discussed. Then I sent this. It was intended that this would be very
severely edited, and it was presented in that manner. It was not the
final publication by any means. However, I may state that I have
read this since.
STATE DEPAHTxMKXT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 509
Senator Tydings. Let me ask you, what was the date at the time
you wrote tliat article, approximately?
Mr. BuDEXz. Tliat 1 cairt recall, because it draffijecl on, I tell you
it was, approximately, on this Red Menace in China article I had the
lontrest discussion. It took weeks. I think it started back in 1949 and
went on into 1950, now, let me say. Is that correct ? Yes ; I think that
Senator Tydixgs. Now, is this the first draft you wrote and took
down or the second draft?
^^r. BuDExz. This is the first draft I left at Collier's.
Senator Ttdixgs. That is it.
Mr. BuDENZ, I did have a rough draft of it made which we dis-
cussed first. In that I had Mr. Lattimore's name, and it was agreed
that in regard to certain things it should be left out. Nevertheless,
I felt that I should present as much material as I had, and I presented
this to Collier's.
Senator Tydixgs. In other words, to sum up, in 1949 and perhaps
extending over into 1950, testifying from recollection, after you had
discussed this matter for some weeks with the editors of Collier's
magazine and had brought in some rough notes originally for the
purpose of discussion, you went back home and prepared this article
Mr. BuDEXz. Xo, sir; this was prepared earlier than these extended
Senator Tydixgs. Oh, this was prepared the first thing
Mr. BuDEXz. That is right ; very hurriedly prepared.
Senator Tyuix^gs. And you took this down as a basis for the article,
and you have written it in a general sort of a way ?
Mr. BuDENz. Yes.
Senator Tydixgs. And left it with Collier's magazine for their
perusal and further conference if necessary?
Mr, BuDEXZ. We had first an original conference, which I have out-
lined. We had, secondly, this thing presented for editorial discussion,
and then several other issues and copies were prepared. As a matter
of fact, it was rewritten four or five times.
Senator Tydixgs. But this is the first one ?
Mr. BuDEXz. This was the first left with Collier's.
Senator Tydixgs. I think we have properly identified it. Go ahead,
Mr. Morgan, with your interrogation.
Mr. Morgan, If you will turn to pages 13 and 14, Mr. Budenz, and
read that portion of the article relating to Mr. Lattimore, and so that
everything you have said about him is comprehended by the com-
mittee, read it all.
Mr. BuDEX^z (reading) :
Two men of distinction wlio have seen eye to eye with Mr. Field for a long
time in regard to China, and who have enjoyed close personal relations with hira
are Owen Lattimore, anthf)r of Solution in Asia, and Joseph Barnes, former
foreign editor of the New York Herald Tribune and now editor of the leftist
New York Star. As a Communist, I have heard the names of Messrs. Lattimore
and Barnes frequently referred to in reports by Mr. Field, and always in the
most complimentary manner. They have Ix'en devoted adherents of the "poor
Chine.se Communist agrarian reformer" theor.v.
It is somewhat startling, nevertheless, to discover Mr. Lattimore as a specific
endorser of Dilemma in Japan by Lt. Andiew Roth.
Senator ^NIcMahon. I cannot hear him.
510 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Morgan. Read that again.
Mr. BuDENz (repeating) :
Tt is somewhat startling, nevertheless, to disc-over Mr. Lattimore as a si>ecifie
en 10 ei'o DUemma in jfpan by Lt. Andrew Koth. Indeed, Mr Lattunore hads
Mr. Roth as representing "the younger school of American experts.
Mr. Morgan. Were these the only references-and I am continuing
the counsers qnestions^were these the only references to Mr. l.atti-
more in this manuscript? ^ , , -^ ^ t^i,^^^
Mr BuDENZ. Well, I would have to look through it to see. ihere
is a rou^hâ€” no, not to Mr. Lattimore directly on the question ot hisâ€”
of the Communists in the Pacific affairs while he was editor, but he is
"""Semto?' Tydings. Was this the only time that his name was
"^Mr.^BuDENZ. It seems to be. Senator. I wouldn't say for sure,
^' Seiia?rT^iNGS. We can correct it later if it proves erroneous.
You have very little time to look it over.
Mr. BuDENZ. Yes, sir. i j oâ€ž,.
Senator Tydings. But, from your quick summary, you would say
these are the only times.
Go ahead, Mr. Morgan. . .^^;^4.
