You used the expression, I believe, that you and Mr. Davies had a
similar "philosophy" with respect to the situation. Wliat did you
mean by that ?
Mr. Service. We shared a generally similar outlook on the long-
range problems that faced the United States, the problems of the bal-
ance of power in the Far East, and the means which our policy should
seek to follow to maintain United States position in the Far East, and
to keep China from falling entirely into the Russian orbit, which we
saw as early as 1943 was the great danger.
Mr. Morgan. Thank you.
Senator Tydings. All right, go ahead, Mr. Morris.
Mr. Service. May I also make some comment on this : Reference
was made to Mr. Kennan recently, and I would like to read from the
transcript of our hearings before the
Senator Tydings. Go ahead and read it.
Mr. Service (continuing). State Department Loyalty Board. Mr.
Kennan was asked :
By the way, Mr. Kennan, will you state to the Board whether you are ac-
quainted with Mr. Service?
Mr. Kennan. I have never met IMr. Service before he returned on this occasion,
and I have never spoken with him excepting concerning the technique or arrange-
ment for my appearing here. I purposely did not discuss anything that I thought
I was going to say on this occasion with him or with anyone that I thought
might be in communication with him, and have never discussed the contents
of his reports. I had also not read the reports before tins except insofar as they
contained in the white paper ; so that they came to me fresh.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead, Mr. Morris.
Mr. Morris. I have a letter signed by a man named "Julian", ad-
dressed to "Dear Jack," which was found in your possession. I won-
der if you will identify this. It is Q-4:04:.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1439
(Tlio letter referred to is as follows :)
Documknt S-(5T
Q-t04
The Uniti.3) Nations Conference on International Organization,
Marj U, 1945.
DhiAR Jack: T met your wife the other eveiiinj;, and your delishtful children
as well. Phil hud arranged with Carolyn to bring Messrs. Tung and Chen to
Berkeley, and we had dinner together, along with Martin Wilbur. During the
course of conversation, Carolyn mentioned her need of a washing machine in
"Washington. I told her that if worse comes to worse you might be able to have
my family's machine which is now up on Long Island. Carolyn got all excited
about this suggestion, and she said that she would write you about it. If you
have been looking for one in Washington, I suggest that you continue to do so.
Y'ou should also inquire about the possibility of new machines coming on the
market in the near future. If your efforts in Washington all lead up a blind
alley, then it would be practical to consider shipping my family's machine — if
you want it — from Long Island to Washington. I just thought that I should
explain this to you in case Carolyn's letter discourages you from continuing
your search for a machine.
The conference is rather dull, and I find it very depressing. I imagine that
this conference may go down as one of the most reactionary international gather-
ings in history. The only consolation I can find is that the fantastic views on
international organization — views which are in essence quite contrary to real
and sound internaticmal organization — may contribute to breaking down such
outmoded concepts as sovereign equality and nation-state system of international
relations. But they offer nothing in place of these traditional elements of world
affairs.
Phil is keeping the most disgraceful company these days. It is practically
certain now that he'll return to Chungking as Minister Counselor and Hurley's
houseboy. He is taking his job seriously and even shows some compassion
over the inconvenience which members of the Chinese delegation occasionally have
to endure. He is first-rate on seeing that T. V.'s car turns up at the right place
at the right time.
John Carter has been introducing me around as the labor attache for Chung-
king. The local liberal and labor groups have had me out for a party to meet
the right-minded people. Saturday I was introduced to Tarasov, Soviet trade-
union representative on the World Trade L^nion Council. He told that he didn't
know that north China was called Communist China. He asked whether they
Avere "Communists" or not. He stated that the Soviet Government favored unity
in China and that the United States and Soviet Union should cooperate in bring-
ing about such unity. I am planning to bring .John Carter together with Tarasov
and another Soviet trade-union leader, Kuznetzov (who is the head of the Soviet
trade-union movement and an important figure in Soviet high policy). We may
not learn nni<''h, but we might get some better line on Soviet psychology on the
Pacific, specifically, the China question.
Not much else to say. I won't go into detail about the conference. It isn't too
difficult to read between the lines in the press to see what is happening here.
Best regards,
Julian.
]Mr. ^loRRis. I wonder if you will look at that letter and identify
the writer and the addressee.
