by a minibcr of welLmcHiiing pcfjple of the iiamitig of names in public before the individuals hare bad an opportunity to be heard.

It might he well, therefore, to Ijriefly cite the reetird as to Avhy najnes have bciui named in piddie rather than in private. On the 2(ltli of Febmary, as the Henate will recall, I gave to the Senate in some detail 81 cases of iinlividuals whom 1 stated the files indi(nited ranged all the way from being bad security risks to very dangerous individuals.’

At that time I pointed out lliat pGrliaps some of tfiose individuals would be able to produce facts to offset the effect of the material in the files and show that they were actually loyal employees. 1 stated iu effect — and while J have not liad an opportunity to ehe(-k the iiumber of times in the record, my office tells me that J did so over a dozen times—that I M'ould consider it extremely improper and unfair to name names in public before the iiidividnal.s had a chance to appear in executive session.

The leader of the majority [Mr. Lucas], however, on five separate occasions demanded that the names be publicly named. His first demand was on page 204J of the Record. Again on page 2046, he had this to say:

I want to remain here until he names them. That is what 1 am interested in.

Again ou page 2049, he said ■

Will the Senator tell us the name of the man for the Record? We are entitled to know who he is. I say this in all seriousness.

Again nii page 205J:i, he said:

The Senator should name names before that committee.

Again on page 206:1, he said :

Why does the Senator refuse to divulge names before the Senate?

Tlia very able Beiiator from KenUieky \\ ithersi] ako on ahiiost countless oe(uisinnH asked me for the nnmes, stating on page 2062:

Does the Senator realise that I, like all others, am curious to know the names? When the Senator gives the cases, the people and the country at large are entitled to know tvbo they are.

At that thne. in answer to the urging of tlie Senator from Illinois and the Senator from Keutoeky. I .stated that 1 wouiti not give the names in piiblie unless a majority ot the Senate demauderl that th<\v he made t)(ddie. and this is al! a mutter of record.

After the sulteommitteo liatl hceu appointetl and the Senator from iMarvlaud [Air. Ty dings] inaile tdiairuuin, lie saw me on the floor of the Senate and stated tlmf a publie hearing iiutl been selieduled, and asked if 1 would lie remly to appear ami testify. At that time I urged that the hearings he in exeeiitive session, and reminded iiini of the statements whiidi I had made on the Senate floor.

He informed me that the first hearings woidd lie public, anti that later we would go into exeeiitive sesshm. Later I was iiifornied by the t>ress that tln^ Senator trom Maryland hatl made the sfatement that I eonhl pJTSent my eases as I saw fit.

1 again ecnilatded him and told him that if that were the ease,

I thought the names .slnndd he given in e.veeutive session, but was again infornunl that the first hearings Mould be publie.

I tlien eontfUded my eoileague, the Senator Iroin Iowa [Mr. Miekenlooper] and told him that while T thonglit this might he good i>ollties for the ma^jorily mmubers of the snbcoTTiuiittce because of the position in which it would place me, it was so unfair to some of the individuals who might be able to produce evidence giving them a clean bid of health, that something should be done.

"fhe Senator from Iowa lnforme<l me there was notlong that he <ir the Senator from ^las.sachusetts [Mr. Lodge] could do b('eausc the Senator from ^laryland had made the aniniunee*

ment that the first liearings would lie open, and it was not even brought to a vote, inasmuch as the Senator from (hmneeticut [Mr. .McMahon] and the Senator from Ithode Island [Mr. Lreen] so obviously went along with liiiu. I do not like to take the time of the Senate on this point, l>nt so much has heeii said about it in the press that 1 think the Uceord should be made ahsolutel.v clear.

At the time of the first public lieariiig, after 1 had begun to testify, and had already^ passetl out to the inemhers of the press the first ease coveniig dtidge Kenyon, the Senator from ^larylaml [Mr. Tydings] then told me that if I cared to we would go into executive se.ssioii. lie, of course, knew full well that to go into executive session, so far as the Kenyon case was (‘onccrued, would be meaningless, after I lunl '^ommenee*! the case ami handed the evidence tliereon to tlic press.

1 had tried to make it clear that the Kenyon case was presiicnted as one of a sequence which I liad hoped to present the first morning, that is, if I had been allowed to proceed. I felt that it M'HS importaul. not so mucli from the standpoint of Judge Kenyon hut rather as a typical case, to slnnv tlie complete iurompet(^iiee of the loyalty lioard for the reason that in this case the files coutnimul more than 28 documents sliowiug memhership in organizations listed as subversive or Communist froni—that reganlless of this, the loyalty Itoard never even went tlirough the motions of asking the judge for an (‘Xplaiiatioji as to why sfic joined tliesi* organizations, which the Heeretary of State himself had stated were evidence that an employee was a bad securiTy risk.

After being held to the Kciiyon case by what 1 considered rallier petty hjckcring for 2 days during which, according to my staff, I occiiiucd a^vproximately* Tj percent of the time, the committee atljourued over the week cml and stated that Judge Kenyon \vouUl be called as a wdtness.

The chairman of the commt1 tee then niagnaiiiinoiisly offered that the other cases wliich I was prepared to present tlie first day be given in executive sessifUi. I do not eondemii or criticize the chairman for this maneuver. It was extremely clever. Howei-er. after presenting one ease to show how the loyalty board wmrked. a case which liappcned to be a lady judge, it would seem unusual in the extreme tiiat the committee retire into executive session to consider the cases of those

12

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

prominent Stato Department offieials in whose activities the pni)lie was so vitally interested.

I might say that, while at the time T felt that the Senator from Illinois was wliolly wrong in demanding tlie names be made public and while 1 originally was very much disturbed by the very clever maneuvering of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Tydings] in getting the names into public print. 1 am not too sure tliat perhaps some good has not been accomplished.

After all. an individual who takes a high Government position must realize that for the good of the country his actions and motives should be subjected to the closest scrutiny. After all, tlie aims and objectives of the group who have been formulating a rather disastrous far eastern policy should be subjected publicly to a cold and searching liglit. Therefore, 1 am not too sure that the Senate majority leader and the chairman of the committee may not have performed a service to the country when one insi.'^ted that the names be made i)ublie and the other maneuvered those names into the public press.

Incidentally, later today, 1 intended to discuss tho.se who think we should write off this entire inve.stigation because it might (*ause some suffering to the families of the betrayers of America, while at the same time forgetting the vast amount of suffering of the families of tin* humlreds of millions whom they have betrayed.

Again, Mr. President. I am going to take a very brief time to clear the air on another matter, which normally would not be ('onsidcred of sufficient importance to be referred to, but it has received so much attention by the members of the committee and others that 1 feel impelled to mention it.

Since my Lincoln Day sptsndi, there has been confusion in the minds of some as to the figures used. At every meeting, or in disi'Ussing the matter witli the press, I n.scil both tin* figure 20;*) and also the figure r>7. It might be well briefly to review the situation to whieli each of those two figures apply, c.speeially so in view of the fact tliat there have been those wliQ have argued that my use of two different sets of figures proves that my information in regard to bad security risks, fellow travelers, ami so forth, is fai.se. As to tlie 57, I said:

I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who appear to be either card-carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party.

Now as to the figure 205. 1 shall first read to the Senate a letter written by the then Se<*retary of State, Byrnes, at the

EXPOSED BY SENATOR MCCARTHY

13

inception of the Sf)-called loyalty program. This letter was written to Representative Sabath and appeared in the Congressional Reeord on August 1. 1946, on page A4892. The letter, which deals with the niimher 205, reads a.s follows:

Department of State, Washington, July 26, 1946.

Dear Adolph: 1 have yours of May 24 expressing your concern with respect to certain allegations made on the floor of the House to the effect that ^‘hundreds, if not thousands, of employees have been eliminated from the State Department by the screening committee because of communistic leanings or activities or membership.*' Such statements are incorrect—

I am reading from Sc<*rctary Byrnes’ lett«*r. I should point out that at that time Secretary Byrnes was tinder rather heavy (‘riticism from some of the more left-wing elements who claimed that he was indiscriminately firing peo[dt* b(*e€iu.se of their left-wing leanings, and this letter appi»iired t<» be in answer to that, lie .said:

Such statements are incorrect and do a grave injustice not only to the employees of the Department but to Government employees as a whole, the great majority of whom arc loyal American citizens. I therefore welcome this opportunity to answer your specific questions in the order in which they are presented.

(1) Pursuant to executive order, approximately 4,000 employees have been transferred to the Department of State from various war agencies such as the OSS, FEA, OWI, 01A A, etc. Of these 4,000 employees, the case histories of approximately 3,000 have been subjected to a preliminary examination, as a result of which a recommen lation against permanent employment has been made in 2S4 cases—

1 believe this is a inis|:rint; I lielieve it should he 2S5, but I am not sure —

by the screening committee to which you refer in your letter.

(2) Of the 284 individuals who have been the subject of adverse recommendations as indicated in (1), above, the .services of 79 have been terminated.

Senators will understainl the Secretary was referring to the hoard which the Bre.sident had appointed to screen the State Department employees, and recommend who .should he discharged heeanse of their disloyalty or because they were bad risks.

(3) Of the 79 actually separated from the Service, 26 were aliens and therefore under “political di.sability" with respect to employment in the peacetime operations of the Department. I assume that factor alone could be considered the principal ba.sis for their separation.

<4) With respect to the 70 thus separated, the following breakdown is submitted:

14

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

Aliens------ -——--^ - 26

Faih^re to comply with foreipi-service regnlatioTis, such as citizenship for 16 years prior to foreign assignment and other reasons disqualifying: the individual for service abroad ... 13

Close connections or involvement with foreign governments or their organs, past records indicating a high degree of security risk, etc. .

The Department is equally concerned with disclosing subversive activities or associations of all kinds whether Communist* Nazi, or Fascist, hi any employees present or prospective»

(5) Because of the security considerations involved in the mission of the screening committee, I do not feel at liberty to disclose publicly the identity of its membership* This committee, incidentally, has no power or authority to eliminate anyone from employment in the i^tate Department* It simply makes recommendations which the Assistant Secretary for Administration may accept or reject in whole or in part in the light of all the relevant evidence.

T cal! the Senate’s attention to the fact that such Is still the f?itualion. The l.oyalty Boanl of tlie Btate Department 1ms no p(Aver whatsoever to discharge any employees* inn‘ has the Review Loyalty Hoard the (Ivil Service CmmiKslon. The Review Loyalty Hoard of the (Ivil Service Commission can do what they did in the Scrvi<'e case* They can (iick up the hall and say, are not satisfied with the (dean hill of health yon^ gave Aiis man. Send the case back to the Loyalty Board.’’ Then tlie Loyalty Boanl is fr<»e to do as it sees fit. unless it is reversed, of eourse* by the Seerctary.

1 ef)nTiiine to read Sem^dary Byrnes’ letter:

t hope what I have said above corrects any mi sap prehensions which you may have entertained as to the Department s personnel policy. Like any other administrative mechanism, it ;s not perfect However, I am entirely clear that it has been fair to the Department s employees in its operation* It is my firm intention to see that it remains? fair.

Sincerely yours,

T It Wifi a Tt^ M IT .

T tlu-ii poinhnl init HI vniiouK ni«L'lins?s. oithor in speeches or in dlsenssini? tlie matter with inemliers of ttie press, that out of the first proup of :i,f'00 eni{»loyees which was less than 20 pereeiit of the total of llif lU.tHIO who were working in I he Department, 284 aeeor'iinur to the Seeretarj ’s letter were fotiiul to bp diiiigfiroiis spciirity ivskt^* I culltHl to thp tact that

for some un^^xplaiiierl reason the State Department ingiated on keeping 205 of those whom the Pre^^ident’s own seeiirity board —appointed for that purpose—named as daiigeroius security

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

15

risks* 1 flirtber pointed out that while I did not have the exact figure on the numher adversely nded on by tlie mibgequent sereeiiing of the balance of Kidoti employees of the State Department the modus operaudi was the same in subsequent eases; namely, first the seeiirity board investigating and, apparently, doing a fairly good job of investigating, and then plaeing its finger upon indlvidnali^ tiiat are dangerous tTom the seeurity slandpoint and the State Departinent diseharging a few and retaining the rest. Just so there van be no future doubt or mistake about tliese figures* lei. me repeat the figure 205 was used in efuineetion with the Secretary of Stale’s letter to the eifeet that tliey wfu’e not diseharged even tlimigh the seenrity board labeled tliem as dangerous seeiirity risks.

As T have said previously, 1 do not know how luaiiy of those individuals are still in the S1a1e Departinent, How many of those names appear in the list I gave the Senate eommittee I do not knenv, hut W(^ eaii assume that it is that si;5(*able number.

The figure of 57 refernul to wluit 1 ealled iiidividunls wiio appeared to he either iiuunlH^r-s of tlu^ |>arty or eertainly loyal thereto.

Since my Limojln Hay .speaking toni-. iliiriug wldidi I made the statement that 1 had tile names of 57 individuals wlio were eitlier members of or at least loyal to the (’onununist Party* a great mnnber of phrases have been inten-haiigeably used* sneh as eard-eaiTying Comnniiust, fellow traveler, disloyal people, and l>aibs(‘eiirity risk. Whbdi of tl>ose phrases is properly apirliealde to (uieli of the eases I gave the committee, only upiuplete and juiinstaking investigation will tell.

A new phrase, however, whieh might well ai>ply to some of tlie most ilangerous iiuliviiluals in our State Department— that is. from the Ameriean point: of \new—is bad-policy risk.

By “baiLpoliey risk,’’ I mean individnals wim infliieuee or shape offieiai United States policy, which forwnnk the interests of totalitarian eommunistie half of tlie world at th(» expense of the free God-fearhig half of the wc»rbL AVhether the individual acts tfnis beeanse of disloyalty or merely heeayse of stniiidity is sometimes relatively nnimporlunt.

The question whirdi T feel should eoneern the Senate ami the eonntry infiiiitely mon» than the question of whether any of llie particular individuals named have actnallv paid their dues and earry a Communist Party card, is the question of

16

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

whether or not — either beeauj^e of design or for any other tea* son^ — they are aetuaily devoted to the interests of this the Nation whiidi ]ias given them the higli pcisitions which they hold.

11ie more deeply I delve into tliis subject, the more I am convinced that two distinct hiU at the same time interlocking areas of operations are almost completely controlled and dominated by individuals who are more loyal to the ideals and designs of comnmnisiu than to those of tlie free, (iod-rearing half of the workL I refer to the Far Eastern Division of the State Department aiid to the Voice of America.

Let me make it elcar that in referring to those two di* visions, 1 do not include all of the employees. \ realize full Avell that of the thousands of employees in the Stale Department. all but a small percentage are honest and loyal Aincrieans. But tliat small pereentngc ean and has been doing almost untold daniage. The State Department is the lifework of most of those employees. They have given to it years of service, unquestioned loyalty; and they have served it with great pride.

Til tlie far-dnng plaees of tlie world, those loyal men and w'omen have spent their lives and exercised all their ingenuity to give to their deiiartiiient and their fJovernment every possible bit of iufonnatioii ami advice they consider useful.

Career employers of the Rtate Department, by virtue oi their long residence iti every forergii country on tlie globe ami their dose association and, iimny times, friendship with citizens and olTieials of tlios(‘ eouiitries, have had access to, and have reported on, every phase of economic and political affairs in the nations to which they are attachiul. Those are the real e 3 t|)erts of ilic State Dtuuartincnt.

Tt is a tragedy when we fiutl the ail vice and experienecj^ of such ontstandingly aide employees stored in a multitude of steel filing cabinets and disregarded, while the Department of State's closed corporation of iinlouchablcs call upon prod.hmimnnist idealists, craek[>ots, and* to put it mildly, bad seeuiity risks to advise them on American diplomatic policy.

Two weeks ago I presented to the foreign relatjoiis subcommit toe some document at ion on a ilr, Owen Lattimore, I referred to Mr. Lattimore at that time as a bad security risk. That was at the public hearing. I should have also referred to liim by the additional and more appropriate designation of ‘‘bad policy risk.”

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

17

8id>seqiiently, in exoculive session, 1 trdd the snbeammittee tliat ! tbought this man was one of the top (Communist agents in this cotinlry. Totlay, I inteml to give the Bciiate some (bjcnmentation to show that lie is a Boviet agent and also that he either is, or at least Ims been, a member of the Fommunist Party.

1 realize that Hi is Is an extremely shocking statement.

The State Depaiinient publicly labels this man as its ontstantling authority in the Far East, lie is also, and 1 believe rightly so, described as the arclnteet of onr faTveastern policy. Therefore, a charge that this imu' is an agent of Russia and a member of thr rornmnnist Party is one that can he made only after the most deep and painstakingly tliorough study. If lightly made without adequate proof, it would be irrespoiLsible to a most alarming tlcgree. On the otbei' hand, any one in the important and responsible posiiion of a Benattu- wlio bad such information and failed to make it known to the public would he guilty of worse tliaii treason.

Roine thiie ago 1 worked ou the so-called n^ptn-ceiiter investigation, where I fnul the honor of serving wnth the mosh able i)emocratie ebairtiian. the Senator from Norib t-arolina] [Mr. Iloey], as well as with (Uher niemhers* both Democrats and Republicans, who in my opinion operated in a completely nonpolltical manner. Since that time, certain loyal and disturbed D oven nil eiit employees apparently have felt it their duty to give me information hi regard to individuals and ac1ives which tiiey consider dangerous to this Re^puhlic of ours.

The increasing pile of evideiiec which T liave aceiimnlat<'d .since tliat time in regard to iiHliviilualB holding high positions in onr Dovernment—and wdth ajiparently not even the remotest sense of loyalty or i^esponsihility to tins Nation—has created in me a deep and distnrhing fear as to the final result «jf Ihcir aetivities.

Let us take the ease of Owen Lattiiuore, for cxamjde* When his activities JHst were hrougld to my attention, the first rea(dion was, “Why not take this to the President or tlie Department of Justice However, I then recalled turn rather famous (Mises. Thirst, tlie Hiss ease, in which even after a eompletc exposition of Ids treason a hie aids liy the I louse 1 n-Aincriean Activities ('oiiimiUee, tlie president shrugged it olf with wisecracks, aiiparcutly honestly feeling that tlie only purpose of the committee in ex]msing traiUrrs high in flovenimciit was

18

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

to hamper him politically. Tliat attitude, the Senate will reealK the J'resideut retained even after Miss’ indietment, when the resident referred to this as a red herring. This, of eourse, could mean only one thing to me—namely, that taking a ease of the same or even more serious nature to the President would result ill the same red- herring treatment.

The next i|Uestion which occurred to me was of course, ^*\Vhy not go to the diistice Department?” While we haA*e a new Attorney General whom I per.sonally like and respect, I could not help but remember that at the time of the Service case, we al.so had an apparently able Attorney General. It will be recalled that in that ease the FlU. after months of painstaking work by scon*s, or peidiaps hundreds of airents, developed what J. Edgar Hoover, the head of the Department, publicly referred to as 100-pereent airtight case” of espionage and treason.

•J. Edgar Hoover, as everyone knows, is not known for overstating his case. I am sur<‘ we all agree that he is the ablest law-enforcement officer in this Nation and, I think, in the world. When ho stated that after the tremendous amount of labor put into that case, it wa.s a 100 percent airtight case of trea.son and espionag(f, I believe most of us would he willing to rely on his judgment <»n the case.

Strangely, however, after the arrest of six suspects in that ca.se of trca.son, there was an unusual sequeu<*e of events, re.sultiiig in a most fantastic finale. The curtain was rung down when a young Department of Justice attorney disposed of Hoover’s six lOO-pcrccnt airtight cases of treason with a statement to the etieet that he could cover all of the facts in that case in le.ss than 5 minutes, and then proceeded to assure the court that there was not the slightest indication of disloyalty.

Obviously, with that treatment by the administration of the carefully investigated and developed ca.s(‘ which the head of the FIG called a lOO-pereent-airtight ea.se of treason, I felt, that the Department of dnstice was not the correct place to take what I consider an even more dangerous case.

The next (|Ucstion is. Wliere should it be taken? The answer. I think, is inescapable: to the 140,()(Kb(M)0 American people. That is wlitwc I have been taking it, and where shall I continue to take the cases of those whom I consider a danger and thr*‘nt to this K’epuldic.

Wnen 1 eommcncod this work, I realized the fact that the

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

19

odds were greatly against bringing it to the successful conclusion of cleaning out that small but dominant percentage of disloyal, twi.sted, ami, in some eases, perverted thinkers who were rendering futile the Herculean efforts of the vast number of loyal Americans in the State Department who have been even more deeply disturbed than I have been at the way the world is being rapidly delivered to eommiinism.

In discussing this matter with some of my friends before launeliing upon this project, they pointed out to me the appanmt futility of the task, and that the road has been strewn Avitli the political corp.scs of those who have dared to attempt an ex]msnre of the type of individuals whom I intend to discuss today.

They pointed on! to me the obvious fact that those in this Nation wdio arc jiarl of a Communist w^orld-wide conspiracy would .stoj) at nothing in order to attempt to discredit and hamper any effort toward a long-needed housecleaning.

This has been amply proven over the years, and certainly to some additional extent over the past 4 or 5 wrecks. In fact, the Nvord has gone out that if only tins investigation can be eans(Ml to fail, if in ^his case those who may exert efforts to make it succeed can l)e sufficiently smeared and discredited, then no one wdll dare to probe into such ^levdous and smelly passages until it will he too late.

However, over the past few* weeks tens of thousands of <listurhed American people have w*rittcn urging that this housecleaning—])crhaps I should say rodent-destroying—ta.sk be continued. This has given iiu* even greater and renewed confidence in the good common sense and inherent decency of the 140,fK)0,0(X) people w’ho make ii]) this Nation.

^lany of those people have expressed a deep eoneern for fear that 1 may quit tliis fight. I wmnt to assure them now that, ill tlie w’onls of didui Paul Jones, ”1 have just begun to fight.”

In <*onnection w’ilh the Lattimore ca.se, T have here .several documents which might he of some interest. I also have the name of a w’ituess which I am turning over to the Federal Bureau of Investigation This witne.ss has been used by the Justice Department as a Govcnimeut witness in another matter. The Department has trusted his veracity and publicly indicated confid(‘nce in liis truthfulness.

This man will testify sirustantially as follows:

That lie lia.s been a rrieniber of the CoiiiniuniM Party for a autiiber of j^ears; that he was high up in Gominuiiist circles; that fas party work retpiircd that he know the iiLeiiihers of tlic luirty so that he might tlisi ingumh between Communists veho were subject to party discipline and tJie loyal fellow travelers over whom the party had no discipline.

lie will testify that it was part of his job to tuive this lih formal ion — not, Mr. President, as you ujulerstood, on every one of the oO^OOl), or 00,fld(?, or TDjiOO Communists in the United States, but on the imi>ortatit ones who were relied iit>on to do the important work for the party.

He will further testify that Owen Ijattimore was known to liiin to l»e a member of tfie Cfunmunist Party, a member over whom tiiey hnd disciplinary powers.

1 have before me nnotfier document, the origioal of which is being given to tin' Federal Bureau of hivestigatioiL I rpiote the pm'tiiient parts B^oni this affidavit:

I met and got to know Owen Lattimore in the spring of 1936 in Moscow when he and P* C. Carter were very obviously receiving instructions from the Soviet Government concerning the line which the Institute of Pacific Relations ought to follow. I would be willing to so testify if subpenaed. However, I request that my name be not publicly used at this time, but you do have my permission at this time to quote what I have said and give a copy of this to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. ^ ^

I have another staUMiieiii which ! had a great deal nl ditfh'idty getting, 1 had no difficulty obtaiiiiug the information IVnm this mam hut he was extremely reluctant to sign a statemeiiT, fearing that his job might be endangered if he did so. He also stated that he had been reading about hotv the committee wyw operating and stsuued to feel that if he were suhpenaed and gave testimony which was damaging to anyone ehargcul with cmiimuiiistic activities tu' of being had security risks, and forth, he would he given too rough a time by the committee. We tried to reassure him as much as possible and finally obtained this Ktatement. lie gave his consent to his name and this statcmeni l.eing given to tlie FBI. \Vc liad to promise him. however, that his name would not he given to the committee. Wc had to further promise him that in making known the contents of his affidavit it w<ud(l md he done in siudi a fashion that he couhl i>e identified.

This affidavit ties Owen l.attimore in so closely with John S. Serviee and the Amerasia ease that before giving tlic eonfcnlH of the affidnvji 1 feed it necessary to cover the facts in

that case. I. therefore, ask unaniniotis coiistnit to have printed in tlie Kecord at this point tlip (‘ase of John S, Serviee as I presented it to the Forcugn Relatious Siibeonunittee.

T he PK KS 11)1X0 OF FI V R. i s l he re obj ce t ion ?

Tliere being no objection, the case was f»rdercd lo l>e printed hi the Kecord. as follows:

Service

This case is that of John Stewart Service.

This man is a foreign sei^dce officer of the Department of State and at the moment is in Calcutta, India, where he is helping determino the all-important policy of our Government toward India,

The name of John Stewart Service is not new to the men in the Cievernnient who must pass on a govern mental employee's fitness as a security risk.

When Mr. Peurifov testified before the Senate Appropriations Committee he said that Soi'vice had been eleaied four different times.

It is my understanding that the number has now risen to five and I earnestly request that this committee ascertain immediately if Service was not considered as a bad security risk by the Loyalty Appeal Board of the Civil Seiwice Commission, in a post audit derision, 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 reqiort that they did not fed that they rould give him clearance and requested that a new board be appointed for the consideration of this case.

To indicate to the committee the importance of this man^s position as a security risk to the Government, I think it should be noted that he i's 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; particularly those in the Far East.

The Communist affiliations of Service are well known.

His backgrounil 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 editorTal board of this magazine were pro-Communist members of the State Department and the committee is in possession of these names.

On June C, 1945, tlie Federal Bureiu nf Investigation, after an exceedingly painstaking and careful investigation covering months, arrested Philip J, Jaffe, Kate Louise Mitchell, editor and coeditor of Amerisia; Andrew Roth, a lieutenant in the United States Naval Reserve stationed in Washington; Emanuel 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 who is presently representing the State Department in Calcutta, India): Mark Julius Gayn, a magazine writer of New York City, who is about to leave for Russia. They were arrested on charges of espionage in connectitm with the theft of the following Government

22

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

records: 3(50 classified documents from the State Depailment, including some top secret and confidential classifications; 163 prepared by ONI; 42 prepared by MID; 58 prepared by OWI; 9 from the files of the War Department.

Some of the important documents picked np by the FBI at the time of the arrest were as follows:

First. One document marked secret and obviously originating in the Navy Department dealt with the schedule and targets for the bombing of Japan. This particular document was known to be in the posse.ssion of Phillip Jaffe, one of the defendants, during the early spring of 1945 and before the program had been effected. That information in the hands of our enemies could have cost us many precious American 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 conceivable 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 freedom of the press? That was the excuse they offered. They stole this document for no good purpose.

Third. Another document stolen from the Office of Postal and Telegraph Censorship was a secret report on the Far East and so stampeil 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 Miiitery Intelligence and consisted of 22 pages containing information obtained from Japanese prisoners of war.

Fifth. Another stolen document, particularly ill'uminating and of present great importance to our policy in China, was a lengthy detailed report showing complete di.sposition 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 affecting the national defense of the 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 prohibited by law.”

Despite the very small circulation of 1,700 copies of this magazine it had a large photo-copying department. According to Congressman Dondero, who sponsored the resolution for the investigation of the grand jury, this department was working through the night, in 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 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

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

23

opposed the clique which favored scuttling Chiang Kai-shek and allowing 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:

Behind the now famous State Department espionage case, involving the arrest of six persons of whom I 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 the Far East from its long vested course to the Soviet line. It is a story which has never been told before in full. Many sensational though little explained developments, such ns the General Stihvell affair, the resignation of Under Secretary Joseph C. Grew and Ambassador Patrick Hurley and the emergence 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 the Hobbs committee to investigate. But from behind that whitewash there emerges the pattern of a major operation performed upon Uncle Sam without his being conscious of it. That oj)eration 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 which may yet bring untold sorrow to the American people. ^ ^ ^

How did it happen that the United States began to turn in 1944 upon its loyal ally, the Chiang Kai-shek Government, which had for 7 years fought Japan, and to assume the sponsorship 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 members 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 w^hich American officers would be training and equipping rebel Chinese Communist units at the very time when they were ambushing our marines and when Communists the world over w'ere waging a war of nei*ves upon the United States?

Whose was the hand which forced the sensational resignation of Under Secretary of State Joseph C. Grew and his rqplacement by Dean Acheson? And was the same hand responsible for driving Ambassador Patrick Hurley into a blind alley and retirement?

In describing the arrest, Tiarsen had this to say about his arrival at the office of the United States Commissioner:

“There 1 found myself sitting next to John Stewart Service, a leading figure in the pro-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, Jn, and John Carter Vincent as the pro-Soviet group in the China seciion whose views were reflected by Ameratiia and whose members were in close touch with Jaffe and Roth* In connection with this, it will be mneinbered that John Service, aa StilwelPs 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 allov’ him to equip and arm some ^00,000 CommuniiEts. 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. Chiang Kai-shek promptly requested the recall of Stilwell and President Roosevelt relieved Stilwell of his command. It was at this time that Service submitted his Report No. 40 to the State Department, which, according to Hurley, was a plan for the removal of support Ironi the Chiang Kai-shek Government with the end result that the Communists would take over*

The espionage cases apparently bad 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 Jaffe and Mitchell. The FBI then took over and reported that in the course of its quest it was found that John Stewart Service was in communication from China with Jaffe* The substance of some of Service’s confidential messages to the State Department reached the offices of Ameiasia in New York before they arrived in Washington, One of the papers found in Jaffe’s possession wma Document No, 5B, one of Service’s secret reports entitled: ^^Generalissimo Chiang Kai-ahek—Decline of His Prestige and Criticism of Opposition to His Leadership." _

In the course of the FBI investigation Amerasia was revealed as the center of a group of active and enthusiastic Communists or fellowtravelers. To give you a better picture of Amerasia, it perhaps should be mentioned here that Owen Lattimore was formerly an editor of Amerasia, and Frederick Vanderbilt Field, a writer for the Daily Worker, was the magazine head. Mr. Jaffe incidentally was naturalized in 1923 and seiwed as a contributing editor of the Defender, a monthly magazine of International Labor 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 nro-Soviet American Friends of the Chinese People, At that time be operated under the alias of J, W. Philips. Under the name of J. W. Philips, he presided in 1935 over a banciuet at which Eaii Browder was a speaker. 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-Comniunist and proSoviet movements for a number of years, ^ .

