Mr. Pryor has been prominently identified with the Republican National Committee, and I think is one of the leading citizens of our business world.

Senator SPARK MAN. That insertion will be made.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I have one, September 22, 1941, Robert E. Wood, chairman of the America First Committee, asking Mr. Jessup to join the national committee of the America First Committee. It is a very good letter and is a long letter. The last paragraph I would like to read, however, and call your attention to it where it says:

Because we have admired your stand on this issue, I am writing to invite you to serve as a member of the national committee. At this critical time, it will mean a great deal to have your support and leadership.

That is September 22, 1941, which is in support of the suggestion I made a moment ago with regard to Mr. Nye and Mr. Clark's part. Senator SPARKMAN. That insertion will be made.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I also wish to put in three letters from Mr. Herbert Hover, all of them addressed to Mr. Jessup. One of them on April 1, 1942, April 3, 1942, and April 27, 1942.

These all deal with a request by Mr. Hoover to have Mr. Jessup examine a book which he and Mr. Gibson had prepared, asking for his views on it. I think the legitimate assumption is that he had a high regard at least for Mr. Jessup's opinion, but the letters will speak for themselves.

Senator SPARKMAN. They will be inserted.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I also wish to insert an excerpt from the hearings on House Joint Resolution 237, first session, Seventy-seventh Congress. The part to which I wish to call the committee's attention is a letter from Mr. Jessup addressed to Senator Hiram Johnson, member of the Foreign Relations Committee as of that time, in which this sentence occurs:

I therefore

this is Mr. Jessup writing

take advantage of Senator Taft's suggestion that I send you in writing a few observations on the consequences of repealing section 6 of the Neutrality Act of 1939.

In other words, it would appear from that letter that Senator Taft had requested Mr. Jessup to make a statement with regard to the repeal of the Neutrality Act.

I also call attention to a remark of Senator Hiram Johnson, of California, who is certainly a powerful and respected member of this body. He says just above that letter in this official record:

I also offer for the record a statement by Philip C. Jessup, a gentleman of high repute and an international lawyer of standing.

Both of these are in the form of letters to me.

I think they should be in the record, Mr. Chairman.
Senator SPARKMAN. They will be inserted.

LETTER FROM MR. LEWIS L. STRAUSS

Senator FULBRIGHT. I have a letter here from Mr. Lewis L. Strauss. This is April 3, 1950, at which time he was a member of the Atomic Energy Commission.

There has been some confusion about this matter in one of the other hearings. I would like to read this. It is very short. This is addressed to

DEAR DR. JESSUP : In New York yesterday I was asked why I had voted against your clearance by the Atomic Energy Commission, and I am therefore presuming that this misapprehension may be current. I did not vote against your clearance. I was not present at the meeting of the Commission when the question was considered. While I am opposed to the principle of "emergency clearances" as a procedure, I would have voted with my colleagues had I been present. That would have been because of my great respect and esteem for you.

I may say Mr. Lewis Strauss was then a member of the Atomic Energy Commission and is a prominent Republican from New York, and I believe presently associated with the Rockefeller interests and many other interests.

ADDITIONAL INSERTIONS FOR THE RECORD

I want to insert a resolution of the Utica Post of the American Legion, Post 229, very strongly commending Dr. Jessup and defending him from the attacks by Senator McCarthy. Here is one paragraph, for example:

Now, therefore, be it resloved, That Utica Post 229, American Legion, and its entire membership shall and do strongly resent, condemn, and decry the unprincipled, unjustified, unsportsmanlike, un-American, and intolerable conduct of Senator Joseph McCarthy in his wanton attempt without proof or reason to smear and destroy the good reputation and high standing of so devoted and patriotic a citizen as our esteemed and valued friend and comrade, the Honorable Philip C. Jessup, United States Ambassador at Large; and be it further

and so on.

I think the whole thing should go in the record. Mr. Jessup was a member of that post. They are well qualified to evaluate him, I think, as well as any organization in which a man has served as he has.

I also offer for the record a letter from Gen. George Marshall, March 17, 1950, addressed to Dr. Jessup. This is a photostat of the original and also, because the writing is difficult to read, of the typed copy of it. The last one I wish to insert is a letter dated March 18, 1950, from Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower, addressed to Dr. Jessup.

Senator SPARKMAN. All of those insertions will be made. (The documents referred to are as follows:)

Senator HIRAM JOHNSON,

Member, Foreign Relations Committee,

United States Senate.

DEAR SENATOR JOHNSON: Being confined to bed as a result of injuries received in an airplane accident 2 months ago, I am unable to accept the invitation extended by you to appear before the Foreign Relations Committee to offer testimony on the proposal to authorize the arming of American merchant vessels. I, therefore, take advantage of Senator Taft's suggestion that I send you in writing a few observations on the consequences of repealing section 6 of the Neutrality Act of 1939. I rather doubt whether it is useful to debate the legal aspects of this question, but international law has been invoked by the President in submitting the matter to Congress and by the Secretary of State in his testimony before the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House, and I believe the legal aspects should be clearly presented to Congress.

