Lapham-those were some that had been in official jobs. In the academic group there was Owen Lattimore; there was Prof. Amry Vandenbosch of the University of Kentucky; Prof. Karl Wittfogel of Columbia University; Prof. Mary Wright, of Stanford, and so forth. I will not go through the whole list, but I will submit it all for the committee's records. The list has already been published, but I think it is convenient to have it here at this point.

In drawing up this list, we wanted to elicit as many different views as we could, and I believe we succeeded. We got a great variety of views in those memoranda, and as I have already indicated, there was a rather broad coverage in the kind of people who were invited to submit these memoranda.

The three of us, after we had examined these memoranda, decided it would be useful to go further and bring a group of people together for a 3-day conference at the Department.

This decision was related, not only to our particular task, but was in line with the policy of the State Department's Office of Public Affairs, which has arranged similar conferences on a number of different subjects.

Now, since we were still seeking to get as broad a point of view as possible, get all different points of view here, the list of persons invited to the round table conference which was held on October 6, 7, and 8, 1949, included only a few of those who had been asked to submit memoranda. It was not the identical list.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. The McCarran testimony has the testimony of Mr. Wittfogel, whom I think you mentioned, of Columbia. He made a memorandum which he submitted, and because it was not in line apparently with the thinking of the group, he was not invited to the conference. Is that a fair statement of his position?

Ambassador JESSUP. As I recollect, it was along that line, Senator, and that is the reason I pointed out that there were only a few of those who were invited to submit memoranda who were also invited to attend the conference, because we wanted to get more views. We had had a lot of views in written form. We wanted to get another group to come down to this conference. There were, I think, about five of those who submitted memoranda who were also invited to come to the conference.

Yes,

Senator BREWSTER. Was Mr. Lattimore one of those? Ambassador JFSSUP. I think Mr. Lattimore is on both lists. he is. He submitted a memorandum and he came to the conference. I will have both lists introduced here. I do not have the exact comparison as to which ones who submitted memoranda also came. It will appear from this list. I can check it up and indicate it more specifically, if you prefer.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Witt fogel testifies that he submitted a memorandum which was not at all in line with Mr. Lattimore's views, and he assumed that that was the reason he was not invited to return.

POSSIBILITY OF RELEASING CONFIDENTIAL FILES

Ambassador JESSUP. His assumption was entirely incorrect. I do not personally recall what views Mr. Witt fogel expressed, and I do not personally recall at this moment what views Mr. Lattimore expressed. Our selection was not based on any such consideration of

that kind. We were interested, as I say, in getting a group of people who had some expertness on the Far East to come together. Some of those who submitted memorandums were included. Most of them were people who had not even been asked to submit memoranda. Senator BREWSTER. Do you know whether or not those files would be available to the committee?

Ambassador JESSUP. The files of the conference?

Senator BREWSTER. And of the preliminary memoranda.

Ambassador JESSUP. The situation on that, Senator, is, as already stated by the Department of State, in arranging that conference we informed the participants that the discussions would be considered confidential, and all of the records of that conference are classified in the Department's files as confidential.

Senator BREWSTER. Does that mean that they are not available to a committee of the Senate?

Ambassador JESSUP. It means that I do not at this time, sir, have any authority to produce them.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. We can ask for them.

Senator SPARKMAN. Let me say that I noticed in the Washington Post article this morning, in which the Department of State admitted its mistake, that Mr. Owen Lattimore was represented as urging the State Department to release the entire transcript. I may be wrong in attributing that to the Post article, but it was in one of the atricles that I read today. Mr. Lattimore urged the Secretary of State to release the whole.

Senator BREWSTER. Do you mean to intimate that he might have more influence than the Senate subcommittee?

Senator SPARKMAN. I do not intend that at all. I simply stated it as a fact. Here it is:

Meanwhile, Far Eastern Expert Owen Lattimore, whom Stassen accused of advocating a pro-Communist program at a different State Department conference in 1949, yesterday asked Acheson to release the entire transcript of the meeting.

