COMPARING POLICIES TOWARD ENGLAND AND SPAIN

Senator MCCARTHY. Now we will show why we lifted that, Senator, because we are dealing, No. 1, with Jessup.

No. 2, let's refer to the New York Times of October 1, 1939. Let me say that if Jessup's statement had merely appeared in that, you might think that he was duped about it. This is an article on page 8-E of the New York Times, October 1, 1939.

It points out Jessup's activities advocating that we ship arms to the Communist section of Spain, but vigorously opposing the shipment of arms to England.

Let me quote from his letter, first quoting from the article :

In his recent letter on the action proposed to the Congress by the Presidentthat is, shipment of lend-lease

Jessup says "it would be unneutral and is contemptuous of the legal duty which the law of nations imposes upon every neutral sovereign."

That is the end of the quotation.

Then he characterizes it as "illegal as well as unneutral."

He suggests in speaking of his country:

It cannot at this time relax its embargoes without besmirching its character as an advocate of international justice.

Here is what Jessup had to say with reference to sending arms. to England during the Nazi-Hitler Pact. It is pretty hard to find stronger language and, as the article points out, and I believe they quote this particular point, he took an entirely different attitude when it came to shipping arms to the Communist-controlled section of Spain. He says there:

Lift the embargo to promote civilization.

The article says:

Here we find the Communist line pure and simple. The Daily Worker opposed vigorously any shipments of arms to England prior to the day that Germany invaded Russia. Jessup did also

according to this article.

If he had been consistent, you see, if he had also opposed shipment of arms to the Communist-controlled section of Spain, you can say, "Well, here is an international lawyer who considers that, as he says, it would be illegal and unneutral."

But a different rule applies, so when you find that shifting with the line, then his statement in this particular program becomes significant, Senator, when it is sponsored by an organizaiton which is set up by the Communist Party. When you find them sponsoring this, and connect that with the line taken with regard to England, it becomes a very important thing.

Let me say this, if I may, please. If the Senator will read in the first left-hand column the portion marked in red, he will get the section about England. Down in the lower right-hand column, another section marked in red, covers Spain.

Senator FULBRIGHT. At that time, Senator McCarthy, was he not an isolationist and closely associated with the so-called America Firsters, all of whom did not approve of participation in these international squabbles?

Senator MCCARTHY. Senator, as I said, he may have been an isolationist insofar as England was concerned, but he was an interventionist insofar as Communist Spain was concerned. There is no consistency in that if he is merely an interventionist.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Take the statement that you lift here on page 6 and print in your prepared statement. That seems to me to be an isolationist statement, that one paragraph. It says:

It would further mark a return to our historic policy of avoiding intervention in European civil wars by following a strict hands-off policy instead of taking affirmative action which, as events have demonstrated, inevitably affects the outcome of a struggle in which we profess not to be concerned.

SHIPPING ARMS TO COMMUNIST SPAIN

Senator MCCARTHY. Is the Senator trying to tell me that Philip Jessup was against shipping arms to the Communist section of Spain? If he is, I will be glad to get him an unlimited amount of evidence on that.

Senator FULBRIGHT. That statement in itself would say that he advocated a return to a strict hands-off policy.

But I want to come back to the first question. It seems to me all of these statements are of not much importance unless you have some evidence of his participation, and some activities in this organization. This is the Coordinaing Committee to Lift the Embargo. Was he a member of it, and in what respect was he associated with it? Senator MCCARTHY. Senator, as I tried to tell you, I don't know how many meetings he attended.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Do you know that he attended any?

Senator MCCARTHY. Let me answer, Senator, please. I am trying to give you the complete picture. I think the Senator should consider this important. I don't know how many meetings he attended; whether being a member means paying dues I don't know. I know that if you take the article in the New York Times and you take this, you find that he followed the Communist Party line on Spain, then made a reversal-not a reversal from the Communist Party line, but a reversal insofar as shipping goods to foreign nations is concerned, when England was in trouble, and that was the party line.

Now, if Jessup can explain that, good. I consider that a very important thing.