According to an article in Plain Talk magazine Jaffe has been a libera) contributor to pro-Soviet causes and that on one occasion he reserved two tables at a hotel banquet held to launch a P^-Dujnmunist China front in the name of “The fifth floor, 35 East Twelfth

Street,” which happens to be the national headquarters of the Communist Party.

I realize that this history of Jaffe’s acdvitica is unnecessary for most of the Members of this investigating body, but 1 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 parly for John S, Service when he re1 limed from China, Service had previously attended a special press conference held by the Institute of Pacific Relations, in which he supported the position of the Chine.se Communists.

Larsen had this to say about his codefendants:

“I knew Jaffe and his group as the editor of a magazine which had almost semi-official standing among the left wingers in the State Department."

The night Kate Mitchell was arrested, she had in her possession, according to Congressman Dondero, a highly confidential document entitled: “Plan of Battle Operations for Boldicrs," a paper of such importance that Army officers were subject to court martial if they lost their copies.

Congressman Frank Fellows, a member of the Committee on the Judiciary which mvestigated the grand jury which failed t^^ indict Service, wrote a minority report in which he stated:

“The author of the Tesolutimi under which this committee assumed jurisdiclion stated upon the floor of the Mouse, ‘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 prosecution of the six indhiduals who were picked up by the FBI on. charges of conspiracy to commit espionage. He thereupon immediately 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.

Lieutenant Roth wrote a serie.s of articles foi' 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 lake 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, "Weil, we’ve suffered a lot,’ he said, ‘butr anyhow, we got Grew out!’ ”

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 espionage case itself w^as following a special course hind the scenes. It appeared that Kate Mitchell 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 lawr firm in Buffalo— Kenefick, Cooke, Mitchell, Bass & Letch worth. The New York City

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

2f>

eoriespondents of that law firm include the most redoubtable Col Joseph M- Hnrtl'ield, extremely well known and extremely influential in Government circles in Washington. Colonel Hartfiekh 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 olficials of the Department of Justice in the matter/'

In that connection T would like to quote again from Congressman Dondero's talk on the House floor, in which he stated:

'T have heretofore chai’ged and reiterate now that the court before whom these cases were brought was not fully informed of the facts* A summary of the court proceedingt^ has been furnished to me, which shows no evidence or exhibit obtamed by the Federal Bureau of Impestigation presented to the court. Jaffe^'s counsel told the court that Jaffe had no intention of harming the Government, and United States Attorney Hitchcock told the court there was no clement of disloyalty in connection with the case. If that is the fact, may 1 respectfully ask what purpose did these individuals have in mind in stealing these pai-ticular 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 with Germany and Japan when these files were stolen, and Jaffe, in whose possession they w^erc found had been for more than 10 years a leader and heavy financial supporter of Communist propaganda causes, according to the FBI ”

As T stated above, after the grand jury failed to indict Mitchell, Service, and Roth, the House passed a reBolution in which it directed the Committee on the Judiciary—

"To make a thorough investigation of all the circumstances with reapect to the dispoBition of the charges of espionage and the possession of documents stolen from secret Government files which were made by the Federal Buieau of rnvestigation ‘against Philip J. Jaffe* Kate L. Mitchell, John Stewart Serviyce, Emmanuel Sigurd Larsen, Andrew Roth, and Mark Gayn/ and to repoi*t to the House (or to the Clerk of the House, if the House is not in session) as soon as practicable during the present Oongn'eas, the I'eaults of its investigation, together with such recommendations as it deems necessary*”

This committee then confirmed a lepoil of a theft of a vast number of documents from the *State, War, and Navy Departments, which ranged in classification all the way from top secret to confidential. This committee report indicates that a number of the members of the grand jury voted for the indictment of Semce and Mitchell on the espionage charges, but that the required number of 12 did not so vote.

It will be noted that the committee w as not appointed for the purpose of passing upon the guilt or innocence of the espiemage suspects, but w'as appointed for the purpose of investigating the way that the case was handled and to make recommendations. The committee did not in any way question the theft of the documents. However, 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 obtairiing them.

For example, on page 5, the report states as follows:

“4* Many of the identifiable documents might have had their evidential value destroyed by reason of the possibility of the court's sustaining the defendants' motions attacking the w’^arrants of arr^t.

Judicial decisions require scrupulous care to see that searches and seizures are reasonable. While search and seizure on arrest may he made without a search warrant, yet this is not so unless the warrant of arrest issued after ‘probable cause* of guilt bad been estabiished by legal evidence*”

On page 6, the following st'xtement 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 woulfi be subject to suppression and, therefore, not usable as evidence of the crime for which arrest wms made.”

While I have not seen any testimony of any of the grand jurors, and do not know where it is available, this would seem to indicate that the conunittee felt that the grand jury was disturbed, not so much by the question of guiU or innocence of the defendants, but by the question as to whether or not the guilt or innocence could be proven they apparently feel that much (»f the material would not be admissible because of the method of search and seizure. The following romment will be noted on page 7 of the committee report:

“Mo.-t of the items seized at Jaffa's office were tytwritten 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 agency where the original reposed.”

This makes it very clear that the committee felt making copies of secret documents and then delivering the copies to unauthorized nersons placed the crime m a diffei ent class from the delivery of the ludginals* It is rather difficult to understand this reasoning in view of the fact that photostats or copies of an important secret document would no’mally be of much value to an enemy power as the originals. The committee further pointed out that 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. The majority report makes some excellent recommendations, which the Secretary of state might welt read. 1 especially call his attention to recommendations I, 2, and 3, on page D, which reads 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 thoroughly as to insure that no one be employed unless absolute certainty has been attained that nothing in the background, present attitude^ or affiliations rais^ any reasonable doubt of loyalty and patriotic devotion to the United States of America.

“2, That the watchword and motivating principle of Government employment must be: ‘None but the best* For the fewer, the better, unless above question**

‘3. That each and every present employee who fails to measure up to the hig^hest standard should be discharged. No house divided against itself can stand.”

One of the members of the six-man committee, Ccmgressmaii Hancock, was prevented by illness from participating in the report. Two of the men I hers 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 tleeiaion.

Congressman Fellows, in his dissenting opinion, made the folknving statement:

**Jaffe either took these documents himself or his confederates took them for him. And two of the documents found were Top secret,’ sc marked ami so designated, I can see no point in arguing that theso papers may not have been of much value. The thieves thought they were. The Government agencies so adjudged them. And the facts show that the defendants could have had their choice of any documents they wished: they were given no protection so far as the :Tate Department was concerned.’’

‘^This transaction, or rather a series of transactions involved, embraces the unlawful removal of ‘top secret,’ ^secret/ ’confidential,’ and ’restricted' files from the Department of State, in our national Go\"ernment. ^ This is a very serious offense. In time of war, this is a most serious offense. When war is in progress, or even in time t f peace, it is of little or no concern w’hether 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, w^ho had no lawful right to receive the same, is the essence of the offense. When that very secret information was thus unlawfully revealed to others, no matter how the same was imparted to Mr. Jiilfe, whether by an original, or by copy, or by any other method, the real damages 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 be at least an attempt to either minimize or completely justify some of the unlawful acts which were 11 ndoubted ly t^ommi tted.

“All those who participated in any way in the removal, 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 .^ame. sliuuld be prosecuted, and all these pailicipating, in any degree in the unlawfu] acts under investigation, should be immediately discharged from their positions in our Government The report should speak strongly and without any reservation upon that subject.

“The questions he^re involved are so grave and the offense so great, thi4t no effort should be made to protect or defend those w’ho so offended, hut the leport 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 i>ei'tinent background of service, but certainly, beyond doubt, it forever excludes this man as a security .■"isk by whatever yardstick it is measured.

Again we have a know'n associate and collaborator with Communists and pro-Commiinists, a man high in the State Department ^^oiisortirg wuth admitted espionage agents, and I wish to say to this committee what I said on the floor of the Senate on February 20, 1950 1

“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 communization of China. Strangely, uowever, he sent official reports back to the State Department urging that we torpedo our ally Chiang Kai-shek and stating, in effect, that romniunism was the best hope of China.

“Later this man—,John Service—^was picked up by the Federal Bureau of Investigation for turning over to the Communists secret State Department information. 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 Crew’s suceeiiaor, 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, ivas not only reinstated in the State Department but promoted. And finally, under Acheson, placed in charge of all placements and promotions,”

Ml'. Chairman, today this man, John S. Service, is a ranking of* fjcer in the policy-maiving group of “untouchables” on duty in CaU rutta, India, one of the most strategically important listening posts in the world today and since the fall of China the most impoiTant new front of the cold ivar.

Five times tins man has been investigated as to his loyalty and hia acceptance as a security risk to the Nation,

What possible reason could there have been for even a second invest! gat ion of his record.

He w’as not an acceptable security risk under Mr. Acheson’s “yardstick of loyalty” the day he entered the Government.

He is not a sound security risk today.

Mr. McCAliTIlY. In this connection, let me reniiiHl the Senate that the material involved in this case, tlie stolen doeninc nts. included, the folUnviiu^ GoAH^rnment i^ecords: 3150 classified dorninieiits froni tlic Klale Departincnt, including some top secrets and (*onfidcn(ial classification; lfi3 prepared hy nNF, the Gffiec fd' NuauiI Intelligence: 42 prepared by MID: 58 prepared liy OWl: fl from the files of the War Department.

It \v\U reealUul tfiat J, Edgar Hoover at tlie time said said this Avas a percent airtight case against Service,

Roth, and tlieir eo-defeiulants.Now here is the alTidaAit.

30

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

This affidavit is to tht* effect that the night before John 8. »Serviee, Lt. Andrew Roth and four eodefendants in the Amerasia ease were arrested, this man was at the home of Owen Lattimore.

He states that lie was introduced to John 8. Service and IJ. .yidrew Roth. He states further that Roth. Ijattimore and Service spent a great deal of time by themselves, discussing certain papers or manuscript. Tie states that their actions seemed strange at the time, and that at that time Lattimore stated that they were going over a manuscript. He states furtlier that he went into another room in the house on a personal matter and that Roth followed him in and grabbed hi.s —that is, Roth’s—brief case, which most likely contained the documents or manuscript.

Then I have another statement gotten under almost the same circumstances, which is being turned over to the Bureau. Again there was great reluctance to sign the paper. In it substantially the same facts are set forth, except this man did not see Rotli rush in to grab his brief case. He stated, however, that when he later asked Lattimore for an explanation. I^attimore .stated that th(^y had been declassifying secret documents in favor of some friends; that Lattimore further stated that this was a common Washington practice; that Lattimore further stated that Roth and Service were arrested because of a feud they had with some people in Wa.shington. It must have been a rather serious feud with the l^H, I assume.

I have before me the photostat of another document. A copy of this photostat is also being forwarded to the FBI. This is a rather unusual document for a number of reasons. In order that the significance of this document can be fully understood, 1 beg the indulgence of the Senate while T briefly recite some history which is known to most of the Senators—the history of the official Communist f^arty line insofar as Chinng Kai-shek was concerned.

From 1931, whrn Japan seized Manchuria, until 1935, the Communist Party line was aiiti-Chiang. Me was denounced repeatedly as a tool of Japan during that period of time.

In 1933 at the world Communist meeting in Moscow—1 believe that was the seventh meeting of the Comintern—the so-called united front, or Trojan-horse policy, was adopted— a policy calling for ihe Communists to combine with the gov

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

31

ernments in power and to get into strategic positions so that ]\Ioscow could control, or at least exert influence on, the governments in questioM. At this time, in 1935, as the Senate will recall, Chiaiig Kai-shek made an agreement willi the Chinese Commiiiii.sts.

From 1935 to 1939 the Communist line was pro-Chiang Kai-shek.

Til 1939, after the signing of the Hitler-Staliii Paet and the Sfalin-Matsouka Pact, the Communist Party line again became auti-Cbiang T\ai-shek.

As the Senate will reeall, this continiUMl until flune 22, 1941, the day Hitler inva<led Iiussia. at which time the Communist Party line again swiLJied and was pro-Chiang Kai-shek.

This continued until 1943. The Senate will recall the Russian victory at >Staliiigrad in the early .spring of 1!)43. and the reversal in the course of the war at that point, which up until then had been going rather badly against Russia. The (’ommunist Party line again definitely beeame anti-Chiang Kaishek.

If any particular day could be said to be the day when the parly line changed, which esannot he tied down to a day, but, if it were possil)le to fix the day, it would probal>Iy be April 2fl, 1943 — the day Stalin broke relations with the exiled government of Poland, which at that time had armed forces fighting with us in Italy. Cndoubtedly, history will some ilay reef>rd that April 26, 1943, marked the beginning of World AV.ar III — the time Russia decided she was no longer in danger from Hitler and could pick up her temporarily postponed plans for world domination.

I mention this )»rief history of the shifting official Communist Party line toward Chiang because it is important to understand, and it should be kept in mind in order to grasp the full importance of this document.

This is a letter—there is nothing like a good filing sy.stem — dated June 15. 1943, which is when the line had again swung to anti-(’hiaug Kai-shek. This is a letter from Owen Lattimore, director of Pacific Operations, OWL The odd thing is tlmt he is writing to his boss in the (jovernraent service, telling the story to him, not writing to someone who is working for him.

32

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

The first paragraph roads as follows:

In your capacity as a member of our Personnel Security Committee there are certain thinj^s which you ouj^ht to know aboit Chinese personnel It is a delicate mafchrr for me to tell you about the&e things l^causs of my recent official connection with Generalissimo Chiang Kai-shek. For that reason I aui marking this communication secret.

The reajsoii for inarUljig ihis iloeiimont secret bceoine^si ahiiiidaittly clear as you read througl; it. In it he directs the reeipieiit of the l(dter to get rid of nil the Chinese in OWl who were loyal to cither the Natioualist Cnvernmeiit ur Wang (^)niig-wei, who, as the 8emite will recall was the Japanese pHp]>ct ill China.

He then issues instructions that the personnel he recruited from the shareholdeis of the New Ciiimi Daily New.s. a Chinese Cominimist paper in New York.

Jn the letter lie condmnns the other Cliinese jjajiers. He also iioints out that the Nationalist and Wang ('hingwvci group are etigageil in handing nut carefully colored news and tloctored edit<irial policies and are intensely jealous of ami hostile to the New China Daity News which, so to speak, riaunts its sins by Ijuing so readable tfiat the Chinese public in America hiiys it for its own sake.

He even admits I hat it would he rash to say that there are no Coininiiiiists <*onnected \ntU the New China Daily News.

He then shrugs this off, liowever, l)y saying that these Coninmnists are not **iietl to Hie chariot wheels of Moscow/^

Imddentally, at Hiat tinie tlie only other New China Daily News was published in tlie (communist lioudquarters of Venan. However, sinee the <k>nnminists liave taken over China, tlieiv is. as far as I kmnv, at least one New China Dally News in each of tile birger Chinese cities which tlie (Jomniunists occupied.

Do Henntors get Hie picture? At that time tlien^ was in New York a New China i)aily News. There was also one in Yenaii, tkmimujiist headquarters, and as the Communists took over China they established a new (*binese Daily News in eaeli of the major cities of ChiiuL

Mr, ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield? :\rr. McCarthy, i yield.

Mr. ANDERSON. Did tfie Senator nienlion the name of LattitiTore*s boss?

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

33

]\rr. MeCARTHV. No; I did not I would rather not mention it. I slioxild be glad to let the Senator see the letter, if he wants to see it. I shall tell the Senator why I would rather not mention the name. Ido not luiTe any documented material on this particular iTmividiialj except that he is mentioned in another affidavit which I shall cite, lie is not now employed by the Gtovernnient. I do not have enough information to decide whether or not he is a loyal Ameidcan at this time.

IMr, ANDER>SON. Is it not true that if Lattimore was working for someone in tlie Goyernment at that time, it could be found out?

Mr. MeCARTHY", The letter is addressed to Mr. Joseph Barnes, Office of War Information, New Y^ork, N, Y,

Mr. TOBEY. Mr. President, will tlie Senator yield?

Mr IMcCAHTHY, I yield.

Mr, TOBEY. Wonld not the regular thing be to insert the entire letter in the Record?

Mr. McCarthy, if the Senator will allow me to proceed as I think I should, I would rather do it in that way. If the Senator from New Hampshire, or any of the other Senators, cares to read the entire letter, I shall be glad to let them do so.

Mr. TOBEY. Is it the Senator's intention to place the entire letter in the Record?

Jlr. McCarthy, Noj it is not.

Blr. TOBEY. I suggest that that be done. The quotation from it is taken out of context.

JMr. McCarthy, I shall refuse the Senator’s request at tliiH time. The letter is marked * ^secret,” and it is my present intention not to put any secret docnmeiits into the Record, even though I think they might well be declassified in view of the fact that the purpose of mai'king it secret %vas, very obviously, m that the people would not know that Mr. Lattimore waa .saying, ^‘Fire from the OWT any man who is loyal to Chiang, and liire individuals who arc loyal to the Communist government/ ’

Mr. TOBEY, IRr. President, will the Senator yield further? Mr. McCarthy, l yield.

Mr. TOBEY. If the letter is marked ■■secret/’ I suppose that applies it toto. If the Senator is reading excerpts from

34

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

the letter, is he not Tiolating iiLs own principle^ when the whole letter ie marked ^‘secret”?

]\rr. MeCAKTHY. This will become abnntlantly clear asi 1 proceed. Some of the affidavits in regard to certain individuals cover lULSuiial personal habits, ^vhieh I feel 1 should not attempt to make public on the Senate floor to the Nation. I do not inteiid to read those. I intend to read into the Record portions of the affidavits which I think are proper; and regardless of whether any Senator may disagree with me, that is the proceduro which I intend to follow. The entire dociiinciit is being made available to the FBL I respect the Senator 'r tlioiiglit, but T have been living with this problem a long time, and intend to develop each ease as T think wise, regardless of whether some other Senator may disagree with me.

Mr. TOBEV, My only thought was that it is wholly inconsistent to take a paper marked secret and pick out eertaui things without ]dacmg the letter in the Record in toto,

Mr. T;EHMAN, Sir. Presidout, wdll the Senator yield?

]\Ir. McCarthy* Let me finish the contents of the letter, first, 1Ie then goes on to authorize the retention of a Dr, Chi and Mr, Chew Ilong* He points out that Chi is loyal to him, Battimore, and that Chew Hong is loyal to Chi, He then goes on to state that as long as Dr. Chi remains loyal to him—Latthnore—tliere will be no difficulty with either Chew Hong or Clii,

Perliaps some background on Dr, Chi would be of interest to the Senate*

Before Dr. Chi came to America he was president of Shansi l.aw College and was also eommissiotier of education in the Shansi Province,

In America, prior to being in tlie OWI, Dr, Chi was the editor of the Chinese Daily News in New York, the Chbese Communist daily. Dr, Chi is the fattier of Cli^ao-ring Ctu who now' awaits in C%ma for passage to the United States as the official representative of the Chinese Commimist goverament to the United Nations, Ch*ao4mg Chi, in the publication Pacific Affairs, for December 1934', writes an article for his good friend, the editor, Owen Lattimore,

Thus we have the picture of Lattiraore using his high office in ihe OWI to shape the Communist line for China through

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

35

a Chinese Communist whose son now aAvaits being seated as^ a representative of the Chinese Communists in the United Nations; and it is important to point out that Lattimorejs maneuver was based uj on fraud and niisrcpresentation in his intended deception of his superior. We have here an excellent example of the far-flung Commiinist discipline so much insisted upon by Lenin,

In closing the letter he also urges the necessity for exercisbig pronounced agnosticism when any of our Chinese sonuel are attacked — meaniugj of course, after they have first gotten rid of those who are loyal to the Nationalists and Wang Ching-wel,

111 the last paragraph he again urges the strictest confidence in acting on this letter.

The Senate will recall the date of thiK letter—June 15, 194 : 3 — a time when ('hiang Kahshek was our very badly needed ally in the Pacific ; a time when the war was not going too well with us; a time when officially we were committed to all-out cooperation with (Jhraiig Kai-shek, It was at tljis time that T.attimore sends this highly secret letter in which he twice urges the strictest secrecy be followed in getting rid of any Chinese wlio are loyal to our ally, Chiang Kai-shek, and the recruiting of personnel solely from the shareholders of the Communist New China Daily News,

I shall be glad now to ykdd to the junior Senator from New York,

air, LEHMAN, l\Iay the junior Senator from New York ask the Senator from Wisconsin whether he 1ms made available to the subcommittee of the Committee on Foreign Rclafioiis of the Senate the inforniation and the facts contained iti his charges, a part of wdiiclu and only a part of whi(di, is submitted here today ?

IVIr. :MeCARTnY. The answer is ‘'No”,

Mr. IjEMMAN. May I ask the Senator from Wisconsin why the answer is “No?” When a cominittce has been set up by the Senate, of wdiieb the Senator of course is a distinguished Member, to investigate charges, wdiy he should be unwilling to submit his facts to the committee created for the sole purpose of investigating these charges! Tt seems to me that is the place to wdiich charges should be referred for iuvestigation if

36

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

the charges are made in good faith, rather than to submit in this Chamber certain so-ealled evidonee, selected to suit the purpose of the disthignished Senator, in order to provide a spectacle and a Kciisation for the press and the galleries. In the way the Senator from Wisconsin has chosen an accused man has no clianee 1o answer. But in the special eommittee created by the Senate, the greatest legislative ami deliberative body in the w^orld, an accused person can make his reply. I should like to have an explanation of this from tlie distingnished Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr, McCAHTIfY, The Senator says that a man does not have a chance. There Avere men in China avIio did not haA^e a chance because of traitorons acts of certain individnals. Some people shed crocodiic tears for the suffering to Avhieh the families of traitorous individnals are hound to he subjected. They forget entirely about the families of 400,000,000- people AAdio have been sold into slavery" by tliese same persons Avho are traitors to this Nation and to 400,000,000 people Avho thought they could depend upon us, a great and good ally. I shall proceed, regardless of wliat the Senator from Npav York thinks or says, to develop these facts in detail before the American people.

I do not intend to discuss the activities of the sxibcommittee* T hiwe told the snbcummittee exactly AAdiere they can get the material necessary, and 1 hope tlie siihcominittee Avill proceed Avith their staff, with the money which we gave them, to do the task Avhich T have been trying to do Avith no staff Avhatsoever except my oavit,

Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. President, will the Benator yield?

Mr, MeOAKTIIY. I am glad to yield.

]\Ir, LEHMAN, The Senator says he is devtdopjiig his case before the AmeHeau people. I would hare no objection to that, if he would do more than make imsiibstantiated charges.

Mr, McCAliTlIY. It makes no difference if the Senator has objection.

Mr. LEHxMAN. When cdiarges arc made against the loyalty of a man he shoAild be given an opportunity to answer those charges in the same fonim in AAdiich the charges are made. I should like to ask the distinguislied Senator Avhy he is so delicate in refusing to yield to the rcctviest of the distingnisheii

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

37

Senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Tobey] to give the full text of the information, Avhen the Senator from Wisconsin has^ no hesitation AAdiatsocAu r in coming l>efore this body and before the American people and attempting to damn and blacken the reputation of many people Avho may be innocent.

Mr. McCAKTHY. Tf the Senator would like to knoAV Avhy some of these documents are not being made aim liable to the press, if he Avill gtep over here I AA’ill shoAV him part of a document AAdiich AAull make A^ery clear to him Avhy it uauiUl be completely unfair to make them available. Does the Senator care to step over? [Laughter.]

Mr, LEHMAN. I am delighted to.

The PKESIDING OFEICEH. There aamU be order in the Senate Tlie Chair admouislies the occupants of the galleries that they are guests of the Heiuite, and arc not permitted to indulge iii demonstrations of approA^al or disapproA'al.

(Mr. LEHMAN thereupon erossed the Ohamher and approached Mr. McCaiihy’s desk,)

Mr. LEHMAN. May I see the letter?

Mr, M{?CAKTHY, The Senator may step to my desk and read the letter.

Mr, LKimAN. I should like to see it. The Senator inAuted me to eome over to read the letter. I am here to read the letter. Will the Senator from Wisconsin let me see the letter?

Idr. McCarthy. Doc.s the Senator Avdsh to come close enough to read it?

:ilr. LEHMAN. 1 think 1 would like to read the letter in my own way.

Mr. MeCARTnV. Will the Senator come here and see it?

klr. TjEITMAN, 1 Avould like to read it in my own Avay.

IMr. :\lcCARTHY. Will the Senator sit doAvii?

^]r, I.EHMAN, May 1 say, Mr. President

Mr. McChMiTHY. I do not yield further at lids time.

The FRESroiNO OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin declines to yield further.

Mr. klcMAIION. Mr. President, Avill the Senator yield?

Mr, McCarthy, Ortaiidy. 1 shall be glad to yield at any time, assuming that 1 have unanimous consent to alloAv

3S

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

these speeches to be mnde, rather than questions being asked, AvithoLit losing the floor.

Mr. IMcMAHOK. Iti his colloquy with the Senator from New York, the Senator from W^iseonsin stated that he intended to discuss in full detail, and in the way he saw fit^ the activity of all the traitorous individiuils. T should like to ask the Senator from Wisconsin if he includes in that elassifieation Judge Kenyon^ Philip Jessup^ Mr. TTanson, or Mrs. Bninauer.

IHr. ^^leCARTIlY. I shall spend considerable time today on Mr. Jessup, and I hope the Senator will remain in the Chamber. I think the Ameiican people will wonder why the Senator from Connecticut did not go into tlie matters in detail when Mr, Jessup appeared before the eonimittee. I do not wish to he put in the position of getting into a pei^onal argument on the matter in the Senate, because I do not believe this is the proper forum for it, nevertheless T was very much disappointed wile 11 I asked of the cominittee the right to cross-examine Mr. Jessup ■when he appeared before it. I told the committee that there wore certain facts which T could develop through Mr. Jessup. TKe committee did not even give me the eoiu'tesy of ail aimw^er to my request. The committee did not even properly examine Mr. Jessup. After Mi\ Jessup had finished with his statement all T heari] the Senator from Connectieut say was, am very happy that you are a constituent of mine.^*

1 might say that w'hen l\lr. Hiss had finished his fonnal presentation—^a formal presentation much more colorful and inneli more appealing than Mr. Jessup *s—before the TTonse UnAmerican Activities CommittGGj if that committee had followed the same line which the Senator from Connccticiit followed in regard to Mr. Jessp, Mr, Hiss untlonhtedly still would be determining foreign ptdiey In the State Department.

The Senator from Coimeetient asked me another question. He asked me wljetlicr or not 1 intended to include Judge Kenyon in this discussion today. The Senator knows full well why the Kenyon ease was presented. The Kenyon case ivas presented as the first in a sef|uenec of cases. As T said at the time. It wns presented, not beeause Judge Kenyon herself was important, but f knew that as we went through the various cases we would time and time again bear the statement, ‘*Well, he has been cleared by the Loyalty Board.” Therefore, I took a typical case to show just what being ‘'cleared by the Loyalty

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

39

Board” meant. Unfortunately, it hapfiened to be the case of a lady. I took a typical ease in order to show just what it meant to be cleared by the Loyalty Board. It w'as a case in which the board had documentation with respect to 28 organizations which had been declared 1o be Communist-front organizations. They had not been declared to be Coinmimist-front organizations by McCarthy, hut they had been declared to be Communist-front organizations by the Attorney General the House Un-American Activities Committee, the California Committee, the Condert committee. I presented her case to the committee to show that 28 organizations, according to our exhibits, showed her name, and showed that she Avas a sponsor of the organizations. The committee did not even go through the motions of ealling her and asking her, “Judge, Avhy did you join? Were you a dope, or did you join purposely?” That was Hie import an ee of the Kenyon ease. The Senator knows that. The Senator knows also that I haA^e never accused Judge Kenyon of being a traitor. Whether she joined these organizations, as she said, because she may have been — I do not recall her testimonj'—I think she said she joined without knowing it, or without knowing something about them. I do not knOAv what she said. HoAvever, so far as the Loyalty Board is concerned, if it did not know Avhy she joined those organizations, it certainly should have found out before giving her a clean bill of health, especially in view of the fact that the Seeretary of State had said that membership in even one of those organizations^—'Uot 28, but 1 — Avas evidence that an individual was a bad security risk.

Mr, McMAlION. Mr. President, Avill the Senator yield further?

Mr. McCarthy. I am glad to yield.

Mr. McMAHON. Will the Senator nOAv answer ray question Avhether he regards Miss Kenyon, Mr. Jessup, Mr. Ilanson, or Mrs. Brnnauer as traitors to the United States?

Mr. MeCAETIlY. K the Senator will remain on the floor —and I hope he Avill remain—lie Avill hear in some detail exactly what I have to say about Jessup. Then the Senator may decide for himself Avhether I^fr. Jessup is merely a stooge, avIio does not know Avhat he is doing, or whether he has planned Avhat he has done. I intend to come to that next. 1 do not intend to discuss the Jessup ease until 1 reach it. I shall get to

40

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

it before the Senate adjourns tonight. So, if the Senator will wait, I shall get to that case.

I intend to discuss the Hanson case. I intend to point out the work liattiinore is doing in connection with Hanson’s work. When 1 liave finished, if the Senator has any doubt in his mind as to the facts in these cases, I shall be very glad to have him question me. However, I shall not discuss the Jessup case until I get to it. We have some extremely interesting documents in the Jessup case. 3fr. Jessup will have some difficulty explaining some of them.