Mr Morgan. Do you recall a conference concerning the manuscript
for the Colliers article with Mr. Leonard Parris, who was then the
associateeditor of Colliers? tvt., -p.,^,mc
Mr. BuDENz. No, I don't recall specifically, I remember Mi . Pan is
^"mT Morgan. Not recalling the conference, you would not recall, I
presume, whether a stenographer was or was not present at the coher-
ence with Mr. Parris?
Mr. BuDENz. I would not, no. -^^^^o
Mr Fortas. I beg your pardon, Mr. Morgan. I believe the witness
^aid he did recall a conference at which Mr. Parris was present.
Mr Bttdenz. Oh, ves, I do recall such a conference ; yes, I do.
Mr Morgan. Do you recall whether the conference was transcribed
by a stenographer o'r whether a stenographer was presents
Mr. BuDENZ. There may have been. I can't recall it definitely. 1
had many, many conferences on this article.
Mr. Morgan. I have been handed, Mr. Chairman-and I want to
make it very clear that I haven't seen this material before at allâ€” i
have in my hand a document which purports to be a transcription of
your conversation with Mr. Parris.
Mr. BuDENZ. Yes, sir. . i f^â€žâ€ž fÂ«
Mr. Morgan. And I read certain questions and answers relating to
Mr. Lattimore which appear on pages 2 and 3 of that document, the
questions being asked , it- j. -e â€žii t fl.inlr
Senator TTmNGS. Just let me interrupt you. First of all, I thmk
the witness would have no way of identifying that document.
Mr. Morgan. I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that it would be impossible
to identify it through this witness.
Senator TvmNGS. All right. Then before you pursue it, let the
committee have it for a moment, and then we will come back to your
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 511
Mr. FoRTAS. Mr. Cliairnmn, nui^' I say tliat those questions end np
by askino- the Avitness whether he recalls the questions and answers.
This is a cnstoniary way, as I recall, of refreshing' a witness' recollec-
Senator Tydixgs. We will fret around to that, but we are not at that
point yet, Mr. Fortas.
Senator Hickexloopek. Mv. Chairman, I think tlie procedure is
beinw a little confused here. We have decided that neither Mr. Latti-
more nor Mr. ^IcCarthy would be permitted to ask any questions, and
apjiarently counsel for Mr. Lattiniore is violating that rule. I be-
lieve that the proper method of presentation of any questions he has
to ask is to present them to the committee and to be asked through
counsel, as has been quite consistently agreed by the committee, and
I object to this procedure unless we change our line of conduct of this
Senator Tydixgs. ^Mr. Fortas, I do not want to get into whether
this is ])roper or improper, but it would help the committee to proceed
Avith dispatch if you would have questions asked through counsel or
members of the committee. I understand, however, that this is not
a question. It was a suggestion, but even so, it might be misconstrued,
and we do not want any misconstruction.
jNIr. Fortas. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard very briefly on that ?
It was my understanding that counsel for Mr. Lattimore was at libert}^
to hand to the committee questions to be asked of the witness.
Senator Tydixgs. That is correct.
Mr. Fortas. And that is precisely what I have done. I regret my
interruptions if they have been excessive, but it was merely for the
purpose of facilitating the asking of these questions which I have
handed up in due couree, and you recognize, Mr. Chairman and the
other members of the committee too, that this method of cross-exami-
nation, if it can be called such, is an extremely difficult one for counsel
who is trying to represent a client, and I am trying to proceed here
pursuant to the committee's rules. I respectfully press my request
that the questions submitted to the committee which are pertinent to
this inquiry and pertinent to this witness' testimony be asked of this
witness at this time.
Senator Tydix'gs. Well, Mr. Fortas, we will be very glad to ask any
questions from time to time that you want asked if you will send them
up to the committee, and I think we are all agreed on the procedure,
so I really do not see any need of laboring fhe matter. I think we
can go on from here. We will just take a little silence for a moment.
Engage in conversation if you want to. Take a recess for 30 seconds
while we look at this. If anybody wants to stand up and sit down
again, go ahead and do it.
(The connnittee took a short recess.)
Senator Tydixgs. Please come to order. I suppose, Mr. ISIorgan,
you will want the entire transcript put in the record, and it will be
done without objection of the connnittee. and you may proceed with
Mr. Morgax'. ]\Ir. Chairman, I want to make quite clear that these
questions are indicated here, I am necessarily asking them as they are
presented to me because I do not want to change them in one way
512 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Now I have in mv hand a docnment which purports to be a trans-
cription of vonr conversation with Mr. Paris, and I read certani
m.estions and answers relating to Mr. Lattimore whicli ^W^^ ^
paoes 2 and 3 of that docnment, the questions b?ing asked by Mi. Fans
and the answers being given by you.
