your directive and say, "Here. This is the source of it" and everything they say is simply put out over there in this way. Is that your position?

Mr. FISHER. That is the position on the classification issue, Senator.

Then, down at the bottom of that page:

Senator KEFAUVER. AS I understand Mr. Fisher, you, I don't believe, were even counsel for the State Department when this was written, and you are not trying to pass on whether it is a good directive, whether it should have been put out, or anything else about that. You are just talking about the damage that the publication of it right now might do to the program of the Voice of America; is that correct?

Mr. FISHER. That is correct. I was with the State Department when it was written. I was up in Ottawa trying to settle the Colonial Air Lines matter at the time and did not know of it myself. But the subsequent issue that you state is entirely correct.

Then, over here, on page 4118, I asked the same question, after all this build-up along this line, I asked him

Senator BRIDGES. I want to make one question.

Mr. Fisher, your whole argument is on the first two or three sentences there. Supposing we should agree to eliminate those two or three sentences and release the rest, would that remove your objection?

Mr. FISHER. No, sir; I don't believe so.

Senator BRIDGES. That is your argument.

Mr. FISHER. That would put the rest in entirely different context without those first sentences. If they were not made public, the remainder would appear as a statement of United States policy, not as a statement of background and general attitudes to be taken.

The point I make is that Mr. Fisher, coming up here the day before yesterday, argued along one line, and one line only; and that when he was asked that question of eliminating the thing that he pointed out was the danger, he did not agree with it.

All I was doing was repeating the same question to the Secretary which, based upon the argument made by Mr. Fisher the other day, whether or not he would be willing to release the document, if the first two or three sentences were eliminated-which seemed to be the thing that Mr. Fisher was objecting to, then

Chairman RUSSELL. I did not intend to offend my friend from New Hampshire when I said I did not get the impression from Mr. Fisher's testimony that he would be willing for it all to be released if those three lines were taken out, but I did not get that impression, and my understanding is sustained. It is just a difference of opinion, sustained by what the Senator has read.

Senator BRIDGES. He built up his whole case on that, and when the question is put to him, then he takes the other position. I want to point out from my questioning, and that of Senator George, from his own statements, that he had reason to believe that.

Senator GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, may I make just a very brief statement?

Chairman RUSSELL. Yes, sir, Senator; you may just make any statement you desire.

GERMANENESS OF DOCUMENT TO INQUIRY

Senator GEORGE. I would be most reluctant to vote to relieve a confidential entry made on this paper supplied by the State Department if I did not think it was material in this whole inquiry. I think it is material, and its materiality may depend entirely upon what is subsequently shown or what is subsequently presented to the committee.

But, at this stage of it, it does seem to me to be material, because while I have never been quite certain about the scope of this inquiry, what we were expected to find here by this committee, among other things, of course, there was the relief of General MacArthur out in the Far East, and to put it in a way that I do not think it need make any controversy, the question of whether or not there was any very definite and certain far eastern policy which we were pursuing is involved in this case; and this strikes me as having a material bearing upon that, subject to the explanation, of course, that accompanies this document that the State Department puts down; and, I, therefore, would have to vote, if it is going to be forced to a vote, to relieve the ban of secrecy upon this document.

Senator HICKENLOOPER. I could not understand you. Did you say "relieve" or "leave"?

Senator GEORGE. Relieve the ban.

Chairman RUSSELL. The Senator from Washington is recognized.

THE UNITED PRESS STORY ON THE DOCUMENT

Senator CAIN. I should like, Mr. Secretary, to pose three brief questions. Does the Secretary of State agree that the United Press release of January 3, 1950, which was read by the Senator from California, Mr. Knowland, accurately represents the substance of the State Department policy guidance directive which was written and released some time in December of 1949?

Secretary ACHESON. I don't think I have it sufficiently in mind.

Senator CAIN. It presumes to be, sir, an accurate series of quotes from that document, and I should like to know if you agree.

