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

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

. (page 31 of 116)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 31 of 116)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook

Japanese, he was a wealthy landlord. He was
brought up in the older scholastic tradition in

China, before the spread of modern western edu-
cation, but at the .same time he is keenly interested
in the national unification of China and the orderly
development of a stable political organization
there. I know by long experience that he is any-
thing but a Conununist; I also know tliat because
of his seniority, his background of independent
wealth, and his superior mentality he is not a man
to be pushed around by i)arty bureaucrats. Chew
Hong is a much younger man, but one whom Dr.
Chi trusts and of whose integrity he is convinced.
There is something in their relationship of the old
Chinese standards of disciple and master. As long
as Dr. Chi stands in the relationship of loyal
friendship to me and the loyalty of an honest em-
ployee of an American (io\ernment agency, there
will be no dilHculty with either man, no irresponsi-
ble playing with Chinese politics, and no leakage
to any Chinese faction.

The retention of both men is therefore a guaran-
tee to the secrecy and security of the work of OWI
as well as a gauarantee of the confident fulfillment
of directives. I urge you not to be high-pressured
into getting rid of either man. I know that both
men may be subjected to attacks. Given the time
to work on it, I could undoubtedly trace such
attacks to their origin and give you the full details.
I doubt whether the Personnel Security Commit-
tee of OWI would be able to trace such attacks,
rooted in the intricacies of Chinese factional poli-
tics, to their source; but I should not like to see us
placed in a position where, after getting rid of
people now attached, we would be forced to hire
people who would actually be nominees of factions
not under our control.

It is for this reason that I have written this long
letter to urge you to report to our Personnel Secu-
rity Committee the necessity for exercising pro-
nounced agnosticism when any of our Chinese
personnel are attacked.

In the meantime I am doing my best to check
over our Chinese personnel in San Francisco.

Once more I urge you to observe the strictest
confidence in acting on this letter, because in cer-
tain quarters it might be considered that I am
under a moral obligation to see that OWI is staffed
with Chinese who take their orders from some
source other than the American Government.

O^VE^" Lattimore,
Director, Pacific Operations


I was shocked to learn that the State Department
sprang to the defense of Owen Lattimore yester-
day after I publicly reviewed some of tlie evidence
in his case. I pointed out that the following facts
had been proved beyond any doubt in the Latti-
more case and without the aid of any of the Gov-
ernment's files:

April 24, 1950


1. That in 1943 while director of Pacific opera-
tions of the OWI, [Office of War Information] he
issued secret orders for the discharge of all em-
ployes loyal to Chiang Kai-shek and that they
be replaced by Chinese connected with a Commu-
nist publication and that this sabotage of Chiang
Kai-shek was at a time when the lives of a vast
number of Americans in the Pacific depended on
the success of Chiang's army ;

2. That he has been secretly shaping our foreign
policy to put into effect the Communist program
for Asia. Part of the evidence was secret instruc-
tions from Lattimore to the State Department
which were requested by you as a guide for
Ambassador-at-Large [Philip C] Jessup, which
document might well have been prepared by the
Soviet Foreign Office in that it complies with every
basic plan for Soviet Russia's conquest of Asia and
the Pacific.

Do you deny, Mr. Secretary, that regardless of
whether Mr. Lattimore is a Russian agent he has
done exactly what would be expected of an
agent in (1) secretly sabotaging our anti-Commu-
nist ally in the war and (2) secretly shaping our
foreign policy along the identical lines of the
Communist program?

Strangely, the State Department says "bleating
like a lamb" and Lattimore says "weaseling" be-
cause yesterday I did not state that he had re-
ceived thirty pieces of silver for the above job.

Do you deny, Mr. Acheson, that the only missing
link in the Lattimore case is proof of either mem-
bership in the Communist party or payment by
the party and that if such proof is forthcoming
then Lattimore can truly be labeled as Russia's top
agent in this coimtry ? All of this has been stated
in public without benefit of senatorial immunity.

If one word of it is not true, I suggest that Mr.
Lattimore start that libel suit which your man
[John E.] Peurifoy and Lattimore's lawyers
have been so loudly threatening.

In connection with the State Department's pub-
lic vilification of me for refusing at this particular
point to publicly supply this missing link before
my witnesses appear and without benefit of the
files, I call your attention to the fact that I would
immediately repeat in public every word said on
the Senate floor in his case if the files, upon which
those statements were based, were made available
to the committee or to me in any subsequent court
case. Senator Hickenlooper thereupon asked Mr.
Lattimore if he would request that his files be made
available, at which time Mr. Lattimore stated he
would refuse to do so.

Lattimore's lack of sincerity is clearly indicated
by his refusal to request that his files be made

Joe McCarthy.

Assistant Secretary Barrett
Scores McCarthy Charges

Assistant Secretary Barrett prefaced his formal address
to the UNESCO National Commission, today, with the
following remarks:

Before getting into broader subjects, I think I
owe it to you to speak briefly and bluntly on the
headlines of the last few weeks about State De-
partment employees.