Mr. Service. "Well, I had forofotten all about this letter until it was
shown to me by the Department of State loyalty board. I assume
that the writer must be a man named Julian Friedman, who was an
employee of the Department of State at that time, and was at San
Francisco. I think, as a liaison officer of some sort.
Mr. Morris. And he was writing to you?
Mr. Service. Yes.
Senator Tydings. Speak the least bit more loudly, please.
â– Mr. Morris. And the John Carter referred to in this letter was,
I take it, John Carter Vincent?
1440 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Ser\^ce. I assume so.
Mr. Morris. And he says: "Phil is keeping the most disgraceful
company these days."
AVlioisPhil?
Mr. Service. I assume he means Philip Spouse.
Mr. Morris. What was his assignment at that time ?
Mr. Service. He was also a liaison officer. His duties were liaison
with the Chinese delegation, I think.
Mr. Morris. He says :
Saturday I was introduced to Tarasov, Soviet trade-union representative on tlie
World Trade Union Council. He told that lie didn't know that north China was
called Communist China. He asked whether they were "Communists" or not.
He stated that the Soviet Government favored unity in China and that the
United States and Soviet Union should cooperate in bringing about such unity.
I am planning to bring John Carter tosether with Tarasov and another Soviet
trade-union leader, Kuznetzov (who is the head of the Soviet trade-union move-
ment and an important figure in Soviet high policy). We may not learn much,
but we might get some better line on Soviet psychology on the Pacific, specifi-
cally, the China question.
Was there ever any follow-up that you knew of on that proposal ?
Mr. Service. Not that I know of. Mr. Friedman was, as I remem-
ber, a labor economist, and was later assigned as labor attache. I
suppose that is the basis of his meeting with these Russian labor
officials.
The interesting thing there, of course, is that Tarasov, whatever the
man's name is, is reflecting the official Moscow line, which Molotov
and Stalin had been giving General Hurley, wliich Mr. Kennan and
the Embassy in Moscow, and in which I myself reporting to Chung-
king, thought was false.
Mr. Morris. When did you report that, Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. I have here, for instance, a report which I wrote on
February 16, 1945, just about the date of Yalta, of conversations with
a man by the name of Vinogradoff, who was the press attache, in
which I report Mr. Vinogradoff making a statement such as this :
Senator McMahon. October 1944 ?
Mr. SER\^CE. No, this is February 16, 1945. This is Mr. Vinogradoff
speaking :
Our policy is definite and clear. We, Russia, will certainly have a voice in the
affairs of the Par East, but we will do nothing to assist, support, or encourage
the present Government of China.
That is a very different line which I was getting from Vinogradoff
and reporting, very different line from the high level Moscow line at
that time, that they were all for better relations in the Central Gov-
ernment.
Senator McMahon. What line was General Hurley taking?
Mr. Service. General Hurley was saying continually that he had
been assured by Moscow, by Molotov and' Stalin, and he says here
at the hearings in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and I
quote from page 31— this is December 19-45, hearings before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee :
Russia has said from the beginning that the Chinese Communists are not, in
fact. Communists at all : that Russia has not supported the Chinese Communists ;
that Russia does support the National Government of the Republic of China, and
the leadership of Chiang Kai-shek; that Russia desires closer and more har-
monious relations with China.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1441
This attitude was the attitude of GcMieral Hurley, and there are
numerous quotations from General Hurley as to where he says the
same thin<2'.
Senator McMahon. Is he reporting- the fact or is he reporting his
belief in the truth of that fact?
Mr. Skhvu'k. T think if you read the hearings and you read the
white paper, that he believed those, and he Avas cautioned by the State
Department not to put too much Aveight in them, and that was one
of his complaints in the State Department that they changed his in-
structions, as he said, on the basis of State Department Embassy Mos-
cow unwillingness to accept the assurances of Stalin and Molotov.
Senator McMahon. And your point is, if I understand you cor-
rectlv, that vou did not believe this line that was coming out of
Moscow ?
^Ir. Service. That is correct.
Senator ]\Ic]M.ui()X. Because you were being told something differ-
ent in the field, which you reported to the State Department.
Mr. Service. A, becjuise it was not logical and did not make sense;
and, B, because my opinion was confirmed by Communist officials,
Soviet officials, in Chungking.