Senator FULBRIGHT. You don't understand my point at all. I am afraid I do not make myself clear. I am not talking about what he may have thought or what his policies were with regard to any of these questions.

Senator MCCARTHY. I am.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Here we have an organization. Reading your statement here, he wrote a letter to the "Times" and this organization lifted and printed in one of its own publications an excerpt from that letter. That doesn't seem to me very persuasive evidence that he was a participant or member of this committee.

Now, I may be wrong about it, but the fact here is that they lifted a paragraph from a published article over which he had no control; they can do that from any statement. How do you link him with this committee? That is the evidence that would interest me. What part did he play in the committee? You say you don't know how

many meetings he attended. Do you know whether he attended any? Was he a member? Did he do anything that identified him with the committee? I may be too stupid to follow your reasoning, but will you answer that particular question?

Senator MCCARTHY. The Senator isn't stupid.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Either I am not clear or your answers are not responsive to my questions.

Senator MCCARTHY. The Senator isn't a bit stupid. In other words, I gather the Senator thinks that this Communist organization stole this statement of Jessup's and used it.

Senator FULBRIGHT. They didn't steal it; it is public property. They can use anybody's statement.

Senator MCCARTHY. Senator, this becomes important in that this is the organization which followed the same line that Jessup has been following. Unless all of our papers are wrong, that line was to ship goods to the Communists in Spain, but don't ship them to England. If they stole this, if this wasn't what he believed, if he wasn't working with them, let him testify. I can't delve into his mind.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I don't make myself clear at all.

Senator MCCARTHY. Let me finish. I can't delve into his mind and find out why he did these things. I don't know why this Communist front was reprinting his stuff and putting it out. Senator FULBRIGHT. Let me try once more. You shift positions every time. If you wish to attack him on the frontSenator MCCARTHY. I am not attacking him. I am giving evidence on him.

DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN BELIEFS AND ASSOCIATIONS

Senator FULBRIGHT. If you wish to comment on him on the ground that his beliefs are wrong, that may be one thing; and this may be pertinent to that. I understood that in the beginning this was evidence of his association in organizations which were subversive. I assume you are following that latter procedure at the present time. So that makes it pertinent to connect him with the organization. If you are only discussing what his beliefs are, wherever they may be expressed, in the New York Times or a book or anywhere else, that seems to me to be an entirely different matter as to whether or not he was associated with this particular organization.

Now just for a minute, can you confine your observations to the one point of his association with this committee-not the substance of what his statements were. Did he have any activity in this committee? Did he play any part in it? Can you answer that particular question?

Senator MCCARTHY. You have asked me about four.

Senator FULBRIGHT. One question: What did he do in this committee?

Senator MCCARTHY. We will answer all four of the questions you asked. First, you said, Was I attacking his beliefs? My answer is "No," Senator. I am attacking his activities. I should not use the word "attack"; I am exposing, and I am giving the Senator a picture of his activities.

You ask: What do I know about his connection with this particular Communist front?

Senator FULBRIGHT. That is right.

Senator MCCARTHY. That is the question you want answered.
Senator FULBRIGHT. That is the main one.

Senator MCCARTHY. All I can give you on that, Senator, is that he was following the same lines indicated by the article in the New York Times. I may say I didn't produce too much evidence. I didn't think there was a question in anyone's mind about the fact that Jessup was strongly advocating shipments to Communist Spain.

Getting back to your question, the extent of the contact with this particular Communist front which I am giving the committee today is their reproduction of his statement following down the Communist Party line. In connection with that, now, in view of the fact that the other question was raised, I would like to have inserted as part of the record at this point the article from the New York Times, Sunday, October 1, 1939, on page 8E, entitled "Lifting Embargo Held Not Unlawful," and under it the subhead "Views of Drs. Jessup and Hyde declared controverted by the former's previous expressions."

But, so you need not come back to the question again, the only connection with this Communist front which I am giving the committee today is the reproduction of his material following the Communist Party line in regard to Spain.