That international law does not forbid a nonbelligerent or even a neutral government to arm its merchantmen is, of course, true, but relatively immaterial.

The important question is, What are the legal consequences, under international law, when a peaceful merchant vessel is thus armed? The subject was very fully discussed during the last Great War and much has been written on the subject since then. One legal consequence of arming a merchant vessel is to change the vessel's character; she loses a vital part of her status as a merchant vessel and assumes some of the risks which attend a combatant vessel in time of war. As the official Commission of Jurists under American chairmanship pointed out at The Hague in 1923: “The mounting of arms in time of war may be construed as prima facie evidence of an intention to take part in hostilities." This consequence is especially clear when the vessel operates under shoot-at-sight orders of a government which has been at pains to make known that it is seeking to encompass the defeat of one of the belligerents and that it is operating on the theory that offense is the best defense. In such cases, the merchantman is, in legal contemplation, offensively armed. As has frequently been pointed out, an armed merchant vessel can fight a submarine on terms of at least equality and usually of superiority. The superiority is clear if the submarine comes to the surface to fulfill the duty of visit and search normally imposed by international law. The law, however, does not require a belligerent submarine to commit the suicidal act of rising to the surface near a vessel which carries a gun capable of destroying the submarine and which is under orders to shoot the submarine at sight. Our attention is drawn to the London Naval Treaty of 1930 with its rules on submarines which Germany accepted. The London Treaty, however, like the prior Washington Draft Treaty, dodged the problem of the armed merchantman. For the reasons stated above. I think it clear that an offensively armed merchantman is not entitled to claim the treatment due to a "merchant vessel" under the London Treaty.

I am quite aware that it is charged that German submarines pay no attention to international law anyhow. Somewhat illogically, we have been told also that because of the Nazis' general disregard of international law, the Nazis are not entitled to invoke international law as a justification for even such of their acts as may be legal. As a matter of fact, we know that merchantmen flying the American flag have not generally been sunk even by the Nazis. I do not believe that the Nazis' actions have been controlled by a feeling of respect for international law, but an issue is not clarified by misleading statements such as listings of torpedoed vessels in which there was merely some American interest, and without reference to other vital factors, such as belligerent convoy, and so forth. We should realize that if we arm our merchant vessels and send them out under existing conditions, we are putting on the seas tonnage which may be sunk without any violation of law. If Congress should then take the second step of repealing more of the Neutrality Act to permit these ships to enter combat zones, we must expect a large number of them to be attacked without warning. I am quite ready to admit that the Nazis would sink them anyway in combat zones and I regard the possible repeal of section 2 of the Neutrality Act as more serious. The Nazis give no special legal rights to their naval vessels by marking off great areas of the seas as danger zones; the United States gives no special legal rights to its merchant or naval vessels by marking off great areas of the seas as defensive zones.

I shall not attempt to discuss here the various other rules of international law which may be involved, such as the effect of belligerent convoy, resistance to visit and search, the rights of air craft, retaliation, and the like. The chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee was quoted recently as having said in a radio address that the repeal of the Neutrality Act was desired in order that the United States might resume its status as a neutral under international law. I assume that the Senator was misquoted, since the resumption of our status as a neutral under international law would require the repeal of the Lend-Lease Act and the abandonment of our present policy of aid to Britain and her allies. Personally I believe a German victory would involve very serious but not imminent danger to the United States. I accept the policy of aid to the democracies as already adopted by Congress and my opposition to the repeal of section 6 of the Neutrality Act is not based on any narrow technical ground. My opposition is based on the belief that the United States does not now need in self-defense to become a full belligerent and that we would do ourselves and the world vast damage by becoming one.

I agree with the late Lord Lothian that the "lesson of the last war is that we get neither democracy nor liberty nor peace out of a world war, no matter how noble the end for which it is fought." I take it that the real argument of the proponents of the pending measure is that American vessels will be safer on the seas if they are armed; I think the contrary is true, especially so long as we retain the prohibition of section 2 of the Neutrality Act and keep our ships out of combat areas. If the pending measure were put up to Congress frankly as a measure designed to add to our fleet certain auxiliary vessels which the Navy believes would be helpful in fighting German naval and aircraft, in the course of carrying war supplies to our allies, then Congress and the country could debate the question on its basic issue which is twofold

1. Does or does not the repeal of the Neutrality Act, piecemeal or in toto, bring us much nearer to total involvement in the war?

2. Do we wish to take that step even if that is the result?

Sincerely yours,

Dr. PHILIP C. JESSUP,

United States Department of State,

(Signed) PHILIP C. JESSUP.

COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY,

New York, N. Y., March 18, 1950.

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR JESSUP : I am writing to tell you how much your university deplores the association of your name with the current loyalty investigation in the United States Senate.

