Copyright
United States. Dept. of State. Office of Public Co.

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) online

. (page 3 of 116)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 3 of 116)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


However, where commimlsm gains control, it becomes
immediately apparent that the peoples 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 —
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.

If Senator McCarthy's innuendoes were true,
the representatives of the foreign governments
with whom I spoke would be entitled to believe
that my statements to them were deceitful and
fraudulent. They would be entitled to believe
that no confidence should be placed in the declara-
tions which I made on behalf of our Government.
If it were true that the President and the Secretary
of State had sent on such a mission a person who
was a traitor to his own government, they might
well feel that they could place no confidence in the
statements made by any of the representatives of
the United States abroad.

It may be relatively unimj)ortant whether the
character of a single American citizen is black-
ened and his name is brought into disrepute, but,
in the i)resent serious situation of international
relations tliroughout the world today, it is a ques-
tion of the utmost gravity when an official hokling
the rank of Ambassador at Large of the United
States of America is held up before the eyes of the
rest of the world as a liar and traitor. I am aware,
Mr. Chairman, that Senator McCarthy has not
used those words. But if his insinuations were
true, these words would certainly be appropriate.

It is impossible for aJiyone to estimate-the harm-

Department of State Bulletin



ful effect that these innuendoes have had on the
success of my mission and tlie foreign policy of
the United States. It is clear that, if those in-
sinuations i-emain unanswered, they will further
weaken the United States in its conffict with world
commimism. For that reason, I flew back from
Europe and asked this opportunity to be heard
by tins Committee.

' It is obvious that an individual holding the
high position of Senator of the United States
would not venture in this wa^ to undermine the
position of the United States in its relations with
the rest of the world unless there was some reason
for doing so. I have tried to figure out what the
reason behind this attack might be.

I suppose that if I chose to follow the tactics
whicli you gentlemen have witnessed in recent
weeks, t would start with the hypothesis that this
action was Communist-inspired. It so happens
that, so far as I know, the only other attack upon
my integrity during the course of my trip in Asia
was made by Peiping Communist organs, and by
Izvestia. the official publication of the Soviet
Union in Moscow. On March 3, Izvestia attacked
me in the following manner :

At a press conference arranged on Febniary 23 in
Delhi, Jessup set out to obtain a change of view in Indian
public opinion. Jessup brought into action all kinds of
means : Flattery and the publicizing of American "assist-
ance to backward regions" and most of all, of course,
slanderous fabrications against the U.S.S.ll. ... In
general, Jessup tried with all his might but he had little
success. Tlie imperialistic aggressive character of the
policy of the United States throughout the world, and in
Asia in particular, is so evident that no hyijocritical
speeches and anti-Communist phillipics could hide it.

So, you see, while I was on this mission, I was
attacked by two sources, Izvestia and Senator
McCarthy. Anyone who believes in the concept
of guilt by association might draw some startling
conclusions from this fact. However, I do not be-
lieve in the concept of guilt by association. More-
over, I do believe that anyone who, without ade-
quate proof, levels a charge of conscious or igno-
rant sujiport of communism at a member of the
United States Senate — or at an official of the
United States Government — is irresponsible. I
have no evidence that Senator McCarthy was mo-
tivated by a desire to assist the international Com-
munist movement even though his words and
actions have had that effect. I, therefore, reject
this first possibility concerning the reasons for the
insinuations made against me.

A second possibility might be that such an at-
tempt to discredit the position of the United States
in its relations with the other free countries of
the world was inspired by sheer partisanship. It
is hard to believe that anyone holding the position
of a Member of either House of Congress of the
United States would so subordinate the interests
of his country to sheer partisan advantage, I am
sure no one of our major parties would do so. I
shall, therefore, pass on to a third possibility.



The third possibility might be that the person
bringing these charges had made a careful in-
vestigation and was convinced they were true and
so serious that they ought to he made public even
before tlie individual concerned had oeen asked
for his side of the story.

Are these charges and insinuations true ? Sena-
tor McCarthy asserts that I was a "sponsor" of
the American-Russian Institute, It is true that
my name appears on a list of the sponsors of a
dinner given by the American-Russian Institute,
but not as a sponsor of the organization itself.
The dinner in question was one given on May 7,
194C, on the occasion of the presentation of its first
annual award to Franklin D, Roosevelt which
was accepted on behalf of his family. Senator
McCarthy pointed out that the names of Howard
Fast, Saul Mills, Ella Winter, John Howard Law-
son, and Langston Hughes also appeared on this
list. He did not point out that appi'oximatel}'
100 people were named on this list of sponsors and
that it also included the names of H. V. Kalten-
born, George Fielding Eliot, Dean Christian Gauss
of Princeton, and Mary Emma Wooley, former
president of Holyoke. The entire list is already
in evidence as an exhibit of this Committee, and
the Committee can make its own judgment as to
the caliber and variety of the people who are on it.
A search of my files has failed to reveal any in-
formation concerning this incident, nor do I re-
member attending the dinner. From approxi-
mately February to June of 1946, 1 was seriously
ill in a hospital in New York City, so it is unlikely
that I attended,

