with an organization that organization was itself actually subversive,
or was known to be such; and secondly, I think it is necessary to
examine into the exact nature of the association of the individual with
that organization.
Senator Hickexlooper. Dr. Jessup, do you have any objection what-
soever, or any reservation, with respect to this subcommittee, as a
subcommittee, fully examining all of the files and the information con-
tained in Govenment departments with respect to you ?
Ambassador Jessitp. So far as I personally' am concerned, sir, every-
thing in my record or anything which anybody has found out about
me can be made public. So far as the question which has been dis-
cussed in this committee this morning, as to whether the executive
department should turn over the files to the committee, that is a
question with which I am not charged and on which I should not like to
express any opinion.
Senator Hickexlooper. Do you have any personal objection to those
files being turned over?
Ambassador Jessup. As I have said, Senator, I have no objection
to any information about my career being made public at any time.
Senator Hickexlooper. I am not even suggesting that any informa-
tion be made public.
Ambassador Jessup. So far as I am concerned, it can be made public.
Senator Hickexlooper. The question I asked was, Do you have any
objection to the turning over of the files?
Ambassador Jessup. As I said, Senator, I am not concerned with the
question of policy involved, as to wdiether the executive department
should turn over its files to the Senate committee.
Senator Tydixgs. You said you had a statement there. Was that
in answer to one of the questions ?
Ambassador Jessup. I merely wanted to add, in connection with
what I have just said. Senator, a paragraph from a letter written by
Mr. Peyton Ford, Assistant to the Attorney General, to Senator Elbert
Thomas on IVIarch 6, 1950, which I think is pertinent, if I may. It is
very short, Senator. He wrote :
It is characteristic of many front organizations that their purported purposes
and programs are designed to appeal to loyal Americans and frequently it is
behind a screen of respectability, loyalty, and even patriotism that subversive
activities are carried on, often by only a few disloyal persons. In other instances
a small minority subverts an organization of previously good purposes and hav-
ing many members of unquestionable loyalty to the United States.
It is because I believe that is an accurate statement and a sound
statement that I have made the comments which I have, indicating
262 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
that the mere association is not a sound basis for condemning an
individual.
Senator Hickenlooper. Again I want to call your attention to the
fact that I draw a sharp distinction between conviction based upon
association and the question of risk indicated by investigation into
association. There is a vast difference between risk, in my judgment,
in public office — that is personnel risk — and conviction of any specific
crime. I think it has been authoritatively testified to that the Com-
munists have not carried cards in this country for better than 2 years.
They are ordered not to. And positive proof of membership in the
Communist Party, I am told, is a most difficult thing indeed to produce.
Ambassador Jessup. May I just also say, Senator, that I wanted to
make clear the distinction which exists in my own mind between the
process of investigation of a person considered for appointment in the
Government service and the question of public charges which are made
without an opportunity for the individual to be confronted with the
evidence and to answer in regard to what seem to me to be the perti-
nent facts.
Senator Hickenlooper. On page 3 of your statement, with respect
to the dinner on May 7, 1946, given by the American-Russian Insti-
tute
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. The only thing that I know about that is
that that was quite an important dinner apparently ; it was a dinner
for the presentation of the First Annual Award to Franklin D. Roos-
evelt, which would be a matter of some importance, but I notice in
your statement that you don't remember whetlier or not you attended
that dinner. The thing that caught my eye was that on the rest of the
page, and part of the next page, you remembered very distinctly at-
tending meetings back, I believe, as far as 1943 and 1939 and 1933, I
believe, is the earliest one. I thought it rather unusual that you
wouldn't remember wliether or not you attended a dinner that was
given for an award of this kind in 1946.
Ambassador Jessup. Well, may I say in regard to that. Senator,
that as I pointed out in my statement, I searched my files to see if
there were any information on this matter, and I couldn't find any.
I also pointed out that I was very seriously ill in the hospital from
February to June of that year, so that it was unlikely that I attended:.
Perhaps that was an understatement.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have an alleged photostat of a letterhead
of the American Law Student's Association, Woolworth Building,
room 530, New York, N. Y., in which you are listed as a Faculty Ad-
visory Board member ; that is, there is listed from Columbia Univer-
sity the name Prof. Philip Jessup. Were you a member -of that
organization ?
