Ambassador JESSUP. That is correct, sir; yes.

Senator GILLETTE. That is the same meeting, the September 18, 1940, meeting?

Ambassador JESSUP. That is right, sir.

Senator GILLETTE. And the report that Senator McCarthy has made available to us purporting to be the minutes of that meeting is correct? Ambassador JESSUP. That, I think, is correct, sir.

May I point out that on page 30 I am dealing with the first stage of this. Field's resignation is in two stages. First, he submits a resignation saying, "I want to do research work." That is considered. Action is considered and referred to the board, and these various comments referred to on page 30 come in saying, “You should try to keep him."

Then, while it is still going on, before there is formal action on that, he sends this telegram saying, "I must affirm my resignation because Í am going to take this new job," namely, a job with the American Peace Mobilization, and it is that final resignation which was taken up in the meeting of September 18 of which the copy is reproduced in Senator McCarthy's material.

Senator GILLETTE. I do not wish to be unreasonable about it, but to me this is of paramount importance.

Ambassador JESSUP. Quite, sir, and I think we probably can find those two documents that you asked for, and include those in the record for the committee.

JESSUP'S LETTER TO CARTER, OCTOBER 29, 1940

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Dr. Jessup, I would like to ask you a question on a point that apparently arose around about this same time, when you were discussing the matter of a statement by Mr. Field when he left. In the hearings before the McCarran committee which have just been handed to me, I find that about this time you wrote a letter to Mr. Edward Carter. Was Carter the executive head of IPR at that time?

Ambassador JESSUP. Carter was at that time a member of the executive committee of the American Council, and I think at that time was secretary-general of the Pacific Council.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. This letter which is in the record here of the McCarran committee reads as follows:

DEAR NED:

I suppose that is Mr. Carter

I don't really think we can use Fred's statement as is, much as I would be glad to help him with his cause. How about a combination of the two, something like this:

And then it is quoted:

"Frederick V. Field, who has been on the staff of the American Council since 1928, has resigned in order to become executive secretary of the American Pace Mobilization. The American Peace Mobilization is a mass organization of progressive trade-unions, farm, church, youth, Negro, and fraternal groups dedicated to preserving the interests of the United States through the strengthening of American democracy and through nonparticipation in the war between England and the Fascist powers. Mr. Field had a deep conviction that he was obligated to accept this new responsibility and felt that in view of the acceptance of his new position, it was not possible for him to continue his official connection with the 89965-51-30

IPR. The executive committee, being forced to the coclusion that Mr. Field's decision was final, felt compelled to accept Mr. Field's resignation with great regret. It expressed its appreciation of the distinguished service that Mr. Field had rendered during his 11 years of service to the American Council and expressed the hope that when his new task was completed, it would be possible for him to go back to active leadership in the work of the IPR."

That was the end of the statement which apparently you suggested should be issued. You say, "Perhaps we could add to that the expression of appreciation that came from the staff. How does that strike you?" And so on.

The question I want to ask you in this connection is, I am not quite clear why this American Peace Mobilization meant "research work." Apparently from this he moved right into a very heavy activity to try and block lend-lease and things like that. Is that true? Were you going to develop that further?

Ambassador JESSUP. The point on that, Senator Smith, is this, as I was trying to point out and did not make clear, that the Field resignation comes in two stages. The first stage is covered on page 30 of my statement. He says he wants to resign to continue his research. work, and my recollection was that it was a new edition of this Pacific Handbook.

Then, while we are still considering what kind of action to take on that suggestion, that he get out of active administrative work to do research work, along comes his telegram which I mention on the top of page 31, saying "I have to affirm my resignation because I have taken a new job," so he gave up his idea of doing research work, as he gave up his position with the IPR, to accept this position with the American Peace Mobilization. Then the American Peace Mobilization becomes the second and final stage of his resignation.

REASON FOR FIELD'S RESIGNATION

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Do you feel he knew all along what he was really resigning for, and tried to mislead you by talking about research work in the first case, or do you think he really changed his mind?

Ambassador JESSUP. I have no such impression. I do not know what the timetable or background was of the organization of this American Peace Mobilization, whether it was cooking for a long time, whether he had been in the cooking process, or whether it was something that was formed quickly and where they asked him quickly. I have no information on all of that.

