that a hostile power, through subversion, through infiltration of disloyal ele-
m' nts, may seek to overthrow the government and to establish an alien rule
which will put an end to the independent existence of the state alfected. That is
the menace of international communism today and against that menace we
Excerpts From Statement to the Press by Ambassador Jessup at United
States Information Library, 54 Queensway, New Delhi, February 23, 1950
[Source : U. S. Department of State press release, February 23, 1950]
EXCERPTS FROM STATEMENT TO THE PRESS BY AMBASSADOR JESSUP AT UNITED STATES
INFORMATION LIBRARY, 54 QUEENSBURY, NEW DBXHI, FEBRUARY 23, 9150
Since the end of the Second World War, history has recorded the extension of
a new imperialism that has brought more than a dozen countries under the
domination of a single expanding power. The device used by this expanding
power in extending its imiierialism is to hold out the glittering promises of com-
munism as a beacon light for the rescue of peoples who are suffering from
economic underdevelopment or who are trying to remove the sha'kles of the
old traditional kinds of colonialism. However, where communism gains control,
it becomes immediately apparent that the people are not allowed to determine
their own future but must conform to a single policy laid down in Moscow.
* * * Communism is hostile to what the Asian people want to do and
what we want to help them to do â€” which is to develop the stability of their
new countries and to develop their resources and their technical skills so that
they are not subject to penetration, either through ignorance or distress or
because they succumb to the false promises of the Communists.
Ambassador Jessup. Thank you, sir.
Among the international matters with which I have been called
upon to deal for the United States are those of Korea, where the
efforts of the United Nations to unify and give independence to that
country encountered boycott and obstruction from the Soviet Union,
the lifting* of the Berlin blockade, in which I had the good fortune
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 247
to play a part, the attempts of the United Nations to preserve the
independence of China, and the disposition of the Italian colonies in
north Africa. Another case that I mio^ht mention is that of Indo-
nesia, wliere it has been the aim of the United States to encourage the
Indonesian national government, the government of w'hicli has shown
its ability to cope with Indonesian communism.
I should like at this point to read just a few sentences from a state-
ment which I nuide in Security Council of the United Nations on
January 1, 1949, on this question of Indonesia. I said at that time:
No one douhts that the Communists in Indonesia, like the Communists through-
out the world, are responsive to and act in accordance with instructions from
Moscow. The Communist revolt against the Government of President Soekarno
and Premier Hotta was. itself, an effort on the part of the Government of the
U. S. S. R. to overthrow the Indonesian Republic.
Furthermore, when the resumption of hostilities by the Netherlands Govern-
ment against the Indonesian Republic took place, the official Communist Party
line, as printed in the Communist press, instead of deploring this action, openly
gloated that it was a punishment for the Government of President Soekarno
and Premier Hotta, which had successfully put down a Communist revolt.
And, I said further :
But, the U. S. S. R. does not want an independent Indonesia, it wants an
Indonesia under the domination and control of a Communist minority, taking
its orders from Moscow. Anywhere in the world, when a Communist govern-
ment climbs in through the window, independence is kicked out of the door.
That is among the records which I 'have submitted for the com-
In these matters, as in others, the Soviet Union opposed the settle-
ments supported by the United States and other members of the
United Nations. I have defended the position of the United States
and fought the obstructive tactics of t'he Soviet Union and its Com-
munist satellites. It is not for me to judge whether I have done well.
I do assert that it cannot be denied that the record reveals complete
devotion to the interests of the United States and our way of life and
uncompromising hostility to international communism and all that it
Although I believe, Mr. Chairman, I have made it clear from w'hat
I have already said, I wish to repeat categorically and without quali-
fication that I am not a Communist and never have been a Communist.
I am not and never have been a Communist sympathizer. I have
never knowingly supported or promoted any movement or organiza-
tion which I know had as its objective the furtherance of Communist
objectives. Although I cannot claim to have any detailed knowledge
of the process, I wholeheartedly support the efforts of those whose
official responsibility it is to see that Communists or Communist sym-
pathizers are kept out of our Government.
