TEXT OF DOUGLAS' LETTERS The texts of the letters are as follows: DEAR PROFESSOR BOAS: Some months ago I wrote asking that my name be withdrawn from the list of sponsors of the National Emergency Conference for Democratic Rights, which I originally joined 2 years ago because I had such faith in your career as a scholar. I am informed, however, that my name is still being used on letterheads of this group and also on those of the Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom, although I have no record of having accepted membership in that organization. I must ask, therefore: 1. That my name be removed from the list of sponsors on your printed literature for both groups. 2. That under no conditions will I permit my name to be used for the projected National Federation for Constitutional Liberties, which I am quite certain (from what I understand) is a Communist-front organization. There are genuine organizations to defend civil liberties in this country and they should be fostered. But the argument for civil liberties comes with poor grace from those who in their hearts do not believe in it and who defend the suppression of civil liberties by Communist dictatorship in Russia. No one should ask from others what he is not willing to give to others. Those who suppress liberties have no moral right to ask others for the privileges and rights which they will not accord. The vast mass of Americans do believe in civil liberties. They believe in them for the United States. They believe in them for Germany and they believe in them for Russia. They will properly disapprove of attempts by those who openly defend the Russian autocracy and are benevolently silent about the horrors of fascism, but who are carping critics of democracy. I am sorry that your scholarly prestige has been used by others as a cloak to defend a position which is intellectually inconsistent and in a real sense hypocritical. I am reluctant, however, to believe that all this represents your real attitude, for my past admiration for you has been so great that I like to think of you as the brilliant and humane scholar whom we used to honor and admire. I hope you will awaken to the way others are misusing your honored name and personality, and also misusing the names of the many splendid sponsors of both of your organizations. Faithfully, That was September 20, 1940. PAUL H. DOUGLAS. DEAR PROFESSOR BOAS: Thank you for your courteous letters. I must insist, however, that my name be dropped from the American Committee for Democracy and Intellectual Freedom. The Communists do not really favor either freedom or democracy. They are autocrats in Russia and they are opposed to democracy in Russia and elsewhere. They criticize the democracies, but never their allies, the Fascists, and their whole program is to strengthen the dictators and weaken the democracies. I think you are making a terrible mistake in working with them and in the process they are using your honored name to work great damage. I may call attention here, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that the HitlerStalin pact was in existence at this time. I deeply regret the way they have used you. But I cannot allow my name to be so used and therefore I am resigning. Had I known the full facts, I would never have joined the group, and I did so only because of my faith in you. My reason for reading this, Mr. Chairman, is because Mr. Douglas' name was brought up, the intimation being that he alowed his name to be used and this contradicts that very, very clearly. This shows that Paul Douglas, the minute he discovered this was a Communistfront organization being used to further Communist causes, that he took the most active steps he could and prevented his name being used any further. Now certainly Philip Jessup had the same information Paul Douglas had. Philip Jessup could have removed his name from the list also. I take my hat off to Paul Douglas for being one of the liberals who does not think that liberalism has any connection whatsoever with the Communist cause. Senator SPARKMAN. We will recess for 10 minutes to attend the roll call and then come back. (A short recess was taken.) Senator SPARKMAN. The hearing will be in order. Senator MCCARTHY. This morning, on the American Youth Congress, I checked that. The staff is correct if they took the permanent record, and we are correct if we take the day-to-day record. Senator SPARKMAN. Our citation was from the permanent files. Senator MCCARTHY. Our citation is from the September 24, 1942, record, page 7685. I gather the Chair would like to rush this so we can get through. JESSUP'S LETTER TO NEW YORK TIMES, FEBRUARY 16, 1946 It is exhibit 5, page 18. Mr. Chairman, as I started to point out, as I recall the Communist Party line, and I am