leader, who is now out of the party.
Senator Lodge. Let me ask you this question : In view of your pre-
vious statement that a Communist has no hestitation about perjuring
himself, what good does it do to get those men ?
572 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION"
Mr. BuDENZ. At the trial of the 11, Senator, I believe you will find
in the record that they were compelled to make admissions which were
very damaging to themselves. Now, I do not know that that can be
the case here, but I do hope that it can be. Certainly it did prove to
be the case there. There, you had the same situation exactly : The
only written documents you had there were the official pronounce-
ments of the Conmiunist' Party, and yet by oral evidence they were
convicted, and that is the only way you can convict Communists.
Senator Lodge. Later on, on Thursday, last Thursday, you said;'In
1944, Jack Stachel advised me to consider Lattimore as a Communist."
Now, what is the significance of that statement? Did he say that
to you — for what purpose did he say that to you ?
Mr. BuDENZ. That was in order tiiat I would be able, in case of a
liearing that Lattimore, any comment on Lattimore, or discussions on
Lattimore, to take his reports or statements as authoritative. We had
that understanding in regard to a great number of people in the Daily
Worker. That is what I was assigned to do, keep track, in order that,
when copy came to me, I would be able to handle situations properly.
Senator Lodge. That was made to you with the definite purpose,
a definite purpose and not just a casual remark ^
Mr. Budknz. That was an official, definite purpose. That, by the
way, was not only a definite purpose, I might call it a custom or rather
a, practice — "practice'' is a better word.
Senator Lodge. Now, you have referred, in your testimony the other
day, to other witnesses, and one of those, I gather from what you
just said. Manning Johnson
Mr. BTn:)ENz. V/ell, I am not certain that Manning Johnson will be
able to substantiate what I have said. I mentioned him for the rea-
son that among the Negro comrades the Pacific question was very
much more brought up than among other Communists. They were
given the responsibility, on a number of occasions, of handling the
Pacific questions, within a certain degree within the party, and it
may be he will be able to do it.
In addition to that, I have suggested the other witnesses.
Senator Lodge. Field, Jaffe, Browder, and Stachel?
Mr. BuDENz. That is correct; especially Stachel.
Senator Lodge. Who else ?
Mr. BuDENz. That is all for the moment.
Senator Lodge. All for the moment?
Mr. BuDENZ. I may be able to suggest more, ])efore this session is
May I make a remark. Senator?
Senator Lodge. Yes.
Mr. BuDENz. This isn't arbitrary. I said my statement could be
corroborated, because I am certain that, while this is a small group that
knows about this, someone like Manning Johnson, or others, will also
know it. I am not certain that he is the man, but I have a gen-
eral impression he might be. He was a member of the national com-
mittee who was interested in the Pacific question and from time to
time was in touch with the Pacific question.
Now, one of the men that will be able to be of some help—at least,
in certain admissions I shall be able to show you in a minute— is
Frederick Vanderbilt Field. He will be a very reluctant and hostile
witness, although of course a man that will not perhaps show his hos-
STATE DEPARTMENT EiMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 573
tility ; but his 1oji*j: aoquairitance with Mr. Lattimore, and association,
M-ill enable you, I think, to elicit certain information from him.
Senator Lddgk. In the hearing the other day Senator Hickenlooper
made a point which I thoii<>ht was very important, and I wanted to
cite it to you, because it forms the basis for a question I want to
Senator Hickenlooper said:
I am, of course, obviously asking you whether it is necessary for those who
are in the inner sanctum of the party to be convinced that someone is a Commu-
nist only upon pers<mal association and personal admission by that person
to the one so assuming.
To me, that is a significant point, because it indicates that in this
whole contemplation we are dealing with hearsay evidence, but there
are various degrees of hearsay evidence.
So far as liability is concerned, hearsay evidence, when official in
character and deliberately done, as you say this was, is much more
persuasive than just casual.
Xow, these statements you made were all made by these Communists
in this official capacity; is that right?