I do recall, however, that I was asked by Mr.
William Lancaster, a prominent New York lawyer,
to permit my name to be used as a sponsor of a
dinner which was to be held on October 19, 1944.
I had met Mr. Lancaster, particularly through his
activities on the Foreign Policy Association, at a
time when Gen. Frank McCoy was President and
Senator Alexander Smith and I were members of
the Board. I accepted, but was unable to attend
the dinner. I shall be glad to make the entire list
of approximately 250 sponsoi-s available to the
Committee.

It is utterly irrelevant to the charges or in-
sinuations that I or anyone else agi'eed to sponsor
dinners of the American-Russian Institute of New
York City in 1944 or 194G. There was no reason
why a loyal American should not have done so.
The Attorney General expressly excluded the
American-Russian Institute of New York from
the first lists of subversive organizations which
were published and did not include it until April
21, 1949. The Committee may be interested in
knowing that I turned down invitations to speak
at dinners held by this organization in both 1948
and 1949.

During the course of my life, I have participated
in many organizations. These organizations have
been of a type that one would normally associate



Apr/; 3, 1950



517



with a person of my outlook and interests. They
include the American Philosophical Society
founded by Benjamin Franklin, the Foreign Pol-
icy Association, the American Society of Interna-
tional Law, the Sigma Phi Society, the Carnegie
Endowment for International Peace, the Ameri-
can Bar Association, and the American Legion.
From 1933 to 1946, I was closely associated with
the Institute of Pacific Relations. I am proud
of my association with that organization which
was founded by a group of leading businessmen
and scholars in Honolulu sometime in the mid-
twenties for the purpose of increasing knowledge
and friendship among the peoples of the Pacific
area. Despite the controversy which has oc-
casionally surrounded it, it has continued to dis-
charge the functions for which it was created.
Although there is still much to be done in increas-
ing the knowledge of the American people about
countries of the Pacific area, the Institute has made
a real contribution to the advance which has been
made in this field during the last 25 years.

I first became associated with it in 1933 when the
late Newton D. Baker was its chairman. It is
necessary to explain that the Institute of Pacific
Relations is an international organization com-
posed of national councils in countries touching
upon or having close interests in the Pacific area.
My first contact with the organization was to at-
tend, in 1933, one of the periodic international
conferences which have been held by the organ-
ization. In those meetings, leaders of business
and banking, former high officials of government,
journalists, labor leaders, researchers, and teachers
from all of the Pacific countries have met for a
common study of the problems of the area. Many
of the leading figures whom I have since met in
the United Nations I first met through my con-
nection with the Institute of Pacific Relations in-
cluding Mrs. Pandit, presently Indian Ambassa-
dor to the United States, and Dr. Hu Shih, the
great Chinese philosopher who was former Clii-
nese Ambassador in Washington. As indicative of
the type of persoimel attending these conferences,
I should also like to refer to the one held in Hot
Springs, Virginia, in 1945, at which I was Chair-
man of the American delegation and Admiral
Thomas C. Hart, later United States Senator from
Connecticut, was Vice Chairman.

I was a member of the Board of Trustees of the
American Council from about 1933 until my resig-
nation because of health and pressure of other
work in 1946. I was Chairman of the Board of
Trustees of the American Council during 1939 and
1940. I wa.s the Chairman of the Pacific Council
from 1939 to 1942. I have also at various times
served as a member of the Executive Committee
of the American Council and, in 1944, as Chairman
of the Research Advisory Committee. I was suc-
ceeded as Chairman of the American Council by
the late Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, President of
Stanford University, wlio was succeeded by
Robert G. Sproul, President of the University of

518



California, and now by Gerard Swope, Honorary
President of the General Electric Company.
Throughout my connection with the Institute, the
Board of Trustees has included leadei-s of Amer-
ican business, finance, and academic and public
life.

I would assume that anyone who was interested
in inquiring into what I had done and what I have
stood for would be interested in my entire life and
background. An inquiry into my background
would have shown that my ancestors came to this
country from England in the seventeenth century
and settled on Long Island and in Pennsylvania
and new England. My great-grandfather, Judge
William Jessup of Montrose, Pennsylvania, was a
delegate to the Republican Convention of 1860,
which nominated Abraham Lincoln for the presi-
dency. He was chairman of the committee which
drafted the platform upon which Lincoln was
elected. A great-grandfather on my mother's
side, John M. Butler, as a Pemisylvania delegate,
cast his vote for Lincoln at that same convention.
My father was a lawyer in New York City and a
lay leader in the Presbyterian Church. On my
mother's side, my foi'ebears were Irish and also
among the early settlers of tliis country.