sure it was that way in 1946, if we would stop manufacturing atomic bombs and destroy our atomic bomb facilities, then Russia would be happy, we would be a peace-loving nation and world peace would be assured. Since then we have learned that the Fuchs and the others were stealing our atomic bomb secrets and Russia was trying to catch up with us. Philip Jessup on the 16th of February 1946, signed a petition in the New York Times. Let me read two lines: The United States will at once stop the production of bombs from material currently produced— and dropping down As produced, these will be eliminated by appropriate means, such as dumping them into the ocean. Luckily we did not follow the advice of this great expert at that time. We would be in a more difficult situation now if we had. One of the more revealing aspects of Jessup's record, I believe, is his close relationship and support of the Communist, Frederick Vanderbilt Field. Senator FULBRIGHT. Are you through with exhibit 5? Senator MCCARTHY. I am sorry. Did you want to question me about that? PETITION OR LETTER Senator FULBRIGHT. Why do you call it a petition? Is it not just a letter to the Times? Senator MCCARTHY. Call it petition or letter or whatever you like. I would call it a petition that we do this. The New York Times has no power to stop the production of atomic bombs. The New York Times has no power to dump atomic bomb material in the ocean, so it was a petition addressed to the policymaking bodies of this country, in a letter to the Times. Senator FULBRIGHT. It is to the editor of the New York Times and is a letter. Senator SPARKMAN. I do not think it is important either but it says: We would like to suggest a declaration of policy on the following points. Senator MCCARTHY. I would call it a petition when it is asked that we make these changes in our foreign policy. Senator FULBRIGHT. I just wanted to get your idea of petition. Does that make it more subversive than if it is a letter? Senator MCCARTHY. Whether it is a letter or petition it makes very little difference. He could not petition the New York Times. You can call it a letter if you like. RABI AND PUGRAM ALSO SIGN LETTER Senator FULBRIGHT. You will notice there, there were several other people who joined in it. Do you know Mr. I. J. Rabi? Senator MCCARTHY. No; I do not know him. Senator FULBRIGHT. He is now a member of the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Committee. Senator MCCARTHY. Oh, my God. Don't tell me. Senator FULBRIGHT. Yes. Senator MCCARTHY. I assume this is how he qualified. Senator FUIBRIGHT. The other one, Mr. George B. Pugram who is on there, is also an atomic scientist at Columbia. Senator MCCARTHY. That makes it worse. Senator FULBRIGHT. It is terrible, is it not? Senator MCCARTHY. Yes, Senator, it is pretty bad when these men follow the Communist Party line and say we should destroy the one defense we have against international communism, and then put them on the Atomic Bomb Commission where they have access to all our atomic bomb secrets. You said it was pretty bad. I am answering your question. I say it is extremely bad, Senator. It is extremely bad. I may say after all this material was given to the press to show that Jessup got money from Communists to support his publication, that he was affiliated with Communist-front organizations, his friendship with Field, his signing of this petition. What do you think the President's answer was? The next day he gave Philip Jessup top secret clearance to all atomic- and hydrogenbomb information. You may not think that is bad. I do. I think it is bad beyond words. Senator FULBRIGHT. I want it correct. I did not say Mr. Rabi is a member of the Commission. He is a member of the General Advisory Committee of the AEC. Do not change that too drastically. It is my information that these people have all been thoroughly checked and rechecked in recent years who have anything to do with the Commission. Senator BREWSTER. Is that a Government body? Senator FULBRIGHT. Advisory Committee of the AEC. Senator BREWSTER. Is it a Government body? Senator FULBRIGHT. I would call it certainly semi. Senator BREWSTER. Who appoints it? Senator FULBRIGHT. I think the Commission does. This letter, February 16, 1946, was about 4 months before Mr. Baruch made his proposal for international control of atomic energy; was it not? Senator MCCARTHY. If the Senator has that information as to the time, I will not question it. QUESTION OF ATOMIC CONTROL Senator FULBRIGHT. You are familiar with the so-called BaruchAcheson plan; are you not? Senator MCCARTHY. I certainly am. Senator FULBRIGHT. Which was presented, I think, about 4 months after this. In other words, at this time this matter of atomic control was very much in the public eye, was it