Mr. BuDEKz. That is correct. There was an official practice which
was carried out regularly; that is to say, in my specific instance, being
managmg editor of the Daily Worker— and, by the way, that is a life-
and-death matter. I want to assure you gentlemen this is no casual
matter for the managing editor of the Daily Worker. It is what I
would call a political life-and-death matter that he have no errors
in tlie publication in regard to the different individuals or in regard
to different issues. Consequently, you are constantly refreshed by
the liaison officer of the Politburo, who comes in every day and makes
<'hanges from time to time, personnel changes, but for the larger period
of time it was Jack Stachel. He is, by the way, the most powerful
member of the Political Bureau. He is the man, incidentally, closest
in touch with the Communist International "apparatus."
Senator Lodge. Pursuing that same line. Senator Hickenlooper then
Let me ask you : During this period of 10 years, did you have occasion to be able
to test, from time to time, the truth in what those men reported as Communists
to the high command of the Communist Party here? In other words, did you have
■a chance to test their veracity, so far as it was concerned in their report?
And you gave this answer, Mr. Budenz :
Repeatedly. I don't know that I can give you illustrations right now. I
could give you illustrations if I had the time to think it over.
Well now, you have had a little time to think it over. Could you
give us illustrations proving the veracity of these Communists?
Mr. Budenz. This is just something that has occurred so frequently,
perhaps, I can't grasp it for the moment; but, as a matter of fact,
that was the whole center of their information.
r Avill give you one example. Mr. Alger Hiss is an example, and I
have to refer to him because he is so outstanding and is well known
but I would be able, upon reflection, to even furnish to the committee
in written form instance after instance, which would be the reason I
mentioned it in that fashion. I could take matters which are public
record, more than personal knowledge, incidents in which this would
574 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Lodge. It seems to me it is very pertinent to have any in-
formation that the witness can give which will shown that these asser-
tions by Communists in the past, on their own intmal organization,
have been accurate. I would like to request, Mr. Chairman, that Mr.
Budenz furnish us with illustrations of this veracity.
Mr Budenz. I will furnish you with a written report— which, o±
course, will still be under subpena— of a number of such instances.
Senator Lodge. Now, I asked you the other day if you could give a
specific illustration of when Lattimore received an instruction and car-
ried out an instruction which came to him from the Communist or-
ganization: and you stated that the most specific instance that you
could make was when he was instructed to portray the Chinese Com-
munists as agrarian reformers
Mr. Budenz. To direct it.
Senator Lodge. What?
Mr. Budenz. To direct that campaign.
There is another example I might give.
Senator Lodge. All right, go ahead. ■,- • .-u
Mr Budenz. That is in regard to the Communists writing in the
Pacific affairs. I brought a list here today and that is one ot the
reasons I requested an executive session, Senator; because it seemed
to me that it would not serve the public interest to be spreading the
names of all of these people all over the papers, and I believe that
you know my sentiments are rather in favor of trying to get into this
thing in executive sessions wherever possible. x m
nSw, the thing is that I have a list here. Of course, I could an-
swer your first question, if you wish it
Senator Lodge. I think that would be more orderly, it you did. i
would like, if you could say when, where, and how Lattimore received
these instructions, or this instruction. .
Mr Budenz. Well, now. Senator, here I am m executive session, 1
suppose, and in this respect I will have to mention the fact that neces-
sarily I did not follow Mr. Lattimore around. I only know that m
Political Bureau meetings, which I attended, I heard instructions
made that these things were going forward, and I saw visible evidences
of it going forward in the tremendous campaign which took place
in book after book on this subject. ^^ , ^ „ .^, ,,.
Now, that Mr. Lattimore personally had a conference with this
gentleman or that, I cannot tell you.
Senator Tydings. How was that?
Mr. Budenz. That he had a conference with this writer or that
one, I cannot tell you because I was not present.
Senator Tydings. I did not catch that.
Mr. Budenz. But, I have heard reports that this campaign was
proceeding, and that it bore full fruit about 1913.
Senator Lodge. Do you know, did any Communist worker tell you
that he told Lattimore to start this campaign? ^ a^i .
Mr. Budenz. Oh, yes ; that was the substance of this report, ihat
was why I was advised, not only that they had started
Senator Lodge. Who told you that ? , . .
Mr. Budenz. That was the report made m regard to this session
in 1037. This was Browder's report, and Field's report.