Mr. Chairman, as I have attempted conscientiously to review the
record of my activities, I have perhaps been prejudiced by by own
inner knowledge that Senator McCarthy's charges and insinuations
are utterly false. But I submit that any sincere person would have
concluded from a review of the record that it does not offer the slightest
iota of proof that I have "an unusual affinity for Communist causes."
I therefore conclude that Senator McCarthy's charges and insinua-
tions are not only false but utterly irresponsible and under the circum-
stances reveal a shocking disregard for the interests of our country.
68970 â€” 50 â€” pt. 1 17
248 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY LSTVESTIGATTON
Mr. Chairman, if these insinuations affected me alone, they would
perhaps not be a matter of any great importance, except to me, my
family, and my friends. But these insinuations, and the manner in
which they were put forward, have had an effect upon 150,000,000
Americans and all the people in the world who are striving for peace.
I know I do not have to tell the members of this committee of the
serious situation which exists in the world today. You know that the
stakes are high. The United States is in the midst of a struggle for
peace. We are opposed by the efforts of a diabolically clever and well-
organized Communist organization which is seeking to destroy our
democracy. If we are to succeed in our struggle, we must forego all
partisanship and all partisan political adventures. If we are to suc-
ceed, we must show to our friends in the free world that we are not
divided in our counsels, but that we are united in our determination to
promote the cause of peace and to pursue the wisest policy which our
united genius can devise. If we are to succeed, we must all dedicate
ourselves to the cause of peace with devotion and unity of purpose.
For my part, that is my one and only thought.
Senator Tydings. Thank you. Dr. Jessup.
Senator Tydings. Please, no demonstration.
Any questions. Senator Hickenlooper ?
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions that
I feel I should ask Mr. Jessup ; but again, I want to make my position
Over a week ago, Senator McCarthy publicly named nine names
and at that time I requested that we immediately get the files so we
would have whatever information, in fairness to the witnesses, or to
the people who were named, and in fairness to this committee â€” that
we immediately get the files on those nine people.
So far as I know, those files have not been secured. I have had no
opportunity to look into the rounded-out information which may
affect any of these people, and therefore I feel that any questions of
mine, at this time, are utterly witliout any foundation of extensive
knowledge of the allegations, or information, and I again renew my
request that this committee do what the Senate ordered it to do, and
that is, to secure these files.
I think an inexcusable delay has occurred in the securing of the files
of the nine people who are named, not only in the interest of good
investigation, but in the interest of the people who have been named,
Now, I also received a copy of a letter from Senator McCarthy,
delivered by hand to my office just a few moments ago, in which he
requested that he, as the moving party in this accusation, be allowed
to confront the witness and to examine him and question him.
Has any action been taken on that, Mr. Chairman ?
Senator Tydings. It would be pretty hard to take action on the last
request, because it did not reach me until about 10 minutes after 10
this morning; and, the chairman is not making policy for this com-
mittee. He has to have all five members present and ascertain what
their wishes are.
The matter will be laid before the committee at the earliest possible
moment when a meeting can be had.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 249
Now, as \ong as we are talking about a list of names, the only
detailed charge against Mr. Jessup that I recall is "that he has an
unusual affinity for Connnunist causes."
There has been no supporting data offered by any witness to sub-
stantiate that charge.
In the second place, we are here because that is the only evidence
that has been brought before this committee up to now concerning
In the third place, on the Senate floor on the 20th of February 1950^
over a month ago, over 4 weeks ago. Senator McCarthy outlined by
number the cases of 81 individuals whom he asked the Senate com-
mittee to investigate. The individuals were not named. They were
designated by number.
Up to this minute, none of those 81 names has been furnished by
Senator McCarthy or anybody else, and how we can get the files of
someone whose name we do not know is a matter of great conjecture
to the chairman, as it must be to the other members of this committee.
I have asked repeatedly, publicly and privately and by letter, for
these 81 names ; and, I have not yet received an answer to my letter,
except a telephone conversation which I had with the Senator when
he received my letter of request ; to wit, that they would be furnished
today, Monday. Up to the present time, they have not come in my
office, as the result of an inquiry I just made before I came up here^
to make sure that that was the case.
