JESSUP'S MEMBERSHIPS IN ORGANIZATIONS

Before going into the charges one at a time, I should like to make the unqualified declaration that Senator McCarthy's allegation that I was affiliated with six Communist fronts is false, his photostats notwithstanding.

I am, however, proud of the fact that I am a member of a good many organizations which I think do indicate my affinities. They include the American Legion, the American Philosophical Society, the American Bar Association, the Foreign Policy Association, the American Society of International Law, Sigma Phi Society, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, the Academy of Political Science, the Council on Foreign Relations, and such social clubs at the Century Club in New York, and the Cosmos Club here.

I mention that, Mr. Chairman, because it seems to me that an objective discussion of my activities should include these organizations that I have mentioned. For once I agree with Senator McCarthy, when he said to this committee last Thursday, "I am sure we must take the entire history of this man."

I would be very happy if the committee would do that.

But the Senator from Wisconsin, in regard to the charges which he advanced, obviously, it seemed to me, preferred to determine my affinity on the basis of references to organizations with which I have no active connection, rather than those in which I am or have been a vigorous participant.

Senator BREWSTER. That is a little sweeping, isn't it? You do not deny that you have been active in the Institute of Pacific Relations; do you?

Ambassador JESSUP. No, sir; that is correct. I am going to take up the Institute of Pacific Relations in great detail. I think that is a proper qualification on that generalization.

STATE DEPARTMENT PRESS RELEASE NO. 558, MAY 27, 1950

I think it is worth noting, Mr. Chairman, that the details of my relationship or lack of it with the organizations listed by Senator McCarthy are presented in full in State Department Press Release No. 558 of May 27, 1950. That is almost 17 months ago. In other words, this is nothing new; it is something which has been rehashed several times, and I should like to introduce into the record, if I may, sir, this press release No. 558 of May 27, 1950, to show that these matters have been dealt with already 17 months before this time.

Senator SPARK MAN. Without objection that will be inserted. (The document referred to appears as follows:)

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

May 27, 1950. No. 558

For the press

For release at 7 p. m., e. d. t., Sunday, May 28, 1950, not to be previously published, quoted from, or used in any way.

The Department of State today made public the following analysis of some of the factual inaccuracies in the speech delivered by Senator Joseph R. McCarthy at Rochester, N. Y., on May 25, 1950, to the National Convention of the Catholic Press Association of the United States:

*

1. Senator McCarthy said at Rochester: "When I began the presentation of the case against Owen Lattimore, the State Department's architect of our Far Eastern policy, ** I informed the Senate that Lattimore in a letter to Joseph Barnes * * instructed him, in effect to get rid of all Chinese employees in the Office of War Information who were loyal to Chiang Kai-shek, and to replace them with Chinese Communists Later when addressing the American Society for Newspaper Editors, I furnished them complete copies of and discussed the Lattimore-Barnes letter."

*

* * *
*

The facts: In the first place, as the Department of State has reiterated time and time again, Mr. Owen Lattimore is not an employee of the Department of State.

In the second place, Mr. Lattimore is not the "architect" of the State Department's Far Eastern policy. Four Secretaries of State have publicly contradicted this assertion.

In the third place, Senator McCarthy originally lifted completely out of context, from a document then classified as secret, a passage purporting to support his charge that Mr. Lattimore instructed Mr. Barnes to replace pro-Chiang Kaishek employees of the Office of War Information with Communists. As a result, Senator Tydings publicly read the entire letter into the record, and on April 10-10 days before his speech to the American Society for Newspaper Editors the State Department sent a copy of the letter to Senator McCarthy.

The letter did not say what Senator McCarthy asserted it did. What it did say was: "In the circumstances, we have to be extremely careful about our Chinese personnel. While we need to avoid recruiting any Chinese Communists, we must be careful not to be frightened out of hiring people who have loosely been accused of being Communists. * ** ** For our purposes, it is wise to recruit as many unaffiliated Chineses as we can, to pick people whose loyalty will be reasonably assured on the one hand by the salaries which we pay them and on the other hand, by the fact that they do not receive salaries or subsidies from somewhere else."