As members of this National Commission, you
have demonstrated your confidence not only in
Unesco but also in your Government's Depart-
ment of State. Accordingly, you are entitled to
a report.

On February 9, at "Wheeling, West Virginia,
Senator Joseph McCarthy said in a speech — and I
quote from the text which he himself supplied at
the time :

I have here in my hands a list of 205 ... a list of
names that were made known to the Secretary of State
as being members of the Communist Party and who
nevertheless are still worliing and shaping policy in the
State Department.

The Department asked the Senator for informa-
tion on these 205 so-called known Communists.
He supplied none.

By the time he got to Salt Lake City for another
speech, the Senator charged there were only 57 so-
called Communists. A couple of days later, he
used the figure 220. Then he changed this figure
to 206. Next, it was 81 — including the so-called
"Big Three" who've never been heard of again.
Then it was 106.

And, finally, after charging — and failing to
support his charges — that there are 205, or 57, or
220, or 206, or 81, or 106 Communists or security
risks in the Department, and after dragging
various names through the gutter, he boldly an-
nounced that he would stand or fall on his ability
to prove that there was just one.

To date, he seems to have proved nothing about
the one person he named. Moreover, that person
is not connected with the State Department. The
Senator's statement that the individual concerned,
has, or until recently had, a desk in the State De-
partment is utterly untrue.

Meanwhile he doesn't say what has happened
to his original charge about 205 "known Com-
munists" — a charge that did great damage at home
and abroad.

Since coming to the State Department 7 weeks
ago, from the post of Editorial Director of News-
week magazine, I have taken a good look into the
loyalty-checking machinery of this Department.
Here is what I found :

For 2% years, the Department has had a most
thorough mechanism, cooperating closely with the
Federal Bureau of Investigation, and supervised


Department of State Bulletin

by John Peurifoy, -whose complete loyalty has
never been questioned.

The Department's investigating division is
headed by Donald Nicholson, formerly of the FBI.
Its Loyalty Security Board is chaired by General
Conrad Snow of New Hampshire, an able gentle-
man of unquestioned integrity — and, incidentally,
a Republican.

Finally, the amazingly thorough work that these
gentlemen do is regularly and carefully reviewed
by the President's Loyalty Review Board. This
Board, as you probably know, is headed by Seth
Richardson, who served as Assistant United States
Attorney General under President Hoover and
acquired a nation-wide reputation as counsel for
the Pearl Harbor investigation.

If there is in the United States, either inside
or outside of the Government, a more thorough,
more sound, or more responsible loyalty checking
system, I don't know where it is.

Against this background, let me say that any
Senator or any citizen should take responsible
action if he has reason to believe his Government
has one or more disloyal employees. But let me
add that the Senator's unique tactics in recent
weeks have constituted the most shockingly irre-
sponsible performance that I have seen in many

The Secretary Expresses Appreciation
to Far Eastern Consultants

[Released to the press April 5]

Following is the text of identical letters dated April 5,
1950, from Secretary Acheson to Raymond B. Fosdick and
Everett A'. Case.

I should like to express my deep appreciation to
you for the outstanding service which you have
rendered to the Department of State and to me
personally in acting as Consultant on Far Eastern
policy during the fall of last year.

We are confronted by profound changes in the
Far East arising in large measure from the demand
of the peoples of that area to govern their own
affairs and to improve their economic and social
conditions, but influenced also by the renewal of
intense Russian imperialist pressure on that part
of the world. These changes have made it desir-
able for the United States to reexamine its policy
in the Far East and the President and I thought
it wise to associate with the Department of State
in this reexamination advisers of such stature, ex-
perience, and objectivity as iVmbassador to Jessup,
Mr. Case [Fosdick] , and yourself.

We have not asked you to submit a report, but
we have asked you to join with us in tne State
Department in an appraisal of the situation in the
whole area of East and South Asia and of the con-
tribution which the United States might make,
in collaboration with the nations of that area and
of other nations deeply interested therein, to the
development of political and economic progress
and stability in the area. You have labored most
diligently and earnestly to this end. You have
carefully reviewed our policy in each country and
territory of South and East Asia with the compe-
tent officers of the State Department and other
agencies of the Government. You have met with
many persons in private life whose experience in
the Far East made their advice significant and
have solicited and received by letter the views of
many additional experts whom you could not see
personally. You have discussed these problems
with numerous Members of Congress particularly
concerned with or interested in the Far East. The
various views which have emerged from your con-
sultations will be carefully weighed in the develop-
ment of the policy which this Government will pur-
sue in grappling with the problems of the Far
East during commg months and such success as we
may achieve will owe much to your wise counsel.
You and your associates and I agree, however, that
the problems of Asia are problems of deep-seated
character which cannot be solved quickly and foi;
which no easy panaceas can be found. They will
be with us for many years and can be resolved in
the end only by a combination of patience, under-
standing, and firmness.