Senator WILEY. Is that the same as Senator Knowland read?
Senator CAIN. Precisely.

If you wish to check that a little further, Mr. Secretary, I would ask my second question. Does the Secretary of State agree that the United Press release is a public document and therefore can be used in any way which anyone wishes without any legitimate criticism of any kind from the Department of State?

Secretary ACHESON. Well, of course, the UP story that you have is a public document. There is no doubt about that.

Senator CAIN. Then in a minute we will establish through your study as to whether or not it is an accurate résumé of what the State Department put out.

My third question, Mr. Secretary: Did the State Department institute an investigation to discover by what means a State Department confidential directive was released without authorization? And if that investigation was conducted by the State Department, what were the results of it, sir?

Secretary ACHESON. In answer to your first question, Senator Cain, I have here a copy of the Special Guidance 28, which indicates, various parts of which were quoted and various parts of which were notthe ones underlined were not.

Senator CAIN. I would imagine, Mr. Secretary, that some member of your staff many months ago examined that United Press statement minutely in order to determine to what extent it was a literal recitation of portions of your policy guidance statement.

Secretary ACHESON. The paper which I have here, showing the portions not used, is somewhat different from the one you have given me, but roughly speaking, not very different.

As far as I can see from this, perhaps a third of the paper has been used in the story.

Senator CAIN. I raised the question, Mr. Secretary-
Chairman RUSSELL. Just a minute.

Secretary ACHESON. I do not believe that the story gives an accurate résumé of the paper for two reasons. One of them is that it makes

it appear that what is being told in the story is the State Department policy, whereas that is not what the document is. The document is a statement of what the broadcasters, the attitudes which they should take. So in that most important respect the story is not accurate. So far as the content of the paper is concerned, quoting a third of the paper and picking out certain items, I think gives it a somewhat distorted view.

Senator CAIN. I raise the question, Mr. Secretary, because I have sat here as one who is relatively uninformed on this question and listened very carefully. What I am getting at is this: If that United Press statement does not say anything which your policy guidance statement did not say, or said only those things which were said in that policy guidance statement, then I should think we could release the United Press statement to the public as a pretty accurate and fair evaluation of your State Department policy statement.

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Chairman RUSSELL. Yes.

Senator SALTONSTALL. I would like to ask Secretary Acheson-this is material given to the Voice of America. How often does this confidential type of material go out to the Voice of America?

Secretary ACHESON. It goes out quite often.

Senator SALTONSTALL. And is this the first time that the question has come up as to whether or not this should be released to the public?

Secretary ACHESON. Yes, sir.

WISDOM OF DECLASSIFICATION

Senator SALTONSTALL. Mr. Chairman, might I make this comment, and I say it most respectfully to the Secretary because it seems to me he is directly involved in this question and his attitude of mind. The harm that will come from this, as I see it, it will give the Russians, on what Secretary Acheson said, propaganda material. Now they have it now substantially, unofficially.

Now the good it will do in its release is to give a background to the whole public on which this committee may make the decision on the question of the far-eastern policy.

Now great harm will be done if this is voted out over the objection of the State Department, and there is almost as much publicity that will be given to it if it is refused because of the State Department's objection, and they can go back to the UP press item.

Now the Secretary stated a minute ago that he felt that under his oath he could not release this statement. Now it seems to me that the trouble has come, if you want to call it the trouble, that the State

Department ever showed this to any members of this committee or to the Members of Congress if they felt it was of such top secret importance, and now having shown it to Congress, it seems to me that is water over the dam; that if these memoranda are to be sent out as top secret, the issue may well then come between the departments of the Government as to whether the Executive should turn over these papers. But now having turned these papers over, it seems to me, Mr. Secretary, that under your oath-and I most respectfully say this to you because you have put it on a personal basis of your oath-that what is for the most good of the country, and under the circumstances, the most good of the country is to let this propaganda article out, if you will, without the objection of the State Department, or if you will refuse it, have it refused by this committee and have the public think there is some sort of a document being concealed here on which the good of the Far Eastern policy may be based.

