That citation is from the Special Congressional Committee on UnAmerican Activities, House of Representatives, report, March 29, 1944, pages 137 and 138.

It was again cited as a Communist front by the California State Legislative Committee on Un-American Activities, report, 1947. I believe that is on page 210.

Communist front No. 4.

PROCEDURAL QUESTIONS

Senator SPARKMAN. Wait; I want to ask some questions.

Senator FULBRIGHT. I want to raise a point. If all we are going to do is to read out statements without making certain there was any substantial affiliation between Mr. Jessup and the organizations concerned, I do not see that we do anything of any value.

Senator SPARKMAN. I agree with you.

Senator FULBRIGHT. The witness is unable to give any evidence of any connection between Mr. Jessup and the organizations which he describes.

I do not see that it has any pertinency to the inquiry.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, let me suggest that the witness go ahead and present his case in his own way, and we can evaluate it.

Senator FULBRIGHT. That raises another point. I have some questions. The witness comes in and announces that he has very limited time, that he has an engagement, and I presume as soon as he finishes his statement he will leave; and there will be no opportunity to ask any question that would bear upon the question. He is already nervous about his plane.

Senator MCCARTHY. If that disturbs the Senator, I will be glad to stay over at least an hour after I finish, unless the committee takes up any time asking questions as I go through it. If the Senator is worried about my not being here to answer questions, I repeat I will stay here at least an hour, or let's make that an hour and a half. If necessary, I can put off this trip. I think this is more important.

When I say an hour and a half, that means that unless the time is taken up questioning as I go through the exhibits I can remain an hour and a half.

Senator SPARKMAN. I thought it was established in the beginning; in fact, as I recall the witness himself invited questions as we go along, and, frankly, I think the orderly way to develop this would be for the witness to present one of his cases, and then let members of the committee ask questions on that case.

I understand you to say you have six different Communist-front organizations. If we cannot finish all six today, why certainly we can come back later and take up where we leave off.

But it seems to me the orderly way to do that is to develop it case by case, since you are presenting it case by case. And I hope that all members of the committee will ask questions, because all we are trying to do here is to develop the facts, and I hope that every one of us will look at this just as objectively as we can and that we will not take the position that we are trying to establish a particular case. We want to get the facts as they actually exist.

Now, I want to ask some questions.

Senator MCCARTHY. Let me answer that. First, let me say that I do welcome the Senators' interruptions. I think when a question arises they should interrupt. The reason I offered to stay here after the case had been completed, was because of Senator Fulbright's worry for fear that I was going to get up and leave if I were allowed to pursue my testimony without interruption. I don't care whether the Chair allows me to present all the evidence first, and then examines me, or whether they interrupt, as you see fit.

Let me make this clear, however, Senator. You are talking about six cases. The Communist-front affiliations are not a case. The case consists of not only the Communist-front affiliations, but the money he received from the party, letters he wrote, and the Communists he hired, the Communists he recommended for high jobs, the entire picture which I intend to develop are the case, so don't make the mistake of thinking that the only evidence against Jessup is his affiliation with six Communist fronts. That is one link in the chain of evidence which Philip Jessup forged.

Senator SPARKMAN. I did not intend to suggest any such thing. I simply took the Senator's own statement that he had six different front organizations to present.

The point I am trying to make is that in the very beginning the Senator took these up topic by topic, and in his very opening statement, said he would welcome questions at any time, and we started out with that and we have questioned the Senator on the first two or three.

Senator MCCARTHY. Go right ahead.

Senator SPARKMAN. It seems to me that we should not change now, but should proceed as we were.

Senator MCCARTHY. I am not asking the committee to change. I am here to do what the committee wants me to do. I am here to present the evidence. I will follow any rules the Chair lays down. I am not trying to set the rules for the committee. I merely told the Chair before that when the question was asked I intended to answer it fully.

LETTER TO NEW YORK TIMES, JANUARY 31, 1939

Senator SPARKMAN. I wanted to ask a few questions on this organization to lift the Spanish embargo. I have looked at the excerpt which the Senator has submitted from that bulletin, but I have also taken the trouble to look at the full bulletin, and I do find the quotation in it that the Senator gives from Charles C. Burlingham and Philip C. Jessup. But I find that that was an excerpt in turn that had been taken from a very lengthy letter that these two gentlemen had written to the New York Times, and the excerpt which is given indicates it is the very last sentence in the letter to the New York Times under date of January 31, 1939.

Frankly, when I saw the leaflet as the Senator had put it out, I thought it was something that was written particularly for this publication, but I find that what happened is that the people who put out this publication had lifted a sentence from a very lengthy letter written by these two gentlemen to the New York Times under date of January 31, 1939.

Here it is, if you would like to see it.

Senator MCCARTHY. I do not want to look at it. I have the one covering the situation more fully. I am taking the Senator's word for that.

OTHERS QUOTED IN BULLETIN OF COORDINATING COMMITTEE TO LIFT THE SPANISH EMBARGO

Senator SPARKMAN. Now let me say further to the Senator that I find that in the whole bulletin a great many people are quoted. The very first quotation is from Henry L. Stimson. The next is Dorothy Thompson; the next is Francis M. Shea, dean of the University of Buffalo Law School; A. F. Whitney, president of the Brotherhood of Railway Trainmen; Donald Richberg, former chairman of the NRA Board; Stanley M. Ísaacs, president, Borough of Manhattan. I won't name all of them, but they go on and on. I should have gone on to the one from Charles C. Burlingham and Philip C. Jessup. That is the ninth given in that list.

Here is one from Helen Keller, and a great many others that I will not take the time to name.

Senator MCCARTHY. Senator, let's also

Senator SPARKMAN. Wait a minute. Let me finish this statement, because I want the Senator to comment on it after I have finished it. Then I find collective statements. Here is one from 5,000 American lawyers; 148 American writers; 106 leading American musicians; 70 leading social workers; 30 distinguished psychologists; 94 leading Americans; 92 distinguished Americans; members of the National Academy of Science; faculty of Northwest University; 196 Pacific Coast University professors; 69 faculty members of the Yale University; National Federation of Settlements; faculty members of Oberlin College; 34 faculty members of the University of Illinois; Republican members of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; and then by various organizations-I won't take time to read the namesand then they give comments from the New York times, the "Voice of the People," an Italian language paper; Chicago Daily News; Greensboro, N. C., News; St. Louis, Mo., Star Times; New York Herald Tribune; Washington Post; Bethlehem, Pa., Bulletin; Portland, Oreg., Oregonian; Roanoke, Va., World; Indiana Gazette; Dallas Morning News; Richmond Times-Dispatch; New York Sun; Cincinnati Inquirer; Pauls Valley, Okla., Democrat; Worcester, Mass., Gazette; Martins Ferry, Ohio, Times; Christian Science Monitor; New Republic; Nation; Churchman; Advance; Zion's Herald; the Presbyterian Tribune, and so forth and so on.

Now all of those are given in there, and what I want to ask the Senator is this: Why list and present to this committee just the one simple statement?

Senator MCCARTHY. I didn't lift the statement. That is only one page from the document.

Senator SPARKMAN. It is one excerpt from one page. Here is a photostat of the whole document, and that particular statement appears right here.

There is the whole page.

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