^Ir. McMAHON. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCarthy. I yield.

jMr. McMAHON. As 1 understand, the Senator does not wish to state at this time his opinion as to whether or not Mr. Jessup is a traitor. With respect to Judge Kenyon, Mr. Hanson, or Mrs. T>runauer, does he care to give a direct answer to the question whether or not they are traitors within the classification which was referred to in the Senator’s colloquy with the Senator from New York?

Mr. McCarthy, if I were in a position to ask a question of the Senator from Connecticut, I would ask him whether he considers l^Ir. Lattimore a traitor.

Mr. McMAHON. Is that the Senator’s answer to my question?

i\rr. IMcCARTHY. The Senator will hear what I have to say about each of these individuals, if he will be patient and sit down.

Mr. McMAHON. I thank the Senator.

Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCarthy. I yield.

Mr. CHAVEZ. If everything which the Senator from Wisconsin has stated about the persons regarding whom the Senator from Connecticut has inquired is time, and if everj^thing he has stated proves interesting to the Senate and to the audience, can the Senator from Wisconsin tell us of what crime the persons are guilty under American law.

Mr. McCarthy. Of what statutory crime?

Mr. CHAVEZ. Of what crime; yes. Of what crime are they guilty under American law?

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

41

Mr. McCarthy. I shall let the Senate decide that question. I am merely giving the facts as to these individuals. 1 am not in the Attorney General’s office. When T get through T think the Senate Avill have just as good an idea as I have as to what crime they arc guiilty of. I have some more documents which shed forth light on that subject.

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ]McCARTHY. I am glad to yield to the Senator from ]Minnesota.

Mr. HUMPHREY. I wonder whether the Senator from Wisconsin, prior to making his charges public with reference to the cases of Judge Kenyon, ^Ir. Hanson, Miss Brunauer, and Mr. Jessup, and now ^Ir. Ijattimore, consulted with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or divulged such information to them as he had in his possession.

Mr. McCarthy. First let me say none of this information came from the MH nor from any FBI agent. Let me further say to the Senator from Minnesota that if T had had any correspondence or any conversation with any members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 1 do not feel called upon to give it to the Senator. Is that clear? The Federal Bureau of Investigation will have available every speck of evidence that I pick up. I do not fbntter myself wuth the thought that I can do this more efficiently than the FBI. I think they have done an excceedingly fine job. I assume that practically all this evidence must also be in the files of the FBI.

The FBI has not gone over to the Justice Dep.artment and insisted upon his prosecution. Let me first say, whether they have done it or not I do not know. But I was brought up on a farm, and an old farmer said to me, “If a cat once drinks .scalding water you have difficulty getting him to drink even cold water from then on.” If the FBI starts developing a case on a man such as Lattimore, all one has to do is to look back and see what happened in a case such as that of Service, and one cannot be surprised at why they do not insist upon prosecuting Lattimore.

Let me say something about the Service case so the Senator can understand w^hy perhaps the FBI has good reason to leave it to the Justice Dep.arlment to decide upon when pro.secution

42

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

shall be startecL The Governinent attorney in the Service ease was a young man named Plitchcock* Hitcheoek quieldy disposed of this case, which the FBI had worked up over months of detailed investigation. The ease was worked up by scores of FBI Taen. This man ITitehcoek then got up before the court and said, ^‘1 can dispose of tiiis case in less than 5 minutes. There are no indications of disloyalty here/* In other words, he could take all of J* Edgar Hoovcr^s work and say, has nothing/'

Mr. lIUiMPHREY, Mr, President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. McOARTITY. I am glad to yield.

Jdr. HUMPHREY, I have this question, I gather from the Senator from Wisconsin that it is his opinion that the information he has now presented to the Senate was undoubtedly already in the files of the ¥Bl, and therefore tliere was not any particular need for his immediate giving of that iiiformatioii to the FBL

Mr. McCarthy, I do not know whether it is there or not, 1 have a great deal of respect for the FBI, T sincerely hope and assume that they liave done a niiieh more eoinpeteixt job of investigating than 1 have. But on the assumption that they may not have all this inform at ion, every scrap of evidence I get is going directly to the FBI. WJien I say I assume they have it, T do riot know. I hope they have it.

ilr, ITOIFHREY, Let its assume that the Senator is correct^ that the FBI has it. T have high regard for the Federal Bureau of Tnvestigation. I share the higli regard in which the Senator holds that agency. 1 have extremely high regard for the head of the Bureau, J. Edgar Hoover, and I share the high regard in wliich the Senator from Wisconsin holds him. I should like to ask the Senator if the FBI has the information, or if he assumes it has it because it possesses, as the Senator says in his own words, better investigators than he, would it not be a dereliction of duty on the part of the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Avho has taken an oath to uphold the Constitution and to defend it, and to uphold the law of the land, if he w-ere not to reveal or identify a traitor, since xve have laxvs pertaiiimg to traitors? 1 should like to ask the Senator from Wisconsin if he will give us an answer as to whether or not he belie^'Cs that the Director of the Federal Bureau of IiiYcstigation, Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, has been derelict

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

43

in lib responsibility in the sense that he has not prosecuted what Ihe Senator from Wisconsin calls a top Communist agent, nn agent of Russia, wdio is or has been a member of the Communist Party, thereby making him obviously a traitor?

Mr. McCarthy. The Senator from I\[innesota knows the answer to that question. He knows that the FBI has no power to prosecute. He knows that the only function the FBI has is to gather evidence. He knows that the only individual wdio can decide whether to prosecute is the Attorney OeneraU Hie also knows very well tliat if the Attorney General desired to prosecute one of these men high up in the State Department lie would have to obtain the President^ consent. Do not load this onto J. Edgar Hoover.

Mi\ HUMFHHEY. ^Ir. President, will the Sejiator yield ?

Mr, McCarthy. Not till I have comploted my answer, J. Edgar Hoover did a phenomenal job in the Service case, ajid if the Departnumt of Justice liad done an equally good job, Service woidd not be in the Far East tryijig to turn the whole business over to Russia. Do not try to hide behind the skirts of the FBI, They have done a plienomeiial job. If J. Edgar Hoover had control over the Department of Justice so the eases he preparetl would be presented, then we would have a much cleaner Federal Oovenimeiit

^Ir. KUMPJHIEY, Mr, President, wiU the Senator yield for a final question?

Mr. ^FeCARTHY. I am glad to yield.

BIr. HUAIPHREY. Am I to understand it, tlieiy the Senator from Wisconsin is saying that the distinguished, patriotic, and devoted American citizen, in the person of J, Edgar Hoover, the head of the FBI, is so anxious for his job that when a top CommimLst agent, a No. 1 traitor, is disedosed by the records of the FBI, the distinguished Director of the FBI would not resign and make public the information if the evidence is there to substantiate the charge? Does the Senator say that the Director of the FBI would protect the Attorney General and protect the President rather than the United States of America if he liad the evitlence to substantiate that a man is a traitor?

BIr. McC'ARTHY. The Senator knows that the Director of the FBI has one job and that is to develop information, develoi> the case, and make it avaUahle to the Attorney Gen

44

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

eral. There is bo doubt whatsoever in tlie mind of the Senator from Minnesota as to that ]\Ir. TIoover is one of the few men left who are energetically against eomnninismj and

there is nothing the Communists would like better than to get J. Edgar Hoover out of his job. 1 certainly hope the Senator from Minnesota is not urging that he resign. [Laughter in the galleries^ I think that if J* Edgar Hoover were to resign it would be a major catastrophe. So do not ask me those things, Senator. [1 daughter in the galleries.]

Mr. TIUMPHEEV. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. MeGAKTHV. I am glad to yield.

31 r. HUMPHTiEY. Of course, the Senator from Wisconsin did not mean to tell the distinguished .Memhei's of the Senate that the junior Senator from Minnesota is suggesting that the patriotitr, h>yal ]mblie servant, J, Edger Hoover, resign. What the Senator from Wisconsin is trying to do at tlie moment is to interpret the remarks made by the junior Senator from Minnesota. I should like to a.sk the Senator from Wisconsin, since he lias seen fit to make this public declaration hecaiise of his loyalty to the Republic, which loyalty no one can question, wliether he believes that »L Edgar Hoover would be less loyal if lie !iad in his records the same information as to an outstanding public enemy, Soviet top-Oommirnist agent. I remind the Senator that he assumes the FBI has the reeords and as he says better investigators than he is. In other words, does the Senator from WiBconsin feel that tlie Director of the Federal Ikireau of Investigation would be so lacking in intestinal fortitude and patriotic devotion to public duty that he would not resign if he knew that the reeords of the FBI disclosed a top Soviet agent in the State Department who eouhl not be prosecuted ? Am 1 to assume by the remarks of the Senator from Wiseomsin, that the Director of the FBI would be a party to a conspiracy to protect n meutber of the State Department? Am I to assume that the Senator from Wisconsin i.s the only man in the Government who has the courage to speak in behalf of the Republic? I shall not indulge in that assumption, Mr. President. T btdieve that if ^fr. Koo%an* had the information he would be the first to call it to the attention of the people of the United States, and not wait till he could seenre a public forum, such as the forum of the rnited States Senate, to make the charge.

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTIIY

45

3Jr. 3IcCAETHY. The Senator from Minnesota knows full well that the Director of the FBI has no authority whatsoever to call the attention of the public to things which are in bi^ files. In fact, the Senator from Minnesota is one of those who has been urging that tJie files should not be made available to a committee in executive session. Me certainly can not ask that the files be made available to the world at large. Certainly he cannot say that the fact that Mr. Hoover will not pxiblisli the files on the front pages of all the !iew.spnpers indicates disloyalty on the part of J. Edgar Hoover. There is sometliing rather contradictory in the SRnator^s position, that is, that the files should not be made available to Senators such as the Senator from 3Iarydaiid [Mr. Tydings] the Senator from (*onnecticnt [Mr. ilcIMahon], the Renator from Iowa [Mr. Hrekenlooper], the Senator from Massachusetts [3lr. Lodge], and the Senator from Rhode Island [IMr. Green], but that J. Edgar Hoover is disloyal if he will not make them available to the world at large. 1 do not question the Senator's sincerity, but I do ipiestion the Senator’s reasoning power on that point. [Laughter in the galleries.]

Mr. HUMPHREY. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. ilcUARTny. 1 am glad to yield.

Mr. HUMPHREY, Let me say that the Senator from Minnesota wishes to reciprocate in kind the observations the Senator from Wiscoiisiu has made, in tliat the Senator from MimicBota docs not question the sincerity of the Senator from Wisconsin, but does question the logic of the Senator from Wisconsin and the deductions which have been made by him.

Let us get clear-—

3Fr ]\lcCARTHY. 31 r. President, I ask nnanimoiis consent that, under the rules, T shall not lose the floor by yielding to permit the Senator from Minnesota to make observations.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Wisconsin requests unanimous consent that he not lose the floor when ol>servations are made by other Senators. Is there objection? The Chair boars none,

3rr. IH'MPHREY, 3L-. President, f wish only to observe, first, that at no time have I said anything as to whether or not the President should open or kee]) cloBed the files. That matter

46

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

is not before the junior Senator from Miniipsota. It is before a special committee of tbe Senate,

Second, 1 v/isli to observe that I do not care to have the Senator trom Wisconsin twist my remarks, or interpret them m such a manner as to confuse their ineaiiiiig. The iimior henator from Jiliunesota holds tlio Attoruev (Jeneral, Mr McOrath, and the Director of the FHI, Mr. Hoover, in the highest esteem, llie .iunior Senator from Minnesota believes in them, trusts them, pays tribute to their patriotic, loyal service. It is

^^***^*^\™ ^1****^ J. Edgar Hoover had the information which trie Senator from Wisconsin says is available in the files or which the Senator assumes to be available, Mr, Hoover, becanse of Ins patriotic devotion to his country, would have made the intoriiiation public, would have called it to the attention tii-st, to the distinguished Attorney General, Mr. JIcGarth then the I resident of the United States, and then to the altentioii ot the people.

Ill view of the Io.val service of Mr. Hoover and the loyal service ot Mr, Itiehardson, bead of the Loyalty Hoard, does the Senator trom Wisconsin believe that either one of them would cover up the record of an alleged traitor — an allegation made on the part of the Senator from W'isconsin? Does the Senator from W isconsin believe that JMr. McGrath, or Mr. Hoover or Mr Jaehardson would be part of a conspiracy to cover up for a bad policy risk’W quote now—“a top Communist agent,” a Soviet agent who is or has been a member of the Communist 1 arty, and an agent of Russia ?’ ’

I should like to have the Senator from AVisconsin answer whether he believes that Mr. Riehardson and Sir. Hoover would be parties to such a conspiracy to cover up for that kind of a person in the employ of the Government of the United States.

Mr. McCarthy. Mr. President, let ns take up the varioim questions the Senator from hliiniesota has asked.

He has asked about Mr. Riclnirdson. Personallv, I do not know him, except 1 Jiave had an experience at arm’s length without seeing him, during the past several weeks. As the Senator from Minnesota will recall, I made the statement betore the committee, under oath, that the John S. Service ease liad beon post-audHecl hy Mr* Richardson^s Loyaltv Board I pointed out that Mr, Richardson’s Loyalty Eoa’rd, on March 3 sent that ease back to the State Department, saying, "Not onlv

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

47

are we dissatisfied with the clean bill of health yon gave Service, but we want you to appoint a completely new loyalty board.*'

]Mr. Richardson’s top executive officer, when asked by the press whether or not 1 was telling the truth, said, '"Ko; we have never heard of Service**'

The Sen at 01 ' from Minnesota asks me whether Richardson would cover up anvthing. 1 know that his top executive, when asked about the facts I gave on Service, said, in effect, McCarthy Is lying* AVe never heard of Service*"

Then sometliing happened iu the State DeiDartment. Apparently they became a little worried about the machinery which had been set in motion and about tbe fact, that too many papers had been signed* So the next day they had to admit that I w^as right, and that on March 3, as I had said, the Review Board sent Serviee's case back*

So I wrote to Mr, Richardson and said, in effect, “Can you give ns an explanation of tins? Why does the head of the Loyalty Board tell the American people a deliberate untruth? Why they said there was nothing to my ease on Service and wliy they *said they had never heard of him, and yet the next day admitted that T was rlglit in every detail.

What do Senators think his answer was? Tie said* "I had to say this because too many people were asking questions*"

So, Avhen the Senator from Minnesota asks me about what Mr* Rk-hardson would cover up, my answer is, “I do not know.”

As to J* Edgar Hoover, I think the Senator from Minnesota is doing a thing he certainly should not do, after serious tlioTigiit, namely, attempting to convince the American people that -L bhigar Iloover condones what is going on in the State Department* Tt is not his task to approve or disapprove what the State Department does* The Senator from Minnesota knows, and I know, tliat J. Edgar Hoover has no power whatsoever to hire or fire anyone in the State Department* The Senator from Minnesota knows, and I know% that all J* Edgar Hoover’s organization can do is to develop the facts* The Senator knows that if J* Edgar Hoover started making those facts available to the public he would not eoiitinue in his job for more tlian a moment*

48

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

Although T am sure the Senator from Minnesola does not vrant to see the servlcfN of ilr. Hoover dispensed ^vith, yet 1 know there are in this Nation eomimmistic and un-American persons wlio would like nothing better than to see Mr. Hoover retired to private life.

Mr. CHAVEZ. Mr. President, will the Senator >deld?

]Mr. MeCARTHY. J am glad to yield to the Senator from New JHexieo.

Mr. CHAVEZ. I thank the Senator from Wisconsin.

Let me say that the observation 1 am going to make^ witji the indulgence of the Senator from Wisconsin, is not based upon an attempt to heckle the Senator from Wisconsin.

What difterence does it make whether one person thinks Mr, Hoover is doing the right thing or not; or what difference does it make whether ]\fr. Tiichard.sonj who is only one individual, is tiwing to do certain things or not? 1 think what we should empliasize is the protection of American rights. Tf I correctly understand the Senator from Wisconsin, that is all he is trying to do; he would like to have removed from the Government service*, no matter where, anyone who would not protect American rights.

The colloquy which has occurred hetween the Senator from Wisconsin ami the Senator from Minupsota has been in regard to whether Mr, Hoover is doing the right thing or whether Mr. Riehanlsoji or someone else is doing tlie right thing. Should not the question he, Is the law being'obe 3 Tnl? After all, Mr. President, simuld we liave a novernme.nt based upon what Mr. Iloovei* thinks or upon what someone else may think or vipon what Mn Richardsijii or I or the J^enator from Wisconsin thinks; nr should we !iave a Governinent of law? Therefore, should not the question be. Have any laws been violated? Tf so, let ns prosecute or punish those who violate them.

We slioidd not take uf) otlier matters simply because they are entertaining ; we should not engage in colloquy simjdy because it is entertaining. It might entertain for the moment anyone who is listening, hut that does not prove a thing.

Mr. McOAKTHY. Mr. President, I wish to thank the Senator from New Mexico for giving the Senator from Minnesota that advice.

The Senator n n d erst an ds that 3io matter how intelligent or

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCAETHY

49

unintelligent a question may be, wlien a Senator asks a question of me, I try to answer it, I am not accusing the Senator from IHinnesota of asking an unintelligent question, but I gather that the Senator from New Mexico is criticizing me for yielding to permit the Senator from Minnesota to make an observation. I .say that, rightly or wrongly, 1 feel that when 1 discuss a subject so important as this one, I should freely yield. Another Senator may think the Senator from New Mexico not wisely taking up time. JTowever, so far as 1 am concerned, 1 shall give the Senator from New iMexieo all the time he wishes.

Mr. CHAVEZ. Veiy well, and I thank the Senator. In this particular instance, I am not criticizing either the Senator fi'om Wisconsin or tlte Senator from Minnesola; neither am I trying to heckle the Senator from Wisconsin or to keep him from saying anything about this matter.

Mi\ McCarthy. I know the Senator from New Mexico is not.

Mr. CHAVEZ. My point is, Tjct us keep the record clear. The only way the American people will get any benefit from it is by a eonsideration of whether the law is being obeyed, not by a discussion of what the Senator from Wisconsin or I may think about some Government officials. What 1 tliink about some Government officials probably could not be said in polite society; and what the Senator from Minnesota thinks about some Government officials probably could not be said in polite society. However, it is basic, if wm are to have a government of laws—not a government based on the ideas of the Senator from Wisconsin or of the Senator from Minnesota or of the Director of the FBI or of someone else—that the laws be obeyed. If the laws are obeyed, I think the people of the United >States will Jiave a better government.

Mr. MeCAETFn^. President, T thank the Senator from New IMcKico. Frankly, T feel very strongly that Avhen any Senator rises on this floor and tries to indicate—of course, I may have misinterpreted the remarks of the Senator from Minnesota—that, a man with the background of J, Edgar Hoover would condone what is going on, then 1 think I should make it as clear as possible that Mr, J. Edgar Hoover has no pOAver Avhatsoever over the situation, no function to approve or disapprove.

Mr* President, I have before me another affidavit.

50

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

itr. ANDEHBON* PiTsident, will the Senator yield at this point?

McCarthy. I am ^lad to yield.

Mi\ ANDERSON. 1 liave waited until the Senator finished with the letter from Mr. Lattimore, to ask the Senator a question about it, if he does not mind.

iMr. McCarthy. I may say to the Senator that 1 am not throuj^h with the documentation on Mr. Tjattimore.

!Mr. ANDERSON. lIoAvever, the Senator from Wisconsin read from a letter dated June 15^ 1943^ did he not ?

Mr. McCarthy, That is correct.

Mr. ANDERSON. I helioA^e the Senator fixed as April 26, 1943, the date wlien the party line changed.

JMr. McCarthy, Let me make that clear. T say that if we can fix any particular date, I think that would be it. Some persons say the pafty lino eommenced to change after the German surrender at Stalingrad. Others say that the time we can more definitely fix for it is the date when Stalin broke relations with the Polish Govern in ent-in-exile. However, I would say that April 26, 1943, is about as dose as any date we can determine upon,

]\Ir. ANDERSON. I wished to ask the Senator whether he would make any comment on such papers as have been filed by General Stilwell, for example, about his relationship with Chiang Kai-shek, or by General Marshall and many other persons. Ido not believe the Senator would question their loyalty, and I wonder whether he differentiates between them and Mr. Lattimore because of some other history or because of that individual date,

Mr. McCarthy, T intend to dwell on this letter. 1 tliink Lattimore was as much responsible* if not more so, for StilwelFs activities in China as any other one iudividnah If the Senator will carefully study liis record I am sure the Senator will believe that to be the case.

The Senator understands that it is impossible for me, with a limited staff, to present a court case here; but I am sure that if the Senator will sit hero and will listen to the material which I am presenting, he will be convinced that the clique of Lattimore, Jessup, and Service has been resx>onsible, almost completely—under Aeheson, of course—for what went on in

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

51

tile Par East, although there were other individuals taking part. If the Senator will wait until I have completed my remarks, then if he has any questions, I shall certainly try to aiisu'er them. ITowever, I am reasonably certain that when the Senator from New Blexieo, for whom I have unlimited respect, sees this e%ddeiice, he will quite heartily agree with me.

Mr, President, 1 have before me an affidavit which is of interest, covering the testimonv which will he given by a former general in the Red army, who has indicated his willingness to testify if subpenaed. His testimony wdli be to the effect that while a general in the Red armj", and while at ]\loscoWj he was in close contact with a general, whom he names, w ho is named in the affidavit, who was one of the top generals in Soviet intelligence. This conversation w^as in 1935 or 1936. Tie ivas discussing ivith that top man of Rus.sian intelligenee the difficulty of getting good intelligence information from Mongolia and the Far East generally.

I may say iiieidentally this former Russian general states that he gave a statement to a Oovernment investigative agent. Whether that was the State Department, or what investigative agency it was, 1 frankly do not know^ Tlie testimony will be that the thing that particularly disturbed Russian intelligence was that they had diffieulty getting Russian agents into the Par East, because of the suspicion of the Japanese and the Chinese at that time. Tliat, Mr, President, you understand, was 1935 or 1936. The testimony null be that the head of the Russian intelligence told this witness, this prospective witness, that they were having excellent success through the Institute of Pacific Relations, which the Soviet Intelligence, through Communists in the United States, had taken over. In connection with this, he particularly mentioned Owen Lattimore and another individual whose name the Senate would recognize, who is not at present connected with our Government. That name is also in the affidavit. The individual has not been eoniiected with the State Department, but did spend some time with Lattimore in the OWI. I am not using Ids name on the Senate floor today, in view of the fact that he is not in the Government, But the entire affida\ut is being turned over to the FBI.

This former Red army general will further testify that, at the time he was in Moscow, the name of Owen Lattimore meant

TKEASON IN WASHINGTON

b2

nothing to him, but that it was only alter he reached the United States as a fugitive from Soviet perseciitioUy and in the late thirties, that the sti,mificanee of the Rassiaii Intelligenee became ai^pareiit to him, Tlis testimony will further be that in the coiirse of visits to other European capitals, he had received approximately the same information about rPR. and also about Lattimore, and the other, luinuHl as a Soviet agent in this affidavit.

1 have before me another affidavit, which

Mr. ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield at that point?

Mr. ^McCarthy. I should like to refer to another affidavit, first, so we may have both of them in mind. I have before me another affida'vnt, the original of which is being handed to tlie FBI. This affiant lives in China. While Tjattimore was there the affiant was an editor of a newspaper in Tiensin and another in Peking,

Tie states that Ln1:timore was a leader in several pro-Rnssian student uprisings in China. He points out Lattimore known connection with and control over the magazine A.sia, which later became Amerasia. The Senate will recall that one of the editors of Amerasia was arrested and found guilty of conspiracy to steal secret doeuments from the State Department, the War Department, and the Navy, I refer to Jaffe, There is a rather humorous vein in this affivadit. He points out that Chiang K^al-shek was displeased with Tiattimore, who as the Senate will recall, was sent by Roosevelt as an ad\isor to China. He was sent over there for 6 months, Chiang Kaishek apparently did not ivant to hurt Roosevelt’s feelings by requesting Lattimorerecall, so he handled this in an oriental fashion. He appointed Lattimore a Chinese official and sent him back to represent him in Washington. [Laughter.]

He points out that the Tjattimore crowd was responsible for the indoctrination of Stihvell against Chiang Kai-shek. He Will point out in his testimony that this was ahnndantly clear to anyone who lived in China.

The affidavit of this editor of a Chinese newspaper is t believe valuable principally to show Lattimore’s leadership of pro-Rnssian Chinese student uprisings.

T am glad to yield now to the Senator from New Mexico.

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

63

Mr AXItERSON. Does the Beiialor mean to convey the h Mvn that the Institute of Pacific Relations, in 1935 and was under Communist control?

Mr, McCarthy. Let me explain to the Senator. I was going to cover this later, but I will do it briefly now, and 1 will cov<w it more at length later. The IPR was established back in I he (^arly twenties by some outstanding men. It took some time for tlm Communists to gain control of it. There are 50 trustees i»n the board of the Institute of Pacific Relations, which it will l)c understood, consists of !0 councils.

Appareutiy the party has made no great attempt to place mmi upon that eoiuieil, and so far as T know, of the 50, they have never had a membership of more than 10, or at most 15, in other words, the party has never had and it does not now remotely have control of tfie board of trustees. There is, however, the executive committee, which consists of 10 individuals, 'riioso are members of the board of trustees, largely wdio live in and around New York. Tfie party has made a trcmemloiisi effort either to get Comiminists, felloAv travelers, or merely deluded liberals on that partieular hoard. Three, four, or five members have been about the most they have had oji the board, who actually have done a rather effective job of control.

l^Ir. ANDERSON. 1 was wondering wlicther the Senator could fix time, because if he would fix the time, for example, as 1935 or 1936, I should be glad to uame for him people whom T am quite sure he would never call Communists.

Mr IHeCARTHY. Oh, I can give the Senator the names of any number of outstanding men. As I said, on the board of trustees J think there has at all times been a sizeable number of outstanding men, and on the exeeiitive board there have also f>een some outstanding men.

^Ir. ANDERSON. I was only hoping the Senator might indicate why, if the other 35 or so out of 50 distinguished people were not Conimmiists, it proved that Lattimore was, because he associated with them, the heads of great American universities, prominent editors of newspapers, distinguished citizens of every type. They are not brought into this discussion.

Mr. YFeCARTIIY. Mr. President. I am not pointing out that Mr. Lattimore was a Communist, because bo associated

64

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

with those men on the board of trustees. I am now reading an affidavit from a Red Army officer as to what his testimony will be in regard to information which he got from Russian intelligence. This is a part of the entire picture.

One of the recent activities of Lattimore, which I wish to point out to the Senate today, is a recent trip to Point Barrow^, Alaska, in May of last year. He had tw^o cameras with him on that trip, as did everyone else who went on the trip Point Barrow is, as Senators knoAV, the northernmost place in Alaska, and one of the main approaches to the American Continent near the Arctic. It would be interesting to know" wdiere the pictures are today w"hich Lattimore took wdth those tw"o cameras.

I think the committee might also try to investigate, to find out how" that trip was arranged. In this connection 1 understand that in Professor Lattimore’s home in Baltimore he has a room devoted to special photographic equipment. Understand, I have never been in the room, but that is my information.

I also discussed Ow"en Lattimore wdth Freda Utley who was formerly a member of the British Communist Party. Her husband was picked up by the ODPU and has apparently since died in a Siberia prison camp. She states that wdiile she was not admitted to the secret meetings betw’een the Russian Communist leaders and the IPR delegates, it w’as common knowdedge at the institute wdiere she w’orked, in the Russian Council of the institute, in IMoscow", that the Soviet government w’as paying a large sum as its contribution to the Institute of Pacific Rehitions.

In regard to Lattimore, she states that at the time she met liim in Moscow in 1930, in her opinion he was not yet a Communist, but that later when she knew" him in Baltimore in 1940, he had definitely decided to throw in his lot w"ith the totalitarian enemies of America and of freedom because lie has become convinced that the Communists were destined to win.

She states further that a few months after she had gotten to know" him in Moscow", she met him in London where he told her that he had .almost lost his .job as editor of Pacific Affairs, because he had published an article by the Trotskyite, Harold Isaacs.

Keeping in mind tha^ Pacific Affairs is a publication for 10 councils, the publication of which Jessup w"as editor being the publication for the American Council. I should like to call

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

55

the Senate’s attention also to an article by Philip J. Jaffe, entitled “China’s Communists Told Me,” wdiich appeared in the New" Masses of October 12, 1937. It w"ill be recalled that this is the same Philip Jaffe w"ho recently w"as found guilty of conconspiracy to steal secret documents from the State Department and the War and Navy Departments in connection w"ith the Amerasia ease.

In this article Jaffe gives considerable detail about his travels in China with T. A. Bisson and Ow'en Lattimore, giving details as to their stay at the Communist foreign office in Yenan and being greeted on arrival at Yenan, the Communist headquarters, by Agnes Smedley. ^liss Smedley, it will be recalled, has been named by General MacArthur’s Intelligence .Service as *^one of the most energetic w"orkers for the Soviet cause in China for the past 20-odd years.”

Let me make it clear: I do not claim the distinction of having exposed Lattimore. He has long since been exposed to the State Department. For example, on October 26, 1946, nearly 5 years ago, the Washington Times-Herald in an article entitled “State Department Sends Soviet Sympathizer as Aide,” we find the following:

Another Red sympathizer, if not a Communist, Owen Lattimore, has been named Special Economic Adviser to Tokyo.

As the Senate w-ell knows, the American Legion, through its Americani.sm Commission, for years, has been w^aging a gallant fight against odds in an attempt to maintain America as a free Nation.

In March of 1949 its subcommittee on subversive activities put out a document entitled ” Summary of Trends and Developments Exposing the Communist Conspiracy.” In this it listed a number of individuals as “unsuitable and inappropriate for Legion sponsorship.” One of the names is Ow"en Tiattimore. Certainly this w as know"n to the State Department when they sent Lattimore to Afganistan on the Point IV mission. Also the fact-finding committee of the California Legisl.ature on page 199 of its fourth report on un-American activities had the following to say: ”Among the Communists and fellow travelers who have been w"ritiug books for public schools is Ow’en Lattimore.”