Therefore, I say to you most respectfully, on your oath it seems to me what is best for the country should be considered by you, and it seems to me the best for the country is to let this out with the approval of the committee and with the approval of the State Department.

I say that to you most respectfully because I know you value your oath as we value ours.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman RUSSELL. The Senator from Oregon.

Senator MORSE. Before I ask a couple of questions of the Secretary, I would like to base those questions on a reply to my good friend from Massachusetts, because I think he has raised a very fundamental issue involved in this controversy.

LEGAL OBJECTIONS TO DECLASSIFICATION

If I understood his argument right, it was that in view of the fact that the Departemnt of State has made this document available to this committee, it ought to consider itself now legally estopped from any objections to its release to the public; if it wanted to object to its release to the public, it should not have released the document to the committee in the first instance.

I think what the Senator's argument really boils itself down to is really the setting up of an insurmountable barrier between these committees and the various departments in regard to an inspection on an executive basis of secret documents. Because if we followed the Senator's argument, then I respectfully say that he is the one who is estopping the Department, by his argument, from ever making available for executive inspection of any congressional committee secret documents, because the departments would then release those documents for secret inspection at the departments' risk. I think what we have to keep in mind here is the basic right of these departments not to make available to us for secret inspection secret documents.

What we are trying to work out is a relationship of cooperation between two equal, coordinated independent branches of the Government.

Then, each department has to respect the constitutional rights of the other, and I think you simply create an impossible situation, I say most respectfully, if you are going to place these department Sec

retaries at the risk of disclosing secret information within their purview, to a congressional committee, and have that secret information released to the public.

EFFECT OF DECLASSIFICATION ON EXECUTIVE-LEGISLATIVE RELATIONS

So, I wanted to ask the question of the Secretary of State, rather, these two questions:

First, Mr. Secretary, when you sent this document to Secretary Marshall for transmittal to this committee, did you contemplate that this committee would publicize to the public that document?

Secretary ACHESON. Senator, I did not think that the committee would; but I knew that it might.

Senator MORSE. Mr. Secretary, if the committee does, in effect, declassify this particular document, will that act on the part of the committee necessarily be given careful consideration by you in answering future requests of this committee as to whether or not you shall make available in the future other secret documents to this committee?

Secretary ACHESON. I shall do my best in the future, as in the past, to cooperate fully with the committee.

I had not thought about the factors which you raised, and when you raised them; but I shall try to cooperate to the fullest of my ability. Senator MORSE. One further question, Mr. Secretary:

If, on the basis of any precedent established by this committee, in respect to the instant document, whereby the committee releases it, you, in respect to a future request, are fearful that the committee might release a particular document then being requested for the committee, would you not consider it your duty, if you are to keep faith with your obligation under your oath, in regard to which you have already testified, to deny to the committee what you considered to be a highly secret document, in view of the proven risk of releasing it to the committee?

Secretary ACHESON. That is hard to answer, Senator Morse.

If I were convinced that in all probability the committee would release a document of a highly secret nature, which I felt would be very damaging to the country, I think I should have to take the attitude you state.

Senator MORSE. That is all, thank you.

Senator LODGE. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Lodge.

STATE DEPARTMENT ATTITUDE ON CENSORSHIP AND COMMITTEE POWERS

Senator LODGE. I understood you to say, Mr. Secretary, that while you did not feel this document should be released, that nevertheless, if the committee had voted to do so, you would interpose no objection toward it being released, is that correct?

Secretary ACHESON. Would I direct the State Department censor not to try and cut it out?

Senator LODGE. Yes.

Secretary ACHESON. In other words, here are two coordinate. branches of the Government. You have your powers and duties, and I should not attempt to prevent you from exercising them.

Senator LODGE. My second question is that if you felt that the release of this document would seriously endanger the security and welfare of