Mr. Mi.r.RTS. "When did you ever report that. Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. I read vou excerpts from a report which I wrote on
February 16, 1945.
Mr. iNIoRRis. In support of that conclusion?
Mr. Service. Yes; I quote Mr. Yinogradoff in saying, '"We are not
going to sup])ort or encourage the present Government of China."
Mr. Morris. I know that, but you just quoted him; you did not give
your own opinion at that time?
Mr. Service. In a re])ort which I wrote on the next day, February
17, 1945, commenting on the Soviet statements on Chinese hopes of
making a deal with Russia, I point out in conclusion —
The Russians in Chungking are being frigid toward a central government and
talking freely of their low opinion of it, and correspondingly high opinion of
Yenan. Furtliermore, there is not much exchangeable quid pro quo —
I had been discussing the early part of the report of the inducements
which the Chinese could offer the Soviets to make a treaty —
The Chinese are not likely to mike concessions in Sinkiang. outer Mongolia,
or Manchuria. Finally the objective circumstances are not favorable. The
Central Government and Chiang are weaker than France and DeGaulle. The
Chinese Communists are stronger than the FFI —
French Forces in the Interior —
and getting stronger rapidly. Botli Russia and tlie Chinese Communists can
do very well, therefore, by sitting tiglit and waiting.
In other words, I did not see that it was to Russia's interest
Senator Ttdings. All right, the next question.
Mr. Service. This mav be off the subject a little bit, but in connec-
tion with the views of Mr. Daviesimd myself concerning the Chinese
Commimists, I think we ought to refer to such statements as this
made to the press at a press conference had by General Hurley on
A))ril 6. 19+5.
Mr. ^foRGAX. What is that you are reading from?
Mr. Serm^ce. This is from the text, stenographic text, of the press
conference, radio and press conference. I am sorry, the date was
1442 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
April 2, 1945, with Ambassador Hurley meeting the press, and I quote.
Mr. Hurley says :
You gentlemen should know, though I believe you all do know, that it is a
matter of common knowledge that the Communist Party of China supports the
principles of Dr. Sun Yat-sen. That was generally referred to as the i)eople's
three principles of China.
Senator Tydings. Sun Yat-sen? You mean the great Chinese
leader for democracy and liberation?
Mr. Service. That is correct.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Mr. Service. Mr. Hurley continues:
The three principles are government of the people, by the people, and for the
people. All the demands that the Communist Party has been making have been
on a democratic basis. That has led to the statement that the Communist Party
in China are not in fact real Communists. The Communist Party of China is
supporting exactly the same principles as those promulgated by the National
Government of China.
I mean I can quote at great length from General Hurley.
Senator Tydings. I think you ought to put the whole thing in the
record.
Mr. Service. There is a great deal of this contained in the tran-
script of hearing before the Loyalty Board, but I have not wanted to
protract things unnecessarily here.
Senator Tydings. Can't you put in the record those parts of General
Hurley's releases which are on all fours which you have just read to
show there was a general point of view shared by many people of a
wide variety of political beliefs at tliat particular time ?
Mr. Morgan. Do you know how General Hurley used the word
"democratic,'' Mr. Service?
Mr. Service. No, I don't except that he has associated with those
principles of government the principles "of the people, for the people,
and by the people."
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Tydings. Go ahead. We will put those in. Let us go ahead,
Mr. Morris, iniless you have got some more, Mr. Service.
Mr. Service. Would you like more of it, sir ?
Senator Tydings. Yes, if it is not too long.
Mr. Service. The next question is :
Sir, I am not sure that I understood that last sentence. You said the Com-
munist I'arty is supporting the same principles as the National Government of
China?
General Hurley's answer was: Yes.
Question. Could you tell us what is the divergence between them? How do
they differ?
Answer. Well, as a matter of fact, the divergence between the parties in China
seems to be not in the objective desired because they both assert that they
are for the establishment of a government in China that will decentralize au-
thority and conduct itself along democratic lines, employing democratic processes ;
the divergence between them is the procedure by which they can be achieved. To
go a little further, the Communist Party would'like for the National Government
to inaugurate certain reforms immediately, and to do that they have suggested
a bipartisan coalition government.
Senator McMaiion. Was he for that? Was Hurley for the coali-
tion, the bipartisan government?