Now, let us see, :Mr Chairman. If I am to read those questions and
answers pursuant to the request of Mr. Lattimore's counsel, I will
need this document. . . ^ ^ i i â€ž
Senator Tydings. Let Mr. Budenz liave it a minute to mark places
so he will know what you are referring to, then you can proceed.
Mr. Budenz. Well, in the first place .
Senator Tyt)Ixgs. Don't testify on it yet. Just f amihanze yourself
witli it and wait until the question is asked.
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. , ,i 4.
Senator Tydings. Then you can testify at any length you want.
Mr Budenz. What is your request, Mr. Counsel ?
Senator Ty'dings. Hand the document back a minute.
Mr. Budenz. That you ask
Senator Tydings. Do you want it back?
Mr. Morgan. I have to ask this question.
Mr Budenz. Oh, I thought you had the notes on it. i am sorry.
I tliink I appreciate what you want. I just want to be sure.
^Ir Morgan. I am on page 2 now, Mr. Budenz, Paris ostensibly
doing the questioning. The answers are apparently attributed to you :
Question â€¢ You tell about Browder saying that the followers of Mao Tse Tung
had to be preseuted in a new light. It's easy to see that this was an idea the
Communisfs llad to push. Don't show that they invented this idea, show that
they fostered it.
OneS â€¢'^ Yof havf done one thing here that I think is not good. By inference
vou implied tliat Joe Barnes and Lattimore are not Communists exactly but are
fellow travelers. You say the Communists supposedly endorsed Roosevelt.
aZwIv I think probably what we ought to do is to eave out those names
entirely. Perhaps we can rephrase it some way. I said it merely to show that
thev would add meat to what I was saying. _ â€žâ€žâ€žiâ€ž
Ouestion From our standpoint it seems that you were damning these people
Tliism ght put us in an embarrassing legalistic position. We have no particular
reain to sinear Lattimore. The same thing applies to that thing about Roose-
velt on page 5. Whv did you use the word "supposedly .'
Answer It was only because from time to time they were -"l^Portmg Bro^wder
inferentially. Thev didn't come out and say they were for Roosevelt. Their
a^S'ments were for Roosevelt but their candidate was Browder. The Commu-
nist Sipport of Roosevelt was not an actual support but only a way of winning
the p?ople over that were undecided.
Question. On page 7 you say "This idea of the 'upstan. ling Chmese Commu-
nists, the great agrarian reformers,' was peddled everywhere f^'^^^ ,thf f me
on" You haven't given a single instance that it was peddled or that the idea
was planted by the Communists. Give at least one instance, or more than one if
'^Tnswer. Lattimore and Barnes became champions of some of these ideas as
*' QuSomÂ°You're not saying that they acted as Communist agents in any way?
Question. That ought to be quite clear.
Answer. Oh, yes.
Those apparently are the portions of the question and answer state-
ment given here that were to be called to your attention.
]Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 513
Mv. MoKGAx. Question by counsel for Mr. Lattimore: It is my
understanding that at the time of this conference you did not chiim
that Mr. Lattimore acted as a Communist agent in any way, and that
is still your view ?
Mr. BuDKxz. Xo, sir. I was very well aware, especially with Mr.
Parris* peculiar que^;tions which indicated to me that he might have
a particular viewpoint, that I was to answer in such a way as to avoid
Comnuinist attack through libel, such as I know was their policy.
Consequently, this was not a discussion under oath. This was a
discussion of an article, and I think that I have indicated quite well
there that Mr. Lattimore and Mr. Barnes were involved in this cam-
paign. Consequently, I don't recall specifically this wording, by the
way, Senator, because I had conference after conference on this matter,
but even granted that this was correct, that is my explanation; that
is to say, I am always conscious over the telephone with whomever
I talk, especially when they ask me peculiar questions, to answer
them in such a way as wnll not involve me in those difficulties which
1 know the Communists will be very delighted to involve me in.
Mr. Morgan. Further question : As a matter of fact, Mr. Lattimore
states that he never referred to Chinese Communists as agrarian re-
formers or in any terms that meant the same thing. Can you tell us
any specific instance in which you claim Mr. Lattimore did refer to
the Chinese Comnnmists as agrarian reformers?
INIr. Bi DExz. "Well, I would have to have opportunity to check on
that, Mr. Counsel, but my statement against Mr. Lattimore is noi that
he personally stated this. He was always considered to be in a special
and delicate position. But that he was given the responsibility of or-
ganizing this campaign.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Chairman
Mr. BuDENz. I may â€” I would like to have the privilege of sub-
mitting to this committee an analysis of Mr. Lattimore's writings ia
Time. I have not had the opportunity to do so.