It seems to me that unless some element of security is involved it might serve to clear up a lot of these questions if the entire transcript should be released.

Senator BREWSTER. As well as the memoranda.

Senator SPARKMAN. No, I think that makes a little different proposition, because I assume these people were asked to submit the memoranda on the basis of its being confidential. I do not know that.

Senator BREWSTER. Then I think the Senate committee should at any rate be permitted to examine them, without the customary restrictions. That would determine this whole question.

The release of the transcript, the minutes of the conference, is another distinct question.

Senator SPARKMAN. That is a matter for the subcommittee to take up later in executive session.

Have you offered this for the record?

INVITATIONS TO THE ROUND TABLE

Ambassador JESSUP. That is right, sir. There is one page, I think, which was detached. This is the list of those who were invited to the round table who were unable to attend. I might just mention them:

They include Mr. W. Langbourne Bond, Pan American Airways, Washington, D. C.

Monroe E. Deutsch, provost, University of California.
Anne O'Hare McCormick, New York Times.

Maurice T. Moore, chairman of the Board of Time, Inc.

Michael Ross, director, Department of International Affairs, CIO. J. E. Wallace Sterling, president, Stanford University.

Lt. Gen. Albert C. Wedemeyer. He was also invited and could not attend for personal reasons but submitted his views in a telegram. I would like to add that to the list which I just submitted.

The committee, as I have said, will notice in examining this list that it includes people from the academic world, former Government officials and diplomats, representatives of banking and business, and a representative of the International Missionary Council.

The invitations to these people were contained in telegrams sent by the Secretary of State. Those invited were told that the Department would pay their travel expenses and a per diem. I had personally expected to act as chairman throughout the conference but my duties in New York as a member of the delegation to the U. N. General Assembly made it impossible for me to attend throughout. Mr. Fosdick presided on the first day, I came down the second day, and made a trip back to New York, and returned for the third day.

So far as I was concerned in the meeting, and I think this was certainly Mr. Fosdick's view, too, I conceived my role to be solely that of chairman. The purpose of the conference was to obtain the views of the outside participants, and I carefully avoided intruding any ideas of my own.

NO FORMAL REPORT ANTICIPATED

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. May I ask you there if it was the purpose to use these views of participants as a basis, possibly, of a report that you were going to make on the wind-up of the work of the committee of three? Was that the purpose of it?

Ambassador JESSUP. Not quite, Senator.

In the first place, the Secretary of State had said to the consultants, "I am not going to ask you to file a formal report." He said, "What I would like you to do is absorb as much of these data as you can, participate in consultations with people in the Department who are charged with responsibility on this, sit in on conferences, work with them, consult with them and with me during this period that you can be here, but no final report is anticipated, requested," nor was one ever made. They never filed a formal report.

Now, as I have said, in the original letter he suggested, in addition to getting the views of the experts in the Department, "I hope you will branch out and get the views of outsiders as well."

What they were trying to do was to get as broad a picture as they could of points of view which were held by people familiar with the Far East, in order that they could form opinions which they could contribute in the discussions in the Department as policy was being discussed. There was no thought that this one activity, namely, this round table, was anything conclusive which could lead to the formultaion of policy. It was one in a great number of pieces which were being thrown together here in an attempt to get as much information as they could, which would enable them to paraticipate intelligently.

REQUESTING THE SECRET FILES

Senator BREWSTER. Was that the letter which referred to the files? Senator SPARKMAN. Yes, that is true, but I felt it was perfectly proper

Senator BREWSTER. I think we should not take them up if we are going to get the files.

Senator SPARKMAN. I have not made any request for the files because I assumed we would meet with exactly the same proposition that we have been met with every time so far, that the files are confidential and will not be released.

Senator BREWSTER. We are all progressing all the time. I think we should at any rate request them, and find out whether there would be any portions of the file made available. It seems to me a matter of some importance. If they take that position we will have to face the situation.

Senator SPARKMAN. If it is the wish of the committee I shall be very glad to have it done.

