) here and talk about the Chinese Government being a puppet of the Kremlin, everybody does not believe that. That is true of many of the nations represented in the United Nations; isn't it? Ambassador JESSUP. That is true, sir. Senator SPARK MAN. In fact, I called the attention of this committee to the fact that when the question was put to General MacArthur in the MacArthur hearings he said that, in his opinion, the present Chinese Government was not a mere puppet of the Kremlin but that it and Russia were following parallel courses. Ambassador JESSUP. Yes, sir. I think it may be perhaps analogous to suggest that the citizens in my State of Connecticut might think that it was perfectly clear that the Congress of the United States should pass certain legislation, but it might very well be that because of the views of citizens of other States you would not get a majority in the Congress for passing that legislation. The situation in the Assembly of the United Nations is somewhat comparable. You have 60 nations. A certain number of them are perfectly clear as to one course of action which they consider appropriate. Other nations don't always share that view for one reason or another. Senator BREWSTER. Do I understand then that you never take any position unless you are assured of victory? Ambassador JESSUP. No, sir. As I tried to point out this morning, Senator Brewster, the question is on a case of this kind whether your general cause, in this case, the cause of assistance to the Nationalist Government of China, is going to be furthered or hurt by the action which you take in the Assembly. Sometimes if you take a defeat the effect on the prestige of the government and its general position is worse than if you never raised the issue. Senator BREWSTER. Some of the most glorious things in the world have emerged from defeat, however, and I am afraid the United Nations is not doing itself a service in ignoring the obvious aggression of the Soviet in overcoming the Nationalist Government of China. However, that is a matter of opinion. Ambassador JESSUP. Shall I continue, Mr. Chairman? GENERAL MAC ARTHUR'S VIEW ON SOVIET-CHINESE RELATIONSHIP Before you do that, since I referred to the testimony from General MacArthur, it may be well for me to read the exact words. Senator Fulbright asked this question: Do you think that there is no chance whatever that a country like Poland or China can ever be disassociated from the Kremlin and the control of the Kremlin? General MACARTHUR. I have never said the Chinese were under the control of the Kremlin. Senator FULBRIGHT. You don't believe they are? General MACARTHUR. I believe there is an interlocking of interests between Communist China and the Kremlin. The degree of control and influence that the Kremlin may have in China is quite problematical. In another place, he used the expression, and I don't find it now, that they were following a parallel course. Senator BREWSTER. That is a little different question than is presented, I think, to Mr. Jessup. The question is whether the Russians violated the Charter of the United Nations in the assistance that Russia gave to the movement of the Communist in China and on that I think Mr. Acheson in these hearings was quite definite. I asked him the question. He said he had no doubt that Soviet Russia had furnished indispensable aid to accomplish the destruction of the Nationalist Government of China. Whether we could get all the rest of the countries to agree with us on that I recognize is another question. Senator SPARKMAN. My only point was that I think we are all agreed that that is true, and I think our people generally would agree to that, but there are 60 nations in the United Nations. Senator BREWSTER. And you did not mean to intimate that General MarArthur had ever challenged that statement? Senator SPARKMAN. No, not at all, but the domination of China by the Kremlin. Senator BREWSTER. That is right. Senator SPARKMAN. All right, Mr. Jessup. AMERICAN LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION Ambassador JESSUP. Mr. Chairman, I would like to go on with Senator McCarthy's so-called Communist front No. 4, which appears on page 7 of his brochure. This is the American Law Student's Association. The material which he presented is again a letterhead, in this case, undated, upon which I am listed as a member of the faculty advisory board. I think it has already been noted in the hearings, Mr. Chairman, that as a member of the faculty advisory board I am in distinguished company, including three faculty members from St. Johns University, which is a very fine school, run by ordained priests of the Roman Catholic Church. I have checked my records and find that I was a faculty adviser to this association from practically 1937 to 1940, aproximately those years. The last record which I have of contact with the association is that in March of 1940 I addressed their convention along with Ferdinand Pecora and Henry Epstein, who was then solicitor general of the State of New York. As to any connections that the American Law Students Association might have had, I cannot speak with any personal knowledge. I had only rather slight contact with the organization, and I can't even find that I participated in their second annual convention in 1938, although it was held on the campus of Columbia University, where I was teaching. It has already been brought out, Mr. Chairman, in these hearings, that the sponsors of this 1938 convention include two very distinguished Member of the Senate, the late William Borah and former Senator Elbert D. Thomas. The late Senator Arthur H. Vandenberg, of Michigan, along with many others, telegraphed greetings to the convention. I think in the committee hearings the other day, Senator McCarthy declined to comment on these greetings until he had seen the messages. I believe since then, Mr. Chairman, the pamphlet of the second annual convention of the American Law Students Association, which reproduces these comments, has been introduced in the record. If I am wrong in that, I should like to introduce it for the record at this point. 