Mr. MoRGAX'. ]\Ir. Chairman, this document is, of course â€” I was not
familiar with it, and I would like to request, apparently consistent with
the committee's wishes, that the entire question-and-answer statement
as we have it here we spread on the record at this point.
Senator Tydixgs. It will be put in the record at this point.
(The document referred to is as follows:)
BroExz Akticle Red Myths, Starring China
By Mr. Leonard Paris :
Question. The main problem, Jlr. Buflenz, was that we felt that your thesis
of this piece wasn't entirely proved. Let me tell you what I think of it: We
need more documentation on some of the things. On the second page you say
the whole idea of coalition goverimient was ctnicocted by Soviet Russia in order
to defe;it America in the Far East. I don't doubt that their support of coalition
government was a contributing factor, but who first suggested coalition govern-
Answer. The Conniuinists.
Question. Before it had been publicly mentioned anywhere else?
Question. I think you ought to mention when and where and by whom coalition
government came to public attention.
Answer. It was the Communists who pushed it and made use of it. I will
get the authority for this.
514 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Question. On page 3, the sentence reading: 'J^^^^l^^^""!^^
tlieir own declaration," etc., you quote "a sort of Non-I aitisan Leaguei.
'^i;;^^Ss'=es from Browder That is to say J^^o^/^^^^r in
who used that phrase. It was "^^d ^or '^^\f -^\â„¢%Â°VS,t Jtnt^rS^^
China are different. However, I will get authority for that statement, i usea
M- hppanse it was nushed bv the Communist Party. . â€¢/, â€ž<.â€ž
Sion Here is an example of the sort of thing that needs more inci den s
and histances On page 4 the sentence which reads "At every turn of history
fl^^P Chinese Coinmnnists, etc." I think it would be well for all readers if you
Ifve Xe examX of ?1 at, other than just the pact between Russia and China
y7u\4SllSg about the soviet nonaggression pact. We need more examples
to support that.
qSou.' Y.f ;^abi;;S'Browder saying that the followers of Mao Tse Tung
had to be presented in a new light. Ifs easy to see that this was an idea the
Communists had to push. Don't show that they invented this idea, show that
they fostered it.
Querttoii. You'liavt done one thing here that I think is not good. By inference
vou implied that Joe Barnes and Lattimore are not Communists exactly but aie
fellow travelers. You say that Communists supposedly endorsed Roosevelt >
Answer. I think probably what we ought to do is to leave out those names
entirely. Perhaps we can rephrase it some way. I said it merely to show that
thev would add meat to what I was saying.
Question From our standpoint it seems that you were damning these people.
This might' put us in an embarrassing legalistic position, fe have no particu-
lar reason to smear Lattimore. The same thing applies to^ that thing about
Roosevelt on Page 5. Whv did ou use the word "supposedly .â– â€¢ ,. â€ž ^
Answer. It was only because from time to time they were supporting Browder
inferentially. They didn't come out and say they were for K^osevelt_ Then
arguments were for Roosevelt but their candidate was Browder. Th^ Com-
munist support of Roosevelt was not an actual support but only a way ot wm-
liinsr the people over that were undecided.
Question On page 7 you say "This idea of the 'upstanding Chinese Com-
inunsS he great Agrarian Reformers.' was peddled everywhere from that
time on " You haven't given a single instances that it was peddled or that the
i^rlSi was plaSedly the Communists. Give at least one instance, or more than
""''Insweif Lattimore and Barnes became champions of some of these ideas as
^"oueiTt^oiryou're not saying that they acted as Communist agents in any
Question. That ought to be quite clear.
Answer <^1}; y^^_- ^. jjigtory of coalition governments was that
rSsH took ovL S-emmlv We need concrete instances, and examples very
m K-rmm^effeSi^. Sey must also be complete enough so that they can be
quicklv identffied and so that the reader can see that they are true.
oShm 'on pa'^rm'-On^December 7 last, it was discovered in Washington
'" Answet'l have to check on that. This was pointed to by the New York
^'Suesdr Sn'pao-e 11 there is a dubious slam on the unions. "A special
sec^roXr''.^s''?nt o\at to the C<.mmunists. to be pushed m unions and^m
t-verv occupation where sympathizers were engaged, etc. It sounds as thou^n
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTS^ESTIGATTON 515
Question. 'â€¢Arr.ingemeiits were made whereby the legs of book reviewers were
to be pulled so tliut those works which gave a break to the Chinese Couiuiunists
would receive favorable notices," etc. We need an instance of this. Make the
article iinii h ni<ire efl'ective by getting an actual case.