I fear in the case of Lattimore, I may have perhaps placed

56

TREASON IN WASffiNGTON

too much stress on the question of whether or not he has been an espiona^^e a^ent. In view of his position of tremendous power in the State Department as the “architect'* of our far castcwn policy, the more important aspect of his case deals with his aims and what he advocates j whether his aims are American aims or whetlier they coincide with the aims of Soviet Russia* Therefore, forgetting for the time being any question of membership in the Comm unis t Party or participation bi espionage, I would like to deal briefly with what this man himself advocates and what he believes in.

It does not take any counterespionage staff to determine what he stands for. It does not take an investigative group to determine whether he favors communism over our form of democracy. All it takes is a detailed study of his voluminous writings.

Wc wonder why a man as brilliant as Lattimore wnuld set forth his aims so clearly over a number of years — especially when he now tlenies those aims so loudly, f suppose, liowever, if we had the answer to that question, we w’ould also have the answer to why Hitler wrote his Mein Kampf and why Stalin wrote bis Principles of Leninism.

He is midobutedly the most brilliant and scholarly of all the Communist propagandists, and also the most subtle of the evangelists who have deceived the American people about the Chinese Communists,

1 might say that if we study Imn we cannot help but see that here is a brilHant individual. That is what makes him dangerous. If he were merely a dupe, such as are some of the persons he has been nsiiig, he would not be so dangerous to the Nation. Nevertheless, no one can read his books carefully without realizing that they are replete with pro-Soviet propaganda; twisted half truths about America; mlsiii format ion about the Chinese Communists; and historical distortions and omissions designed to trick the American public into support of policies advantageous to Moscow.

In a moment 1 shall give some (luotations from Lattimore's books. But first I wish to emphasize the point that the administrations' disastrous far-eastern policy reflects point by point Mr, Lattimore’s recommendations and advice.

In this connection the Senate will recall that when I gave

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

57

the name and some facts in the Lattimore case to the Foreign Helations Subcommittee in executive session, the State Department made the following statement:

He fLattimorel has never been employed by or connected with the State Department, except once. About 5 years ago, and for a period of 4 months only, he was associated with a mission outside the United States.

Once thereafter, on a single day, although not employed or compensated by the State Department, he publicly addressed a group of State Department employees.

On another occasion, although not employed by thy State Department, he took part over a period of 2 days in a citizens roundtable conference, in the company of many distinguished Americans who likewise w^ere participating in this discussion*

There was no other contact, association, employment or connection between the State Department and this individual in any manner or form, at any other time, save as mentioned above.

I call attention particularly to the all-inclusive language:

There was no other contact, association, employment or connection between the State Department and this individual in any manner or form, at any other time.

For that reaswi it might be well to give Lattimore’s employment and eoutaet with the State Department and other (loverninent ageneies. ^ .

Ill 1941 he was appointed hy Roosevelt as mlviser to Chiang Kai-shek. While I do not have any documentary proof as to why President Roosevelt picked Lattimore for this job, the best information available would indicate that it wp largely t"® recommendation of Henry Wallace. He remained with Chiang Kai-shek, however, only 6 months and was then sent back by nun to the United States.

Shortly after his return to the States, he was put in enlarge of the Overseas Division in charge of Pacific operations of the

incidentally, Mr. President, I had hoped I would have, for the benefit of the-Senate today, some of the excerpts from the broadcasts which he beamed out to China and the I acific. They were really “dillies.”

In 1944 he and John Carter Vincent accompanied Henry Wallace on a tour of China, after which Wallace made his re^ port to the State Department, recommending the torpedoing ot

(.'hiaiig Hai-sbek.

68

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

Incidentally, in tliis connection the State Department is

the rliSort'ho !•“ “ Congressman Judd that

tfte report be produced from wherever it is and pid)lished.

The Senator from Maryland [Mr. D’Oonnor] snbsednenllv

faken-fnimU^^^ Department was again mis

taken if tliat is the correct term—m this connection. The Sen

ator obtained from Wallace a summary of his report and as will be recalled, made a report to the press. ’

entitled Soviet Asia Mi.ssion,” m which he pavs tribute to

?n naue lyTh’Vih '"Y«k‘a'*le assistance. lie also points out on page 17 that the President—Mr. l{oo.sevelt—“urged me to

world »*■’ »"o o7 the

Sn »lati0Ml,ri/’

This u-ould seem to indicate that not only the State Department but the 1 resident have looked to Owen Lattimore as their adviser and expert on far eastern policy.

In .n!i! Lattimore headed a special mission to .Japan, again ment^^^ recommendations to Mr. Truman and the State Depart

riniit^'V^^r*^ attended the Indo-American Conference in New Delhi, India, according to a copy of the Indian News Chronicle

wri V*!'® tke Hindustan Times, our Am

bassador to India also took part in this Indo-American Conference. This conference was jointly sponsored by the State Department and the In.stitute of Pacific Relations.

♦u present time Lattimore is in Afghanistan. While

the btate Department denies he has any connection with it the tollowing information was obtained from the Library of Con^ress:

har Government asked the United States in Decern.

preliminary mission to Afghanistan to investigate economic development under United Nations technical assistance program. Owen Lattimore was selected to be the

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

69

head of this mission, which included a Mr. Caustin of the United Kingdom who is a member of the United Nations Secretariat; a Mr. Kirk of Canada, who is with the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization; and a fourth member, an engineer, whose name is not known. The purpose of this mission was to pick out some key economic projects which might provide the basis for long-term assistance.

In other words, Mr. President, the Afghanistan Government asked this Government to send a preliminary mission there to investigate the possibility of assistance under our point 4 program. That is the program wliieh Hanson is now planning.

For some time he has also served on a State Department lecture panel, his job being to properly indoctrinate other State Department emplo^^ces. In this connection I call attention to an editorial written by Frank Waldrop which appeared in the Times-IIerald of June 6, 1946.

Whether or not the Secretary of State will ever admit tliat Lattimore has a desk in the State Department is comparatively unimportant. The fact concerning which there can be no doubt whatsoever is the dominant influence of Mr. Lattimore over the formulation and implementation of the policy which lias delivered China to Stalin. One can find in his hooks tlie clearest exposition of the theories and views which have been the basis for the administration's disastrous China policy and which are reflected in the white paper. Indeed the reports from its Foreign Service officials in China during the war, as given in the white paper, read like extracts from Lattimore *s books. Lattimore’s views are followed by the State Department insofar as the Chinese Communists are concerned. These Chinese Communists are represented by Lattimore and his friends in the State Department as ‘‘democrats,” “liberal agrarian reformers,” “progressives not under Moscow’s direction,” or, more recently, as “detachable from” Soviet Russia. We hear a new term for them every day.

The general drift of the line of propaganda put across by Mr. Lattimore in his writings is clearly shown by the following blurb on his book. Solution in Asia.

This is what the editor says about the book:

He 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. ♦ ♦ ♦

He inclines to stipport Aznerican newspapermen who report that the only real democracy in China is found in Communist areas.

Lattimore’s admiration for Russian demoeraey is characterized by the following passage in the same book:

j I!? these peoples (along the Russian frontier from Korea

and Manchuna past Mongolia, Sinkiang, Afghanistan, and Iran all the way to Turkey) the Russians and the Soviet Union have a greater power of attraction. In their eyes—rather doubtfully in the eyes of the older generatiDu, more and more clearly in the eyes of the youuger gyneratiou ^the Soviet Union stands for strategic security economic prosperity, technological progress, miraculous medicine’ free education, equality of opportunity, and democracy, a powerful combination.

The quotation appears at page 1*^9,

(t tjattiniore 's description of Comimiiiist Russia. In

^'The Situation in Asia/* Lattiiuore is engaged in ‘-priddems of policy/* which —

are continuous, and stem out of each other at successive stages, in such a way tfiat even when the same kind of policy is followed or proposed, it must adapt itself in details to the changing situations wmich it IS intended to manage.

I have read from page 216.

To illustratej Lattimore goes on to say:

American policy at the end of the -war sought to slow down the rate of change in Asia and give priority to the political stabilization and economic recovery of Europe. Since then, however, in spite of AmeiicaTi policy, the rate of change has been greater in Asia than the rate of recovery in Europe. We should, therefore, recognize the necessity of adapting our policy to the changing realities; and we can only do so by relaxing our pressure on Asia to subordinate its interests to our interests and those of Europe, and by increasing our pressure on Europe to join us in a policy of negotiating compromises on terms acceptable to Asia.

I have read from page 217,

This is a roundabout way of saying that, since the march of eonimunism is irresistible in Asia, American policy should be to leave it alone, and then, tluwigh tiireatening to stop Marshall aid, to force European nations to do the same, that is, to negotiate compromises on terms which are acceptable to the Commu^ nists in Asia. In other words, it is a policy of appeasement of communisin in Asia, which is to be jointly pursued by all nations under American leaflership.

At page 43 Lattimore attacks what he calls *'the grandiose and disastrous American attempt to determine the character and outcome of the Chinese Civil War.** Does he mean the Marshall mission to China and the policy of forming a KiiomintangComiininist coalition? If so, Lattimore is for it. For he says that *‘tliis Marshall policy was a statesmanlike effort to secure for the United States a position of free maneuver.** I have read from page 148. He blames the Marshall failure, and here he follows all standard Communist propaganda, on the as.sertion that "-all during the period of his mission, the Knomintang kept aecnninlating American supplies and American transportation kept moving Kuomiiitang troops into north China and Manchuria.’*

This is Communist propaganda, pure and simple. For it is by now generally known, and documented by the white paper, that no such thing happened, and that General Marshall himself stated in testimony before Congress that a ban was imposed on arms and amniunition shipments to China wiiich vras a virtual embargo. Moreover, Lattimore fails to point ont that the Soviet troops in Manchuria M’ere sj'Stematieally preventing Chinese troops from moving into idanehnria. eithei' by sea through the port of Dairen, or overland through the Great Wall pass Shanhaikwan, or by air to Ylukden and Ghankehini, while the Soviet troops w^ere building up large Chinese Communist forees all over IHanehuria. The tragic story is now presented in the rloeiiment China Presents Her Case to the United Nations, which was laid before the United Nations General Assembly by the Chinese Government, November 25, 1940,

After stating that the Marshall mission ^Svas a statesmanlike effort to secure for the United States a position of free maneuver”—that is, the mission to get the Chiang Kai-shek goveniment to take in the CommunistvS—Lattimore feels that the Truman doctrine is *4he first damage to this position of maneuver,** and lie blames the Eightieth Congress for his assertion that General Marshall, was “blackmailed into destroying what remained of the position of free maneuver in China policy which he himself set up.” This blackmail, of course, was the China Aid Act of April 3, 1948—and he makes this ahnndantly clear —which Lattimore wrongly describes as having been taken out from the money for the Marshall plan for Europe*. In other words, he says that the attempt on the part of ("ougress to give

62

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

the J}?125,000,000 aid to Nationalist China was blackmail.

The fundamental thesis of the book is the following statement :

Clearly, the Communist ascendency had become so decisive that It could not be reversed (p. 161).

He gMs OQ to spell out this assumption with some remarkable predictions of subsequent Soviet policies:

We must also abandon the stubbornly lingering: delusion that we footholds by supporting rSmp territories or romp government s^ewhere south of the Yangtse, or on the coast, or on the island of Formosa (p. 179).

This is Lattimore saying this should be the policy which should become the State Department policy. He says, **Don’t think you can maintain a rump government beyond the Van^'tse don’t think you can maintain one on Formosa.” ’

Here he was prepared to write off free China in favor of the Conimunists, even if the Communists were still on the north of the Yangtse, or when they were controlling onlv one-third of China.

I might say that I dislike taking up so much time developing these quotatioas from Lattimore’s works, but I think it is sucdi an important part of the entire picture that it should be made a part of the Record at this time.

Lattimore’s predictions regarding Soviet policy were accurate:

We shall soon have a government in China firmly established in the heart of tl^ land and controlling practically the whole of its mnges. This Government will be recognized de jure and de facto by Russia. The new government of China will claim China's big five position m the United Nations, including the right of veto.

That prediction lias not come true as yet, of course.

These lines were written a full year before the Communisis took sxich steps.

Lattimore does not believe that anything should or could he done to arrest the march of communism in China and Asia. However, he is not advocating a policy of appea.sement of Communist aggression. He believes that Communist rule is good in itself.

As Senators listen to this, 1 ask them to keep in mind Dean Achcfson’s speech before the National Pre.ss Club several months ago. This is what Lattimore says:

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

63

Throughout Asia today there prevails an atmosphere of hope, not of despair. There is not a single country i*n Asia in which people feel that we are entering an age of chaos. What they see opening up before them is a limitless horizon of hope—the hope of peaceful constructive activities in free (sic) countries, and peaceful cooperation among free (sic) peoples. There will be disillusionments along the way as these hopes unfold. They should not come from America, or as the result of American policy.

In other words, he says to America, “Keep your hands off.”

A great part of Asia's hopes, however, will be fulfilled, and should be fulfilled with American cooperation. We have everything to gain by being on the side of hope (p. 238).

Communists In Government Service

i\Ir. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield, to permit me to ask a few questions?

Mr. MeCARTlIY. I yield for a question, certainly.

Mr. DONNELL. 1 should like to ask the Senator, first, briefly, what has been the eonneetioii of Mr. Ijattimore with the State Department, and over how long a period!

Mr. McCarthy. First, let me state what his connection is as of now.

Mr. DONNELL. Yes.

Mr. McCarthy. This is information which 1 got from the researcdi branch of the Library of Congress; I called the State Department, but 1 could not get this information there. The Library of Congress gave me this information: namely, that the Afghanistan Government asked the United States in December 1949 to send a preliminary mission to Afghanistan to investigate the possibilities of utilizing the point 4 program in that area; that Owen Lattimore was selected to head that delegation; and that he is in that area or has recently returned therefrom.

As to his previous connections, it is, I may say to the Senator, hard to put one’s finger upon them. As I told the committee the other day he has a desk in the State Department. He has access to the files. Ever since President Roosevelt labeled Owen Lattimore as the outstanding authority, he has been recognized as the “architect”—that is not my phrase—of oiir fareastern policy.

For example, when President Truman called in the press at

64

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

the time of the Japanese surrender he had on his desk only two books. One of them was Latimore’s book from which 1 have been quoting.

So it is hard to put one's finger on the exact job he has. However, without any doubt, he has been formulating the policy.

Later I intend to cover in some detail the extent to which Secretary Acheson has followed the Lattimore line.

Mr, DONNELL. Mr. President, do I correctly Ainderstand from the Senator that at this very moment Lattimore does have this duty to perform on behalf of the State Department in Afghanistan ?

^Ir. McCarthy, I believe be is on his way back.

]Mr. DONNELL. At any rate he has been there until a very few hours before the present time; has hef

Mr, McCAKTIIY, Yes.

Mr. DONNELL, Will the Senator permit me to ask a few more questions?

iMr. McCarthy, Certainly,

I^Ir. DONNEJLL, The Senator from Wisconsin has referred to one Phillip Jaffc; has he not?

Mr. McCarthy, Ycs,

DONNELL. Was Phillip Jaffe convicted of a crime?

Mr. McCarthy. Yes or he pleaded guilty.

Mr. DONNELL. Approxmiately what was the date of tliat?

Mr, MeCAETHY. That was in 1945.

:^Ir. DONNELL. So, 4 years before Mr. Lattimore wms sent on this mission to Afghanistan, j\lr. Jaffe had been convicted, and that was a matter of public knowiedge, Js that correct?

Mr. MeCARTHY. That is correct; there can be iio doubt about it.

Mr. DONNELL. 1 should like to ask the Senator whether he has observed—I am sure he knows the fact, hut I ask wliether he has observed—that in the published report of the Special C'oinmittee on UmAmerican Activities, of the House of Representatives, Seventy-eighth Congress, second session, at page 1446 of that document, the committee had this to say—it is not long, and T should like to read it; and I ask the Senator whether he has observed this, and then I shall ask him a further question:

EXPOSED BY SENATOR MeCARTHY

65

Thi'oughout its existence in this couutiT the Communist Party has made a specialty of propaganda through ptiblications and periodical, It would be difficult indeed to compile an absolutely complete list of these publications and periodicals, hut the following tabulation presents many of them. In addition to these, there have been thousaiids of local and shop papers, some of which have been printed and some of which have been mimeographed.

Did the Senator from Wisconsin observe that immediately following that statement by the committee of the House of Representatives, to the effect that the Conimunist Party has made a speciality of propaganda through publications and periodicals and stating that, *^The following tabulation presents many of them/' the very first one that is mentioned is Amerasiaf That is correct, is it not?

Mr. McCarthy, That is correct. Amerasia has long been known as completely controlled ])y the Communist Party, I do not think there is any one, no niatter litiw partisan, who would dejiy the fact that Amerasia is sji organ of Soviet Russia,

Mr. DONNELL. !Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a fujther <(uestion?

Mr. I^leCARTIlY. Yes.

Mr. DONNELL. Am f correct in unde rst am ling that the Senator from Wisconsin in referring to Phillip Jaffe referred to the same Pliillip -I. daffe, managing editor of the editorial hoard of Amerasia, listeil at 1446 of the document to which 1 have referred, as being managing editor and a member of the editorial board of 12 persons, {>f wliom Owen Lattimore is listed, likewise, as being one of those members? Am I correct in that?

Mr. l^IcCARTTIY. That is correct. I may say also, for the Senator's benefit, that Far EastGru Survey, the publication of the American Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations, for a long time occupied offices ariioining the official offices of Amerasia; in fact, I uiiclerstaiid that in order to get into one office, one went through the other^—almost a sort of joint venture.

Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question?

Mr, McCarthy. Yes.

Mr. DONNELL. Then, am I correct in understanding from the statement contained in this report of the House commit tec,

66

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

from wbick it appears that the information I have jnst read about membersliip on the editorial hoard of Ameraaia came from the issue of August 1938^ that the fact that Mr* Jaffe, who was convicted in 1949, was a member of a board of 12, of whom Ow-en Lattimore was one member, w^as known from 1938 up until and including the present time and at the time when Mr* Lattimore was sent to Afghauistaii on the mission upon w*hicli he is engaged; is that correct ?

Mr, McCarthy. The Senator from Missouri is 100 percent coiTCet, I may say that I think lie inadvertently stated *M949” when he meant 1945. Jaffe was convicted in 1945*

Mr* DONNELIj. Tn referring to 1949, T was referring to the year wdiich I understood the Senator from Wisconsin to say was the year when ^Ir. Ijattimore was aent to Afglianistan,

Mr, McCarthy* No; in 1949 he went to New Delhi, India, on a project which was sponsored, apparently jointly, hy the State Department anci the Institute of Pacific Relations* It w‘as in 1950—matter of weeks ago—that he went to Afghani* Stan*

But lest the Senate be misled as to tlic 1949 project, let me sa}’ that I have tried to get the infoi*mation as to the extent to wdiieh the State Department sponsored the meeting in New Delhi* The local newspapers certainly appeared to think it wms a State Department project. Our Ambassador over there attended* One of my representatives tallced to the members of one labor organization who said they had been invited to send two representatives to this conference, and that while they would not be on the Government ymy roll, their air travel would be taken care of through the State Department* So, the only information I can give the Senator as to the sponsornig of that project is tliat. the Indian iiewRpaper.s all carried it as a State Department JPR project, and apparently either the State Department paid for, or furnished the air travel for the individuals who went there. In 1950, up to this time, until hut a few days ago, Lattimore has been in Afghanistan working out the point 4 program,

Mr. DONNELIj* Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question!

The FRESTDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Missouri!

EXPOSED BY SENATOR MeCARTHY

67

Mr. MuCARTHY. Certainly,

Mr, DONNELL* In whose behalf is it that the Senator understands that Mr. Lattimore is now in Afghanistan working out the point 4 program 1

Mr* McCarthy, ah I can say is, the Afghanistan Government asked our State Department to send a man* They said, ‘*We will send Owen Lattimore.’'’ I think perhaps the Senator v,ill find that he is cii the payroll of UN j of course, being paid American money,

Mr* DONNELL* Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question!

The PRESIDING OFFICER* Doe*s the Senator from Wiseoiisin yield to the Senator from Missouri!

Mr* ^rcCARTIIY, I yield*

Mr. DONNELL, Am 1 correct hi niiderstanding the Senator a few inhiutes ago to say that the State Department was retiuested to send a man to Afghanistan on the matter to which he has referred!

Mr* ]\rcCARTHY. That is correct,

DONNELL. And that Mr, Lattimore ^vas sent hy someone on that mission? Is that correct?

Mr. McCarthy, Hc was picked hy the State Department and sent on that mission*

Mr* DONNELL, And that was in the year 1950, was it!

Mr, I^lcCARTHY, That is correct*

]\rr. DONNELL. That was 5 years after the conviction of Phillip J. Jaffe, to whom reference has been made* Is that correct ?

Mr. MeCARTITY* That is correct*

Mr, DONNELL. What was the crime of which Mr, Jaffe was convicted and wdiat was his punishment, if the Senator recalls!

Mr. McCarthy. I frankU^ do not know what particular crime he was finally accused ofj hut it was in eoimection %vith the theft of documents from the State Department, and from the Office of Naval Intelligeiiee. There were 360 taken from the State Department and, while I do not have the exact figures, a sizable number were taken, from the Office of Naval Intelli

68

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

gence, from Army Intelligein?e, and one other agency. I should like to give the Senator very briefly a reRiime of some of the doeuineiits, so he will realize their iniportancCj but 1 am sorry, I tlo not have the data before me at the moment*

Mr, DONNELL, JMr. l’n*sident» while the Senator's assist’ ant is looking for that* may I, with his permission, ask anotlier iinestion ?

The IMiE^IDING Does the Senator from Wis

eojisin yield to the Senator from Missouri for a further finest ion?

Mr* IHcCAHTHY. I am glad to yield*

JMr. DONNELL. May I ask the Senator from Wisconsin has til ere ever been, so far as he knows, since the publication of the Mouse conimittee from which T have read—and which* l^y the way, was printed at the United States Oovenmieiit Printing Office ill 1944—has there ever been any serious question raised, so far as the Senator knows, as to the currectuess ul the conelusion of that committee, tliat Amerasia was a pnblicatitJii through whieli tile Communist party put furtii ]>ropaganda? Is there any doubt of that in the Senator's mind?

Mr* McCarthy* There is no doubt wliatever In my mind, and I do not believe there can be any floiibt in the mind of any open-minded Indi^ddnah The Senator is speaking of Amerasia, 1 take it.

ilr. DONNELL. I am speaking of Amerasia. Has there ever been, so far as the Senator knows* any action taken by any committee of the House of liepresentatives or of tlie Senate, setting aside or contradicting tlie eonelnsion of the House comraittee in .1944 that Amerasia* having pJaffe and also Mr. Lattiinore on their editorial board of 12, was a Commntmt publication? Has there ever been any action of any committee of the Congress which set aside that conclusion or denied its validity?

IMr. McCarthy. None whatever. Merely to give the Senator a better picture of some of the individuals on the board of Amerasia, 1 may say 1 have a letter here signed by T* A. Bisson, wlio was ill the State Department, ami also on the Amerasia hoard* The letter is addre.ssed to the head of a Protestant missionary coinieil.

I^fr. DONNELL, Will the >SonHtor permit me to interrupt to ask whetlier that is the same T. A, P>isson who was listed hy the House committee in 1940?

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

69

]\lr* McCAJ^TlIY* It is the same Bisson. 1 shall cover this in more detail later* Tlie letter is a fantastie document if ever there was one* He writes to the head of a Protestant missionary eonneil—and I will give the Senator the letter—advising against giving aid in, to quote, * ^rehabilitating the Red-ravaged districts.'' In other words, when the (Jommunists departed and the Protestant missionary group undertook to give tlie people aid, [Sisson wrote saying it was wrong. He ends liis letter with a postscript, which sounds interesting:

P. S,—I would strongly advise every prospective missionary to China to read Chinese Destines, by Agnes Smedley*

Jn case the 8enator does not know who Agnes Smedley is, she was the individual about whom MacArthnr's intelligence unit issued a document which was placed in the Record in winch she is branded as the outstanding Soviet agent for over 20 years.

Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, will the Senator yield for a further question?

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wis^ cousin yield to the Senator from Missouri?

Mr. McCarthy. I am glad to yield.

Mr. DONNELL* Does the Senator know of any reason why the State Department lias found it necessary, in sending a man abroad, if it did send him, on this Afghanistan project, to select a man who i^^as on tlie editorial board, consisting of 12 members, of a publication which the Congress of the United States, through the House of Representatives, had officially stated was a periodical through which the Communist Party had made a specialty of issuing propaganda?

ifr. McCarthy* Let me state in this connection that, as the Senator wdll recall, John Service was arrested. That is the case wliich Hoov'er says was a lOO-pereent airtight case. Joseph Grew, who was then Under Secretary of State, w^as very vigorous in insisting on the proseeution of Service. Grew resigned. Dean Aeheson took over. A few days later, John Service was reinstated* lie is tlie man who was accused of stealing these documents. Subsequently, he was put in charge, so far as I can determine, of personnel, promotions, and placements in the Par East. The man who stole the documents for Amerasia, an outfit which is clearly (■oimimnist-controlLed, and who was the siiljject

70

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

of this ospionag;6 ease w'da picked up by Dean Aeheson, and was not only reinstated but was jdaeed in the positiaii of eontmllin^ placements and promotions of personnel in the Far East. Tins may explain why men like Lattimore were assigned sixcli important jobs ill the East

Mr. DONNELL. ]\Ir. [^resident, if the Senator will pardon me, are these the doeiimeiits Jaffe was accused of stealing, or that he did steal ?

Mr. MeCARTIIY. Not of trying to steaL but whieli he did steal. These are documents whieh were recovered from the office of Amerasia by the or Naval rntelligenee, I think this is the one wliieh was recovered by the FBI—either the B^BT or Naval Intelligence. First, there is a doeiiment marked obviously a document originating in the Navy Department, with the schedule aiid targets for the bombing of Japan. This particular (loeiimcnt was known to be in the possession of Philip Jaffe on one of tlio da,ys during the early spring of 1015, before the bombing program had been undertaken. That infurmatlon. in tlm hands of our enemies, eoukl cost us many preeious lives.

Second, there is aiiotiier docimient, also marked ^^Top Secret,” likewise originating in the Navy Departmeut. It dealt with the disi>osition of the Japanivse fleet sutmeqiient to the major naval battle of Oetober 1044, and gave the class and location of each Japanese warship. What Jaffe wanted that for k a $64 quest ion.

Third, there is another document stolen from tlie Office of Postal and Telegraph Censorship, a secret report on the B^'ar iiast, which was so stamped, leaving no doubt in the mind of anyone.

Another document sfolcn from i\tilitary Intelligence consisted of 22 pages 5 and one of the doeuments, of considerable interest, which was fomid in his possession and that apparently reached Jaffe before it readied the State Department, was John Servicek report No. 58, a report highly critical of Chiang Kaishek. Docs the Senator follow me? Before the document reached the State Department from Service, he had first mailed it to Philip Jaffe.

Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President, I give assurance that T am going to trespass only a very short time further on the Renatork lime, but 1 should like to ask another question or two.

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

71

The PRESIDLNG OFFICER. Does the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the Senator from Missouri!

Mr, IMeCARTlIY, 1 am glad to yield.

Mr. DONNELL. This is in connection with the query that is in my mind as to why it would be necessary for our Government in selecting a person to go to Afghanistan to restrict itself to a man who had been connected with an organisation such as Amerasia, as a member of a l>oard consisting of 12 mcjiihers, of whom JaDej who was convieded in 1945, was one. The further <piestion I have abmg that line arises from a .similar query. 1 find in the same report of the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of Representatives, puhlkhed in 1944, that there is a series of exhibits listed. T slurald like to ask the Senator a question based thereon. The report says:

In thk section of the report will be found numerous exhibits of Communists and Communist-front organizations. The persoimel of these organizations I’eveals an extensive interlocking directorate with the other organizations that are discussed in these volumes. In his memorandum on the National Federation for Constitutional LibertieSt the Attoi-ney General has called attention to the importance of the interlocking directorate in identifying Communist-front organizations.

Then, I point out to the Senator, aiul will ask him the qiicaUon in a moment, the fact that among the exhibits that reveal a part of the personnel of these organizations, or T should say, among those organizations, is the Maryland Association for DciU' oeratic Rights.

T w^ant to ask the Senator whether he has noted that at page 1136 of tlie report of the House of Representatives in 1944, 6 years before Mr. Lattimore was selected to go to Afghanistan, it appears that the Maryland Association for Democratic Rights, listed as an organization under the heading of **Miscellancons Communist and Coinmiinist-front Organizations, ” included among the sponsors oF a certain conference the name of Owen Lattimore. 1 ask the Senator if he knows why it k necessary that our Government should have any organization acting for or with the consent of our Government to restrict its choice of a niaii to go on an important diplomatic mission to Afghanistan to someone who is not only connected wdth a publication such as Amerasia, but k ako a member of an organization which k listed among Communist and nommurList-front organizations? Can the Senator explain the necessity for onr Government, or anyone connected with it, or with its approval, conNning itself, in

72

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

the instance cited, to a man who is connected with such organkations ?

^Ir. BrcCAKTHT. T can see no conceivable reason for it. There is an excuse for sonic of these unusual individuals being appointed, T suppose, but the picture has been so clear and it lias been painted over so many years that there can be no conceivable reason for this man’s being appointed. Tliere are, after all, a vast Tiiunber of good, intelligent individuals who are not painted wdth the bi'ush with which Lattimore has been painted, who could do a good job,

Mr. KNOWLAND. Mr, President, will the Senator yield for a question?

Mr. iMcCAETHY. 1 yiekL

]\f r. KNOWLAND. I should like to ask the junior Senator from Wisconsin if he is familiar with the photostat put into the Kceord by the junior Senator from New York IMr. Lehman] which contains a most iiTespousiblc and vicious attack upon Mr. Dulles, then a Senator of the United States and one of the principal architects of our bipartisan policy, and which was signed not liy some irresponsible fly-by-night organization, but was signed, according to the committee, by Pauline Fitzpatrick, chairman ?