89965-51-16 Senator SPARKMAN. I think it was introduced. I will be glad to have you pass it to the reporter to make certain it is in there. (The document referred to appears as follows:) [Pamphlet of the Second Annual Convention of the American Law Students Association] YOU ARE CORDIALLY INVITED TO ATTEND THE SECOND ANNUAL CONVENTION OF THE AMERICAN LAW STUDENTS' ASSOCIATION The Harkness Theater, Columbia University, Saturday, February 12, 1938; Sunday, February 13, 1938 PURPOSE Law students today find themselves preparing to practice in a rapidly changing world. Whether the lawyer opposes or favors the changes taking place, he recognizes the need for adjusting the technique of his work and the internal relationships of his profession to the new requirements of the community. Law schools must not lag in this general reorientation if they are to continue to perform their proper role of advancing and improving the profession. Alert law school faculties have already been pressing toward a rebuilding of curricula and pedagogy to meet the demands of the day. Alert law students have begun to move in the same direction. The cry for practice courses, for solid training in Administrative Law, for more adequate attention to business, labor, and legislative methods, and for a broader social perspective on the work of the courts has arisen everywhere; and the cry has begun to meet with response. The solution to these new problems cannot, of course, be sought wholly through curricular adjustments. Today law students seek opportunities to develop their capacities not only as competent, up-to-date lawyers, but also as good citizens. The highest ethics-which involve a recognition that service to the community is the primary professional obligation-cannot be learned in classrooms alone. To appreciate his ethical and civic responsibilities, the law student must become fully aware of the questions confronting both the legal and lay community; he cannot remain blind or passive to the turmoil in the world about him. The most advanced law schools are therefore encouraging not only Law Reviews, Moot Courts, and Legal Aid services, but also various types of forums, junior bar associations, and discussion groups. Law students are not blind to the personal problems which will beset them upon graduation. They know the difficulties of obtaining satisfactory legal employment, or of assuring themselves security as private practitioners. They are aware of the havoc wrought among lawyers by the depression, and are seeking to prevent repetition of that havoc. Many of them face acute financial problems even now, while at school. More than forty percent of all law students are forced to study at night. The number of those who must leave school before graduation, despite good grades, has become alarming. If these many problems are to be faced, a common medium must exist for the expression of law student views, desires, and interests. The American Law Students Association came into existence in response to precisely this need. Its sole purpose is to represent the attitudes arising out of the situation in which law students find themselves-to provide an instrument, in cooperation with school administrations, the bench, and the organized bar, for the evaluation and betterment of that situation. It has met with a cordial response wherever it has made its purpose plain. The American Law Students Association has now been in existence for one year. It is holding its Second Annual Convention to survey its achievements, to plan its perspectives for the next year, to adopt a permanent Constitution, and, above all, to introduce the Association to the law students and law schools as yet unacquainted with it. REPRESENTATION At its Second Annual Convention, The American Law Students Association wishes the participation of as representative a crosssection of law school opinion as is possible. Therefore, official delegation by law school organizations will not be a requirement for admission or for participation in the proceedings. Representation by organizations is of course desired where possible. But every law student, recent graduate, or instructor will be welcomed. Law Review Staffs, Moot Courts, Legal Aid Societies, Pre-Bar Associations, Student Councils, Legal Fraternities, and the other Law School organizations are urged to give serious thought to the aims of the American Law Students Association, with a view toward participation in the work of the Convention, and to cooperation or affiliation with the Association. To facilitate such discussions, copies of the draft Constitution, to be submitted for amendment or approval at the Convention, will be forwarded upon request. REGISTRATION Registration will take place in the lobby of the Harkness Theater at Columbia University, beginning at 9:00 A. M. Saturday, February 12, 1938. There will be a fee of fifty cents to nonmembers and of twenty-five cents to members of the Association. There will also be an opportunity to indicate at that time whether you plan to attend the dinner on Saturday night. Saturday, February 12th: PROCEEDINGS Morning Session 10:00 A. M. Convocation. Dean Young B. Smith, of Columbia Law 10:30 A. M. President's Report: The First year—And After. Mr. Robert W. Page, President, A.L.S.A. 11:15 A. M.-Election of Convention Chairman and the Resolutions, Constitution and Nominating Committees. 