not? Senator MCCARTHY. Yes, Senator. The question was very much in the public eye at the time this petition was signed. It was very much in the public eye. Senator FULBRIGHT. Do you know whether or not at the present time Ambassador Jessup still has the same opinion as expressed in this letter with regard to our policy? Senator MCCARTHY. I do not know what his opinion on this point is at this time, Senator. He certainly would not have the gall to publish it if he did. You see the plan followed by Jessup and the crowd is pretty much set forth by Owen Lattimore when he wrote it about a month before his secret instruction to Jessup and he said the problem was how to let them fall but do not let it appear we pushed them. I quote from the Compass of July 7, 1949. You can be sure that if Jessup felt we should destroy our atomic bombs or hand them over to the Russians, he would not make that public at this time. I do not know what his ideas on it are. Senator FULBRIGHT. Have you any knowledge of his present views? Senator MCCARTHY. On what? Senator FULBRIGHT. On this subject of atomic energy? Senator MCCARTHY. On the subject of atomic energy? Senator FULBRIGHT. Yes, or his views expressed subsequent to the time he wrote this letter. You have no knowledge of that? Senator MCCARTHY. His views on the subject of atomic energy? Senator MCCARTHY. I do not know what part he has taken in the atomic energy program, if any. TYDINGS SUBCOMMITTEE HEARINGS Senator FULBRIGHT. I had assumed you were one of the experts on the hearings of the Subcommitttee on Foreign Relations of the Eightyfirst Congress. Senator MCCARTHY. Thanks for the assumption. Senator FULBRIGHT. It is sometimes referred to as the Tydings committee. I call your attention to page 268. It is part 1 of that volume. This is before the Tydings committee. Senator MCCARTHY. Go ahead. I have it now. Senator FULBRIGHT. It is page 268 at the bottom of the page. I will call your attention to the middle of the page where this same letter is. Senator HICKENLOOPER. I hand this letter now to the reporter for inclusion as exhibit 53. Now, Dr. Jessup, in the light of the fact that has been very widely reported that Russian zeal in the production of atomic weapons has not abated at any time, do you still feel we should stop the production of fissionable material for a year and dump our accumulated materials into the ocean? Ambassador JESSUP. 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 reach an international agreement for the control of atomic energy and the policy of the Government, as is well known, was to submit proposals to the United Nations with that end in view. We have since found out that the Soviet Union is not prepared to cooperate in any feasible scheme for the control of atomic energy. Obviously under these present circumstances, the proposal made in 1946 is inapplicable. That, I would take it, is his more recent view, which was in 1950, in testimony before the aforesaid committee. STASSEN'S ATTITUDE TOWARD ATOMIC CONTROL I also call your attention to the fact that on November 8, 1945, which was just prior to this time before the Academy of Political Science, in a speech, Mr. Stassen, who has been quoted quite extensively in this hearing prior to this time, made a statement urging an amendment to the United Nations Charter to provide that: No nation shall manufacture an atomic bomb and the manufacture and possession of such a bomb would be a crime against mankind. I merely call your attention to the fact that that was indicative of the fact that at that time many people in this country were trying to develop some kind of a policy as to what should be done about this new kind of weapon and I think that there is a great similarity in the thinking on this question by Mr. Stassen and Mr. Jessup, at about the same time. Senator BREWSTER. Was that a proposal that we stop, or that all the countries agree to stop? Senator FULBRIGHT. His proposal is that no nation shall manufacture an atomic bomb and that manufacture or possession of such a bomb would be a crime against mankind. I think it was generally believed that there was not but one nation that could make an atomic bomb at that time. Senator BREWSTER. We would all agree to stop it? Senator FULBRIGHT. The only one making it and who had any was the United States. I think the two were about the same thing. Senator BREWSTER. If all the other countries in the world agreed not to make atomic bombs, that is quite different from our unilaterally stopping our manufacture. I see no similarity between the two. THE REMAINDER OF JESSUP'S LETTER Senator FULBRIGHT. If you will read this whole letter of Mr. Jessup's, this recommendation here; the part the Senator read was only one sentence. He was laying the basis for such an agreement. |