While the Bolshevik revolution was gaining
control in Russia, I was serving as a private in the
107th Infantry in the AEF in France. Shortly
after the Armistice, I returned to Hamilton Col-
lege in Central New York to finish my education,
which had been interrupted by my enlistment in
the Army.

One hears in these days that some individuals
have been misled during their college years to
espouse radical doctrines, including the Com-
munist philosophy. If I had developed any
I'adical tendencies in that period, they presumably
would have been revealed in my immediately sub-
sequent activities. Actually, on leaving college
I took a position as Assistant to the President of
the First National Bank of Utica, New York. I
remained with the bank for 2 years, subsequently
becoming Assistant Cashier. During those 2
years in Utica, I was also superintendent of the
Sunday School of the First Presbyterian Church
and Commander of a local post of the American
Legion. I am still a member of the American
Legion.

In July 1921, I married Lois Walcott Kellogg,
whose ancestors were also of English and Dutch
pioneer stock and whose mother was a sister of i
the late Frederic C. Walcott, United States Sena-
tor from Connecticut.

During my service in the Army, I had developed [
an overwhelming desii-e to devote my life to pro-
moting the cause of international peace, and, with
this jiurpose in mind, I resigned my position at
the bank soon after my marriage and entei'ed the
Columbia University Law School. At this stage,
as later in my life, I had the privilege of securing
the advice of the late Elihu Root, who had lived
on the campus of Hamilton College and whom I

Department of State Bulletin



came to know there. After 2 years at Columbia,
I transferred to Yale University and received mv
LL.B. degree in 1924. Immecliately afterward,
I secured a position as Assistant to the Solicitor
in the Department of State and served in this
capacity for a year before }?oing back to Columbia
as lecturer in interiuxtional law. I have been on
the Columbia faculty ever since. I am now on
leave from my present position as Hamilton Pro-
fessor of International Law and Diplomacy.

In 1925-26, when the Senate of the tJnited
States was considering again the question of
American accession to the World Court, I served
as personal research assistant to the late Senator
Irving Lenroot of Wisconsin.

In 1929. Mr. Elihu Boot was asked by Secre-
tai-y of State Kellogg to represent the United
States at a Conference of Jurists in Geneva, at
which the question of United States accession to
the Statute of the World Court was considered.
Mr. Root, whose views about Russian commu-
nism are certainly a matter of public record, in-
vited me to go along with him as his assistant. I
am proud to say that I continued to enjoy Mr.
Root's confidence and friendship until his death in
1937. Not long after I had accompanied him to
the Conference of Jurists, he authorized me to
write his biography, and I spent a good deal of
my time between 1931 and 1937 on its preparation.
The biography was published in 1937 and covers
the wide range of American law, business, politics,
and diplomacy which filled the life of that very
great American statesman and leader, both of the
American Bar and the Republican Party. In
1930, Mr. Harry Guggenheim, who had just been
appointed by President Hoover as United States
Ambassador to Cuba, invited me to go to Cuba
with him as his personal legal adviser. I served
with him there for about 9 months.

After several years back at Columbia, I was
called back into public service by Governor (now
Senator) Herbert J. Lehman, who, in 1943, asked
me to come to Washington as Chief of the Division
of Training and Personnel in the Office of Foreign
Relief and Rehabilitation Operations wliich he
was then organizing. In December of that year, I
served as Assistant Secretary General of the First
Conference of the United Nations Relief and Re-
habilitation Administration (Unrr.\), and, in
1944, I served in a similar capacity at the United
Nations Monetary and Financial Conference at
Bretton Woods.

Meanwhile, during a period from 1942 to 1945,
I was the Associate Director of the Naval School
of Military Government and Administration es-
tablished at Columbia University at the request
of the United States Navy Department. In that
school, we trained some 500 officers for service in
occupied areas in the Pacific area. During part
of that time, I was also serving as consultant to
the Nav}' Department in Washington, as a lec-
turer at the Army School of Military Government
at the University of Virginia, and as a lecturer at

Aprit 3, 7950



the Navy War College at Newpoit. I had pre-
viously lectured at the Navy War College in 1931,
1939, and 1941. I might add that, since the war,
I have also delivered two lectures at the National
War College in Wasiun";ton, and, in 1948, was
invited to become a member of the Nation;il War
College staff. I was unable to accept this appoint-
ment because of my duties with the Department of
State.