11:45 A. M. Address: The Law Student in a Changing World. Mrs. 12:30 P. M. Luncheon. Afternoon Session 2:00 P. M. The Convention reconvenes in four Seminars, as follows: Seminar 1) Legal ethics and responsibilities (to consider especially participation in Legal Clinics as one form of legal service; and the law students' obligations to society as a whole). Discussion Leader: W. Bruce Cobb, Counsel, N. Y. Legal Aid Society. Seminar 2) Economic Problems Facing Law Students and Recent Graduates (to consider school costs, scholarship and other aid, and problems of employment and clerkship). Discussion Leaders: Isador Lazarus, Committees on Professional Economics of both the National Lawyers Guild and the American Bar Association; and David Scribner, President, Lawyers' Security League. Seminar 3) Adapting Law School Curricula to Changing Demands for Legal Services. (To consider standards of scholarship and admission, needed.courses, teaching values.) Discussion Leaders: Burton A. Zorn, General Counsel, New York State Labor Relations Board. (Other leader to be announced.) Seminar 4) Coordination and Differentiation of Law Review Work; and the Work of Moot Courts. Discussion Leader: Prof. Nathan A. Greene. to be announced.) (Other leader 5:30 P. M. The Convention reconvenes, and Resolutions formulated by 5:45 P. M. 6:45 P. M. Evening Session the Seminars presented. Consideration of Resolutions. 6:45 P. M. Convention Dinner, John Jay Mezzanine Dining Hall. Paul J. Kern, Commissioner of the Municipal Civil Serv- UNITED STATES PARTICIPATION IN THE UNITED NATIONS 2. CHINA A grave complaint was presented by China in the autumn of 1949 against the Soviet Union for violations of both the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship and Alliance of 19471 and the Charter of the United Nations. The complaint was considered by the General Assembly. The first of the two resolutions adopted laid down certain essential standards of conduct to which all nations are called upon to adhere in their relations with China in the interest of reaching stability of international relations in the Far East. The other provided for further consideration by the Interim Committee not only of the Chinese charges but of any violations of these standards of conduct in the future. The general charge made by the Representative of China was that the political independence and territorial integrity of China and the peace in the Far East had been threatened by Soviet violations of the 1945 treaty and of the United Nations Charter. Specifically it was charged that, in contravention of the treaty, the Soviet Union had thwarted all efforts by the Chinese Government to reestablish its authority in Manchuria and had aided the Communist regime in taking over areas evacuated by the Soviet army and supplying that regime with arms and ammunition, and that the Soviet Union is seeking both economic and political domination of Manchuria. The Chinese Representative further charged that the independence of China had been jepardized through Soviet intervention in Chinese internal affairs by rendering assistance toward violent overthrow of the recognized government and that the integrity of China had been infringed by the establishment of special regimes under Soviet control not only in Manchuria but in the northern provinces of China as well. He submitted a draft resolution proposing that the Assembly make a finding sustaining these charges, determine that the Soviet Union has violated the treaty and the Charter, and call upon all members to desist from giving military and economic aid to the Chinese Communists and to refrain from granting diplomatic recognition to any Chinese Communist regime. At the outset the Delegate from the Soviet Union sought to prevent any consideration of this problem by the General Assembly by opposing its inclusion on the agenda, and asserting that the Chinese Delegation had lost the right to represent the Chinese people. When this effort failed, the Soviet Delegation announced its refusal to participate in any consideration of the problem or to take into account any decision which might be made at the request of the Chinese Delegate. The Ukrainian, Byelorussian, Polish, and Czechoslovak Representatives took the same position. This refusal of one of the parties to the dispute to answer charges made against it or to take part in the discussion was sharply criticized by the United States Delegate and by other delegates as well. In the course of the consideration of this problem in the General Assembly, it became increasingly clear that a large number of delegations, though sympathetic with the case presented by the Chinese Delegate, felt that the complexity of the legal and factual issues involved made it impossible for the Assembly to make a specific finding of facts regarding the charges. Many were reluctant, in view of the rapidity of developments in the Far East, to commit themselves to decisions which would restrict their future freedom of action regarding the relations between their respective countries and China. Furthermore, some delegations felt that the United Nations would have been in a better position to have taken effective action on the specific charges brought by the Chinese if the Chinese Government had not waited so long to bring the matter before it. The United States Representative, Ambassador Philip C. Jessup, voiced the deep concern of the United States Government at the evidence of continuation by the Soviet Union of prewar Czarist and Soviet Russian imperialistic policies in the Far East-policies characterized by efforts to obtain special monopolistic privileges, to encroach on Chinese sovereignty, and to promote dismemberment of China. He indicated the view of the United States that there is serious question whether certain provisions of the 1945 Yalta agreement between the United 1 See Department of State Bulletin, Sept. 2, 1945, p. 333. |