2. Senator McCarthy said at Rochester: *** Keep in mind those three names-Dr. Chi, Mr. Chew Hong, and the New China Daily News. Those names are the key to this (the Lattimore-Barnes) letter and the State Department's fraudulent cover up. * * * I am therefore submitting to you the secret files on those two men * * The facts: At Wheeling, W. Va., asserted in a speech:

on February 9, 1950, Senator McCarthy

* While I cannot take the time to name all the men in the State Department who have been named as active members of the Communist Party and members of a spy ring, I have here in my hand a list of 205-a list of names that were made known to the Secretary of State as being members of the Communist Party and who, nevertheless, are still working and shaping policy in the State Department.

The next day, he said he had the names of "57 card-carrying members of the Communist Party" allegedly working in the Department. Later he talked in terms of 81 security risks of various sorts. Eventually, he said he would stand or fall on his ability to prove that there was one "top Soviet espionage agent" in the State Department.

To date, Senator McCarthy has utterly failed to prove that there is a single Communist or pro-Communist in the State Department and he now appears to be reduced to an attempt to divert attention with two 7- and 8-year-old memoranda dealing with the Civil Service Commission clearances for Office of War Information employment of two Chinese.

*

*

3. Senator McCarthy said at Rochester: Edward Barrett, Mr. Acheson's publicity chief * * * was Mr. Lattimore's superior when both worked in the Office of War Information."

The facts: In a letter to Senator Brewster, entered in the Congressional Record of May 2, Mr. Barrett, who is Assistant Secretary of State for Public Affairs. stated:

* I was in charge of the Overseas Branch of Office of War Information during the last part of the war, and I am proud of what I did toward helping to make that agency an effective psychological warfare arm of the Government. Owen Lattimore worked under me for a brief time during the war, but he left the Office of War Information a few weeks after I become his superior. I have not seen him since

*

**

4. Senator McCarthy said at Rochester: Our disaster in China * is the disaster to which Mr. Acheson refers as the 'dawning of a new day.'

The facts: Here, again, Senator McCarthy lifts completely out of context a single phrase in order to completely distort the meaning of Secretary Acheson's hour-long address before the National Press Club on January 12, 1950. The Secretary, in discussing the Far Eastern situation, emphasized the extent to which nationalism had "become the symbol both of freedom from foreign domination and freedom from the tryanny of poverty and misery."

Developing this theme, he added:

"Since the end of the war in Asia, we have seen over 500 million people gain their independence and over seven new nations come into existence in this

area.

"We have the Philippines with 20 million citizens. We have Pakistan, India, Ceylon, and Burma with 400 million citizens, Southern Korea with 20 million, and within the last few weeks, the United States of Indonesia with 75 million

*

*

"Communism is the most subtle instrument of Soviet foreign policy that has ever been devised and it is really the spearhead of Russian imperialism which would, if it could, take from these people what they have won, what we want them to keep and develop which is their own national independence, their own individual independence, their own development of their own resources for their own good and not as mere tributary states to this great Soviet Union

"So after this survey, what we conclude, I believe, is that there is a new day which has dawned in Asia. It is a day in which the Asian peoples are on their own and know it and intend to continue on their own. So what we can

see is that this new day in Asia, this new day which is dawning, may go on to a glorious noon or it may darken and it may drizzle out. But that decision lies within the countries of Asia and within the power of the Asian people. It is not a decision which a friend or even an enemy from the outside can decide for them."

5. Senator McCarthy said at Rochester: "* * * I am enclosing in the folder for each of you photostates of five Communist-front organizations with which Jessup was affiliated. You will note that Mrs. Jessup appears on the executive committee of a sixth Communist-front organization. The reason for including this with the photostates on Phillip Jessup is because of the close affiliation of Phillip Jessup with this organization also."