Ambassador Jessup. I have a very slight recollection of that or-
ganization. If I may refresh my recollection on it
Senator Hickenlooper, Yes.
Ambassador Jessup. What was the year of that supposed affilia-
tion, Senator, if I may ask?
Senator Hickenloper. I don't have a date on this letterhead. I
have an alleged photostat of a letterhead which you may look at.
Ambassador Jessup. I did make an attempt to find out whether
I had any such associaiton, and the best I could do in trying to find
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 263
some record on it, or stimulating my memory, was this, tliat I recalled
that perhaps 10 years ago some of the students at Columbia had asked
me to serve on the Advisory Board of an association. It may have
been this one. So far as 1 could tell from my files, the last contact
I had with it was about February or March of 11)40. I have no
definite recollection about the organization or of my association
with it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I believe the American Law Student's As-
sociation is listed as an affiliate of the American Youth Congress,
which was cited as a Communist front by Attorney General Bidclle on
I\Iay 28. 1948, by the Special Committee of the House Committee on
Appropirations April 1, 1948, and by the Special Committee on Un-
American Activities on June 25, 1942, and on March 29, 1944, and also
by the Massachusetts House Committee Report On Un-American
Activities in 1938, which would put it more than 10 years ago.
Senator Green. That w^as not the organization with which Dr.
Jessup was connected.
Senator Hickenlooper. The organization, as I stated a moment
ago, was affiliated with the American Youth Congress.
Ambassador Jessup. As of what date. Senator, w^as it affiliated?
Was that found ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I do not have the date upon which it was
affiliated, but the American Youth Congress, I believe, was cited as a
Connnunist-front organization by the Massachusetts House Com-
mittee Report on Un-American Activities in 1938.
Ambassador Jessup. Do I understand that the American Law Stu-
dent's iVssociation is not in your citation ?
Senator Hickenlooper. The American Law Student's Association,
I believe, w^as an affiliate of the American Youth Congress.
Ambassador Jessup. But you have not indicated on what date it
became affiliated, sir?
Senator Hickenlooper. No.
Ambassador Jessup. I see. Thank you.
Senator Ttdings. Might I ask, too, if the organization that was
delineated as being subversive in Massachusetts was a local chapter
or a national' chapter? Was it the local orgnization, the State branch
of that organization, or was it an indictment of the whole organiza-
tion throughout the whole United States? Do you Itnow?
Senator Hickenlooper. I do not know.
Senator Ttdings. I would not think an organization in Massachu-
setts or California or any of these State agencies would be in a posi-
tion to indict an organization nationally. I would presume they
would indict an organization in their own State, but it would be a
little diihcult to know how^ they would indict an organization that
covers the United States.
Senator Hickenlooper. I understand the American Law Student's
Association was affiliated with the United Student's Peace Committee,
347 IVIadison Avenue, New York City. That is according to an ex-
hibit, volume 12, page 7568 and 75G9 of the Report of the House Com-
mittee on Un-American Activties.
Ambassador Jessup. I don't know about those organizations. I
don't know Avhether they existed at the time of my meager associa-
tion with the American Law Student's Association.
08970—50— pt. 1 18
264 STAVE DEPARTMEWT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. For whatever worth this may be, I believe
the Dailv Worker of February 27, 1937, on page 2, lists the American
Law Student's Association as an affiliate of the American League
Against War and Fascism. The American League Against War and
Fascism has been cited as a Communist front by the Special Commit-
tee on Un-American Activities and by Attorney General Biddle.
Ambassador Jessup. I don't read that paper, sir, so I wasn t aware
^ Senator Hickenlooper. I don't either. I said that it is alleged
that that was printed there. , . -, -r p i ^ +
The letter head which I have here, which I referred to a nioment
a<ro containing the name of Prof. Philip C. Jessup on the facuUv ad-
vfsJry board, bears the union label imprint of Local 209 of New York
City which I am informed is the Communist print shop of New York,
the'letterhead being printed in a Communist print shop. I can otter
that in evidence, Mr. Chairman. . ^ ^t - .