Mr. Service. Certainly, sir, that was one of his basic directives.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1443
Senator McMahox. Did he indicate personal agreement with that
objective?
Mr. Service. Certainly.
Senator ^NIcMahon, Have you got the excerpts which you can put
in the record ?
Senator Green. Are we proceeding?
Senator Lodge. Are we making progress?
Senator jNIcMahon. As far as I am concerned we are making prog-
ress, because I want to know what this man Hurley was doing.
Senator Tydings. I was going to suggest this, Senator McMahon:
Evidently in order to make a compilation with any degree of com-
Ijrehension, we ought to give the witness a chance to supplement his
remarks by putting it in the record later when he can hunt it up.
Senator Lodge. I suggest that the witness be given every oppor-
tunity to prepare a statement, and let it be submitted to us, and then
be made part of the record.
Senator Green. Every opportunity in addition to the present.
Senator Lod'-.e. Yes.
Senator ]\[cMahon. Let me make it clear as to what I want : I want
Hurley's philosoph}', Hurley's views, and I want the documentation
of those views.
Senator Lodge. Tiiat is perfectly all right with me.
Senator Tydings. We do not want them next year, we want them
soon.
Mr. Rhetts. We will be glad to prepare that out of the material we
liave here, including the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee transcript.
Mr. Morris. I think also that we should have General Hurley's testi-
mon}-.
Senator Tydings. I have been in touch v^ith. General Hurley several
times, and the most recent time was several days ago.
He does not want to testify. He tells me he has nothing to con-
tribute to the testimony that he has contributed before the Foreign
Relations Committee ; I have so stated to the committee, in a message,
and so stated in the press.
I urged General Hurley to come and testify, but he does not want
to come because he says he cannot bring out anything that we do not
alread}^ know.
Senator Green. "WHien was that ?
Senator Tydings. That was about
Mr. Rhetts. December 5, 6, T and 10, 1945, Senator Green.
Senator Green. I remember that; I took part in it. I would like
to refresh mv recollection on mv cross-examination.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead, Mr. Morris.
Mr. Morris. Senator, I have here a list of names that appeared in
Mr. Service's address book. Now, I tliink for the sake of expediency,
I would like to give the list to Mr. Service and ask him to go through
ihe list and tell us briefly what his associations have been with the
particular people, and who they are.
Senator Tydings. May I ask you what the point of this interroga-
tion is?
Mr. Morris. Well, a man's address book, Senator, presumably con-
tains a list of his associates.
Senator Tydings. Granted.
1444 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morris. I think who Mr. Service's associates are is something
that is pertinent to this inquiry.
Senator Tydings. Well, didn't he identify them the other day for
you ?
Mr. Morris. He did not.
Senator Tydings. He did not?
Mr. Morris. I selected 10 or 12 from the list the other day. T did
not want to go into it any further then because
Mr. Service. AVhom did we discuss the other day ?
Mr. Morris. We had Lattimore, Duncan Lee. We had Sol Adler.
There are three on the first page.
Senator Tydings. I would say that if they are in Mr. Service's
addresses, obviously he has some kind of an acquaintanceship with
them. That is conceded. What more proof do you want than that?
Mr. Morris. A complete identity is not here.
Senator Tydings. Does that show disloyalty to the State Depart-
ment? Does it have some relevance to Mv. Service's disloyalty, as a
disloyal citizen?
Mr. Morris. Senator, as I pointed out the other day. some of these
people have been identified before congressional conunittees as Soviet
agents.
Senator Tydings. That is not necessarily so. Some of them have
been designated as Soviet agents, but that does not make them so.
Mr. Morris. I submit that if we have testimony before a congres-
sional committee and I also understand
Senator Tydings. I am not a very strong believer in that sort of
testimony to hang people on, Mr. Morris.
Mr. Morris. I am not hanging anyone on it, Senator, I am sub-
mit t nig
Senator Tydings. I have no objection to its going in and having Mr.
Service making any comment that you want him to make.
Mr. Morris." I think in all fairness, rather than use the expression
"hang someone on it," I think it is a very unfair term. I think that is
something we should take into consideration for future study.
Senator Tydings. All right, go ahead.
Senator Green. How many of them are there altogether?