Mr, MctyAIiTHY, I was a\vare of tliat fact,

ANDERSON. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?

Mr. McCarthy. J shall jield for a question.

Mr. ANDERSON. In furtherance of the questions raised by the senior Senator from Mi.ssouri [Mr. Donnell], is the Senator from Wisconsin familiar with the fact that the ITonse of Representatives took recognition of some of the publications and appointed a committee to investigate many of the charges made? Is he familiar with the results of the investigations?

Mi\ McCarthy. The results of the investigation of the publications ?

Mr. ANDERSON, No; the charges made against hundreds of citizens which resnlted in Rc^publicans and Democrats voting unanimously to discredit most of the charges.

Mr. MeCARTHY. J am not sure that T understand the import of the Senator’s question.

kir. ANDERSON. 1 asked the Senator if he is familiar Avith tlie fact that the I louse of Representatives, stirred up by

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTH\

73

llit'se charges, appointed a committee to look into them, that ilii*re was evidence before the House that charges had been prefiwred by employees of the Department without the faintest coniibation with a single member of the committee, and that it resulted in new rules which prohibited them from issuing publicafioTis of this character, I w^onder if the Senator w'ants to review t!io whole procedure of the House of Representatives.

Mr, McCarthy. So far as I know, there is no ilember of tlio House wim has objected to the finding that Amerasia is a mouthpiece for the Communist Party,

Mr. ANDERSON. Is the Senator familiar with the fact tliat among those listed wwe many persons who held high politit al office, men who were even JMernbers of the Congress of the United States, and w^oukl it not have been the duty of the House to expel lilembers who belonged to such organization ?

Mr. McCarthy. The Senator is picking out one of the eakest bits of evidence and asking whether

Mr, ANDERSON, i was somewhat disturbed by the questions of the Senator from Missouri who had not seen this list and might not be familiar wdth the fact that the House of Representatives itself has taken some recognition of the situation,

Mr. kIcGARTIIY, I agree with the Senator from Missouri that when w^e find a person belonging to Communist organizations, then, under no cireumstaiiees, should they be permitted to represent the United States until we find out w^by they joined the Communist organization. In connection with Lattimore’s connection with the Communist-front organizations, I invite attention to the fact that the American Legio]i has named him as one of the individuals who shoiikl, under no circumstances, be sponsored by any Legion group. The California Senate committee also named him as an individual w^hn is writing subversive hooks for colleges or schools. It is the entire picture which is important, It is not the question of belonging to the Maryland association; it is the entire chain of events,

Mr, ANDERSON, Has the Senator identified Lattimore with employment by the State Department? Was the man from Canada appointed to the State Department?

Mr, SIcCARTHY^, He was appointed by the United Kingdom, Our State Department is not the head of that group. Even if ^yQ did not have evidence putting him at work in the State De*

T4

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

partinent, tlie fact remains that both Kooseyelt autl Truman considered Lattimore an expert on the Far East. Roosevelt, according to Wallacebook, pointed out that “this man is onr greatest expert on Chinese-Russians relations. “ I believe you can ask almost any school child wlio the architect of oiir far-eastern policy isj and he will say, “Owen Lattimore.”

Mr, DONNELL, President, will the Senator yield f Mr. McCarthy, l yieUl.

Mr. DONNELL, The distinguished vSenator from New JMexico has made inquiry as to whether the Senator from Wisconsin knew of the fact that subsequently to the preparation of the lists from which I read the House of Representatives had taken notice of them and appointed coinniittees, and that many persons were exoneratetl, or words to that effect. Tliat may be entirely correct, but is it not a fact that two things are time, first, that the lists which 1 read are not mere lists which were presented to the eonunittee, hut are set forth in a report of the committee^ and in this section of tile report there will be found varioas things? Is it not also true that there has been no exoneratioii of Ainerasia? Certainly if everyone else liad been exonerated along the lines of the distinguished Senator's question, Jaffe^s statement with reference to the charges to which the Senator has referred clearly dc^monstrates that there has been no exoneration of Amerasia set forth in the official report of the House Committee on Un-American activities.

Mr, McCarthy. The Senator is 100-percent correct. In that connection, I should like to point out tliat Frederick Vanderbilt Field, a man who has admitted and proclaimed to the world that lie is a Comnumist, was editor of Amerasia for a considerable period of time.

Mr* DONNELL, ilay 1 ask the Senator if he will permit me to invite the attention of tlie Senate to the fact that at page 1446 of the official report, from which I have read, Frederick Yanderhilt Field is stated to be chairman of the editorial board, according to the issue of ^lareh and that according to the issue of August 1938, Frederick V, Field was shown to be chairman of the editorial hoard. That is correct, is it not?

Mr. McCarthy, That is eorreet In connection with tliat I ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Record at this point a brief article entitled ‘‘Millionaire Communist—A Case

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

75

Sludy of Frederick Vanderbilt Field,” published in the May 1940 issue of the magazine Plain Talk.

There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in the Record, as follows:

MILLIONAIRE COMMUNIST--A CASE STUDY OP FREDERICK VANDERBILT FIELD

(By Archie Black)

Of the half cloven millionaire Communists in the United States, none provides a more fascinating case history than Frederick Vanderbilt Field, The gi^eat-great grandson of Commodore Cornelius Van(lerbilt, with an annual income well into the upper brackets, Mr. Field suffers none of the disabilities of a lowly proletarian.

A Vanderbilt without power, Frederick V, Field, as he prefers to be known, has hitched his star to the Communist chanot in pursuit of power. That, too, explains the seiwility which this Vanderbilt scion has displayed in the presence of Communist commissars. Furthermore, being a mediocre writer, Mr, Field has been able to satisfy his ambition of becoming a columnist in the pages of the Daily Worker. And the Communist movement sets up no barriers for the playboy: his volatile and fickle temperament can find ample expression in the Reo pastures. Undoubtedly the analyst of the future will discover other psychological facets in the make-up of a millionaire Communist. As a social phenomenon, the type has hardly been studied.

Sympathy for oppressed peoples all over the world is the theme song for Mr, FiekTs writings. And it is said that, in general^ he tries to practice w^hat he preaches. On the occasions when he seems to revert to type and snub the proletariat, he does so through his eagerness to sexwe Moscow^s higher-ups. An example occurred a few years ago when Earl Browder, then general secretary of the Communist Party, sent word that he was coming to see Field at the latter^s office. Field rushed down to meet him. A lame Negro woman was waiting to take the elevator. At the sight of the party's grand sachem, Field became so flustered that he unceremoniously shoved the woman out of the way to make room for Browder, whom he escoiied into the elevator,

A tall, slender man in his early forties, Field has a high brow and thin face which give him the air of an intelleetiial. Though he has never had to do a day's work at any gainful occupation, he wwks hard and earnestly for a multitude of party causes. Frequently he puts in long hours in his office at 23 West Twenty-sixth Street—a building which serves as headquarters for Communist fronts.

When Frederick Vanderbilt Field invited Whittaker Chambers to luncheon at the Vanderbilt Hotel in New York City in the middle 1930's, to discuss a certain crucial underground matter, Field was already closely linked to the Communist Party machine. Less than a decade earlier he had graduated from Harvard (class of 1927) ■where he had had a good academic record and had Beived, among other leading activities* as president of the Harvard Crimson, When he entered college, classmates of his say, he had little interest in politics. But

76

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

in the atmosphere of Harvard at the time that Laurence Duggan and Alger Hiss were also students, Field began to be converted to the political left.

After his graduation Field traveled to England to study at the school of economics of London University. Here the lectures of Harold Laski were influential in turning him further toward socialism. His break with his family past became apparent in the presidential campaign of 1928, when, after dallying with the idea of .supporting Alfred E. Smith, he publicly endorsed Norman Thomas and became active in the affairs of the American Socialist Party. For a time he acted as secretary to Mr. Thomas. In 1928 he organized the League of First Voters, a group which had its origin in Harvard and which aimed to fight for liberalism and socialism.

Durng the early thirties Field grew more and more dissatisfied with the slowness of socialism in achieving reforms. Those who were intimate with him at the time report that he was obsessed with the idea of using quick action to get quick results. He viewed the Soviet Union as having succeeded. Like so many who began as Socialists, he turned to the more militant gospel of Stalinism. How large a part in his awakening to the true faith was played by Communist wooing of his ego can only be surmised.

One of Field’s first party assignments was to help lead others do^vn the road he had taken. Appropriately, it was the open-road tours to which he was detailed as president. This Communist-controlled travel outfit was designed to show Potemkin villages to visitors in the Soviet Union. That was before the iron curtain descended, but the innocents who took the tours saw only what the Kremlin wanted them to see.

By the time of the Stalin-Hitler pact in 1939, the Vanderbilt heir was an established toiler in the Communist Party vineyard and a willing slave of its fuehrers. He undertook a major role in the Communist task of softening up America with “peace” propaganda, to block our preparedness against the Nazi aggressors. Field served as national secretary and one of the chief financial backers of the American Peace Mobilization (APM) launched in September 1940 — the Communist front which flooded the country with the slogan, “The Yanks Are Not Coming.” Under his leadership, APM picketed the White House and opposed lend-lease and conscription as a spearhead of the attacks on our democracy,

“On the afternoon of June 21, 1941, he (Frederick V, Feild, national secretary) suddenly called off the picket line around the White House,” reported Attorney General Francis Biddle in the Congressional Record. Hitler had attacked the Soviet Union. No more antidefense propaganda was fed into the APM mimeograph machines. Superpatriotism and dedication to the “people’s war against fascism” were the order of the day. And on February 13. 1942, Frederick Vanderbilt Field applied for a commission in the United States Army Military Intelligence.

After an investigation, the Army turned him down. Mr. Field was hurt; he was eager to aid the war effort. Why were his services refused? His stated reason for applying was that the Far East had

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

77

trrn hill Specialty. Actually, so far as is known, he has visited the three times, living there for a year on one occasion.

It Ik as an authority on the Far East that Field has shone pariPuliirly in the varied theaters of Stalinist culture. He has given a l«*rtiire course on “The Far East in World Affairs” at the Jefferson Hi hiMil of Social Science—the party-line academy listed as subversive by the Attorney General, and of which Field was one of the organizers. I(e ha.s written voluminously on Asiatic affairs for the Daily Workers, the New Masses (now Masses and Mainstream) and the highbrow t ommunist monthly. Political Affairs. Unfailingly these articles are .^ull of diatribes against United States imperialism ni the Pacific, iiirnlnsi the iniquities of the Chinese Nationalists, and against United states interference with the course of democracy in China as it might bestowed by the Communists under Mao Tse-tung.

The line Field follows is the same that has been peddled with uich success to our State Department and our muddled intellectuals by the fellow-traveler writers and commentators. It is doubtful whether Field’s party writings have influenced anyone outside the faithful who read the prescribed party organs. But through his Communistfront activities, he has aiaed in a more subtle plan to reach the public at large with propaganda designed to keep the United States out of the Orient so that the Soviet Union might have clear sailing there.

Appearing in pamphlets under the imprint of the Institute of Pacific Relations (IPR)i Field’s party-line views won a wider audience. In 1929, after he left London, Field attended the third biennial conference of the IPR in Kyoto, Japan. He was to play a long and increasingly important role in this organization, leading to its almost complete Stalinization. Field was one of the eight members of the inner circle of the IPR’s American Council—the executive committee of its board of trustees.

Field is no longer connected with IPR, which has purged itself of the Stalinist group that misdirected it. But he has a new vehicle for his activities in behalf of a Sovietized Asia. This front, with the high-sounding name of the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy, has Field and other Communists on its board of directors. The current program of the committee stresses that the United States should give no aid to Nationalist China, but should do business with and aid Communist China, and investigate the “China lobby” in Washington.

A secret directive of the Communist Party of New York State, dated March 1, 1949, and signed by May Miller, assistant organization secretary of the party, ordered all sections and counties of the party to plan action in their communities on the China question, following a special outline prepared by the committee. Miss Miller’s letter to the comrades concluded:

“Any inquiries in relation to further activity can be received by writing to the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy at 111 West Forty-second Street, New York City.”

Typical of Field’s current line on China is a 15-page article signed by him which was published in the January 1949 issue of Political Af

78

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

fairs (a magazine “devoted to the theory and practice of MarxismLeninism”)* He rejoices that “under the leadership of the great Communist Party of China and its renowned chairman, Mao Tse-tung, the heroic Chinese people are discharging their duties with honor. The imperialists are being decisively beaten back in China.” These are hardly novel sentiments for Field to express. What is new is this undisguised call to United States Communist action:

“It is incumbent on the American people, in the first place the American labor and progressive movements, not to overlook this opportunity to demand an end to all political, military, and financial intervention in China. It is our task, as American Communists, to help mobilize the forces of labor and all anti-imperialists in our country, to deal such further blows at Wall Street, that the Chinese New Democracy may consolidate its victories and move finnly and powerfully on the road toward socialism.”

Though most of the millionaire Communist’s thunder against the world intrigues of Wall Street is directed to the East, his concern for dowTitroddcn colonial peoples extends also to Latin America and to Africa. He serves as executive vice president of the Council for PanAmerican Democracy, which devotes most of its propaganda to opposing “United States imperialism” in Latin America. He has entertained Lombardo Tolcdano, the leading promoter of the Stalinist line in Latin American labor circles.

The executive secretary for the council is Marion Bachrach, a sister of John Abt, avowed pro-Soviet attorney whose wife, Jessica Smith, edits Soviet Russia Today. All three of them were members of the inner Russia First circle in Washington. It w’as a circle in which cocktails and the cause often mixed. And Frederick Vanderbilt Field served as a base for this mixture.

On October 21, 1945, for example, a quiet, unreported cocktail party was held at 16 West Twelfth Street, the private home of Mr. Field. About seventy persons were present an<l each paid $100 for the privilege. The purpose of this exclusive gathering, far from the eyes of the press, was to raise funds for the Communist-controlled Council on African Affairs.

The chief notable was Paul Robeson. At such conclaves he speaks instead of singing. He told the sympathetic guests w'hat was on his mind. He had recently made a tour of Europe for the USO and was distressed by what he had “seen,” a distress that earlier had been announced by the Soviet Union. Fascist elements were still permitted to rule, according to Robeson. This was the result of State Department instructions to the American Military Government. Next, he indicted the Catholic Church; his accusation was that it was preaching the same Fascist sermons which, he charged, it had delivered under Hitler.

Later in the evening—the $100 tariff not being satisfactory— an appeal was made for additional funds. This brought in $3,500. A

iFor two articles analyzing Communist influence in the IPR, see Plain Talk for December 1946 and January 1947.

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

79

buffet supper was then served; drinks were plentiful. The enlightened guests, clipped for the cause, happily discussed current events. Resuii: seventy persons, meeting privately, contributed $10,500 for a btalinist cause. Nobody, not even the neighbors and certainly not the press, knew or knows anything about this meeting which included among the guests Diana Forbes-Robertson and Muriel Draper.

Though Field held no office in the Council on African Affairs, he

party to keep an eye on its activities. His wife, Edith C. Field, sei-ved as treasurer of the council in 1946. at a time when its chairman. Paul Robeson, issued a call for a “Big Ga^d^^"*^^ Colonial Freedom” rally, held in Madison Square

f of the Council are in the four-story building

at 23 West Tw^ty-sixth Street, which was purchased in 1944 by a partnership of Field, Yergan, & Field. It was actually Communist rarty property, as subsequent events were to show. Dr. Max Yergan executive director of the Council, who broke with the party in 1948! bought a one-third share in the building. The rest of the purchase price of $30,000 was supplied by Field and his wife. When the break came between Yergan and the party, the latter employed the law Pressman, W itt, & Cammer. It became obvious that they proceedings indefinitely, so Yergan settled for $5,000. The majority of the Council, Yergan reported, were in favor of nis position, but they resigned in protest against the Commnuist tacmunist Party^^*^^^*^” taken over completely by the Com

4 . building, which owes two-thirds of its purchase price

to the Vanderbilt fortune, is listed by Mr. Field in the telephone book as his business address. Among the Communist fronts it houses are the American Committee for Protection of the Foreign Bom, which IS especially active now in defense of Communist agents who never bothered to take out American citizenship; the Civil Rights Congress; the Ve^rans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade; the National Defense Cominittee, under the aegis of Ferdinand Smith; the Council for PanAnmric^ Democracy, and a district office of the American Labor

elegantly furnished Frederick Vanderbilt Field Library, open to the public.

Sharing Field’s interest in some of these causes is his wife, the lormer Edith Chamberlain Hunter, whom he married in 1937 She studied at the Katherine Branson School in Ross, Calif., as well as in New York and abroad, and was married previously to Phelps Stokes Hunter of Santa Barbara. Field’s first marriage, to Elizabeth G. Brown of Duluth in 1929, ended in divorce 6 years later.

• ^ stockholder in other Stalinist enterprises. The Trade

Union Se^ice, Inc., of New York owns a number of labor papers, socalled published for and by party-line trade unions. The law requiring publication of a statement of ownership has revealed that Field together with Corliss Lamont and others, has a finger in this pie. ’

Tr ***? Wallace campaign cried for funds last summer, the

yanderbilt scion was quick with his checkbook. His contribution was $5,000, the maximum permitted by law.

In 1946, Field was issued credentials to attend the top-secret^ sessions of the Communist Party at the time of Browder's deposit! and Foster's ascension to the throne* A member of the orEamzii^’^S committee of the Jefferson School, and later a trustee, Field served also as treasurer of the New York Council of American-Sovi^^f Friendship, Journalistically, he has been associate editor of the Ne^'W' Masses, chairman of the editorial board of the pro-Communist Amei" asia; legal o%vner of People's Press, edited and published by Frank ' L, Palmer, and many years a supporter of the party line.

The Daily Worker sent Field to San Francisco in May 1945, to report on the founding of the United Nations, While there he spoke at a meeting on the Unite(.[ Nations Conference presented by the Communist Political Association of San Francisco.

One of Field's UN columns, Molotov versus Yandenberg at Frisco, contrasted the two delegates and, quite naturally, favored the Soviet representative* He reported:

“Molotov has given the clearest expression to the views of those who believe the United Nations are here forming an international organization for the related purposes of eliminating the danger of future Fascist aggression and promoting democracy* The Michigan Senator is the leader of those elements who conceive the main task of the new organization to be the policdng of the Soviet Union and the promotion of reaction*"

Frederick Vanderbilt Field conceives his own main task to he that of a Soviet sentry in the United States, Molotovs may come and go, Soviet policies may be exposed as those of a most reactionary police state, one independent nation after another may fall under Stalin's iron heel, even Titos and Dimitrovs may be denounced by the Politburo as capitalist lackeys, but the intellectually adrift millionaire Communist will remain unswervingly loyal to the great Red father in the Kremlin*

Mr* MeCIARTIlY, Incidentally, this man Field is no shrinks ing violet. Field uses Uie terin ^Sve American Communists,'^ Ho is the man who created what is kncuvn a,s the Ainerican People's Pbind, Inc, The sole purpose of the fund is to act as a repository Uiv funds which are to be <lule(l out to such Comminiist organ! zhtions a*s Field decides to name* There is no secret about it. He proclaims tlie fact publicdy. He is a man with a great deal of money, which ineidentally he did not earn, but inherited* No one who is on the board coidd have any eoiieeivahle donht that the chairman of the board is a seU'-proclaiined and leading Communist* Autually, of course, Field is ntd a leader fd' Coiniiunilsts. The Communists are simply using him for his money* He wmdd like to regard himself as a leader, and he has proclaimed himself as sueii, and he is the chairman of the editorial board. Therefore Lattimore could have had no doubt as to the nature of the organization*

/

One of Lattimore’s subtle methods is to put his own ideas in the mouths of some hapless Mougol tribesman, or Chinese peasant, irtio cannot possibly refute Lattimore’s assertions, and does not even know what sentiments are beins ascribed to him by the learned professor. For instance at page 140 in Solution in Asia, he writes:

Let UB take an Uightir in Sinkiang Province ^ * who learns that

among his near kinsmen, the Soviet Uzbeks, a poor man s children may attend, free, a school at which they are taught in fbeir own language » ^ that they may go on to the university and become doctors, engineerSt anything in the world * * * then he is going to think that the Uzbeks are free and have democracy.

Incidentally, the professor in error here. Stalin's subjects have had to pay for their high school and college education since 1^)41.

However, the main point is that this passage is clearly designed to batter down any donlits the reader may have, hy eonfronting him with evidence of Tjattiinore's unifiue knowledge of people such as Uighnrs and Uzbeks, whose names his audience cannot even pronoiuice and of whose existence they have never heard*

T certainl^^ never lieard of them until 1 took the trouble to read Lattimore's books, and I have probably pronounced Uighur incorrectly.

The poor Uighurs are forced to act as a ventriioiinist's dummy ill Lattimore's writing. When he thinks that it would he advisable to liave someone voice his own admiration tor the Soviet Union, Lattimore needs only to drag in some Uighur triliesmen who are obviously not in a position to contradict him. bince no one else in America knows any Uighurs, Lattimore c^an safely a.scribe to these nomads the greatest love and respect for Cominniiist Russia* So, for instance, in his 1940 book, The Situation in Asia, he tells us liow in 1949. he '^ran into" soiiie Uighur pilgrims on their way to Mecca via the Soviet Union, who said to him: ^Hlaverrt you heard? The Hussiaus have democracy. They arc good to Aloslems^"

After a perusal of Lattimore's writings, one begins to feel quite sorry for the Uighurs w-ho have no one else to iuterprct their sentiments, and in all prohahility have no idea that a prof(\ssor at Johns Hopkins has been telling the world ho\v much lliey love communisiiL

from clS1n‘?S,dl“ Vemce

and (inkiiowii world wei-e not bpIirvrV"n* strange

able to convince hi, T'.'’’ O'^aWlmore baa been

tasies or niSs L jfe 't’nS' f"®'

and 'm^l!^f.v:'^;',h'“r^ir‘rt'a S W f"'’® '>«

ilent of intoriiational ifF-tiL i« ‘ ‘^etaelied observer and stu

-the trend Wd “ncreSneA,r,'l i' ^

perils whieb baa ooutributed'L) iiiuob 1 .^'h “nnonne pros.

in eoiiipetiiig' with for Vha fnw ndvnjita^^ej^

compared with our tarfcLi."™,;"'^ r^'l ■>■

The riM-:SIDING OrpiCER. is tl.ere objection? printed in fbrRccordJ^irSow^^ statement was ordered to be

nrifetl us to recognize only the Bunpc^i?'»m added. Formerly, he great and good Soviet Union ana .power of attraction” of the nmnists. Now he is also Snt 1 ^ Chinese Com

his seeks to convince us that whpthnr"^^^*”! ”*** ^bis book of

Soviet Union and its adhei^iits alf over'tho ""“i i*^® communism, the so we had better appease them ?f we warn •T®. to win,

instance, he writes: >clpaHv avoid destruction. For

sc deci.sive that it would not reveS*!”*** had become

choices after *^*^'became^icrea”1ngfv'td*^^^^ ^a”'

that they had been deluded concoridnir the people

Sovmt Union and the Chinese CoSisfs f

treat, or advance to the offensivT «!L®fi, c'* t®

they would be forced to admit- fa 1 th^t the meant that

neither peace-loving nor demociatit *"® Soviet government is tarian tyranny; (b) that the Ch nlse Progressive,” but a totaliagrarian reformers unconnected with MoscowrEu *veiy

munists under Moscow-s orders. To retreat w'ould have meant that Lattiniore and his friends in the State Department must sacrrifice their reputations and possibly their jobs since they would have exposed themselves as i^oramuses or liars.

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. Lattimcre has chosen the latter course.

In The Situation in Asia he tries to maintain his reputation as an objective and scholarly student of world affairs by admitting to a few onpleasant facts about the Soviet Union and the Communists which are by now too well known to be denied; but his main effort is directed toward frightening us into pursuing a policy of appeasement, by demonstrating that we have no hope at all of stopping the triumphant advance of communism because we are much weaker than we know.

Whereas formerly, when the climate of American opinion was favorable to the Soviet Government, Lattimore forbore to mention anything bad in Russia, he now writes: *^No propaganda can hide (from Russians neighbors) the fact that there is good and had in Russia.*'

Since his readers must he expected to know that the Soviet satellite countries are not happy under the Communist yoke, and that Yugoslavia has broken wdth Russia, Lattimore can no longer rely in putting across his propaganda on the complete ignorance of his readers. Instead, he seeks to turn the tables on America by arguing that Stalin's abandonment of persuasion for compulsion in dealing with subject peoples is due to fear of an American attack and the necessity to consolidate the defenses of the Socialist world against imperialist America* He writes: "When under the pressure of a war scare the Russians feel that there is no time to take it easy, to exphun and persuade, or to ease the transitional processes from capitalism to socialism in countries like Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, or Outer Mongolia. They sacrifice the federalizing aspects of nominal political voting equality between big and little states in the cominform to w^hat they think is the compelling need for harsh military centralization.*'

Thus, Lattimore argues, the “Tito crisis broke into the open when in the spring of 1948 ♦ we (meaning America) prepared to

go onto a war footing.”

Lattimore manages even to blame America for Russia's looting of Manchuria. "The Russians,” he writes, “were afraid that Manchuna, if its industries w^ere 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.**

Maybe, Lattimore says, this was a hit hard on the Chinese Communists, who were sure they could hold Manchuria, and were loyal to Russia in all questions of common world policy. But, he remarks, “This ruthless example of the sacrifice of the interests of non-Russian Communists has not diminished the Russian power of attraction in Asia.**

In this book, as shown by the above quotation, Lattimore has silently abandoned his former pretense that the Chinese Communists are not real Communists. The admission that they are under Moscow^ *s orders is used instead to frighten us, now that they control all of China, This in turn is used as an argument for appeasement Briefly his argument runs as follows;

'The Soviet Union is not at the moment in a position to give economic aid to Conimumst China, so if America will give such aid without asking for anything in return, if we will refrain from using our economic power to force political concessions, we may be able to prevent all Asia joining up with the Soviet Union against us,”

One has only to read the published report of Mr. Ache son's speech to the National Press Club last January to see how closely the State Department line follows the Lattimore line.

The first chapters of The Situation in Asia are replete with warnings to America to recognise the limits to our power. He tells us we just have not got what it takes, Russia, he tells us, is stronger than we are largely because of her greater power of attraction, and although the Communist band wagon is not yet completely repaired, anyone who does not jump on it now is a fool, because communism represents progress and is therefore bound to win eventually.

In this book, Lattimore reveals why he ia on the side of the Communists. He writes: “To be progressive in politics means to be on the side of that w'hich is going up and against that which is going down,”

True, he does not directly assert that he believes this; he says this is Communist theory. But he makes it quite dear that he agrees by telHng his readers that when Russians read Stalin's formula for revolution *‘they are convinced of the farsight and wisdom of their leaders, and have the feeling that their country and their cause are going foiward on the tide of history.” Stalin's formula, Lattimore continues, '4s so electrifyingly exact that it should be studied with cautious respect.”

The belief that the Communists are going forward on the tide of history is the keynote of Lattimore's philosophy and teachings. Clearly he is detennined to be on the si<le of the powerful, because, as he tells us, pow^er is the only thing which counts. And since he believes that the Soviets are more powerful than America, he is naturally on the side of the Communists. If, howevei\ America would only stop worrying about moral issues and decide to adopt Communist methods and the Communist philosophy, Lattimore might decide to stick by us.

The issue, Lattimore repeats again and again, “is one of power.” Americans are just silly to think that moral issues are important. Besides, we aren't moral anyhow, since everything we do is in our own self-interest. The only reason w^e do not ahvays act like imperialists is that we sometimes find it more profitable not to do so, The only reason, for instance, that we have behaved better in the Philippines than other w^esterii powers in their Asiatic colonies is that we just did not neetl or want Philippine raw materals or sugar.

In ease any Americans, inspired Iiy Lattimore's philosophy, should

start demanding that we use such power as we have to stop the Communist conquest of Asia, Lattimore hastens to add that there is just one exception to his “power decides” formula. “In China,” he warns us, “moral attitudes will take precedence in deciding the future. Since, according to Lattimore, Russia is way ahead of us with respect to moral attitudes in the eyes of Asiatics, we should not imagine that we can win. Our failure so far in China is in fact due to our unmoral attempt to foist a dictatorship on the Chinese people, Soviet Russia has succeeded because she advances by “political infiltration or persuasion w'hich is a moral question.”

These totally false arguments are based on an equally false premise. namely, that America did her level best to aid the Chinese National Government and thus prevent the seizure of power by the C^munists. The facts are entirely different. But since the State Department has misled the American people in respect to the amount of aid we gave to Chiang Kai-shek*a government, Lattimore is here on around %vhere his ability to tell persuasive untruths has free rein.

Now, Mr. Lattimore is “a great authonty” on China. He cannot, therefore, plead ignorance of the true facta. He must know that General Marshall embargoed all arms and ammunition to China in July U146; that this embargo was not even partially lifted until a year later; and that the first shipment of arms voted for China by the Congress in 1948 did not start arriving until the end of that yoar. So he must know^ he is not telling the tmth when on page 152 of his book, he writes how much better it would have been “if military aid to the Kuomintang had been suspended,” or again, when on page 147 he writes: “All during the period of General Marshall’s mission, the Kuomintang kept accumulating American supplies.”

Far from giving his readers the facts, he again and again misinforms them about the course and motivation of American policy m China, The incontrovertible facta are that General Marshall w'as sent to China in December 194f>, to try and force the National Government to share power with the Communists. This was the announced purpose of his mission, as shown by President Truman's public statement on December 15, 1945, in which he said that unless and until the Communists were given “fair and equitable representation in a coalition, government, all economic or other aid would be denied to the Chinese Government. Yet Lattimore, far from admitting that United States policy vras designed to help the Communists acquire at least equal power with the Nationalists, refers to “American attempts to maintain indirect control (in China) by backing one side against the other in a civil war”; and continues; “The 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” (p, 43).