Senator Tydings. It will be printed m the record at this point.
American Law Student's Association
woolwobth building, boom 530
New York, N. Y.
Faculty Advisory Board : Faculty Advisory Board— Continued
Northwestern University School of Brooklyn Law School
T„ Prof. Jerome Prince
Dean Leon Green Prof. Abraham Rotwein
New York University Yale Law School
Dean Frank Sommers Prof. L red Rodell
Prof F D. Sloovers Prof. Abe Fortas
Prof" Augustin Derby National Executive Board:
Prof WiUiam Walsh Robert Page, president
P of. He^an Grey Thomas Levinia, vice president
e. Tnhns University Morris Engel, secretary
Vice Dean John Maloney Norman Leonard, treasurer
Prof. D. S. Edgar, Sr.
Prof. D. S. Edgar, Jr.
Columbia University
Prof. Elliot Cheatham
Prof. Walter Gellhorn
Prof. Philip Jessup
Union label (109). From Communist print shop.
Senator Hickenlooper. Now, Mr. Jessup oil page 6 of JOur state-
ment you are quoting some attitudes toward China. I would like to
ask you, are you in complete agreement with the present policy of the
StatI Department towaid China as announced some 2 months ago with
respect to the withdrawing of support from Cl^^ang Kai-shek
Senator TymNGS. I am not going to interfere with this question,
but I do not see what that has to do with the fact of whetheT disloyal
persons are employed in the State Department or whether Mr. Jessup
is a Communist or not, because I think in both parties there are a great
manv men who disagree or who agree. i i i j
Senator McMahon. The Formosa beachhead was abandoned, and
I suggest if they want to reestablish it with this committee you go
^'senator Tydings. I suggest that if we go into all of the ramifica-
tions of our China policy we will be here until Christmas.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 265
Senator Hickenlooper. May I just clear that up and say that I
asked the question as a direct result of the statements made in Mr.
Jessup's statement
Senator Tydixgs. Go ahead.
Senator Hickexloopek. In which he stated his philosophy toward
China quite clearly, and I would like to inquire whether Mr. Jessup
is in full accord with present announced State Department policy to-
ward China as contained in a statement of a few weeks ago — I can't
give you the exact date.
Ambassador Jessup. I don't identify the particular statement,
Senator, but I have no hesitation in saying that I am in complete
accord with the policy of the United States toward China at the pres-
ent time.
Senator Hickexloopek. That is, the position the State Department
has taken i
Ambassador Jessup. The position of the State Department is the
position of the United States with regard to international policy.
Senator Hickexloopek. Then further with respect to your state-
ment on page 6 with regard to China policy, were you in accord with
the policies which General Marshall was sent to put into effect? In
other words, as I understand them, the inclusion of some Communist
members in a coalition government in China ?
Ambasador Jessup. Senator, if I may, I suggest that that is a rather
misleading question.
Senator Hickexloopek. I don't w ant it to be misleading.
Ambassador Jessup. It assumes the nature of General Marshall's
mission. I should like to point out that I had no connection with
far eastern policy of the State Department at that time. The slight
connection I had with the State Department at that time was solely
in regard to matters having to do with the United Nations, its organ-
ization, and the codification and development of international laW'.
Senator Hickexloopek. Are you acquainted with Mr. Owen Latti-
more ?
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickex^looper, When was the last time you saw Mr. Lat-
timore?
Ambassador Jessup. I don't remember, exactly. I should think
perhaps a year or two ago. I don't remember the last time.
Senator Hickexloopek, When did you leave for China and the Far
East on your last trip ?
Ambassador Jessup. I sailed from San Francisco on Demember 20.
My memory is refreshed now that ISIr. Lattimore was in Washing-
ton at a meeting which I attended shortly before that time. That was
then in last December which must have been the last time I saw him.
Senator Hickexloopek. Did you discuss China policy with Mr.
Lattimore at that time?
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir; with a large group of people who
were at the Department at that time. I think there were about 30
of them.