Senator Lodge. He told you that Lattimore had received these
STATE DEPARTME^v'T EAIPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 575
Mr. BuDKXz. Yes; that he had received them — that is to say, first,
I was thiiikin<2; of the meetin^j when they said they were going to give
them to him. Later on there followed this report and others verifying
them, specifically Browder and Stachel confirmed that the instructions
were being carried out.
Senator Lodge. Did they say where they had given them, some-
body going to see him at his house, or were they given to him over the
Mr. BuDENz. No, no.
Senator Lodoe. You don't know the procedure ?
Mr. Budexz. As a matter of fact. Senator, the Communists' reports
to the Politburo don't go into details of that character. They give
the general report on the campaign that is taking place, what is
happening, and a general resume of the situation.
Senator Lodge. So, you could not pin point all those details?
Mr. BuDENz. No ; I never so claimed.
Senator Lodge. I know.
I realize you have not. but I am just asking. I am not trying to say
that you claim that you could, but I was asking you whether you could.
Then, you think that he received the order, and then you believe
that he carried out the order. What makes you think he carried out
the order ?
Mr. Budenz. Well, that is the information which I received officially,
that he carried out the order, and was ])roceeding, the campaign was
proceeding, and Lattimore was participating in directing the cam-
paign. I saw it proceeding publicly and therefore I took it for granted.
Senator Lodge. By that, you mean you saw his books and magazines
and articles and speeches?
Mr. Budenz. Not his, but the books and magazine articles being used
publicly for this.
Senator Lodge. "What did you think was his connection with these
books and magazine articles? Do you think he furnished the
Mr. BuDEXz. Not the materials necessarily, but directions. It is
common Communist practice to give directions to others in regards
to a thing.
Senator Tydings. I cannot hear you.
Mr. Budenz. That is a common Communist trait, to give directions
to others in regard to a campaign.
Senator Lodge. So, the people who were writing the speeches and
making the speeches, and writing the articles and books were Com-
Mr. Budenz, Quite a few^ of them were ; yes, Senator,
Senator Lodge. Otherwise, they would not have been ?
_ Mr. Budenz. One man I do not know to be a Communist was Har-
rison Foreman, but Communists have a way of getting people to also
write who are not Communists, on occasion. Harrison Foreman, so
far as I know, was not, but some of the others w^ere ; yes.
Senator Lodge, Because otherwise, is it not true the}' would not
have been responsive to Lattimore's directions?
Mr. Budenz, That is correct. They were Communists,
Senator Lodge, Because if they were Communists, by the same token
they probably follow the same policy, or would, anyway, whether they
got it from Lattimore or not.
576 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BuDENz. Not necessarily. There has to be a channel of com-
Senator Lodge. To tell them what to do ?
Mr. BuDENz. Of course. Today Eisler is very powerful in Ger-
many, because he knows all about America, and can direct a campaign
against us. He is the channel of communication there and always
cadres are developed. They develop people for special fields, or
specific fields. One man may be valuable in one field and another
man valuable in another field.
Senator Lodge. You mentioned this man Harrison Foreman as a
man who took the line that the Communists favored, although not
being a Communist himself.
Mr. BuDENZ. That is, I do not know that he is a Communist.
Senator Lodge. We all know there are cases of men Avho say the
things the Communists believe, without being a Communist them-
selves ; do we not ?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. Many of them are influenced by Commu-
Senator Lodge. They may be dupes, may they not ?
Mr. Budenz. That is correct.
Senator Lodge. You do not think it is possible that Lattimore fell
in that category, or falls in that category, of not being a Communist
but being a man not skilled in the ways of the world, and had some-
thing suggested to him?
Mr, Budenz. I can only rely on the statements given to me, and
these statements are authoritative; and, following the channels that
Communists' communications follow, and to my understanding, or
rather to nry knowledge, have always been accurate.
Senator Lodge. I know you have a great reputation for accuracy.
Mr. Budenz. Not I. I say they have been accurate within the au-
thority; not my own accuracy. I mean their accuracy has been tested,
as I have said over and over again, within the party. It is essential
that this army of sedition, this army of destruction should be based
on facts. That is to say, it is an error of the most serious moment, if
facts are not stated, within the Communists themselves.
Senator Lodge. You would not know, then, from where you were
sitting, of anyone who had received a personal directive from Latti-
more ; would you ?
Mr. Budenz. I woidd not know ; no, sir.