The facts: At Atlantic City Senator McCarthy asserted that he had presented photostatic proof of such affiliations to the Tydings subcommittee, but counsel of the subcommittee informed the Department of State that such proof had not been submitted. The following analysis of the photostats produced by the Senator at Rochester reveals:

* *

* *

(1) American Council, Institute of Pacific Relations.-Dr. Jessup has been prominently connected with the activities of this organization. It is not a Communist front. Senator McCarthy's only "evidence" against it was a single citation by a California legislative committee in 1948, on the ground that the council "* received funds (from) Frederick V. Field 2. Coordinating Committee to Lift the Spanish Embargo.—Ambassador Jessup has never been affiliated with this organization in any way. At Rochester, Senator McCarthy presented reproductions of three full pages and a part of a fourth page of a brochure entitled, "These Americans Say: Lift the embargo against Republican Spain.'" The full 20-page document is and purports to be merely a compendium of public opinion concerning the Spanish embargo,

The only reference to Ambassador Jessup in the "photo-reproductions" presented by Senator McCarthy was a seven-line quotation from a statement by Charles C. Burlingham and Ambassador Jessup in the New York Times of January 31, 1939. A week earlier the Times had printed a three-column letter from Henry L. Stimson recommending the lifting of the Spanish embargo. On January 26, the Times published a letter of rebuttal by Martin Conboy. It was from a three-column statement which the Times headlined as "Text of Reply of Burlingham and Jessup to Conboy's Letter" that the Burlingham-Jessup quotation was taken. The quotation in question reads:

"It (lifting the embargo) would further mark a return to our historic policy of avoiding intervention in European civil wars by following a strict hands-off policy instead of taking the affirmative action which, as events have demonstrated, inevitably affects the outcome of a struggle in which we profess not to be concerned."

The Burlingham-Jessup quotation was "photo-reproduced" by Senator McCarthy in such a way as to indicate that it constituted a full page of the brochure, whereas it was actually only 1 among 11 similar statements by private individuals included on the page in question of the original brochure. Furthermore, it was only 1 of a total of 31 such quotations in the brochure as a whole, including statements by Henry L. Stimson, John Dewey, Helen Keller, Raymond Leslie Buell, Dorothy Thompson, A. F. Whitney, and William E. Dodd.

(3) National Emergency Conference and National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights.-Senator McCarthy's "photo-reproductions" show that Ambassador Jessup, along with more than 280 other private citizens, was listed as a sponsor of a "call" for a national emergency conference, to discuss matters of - alien registration, in 1939. They also show that Ambassador Jessup's name was carried on the letterhead of the National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights, as a sponsor, in February 1940.

With regard to the national emergency conference, Ambassador Jessup testified before the Tydings subcommittee that he had no recollection of the conference, that he did not attend the meeting for which the "call" was issued, and that he "certainly had no knowledge at the time that it was subversive." It was not until 4 years later that the conference was first cited by the House Committee on Un-American Activities.

With regard to the National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights, Ambassador Jessup testified that he did not recall the organization or any participation in it. This organization was first cited in 1943.

(4) American-Russian Institute.-Ambassador Jessup has never been a member, sponsor, or officer of this organization. Senator McCarthy's "photo-reproductions" show Ambassador Jessup's name along with those of 285 other individuals on one list of "sponsors" and, with 99 others, on a second list of "sponsors.' These lists, however, were not lists of sponsors of the American-Russian Institute itself. They were lists of the sponsors of two dinners given by the organizationone in 1944, dedicated to American-Soviet postwar relations, and the other, in 1946, for the presentation of a posthumous award to Franklin D. Roosevelt. Concerning the first of these two dinners, Ambassador Jessup told the Tydings subcommittee:

"I do recall that I was asked by Mr. William Lancaster, a prominent New York lawyer, to permit my name to be used as a sponsor of a dinner which was to be held on October 19, 1944. I had met Mr. Lancaster particularly through his activities on the Foreign Policy Association, at a time when Gen. Frank McCoy was president and Senator Alexander Smith and I were members of the board. I accepted that invitation in 1944, but was unable to attend the dinner."