Senator BREWSTER. I think to have just the statement of Dr. Jessup on that matter, without any request by us for the files or any other information, would not be quite in harmony with proper procedure. Senator SPARKMAN. If it is the wish of the committee, I shall be certainly glad to ask the State Department for the files. I suppose it would have to be in an executive session if they presented them to us. Senator BREWSTER. They have done that in several instances. Ambassador JESSUP. As I recall reading these in the newspapers, there are three specific questions which he put up, which I have seen in the public press, which have been bruited around and carried certain implications with them. I would be very glad to have an opportunity now to answer briefly on each one.

Senator BREWSTER. I don't think we should hear it until we have at least sought to get the files, and we would have a little more knowledge about it than would appear merely from your statement.

Senator SPARKMAN. Suppose we hold that in abeyance for the time being, and you proceed with your statement.

THE AMERASIA CASE

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Would Dr. Jessup object to our adding those inquiries and requesting that he give us some comment at some time on the famous Amerasia case, about which I am completely baffled?

Ambassador JESSUP. I have no individual information.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. It has been so much identified with IPR

Ambassador JESSUP. I make the statement that it was disassociated; it was not associated.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. It had no part? Ambassador JESSUP. No, sir. There was a suggestion at one time that the IPR should take over Amerasia and they should be merged. That suggestion was rejected. Some of the individuals that were in the IPR were also active in Amerasia. There was no corporate connection and there was a definite rejection of a merger.

Senator SPARKMAN. Were you ever connected with Amerasia?
Ambassador JESSUP. No, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. Then suppose we move to the Stassen matter. Ambassador JESSUP. I would like, as I said, to give you the background setting as this has come up. I must assume that this has something to do with me or it would not be pertinent to this committee, therefore I wish to state my role in this situation.

RELATIVE TO STASSEN TESTIMONY

Senator SPARKMAN. I would like to say this before we get started on it. I read the Stassen testimony pretty thoroughly-not all of it. It is much broader than just your case. I realize that he does tie you in by that noon conversation he had with you with a great part of it. I know it is rather difficult to draw the line, but I hope we can at least limit our case to the question as to how it affects Dr. Jessup. I repeat, I realize that it is going to be difficult to do, but I hope we will keep that in mind. The thing we are aiming at here is the way it affects Dr. Jessup.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. That was the reason for my earlier question; whether or not he is going to treat both the round-table conference, which I think Dr. Jessup attended, and the other alleged conference in which Dr. Jessup participated with the Secretary_of State and others, with the charge that they cut off supplies to the Far East. I understand Dr. Jessup was not at that meeting.

Senator SPARKMAN. You have both of those in your papers? Ambassador JESSUP. I have not written out a statement with regard to the so-called meeting with Vandenberg, which I did not attend. I am planning to deal with it if the committee has questions.

STATE DEPARTMENT MEETINGS

Senator BREWSTER. I understand the meeting becomes more and more mythical. The State Department the day before yesterday denied it; yesterday the State Department admitted it took place, and today the President denies it.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Dr. Jessup states that he did not attend that meeting.

Senator BREWSTER. Mr. Stassen intimates he thought he did.

Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Stassen did in his testimony. I think he said that he attended the conference. Dr. Jessup says that he did not. It seems to me that almost disposes of that so far as Dr. Jessup is concerned. Now it is a matter for us to ask Mr. Stassen about.

Ambassador JESSUP. May I just say a word about that, Senator? Senator SPARKMAN. Yes, sir.

Ambassador JESSUP. In the New York Times of October 2, Tuesday, an article by William S. White, Washington date line October 1, referring to Mr. Stassen's statement which was the way this matter first came to my attention, said:

Mr. Stassen told the subcommittee that in November 1950 Senator Vandenberg, then the Republican foreign policy leader, had told him of a White House conference at which this Acheson-Jessup proposal was made. The date, the witness said, was not mentioned by Mr. Vandenberg, who recalled that he had vigorously opposed the scheme

89965-51-39