Senator Lodge. In addition to directing this campaign to change
public opinion about China, is there any other major job that you
think he did?
Mr. Budenz. There is this one special thing that I can point to, and
that is the matter of getting Communists to infiltrate the Pacific
Affairs; that is the publication of which he was editor.
Senator Lodge. Getting jobs for them?
Mr. Budenz. Getting them to write. It was not jobs, it was influ-
ence — American businessmen and American professors and American
people of good will toward the Pacific in their way of thinking. Yoa
must remember this type Institute of Pacific Relations was founded
by the Young Men's Christian Association. Therefore, they had a
group of people the Communists were very eager to influence. I com-
piled a partial list. Here is my embarrassment, Senator : I am unaware
of whether this list is going to be given out, and while I was watching
STATE DEPARTME2s[T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 577
with interest the discussion here, this is one of the reasons I asked
for an executive session.
Senator Tydings. What do you mean "be given out" ?
Mr. BuDENZ. I mean, woukl it be made avaiUible for anyone?
Senator Greex. That is for the committee to decide.
Senator Tydings. Tlie committee will have to decide that.
Senator Green, We do not have to decide before we hear it,
Mr. Budenz. The reason for this is, Senator, that — No. 1, some of
these people may still be engaged in acrivities that would deserve fur-
ther scrutiny ; others ma}^ have broken with the party. In other words,
this is a heterogeneous group of people, so far as the present listing
Senator Tydings. They were writers on the paper?
Mr. Budenz. Repeatedly have written for the Institute of Pacitic
Mr. Morgan. One observation, Mr. Chairman : On this list, one of
the names is that of one of the other men who has been publicly charged
and has appeared before this committee. It seems to me that this list
presents a mechanical problem that the committee is going to have to
wrestle with right now because the list is of those writers whom Mr.
Budenz will identify as Communists that w^rote for this magazine at
the time that Mr, Lattimore was the editor of the magazine ; and as
I say, in that list, is one of the individuals who has been publicly
charged, and who has replied and appeared before our committee.
Senator Lodge. Was he one of the writers?
Mr. Morgan. That is right ; is it not, Mr, Budenz ?
Mr, Budenz, Yes.
Senator Lodge. May I ask, before going further — this is a list of
these writers and speakers that we have been referring to in the col-
loquy between you and myself, that is supposed to
Senator Tydings. Will you pardon me ?
Senator Lodge. Yes,
Senator Tydings. Delete the name of until the com-
mittee decides whether it ought to go in the record.
Senator Lodge. I want to relate this list Mr, Budenz has, to under-
stand what the significance of it may be. These are names, are they,
of men who were writers or speakers that were supposed to have taken
directives from Mr, Lattimore?
Mr. Budenz. Not necessarily directives ; these are writers or speak-
ers placed on the Pacific Affairs by Mr, Lattimore, who are Com-
Senator Lodge. I see. Let me ask you this : To go back to the first
category, have you got the names of writers and speakers that engaged
in this campaign to change American opinion on China, that you were
referring to ?
Mr, Budenz, I can furnish you with such a list.
Senator Lodge. I think we ought to get that list, because it may be
that in that list we will find a man who said he received a directive.
Senator Tydings. All right, I have no objection to getting the list.
Senator Lodge, This Mr. Harrison Foreman that you speak of, I
think we ought to get him and find out.
Senator Tydings. Do what ?
Senator Lodge. Get this Harrison Foreman whom Mr. Bundez
578 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. BuDENZ. I can furnish you with the list of writers. I haven't
them with me today ; I didn't know it was pertinent.
Senator Lodge. And have the staff see if any of those men, what they
say in regard to the question of whether or not they were communicated
with by Mr. Lattimore, and if so, for what purpose.
Senator Green. Is it a list of names whom you know to be Com-
Mr. BuDENZ. Well, now. Senator, the question now is again up—
that is to say, I know some of these people personally, face to face ;
Senator Green. I didn't say face to face ; I say, you know them to
Mr. BuDENZ. I have been advised officially that all these people
Senator Tydings. I had no chance to question you the other day,
I would like to ask you a few questions. How do you know that Mr.
Lattimore personally employed these people to whom you refer ?