Now, the nine names, of which Dr. Jessup, I believe, was one, were
submitted only about 10 days ago. It is a matter of some difficulty
for me to realize why we could get nine names submitted 9 days
ago in public, and could not get the 81 names submitted almost a
month ago; and, the names of the nine, as I understand it, are at
least for the most part, if not entirely, not names that were mentioned
in the debate in the Senate which caused us to be appointed and con-
duct this investigation.
Now, as to the files : I have asked the State Department to turn over
the files to us in the cases that have been mentioned. I have likewise
had a brief made of our rights under subpena to obtain those files.
The State Department has indicated a willingness to turn over these
files, but as it will create a precedent they are moving very cautiously
so that in other instances what is done here may not be seized upon, at
the Avhim of everyone to get to the files in the future; and, if the
committee will bear with me just a moment, I would like at this point
to ^ive some information about these files, so that there will be fuller
understanding of the task of the committee, and why I have been
proceeding in the manner outlined.
As I said, I had looked up and had prepared our authority to
proceed to obtain these files, and I will now read the history of the
actions by numerous executives dealing with files and similar informa-
tion that had been requested by the Congress.
Who are the authorities that have established the soundness of the
constitutional doctrine that the legislative branch may not subpena.
the executive branch?
I. Presidents who established this doctrine in the first century of
our national existence :
1796. George Washington refused papers to the House (Richardson,
Messages and Papei-s of the Presidents, vol. I, pp. 194, 19G â€” hereafter
cited simply as Richardson).
250 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
In 1825, James Monroe refused papers to the House (reported in
Eichardson, vol. 2, p. 278). , o ^ / 4. a -^
In 1833, Andrew Jackson refused papers to the feenate (reported m
Richardson, vol. 3, p. 36). ,
In 1835, Andrew Jackson refused papers to the Senate (reported
inKicharclson, vol. 3, pp. 132andl33).
In 1843, John Tyler refused papers to the House (reported m
Richardson, vol. 4, pp. 105 and 106, and 221 and 223) .
In 1886, Grover Cleveland supported his Attorney Generals re-
fusal to comply with Senate resolution calling for papers.
II. Quotations of views expressed by various Presidents who served
prior to the current period :
George Washington : * * * As it is essential to tbe due administration of
the Government that the boundaries fixed by the Constitution between the dif-
ferent deprtments should be preserved, a just regard to the Constitution and
to the duty of my office * * * forbids a compliance with your request.
(Reported by Richardson in vol. 1, pp. 194 and 196.)
George Washington's Farewell Address ; * * * The habits of thinking in
a free ?ountn slSd Lspire caution in those entrusted with its administration
to coniSe themselves within their respective constitutiona ^P ^^;^^^' ^r !:ie
the exercise of the powers of one departmen to encroach ^ 7, ^^^^^^^T^^ J^'JI
spirit of encroachment tends to consolidate the powers of all he depaiU^
in one, and thus to create, whatever the form of govemment, a leal
despotism * * *.
(Richardson, vol. 1, p. 239.)
Â°'rmv'hl;SS!a compliance with tbe resolution wi,lch has been transmittea
4- ^,;^i,i 1 hP 1 surrender of duties and powers which the Constitution nas
conTerr^reiau'sive >n the Executive ; and! therefore, such compliance cannot
be maie by me nor by the heads of departments by my direction.
^"^iSTn^ai^ ??f/,"his Presidency, and before his Chief
The President is required by the Constitution from Uine to time to ^ve^to
Congress information on me state of the union j^XeJufidential in-
enable Congress or either House of CoiW e,^^ to eiicii i discharge
S^^S^Sl^iJ;S,lfr^^s^oJ^rSe^&iosure J such informaUon
prudent or in the public interest.
(The Chief Magistrate, published in 1969, at p. 129.) .
