Ambassador JESSUP. Are you referring to the Yalta Agreement, sir? Senator BREWSTER. Yes. Ambassador JESSUP. I think that is very thoroughly covered, if I may suggest, Senator Brewster, in Secretary Acheson's testimony in the hearings before the Armed Sevices Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee of the Senate, in which he makes a comprehensive statement including a description of the Yalta Agreement, the reasons which led to the agreement with the Soviet Union, and the subsequent aspects of that. I should be very glad to refer to that statement. I don't think I could add anything to it. Senator BREWSTER. I am familiar with that, but it was utterly in conflict with what you are now saying as to the very grave importance of China retaining Manchuria against Russian encroachment, because that is what gave it to them. Ambassador JESSUP. I don't think I follow you fully, Senator. Senator BREWSTER. Did I misunderstand you in saying that you were concerned with Russian aggression on China and particularly on Manchuria? Ambassador JESSUP. That is right. Senator BREWSTER. If that had been true, it would be rather strange to give them control of the vital railway which gave them economic dominance over Manchuria. Ambassador JESSUP. I should be glad to read in the record, if the committee felt it was worth the time, Secretary Acheson's statement explaining the Russian situation. Senator BREWSTER. If you want to simply rest with that, it is quite agreeable with me. Ambassador JESSUP. I should like to point out, however, that in the years following Yalta we had a series of events. In the first place, pursuant to the Yalta agreement, a treaty was concluded between the Soviet Union and the Nationalist Government of China. Senator BREWSTER. With a gun at their backs. Ambassador JESSUP. Which, as Secretary Acheson pointed out— excuse me, Senator-in the testimony to which I referred, was welcomed by the Government of Chiang Kai-shek, the Nationalist Government, and which they felt was helpful. Subsequent to that time we know that the Soviet Union violated its treaty in which it had agreed to support the Nationalist Government of China, and began a series of encroachments upon the Nationalist Government of China. It was those events subsequent to the Yalta agreement and the ensuing Sino-Soviet Treaty which we were concerned with in the Assembly in 1949, and to which we directed our attention, and I may say directed our attention with the very excellent cooperation and full understanding of the delegation of the Chinese Nationalist Government in the Assembly at that time. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman? BRITISH ATTITUDE TOWARD U. N. RESOLUTION, 1949. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Might I ask this one question in this same connection: Is it not a fact that our British friends advised against our bringing that question up before the Assembly? Ambassador JESSUP. I do not recall specifically, Senator. You mean in regard to the resolution in 1949? Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I have in mind the resolution that Senator Brewster just referred to, that resolution, complaining of the Russian encroachment, and so on, in Communist China. The Chinese representative asked that this resolution be pushed, and we thought that we could not do that. I have the same mystery that Senator Brewster has. Why we could not is beyond me, and I was told in making inquiry that the British had urged us not to do it. I am not quite clear why we should be governed by any of the others if we felt there was a moral right involved here. That is what troubles me. Ambassador JESSUP. Senator, I would have to refresh my recollection on the attitude of the other delegations including that of the United Kingdom in regard to that proposal in 1949. I would like to say to you that we were not controlled merely because one other delegation or one or two of the delegations took a contrary point of view. As I suggested a moment ago to Senator Brewster, in all of these questions in the General Assembly you do have to make an advance estimate of how you are going to come out, and if you are not going to come out, well, the question always arises, Are you ahead or hurt by having raised the question which you do not succeed in getting the support of the Assembly behind? I would be very glad to go back over the records of that Assembly and to present to the committee subsequently any further information I have on that point. Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I do not want to detain you now. I think you can go ahead with your statement. Ambassador JESSUP. Yes, sir. I have suggested, Mr. Chairman, that there are two categories of points, one on the asset side and the second category is on the side of what we might call liabilities if they contained even a coloring of truth or substance. The second category includes the objections to my appointment which have been raised in some quarters and a series of allegations on which those objections are based. Now, Mr. Chairman, if it is inappropriate for me personally to argue items which I have said are on the asset side of the Jessup ledger, I believe I can appropriately and effectively deal with those which come under this second category of charges. In doing that I think the committee will recognize