Mr. Budenz. I only know it from the reports that came to me, that
he was doing that ; that is, the reports in the Political Bureau ; and,
the fact that in substantiation you shall find his name as editor.
Senator Lodge. In other words, you were told by what you believe
to be competent authority that that was to be the case.
Mr. Budenz. And also supported by the printed record, m this
sense that Mr. Lattimore's name, as editor, appears on the publication
in which these people write, and they increasingly wrote from 1936 on.
Senator Ttdings. But you have no concrete proof of your own that
Mr. Lattimore personally employed these people.
Mr. Budenz. Oh, no; no concrete proof. That is, I mean I have
never seen Mr. Lattimore do it, never seen the act of him doing it.
Senator Ttdings. But you were told that he did.
Mr. Budenz. I was told officially. Also, I say their names appear
in Pacific Affairs and they did appear there, and reference to the pub-
lication will show that they wrote repeatedly from 1936 on.
For instance, I will give you an illustration so that you will see
the point : Mr. James S. Allen, an open Communist, the Communist
International representative for the Philippines, and later on foreign
editor for the Daily Worker, who was well known as a Communist,
wrote Reconstruction and many other Communist pamphlets and
books, and his writings appeared at least four times, if I am correct,
in the period that Mr. Lattimore was editor.
Senator Ttdings. But, you don't know that Mr. Lattimore induced
him to write.
Mr. Budenz. Only that Mr. Lattimore was editor.
Senator Ttdings. You don't know who did induce him to write.
Mr. Budenz. I do not.
Senator Green. Do you know whether he wrote
Senator Ttdings. Let me finish. I had no questions at all the other
Senator Green. All right.
Senator Ttdings. You never met Mr. Lattnnore yourself i
Mr. Budenz. No, sir; I did not. ^ .
Senator Ttdings. You have never been to the office ot publication i
Mr. Budenz. No, sir.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 579
Senator Tydinos. You have read all these articles yourself?
Mr. BuDENz. Which articles?
Senator Tydings. The ones to which you are referring.
Mr. BuDENz. A long time ago I glanced through them.
Senator Ty-dixgs. I would not say when, but you have read them all ?
Mr. BuDEXz. A long time ago, yes. I wouldn't say all of them,
Senator Tydings. A great many?
Mr. BuDENz. That is taking in too much.
Senator Tit>ings. Were there any of the articles written by any
of the people you have denominated there that you did read?
Mr. BuDENz. There may have been.
Senator Tydings. I believe I quote you with substantial accuracy
when you said that "Jack Stachel said Lattimore was helpful" and
tliat he advised you to "consider Lattimore as a Communist"?
Mr. Budenz. Yes, sir. I said that Stachel said to consider Latti-
more as a Communist in 1944, when he was with Mr. Wallace.
Senator Tydings. Were they, as near as you can recollect, his pre-
cise words ?
Mr. BuDENz. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. That Lattimore was "helpful" and that he said
for you to "treat Lattimore as a Communist"
Mr. BuDENz. Consider him
Senator Tydings. "Consider Lattimore as a Communist?"
IVlr. BuDENz. Yes, sir.
Wait just a minute about that "helpful."
I don't remember that phrase specifically, Senator. I remember
Jack Stachel said that Lattimore was helpful in the time of the
Senator Tydings. That is what I mean.
Mr. BuDENZ. Those are two separate occasions. You see, it may
have been that he used that phraseology also in 1944, but I have no
present recollection of it. ^\niat I recollect in 1944, we were discussincr
the Wallace visit to China, which was considered very important, and
that Mr. Stachel said to consider Lattimore as a Communist.
Senator Ty'dings. Yes, sir.
Mr. BuDENz. Xow, the other reference was on another occasion.
1 hat was in 1945.
Senator Tydings. Now, coming back to what Stachel said to you, is
It possible, m your belief, that an individual could have had a point
of view so m hue with the Communist point of view that the high com-
mand, knowing, reading his works, would assume it would be a e:ood
thing to treat him as a Communist ?
Mr. BuDENz, No, sir; that is not correct.
Senator Tydings. What would be your belief?
Mr. BuDENz. This was a regular formula used by Stachel to deal
with people who were in the Communist movement.
Senator Tydings. And he said for you to consider him as a Com-
Mr. BuDENz Yes, sir. He used that, by the way, that phraseology