TTT The views of a congressional committee: in lb<J, ttie Â±iouse
Judiciary Committee reported to.the House, supporting the constitu-
tional doctrine here under discussion, saying :
and records of the House or Se^^^^^^^^^ * documents might easily be a very
This mischief of tbe House ^^^t^"' *Â«^ ^ this point. It clearly cannot
S'the^HouL or M.^^ZS.e""^*^ ' tL bead of the executive depart-
ment * * * must be the judge * * *.
IV Attorneys General have consistently taken this view and so
advised Houses of Congress and the President.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 251
The following include distinguished holders of the chief legal posi-
tion in the Government, including Republicans of stature, and two
l3emocrats of conservative reputation, one of them (McKeynolds of
Tennessee) subsequently a Justice of the Supi'eme Court, and the other
(Gregory of Texas) one of the greatest holders of that office through-
out the Nation's history particularly for his support of the Consti-
tution and the American political system.
In 1901, Attorney General Knox*, in a communication to the House
of April 27, dealt with this point.
In 1908, Charles J. Bonaparte, Attorney General under Theodore
Roosevelt, to the House on A])ril loth dealt with this point.
In 1912. Attorney General Wickersham, in a communication to the
House dated ISIarch 18th.
In 1914, McReynolds to the President, in a communication dated
In 1915, Gregory to the Senate, in a communication dated February
In 1926, Attorney General Sargent, in the Coolidge Cabniet, to the
House Judiciary Committee, in a communication dated June 8th.
The above citations, besides appearing in the Congressional Record
and committee hearings, appear in Opinions of the Attorney General,
volume 40, pages 47 and 48.
V. Court discussion of the separation of powers :
(1) The United States Supreme Court, in Kilhourn v. Thompson
(103U.S. 169, 190), said:
It is believed to be one of the chief mei'its of the American system of written
constitutional law that all the powers entrusted to Government, whether State
or national, are divided into the three grand departments â€” the executive, the
legislative, and the judicial â€” that the functions appropriate to each of these
branches of Government shall be vested in a separate body of public servants,
and that the perfection of the system requires that the lines which separate and
divide these departments shall be bi-oadly and clearly defined. It is also essen-
tial to the successful working of this system that the persons entrusted with
power in any one of these branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the
powers confided to the others, but that each shall by the law of its creation be
limited to the exercise of the powers appropriate to its own department and no
(2) State" courts agree. For example, Pennsylvania court in
Apfeal of Hartranft (85 Pa. 433, 445) , reading :
* * * We had better at the outstart recognize the fact that the executive
department is a coordinate branch of the Government with power to judge what
should or should not be done, within its own department, and what of its own
doings and communications should or should not be kept secret, and that with
it, in the exercise of these constitutional powers, the courts have no more right
to interfere than has the executive, under like conditions, to interfere with the
VI. Other court authorities supporting the constitutional doctrine
are as follows :
Marbury v. Madison â€” these are mostly Supreme Court cases â€” re-
ported in 1 Cranch 137, 1G9.
Totten v. United States, reported in 92 U. S. 105.
Vogel V. Gniaz, reported in 110 U. S. 311.
In reference to Quarles and Butler, 158 U. S. 532.
Boshe V. Cominffore, 177 U. S. 459.
In reference to Huttman, 70 Fed. 699.
252 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
In reference to Lamherton^ 124 Fed. 446
In reference to Valecia Condensed Milk Co.^ 240 Fed. 310.
Elrod V. Moss, 278 Fed. 123.
Arnstein v. United States, 296 Fed. 946.
Gray v. Pentland, 2 Sergeant & Rawle's (Pa.) 23 and 28.
Thompson v. German Y alley Railroad Co., 22 New Jersey Equity
Worthington v. Scrihner, 109 Mass. 487.
2 Burr Trials, 533-536.
And, 25 Opinions of the Atorney General 326.
VII. American writers on constitutional law who explain and
approve the above doctrine :
3 Willoughby, the Constitutional Law of the United States (1929),
pages 1488, and so forth.
Mason, Congressional Demands upon the Executive for Informa-
tion. Five papers of the American Historical Association (1891),
Eberling, Congressional Investigations (1928), page 282.
Finley and Sanderson, the American Executive and Executive,
Methods (1908) , pages 199 and 200, and 246 to 265.