Just before the San Francisco conference, in
1945, the then Solicitor General, Mr. Charles Fahy,
and I served, together with Mr. Green Hackworth,
as a member of a conmiittee of jurists who pre-
pared a preliminary draft of the statute of the
International Court of Justice. I then served
with the United States delegation to the United
Nations Conference at San Francisco as an assist-
ant on judicial organization and, thereafter, con-
tinued as a consultant to the Department of State.
In 1947, 1 was appointed as the United States mem-
ber of a United Nations committee on the codifica-
tion and development of international law.

On January 3, 1948, I was appointed Deputy
United States representative on tlie Interim Com-
mittee of the General Assembly of the United Na-
tions. On April 14, 1948, my appointment as
United States representative to the second special
session of the United Nations General Assembly
was confirmed by the United States Senate. On
June 1, 1948, the Senate confirmed my appoint-
ment as Deputy United States representative in
the United Nations Security Council. On March
1, 1949, my appointments as United States Am-
bassador at Large and also as United States rep-
resentative to the third regular session of the
General Assembly were confirmed by the Senate,
and, last September 26th, I was again confirmed
by the Senate as a United States representative to
the fourth regular session of the General Assembly.

So much for the record of my career. It does
not read like the record of a Communist, a pro-
Communist, or a fellow-traveler.

At the beginning of my statement, I said that
the insinuations which had been leveled against
me had the effect of impairing the confidence of
other governments in the United States and its
representatives. I made that statement because
it would be impossible to reconcile the actions
I have taken botli in the course of my recent trip
to Asia and in the course of the last 2 years with
the Department of State with "an unusual affinity
for Communist causes." I shall submit to the
Committee for insertion in the record a collection
of extracts from statements which I have made on
the subject of communism. Merely by way of
illustration, I would like to read from a statement
which I made in the Political Committee of the
General Assembly last December in the debate on
China. There I said :

... I hope, Mr. Chairman, it will be crystal clear that
the United States policy is ngainst imperialism every-
where. We flatly reject it for ourselves and we con-
demn It when practiced by any other state. We condemn

519



it specifically as revealed in the Soviet-Russian continua-
tion of Tsarist-Russian imiierialism in tlie Far East. Our
concern is that China, India, and all Asia be safeguarded
against Soviet-Russia or any other aggression.

I believe that I should be judged not merely by
what I have said but also by what I have done.
I have already indicated that I have had the honor
of representing the United States in the Security
Council of the United Nations, in the Interim
Committee of the General Assembly of the United
Nations, and in one special and two regular ses-
sions of the General Assembly. The proceedings
of these bodies are public and their records are
published.

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 block-
ade, in which I had the good fortune to play a
part, the attempts of the United Nations to pre-
serve the independence of China, and the disposi-
tion of the Italian colonies in North Africa.
Another case that I might mention is that of Indo-
nesia, where it has been the aim of the United
States to encourage the Indonesian national gov-
ernment, the government of which has shown its
ability effectively to cope with Indonesian com-
munism.

In these matters, as in others, the Soviet Union
opposed the settlements 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 the Soviet
Union and its Communist 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 stands for.

Although I believe I have made it clear from
what I have already said. I wish to repeat categori-
cally ancl without qualification that I am not a
Communist and never have been a Communist. I
am not and never have been a Communist sym-
pathizer. I have never knowingly supported or
promoted any movement or organization which I
knew had as its objective the furtherance of Com-
munist objectives. Although I cannot claim to
have any detailed knowledge of the process, I
wholeheartedly sujjport tlie efforts of those whose
official responsibility it is to see that Communists
or Commiuiist sympathizers are kept out of our
Government.

Mr. Chairman, as I have attempted conscien-
tiously to review the record of my activities, I have



perhaps been prejudiced by my own inner knowl-
edge that Senator McCarthy's charges and insinu-
ations are utterly false. But I submit that any
sincere person would have concluded from a review
of tlie 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 insinuations are
not only false but utterly irresponsible and under
the circumstances reveal a shocking disregard for
the interests of our country.

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 million 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 dia-
bolically clever and well-organized Communist
organization which is seeking to destroy our democ-
racy. If we are to succeed in our struggle, we
must forego all partisanship and all partisan polit-
ical adventures. If we are to succeed, 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.

Traffic in Arms (Continued from page 515)
isolationist sentiment in Congress and throughout
the country which caused this country to adopt the
concept of "strict" neutrality and a separate ap-
proach from that of the League of Nations to the
problem of world peace. In the 1940's, the threat
to our national security resulted in the abandon-
ment of our neutrality position and in the dele-



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 3 of 116)