My recollection is, so far as I have been able to refresh it, that after he had done this reorganization in the council, namely in the early summer, it was really his intention to go back to writing and to work on a new edition of this handbook. Whether he had in the back of his mind this other thing, whether he knew about it, whether he was contemplating it, I have no information whatever, sir.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I find here in this letter to Mr. Carter from you, "I don't really think we can use Fred's statement as is,"; I do not know what that statement was, but you continue, "much as I would be glad to help him with his cause."

You were referring in your statement that you were interested in his research work? You were not interested in helping his cause in the American Peace Mobilization?

Ambassador JESSUP. I was just about to develop that when this interruption occurred.

A great deal was made of that by Senator McCarthy, and it was developed very fully in the hearings here the other day, so I would like to deal with that point in full.

FIELD'S RESIGNATION IN ORDER TO JOIN AMERICAN PEACE MOBILIZATION

Senator BREWSTER. I think it would be helpful if you had a copy also of the original statement, the one to which you refer in the opening of that letter, "Fred's statement as is."

Do you know whether that appears in your files?

Ambassador JESSUP. I will see if I can find that, and if I have it I will put it in, sir.

Senator BREWSTER. You may go ahead with your statement while your staff is looking for it.

Senator SPARKMAN. Are there any further questions at this point? If not, proceed.

(The material referred to is as follows:)

LETTER OF FREDERICK FIELD, OCTOBER 24, 1940

AMERICAN PEACE MOBILIZATION,
Washington, D. C., October 24, 1940.

Mr. EDWARD C. CARTER,

Institute of Pacific Relations,

New York City.

DEAR MR. CARTER: Here is a paragraph which you might be able to use in announcing staff changes. I'm afraid that anything more elaborate would be merely provocative; anything less, or different, would hardly give a fair picture of our position.

"Frederick V. Field who has been on the staff of the American council since 1928 has resigned in order to become executive secretary of the American Peace Mobilization. The APM is a mass organization of progressive trade-unions, farm, church, youth, Negro, and fraternal groups dedicated to preserving the interests of the United States through the strengthening of American democracy and through nonparticipation in the war between England and the Fascist powers. The organization represents the widely held view that the present trends in this -country are alarmingly reminiscent of the steps taken in France which preceded the sell-out (collapse) of that country."

Sincerely,

(Signed) Fred,

FREDERICK V. FIELD.

FIELD'S CAUSE

Ambassador JESSUP. As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, this question of the meaning of this expression "Help him with his cause," was a matter for some discussion in the hearings here the other day, and I believe that the meaning of that expression becomes clear only when it is considered in the light of the views which I held concerning America's entrance into World War II, and I wish to go into that question and develop a point which I touched on yesterday, but which I think needs fuller explanation in this context.

I would like to point out first, Mr. Chairman, that the greater part of my professional life had been spent in the study and teaching of international law. I went to Columbia University to begin to teach international law in 1925.

I have been on the faculty there ever since, and am on leave of absence from my post there now, and one of my primary interests in

this general field of international law had been for many years the law of neutrality, and that had led me to the publication of a good many articles and also some books on that subject. I mention these merely as evidence of my continuing interest in this subject. I dealt with some aspects of the law of neutrality in a book which I published in 1927 on The Law of Territorial Waters and Maritime Jurisdiction. Then, in 1929, I published American Neutrality and International Police. For several years I was engaged in editing a series of four volumes titled "Neutrality, Its History, Economics, and Law." I was the coauthor with Prof. Francis Déak of volume I of this series which was published in 1935, and the author of volume IV which was published in the following year, 1936. Then, under an organization known as the Harvard Research in International Law, I prepared a draft convention with comment on the Rights and Duties of Neutral States in Naval and Aerial War, and a similar volume on Rights and Duties of States in Case of Aggression, both of which were published in 1939. Also in 1939 there was published a two-volume Collection of Neutrality Laws, Regulations and Treaties of Various Countries, edited by Professor Déak and myself. A portion of those volumes, particularly the treaty provisions, had already been published as Senate Document No. 24, Seventy-fifth Congress, first session, entitled "Treaty Provisions Defining Neutral Rights and Duties, 1778-1936," presented by Senator Nye on February 24, 1937.