Your long and distinguished record as a scholar and a public servant has won for you the respect of your colleagues and of the American people as well. No one who has known you can for a moment question the depth or sincerity of your devotion to the principles of Americanism. Your university associates and I are confident that any impression to the contrary will be quickly dispelled as the facts become known.

Sincerely,

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

PINEHURST, N. C., March 17, 1950.

MY DEAR JESSUP: I am shocked and distressed by the attack on your integrity as a public servant.

Throughout your intimate service with me while I was Secretary of State you were clearly outstanding as a representative of the Government both as to your masterful presentations and the firmness of your opposition to all Soviet or Communistic attacks or pressures. This was conspicuously the case during your handling, on the Security Council, of the Berlin blockade issue.

Both the Under Secretary, Mr. Lovett, and I counted you as a great source of strength to the State Department during those critical days.

Faithfully yours,

G. MARSHALL.

RESOLUTION CONDEMNING ATTACK UPON PAST COMMANDER PHILIP C. JESSUP ADOPTED AT A REGULAR MEETING OF UTICA POST, No. 229, AMERICAN LEGION, HELD ON APRIL 6, 1950

Whereas Utica Post, No. 229, American Legion, is proud to number among the list of its past commanders a distinguished comrade, friend, and charter member, Ambassador Philip C. Jessup, whose record of patriotic devotion and continued helpfulness to our country over a period of many years is a source of great satisfaction, pride, and distinction to Utica Post and to its entire membership; and Whereas the sterling character, splendid reputation, and unquestionable loyalty and patriotism of Past Commander Philip C. Jessup, both privately and in his public capacity as United States Ambassador at Large, have recently been subjected to scurrilous, unprincipled, and wholly unjustifiable attack by one Joseph McCarthy, who in so doing has sullied the office of United States Senator which he presently holds: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That Utica Post, No. 229, American Legion, and its entire membership shall and do strongly resent, condemn, and decry the unprincipled, unjustified, unsportsmanlike, un-American, and intolerable conduct of Senator Joseph McCarthy in his wanton attempt without proof or reason to smear and destroy the good reputation and high standing of so devoted and patriotic a citizen as our esteemed and valued friend and comrade, the Honorable Philip C. Jessup, United States Ambassador at Large; and be it further

Resolved, That Utica Post, No. 229, American Legion, and its members in meeting duly assembled feel privileged at this time to reaffirm their continued trust and confidence in, their esteem and devotion to, and their lasting friendship for a distinguished public servant, a loyal patriot, and a great citizen, the Honorable Philip C. Jessup, a past commander of this post; and be it further

Resolved, That this resolution be inscribed upon the minutes of this meeting, that a copy thereof be delivered to our comrade, Ambassador Jessup; that a second copy be delivered to the public press; and that a third copy be mailed to Senator McCarthy with the admonition that his reckless and despicable conduct in this instance cannot be condoned by any right-thinking American and should never be repeated if he hopes to retain a shred of public respect.

Dr. PHILIP Jessup,

UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION,

New State Department Building,

Washington, D. C.

Washington, April 3, 1950.

DEAR DR. JESSUP : In New York yesterday I was asked why I had voted against your clearance by the Atomic Energy Commission, and I am therefore presuming that this misapprehension may be current. I did not vote against your clearance. I was not present at the meeting of the Commission when the question was considered. While I am opposed to the principle of emergency clearances as a procedure, I would have voted with my colleagues had I been presThat would have been because of my great respect and esteem for you. Sincerely yours,

ent.

LEWIS L. STRAUSS.

NEW YORK CITY, April 1, 1942.

Mr. PHILIP C. JESSUP,

Norfolk, Conn.

MY DEAR MR. JESSUP I would like very much to have your help. Therefore, I am wondering if I could impose on your good nature. Hugh Gibson and I have pulled together some 30 years of dealing with peace and war into the first draft of a book as a sort of preface to the next peacemaking.

We have had it set up on the linotype so as to get a real look at it, and are seeking advice and help on it.

We would deeply appreciate it if you could read it, or parts of it, and give us your frank and undiluted opinion on it. It is impossible to hurt our feelings. If you haven't the time to do it, just send it back.

If you do read it, just scribble any changes or questions in the margins as you go along. Don't bother with grammar, construction, etc., for it is just a draft. If you do feel you can read it, then when you are done we would greatly value your views on these points:

(a) Do you consider it historically sound?

(b) Do you agree with the conclusions?

(c) Is it a sufficiently new and fresh approach to be important?

(d) Would it be a substantial contribution to sound American thinking?

(e) Should it be issued now or await some other time?

(f) What sort of reception do you think it would have?

(g) Anything else you choose to give us.

I know it is a good deal of an imposition on so busy a person as yourself, but the subject is important. Anything you say is, of course, confidential, as is also the fact we have done this.

Yours faithfully,

HERBERT HOOVER.