COMMUNIST PRINT SHOP

I want to call the Chair's attention to this, in connection with the question of whether or not Jessup knew this was a Communist front. At the time his name was appearing on the letterhead, he at that time was chairman of the Pacific Council of the IPR; at that time he was in charge of the printing of the publication of that organization, plus a vast number of other pamphlets that they were printing, many of them by Communist writers. We will get to their names later on. He knew at that time where the Communist print shop was. His name here is on a letterhead bearing the Communist print shop union label, so I hardly think you can assume that Mr. Jessup did not know this was a Communist front.

But beyond that, Mr. Chairman, if you want to waste more time asking me about the interlocking directorate, when it became a Communist front, the evidence on it, I can't give you that today, as I told you the other day, because I have not been in town since I was before you the other day.

Senator SPARKMAN. I suppose you do have these other points later in your statement?

Senator MCCARTHY. I think I cover everything. I cover everything upon which I have information.

Senator SPARKMAN. It is all right to move on, if the other members of the committee

Senator FULBRIGHT. Before you move on, when will you supply this information?

Senator MCCARTHY. I don't know, Mr. Fulbright. I will supply it as soon as I can. I may get some help, I hope, from the staff of this

committee.

Senator FULBRIGHT. You will supply it at your convenience, I presume?

Senator McCARTHY. That is correct.

Senator SPARKMAN. I will say this. Our staff will be very glad to work with you

Senator MCCARTHY. I am sure it will.

Senator SPARKMAN. Because we want to get the facts.

Senator MCCARTHY. I am sure the Chair does. I appreciate the Chair's attitude.

Mr. Chairman, Senator Fulbright, the Chair and some of the others were asking a number of questions the other day about the Communist front called the Coordinating Committee To Lift the Embargo.

This is on page 6.

The Chair pointed out that Secretary Stimson at the time Philip Jessup advocated that we lift the embargo on the shipment of munitions to Communist Spain also took that view.

And I want to call the Chair's attention to the fact that while Jessup switched insofar as England was concerned-follow this, now Jessup said, "Let's ship war materials to the Communist Government in Spain," but then when it came to the embargo against shipment of war materials to England Jessup made a very, very legalistic argument that we should not do that. Stimson, however, was consistent. He said, "Ship war materials to Spain"; he said, "Ship war materials to England."

NEW YORK TIMES-BRECKINRIDGE LETTERS

I have in my hand, Mr. Chairman—it is rather lengthy and I prefer not to read it-a copy of an analysis of the New York Times Breckinridge letters.

Mr. Chairman, in the New York Times in January 1939, from January 1939 to September of 1939-I am not sure if the dates are on here or not, because I hurriedly prepared this late last night or I should say early this morning-we have copies of the Jessup letter in regard to the shipment of war materials to our friend England, and letters from Mr. Breckinridge, analyzing Jessup's attitude. That is Henry Breckinridge, Assistant Secretary of War from 1913 to 1916. He was a Democrat, incidentally, who seconded the nomination of Harry Byrd for President at the Democratic Convention in 1932. He is a man of some importance. He does an excellent job of pointing out the inconsistency of Philip Jessup, and I would like to have this inserted in the record at this time.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

[Analysis of New York Times Breckenridge Letters]

JESSUP CHANGES HIS POSITION IN LINE WITH SHIFT OF OFFICIAL COMMUNIST PARTY LINE

January 1939: Send arms to Communist-backed Loyalists in Spain? "Yes." September 1939: Send arms to enemies of Communist Russia at beginning of World War II? "No."

JESSUP URGES LIFTING ARMS EMBARGO TO HELP COMMUNIST-BACKED LOYALISTS IN SPAIN

On January 30, 1939-3 months before the Communist-backed Loyalists in Spain were defeated-Jessup in a letter published in the New York Times urged that the United States immediately lift the neutrality embargo of arms to Loyalist Spain. Giving a wealth of argument, Jessup declared it would be within the law to send arms to Loyalist Spain.

With Soviet Russia actively participating in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the Loyalists, the Communist Party line in America at that time was working on the side of the Loyalists. One of the big planks in the party line was lifting the embargo on arms to Loyalist Spain.

This letter, signed by Jessup and Charles Burlingham, appears in the New York Times of January 31, 1939, page 2.

STALIN-HITLER PACT SIGNED AUGUST 1939

The signing of the mutual aid pact between Stalin and Hitler set into motion in the United States the Communist Party line that the United States should not be brought into the war against Stalin nor should it give aid to Stalin's and Hitler's enemies-France and England.

JESSUP URGES MAINTAINING EMBARGO TO KEEP ARMS FROM ENGLAND AND FRANCE AFTER STALIN AND HITLER BEGAN WORLD WAR II

Eight months after Jessup urged lifting the arms embargo to help the Communist forces in Spain, he wrote another letter which was published in the New York Times on September 21, 1939, urging the complete opposite in the case of England and France who were fighting the Nazi forces who were in league with Soviet Russia. In fact, Jessup declared it would be illegal to send arms to France and England.

It should be noted that this letter was written 1 month after the Hitler-Stalin pact was signed. In it Jessup urged that a strict embargo be maintained against England and France after those two countries became involved in a war with Nazi Germany supported by Communist Russia.

One of Jessup's arguments for maintaining a strict embargo against the totalitarian regimes:

if the Congress, in order to strengthen the sinews of France and England, removes the present embargo so as to enable those powers to gain a distinct advantage over their enemy, the United States makes itself in fact the ally of those who secure its sustenance."