Senator Hickexloopek. What was Mr. Lattimore's capacity at that
timei'
Ambassador Jesslt. Mr. Lattimore's capacity was — I don't know
his exact title. He is on the faculty of Johns Hopkins University,
I believe the director of a research institute there
266 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INYESTIGATTON
Senator Tydings. The William Hines Page chair.
Ambassador jESsrp. The William Hines Page chair.
Senator Hickenlogper. Was Mr. Lattimore at that tnne actmg m
the capacity of consnltant to the State Department, do you know ?
Ambassador Jessup. I could not say definitely, sir, the actual com-
position of that group, which I would be glad to furnish to the
committee. I haven't it all in mind. I remember it included Mr.
Harold Stassen, among others. They were a group of citizens of the
United States who had had contact with or had ideas about the Far
East and were brought down to the State Department for a conference
which, as I recall, lasted 2 days, so that we could have a general dis-
cussion of views about far eastern policy. They included some busi-
nessmen, bankers, one representative of missionary interests, and a
number of academic people.
Senator Hickenlogper. How long after that meeting was
Senator Green. Mr. Chairman, may i ask the Senator kindly to
o-ive us the ground for this line of examination ? What has it to do
with the loyalty of the witness? Is this guilt by association with Mr.
Lattimore? If so, I think he should tell us why Mr. Lattimore is a
person one should not associate with.
Senator Tydings. What do you say to that ?
Senator Hickenlogper. I say I shall pursue my own line of ques-
tioning unless the committee forbids me.
Senator Tydings. Objection overruled. The witness will proceed.
Senator Green. I have made no objection. I thought we might be
enlightened as to the purpose of this line of questioning, if there were
Senator Hickenlogper. How long after this meeting of the State
Department was it before you left for China? -, ,i ^ .
Ambassador Jessup. I can't remember the exact date of that meet-
ing. I think it was a matter of weeks.
Senator Hickenlogper. Two or three weeks, would you say i
Ambassador Jessup. I don't remember the exact date. I think it was
early in December and I left Washington, I believe, on the 15th to
begin my trip. j.- •4.-U -\/r„
Senator Hickenlogper. Did you have any conversations with Mr.
Lattimore of any kind after that meeting and prior to your departure
for China?
Ambassador Jessup. I do not recall any. .• vu
Senator Hickenlogper. Did you have a telephone conversation with
Mr. Lattimore after that meeting in the State Department and before
your departure for China ? . -ui x i '<-
Ambassador Jessup. I don't recall any. It is possible. I dont
^"^ Senator' Hickenlogper. Do you recall whether you had a telephone
conversation with Mr. Lattimore in which you asked him to accom-
pany vou to China ? .
Ambassador Jessup. I never asked him to accompany me, I never
suggested it, I never thought of it.
Senator Hickenlogper. At no time?
Ambassador Jessup. At no time. -, ^ . i • w
Senator Hickenlogper. Then Mr. Lattimore could not have said to
you that he thought it was better that he not accompany you on that
trip ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 267
Ambassador Jessup. We had no such conversation.
Senator IIickexloopek. Mr. Jessiip, I believe you were a character
"witness, were you not, for Mr. Alger Hiss?
Ambassador Jessup. I was, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Character witnesses are witnesses who at-
tempt to meet the matter of association, are they not? When one
testifies as to the character of an individual, that is testimonial as to
that individual's associations and general reputation, isn't that so?
Ambassador Jessup. My understanding of the role of character
witness, Senator, is that it is a very essential part of our jury system
under which traditionally a person accused is entitled to have the
testimony of persons who are familiar with him in regard to his repu-
tation in the community.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you of the same opinion about Mr.
Hiss that you were when you testified as a character witness for him
at his trial ?
Ambassador Jessup. The testimony which I gave in his trial, sir,
as you have properly pointed out, was as a character witness, in which
I testified to the reputation. I see no reason to alter the statements
which I made under oath as a witness in that case.
Senator Hickenlooper. I was asking you whether your opinion at
this time would permit you to give the same evidence now as you gave
at that time.
Senator Green. I object, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. Wliat is the objection?
Senator Green. I object on the ground it has nothing to do with
the testimony that has been given.
Senator Tydings. Let's be as broad as we can. I think it is a little
beside the point.