Concerning the second dinner, he testified:

"The dinner in question was one given on May 7, 1946, on the occasion of the presentation of its first annual award to Franklin D. Roosevelt which was accepted on behalf of his family. A search of my files has failed to reveal any information concerning this incident, nor do I remember attending the dinner. From approximately February to June of the year 1946, I was seriously ill in a hospital in New York City, so it is unlikely that I attended."

Ambassador Jessup specifically declined invitations to speak at dinners of the institute in 1948 and 1949. Meanwhile, the New York organization had been expressly excluded from the Attorney General's first published lists of subversive organizations and it was not included until 1949.

(5) American Law Students Association.-This organization, which Ambassador Jessup served as a faculty adviser for about 2 years, was a perfectly innocent group. It was not and has never been cited as a Communist front. As "evidence" to the contrary, Senator McCarthy produced at Rochester a photostat of a letterhead of the association carrying the customary union shop printer's label. This label was identified by Senator McCarthy in a typewritten notation as "Union label No. 209 which is the Communist print shop label." He also handed out at Rochester a mimeographed statement in which he flatly asserted, without giving any supporting evidence, that the association was "affiliated" with three organizations cited as Communist or Communist front. He then devoted three single-spaced typewritten pages to a listing of various citations, not against the American Law Students Association, but against the three organizations with which he asserted it was "affiliated."

The fact that the association has never been cited in any way by any agency speaks for itself.

Ambassador JESSUP. I do not recall specifically, Senator. You mean in regard to the resolution in 1949?

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I have in mind the resolution that Senator Brewster just referred to, that resolution, complaining of the Russian encroachment, and so on, in Communist China. The Chinese representative asked that this resolution be pushed, and we thought that we could not do that. I have the same mystery that Senator Brewster has. Why we could not is beyond me, and I was told in making inquiry that the British had urged us not to do it.

I am not quite clear why we should be governed by any of the others if we felt there was a moral right involved here. That is what troubles me.

Ambassador JESSUP. Senator, I would have to refresh my recollection on the attitude of the other delegations including that of the United Kingdom in regard to that proposal in 1949. I would like to say to you that we were not controlled merely because one other delegation or one or two of the delegations took a contrary point of view. As I suggested a moment ago to Senator Brewster, in all of these questions in the General Assembly you do have to make an advance estimate of how you are going to come out, and if you are not going to come out, well, the question always arises, Are you ahead or hurt by having raised the question which you do not succeed in getting the support of the Assembly behind?

I would be very glad to go back over the records of that Assembly and to present to the committee subsequently any further information I have on that point.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I do not want to detain you now. I think you can go ahead with your statement.

Ambassador JESSUP. Yes, sir.

I have suggested, Mr. Chairman, that there are two categories of points, one on the asset side and the second category is on the side of what we might call liabilities if they contained even a coloring of truth or substance. The second category includes the objections to my appointment which have been raised in some quarters and a series of allegations on which those objections are based.

Now, Mr. Chairman, if it is inappropriate for me personally to argue items which I have said are on the asset side of the Jessup ledger, I believe I can appropriately and effectively deal with those which come under this second category of charges. In doing that I think the committee will recognize that I may have to make a fairly long statement, and I ask your sufferance to make a rather detailed statement because I am sure that the members of the committee recognize, as I do, that these allegations affect not only my qualifications as a delegate, but tend to impeach my common sense, my reputation for personal integrity, and my loyalty to the principles which have guided this Nation since the day it came into being.

Futhermore, Mr. Chairman, these allegations have a long history. They have been refuted time and again, both by me and by the Department of State, and they still continue to be repeated. They continue to be repeated in a context which raises a general issue of far greater importance than the service of one individual.

I recognize, however, that this committee has been assigned a specific task relating to my own nomination by the President to serve as