In complete contradiction to Jessup's previous arguments in the case of the Communist forces in Spain, he says:

"A country such as our own needs today, when its Congress is summoned for a particular purpose, to consider honestly, resolutely, and fearlessly the question whether it can modify its law, in order to assist one set of belligerents whose cause it favors, without becoming a deliberate violator of the law of nations. Unless it can answer that question affirmatively in the best of faith and in the light of law and practice, it connot at this time relax its embargoes without besmirching its character as an advocate of international justice."

A series of letters between Jessup and Charles Cheney Hyde on the one hand arguing for maintaining the embargo against England and France, and Henry Breckinridge (Democrat and Assistant Secretary of War, 1913-16) on the other hand who favored lifting the embargo, developed the following interesting facts: "Now let us come to the other letter of Dr. Jessup printed in the Times of January 30. It will be recalled that this was just before the total collapse of the Loyalist government under the onslaughts of Franco and after 21⁄2 years of civil war. Candor compels the admission that Dr. Jessup fell back on the technical fact that the United States had never recognized the belligerency of either party to this civil war, and that, therefore, the United States was not technically bound by the laws of neutrality.

"But as a practical matter, he was advocating that the President lift the embargo on arms to Loyalist Spain that there might flow from our shores, 21⁄2 years after the outbreak of hostilities, a stream of arms and munitions to succor the Loyalist armies in their desperate plight. That was an eloquent and closely reasoned appeal to change the status after hostilities had commenced. In January he was urging the exact action in behalf of the Loyalists that he now deplores because it would be unneutral and unjust. He justified his stand on arms to Spanish Loyalists by saying there was no formal war.

"With great sincerity and facility, Dr. Jessup found the lawyer's reasons to help those whose cause he then espoused. It is interesting to see that same mind now weaving a less tenable thread of argument to the advantage of Nazi interest (and Communist interest) and to the disadvantage of the western democracies.

"His reason for raising the embargo at the eleventh hour to Loyalist Spain was stated by him as follows: '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.' This hands-off policy then was to lift the embargo and to permit the shipment of arms to the losing faction (Communist-backed Loyalists) of the Spanish civil war. His hands-off policy now would insure that England and France (then fighting the Communist and Nazi forces) could get no arms from here" (Breckinridge letter, New York Times, October 1, 1939). In answer to the above, Jessup wrote (on October 5, 1939):

663

we would suggest to those who support repeal of the embargo to ask themselves the question and to answer it in all honesty: Would you still favor repeal if the situation were the reverse of what it is and if repeal would aid Germany instead of the Allies?' If the answer to that question is 'no,' there is substantial recognition of what seems to be the obvious fact that the underlying purpose of repeal is to aid the Allies.

* *

Is the United States really ready to flout international law? Is it prepared to class itself with those nations whose conduct it has denounced as lawless? Somehow one cannot believe that the American people would consciously and deliberately become a lawbreaking nation.

66

* * Is it possible that the United States will now take the stand that national policy should be guided not by respect for law but solely by a desire to further what is deemed to be a national interest?"

Henry Breckinridge's answer follows (October 8, 1939):

"I hope there will be indulgence for persistence in adverting to the fact that Dr. Jessup signed still another letter to the New York Times on January 30, 1939. In that letter he argued with great skill that the President should lift the embargo on arms to Loyalist Spain. This, it will be remembered, was

។

after 22 years of civil war, when the Loyalist cause was on its last legs, and its only chance of salvation seemed to be a sudden flow of American munitions.

"In his most recent letter, Dr. Jessup insists that those who support repeal of the embargo ask themselves this question and answer it in all honesty: 'Would you still favor repeal if the situation were the reverse of what it is and if repeal would aid Germany instead of the Allies?'

"May I ask Dr. Jessup to go back in his mind to the last days of the Spanish civil war and ask himself that same question as applied to the Loyalists and Franco? Would he have taken the same position and shown the same energetic zeal if the situation had been reversed? If the Loyalists had been crushing the Franco revolt and that embargo was aiding the Loyalists, would he have put forth the same efforts to have the embargo lifted?"

Senator SPARKMAN. If the Senator will recall, we put the whole letter in the other day.

Senator MCCARTHY. We did not put in what I have here. I have gotten far beyond that.

POLICIES TOWARD ENGLAND AND SPAIN

I would first like to have the opportunity to put the dates that these various articles appeared in the New York Times, and for the benefit of the Senators who were not here at that time, we have had the Library of Congress search the Record, and we find nothing that Jessup did after Hitler invaded Russia to indicate that he still felt at that time that we should not ship arms to England. Do you follow the point? He followed the Communist Party line on Spain. He said, "Ship materials to Communist Spain." He said, "It is perfectly legal."

When it came to shipping war materials to England during_the Hitler-Stalin Pact, he said, "No, that is unmoral, it is illegal." Just what other language he used, I don't know. But the minute Hitler invaded Russia, from that time onward, Jessup was completely peaceful about the shipping of war material to Russia.

Senator BREWSTER. That was the time the Communist line also changed in this country. They switched.

Senator MCCARTHY. Completely so, and the Senator will recall that Frederick V. Field, one of the good friends of Jessup who will be covered here later, was leading a parade around the White House hurling foul epithets at the President for helping out France and England. The picket line continued until about half an hour after Hitler invaded Russia. The picket line faded away like that. Your party line changed just overnight.

Senator BREWSTER. Your statement is that Jessup faded at the same time?

Senator MCCARTHY. At the same time.

Senator SPARKMAN. What was that date?

Senator MCCARTHY. I think Hitler invaded Russia June 22, or 21, thereabouts.

Senator FULRIGHT. That was 1941; wasn't it?

Senator MCCARTHY. 1941; yes.

STASSEN'S TESTIMONY BEFORE M'CARRAN COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman, to get a more complete picture of this attitude on Jessup's part, I would like to refer to the testimony of Governor Stassen before the McCarran Committee yesterday, and I would like to refer first to page 1981.