Senator Tydings. We are getting pretty far afield. What you
want are acts, not people he knows.
I now know Mr. Browder. I met him the other day, and what's
this other fellow
Mr. Morris. That is not in your address book; this is something
else.
Senator Tydings. I may be in his address book, and that might
make me guilty.
Mr. Morris. If I am going too far afield
Senator Tydings. I think you are. It may be somewhat captious.
You may put it in the record, but I do not think you ought to draw
any conclusions.
Mr. Morris. Senator, I draw no conclusions from this at all.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead, let us get along.
What is the question?
Mr. Morris. Well, Senator, as I say, if you think it is not pertinent,
and you do not think we ought to go into it
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1445
jNIr. Mom;AX. Mv. Chainnan, I tliink we should let Mr. Morris ask
the questions.
Senator Tydixos. (jo ahead, Mr. Morris.
Mr, MoKius. ^Ir, Service, just take them up one at a time and tell
us who they are.
Mr. Skrvice. The first name is Terrell, a British diplomat who
was stationed in Washinoton for some time. 1 had known him and
had been a nei<2:libor of his in Shanghai and saw him for supper.
Tlie name Jones is Col. Paid Jones, wlio had previously been public-
rehitions officer, China-Burma, India theater.
The next name, I believe, is copied incorrectly. It should be Reich-
ner. I believe she was a Avoman workincr on biographic information
for OSS, with whom I had agreed to otfer — to whom I had offered to
make available my knowledge, particularly regarding Communist
personalities. I spent several afternoons with her in OSS being in-
terrogated regarding specific people.
The next man Weaver, I believ^e, is a captain working in Army
Intelligence.
The next name Hose Ellen refers to a Yardoumian, and Ellen
Atkinson.
Rose Yardoumian, as I testified, was the secretary of the Washing-
ton office of the Institute of Pacific Relations.
Eik'u Atkinson was employed in the War Department, MIS, as a
researcher on the Far East.
This engagen.ient refers to the party on the 29th of May which I
attended which they gave in honor of Lieutenant and Mrs. Roth.
The next name, Senator Pepper, needs no explaining.
The next name is Rankin. He was a lieutenant colonel, had been
in Chungking as assistant public-relations officer, and at this time
was in Washington temporarily. I saw him for lunch.
The next three entries have to do with a week end at the Lattimores'.
The entr}' for 12 noon on June 5 is a mistake in copying. It should
be Linebearger. who had formerly been professor at Duke Univer-
sity. During tlie war was in Military Intelligence, and during the
war was a member of the stall' at G-2 in Chungking, and was back
in Washington attached to the Psychological Warfare Branch.
The next one was Ray Burns.
The next name is Gebb. I don't remember Mr. Gebb, but it is
written right after his name "OSS" here, meaning that he was com-
ing to my office.
There were a good many research specialists in the other agencies
who weie continually contacting me with respect to some particular
line or field of AAork in which they were engaged where they thought
that I might be able to give them some help, and this was undoubtedly
such a man.
The next name is Duncan Lee, concerning whom 1 liave already
testified. He had arranged to lunch with me.
Now I come to the address book proper.
Mr. Morris. The name "Adler'" begins the address book.
Mr. Service. I am sorry. I come to the address book proper. This
was a new address book, as I remember it, just concerning this particu-
lar period. The first name is Adler, whom I have already testified
concerning.
1446 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
The next name is Arneson, Elizabeth Yard. I did not know Mr.
Arneson well. He was at that time employed with OWI, I believe.
He was a native Icelander, naturalized American.
Elizabeth Yard, his wife, was my friend. She was the daughter of
missionaries in west China, the same age as myself, and I had grown
up with her and kept contact with her. I had seen them, they lived
over in Arlington.
Brooks Atkinson, correspondent for the New York Times, and
probably my closest friend in China.
Carl Arnold was General Stilwell's aide.
Lt. Emil Brown — that is a mistake, it should be Lt. Emily Brown —
was an old friend of my wife's. She was at that time in the WAG.
She had been a college friend of ni}- wife's ajid myself, too, for that
matter, but I had never known her very well. She is a newspaper
woman, was a newspaper woman before the war, and is now with the
United Press in the Fai- East.
Barnett is Robert Barnett. At that time he was in the Army, and