Against this background of a long continuing study of this subject of neutrality, at the outbreak of World War II it was my firm view that it was in the best interests of the United States to remain neutral. I would like to remind the committee that the historic policy of the United States had been a policy of neutrality, beginning with the first days of the United States, a policy which carried on through the first part of the First World War and which still seemed to be a generally prevailing idea in the United States at the time of the outbreak of World War II. It was my conviction, on the basis of my studies, that that was the best policy, would serve the best interest of the United States, to remain neutral. It was also my view that the policies of the United States Government, which were then being adopted, namely, as World War II broke out and developed, were not neutral and were apt to get us into the war.

JESSUP'S INTERPRETATION OF HIS DUTY AS PRIVATE CITIZEN

I was a private citizen, and I felt it my duty to speak out against policies which I thought were wrong. This was often not a popular thing to do. But I was opposed to the policies of our Government and I continued to oppose them up to December 7, 1941.

Senator BREWSTER. You were hardly to be considered neutral in the Spanish affair, were you?

Ambassador JESSUP. Absolutely, Senator.

Senator BREWSTER. You meant neutrality consisted in shipping arms to one of the belligerents?

Ambassador JESSUP. As I tried to explain the other day, Senator, and as is more fully expounded in the letter which is signed by Mr. Burlingham and myself, in support of the letter of Mr. Henry L. Stimson, the position which we all three took in regard to that question of shipments to Spain was that the proper course in accordance

with American tradition and practice, a course of nonintervention, was a course which required the repeal of the embargo. We felt that the embargo was not in accordance with the law of neutrality and that we should return to the policy which we had traditionally followed in regard to civil wars in Europe, a policy of not mixing up in the struggle. That letter is already in the record. I would be glad to read out the parts which give the legal arguments.

Senator BREWSTER. Did you just say a policy of not mixing up in the struggle?

sir.

Ambassador JESSUP. Not mixing up in civil wars in Europe, yes,

Senator BREWSTER. Shipping arms to one of the belligerents in a civil war would hardly come under the guise of neutrality, would it? Ambassador JESSUP. The point is, Senator, that we had mixed into the thing by adopting an embargo.

Senator BREWSTER. You felt that was an unneutral act?
Ambassador JESSUP. That was mixing in.

Senator BREWSTER. And you wanted to unmix us?

Ambassador JESSUP. I wanted to unmix us. As we pointed out in our letter, Senator, there was no strict question of neutrality because we had not recognized the belligerency of the contending parties. The law of neutrality applies only when there is a war in which the belligerency of the parties is recognized. The belligerency was not recognized, therefore we could not operate on the basis of neutral rights and duties because that law had not become applicable. What we argued was that we should return to the traditional American policy of not intervening in or mixing up, if I may use that expression, in civil wars in Europe.

ARMS TO THE COMMUNISTS IN CHINA AFTER 1946

Senator BREWSTER. Probably I was using "neutral" in the popular term, rather than in the strictly international legal as you used it here.

Now, what about arms to the Communists in China?
Ambassador JESSUP. At what period, sir?

Senator BREWSTER. After the close of the Second World War.

Ambassador JESSUP. Arms to the Communists in China after 1946? Senator BREWSTER. Yes.

Ambassador JESSUP. There was no period, I think there, if I understand the period you are referring to, sir, at which we recognized the belligerency of the parties. We did not issue a proclamation of neutrality in regard to the Chinese civil war.

Senator BREWSTER. You mean so it was all right for us to furnish arms to the Communists?

Ambassador JESSUP. So far as a legal obligation of neutrality, yes. As a matter of policy, we did not think it wise to furnish arms and we did not furnish arms. We did continue to assist the Nationalist Government, which was the Government we recognized.

Senator BREWSTER. But the Communists received no aid by arms from us after the close of the Second World War?

Ambassador JESSUP. There were individual shipments of private persons which were not wholly stopped until later. We, as a Government, did not supply any arms.