Further on in his book, Lattimore is indiscreet enough to repeat almost verbatim the charge made by the Chinese Communist radio against America. He writes at page 165:

“It took 3 years and from two to four billion dollars of American money to prove the uselessness of an Ameiican attempt to iinitato this early Japanese policy in China.”

m

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

I could cite many other quotations from Lattimore's writings to demonstrate his anti-Americanism, As against his toWly nnfair and untrue diatribe against America, he insists that Soviet policy cannot fairly be called Red imperialism/^ “It certainly,*^ he continue^, tablishes a standard with which other nations must compete u they wish to practice a policy of attraction in Asia, Russo-Mongel relations in Asia, like Russo-Czechos!ovak relations in Europe, deserve careful and respectful study/*

I shall confine myself to mentioning only a few of the most blantaiit untruths Lattimore has written on other matters. In order to make us believe that Moscow has little or no control over the Chinese Communists, he makes the following false assertion: “The top political and military leadership (of the Chinese Communist Party) is not Moscow trained/’ Mr. Lattimore, who has been called the best informed American on Asiatic affairs living today, certainly must know this is not true. He is deliberately deceiving his readers. For the Chinese Communists themselves have been proud to acknowledge the fact that almost all of the important leaders of the Chinese Communist Party are Moscow-ti“ained. Among the many names which could .be cited are the following:

Chou En-lai, who headed the Communist delegation which negotiated with General Marshall in Chungking in 194G, Chou En-lai w^as for years the representative of the Communist Party in China a war-torn capitals and acted as a sort of Communist Amhassador, His charming manners and skill in representing the Communists as democrats is thought to have been largely responsible for^ General Marsh all’s falling into the trap set by Moscow,

Today he is Premier and Foreign Minister of the Chinese Communist Government at Peking.

Li Li-san spent 15 years in Moscow before returning in 1945 to his native land with the Russian Red Army, to become the Conimunist boas of Manchuria, and Stalin’s personal w^atchdog over the Chinese Communist Party,

The Chinese Communist delegate to the San Francisco United Nations Conference in 1945 was Tung Pi-wu, also a Moscow-trained Communist. Subsequently be became bead of the Communist goveimment in Peking after it capitulated to the Communists,

Liu Shao-chi, vice chairman of the present Chinese Communist government, is Moscow-trained.

Jen Pi-shih, the economic dictator of Communist China, is Mosccw-trained.

Yeh Chien-ying, the present Communist boss of Canton, who was formerly the Communist delegate to the executive headquarters set up by General Marshall in Peiping in 1940 to direct the true terms which were supposed to stop the civil war, is another famous Communist leader who w'as trained in Moscow,

Gen, Liu Po-cheng, the Communist boss of southwest China, known as the one-eyed dragon, is yet another Moscow-trained Communist.

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCAETHY

87

Wang Miu, otherwise known as Chen Shao-yu, a most important man in China, was for years the Chinese representative on the executive committee of the Comintern and is Stalin’s personal disciple,

Liu Shoa-chi, leading theortst of the Chinese Communist Party, was also Moscow-trained.

Even the Chief of Staff of the Chinese Communist armies, Nich Yung-ehun, was trained for his job in Russia.

And if one takes the Chinese Communist leaders, such as Chu Teh, who were not actually trained in Moscow, one usually finds that they were educated in Germany or France by Comintern agents.

Let me mention a few other typical Lattimorisms:

“Greece is a doubtful stronghold because it is a stronghold in which the garrison is besieged by the populace/’

In other words, the Greeks wanted to be ruled by a Communist tyranny.

Another:

“Every one of the east European goverments, with the exception of Czechoslovakia, had been Fascist or semi-Fascist,”

Another untruth. Poland had a predominantly liberal and Socialist government in exile. Nor is it correct to describe Yugoslavia under its monarchy as Fascist. Mihailovitch, murdered by Tito, after leading the Siberian anti-Nazi forces, can by no stretch of the imagination be designated as a Fascist, But Lattimore makes it clear throughout his book that he accepts the Communist definition of a Fascist as identical with a supporter of a capitalist, or free-enterprise system, such as we have in America,

Having done his hest, and a very good best it wms, to influence American policy along a line which would lead to the defeat of our loyal ally, the Nationalist government of China, and to the Kremlin’s conquest of China, Mr. lattimore is now busy telling us that it is too late to do anything; that there is no longer anything but a corpse in China for us to support. In a debate against Senator Ferguson, on the American Forum of the Air in Washington, on May 9* last year, Lattimore said:

“Senator, I think we ought to try to get down to the basic realities of the situation, * * ^ From the American point of view, what can American policy do in the situation ? * * * (w'e are left) "with nothing there to support, so we cannot talk of the interests we \vould have defended if there were something there for us to support/’

In Solution in Asia, Lattimore was intent on proving that the Chinese Communists w^ere independent of Russia, He writes (p, 94) r “The Chinese Communists were so isolated * ^ * that they could not receive arms or any other help from Russia, while the intensity of the fight for survival made it impoasible for them to slacken or strengthen their civil-ivar efforts in accordance with Mirectives* from either the Third International or the Soviet government. They were on their own.”

The period referred to is the late thirties. Now, Mr. Lattimore

reads both Chinese and Russian so, if he is in fact the eminent authonty he is represented to be, he must have studied the writings and proclamations of the Chinese Communists. So he cannot plead ignorance of the fact that Mao Tse-tung, the leader of the Chinese Communist Paity, was then on record as follows—I quote from the Chinese Handbook on party Organisation:

“Accoi'ding 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. * • * The Chinese Communist Party was born with the help of the Communist International; it grew up under the guidance of the Communist International, and the Chinese revolution developed under the guidance of the Communist Internationale The Chinese Communist Party and its central committee, with the exception of the two short periods, have been loysl to the guidance of the Communist International. * * '♦' To carry out the International line and to he loyal to the executive committee of the Communist International is to guarantee the success of the Chinese revolution.”

During this same period when, according to Professor Lattimorc, the Chinese Communists were on their own, their representative on the executive committee of the Comintern, Comrade Wang Min, wrote as follows in the December 1&37 issue of the Communist International;

“The Chinese Communist Party ia guided by the new line of tactics of the Seventh Congress of the Comintern, and the historic report made by Comrade Dimitrov.” This historical report I should here explain was the one in which Dimitrov laid down the trojan horse tactic for Communists everywhere in the world. They w'cre instructed at this Comintern Congress to get influence inside the liberal movements everywhere by pretending to be democrats in order to destroy the non-Conimuniat world froin wdthin.

Comrade Wang Kin, in his article, explained that abandonment of the policy of overthrow of the Kuomintang Government, and the pretense of being disciples of Dr. Sun Yat Sen, was only a tactic, and oTice Japan was defeated the slogan of a Soviet China would he revived.

Now I am ready to believe that Mr. Jessup and Mr. Acheson were so innocent and ignorant as to be taken in hy this transparent stratagem. But I do not believe that Professor Lattimore was just an innocent dupe. Not only does Professor Lattimore pride himself on his scholarship and intimate knowledge of Russian and Chinese affairs, but we also have direct evidence to show that he himself participated in Moscow in working out the tactics to be pursued in deluding the American and other peoples concerning Moscow's designs and plans.

Mr. IMeCARTEIV, Mr. IVe^ideiit, in passing I shoiihl like to deal briefly with a rather fantastic l/ill of goods %vhieli Lattimore and his friends are trying to sell to tlie Anieriean people and which they apparently are with some success selling to some few menibcr.s the press and radio.

I uuderstand tiiat a national magazine of some prominence has been taken in rather completely and is about to run a picture story OIL it. A welbknowii radio commentator really swallow’ed the stoiy hook, line, and sinker. If he is in tlie gallery, and wonld like to take a half gaiiier to tlie floor, 1 shall ask the pages to get ont of the way.

Sunday night 1 lieard him very dramatiealiy tell his lls^ tenens that tliis man Lattimore, wliom Met'arthy accused of being a Communist, rescued the Living liuddha from Mongolia— the Living Buddha, wdio escaped from ^longolla a step ahead of the liussians.

The reason for bringing the Living Buddha to Baltimore, where he is now teaching at Johns Hopkins, was to have him available when the ttnic came for JMongolia to start its drive upon liussia. According to this radio commentator—I do not have a transcript of tlie radio address—the Baltimore Living Buddha is to ail Mongolians what the Boi>c is to all Catholics, and the day will come when all Mongolians will rally around the Living Buddha and wrest Asia from Commimist control.

i do not blame him so much for having been taken in, beeause, after all, very few of us have bad any reason to make a detailed study of the polities of Mongolia.

I think this is significant in vieiv of the fact that Lattimore ami his friends have been making sueh a tremendous attempt to foist such a fantastic story- on the American people as proof that Lattimore cannot be a Communist.

A lumdier of things should be mentioned, however, one is that if this living Buddha fled from Moscow ahead of the Russians, it must have been about 23 years ago, because Russia has Jiad almost absolute control of Mongolia for approximately that period of lime. Also it should be mentioned that living Buddhas actually are not very scarce iu Mongolia, in that tliey arc merely i:jriests or minLSter.s of Lama bin.

Normally, 1 wonld not want to take the Senate's time with this subject, hut I do think that because of tlie fact that there is fipj>arently an attempt to use this living Buddha as proof that Lattimore is a loyal American, it might be w^ell to give you a very brief picture of just how important to the politics of Asia is the Baltimore living Buddha.

90

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

Lamaisni is a form of Euddliism believed chiefly by peoples of Tibet and Mongolia, and is a mixture of Buddhism and shamanistie praetiees.

Lamaism believes in reincarnation. After the death of a Ilutuktu, that is, the living Buddha, his spirit is said to reappear in the person of some boy born at the time of his death, and thus comes forth reembodied.

Mr. DONNELL. Mr. President

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Holland in the eliair). Does the Senator from ^VlBcoiisin yield to the Senator from Missouri ?

Air. AIcCARTriY. I yield.

Air. DONNELL. I should like, if I may, to have the attention of the Senator from New ATexico to this question. I interrogated the Senator a little while ago in regard to some ohservations hy the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1944. I call another matter to the attention of the Senator from Wisconsin, and ask him for whatever observations, if any, he sees fit to make upon it. 1 refer to tlie hearings before the Senate Subeommittee on Immigration and Naturalisation of the Committee on the Judiciary, which occurred in September 1949, and particularly to a part of each of two pages referring to Frederick Vanderbilt Field, to w^hom the Senator referred. I ask the Senator what comment he will make upon what 1 shall read.

A question w^as asked by AIx\ Dekom, ivho is one of the staff of the Senate committee, as follows:

Are you familiar with the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern policy?

The witness, a Air. Huber, said:

Yes; I That is a Communist front set up to promote the Communists in China and the Far East generally; that is, to propagandize the American people on behalf of communism in Asia. This organization was formed at the home of Frederick Vanderbilt Field, who is an ardent supporter of the Communist party as well as a writer for its publications. In connection with this organization, I was able to attend a closed meeting of the Committee for a Democratic Far Eastern Policy held in the library of the building at 23 West Twenty-sixth Street, New York, which houses the offices^ of a number of Communist-front organizations. Paul Robeson has his offices there. The building is owned by Frederick Field. Only known

EXPOSED BY SENATOR AIcCAETnY

91

persons were admitted to this meeting, and about 60 were present. Ira Golubilin was the chairman.

Then, at page 580, referring to a meeting held December 3, 1944, he said ;

On December 3, 1944, I attended a party of leading Communist functionaries in this country given at the home of Seymour Copstein, a Communist professor, honoring Alexander Trachtenberg. Trachtenberg is the president of International Publishers, the Communist publishing house in New York City; a member of the national committee of the Communist Party; and on the hoard of directors of the Jefferson School of Social Science.

There were about 30 people present, and admission was by invitation only. Only old and trusted friends of Trachtenberg were invited, Entertainment was furnished by Richard Dyer-Bennett, who sang and played folk songs of Russia.

Then he gives a list of the guests, saying, ‘^The guests induded,*' and among others is the name of Frederick V. Field. Air. Lattimore was at one tiiue a member of the Anierasia Board, but 1 would not say, without reference again to the papers, which I do not have before me, that he was a niemher at the same time Mr. Field was, but I ask, does the information in this hearing, developed in the testimony before the Senate committee in 1949, indicate to the mind of the Senator that Frederick Y. Field possessed the qualifleatioms which the Senator has previously indicated, namely, of “close communistic affiliations^^?

Air, Ale CART ITY. Field goes beyond that There can be no doubt about Field. He himself said. “I am one of the leading Communists.^* He himself said, “Aty mission is to commmike the world.” lie is deluded hy the idea that the OommLnilstB consider him as a leader. Actually the Communists in this country consider him as a stooge, whose money they use.

Mr. DONNELL, AA^ithout reference to docimients, a moment ago I said I was unable to state \vhether Air. Field and Air. Lattimore liad been on the board at the same time. T call attention to the fact that on page 144b of the House hearings it is recited that the editorial board consisted of Field as chairman, Jaffe as managing editor, and several other memherSj including Air. Owen Lattimore.

Air, AIcCAIlTIlA^. 1 sliall develop that point later. Frederick V. Field was also on the board of trustess of the American Council of IRP, as was also Alger Hiss, as was also Owen Lattimore, as was also Philip fJessup,

In 1947 one of the members of tlie boards of the good American members, insisted that there be an investigation to determine the extent to which the Commnnists had taken over control of the American Council of lEP. I’hat was Ycry vigorously opposed* Keep in mind that at that time Pitdcrick Field was a member of the board* Hiss was then a member, or was shortly thereafter. Lattiinore was a member of the board* One of the men who vigorcmsly protested^ and sent a letter oyei Ids name, which I have, objectiiig strenuously to any such investigation, was oiir Ambassador at Large, Phillip Jessup* intend to go into that later* So this man Field has had many activities. For the information of Seiuitoi^s* I have a photostat of the letter which I shall place in the Record later, to show how Field used some of his money. T wish tlie Senator from Missouri wonld not ask any questions about that now.

The most important Ilutuktu—living Buddha—is the Dalai Lama, who is the temporal head of Tibet. The next in importance is the Panehan Lama, who is technically the spiritual head of Tibet. During recent decades, however, the Panehan Jjama was driven out of Tibet by the Dalai Lama, and now the Chinese Communists are nsiiig the Panehan Lama as a puppet gain control in Tibet. The temporal and spiritual head of Tibet is therefore the Dalai Lama, with headtpiarters in Lahsa, Tibet*

The other iiiipfniant Ilutuktu, the Dj'ebtsiing Damba Ilutuktu. was not recmihodied since 1924.

Of the important living Iliituktns, the following are the most prominent: Changchia Ilutuktu, Caldan &irctu Ilntnktiij ^linehur ITutiiktu. Cliilniig Tlutnkn, Namiika Ilutuktu, Achia ITutuktn, Lakuo Hiituktu, Tsahantarkhan nutiiktii*

A Ilutuktu — living Buddha—thus is a religious title* Tt is not hereditarv, but chosen by the process of reincarnation. It n^R^esents the top of a series of religious offices. There are, ho^vever, hundreds of Hutnktus existing simnltaneonsly, ainl there are some who are more important than others. Tlie relative importance is mostly determined by the territory over whicli each exercises control, and there are Hntuktus who control no territory at all.

The Mongols do not live exclusively in Monsolia. Whereever there are Montjola, 1hey are divided traditionally into leagues — sueh as Ulaiiehah League, the Ikhehao League, the Ala shall League, and so forth—and the leagues are in tinu di*

vided into banners. The Hutnktns—living Buddhas—sometimes are heads of these leagues ; these are important. Others are heads of banners; they are less important. Still others only get the title witliout any territory; they are the least important.

Diluwa Ilutuktu—now teaching in Johns Hopkins University—eomes from the Mongols in the Chinese Province of Chiughai, with headquarters at Kokoiior^—I31ue Sea.

So far as T know he never was in Mongolia. So it must have been that one of his ancestors escaped ahead of the Communists by fleeing from Mongolia.

The Kokonor Mongols are divided into two leagues and 29 banners. They are a very minor branch of the Mongolian race, because Kokonor is overwhelmingly popidated by Mohammedans.

Although Lattimore’s Diluwa is a Ilutuktu by reason of religious attainment, he is the head of neither a league nor a banner and is a very minor figure, he is not ineliided in any list of living Buddhas, such as tlie list given above.

Diluwa Ilutuktu is primarily a religious teacdier, with a hatidl'ul of disciples, some lunv in Baltimore, and some in Tibet. He has none in Mongolia.

The whole edifice of Mongolian Government is guided very strictly by the rule of seniority. It is not po.ssible for an individual priest, whatever his rank in the religions hierarchy, to achieve any degree of power and allegiance unless lie has followed the trodden path Qf promotion*

In tins connection i fiave bLdnre me an affidavit—this is the affidavit whicdi I asked the able junior Henator from New Y'ork [iMr* Lehman] to glance at—-of an American citizen who, for a considerable period of time, edited several newspapers in China and who knew Lattimore while he was in China.

! t deals in complete detail with background facts which explain rather tdeariy wdiy the Living Budda and his two friends are in Baltimore* This affidavit is also being turned over to the FBI. 1 might say that this affidavit certainly does not indicate any great plan to use this Living Buddha to reconquer Asia from the Communists. In fact, 1 might say it deals with nothing grand of any nature.

We next come to Dr* Philip Jessup wdto is an important part of tliis entire picture* Perhaps the kindest thing that can he said aljout Dr. Jessup is that he was simply an iimvitting hut very

94

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

williaig stooge of tlie brilliant Owen Lattimorc, Unfortunately, boweyer, the damage which he has done is as great as though he were selling out for 30 pieces of silver.

Mr. Jessup, either knowingly or otherwisej became the very, very valuable tool of Uie Coinmuiiists in 1943. In order to fully understand the picture at that time it might be well to again recite some history of the Institute of Pacific Relations,

1 now ask unammous consent to have printed in the Record an article entitled ^*IPR—Tokyo Axis/' written by Sheppard Marley, and published in the necember 1946 issue of Plain Talk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Holland in the chair). Without objection, it is so ordered.

The article is as follows:

IPR—TOKYO AXIS (By Sheppard Mar ley)

Some time ago the Institute of Pacific Relations placed the following notice in the personals column of the Saturday Review of Lit* eratuie:

**Long on curiosity—short on time? IPR popular pamphlets make you a scintillating conversationalist on the Far East. You can deftly discuss everything from Australian slang to the problems of China and the Philippmes. Send for a list of Institute of Pacific Relations pamphlets today. Box 939-K.*'

If a reader of this semi-intellectual lonely-hearta column had made a slight error in the box number and written to 938-K instead of the IPR's 939-K, she would bpe received an answer from the gentleman who inserted the following notice in the same issue: ‘Will lady in a quiet castle seek spiritual relaxation through exchange of correspondence with a highly leaimed gentleman?*^

What the IPR copy writer deftly neglected to mention in this prospectus designed for the busy dilettante was that the puhlications of the Institute of Pacific Relations are likely to make the deft conversationalist sound similar to a Daily Worker editorial, though on a much more genteel level. For the IPR is still another of the respectable moneyed organizations into which fellow travelers have infiltrated and have developed workers in their own image. The peculiar conjuncture of social conditions and psychological ailments which has resulted in the dissemination of Stalinist propaganda by groups supported manly with capitalist money is a problem for the academicians. Here we merely offer another case study.

The Institute of Pacific Relations came into being in July 1925, in Honolulu, at an international conference of which the chief engineer was Mr. Edward C. Carter, the present executive vice chairman of the American Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations and apparently its most influential officer. The intricate nature of the administrative set-up of the Institute makes it ideal for control by a few

A

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTIIY

96

well placed pei'sons. Small wonder then that many of its leading and most prolific writers are dependable fellow travelers who faithfully follow the tortuous path Stalin sets—even if they have to slow do'wn around the sharp turns of Soviet policy.

The institute's activity seldom reaches any large section of the public directly, and few persons know that it exists. It is doubtful if 1 out of 1,000 of the parents of boys who fought their way across the Pacific, from Guadalcanal to Okinawa, has ever heard of this organization. Yet in Government circles, including those where America's high policy in the Pacific is determined, the influence of the Institute of Pacific Relations has been enormous and is apparently growing.

During the recent war, the Instittute supplied many agencies with expeita on the Far East. Four IPR staff members worked for the China section of the UN ERA. Three others did research for MaeArthur's headquarters on Japanese reconstruction. William L. Hollanri was the head of the OWI in China. Ow^en Lattimore was J^resident Roosevelt's gift to Chiang Kai-shek for a time and President Truman's special adviser to MacArthur as well as Far Eastern head of OWI. The TPE supplied leaser lights to the OWI, OSS* and the State Department. Not all of these workers who joined Governmental agencies were Communists or fellow travelers. The IPR. however, frequently provided research specialists who were interested mainly in the furthering of Stalin's aims in the Far East.

Many IPR trustees reached positions of considerable impoitance. In 1941, Lauchlin CuiTie was President Roosevelt's special emissary to China. William C, Johnstone worked on a special assignment for the State Department. George E. Taylor W'as director of the OWPs Far Eastern Section and later in the State Department's Office of International Information and Cultural Affairs. Benjamin Kizer, a Spokane lawyer, headed the UN ERA in China.

The Institute's aid to the Government was not limited to supplying experts of varying degrees, for the Government bought 750,000 IPR pamphlets for soldiers in the Pacific and Asiatic theaters. Schools, too, have been influenced by IPR publications, especially the seiies published jointly with the Webster Co. of St. Louis, designed for a i4-year-old reading level. In three and a half years this series sold over a million copies.

Another way in which the IPR influences public opinion is through the neivspapers and periodical press. As the IPR itself does not tire of saying, no one seems to know anything about the Far East. The harried editorial wnriter is immeasurably pleased, then, when he sees on his desk a neat publicity release and a copy of an article on some aspect of Chinese politics which he can now proceed to discuss as deftly as though he had read the IPR's notice in the Saturday Review of Literature.

Like most associations into which the Communists and fellow travelers have moved, the IPR reveals certain inconsistencies and peculiarities of policy that can be explained only by the ideological affiliations of its most impoitant figures.

Operating more cleverly in IPR than in most groups they bave entered, the Communists and their friends have been able to keep the

96

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

reputation of this outfit pretty clean. But evidence of their work is easily noted wlien one takes the I PR material in bulk and breaks it down into two types—the controversial and noncontroversial. What has buffaloed most readers of IPR booksj pamphlets, and periodicals is that so much of the stuff is of a very scholarly nature, not at all on subjects that arouse the emotions any more readily than do articles on Chinese pottery. Yet in the last decade or so at least two out of every three articles in IPR^s two journals—Pacific Affairs, quarterly, and Far Eastern Surwey, biweekly—on such hot subjects as Chinese politics, the Soviet Union, and the general political situation in the Far East, with respect to those two countries and the United States, have been written by such staunch defenders of Stalin as T, A, Bisson, Owen Lattimore, Harriet Moore, Laurence Salisbury, and others not too numerous to mention in due time.

It may be claimed that by selecting excerpts and quoting “out of context” any writer can be shown to believe almost anything. This is Lequently true. Y^et the weight of the evidence that links the IPR to the Communist line is too great to pass off with such platitudes. The writings of the fellow travelers and outright Communists in IPR publications constitute only a small pait of the total IPR material— but they constitute its most vital part, and they deal with the subjects that are most significant for American foreign policy, international relations, and public education.

The lPR*a chief method of disclaiming responsibilty for what appears under its sponsorship is to include a statement in its publications that the views expressed are those of the writers, not of the IPR or any of its component units. But no one is ever fooled by such disavowals, not even IPR people. Owen Lattimorc, who edited the IPR quarterly Pacific Affairs from 1934 to 1941, wrote in a report of the IPR secretariat in 1936* “The fact that there is a printed notice in each number [of Pacific Affairsl specifically declaring that each contributor is per.sonaUy responsible for his own statements of opinion and that neither the national councils nor the institute as a whole can be held responsible has meant little.”

The IPR has often protested that it does not select its writers according to their political beliefs, but because of their scholarship and research ability. One wonders, nevertheless, whether the bulk of the IPR publications would yield an impression any different from the one it docs now if it were not being used as a front for Communist propaganda. It could hardly do better work for Stalin even if it had been set up by his agents.

The Institute of pacific Relations is composed of 10 member bodies from each of the following countries: Australia, Canada, China, France, Netherlands-Netherlands Indies, New Zealand, the Philippines, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and the United States. The Pacific Council, nominally the ruling body, has one representative from each of these national councils. With the members of the Pacific Council scattered over thousands of miles there is little centralized control- Actually the American council is the main uniL and the one most familiar to Americana as well as the one most afflicted with the disease of Stalinist apologetics. Like the parent organization, the

97

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

American Council is itself a nightmare of admnistrative complexity. In recent years there has been no meeting of the membership, w'hich now is just below 2,900.

Genuine power in the American Council of the IPR is vested in the executive committee of the board of trustees. Of the eight members of this ruling group, the four most vocal are Communists and fellow travelers. This is what the broad and respectable front of IPR conceals. The big four are Edward C. Carter, Frederick Vanderbilt Field, Harriet L. Mooie, and Owen Lattimore. All four, with the recent exception of Field, who has joined the Communist Party, move exclusively on the higher levels of gentility in American academic and political life.

Edward C. Carter, the leading light in the IPR, is not the intellectual type. He has written rather infrequently, but his affiliations are nevertheless enlightening. For many years he was on the board of directors of the American-Russian Institute, which publishes a quarterly dedicated to the scholarly adulation of all that takes place in Stalinas Russia. He has contributed to Soviet Ru.ssia Today, a less esoteric market for pro-Soviet articles. In 1938 he signed a statement, published in that magazine, defending the Moscow mock trials. During most of the war years he was a member of the board of directors of Russian War Relief.

The case of Frederick Vanderbilt Field is more obvious. Now a member of the Communist Party, Field is the Daily Worker’s special expert on the Par East, and an asscoiate editor of the Communist weekly, New Masses.

Harriet L. Moore has the usual Communist-fi‘ont connections. She was secretary of the Russian War Relief and a member of the boanl of directors of the American-Eussian Institute, whose publications she edits. She has also been on the editorial board of Amcrasia, long a tooter of Stalin’s horn among those interested in Fai' Eastern affairs. This is the magazine which figured as the focal point in the State Department espionage case, as reported by E. S. Larsen in Plain Talk for October.

Of the four chief policy makers of IPR, Owen Lattimore is the best known and most respected in academic circles. He is now director of the Walter Hines Page School of International Relations at Johns Hopkins University, He too had served his stint on the editorial tkoard of Amerasia, and has defended the Moscow purge trials.

Thiough his editorship of the quarterly, Pacific Affairs, from 1934 to 1941* Owen Lattimore was able to exert considerable influence in IPR. When he took it over* Pacific Affairs was dull, unknown, and devoted mainly to research and statements apparently carefully pruned to remove the slightest trace of a positive point of view about anything more controversial than the depth of the Sulu Sea. As fascism spread and the threat of war increased, Lattimore published articles that took a forthright stand, but in general he followed the popular front line then in vogue. Pacific Affairs contained contributions generally favorable to Soviet Russia, against America’s neutrality policy, and in praise of the Chinese Communists,

Is the IPR a pressure group or a research outfit? The letter from

98

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

Owen Lattimore to Eklward C. Carter, which we are publishing on page 18, a remarkable document in several respects, should settle this question once and for all, although the stream of highly opinionated writing emanating from the IPR for years furnishes a clear-enough answer. Three characteristics stand out in a study of the IPR publications;

First, there is not to be found in its literature any fundamental criticism of the Soviet Union, either of its internal regime or its foreign policy.

Second, there has been abundant and vigorous criticism of the Chinese Government and, especially in recent years, equally strong and prominent espousal of the cause of the Chinese Communists.

Third, there was until Pearl Harbor relatively little criticism on the part fo the IPR of Japan’s internal regime or its foreign policy.

Indeed, in the light of the accompanying letter from Mr. Lattimore to Mr. Carter and of the additional pieces of evidence as to the IPR’s ties with the Japanese imperialists, there is room for a congressional inquiry into this still dark feld. In a subsequent article, w'e shall deal with the first two aspects of the IPR’s activity, namely, its pro-Soviet and anti-Chiang Kai-shek stands. Here we shall confine ourselves to five salient features of the strange marriage between the IPR and the Japanese war lords;

1. Owen Lattimore wrote his letter on May 19, 1938, less than 10 months after Japan launched its undeclared war on China and but a few weeks after Hitler’s annexation of Austria, events which were regarded in Moscow as the beginnings of World War 11. In this missive Mr. Lattimore proposed the dismemberment of China and a settlement with Japan on the basis of “what China is and w’hat Japan is, as of 1939, rather than what either country was as of 1936.” The occasion for this communication was a memorandum by a Chinese proCommunist, Chen Han-seng, w^ho had outlined a study of Chinese foreign policy to cover the period of 1931-39. Mr. Carter, upon the receipt of the extraordinary letter, is on record in a memorandum, <lated May 20, 1938, addressed to Miriam Farley of the IPR, as follows; “This moniing I have received Owen Lattimore’s comment with which, of course, I agree.” All that remains to be added on this point is that neither Mi*. Lattimore nor Mr. Carter made clear the purpose of the proposed settlement. Was it intended to help .Japan retain the vast areas in North China gained by her aggression or to enable the Chinese Communists to extend their domain.s as they did in 1945?

2. Lattimore’s .suggestion, with which Mr. Carter agreed, contemplatecl direct action by the IPR in the politcial field, something which it has been at pains to deny frequently. As recently as October 24, 1946, Mr. Carter wrote to a critic of his organization; “The IPR is not an action group, and I can assure you it has never set up an action group of any nature whatever.” It is obvious from Lattimorc’s letter that in pressing for terms of settlement the IPR certainly qualified as a pressure group, which is hardly distinguishable from an action group.