that I may have to make a fairly long statement, and I ask your sufferance to make a rather detailed statement because I am sure that the members of the committee recognize, as I do, that these allegations affect not only my qualifications as a delegate, but tend to impeach my common sense, my reputation for personal integrity, and my loyalty to the principles which have guided this Nation since the day it came into being. Futhermore, Mr. Chairman, these allegations have a long history. They have been refuted time and again, both by me and by the Department of State, and they still continue to be repeated. They continue to be repeated in a context which raises a general issue of far greater importance than the service of one individual. I recognize, however, that this committee has been assigned a specific task relating to my own nomination by the President to serve as a delegate to the next session of the General Assembly. I must, therefore, speak in personal terms. I think this hearing offers an opportunity to explore these allegations thoroughly and to dispose of them finally and permanently. SENATOR M'CARTHY'S CHARGES The charges, Mr. Chairman, which have been made against me by Senator McCarthy accuse me of disloyalty to the United States, and are designed to make people believe that I have been and am ready to sell out my country to the Soviet Union. I make that statement, Mr. Chairman, in spite of the fact that it seemed to me in the hearings during the last days that Senator McCarthy, realizing that he had no proof to back up these allegations, has shifted his grounds somewhat to suggest that I was merely a stupid stooge of other people. Senator BREWSTER. The most common, I won't say the most popular phrase being that you were alleged to have "a strange affinity for Communist causes." I gather from what you say that at other times they have gone beyond that statement. That is the indictment that is most commonly used. Ambassador JESSUP. That is a phrase which Senator McCarthy has used. As I listened to his testimony before this committee and as other people listened, I think one could not escape the conclusion that Senator McCarthy was accusing me of disloyalty to the United States, and of a willingness to sell out this country to the Soviet Union. Senator BREWSTER. That was yesterday, do you mean? Ambassador JESSUP. I think that was the import of his testimony, and I intend to address myself to that. Senator BREWSTER. I thought as far as he went he now was not quite sure whether you were a knave or a Ambassador JESSUP. Fool. Senator BREWSTER. Yes. Ambassador JESSUP. Excuse me for interrupting you, sir. Senator BREWSTER. He had a more alliterative phrase that I tried to remember, but I could not. That was, I thought, as far as he went. He was not quite certain what you were. Before he had thought you were a fool, but now he began to think you might be somewhat more than that. Ambassador JESSUP. Yes, sir. I am very glad if Senator McCarthy is beginning to realize his alleged evidence does not support any of his conclusions, but I shall fully deal with the original allegation that I have an affinity for Communist causes. Senator BREWSTER. That is the one. It seemed to me, Mr. Chairman, that in addition to dealing with the specific cases that the committee would wish me to supply it with facts regarding my background which might give it a general basis for determining the plausibility of the general insinuations against me. I do not want to go through that in detail. I have put some biographical data in an annex to this statement which appears following page 42 of my statement, and if I may, I will just ask that that be inserted in the record and will not go into it at this time orally. 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. JESSUT 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 th list of its past commanders a distinguished comrade, friend, and charter membe Ambassador Philip C. Jessup, whose record of patriotic devotion and continue helpfulness to our country over a period of many years is a source of great sati: faction, pride, and distinction to Utica Post and to its entire membership; an Whereas the sterling character, splendid reputation, and unquestionable loyalt and patriotism of Past Commander Philip C. Jessup, both privately and in h public capacity as United States Ambassador at Large, have recently been su jected to scurrilous, unprincipled, and wholly unjustifiable attack by one Jose] McCarthy, who in so doing has sullied the office of United States Senator whic 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. 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. Sincerely yours, Mr. PHILIP C. JESSUP, Norfolk, Conn. LEWIS L. STRAUSS. NEW YORK CITY, April 1, 1942. 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 on go along. Don't bother with grammar, construction, etc., for it is just a craft. If you do feel you can read it, then when you are done we would greatly alue your views on these points: (a) Do you consider it historically sound? (b) Do you agree with the conclusions? (e) 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? 9) 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 subject is important. Anything you say is, of course, confidential, as is also fact we have done this. Yours faithfully, HERBERT HOOVER. |