Then there are others that I will not put in the record at th^
In view of this opinion which I have had for sometime, which I
obtained shortly after my appointment, I wanted to get all of these
records; and, realizing that the road to get them by force or by
subpena might be a stormy and a fruitless one, I have been trying
to get the records without having a controversy over them.
The State Depai'tment, I believe, is willing to give me these records.
I shall be disappointed if I do not get them. It will be contrary to
the indications I have so far received; but I do realize that in the
face of the precedents which support, in my opinion, the right of the
Executive to withhold them, should he so desire, that we had better
proceed in the manner best calculated to put the files in our hands,
and I am very hopeful that before very many days go by, I hope today
or tomorrow, or not later than Wedesday as a matter of conjecture,
we will have access to the files and can go ahead with them.
However, I want the public to know, and the committee to know,
that it will be a courtesy extended to us, and contrary to the legal
precedents from George Washington down to date, if we do get them.
Senator McMahon. Mr. Chairman, I just wish to make this obser-
vation: That you may have been informing the public as to the law
or the precedents but you were not informing any member of this com-
mittee, including the Senator from Iowa, as to the precedents.
Senator Tydings. I believed that I ought to make this statement
that I have because I want to get the files. I want the files of every
case, every person or number that has been mentioned. There were
81 mentioned a month ago, and I hope we will get those today, together
with all others, and I want to arrange at some place and time where
we can look at these files and see whether these accusations and charges
are true or false, but I do want the public to know â€” I do not believe
I have to tell the committee; there are good lawyers here â€” that the
precedents all seem, in my opinion, to favor the President's right to
withhold them should he see fit. I have reason to believe we will get
STATE DEPARTMENT ElVIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 253
these files, but we won't get tliem if we are going at it the wrong way.
I am trying to^et resuks and not get into a controversy with the execu-
Senator Hickenlooper. The brief which the chairman has read has
been, I think, discussed repeatedly on the floor of the Senate. These
alleged precedents and others have been the subjects of discussions
from time to time in the past, even in the short time that I have been
a Member of the Senate.
Nevertheless the Senate, in adopting its resolution, and in view of
the fact that these have been thoroughly discussed and threshed out
with various opinions on the floor of the Senate, directed this sub-
committee as follows in the last sentence of the resolution, Senate
Resolution 231 :
In the conduct of this study and investigation, the committee is directed to pro-
cure by subiiena and examine the complete loyalty and employment tiles and rec-
ords of all the Government employees in the Department of State and such other
agencies against whom charges have been heard.
Do I take it. Mr. Chairman, that this subcommittee of the Commit-
tee on Foreign Relations is setting itself up as a judicial body to inter-
pret the law and to overrule the direct mandate of the Senate of the
United States to do this act ?
Senator Tydings. Will you let me answer that ? I was not present
when this resolution was passed. After it had been passed and my
committee had been appointed, I called to the attention of the full
Foreign Relations Committee a great many ambiguities in the resolu-
tion, in my o]iinion. and I called this to the attention of the Senate
on the floor. For example, if we want to go by the resolution, and stick
strictly to it, as my colleague from Iowa seems to indicate woidd be
wise, then the only thing we can investigate is the following :
is authorized and directed to conduct a full and complete study and investigation
as to whether persons who are disloyal to the United States are or have been
employed by the Department of State.
So far as the present witness before us is concerned, he has been
charged with having an affinity for Communist causes. There has
been no charge, other than that, that he has been disloyal to the United
States. So," unless a charge is made that he is disloyal to the Uuited
States, if we are going to stick to this resolution and are going to be
technical with all parts of it, I hardly know how to proceed with
Now I will in due time, to carry out the wishes of the Senate, should
entreaties and requests to get the files fail, issue a subpena, although
my face, to be frank, will be a little red when I do it because I know
in advance we have no power to enforce it. Nevertheless, I shi?,ll be
true to the commitment which the Senate enforces upon the commit-
tee. But I hope, too, if we are going to be that strict about interpret-
ing this resolution, that we will not forget that our job is to investigate
whether i)ersons who are disloyal to tlie United States have been em-