Answer. In previous articles, my statements were specific; then they were
made very general.
Question. Any documeutation?
Answer. No. I can't prove it legally. That's why I use a general phrase-
Question. Best thing to do is leave it out.
Answer. The trouble is I did have a host of specific examples and then had
to take tliem out.
Question. On the Amerasia case, refresh most of our readers as to what actu-
ally happened. Did the defendants get off without any difficulties? How did it
Answer. Jaflfe was fined and one other defendant, Larson (I have to check
up on this) got a small suspended sentence. Nobody went to jail. Mitchell was.
not given punishment of any kind.
Question. Can you indicate how Communist pressure was exerted?
Answer. I'll make an effort to check this. This is pretty well known. That's
why I didn't go into it.
Question. But people forget details. The actual outcome of the case should
be stated and the detinite piirt that the Conuiuuiists played.
Answer. Definitely. I should tell more of what these documents contain.
The plans of Chiang Kai-shek's army and the economic plans of the Chinese Gov-
ernment were in those papers.
Question. On bottom of page IG. "In his address Mr. John Carter Vincent
indicated Nationalist China as a place unsound to invest private or public capi-
tal." You're not trying to imply that this was a Communist idea, are you?
Hasn't it been pretty well demonstrated that Nationalist China was unsound?
Answer. The State Department was supporting Nationalist China,
(.jiestion. Tlie point is Mr. Vincent s qu; tes on Nationalist China may or may
not have been the result of the Conununist lie.
Answer. I'll have to link it more closely. It was accepted in the Far East
division. I'll bring you more information on this.
(,}uestion. If iMr. Carter's advice were taken, yon claim there would be an
awful fiasco. Isn't there any possibility that part of the trouble in China is
tliH Chinese (iovernment itself?
Question. Never in any part of the article was it admitted that Chiang Kai-
shek's government was weak and corrupt. You're trying to show the Conununist
Answer. Let me take hold of that. I'll present more examples of Communist
activity and show how the activity played its part.
Question. We' shouldn't try to convincp our readers that Chi;iiig Kai-shek
was all white and that Communist propaganda led to what happened over there.
Answer. As a matter of self-defense, America was completely unaware of what
was taking place in China.
Question. You have to prove that General Carlson was a party liner â€” back
Answer. He was such a striking example. He was a Communist many years.
I can be stronger. I can give you instances. I can show you who was associati'd
witii liim on this committee.
(^Hiestion. On page 21: "It was out of all these pressures, Moscow-directed,
that President Roosevelt was persuaded to amend oiu* solenni pledge of China's
integrity made at Cairo to the Y'alta i)roniise that Soviet Russia would get
Outer ^longolia and even a chance at Manchuria, etc." Mosrow-directed pres-
sures were not solely responsible; that is putting it a little too broadly.
Answer. It shouldn't be solely.
Questi(iii. ""It is fi-om such creation of coiifusion in the Ameiican mind that
we have promised aid to China and not given it in the measure it was pledged.'""
You were referring to the New York Times editorial, I presume. Show actual
Answer. I'm glad you raised this about Roosevelt. I can tell more in this-
piece. The reason I don't go more into the Communist activities is brcause J
don't want to sound repetitious of some of the other articles. The methods used
by the Communists have a somewhat similar tone. The tactics descri'ted sound'
like it happened before.
516 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
nnP^Hon On these things, the more instances you can show to bear out what
yo2 say or what your thesis'is, the better it will be. It has to '^e more than nis
[mpHed or inferred. Make it as definite as you can possibly make it without
^"'xir^S^^Thet is a terrific iob in writing this. I know certain connecting
Sat yÂ°'u suggest I will Enlarge the information on the Chiang phraseology.
Mr BuDENZ. Mr. Chairman, am I privileged to make a statement
about Mr. Roosevelt, since Mr. Roosevelt's name lias been pnt m liere^
Senator Tydings. Surely. If you don't mmd, unless it lias some-
thhi^ to do with Mr. Lattimore's disloyalty m the^State Department,
if w? get off into Roosevelt here we are going to be pretty far aheld.
I do not want to preclude you. However, I am going to ask you to
trv not to go into something that is totally unrelated. .
Mr BuDENz. No; I only wanted to say that there^was an implica-
tion here that I was addressing myself against Mr. Roosevelt. I was