Is it possible that Mr. Carter, finding himself on the horns of a

99

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

dilemma, really had meant to endorse the idea of tuming over half of China to the Communists and not to the Japanese? For this is what he wrote on October 24, 1946;

“One of your most fantastically inaccurate statements is the accusation that Mr. Owen Lattimore, back in 1938 and 1939, advocated peace in China by turning over half of China to the Japanese. Mr. Lattimore was far ahead of the vast majority of Americans in recognizing the nature and danger of Japanese aggression—^years before our Government and people were fully alive to its menace.”

3. In 1936, a Japanese scientific expedition was permitted by the United States to cruise freely in the waters along the Alaska coast, where it took soundings. Around the same time the Japanese tried to establish fisheries rights in the same area. In both of these venturies, it has been charged by Miller Freeman, Pacific-coast publisher and former Navy Intelligence officer, that the Japanese were aided by the chairman of the American Council of the IPR at the time, who was also a member of a special advisory committee on trade and commerce in the Department of State.

4. Upton Close, writer and radio commentator, made the following signed statement; “A few days prior to the Pearl Harbor disaster, Mr. Trammel fof the National Broadcasting Co."] received a letter from E. C. Carter, head of the Institute of Pacific Relations, demanding that I be dropped from the air because I was anti-Japanese.”

5. The Japan Council of the IPR served the interests of aggression. A dispatch of December 7, 1945, by Frank Kelley, then in Tokyo as correspondent for the New York Herald Tribune, describes how in Japan the IPR was used as a front for imperialist purposes. Prince Fumimaro Konoyc. who was Premier of Japan during much of the crucial period between the renewed war on China in 1937 and the attack upon Pearl Harbor 4t^ years later, took a deep interest in his country’s IPR chapter. He put his personal trusted aides into the key posts in the Japanese IPR, which was supported largely with funds contributed by the veiy industrialists who helped the militarists plan and carry out wars of aggression throughout the Pacific area. It was Konoye who had ordered the preparation of a report explaining Japan’s need for expansion because of population pressure. This report was read to the IPR international conference of 1936, which was held in Yosemite National Park, in California.

The chief secretary of the Japan Council of the IPR, according to Mr. Kelley in the Herald Tribune, was Tomohiko Ushiba, Konoye’s private secretary. Through Ushiba, Prince Konoye kept in touch with Edward C. Carter, then chief of the IPR’s international secretariat, so that he could keep w'atch on American State Department policies. Fareastem experts, such as abound in the IPR, must surely have known that Prince Konoye was among the leading exponents of Japanese aggression for many years before Pearl Harbor. Yet there is no evidence that the institute ever took any steps to prevent its use as a front for the dissemination of propaganda in the United States and for the gathering of inside political and military infonnation about this countr>\

Unlike the pink pills served by Dr. Carter when treating Russia or China, these five points bearing upon the relations between the IPR and the imperialists of Japan cannot be sugar-coated. The responsible directors of the IPR, which is in the nature of a higher educational institution, owe it to the public to probe fully into its baffling ties with the Mikado's servants. Considering the semiofficial status which the IPR has acquired in the policy-making branches of the Federal Government, the Congress owes it to the country to investigate the history of the organization, its obscure foreign links, its unduly complex administrative set-up, and its alliances with pro-Soviet and pro-Communist elements both at home and abroad.

SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., May 18, 1988.

Mr. Edward C. Carter,

New York City.

Dear Carter: I have just been reading with great interest Chen Han-seng’s memorandum of 27 April attached to your letter of 9 May. As I shall be going with Fredt to a regional conference at Seattle at the end of this week and so shall have to miss Holland when he passes through, I am replying directly.

As usual, Chen Han-seng has picked out the really crucial points. The IPR stands to maintain and increase its reputation by presenting the constioictive possibilities of a far-eastern settlement. All reactionary estimates of “What is China?" will be based on prewar China and will exclude changes occurring in the course of the war. In pressing for terms of settlement, the IPR is in a better position than any other agency to gage the character and extent of changes occurring during the war; it could and should establish what China is and what Japan is. as of 1939, rather than what either country was as of 1936.

Of course in order to establish the “is" of 1939, the taking-off point must be the “was" up to 1937; but the “was" should be only the taking off point and the major emphasis should be consistently applied to the processes of change in 1937 and 1938 and the levels attained and further trends indicated as of 1939.

Your very sincerely,

Owen Lattimore.

!Mr. Mcf'AKTIlV. This institute consists of the eouncils of 1(1 nations having interests in the Pacific. .As originally set up it was in no way controlled by the ronnnnnist Party. Since its creation it has had on both the board of trustees and the executive cominittee a very sizeable number of outstanding and loyal Americans. Membership on the board of trustees or on the executive committee in no way in and of itself indicates any Communist sympathies or leanings. Apparently the board of trustees

1 Probably Frederick Vanderbilt Field, millionaire Communist.— Editor.

was iK.t a i)rime tarj-ot for thr Coinimniists. Of the .')() inembprs, as far as I know, not niorp than Itl or lo at any time were (’onirnnnists or fellow travelers. However, as far as I know, the hoard aetnally never meets, hut does its husiness hv havimr the various memhers send in their proxies. ‘ '*

The exeentive eommittee. however, eousists larjrely of trn.stees who live in or near New York and is 1(1 in numher. The exeentive eommittee in effeet eontrols the institute. The exeeutive eommittee is a prime tartret for the (’oiumunist.s. The Comniuuists apparently try to have on the exeentive eommittee at least four or five memhers of the party or fellow travelers upon whom they ean depend at all time.s. This, of eonrse. is not a ma,)ority hut the eommittee is made np of hnsy men and the atfendanee at meetiiif's apparently is siieli that eveii three or four ean eontrol the activities of the institute.

Then there is the resi-areli advisory eommittee, the prineipiil fnnetion of which is to edit and pa.ss n|)on the material which <roes into the American (’onneir.s pnhiieation. Far Kastern Survey.

Dr. Jessup was viee chairman of the American Council and chairman of the research advisory committee for some time. Under him the conneiUs biweekly publication. Far Eastern Survey pioneered the smear eampai{rn a>rainst ChiaiiK Kai-shek and the idea that the Commnni.st.s in China were merelv aftrarian reformers and really not Communists at all. Of this eampai}?n thiformer editor of the Daily Worker. Louis I'.ndenz, on .Afareh 10 10-19, in an article in Collier’s entitled “The Menace in lied China,’^ bad this to say:

♦v Americans during World War II fell for the Moscow lint

that the Chinese Communists were not really Communists but agrarian reformers. That is just what Moscow wanted Americans to believe This deception of United States officials and the public was the result of a planned campaign. I helped to plan it.

The first hla.sf in tliis campaign was fired in Jessup's inihli<-atioii on July 14. lOJil, in an article signed by T. A. Risson. 1 think it might he here important to call attention to the record of this man His.soii. who as I recall was alloweil to resign from the State Department beeanse of his Commnnisf eonnections in 194(>.

I have here a photostatic copy of a letter to Bisson, which I briefly disenssed in answer to a <|ne.stion the Senator from

Missouri [Mr, Doinu’H] asked. As I have stated, this is a rather faiitastii* doeiiineiit earning; from the man ivlioui I^rr, Jess^iip used to initiate the smear eanipaifrn—a rather faiitastie clocumeot eomiiif^ from a man high up in tlie State Department, but not too fantastie, however, when eomiiig from a man who worked under Frederick Vanderbilt Field on Amerasia, This is Avritten to the liiternational IMissionary Coiiueilj 419 Foiudh Avenue, New York City, It reads as folhm^s:

I have just noticed the statement in the Herald Tribune that the National Christian Council is cooperating with the Nanking government in ‘‘rehabilitating the Red-ravaged districts,” Could you tell me whether this step is approved by the hoards at home, or is it taken only on the NCC^s initmtive: In my opinion, any such collaboration involves great risks for the future of the whole Christian enterprise in the Far East,

In other words, any help to the pof>r people in the Tiedravaged area, in Bisson's opinion, endangers the Christian endeavor in the Far East,

lie fnrtlier says;

The Nanking government is under fire from many Chinese progvesalves for its direct tie-up with western impeiialism, jmrticularly its reliance upon foreign aid in the anti-Communist campaign,

IMr. President, Senators shoidd keep in mind that at that time Bisson was in the State Department and was an important figure—I heg pardon; he may not have been in the State Deparent at that time, 1 am not sure, 1 do not recall at what dates he was in the Department.

Then Bisson, the WTiter of this letter, goes on to point out that this missionary group should be careful not to make the mistake of aligning itself ''against the great progressive movements of the future iu the East”

Mr, President, I ask imanimoiis consent to !iave the entire letter printed at this point in the Record.

The postscript to the letter is very interesfiug. In it Bisson says:

I would strongly advise every prospective missionary to China to read, "Chinese Destinies,” by Agnes Smedley,

J\Ir, President, in case any Senator ^ocs not understand the significance of that reference by Mr, Bisson, 1 refer now to page A725 of the Congressional Record of Fehrnary in, 1949,

103

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

wliich contains a report by the National .Military Establishment, 01 % more specifically, by Genei'al Mae Arthur s intelligence unit, ndiich j'eport w^as inserted in the Congressionai Record by Representative llarold Lowe. Let me quote 1>riefly from the Congressional Record at that point, for it gives a direct cpiotation from General :MaeA rthur’s intelligence unit report. This covers the individual wdiose book Bisson says all prospective niissionaries should study betore they will be ^(uaHfied to become missionaries to China,

The PRESIDING OFFICER, Let the Cliair in<|nire at this lime whether tfie Senator lia.s offered for the Record the letter lo which he has jnst referred*

Air. AIc(;ARTnY. J have,

J he PRESIDING OFFICER, Without olvjcetioiij the Idler will he incorporated in the Record.

The letter is as follows:

FOREIGN POLICY ASSOCIATION, INC.,

New York, November 4, 1933.

Di'. A. L, Wariiahuis,

Internationa! Missionary Council,

New York City,

TF Waraahuis: I have juat noticed the statement in the

Hemld Tribune that the National Christian Council is cooperating wjtii the Nanking Government in " rehabilitating the Red-ravaged dia* tt'iets. Could you tell me w hether this step is approved by the boards at home, or is it taken only on the NCC*s initiative? In my oiiinion, any such collaboration involves great risks for the future of the whole Christian enterprise in the Far East. The Nanking Government is under fire from many Chinese progressives for its direct tie-up with western imperialism, particularly its reliance upon foreign gunboats JS ^ L f^^fJ*Communist campaign. If, now, the Chinese Christian Church links itself up with the Nanking regime, which maintains its power through a eontittuous "white terror” against the Chinese workers and^peasants, its future will be deeply compromised. Henceforth decline in accordance %vith the fluctuations in the political fortunes of a regime of capitalist exploitation that is steadily oatragiDfr the elementary sense of justice of the Chinese masses. Is It Wise for the Chinese Christian Church to take sides in a political stniggle of this importance? Might it not be the part of statesmanahjp to maintain a neutrality that would enable the church to succor the victims on both sides of this domestic conflict ? In the long run, I feel convinced that the workers and peasants of Asia will throw off the yoke of foreign imperialism and native exploitation, and assume control of them own political destinies. Is the mission enterprise looking ahead toward this future, and laying its plans accordingly?

uu

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

Frankly, I believe that the whole future of the Christian Church —in the west as well as in the east—is bound up with the answer to this question. Iji many ways, the modern church has demonstrated its wisest and most forward-looking policies in connection with the youthful churches in Asia. It is for this reason that I question the wisdom of this reported step of the National Christian Council, which, in my opinion, will aline the mission enterprise against the great progressive Tnovements of the future in the cast.

Sincerely yours,

T, A, Bisson,

P. S.^—I would strongly advise every prospective missionary to China to read Chinese Destinies, by Agnes Sinedley.

Mr, MeCARTilY, l^resideut, in paragraph (e'^ of tfie rep<nt uf General ^racArthiir^s intelligence unit, we fiiicl the fol lowing:

Agnes Smedley, AniericamSoviet spy: This American, Miss Agnes Smedley, has been one of the most energetic workers for the Soviet cause in China for the past twenty-odd years.

The Army hitelligenee report llieti goes on to state that Tiuieli harm has been done hy Agnes Smedley—

but pej'haps it could be mitigated if she is now exposed for what she is, a spy and agent of the Soviet Government.

So %ve find that Dissoii, who either then or later was a State DepaiTment employee, and, iiieidentally, also was one of the members of the Amerasia editorial hoard, was urging that all pmsjveetive Ghristian missionaries to China, in order t<> qualify tiiemselves, should read Agnes Sni(*dley’s hook. I give this iiiforination on llissou beeanse fie is the man whom Jessup used to pioneer tire smear eampaign against Cliiang Kai-shek.

Lest anyone <|nestioii Jessup’s control over Far Eastern Survey, let me call to your attention that the (Chinese eoijsnl ohJerted streimciusly to the Hisson line hein^ carried in the Institute td Pacific Relations i>iiblication. He W'as referred to Jessup^ who made the niagnanimmis offer that he would print fits answer to IVisson's letter. However, before printing the Chinese eoiisuPs answer, Jessup submitted tlie letter to Bisson and obtained for pubUeation in the adjoining eolninn Bisson’s criticism uf the Chinese coiisurs answer in an obvious attempt to ridicule, twist, and distort the meaning nf those loyal Chinese who wTre hacking our ally, Chiang. There can he tuj question there as to where Jessup stood.

EXPOSED By SENATOR MoCARTHY

105

Within a matter of weeks after Jessup's labeling the Chinese t'Onimnnists as land reformers, the Daily Worker and isvetzia also took up the line of comparing the (liinese Commimists with 'Mow^a farmers,”

Professor Jessup must, therefore, he credited by the American people with Jtaviiig pioneered the smear-eainpaign against .Nationalist China and Chiang Kai-shek, and with being the originator of the myth of the demoerathC’ Chinese t Vmimmiists.

From tiuit time onward we witnessed the spectacle of this threeJiorse teaiii of smears and untruths thniidering down the stretch—-Jessup's publication, Far Eastern Survey, the Daily Worker, anti Isv'etzia. What an effective job they did can liest be demonstrated by the fact that this w'as the line which the State Department follow’ed in formulating its far eastern policy, right down to the last comma.

I personally have stated tliat I thought that Jessup was a well-meaniijg dupe of the Lattimore crowd. However, I do not think the decision on that point is up to me; but rather, it is up to the (,'ungress and the American people,

111 that connection 1 hold in my hand two pliotostats which 1 think may interest the Senate and the American people mightily.

In order to recognize the significance of tliese two doenments, it might be well for me to digress for a minute and give the baekgroiuul of one Frederick Vanderbilt Field,

Of course, Mr. President, I believe it will be iiunecessary for me to go into detail in that respeet, in view of the fact that we went over that matter in great detail in counectiem with the questions asked by the Senator from ^Missouri [Mr. Donnell], Suffice it to say that Frederick Vanderidlt Field acknowledges, proclaims, and brags alioiit the fact that lie considers himself one of the top ('<mmntnists in this Nation, In passing, 1 may state that lie also contributed io the WalUiee campaign in

Ifl48.

Getting back to the photostats of tlie documents in question we should keep in mind that Jesanp jnoneered the fietioiial idea that tin* ( •ommnnists uf (liiiia were not really Gommniiists at all. He did that in July 1h4J, That is when tlie campaign started.

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

LUS

1 ivnv hold in mv hand two photostats, one being a photostat 1 notv iota Jn n.j ii« ± Go.nc!d hv Fredei- ek Vaiidev

of a check m the amount of %^,oL)U, signca uj -l

hilt Field, and made payable to Jessup s

icm (Lneil of the Institute of Pacific Eelatious. Tins check !s IterSeptembcr 12, 1043, and was cashed by the institute.

I also hold in inv hand another cheek, signed by the same

ILudI of «.«»', a"'l »■«* “'»<*' PW"'. «!f*; rI

gStio.., .bi Amori«„. Cojncil of :b«i

latioiis. The check is dated November 21, U4-, and tnis ct also was cashed by that institute.

liicidentally, Mr. President, these checks came, “oi Field’s own personal account, Imt from the ^ ^ ‘

Fund Inc which is a repository created by iM-edtiick V ender hilt Field for funds for wliatever Communist or Coramunstdroiit Serprii he saw fit to support. In other words, the America. People’s Fund, Inc., has no

as a hank for funds to he turned over to such Communist ent prises as Ficdd decided to contribute to.

Thei-efore, wo find Oo>sui> in 19« nsins '■» "Wf I'J?;

to the American people the idenlieal line followed bj a

Si'nt S«”iol Rn^ia’s oHb’ial p.par». and ato. lbo l.ncf.J nw j 1,1 tbe Daily Worker, wbiob, as ovoryonc knows, is tl.o oftio. j

Communist newspaper in this country, and at the same tune S JSnds to'support the publication from a ^

licly proclaimed that he was one of the top ( .(.miiuimsts t Nation-—Frederick Vanderbilt

AVhether Jessup was simply a dupe or w-hether lie Ushiiig the party line for a fee, I leave to the Senate to detem S However, when we consider that Jessup, using Bisson as the WTiter started that campaign to smear; and when B do 'in Uirpi blionlion 1,0 fnllowod tbo 0,nnn,„na, Par , Imrrioht down to tbo dottins of every “i ’ ...d tbo .■r,«n,8 1 every “t”' and then when we consider that he got moiie.v f»i it 50lC-from the man wdio says, “1 am the outstandnig C omnmdsf i d'k ^ then I leave it to the Senate to decide whether he was a dnpe-if so, he must have l.een an ^tnpid ouL—or whether he knew what he was doing tor a fee l sav he did not kiio^r FieUFs connections^ and

Field’s cominunisii{ let me again point out that Field made no

107

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

seeret of the faet that he went all-ont in support of eommnnistie Russia, For example, in 1941, he was executive director of the American Peace Mobilization, and led the picket line which picketed the White House and heaped abuse upon the head of tlien 1 ^resident Roosevelt, as a warmonger, and used all the foil! ubjeetives in the commmiistie vocabulary. Tliat picket line was before the White House on the morning of June 22, 1941; and let us keep in mind that Field was the director of the organization and leading that picket line. The Senate %vill recall that was the day wlien Hitler invaded Russia. Confusion hit the picket line when the newspaper lieadlincs proedaimed Hitlerinvasion of Russia, and by early afternoon all the pickets liad quietly shiiik away. Then the American Peace Mobilization became the American People’s Mobilization, which commenced again to vili' ty tlie President not this time as a M-annonger, but this time for his failure to establish a second front quickly enough to relieve Joe Stalin.

In view of tliat, I do not believe there is anyone who can say that Ji^ssop did not know exactly who Field was when he took from him $3.r>00 while at the same time pnblisliing the 1 ■ommuuist Party line.

1 may say that T think the kindest tliijig we can say about him is that he wns a dupe. What 1 have said so far is that be was a complete dupe. After all, befoi^e that time he was simply A professor of international law; and let me say in passing that very little international law originates in China. However, overnight he suddenly became an expert on far eastern affairs. As J have said, 1 think the man was such a dupe that he did not kno\v tliat he w^as being used by Ow'Cii Lattimore. That is the kindtvst thing we can say about liim. But dupe or knave, certainly he is not the type of person w'c want shaping onr foreign policy.

In faet. a few weeks later^ Frederick Vanderbilt Field signed an open letter deniaiiding a second front. Air. Field, incidentally, was the paid secretary of the Institute of Pacific Relations from 1933 to early 194d) and was one of the trustees until 1947k Field was also named by Chambers as head of a Conimnnist espionage ring.

Thus we find Jesstip taking money from a traitor and a Communist to support his magazine which was following the party line to a

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

I R]m liave before me a photowt^t of a letter dated Mareli J7. H>47, wliicli ]g of some interest. This is a letter written by the Amerieaii Coiui(‘il of the Institute of Pacific Relations, signed by Jessup and others. It expresses vigorous opposition to a proposed investigation of the Institute of F^aeific Relations to determine whether or not it was (Jommiuiist con trolled. In other ^vords, Jessup says, ‘^No. let us not have this investigation/' and sends a letter over his name to that effect. At that time, incidentally, Frederick VainJerbilt Field was on the board of trustees, and Alger Hiss was either on the iu>ard at that time or became a member shortly thereafter,

I do not know whether I pointed out to the Senator the fact, but the magazJne Amerasia, about whose C\>mmunist line there ean he no question, for a period of time had its offices right next to the offices of the Jessup publication for IPR.

T think it might he well at this point to discuss also Jessup's c(muectioji with various (kminiiiiiist’front organizations.

The PRESIDING OFFK^ER. The Chair iii«(uires whetlier Hiat pai ticular letter was offered for the Record,

Mr. .McCAUTfi V. No; it has not been. If any of the Senaten-s care to have it put in the Record, I shall he glad to do so. Tile IMIESIDING DFFICFH. The Senator will proceed. Mr. xMcCAKTlIY. I have noted since the beginning of this inquiry, tlial there are those who coni end that membership in Communist front organizations and association wdth Coinmin nists is n()t a serious matter. There are sincere people who are distnrlicd because the\- think this is an attempt to establish guilt by association. They forget that we are ilea ling here with extremely seiLsitive positions where the iudiviflual has access to top secret material, the disclosure of which luiglU well shove Us into or cause us even to lose a war. They forget that it is not a question of gnilt hy assneiation, but a question of bad security risk hy as.sociation.

1 camiol emphasize hio strongly that a naive or gullihie person who as.sociates with the wrong people constantly and thereby diseloscs—perhaps even unknowingly—^secret infonuatloii. has done the country the same damage as the party agent who divulges or obtains the same information, for a fee, or otherwise. Ijef me repeat, it is not a question of guilt hy assoeiation, it ia a. f|iieatiou of Imd seenrity risk hy assoeiation.

For example, if any one of you of the Senate happened to

EXPOSED BY SENATOR MCCARTHY

109

l»c a haJik president and you found that your cashier was traveling wdtii a crowd of crooks, safe crackers and racketeers, you would iindoubtediy no longer trust this cashier with the deposiloi's motley. Jii your mind, it would be a iiucstion of wliether lie was guilty of some crime, but rather a question of whether you could safely trust him with large sums of money. Tn such a case you have to give your depositors, instead of the wayward cashier, the benefit of the doubt. Gnfor tuna tel v. the State Department does not adopt that rule.

When the State Department adopted the rule wdiich provides that those who travel with (/Ommunists and join Commiinist-froiit organizations are bad seenrity risks, it was apparently done because of the fact that it has been proven over thousands of years that '^birds of a feather flock together.”

While it is possible oecasionally to get a few good citizens on a letterhead of a questionable organization, you can he certain that if anyone a.ssoeiates with such an organization for any length of time, he is in sympathy with its aims. That, gentlemen, is just good every day American hoi-se sense. And keep in mind, it was the Attorney General, and not McCarthy, who has listed those organizations as Communist-front and siibvt^rsive Ijeeause of their aims.

That, Mr, President, is jnst good, every day, American horse seme. And keep in mind, if you will, it was the AttorneT General, it was congressional committees, not the Senator from Wisconsin, who listed those organizations as Communist fronts and subversive because of their aims.

Of course, any American has the complete right t(j join any front organizations he pleases; but having joined such organizations and having exercised that right, he must iieee-ssarily jeopardize the privilege which he has to hold a position in the hY^dera! Government.

In this conneetioii it should be noted that Mr, pJcs.sup was also quite a joiner. Perhaps he was also a dupe in this respect, but it is rather significant that the only organizations that he so prolitieally joined were Communist-front organizations. He does not seem to be so prolific in joining any other type of organization, which 1 believe he should explain.

^ For example, the American Law Student’s A.ssociation was affiliated with the American Youth Congress acet^rding to the testimony of W ill lain \\ . Hinckley, former executive secretary

of the American Youth Congress. That is in the hearings of the Special rommittee on lln-Ainei-ican Activities, voliime U,

TtOf), It was also affiliated with the United Stiulents I (ace (-om mittce, of 347 Madison Avenue, New York t.’ity. aewramg to an exhibit presented to the Special Committee Activities, volume 12, pages 7568, 75611 The Ulmted SmJms Peace Committee was closely mterlockeil with the America Peace Mobilization, which I recently mentioned in emmeetion with Field and the picketing of President Koose\;elt Aeconling to the Daily Worker of February 27, 1937, page 2, the Law Stiulents Association was affiliated with the American League Against War and Fascism, an organization witli an outright treasonahle program, which has been cited as a Corainiinist front by the Special Committee on Un-Amenean Activities and Attorney General Biddle.

Jessup was not only a member of this organization Imt was a sponsor. There is a difference between being a sponsor and merely a member.

In tliis connection it slimild be noted that this organization, of wliicl. Jessup was the sponsor, the letterhead ot which orgauization bears his name, used the Communist 1 arty print shop, whicli was knowm as the Prompt Press, and used iiiuon label ^OJ.

In view of the fact that Jessup was the head of a magazine engaged in considerable printing, it is hard to believe tFat he did not know where this material was being pri«fed. It is hard to believe that he did not know that union No. 20J was the union which was doing the work of the Prompt Press, which is tlie (’ommiiiiist print shop.

Also in connection with Communistd'roiit aetivities, I caU

vonr attention to the fact that the National Emergency Conference was held in Wa.shington in 1939 or 1940 Dr. Jessup not merelv attended this affair, but was a sponsor of it, and signed the call of the conference which went against registration and fingerprinting of aUens-tliings which certainly could not advertdy affect any aiieii with intentions of becoming a lo,>.il American citizen.

Mr. President, let it be noted that he sponsored and issued the call for this organization, which meant, and which said,^^ ^ e are against the registration and tingeiTnnting of aliens, a m that was at a time when all of ns e.xpeeted war Registration and fingerprinting o1)vimisly, could onl% be opposed

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

111

]iy those aliens who, in those early war days, were engaged in activities in w^hich the FBI and oiir law enforeeineiit agencies wotikl he interested.

Why Jessup at that time should have so vigorously opposed such a simple matter, it is rather diffieult to understanch We know Ihe C'oinmunist line at that time wius that this type of registration and fingerprinting was an encroaelinient upon the civil liberties of the iiidividuah

Dr. Jessupposition against the registralion ajid fingerprinting of aliens >vas eiitliusiastically supported by the Comnuinist press and by individuais such as Carol King, attorney for Gerhardt Eisler, and Doxey A, Wllkerson, an avowed member of the Communist Party,

This organization later changed its name to the National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights and was cited as a Conimunist-froiit organization by both the TToiise Coiiimittee on Appropriations on April 21, 1D43, and the Special Committee on Uii-American Activities on March 29, 1942, and again by the House Un-American Activities Committee on March 29, 1944,

Jessup) wm not only a sponsor of the above-mentioned affair, but the letterhead of the National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights shows that he ’was a member of the board of sponsors of tliis orgaiiiKatiou, also.

Here is something of considerable interest 1 have in my hand a photostat of the New York Times, dated February 16, 1046—a time at which it was bceoining rather clear that Russia had already embarked upon world war 111 and was committed to annihilation of western noiiatheistic civilization. In this letter the brilliant Dr. Jessup urges not only that we quit producing atomic bombs but that >ve eliminate the necessary ingredients wlilch were prodiieed for atomic bombs ljy—and f quote— ^' means such as dumping them into the ocean. ’"

It should be recalled that at that time the Russians were already engaged in a race to surpass us in the production of atomic weapons.

Let the Senate and the country decide whether he was so stupidly blind that he did not realize what he was urging or whether he piaiiiied it that way. 1 fninkly think that the man W'OS merely stupidly following the Lattimore line—line w-hicli in this case certainly was the line which must have '^vanned the cockles of Stalinas heart.

III this connection 1 would like to read to the Senate an editorial from the Xew York World-Tele^rram entitled ‘^Who Is Dr. Je.s.sup?^^

Dr. Phillip C. Jessup, the American spokesman hi the current United Nation’s debate on Nationalist China’s charges against the Soviet Union, is the same Dr. Jessup chosen by the State Department to draft a new American policy for the Far Ea.st.

For this reason, his past a.ssociations and attitudes have become of general public concern.

Over a period of years, Dr. Jessup held various positions in the Institute of Pacific Relations, including the chairmanships of its American and Pacific councils. In these capacities he was in close association with such well-known left-wdngers as Anna Louise Strong, Guenther Stein, Harriet Lucy Moore, E. C. Carter, Theodore A. Bisson, Andrew Grajdanzev, and Frederick Vanderbilt Field.

While the institute’s publication, the Far Eastern Survey, was under Dr. Jessup’s direction, it began a campaign against Nationalist China. Referring to what it called the two Chinas, it said, in an article signed by Mr. Bisson: ‘One is now generally called Kuomintang China, the other is called Communist China. However, these are only party labels. To be more descriptive, the one might be called feudal China, the other democratic China.”

Let us keep in mind that in July HDJ, when this was printed, and also in November 11142, before it was printed, Jessup took sizable cheeks from a known C*ommunist. This one article in July of 194J was of eoui*se only part of a whole series of like articles.

Thus began the long campaigns to tear down Chiang Kai-shek and present the Chinese Reds to the American people as democrats and simple agrarian reformers. We know them better than that now. But that is due to no contributions by Dr. Jessup.

The Communist-front organizations with which Dr. Jessup has l>een affiliated or has sponsored include the American-Russian Institute, the National Emergency Conference (organized in 1939 to protest the deportation of aliens who advocated changing our form of government), the National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights and the Coordinating Committee To Lift the Embargo—on Red Spain.

He was one of 12 signers of a letter in the New* York Times, February 16, 1946, urging the United States to suspend the manufacture of atomic bombs, followrng the appointment of the United Nations Commissions on Atomic Energy.

This letter, urged, in order that the discussions on atomic energy control might proceed in an “atmosphere of good faith and confidence,” that:

113

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

Here is where Jessup urged, and it was while the (’omnuiiiists wen* exerting every effort to outstrip us in the production of atomic weapons—

1. “The United States at once stop the production of bombs from material currently produced”—this to include the preparation of subassemblies and “all other procedures involved in the fabrication of the bomb.”