It is with the greatest regret that I acceded to
your desire and that of Mr. Case [Fosdick] to re-
turn to your normal responsibilities in November
and to bring to a close your period of intensive
consultation with me and the other officers of the
Department of State. You gave generously of
your time and energy, but I should warn you that
we may call on you from time to time in the future
to rejoin us for further consultation.

Allow me once more to express my appreciation
of the high service which you have rendered to our
Government and our coimtry.

Joseph B. Phillips as Consultant
On Public Affairs

Joseph B. Phillips, writer and lecturer on for-
eign affairs, was sworn into office on April 11 as a
special consultant on the staff of Assistant Secre-
tary for Public Affairs Edward W. Barrett.

April 24, 1950


Archival 'and Records Functions
Transferred to General Services

To the Congress of the United States:

I transmit herewith Reorganization Plan No. 20
of 1950, prepared in accordance with the pro-
visions of the Reorganization Act of 1949. This
plan transfers from the Secretary of State to the
Administrator of General Services a number of
functions which have no connection with foreign
affairs but bear a close relation to the archival
and records functions of the General Services

Since its establishment in 1789 the Department
of State has performed certain routine secretarial
and record-keeping functions for the Federal Gov-
ernment which are entirely extraneous to its basic
mission with respect to the conduct of foreign re-
lations. Wliile these activities do not properly
belong in the Department, they were assigned to
it ancl continued under its jurisdiction for want of
an appropriate agency for their performance. At
present these functions consist of the preservation
and publication of laws, the preparation and pub-
lication of the Statutes at Large, the certification
and publication of Constitutional amendments,
the receipt and preservation of certificates of Presi-
dential Electors and of electoral votes, and the
compilation and publication of Territorial papers.

Through The National Archives and Records
Service the General Services Administration is
especially staffed and equipped for the conduct of
activities of these types. It is the principal cus-
todian of the official records of the Government.
Under the Federal Register Act and the Adminis-
trative Procedure Act, it preserves and publishes
in the Federal Register the Executive orders,
proclamations, and other principal executive doc-
uments and it codifies and publishes the rules
and regulations promulgated by the various
departments and agencies. This work is gener-
ally similar in nature to, and much greater in
volume than, that performed by the Department
of State with respect to Constitutional amend-
ments, laws, and proclamations. Consequently,
the consolidation of these activities of the State
Department with the archival and records activi-
ties of the General Services Administration
should make for greater efficiency and economy.
The plan, liowever, does not transfer the custody
and publication of treaties and international agree-
ments since they are matters of special concern
to the Department of State, and it is the agency
most competent to edit such documents.

The handling of the certificates of Presidential
Electors and the compilation and publication of
Territorial papers also more appropriately belong
in the General Services Administration. The first
is largely a matter of record-keejung and the
second of archival research. The preparation of

the Territorial papers involves the compilation
and editing of official documents of the various
Territories formerly existing within the United
States. The greater part of this material is now
in the National Archives and the work involved
is generally similar to that being performed by it
with i-espect to other groups of public records.

In addition, the plan abolishes two statutory
duties of the Secretary of State which have become
obsolete. The first is the duty of procuring copies
of all State statutes as provided in the Act of
September 23, 1789 (R. S. 206) . Inasmuch as the
Library of Congress now has a complete collection
of the State laws, it is no longer necessary for the
Department of State to maintain a complete col-
lection. The second is the requirement, imposed
by the Act of July 31, 1876 (19 Stat. 105), as
amended, that the Secretary of State publish
proclamations and treaties in a newspaper in the
District of Columbia. This is now unnnecessary
since proclamations are published in the Federal
Register and treaties are made available currently
in slip form in the Treaties and other Interna-
tional Acts Series.

After investigation I have found and hereby de-
clare that each reorganization included in this
plan is necessary to accomplish one or more of the
purposes set forth in section 2 (a) of the Reor-
ganization Act of 1949.

The transfers provided by this plan will relieve
the State Department of a number of functions
that have no relation to its primary purpose and
place them in an agency especially designed for
the performance of such activities. Until these
functions are incorporated in the operations of
the General Services Administration, it will not,
of course, be practicable to determine the econo-
mies attributable to their transfer, but it is reason-
able to expect modest yet worthwhile savings to
be achieved.

Thk "White HotrsE
March 13, 1950.

Haeby S. Truman


statutes at Large and Other Matters

Section 1. Functions transferred from Department of
State to Administrator of General Services. — There are
hereby transferred to the Administrator of General Serv-
ices the functions of the Secretary of State and the De-
partment of State with respect to :

(a) The receipt and preservation of the original copies
of bills, orders, resolutions and votes (R. S. 204, as
amended) ;

(b) The publication of acts and joint resolutions In
slip form and tlie compilation, editing, indexing, and pub-
lication of the United States Statutes at Large, except such


Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 31 of 116)