STIMSON'S COMMENTS APPEARING IN BULLETIN

Senator FULBRIGHT. Mr. Chairman, I think it is pertinent, then, at this point to read that one paragraph which they also lifted from Mr. Henry L. Stimson. I would like to read that into the record.

Senator MCCARTHY. May I say I am not an admirer of Stimson. Senator SPARKMAN. Is that a letter from the New York Times that you asked to be reproduced?

Senator MCCARTHY. It is an article in the New York Times, quoting from Dr. Jessup's letter.

Senator SPARKMAN. Isn't it signed by somebody at the end?
Senator MCCARTHY. Yes. I beg your pardon. It is.

Senator SPARKMAN. That letter will be put in the record. I believe that in order that we will have the entirety of the letter from which this excerpt is taken we ought to put in at the same time this letter of January 31, 1939, from which the excerpt is taken. Without objection, both will be put in the record.

(The documents referred to appear in the record as follows:)

[Jessup-Burlingham Letter to New York Times, January 31, 1939]

TEXT OF REPLY OF BURLINGHAM AND JESSUP TO CONBOY'S LETTER Following is the text of a letter from Charles C. Burlingham and Philip C. Jessup, authorities on international law, opposing the contentions of Martin Conboy with regard to the embargo on the exportation of arms to Spain:

To the Editor, the New York Times:

Martin Conboy's letter, published in your issue of January 26, contains statements which cannot remain unchallenged as a basis for the immediate policy of the United States toward Spain or for the future policy of this country. Mr. Stimson's letter which Mr. Conboy seeks to rebut is in itself the answer to some of Mr. Conboy's arguments, but others of them are directed to points on which Mr. Stimson did not elaborate.

Senator FULBRIGHT. You readily admit that many of those named on here are considered to be very outstanding citizens?

Senator MCCARTHY. I have told you that about 10 times, Senator. I repeat it again.

Senator FULBRIGHT. Do you know of his participation in this particular dinner?

Senator MCCARTHY. Let's take your first question. You have asked me a question which I have answered 10 times. I will answer it again. You said, "Do you know there are names of some good people amongst the sponsors?" I have said over and over and over again that that

is true.

Senator FULBRIGHT. You don't need to say it again.

Senator MCCARTHY. They would not be successful unless they could get some good people who loaned their names.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I want to know if there is anything else. Is this all that shows his affiliation with this institute?

Senator MCCARTHY. With this particular Communist front, I told you three times; yes.

Senator FULBRIGHT. All right. That is all. You do not know whether he attended the dinner.

Senator MCCARTHY. You have heard me answer that, Senator. Senator SPARKMAN. I think we can proceed without arguing. Just answer the questions.

Senator MCCARTHY. Senator, I will answer them as I think they should be answered.

If the Chair decides to strike the answer, O: K.

Senator SPARKMAN. We are not making decisions to strike any answers, but I am just afraid that by the haggling between the two tables, we are simply delaying the hearing. I think we can ask understandable questions that can be answered briefly and in an understandable manner.

Let's proceed on that basis.

Senator MCCARTHY. I hope the committee does, otherwise it is reminiscent of another committee before which I appeared some time ago.

Official citations: American Russian Institute for Cultural Relations with the Soviet Union (also known as the American Russian Institute).

Citation of the California State Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities, report 1948, pages 169 and 327:

"A direct agent of the Soviet Union, engaged in traitorous activities under the orders of Stalin's consular service in the United States. Founded in 1926 * * * the semiofficial status of the American Russian Institute is established."

Then again, the Massachusetts House Committee on Un-American Activities cited it as "A Communist Organization supported by 'intellectuals.""

COORDINATING COMMITTEE TO LIFT THE SPANISH EMBARGO

Communist front No. 3: The Coordinating Committee To Lift the Spanish Embargo.

Official citations: Coordinating Committee To Lift the Spanish Embargo. Cited as "one of a number of front organizations, set up during the Spanish Civil War by the Communist Party in the United States and through which the party carries on a great deal of agitation."