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 accumulating purified plutonium and uranium-225, which are the essential ingredients of atomic bombs.”

The letter to the Times added that any fissionable products developed while keeping the atomic energy plants on a stand-by basis should be dumped in the ocean or returned to their original mixture.

Since the Russians claim they began making bombs in 1947, they might have caught up with us or passed us in atomic bomb production had Dr. Jessup’s views pjevailed.

Dr. Jessup was a character witness for Alger Hiss at his first perjury trial.

He was the editor of the State Department’s white paper on China, which one student of the subject characterized as a “bulky compendium of many truths, seme half truths and frequent contradictions of published and acknowledged fact.”

Here, at best, we have the picture of a confused liberal feeling his way round in circles and often finding himself in questionable company. Certainly it is ’not the record of a man who should be chosen to formulate anything of such tremendous potentialities as an American policy for the Far East

Imagine .^ending a Dr. Jessup to preside over a conference on fareastern affairs at Bangkok, when we have a man like Gen. Douglas MacArthur in nearby Tokyo.

Incidentally, I think it is of interest to note that the State Department, apparently upon Jessupsuggestion, chose Bangkok as the place for this all-important conference. Anyone who is at all a student of that area knows that it is the hotl>ed of Russian espionage activities and that the only sizable hotel in the city is owned by the Russian Government. Just why he said, “Let us go to that area instead of to some area controlled by General MacArthur, such as Tokyo,” is not clear.

I read further:

If this is the way American foreign policy is being made, God save us from the Russians.

One interesting insight into Dr. Jessup's lack of sensitivity

114

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

to clkloyalty iw shcnvn by hm answer to tlie question of the Senator from I<Hva [Mr Tliekenlooper] on ^hireh 20, last. The Senator asked Jessup jf he was of the same opinion now about ITiss as he was at the times last year when, as one of Hiss’ eharaeter witnesses^ he stated that Hiss' reputation lor inteu:rity, loyalty, and veracity was gmd. Dr. Jessup ansv^ered the Senator that lie saw im reason to alter his statements. One can nnclerstand a person standing by his friend on a private basis; hut i)r. Jessup as asmbassador-at-large, represents tlie Americ'iiii people. Jle is supposed to be aware of the dangerous taetie of infiltration as practiced by Stalin’s police state. To put it niildly. Jessup’s reaction to gross disloyalty seems obtuse. He can say, without rpialifieation and as a most important public officiab that he can see no reason whatever to change his opinion alsvut Hiss’ veracity, loyalty, and integrity, even though an American jury lias convicted him of perjury and what amounts to far-reaching espionage on damning evidence wduch satisfied Hie jury and a h^^deral judge that JTis.s, heyoud reasonable doubt, was proved to be an underground Couinnnust agent.

In other words, if Jessup today were in eharge of the loyalty program lie would say, my opinion, Hias still has an outstanding reputation for veracity, integrity, niid lo\'alty, and I see no rea.snn to change my opinion.’*

Thi.s is in the very best Adieson tradition of Inruing

nue’s back” on treason.

Tlie Reiiate will recall that I presented to the committee the case of one Haldore Hanson, who has been nauu^d by 1fie Rtate I)c[)artinent as chief of the Teclinieal Cooperation Projects Staff, which is develo|)ing plans for the point 4 prognnii.

It will also recall my mentioning the fact that Owen Lnttimore is now in Afghanistan in connection wdth niakitig a study aud sulnnitting recommendations in regard to the apidicatitm of our poiiit 4 program in that area.

So we find Owen Lattimore again the greai pbiuncr. This tiuie instead of directing Jessup to pioneer the campaign of villifieation against Oliiang Kai-shek and the deificatioi] of tlie (■lilnese (kmimunists; this time instead of helping Service and Roth ill theii* theft of secret State, Navy, and Intelligence doconicJits, he is lielping Ilaldore Hanson to plan the point 4 prograu] in tfmt area of the East wliieh has not yet fallen under Oommnnist control.

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

115

This is the same Haldore Hanson who in his honk “Human Ejuleavor.” on page H49, condemns the right-wing groups in the Chinese Government “for fighting against Ibe demoeratic ivvoIntion by i\Ioa Tse Tung of tlie Communists.” This is the same llaldure ITanson wdio on the same page comphiius that anti-Red officials within the Governinent were making indirect attacks upon the Communists, and that “leaders of tlie Comiuiinist Youth Corps were arrested by military officials at Hangkow.”

This is the same Haldore Hanson who was the penniless eoeditor of a Communist magazine in Peiping wdien the Jujuiiiese-Cliinesc war broke out. This is the same Haldore Hanson who in chapter 28 eoiidemtis the red-baiting officials in Chungking.

hat lie r than take the time of the ^Senate in ilevcl oping the entire ITausoii case, 1 now ask unanimous consent to have Inserted in the lieeord at this point the case of Haldore Hanson as 1 presented it to the snheominittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

There being no objection, the case was orderctl to Ih* printed in the Record, as follows:

The next case is that of Haldore Hanson.

This man occupies one of the most strategically important offices in the entire State Department.

It is my iniderstanding that he joined the Department of State in Febiuary 1942, and is recognized in the Department as a specialist and expert on Chinese affairs.

Hanson, now Executive Director of the Secretariat of the InterDepai'tmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural Cooperation, will head up a technical cooperation projects staff of the new point 4 program 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. (Source: Department of State Departmental Atrnouneements 41, dated February 21, 1950.)

The pro-Communist proclivities of Mr. Hanson go back to Sopteinber 1938.

Hanson was a contributor to Pacific Affairs, the official publications, whose staff was headed by millionaire Frederick Vanderbilt Field, an admitted Communist. Field has devoted his entire fortune to the Communist cause.

It is important that the committee keep in mind that Mr. Hanson also wrote for the magazine Amerasia, of which Philip Jacob Jaffe w^as managing editor.

Jaffe was arrested, indicted, and found guilty of having been in

illeg^al possession of several hundred secret documents from the State, Navy^ War, and other Government Department files.

Mr, Chairma-fi, I have before me a document entitled “Department of State, Departmental Announcement 41/' The heading is “Establishment of the Interim Office for Technical Coopei-ation and Development/' Then in parentheses^ by way of explanation of this rather high-sounding name, we find “point 4 program/'

The first paragraph of the order reads as follows:

“1, Effective immediately there is established under the direction of the Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs of the Interim Office for Technical Cooperation and Development (TCI))/'

On page 4 we find that the chief of this technica! cooperations project staff is one Ha Ido re Hanson,

Paragraph 2 on page 1 sets forth the following responsibilities of Hanson's division:

“The interim office is assigned general lesponsibility within the Department for (a) securing effective administration of programs involving technical assistance to economically underdeveloped areas and (b) directing the planning in preparation for the technical cooperation and economic development (point 4) piograni. In cari^ylng out its responsibilities the interim office will rely upon the regional bureaus, Bureau of UTiited Nations Affairs, and other components of economic affairs area for participation in the technical assistance progi'ams as specified below, and upon the central administrative offices of the administrative area for the performance of service functions/'

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 proposes to spend under his point 4 pi'ogram, or,,what he has refened 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 a*ny Senate confirmation. Therefore, it would seem rather important to examine the background and the philosophy of this young man.

The State Department Biographical Register gives what would on its face seem to be a chronological story of an increasiTigly successful young mafn. It shows that he graduated fiom college, for example, 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 affaus at 15,600; that in 1946 he was made, executive assistant to the Assistant Secretary of State at $6,500; that in May of 194B he was made assistant chief of the area division number 3; that on June 28, 1948 he was made Acting Chief for the Far Eastern Ax’ea, Public Affairs Overseas Program St^ff; that on November 14, 1948 he. was made Executive Director of the Secretariat of the Inter-Departmental Committee on Scientific and Cultural Cooperation, There is certainly nothing unusual about this biography. Nothing 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 when the Communists were taking over China, However, much is left out of this biography. It does not show, for example, that this young man was running a Communist magazine in Peiping when the JapaneseChinese war broke out. It does not show, for example, that he spent several years with the Communist aimies in China, wiiting stories and taking pictures which the Chinese Communists helped him smuggle out of the country. Nor does this biography show that thus 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 Hitler's Mein Kampf set forth his solutions for the problems of Europe,

Nothing that he has said or done sifTice w^ould indicate that he repudiates a single line of that book.

This man dearly believes that the Communists in China sUnd for everything that is great and good. His is not the picture of a mercenaiy trying to seel his country out for 30 pieces of silver. In reading his book, you are impressed with the fact that he firmly bell ves the Communist leaders in China are great and good men and that all of Asia would benefit by being communized.

Take, for example, what he had to say about Mao Tse-tung, the bead of the Communist Party at that time and now^ the Communist ruler of China, a'nd Chu Teh, eommaiKier-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 describing a meeting with an American Major Carlson, hero is what he had to say:

“We stayed up till midnight eJ^changing notes on guerilla armies, the farm unions, and the progress of the war, I was particularly interested in.the Communist leaders whom Carlson had just visited and whom I was about to meet, Mao Tse-tmng, 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, a man with the humility of Lincoln, the tenacity of Grant, and the kindliness of Robert E, Lee.’ “

For a man slated as chief of the bureau which may have the job of spending hundreds of millions of dollars 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.

On page 349, he condemns the right wing groups in the Chinese government for “fighting against the democratic revolution as proposed by Mao Tse-tung and the Communists/'

On the same page he points out that anti-Red officials within the governmefnt .were making indirect attacks upon the Communists and that “leaders of the Communist youth corps were aj rested by military officers at Hankow. I myself was the victim of one of these incidents and found that local officials were the instigators,”

118

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

From Hansonbook it appears that the Nationalist Government knew of his cloiiie collaboration with the Cojnmunist army. For example, on pa^je 350, we find that his passport was seized by the police in Siam when they found that he was traveliiig from Communist guerrilla territory to the Communist headquarters. He states that the man responsible for this illegal action was Governor Ching Tingwern—one of the most rabid anti-Rod officials in China. The Governor’s purpose was merely to suppress news about the Communists.

Before quoting further from this book written by Mr. Hanson, it might be well to give a clearer picture of the job which Secretary Acheson has picked out for him. The State Department document lists some of the duties of his bureau as follows;

1. Developing over-all policies for the program.

2. Pormulatmg general program plans and issuing planning (lire dives.

3. Coordinating specific program plans developed by the regional bureaus and making necessary adjustments.

4. Approving projects, determining actiom agenciesi and allocating funds for United States bilateral programs.

5. Directing negotiations and relationships with intergoveniniental agencies and with other United States agencies participating ill the coordinated program or otherwise carrying on technical assistance activities.

6. Initiating and developing plans for technical assistance jvrograms for individual countries or groups of countries within their respective regions.

I. Reviewing program proposals affecting their regions which originate from any other source.

8. Negotiating and communicating with foieigvi governments.

D. Directing State Department personnel assigned abroad to coordinate and give administrative and program support to, bilateral progra ms.

10. Continuously evaluatbig programs and projects within regions.

II. Proposing program changes,

12. Initiating instructions to the field carrying out their responsibilities and reviewing all other instructions cmicerned with technical assistance programs.

This gives you some idea of the tremendous powers of the agency in which Mr. Hanson is a top-flight official.

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 gucr.rilla spies mto Peiping.

EXPOSED BY SENATOR MeCARTHY

119

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, Hanson makes it very dear all through the hook that he is not only on the Communist side, but that he has the attitude of a hero worshipper 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 286, he tells about how some ragged waifs w^hom he had gathered into his sleeping quarters regarded Mao Tse Tung and Chu Teh as “Gods.’^ 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 cm to describe Holung, he found him to be much as the heroworshipping boys had descrihed 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 affairs.”

In chapter 26 he speaks with apparently bated breath of the “brain tnist” of Communist leaders who were immortalized by Etlgar Snow in his Red Star Over China.

On page 296 in referring to two other Communist generals, he said: “Should this book ever fall into Communist hands, I must record that those two lonely men made excellent company during my Z weeks in Yenan,”

Aftei* describing in complimentary manner this university 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, the 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 a pocket allowance, and then has this to say; “Some recent visitors to Yenan have spread a report that 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 contributions came from America'n sympathizers in New York/’

On pages 297 and 298 Hanson relates that in talking to one of the Nationalist war lords: “I suggested that he could ieam a gieat deal from the Communists about discipline and integrity of leadership.”

On page 30S Hansefn has this to say: “My attitude toward Communist China’s leaders was a mixture of respect for their peisoual integrity and a resentment of their suspiciousness. They impressed me as a group of hard-headed, straight-sbootlng realists.”

m

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

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.”

Following is Hanson*s description of how the Reds took over, I quote from page 102:

^Whenevor a village was occupied for the first time, the Reds arrested the landlords and tasc collectors, held a public tribunal p executed a few and intimidated the others, then redistributed the land SM 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 fighting against the Japanese more wholeheartedly than any other group in China,”

He then goes on to condemn ‘'Eed-baiting” officials in Chungking,

On page 312 of his book, Hanson quotes a Communist editor as stating as follows;

‘'Our I'elatiOnship to the U. S. S- R. 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.”

tn connection with Hanson’s position as Chief of the Technical C^ooperation 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.

Can there be much doubt as to whether the Communists 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 commanizG 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 leftist magazine in Peiping in the middle thirties 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 Avorld and for such purposes as he decides.

Gentlemen, if Secretary Acheson gets away with his plan to put this man to ji great extent in charge of the proposed point 4 program, it will, in my opinion, lend tremendous impetus to the tempo at which communism is engufling the world

On page 32 of his book, Hanson justifies “The Chinese Commu

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

121

msta chopping off the heads of landJords~^all of which is true,” befarmers That the farmers are still hungry after him heads have been removed apparently never occurred to

he explained that it took him some time to appreciate the appalling problems which the Chinese Communists were attempting to solve.

In chapter 4 of Hanson’s book, he presents the stock Communists’ arguments for the so-calJed Stalin-Hitler Pact of 1939.

Secretary Acheson is now putting Hanson in the position to help the Commumsts solve the^ appalling problems in other areas of the woild with hundreds of millions or billions of American dollars.

The^ ol^ious area in which this ma'n wdl] start using American money to help the Communists solve the people’s problem will be Indo-Chma 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 t at time the Honorable Fred Busbey, on the floor of the House, discussed this man s affinity for the Commimist cause in China.

MeOARTITY'. Mr. President, in iny opinion the all niiportatit Ihiiig to be ileteniiiiied m not so much the question ot whether Jjattimore was a Russian agent or wliethei- Service was guilty of espionage in the Amera.sia case, nor the disloyalty or bad judgment of many of the particular individuals in the group of iintoiiehables determining the far eastern policy, hut rather, to deterinhie to what extent our far eastern policy has panilleled the Goiiimmiist Party objectives.

At ibis jJoint 1 would like to read a brief of the Communist Thirty objectives insofar as the Far East is concenied, as laid down by the Asiatic Cominform of May 194th

1. Conquer China; (2) conquer Hainan, and (3) Formosa (air base to neutralize Ryukyus and Okinawa).

2. Infiltrate and conquer Indochina and Burma.

3. Infiltitition and riots in India and Pakistan; Philippines.

States Japan; wean Japan from the United

PROPAGANDA

(a) Japan cannot survive without trade with China.

the tax bills’ to support

(c) Maintain split between Japan and Philippines.

(d) Maintain split between Japan and Australia,

(e) Omit all mention of Japan’s deeds in China (1931-46).

122

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

5. Prevent Far Eastern Pact (Pacific Alliance) at all costs.

6* Keep Nehru out of Far Eastern Pact,

8. ScK-dttenSItion in Sinkiang Province. Future ethnic tics

^r'lnfUtration'riots in Iran. Get pro-Soviet Ministers appointed.

It shouM reqnire no comment to i

semiopen uiiiul immediately to recognize the fact that flic Ijat Ze line folloiva that line practically lOd percent. The .m. Sant question, of course, is not whether F.attiinore to oi s tliat line, but whether the State Department actually tolhws

In coiincctioii with tlie question of wiiether or not Aclicsoii knows wha; £ party line actually is, I would like to quote to

von from a lettei written by the Simator 'ZidZl

[Mr. Bridges! to the Senator from Michigan [Mt. \amlenber„j

ill April of 1947, .

In that letter the Senator from New Hampshire qiie.stiotis wholhor tW State Oapanmaat Far F..ater„ FlanmaS traarh » follnwimF two official documents which set forth in detail tiic

SluaiaraVertivea in China. Ua 'I--- »»

ineiils are available at the Ldirary ot Congiess oi at the Ma c

Department.

Tlie two documents are as follows:

1 “The Proeram of the Communist International and its tion." WorkersSary Publishers. 1928. Third American edition,

“The WoiirCongiSr'rfthe

nies;' adopted as a resolution by the bsxth woim k

Comintern, September 1, 1928.

\eheson’s answer sheds eoiisiderahle light pei^aps on why lie „mv wHlZt even knowing it, he following the Batt.inore Cm nVunist Une He poiiiks out that his top adviser on tlnnese JtZ ” advises me that he has never even read the two ( oni„«!ra.ra«*r rrtetence. I h.vr arvrr roa.l .hra.

luysclf ^ * 1 ■

('an anvone imagine a person trying to plaii a campaign against Hitler without having read Ins Mem Kan pf.

So we find the Secretary of State admitting Ion adviser.s in Far Ea.steru Aftairs do not even L’acqnaint themselves with the Comtmmist aims m that tl.eater.

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCARTHY

123

I can as?5m'e him that Lattimore knows wlmt flm C'omimtnist aims are.

Let ns see how much of the party line of the SoAdet A^ent* Lattimore, lias foniul its way into Secretary Aeheson^s Vtiv Eastern policy.

The Secretary of State made his most important s pee eh on Ear Eastern finliey before the National Press Clnh on Jamiary 12tli last. Wliile in that speech he refers to the detachment of The provinces of northern China hy the Soviet Union and he somcAvliat froAvns upon this action, he asserts that avg iimst do iiotliiii«: hy AAmy of interv^ention, such as aid to Chiaim on Fot*mosa, vvliieh Avniild merit the Chinese Avrath that they noAV have for the Kiissians.

Rut the important thing rn Mr. AehesmUs s]ieeclK and the main burden of liis argument, is that in the rest of China, a deBAoerary has heen horn. Tie states that coinmnnisin is a snhtle instrmiunit of Soviet foreign policy, Avlihdi would ^'if it oonld, take from these people Avhat they have won, Avhat Ave AAmnt them to kcc]i ami develop which is their oavii national independence, their oavii iiidividnal independence, their own deA^clopnieiit of their own resources for their own good, and not as mere trihutary states to tins groat Soviet Union.

Has Aeheson tlie temerity to state that the people of China hiive Avnii China for themselves 1 Does Acheson want the Chinese [leople to keep their present governmeut? Does Acheson really want us to believe that they have won tlieii^ national independence and tlieir own individual independence?

This is exactly the line that Lattimore wrote in his artieJe, Asia Conr|ticrs Asia, in March of this year in which Lattimore refers to Russian eommnnisin only as a '*hypot!ietical threat— a card nnplayed,’*

Acheson ended his China policy speech of January 12 Avith these Avords, Listen to the mind of Lattimore in the A'Oice of Acheson:

What Ave conclude, I believe, is that there is a new day which has tlawBed in Asia, It is a day in which the Asian peoples are on their own and knoAv it and intend to continue on their own. It is a day m which the old relationships between East and West are gone, relationships which at their worst were exploitations and which at their best were paternalism. That relationship is over and the relationship of East and West must now be in the Far East one of mu

124

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

tual respect and mutual helpfulness. Wc are their finends. Others are their friends.

Let us compare that with the final paragraph in one of Lattiiuore’s !ate.st books, Situation in Asia:

Throughout Asia today there prevails an atmosphere of hope,

not of despair,

Aehesoii says:

What we conclude, I believe, is that there is a new day which has dawned in Asia*

Adie^tm said:

There is not a single country in Asia in which people feel that we are entering on an age of chaos. What they see opening out cfore then^ is a limitless horizon of hope — the hope of peaceful constructive activity in free countries and peaceful cooperation among

free peoples. There will be disillusioninents along the way as these hopes unfold. Yhey should not come from America, or as the result of American policy. A great part of Asia's hopes, however, will be fulfilled, and should be fulfilled with Amencan cooperation. We have everything to gain by being on the side of hope.

Aebesoii al the National Press (,‘lnl) said a new day had dawned for Asia. Lattiniore, his teaeher on oriental affairs, tells of the “liniitle.ss horizon of hope in Asia.”

Aeheson told the Press Clnh;

It is a day on which the Asian peoples are on their own and

know it and intend to continue on their own*

Ijattimoi'e had said—

There will be disillusion along the way as these hopes unfold.

They should not come from America, or as the result of Amencan policy,

Lattimorc wrote that it was China thal conquered China. Aeheson believes that China has conquered (’hina.

The best anthorily on China affairs in the Senate is perhaps the junior Senator from California IJlr. Knowlandl,

I wish to quote his estimation of the grave problem that, we are considering, Jn a speech printed in the Appendix of the Cougres-sional llecord on March 23 of this year, at page A2255, he said — and I shall not read the entire speech:

There is one great void in the speech of the Secretary of Smte dealing with our Asia policy* He treats the islands of FomifOsa, Hai

EXPOSED BY SENATOR McCAKTHY

125

nan, Kinmen, Chosun, and the Pescadores, with their 8,000,000 p^ple under the Junsdiction of the legal government of the Republic of China as though they were ships which had been sunk beneath the waves of the China Sea and the Pacific,

Since Formosa alone has more population than either Australia or Greece, this is hardly realistic, Formosa is closer to the Philippines than the island of Luzon is to the island of Mindanao. It is hardly conceivable that this Government can view with unconcern the moving of international communism off the Asiatic land mass on its first major island^hopping venture.

An American missionary with years of experience in China recently said to me: “Senator, I cannot xmdeistand how Chiang Kai-shek can l>e the No* 1 target in the Far East of international communism and at the same time be the No* 1 target for the Far Eastern Division of our own State Department.” From my own observations in China last November and from recent communications from people still there and these who have just returned, I believe that the Republic of China has passed her darkest hour of Dunkerque and Valley Forge, There has been a new rebirth of morale that is of tremendous significance to those who are no so blind that they will not see*

The Benedict Arnolds, the Quislings, and the fair-weather friends have long since departed* The new Cabinet of President Chiang Kai* shek contains many young and able administrators who are men of integrity* * * *

It is not realistic to ignore the fact that the Republic of China has approximately 600,000 men under arms, 300,000 of whom are ex* cellent soldiers* This total number is greater than the combined ti^oop strength of Korea, the Philipptne Republic, the United States of Indonesia, Siam Viet Nam, Burma, Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, and the United States forces in Japan.

The island of Formosa is not needed by the United States as either an air or naval base* tn the friendly hands of the Republic of China, it presents no problem to our own defenses. In the hands of international communism, the many Japanese-built air strips and the excellent harbors would drive a wedge into our Pacific defense line that runs from Japan through Okinawa to the Philippines* In unfriendly hands it would he a strategic loss that no competent military, naval, or air commander would or has overlooked*

Does Aeheson believe that Mao's conquest of (.'hitia i*s the birth of a new day? Does he think that the Chinese people are now “on their own,“ as he says?

He looks upon the Chiang governnient vvith horror and he sees the bright new day for 400,000,000 Chinese*

He was asked by a questioner after his January 12 spwefi the following question:

You stated that the present trend in Asia is to throw off foreign

126

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

domiJiatlon. Is not th# present debacle in China the Tery reverse of this; that is, the allowance of a foreign power to overthrow an existing government?

But Aelieson tlid not aitswer that very pointed question,

Aehesoa takes the same positicm as his grand eounselors on far*eastern affairs—Lattimore, Jessup, and Herviee—he lias adojited almost wholly the thesis of Lattimore s artiele in United Nations World for March 20, *"Asia TTas Conquered Asia/’

But let us take a look at the real record. I jet ns take a look at a secret document of our Department of State, entitled, '‘Current Foreign Relations,” printed for the month of jMareh 1950, which was not meant for the eyes of the Anierican pnhlic, the coiitmits of which the people are entitled to know at this time in view of tlie astounding position of the Secretary of State.

I read directly from page 10 of this secret document, aiul 1 might incidentally commend this doeiimeiit to the attention of the Senatoi; from California [Mr. Knowdandl. There is much in it which I helieve will shock him also. This, Senators will nnder.stajid, is not written by the Lattimores and the -Jessups anti the Services, This is written by some of the loyal people in tlie State Dei>artnient who know what is going on, and that liudoubtedly is why it is marked secret. 1 read directly from page 10 of the secret document:

Position in Far East, the Communist conquest of the mainland of China and the conclusion of the Soviet-Chinese treaty of aliiance constitute the greatest advance which Soviet imperiahst expansion has achieved since the war, and this advance is no doubt a major factor behind the attitude of confidence which appears to characteris&e the current Soviet outlook.

That is the true state of affairR. That is a bit different from Jessup’s statement before the committee when he tried to treat what is happening in Asia as a victory for 1lie United States; it is a bit different from his attitude when he condemned me for Jiaving in some way interfered with that successful program in the Far East. Mr. President, the true state of affairs ns set forth in that document is not meant for the eyes of the puldie. That is the opinion of the loyal Americans in our Department of State whose voice has been muffled by Uie small group of intellectuals that has ensnared Acheson s mind.

ft was not Chinese democracy under ^lao that eontiuered China, as Acheson, Lattimore, Jessup, and Hanson contend.

EXPOSED BY SENATOR MeCAETHY

127

Soviet Rnssia conquered China and an important ally of the conquerors was this small left-wing element in our Department of State,

I should like to point out that this doeument is a direct contradiction of what Dean Acheson himself has puldicly told the people. Jt is a direct contradiction of eveiything that Owen Lattimore has said.

This secret document, which is less than a month old. dated Mareli 19, expresses the frank analysis of the situation from the Americaii i>oint of view, 1 would like to read the frank analysis of tlie situation from the Russian point of view as contained in a broadcast frcmi Moscow on December 17 last, as follows:

The Chinese people have dumped Chiang Kai-shek into the garbage can of history. The same fate awaits the United States puppets in other countnes. Inspired by the gi^and historical victory of the Chinese people, the people of Indonesia and Viet Nam, the Philippines, Southern Korea and Burma are intensifying their ’national liberation struggle. The democratic movement is gaining ground and strength in Japan where people refuse to be tools in the implementation of the plgn cooked up by Wall Street.

It -sounds almost like Lattimore in his latest article.

With the triumph of Chinese democracy, the popular liberation movement of the peoples of Asia under the oppression of the imperialists has entered a new and more advanced stage.

The mind of the Soviet Foreign Office is as sharp as steel. I'he mind of the left-wing crowil in the American State Dejjartment is as soft m curdled milk.

The truth, as the Senator from California [Mr. Knowland] lias pointed out, is that the only tighting force in tin* whole of Asia is the army of Chiang Kai-shek.

Acheson on January 12th refeiTed to support of tJiiaiig Kai-shek on Formcisa in these terms:

Some silly adventure which some people in this country are urg

ing,

And—

The folly of ill-conceived adventures.

The great mind of the Hecretarj'^ of State refers to the supnort of the Nationalist cause as “silly” and “folly,” while it has tJie best-equipped army of China and is even now on the offeil^AVe

128

TREASON IN WASHINGTON

For his benefit let me point out that the most recent battle he led was the battle of Kinmen, an island off the, coast of China opposite Formosa. As reported by the New York Herald Tribune :

On October 25, 17,000 Communists with supporting artillery made a night attack on Kinmen. By the twenty-seventh, the three Na- , tionalist armies there, sparked by regiments trained under Sun Li-jen, had annihilated the attackers, of whom 8,000 were captured and 9,000 killed or drowned. The Nationalist air force aided the defenders.

The battle of Kinmen is the largest battle in wliich the (-ommunists were defeated. For the first time, the new Chinese for ces trained on Formosa had a test with the (knnmunists, and came out triumphant.

Anotlier recent battle was the battle of Tengpu Island, in the Chusan group, off the coast south of Shanghai. According lo the same source:

On November 3, a somewhat smaller Communist force attacked Tengpu Island (near Tinghai), and on the sixth they were finally destroyed by units of the four armies in the Chusan group.

The reporter of the Herald Tribune connuented:

The morale of the Nationalist troops participating was good, and ^ as a result of the battles they captured artillery and small arms which strengthen their position.

The above quotes are from a dispatch by A. Doak Barnett, New York Herald Tribune, December 29, 1946.

We have seen the flow of crocodile tears for the families of those who have been named as the formulators of that policy. The searchlight of truth has finally been thrown upon these men and it is unfortunate, indeed, that their families have suffered from the adverse publicity. But those who shed tears for the families of these people with whom I also sympathize, I say, What kind of tears will you shed for the 400,000,000 people of China, the free leaders of which are now being prepared fo? liquidation as Mao drinks vodka with Stalin in Moscoav?

The l^ft-wing^^j^j^^p^p^^An the process of actually preparing *Cm^w€l^®J^hem before it is toe

late? Can AV^n^e done with this businws of subversion an' degeneratioij^ behind high-sounding, phony diplomacy ?

The S

tv .9 •

[ helping now States of An

its eonstitut policy for tl

take firm hand in iilate a real foreign

SENSATIONAL OFFEH^

SiipeMensatioHal packet of literature exposing^ CoiiiniuniHr ill all its phases

$ 1.00

11 dynamic pieces of literature, phei an introductory subscription to The Cbrois and the Flag magazine) for three months.

This magazine contains no advertisement and averages ^12-pagea per month. It deals with current issues without gloves. It contains between 40 am! 60 editorials per month dealing with dangerous tnith which few public meu have the courage to discuss.

The above offer, including the introductory subscription and t!ie packet of sample literature may be had for just 41Mk Additional copies of this book may be had at the following

rates:

1 copy .-... .$ .50

3 copies . . •, - . .. 1.00

15 copies .*. . 5,00

100 copies ...... . 30.00

ADDRESS ALL ORDERS TO;

Christian Nationalist Gnisade

Post Office Box D4, St. Louis 1, Missouri