Ambassador Jessup. I will be glad to answer tb-^t, Senator. I
would like to say this about it. It seems to me that this line of ques-
tioning, perhaps unconsciously on the Senator's part, is designed to
involve me in comments upon the charges which have been made
against Mr. Hiss and for which he was tried. As the Senator well
knows, it is a very important part of the principles of our system that
comments by members of the bar particularly, about matters which
are before a court, are not appropriate. I believe that that is an
important part of our system. I have been a member of the bar for
some 25 years, and I do not intend to engage in a public discussion
of the charges which have been made against Mr. Hiss and which are
still before the courts. It is for the court to pass upon those charges.
Senator Hickenlooper. Dr. Jessup, did you join with a group of
other Columbia University professors in addressing a letter to the
editor of the New York Times on the subject of the atomic bomb, which
letter appeared in that paper, I believe, on February 16, 1946 ^
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir. I should like to get that letter here
before you. That was a letter, sir, which was printed in the New
York Times on February 16.
Senator Green. What year ?
Ambassador Jessup. 1946. I will be glad to submit a photostat
of it for the record. The signers of that letter were a group of the
Columbia University faculty. Their names were: Prof. L. C. Dunn,
I. Edman, A. P. Evans, S. Hecht, P. C. Jessup, R. M. Maclver, Edgar
268 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
IMiller, F. C. Mills, George B. Pegram, I. L. Eabi, J. Scliilt, C. S.
Shoiip.
I would like to point out, sir, that among those the names of Pro-
fessor Pegram and Professor Eabi are particularly well known in con-
nection with the matters of atomic energy, since both of them were
leading physicists prominently associated with what was known as the
Manhattan project, which was the project nnder which much of the
\Aork on the development of the atomic bomb went on during the war.
Professor Pegram, the dean of the faculty at Columbia, and Pro-
fessor Eabi, Nobel prize winner and one of the leading physicists en-
gaged in the atomic research program, are two of the signers.
I would like to call attention to the fact that this letter was written
some 4 months before the Baruch proposals were made known. It was
a conscientious effort on the part of this group of us at Columbia
to make what seemed to us at the time a useful suggestion in regard
to the procedures which should be followed in the discussion of control
of the atomic bomb through the United Nations. I have a photostat
of that letter and will be glad to submit it.
Senator Hickenlooper. I would like to read this letter into the
record. This letter is as follows under the heading "Urge bomb-
making vacation. Columbia professors ask declaration to aid UNO
Commission."
To the Editor of the New York Times :
In view of the establishment of the UNO Commission on the Atomic bomb,
we would like to suggest a declaration of policy of the following nature by the
President of the United States in order that the discussions of the UNO Commis-
sion may proceed in an atmosphere of full good faith and of confidence in their
successful outcome for international peace :
1. The United States will at once stop the production of bombs from material
currently produced. This includes the preparation of subassemblies and all
other procedures involved in the fabrication of bombs.
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 a •< uniulating puritied plutonium and uranium-235, which are the
essential ingredi nts of atomic bombs. The plants which produce these materials
will be kept merely in a stand-by condition. For this purpose they will run
at the minimum i-ate compatible with maintaining them in good order, but they
W'ill not accumulate the resulting purified and fissionable products. As produced,
these will be eliminated by appropriate means, such as dumping them into the
ocean or returning them to their original mixture.
3. We are prepared to have the disposition of our present stockpile of bombs
considered as one of the items in an agreement to be entered into by us and
the other governments.
I have read the letter signed by the individuals whom you named
a moment ago ?
Ambassador Jessup. Yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. I hand it now to the reporter for inclusion
as exhibit 53.
Now, Dr. Jessup, in the light of the fact that it has been very widely
reported that Eussian zeal in the production of atomic weapons has
not abated at any time, do you still feel that we should stop the pro-
duction of fissionable materials for a year and dump our accumulated
materials into the ocean ?
Ambassador Jessttp. I certainly do not, sir. That is a statement
which was made in 1946 without the benefit of hindsight. It was the
general hope at that time, I believe, of the Government of the United
States as well as the American people, that it would be possible to
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 269