tee. That was the group formed in San Francisco, and also apparently a resolution passed by the Northwest Group in Seattle and these resolutions were to the effect that:

Although the IPR should represent all shades of opinion in American life, members of its governing body should not be connected with controversial organizations, and also as it had become known to the Bay Region Committee that Mr. Carter was looking for a successor, a committee of three should be appointed to cooperate with Mr. Carter

and so on.

The gist of it seemed to be that they suggested that Mr. Field should withdraw and should not be continued in the governing body.

Senator BREWSTER. Did they actually suggest that?

Ambassador JESSUP. They were at this meeting and were asked to withdraw from the room while the trustees discussed this question. Senator BREWSTER. Did the resolution actually request his retirement?

WITHDRAWAL OF FIELD AND CARTER FROM THE IPR

Ambassador JESSUP. I do not have the text of the resolution.
The minute says:

Passed resolutions that both Mr. Field and Mr. Carter should cease official connection with the IPR.

I presume they asked them to withdraw.

The board then went into executive session after Mr. Carter and Mr. Field withdrew. In setting forth the basis of the dissatisfaction on the part of the members in San Francisco, Mr. Dean

that is Mr. Arthur Dean of Sullivan and Cromwell

read letters that stated in Seattle and San Francisco there was vehement opposition to Messrs. Carter and Field. The opposition to Mr. Carter was on the basis of his administration of the IPR

I gather there were some personal difficulties there and not on any ideological grounds—

According to one letter from San Franciso, Mr. Carter had over a long period of years acted in an arbitrary and dictatorial manner toward many people, particularly businessmen.

The opposition to Mr. Field was because he is associated in the public mind with the Communist Party. It was reported that the executive committee of the IPR in both San Francisco and Seattle had voted that it was in the best interests of the IPR that Messrs. Carter and Field were no longer officially connected with the institute.

Mr. Dean said he had studied the matter as carefully as possible. In his opinion the opposition in San Francisco could be traced to a few rather excitable people. A part of it consisted of personal animosity. Part was born of dissatisfaction over the fact that the national office is located in New York rather than in San Francisco. He thought too that some of the dissension was due to Mr. Carter's association with Russian war relief during the war.

The record is that after the annual meeting of February 18, Mr. Gilcrest and he had a long talk with President Sproul about the dissatisfaction in the Bay Region and all three agreed Mr. Carter should be retained as executive vice chairman.

With regard to Mr. Field, President Sproul had been of the frank opinion that the best way out might be for Mr. Field to agree to withdraw from the executive committee.

I am going to put this in the record, Mr. Chairman if I may. I do not know whether you want me to read it all now.

(The material referred to appears as follows:)

MINUTES OF BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING, MARCH 18, 1947

AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS, INC.

New York, N. Y.

Members present: Knight Biggerstaff, Ithaca; Edward C. Carter;1 Lauchlin Currie; John L. Curtis; Len De Caux, Washington; Arthur H. Dean; Brooks Emeny, Cleveland; Rupert Emerson, Cambridge; John K. Fairbank, Cambridge; Frederick V. Field; Charles K. Gamble; Huntington Gilchrist; Carrie Goodrich; William R. Herod; William W. Lockwood, Princeton; Donald Tewksbury; Donald Straus.

Staff: Marguerite Ann Stewart, Tillie G. Shahn, Laurence E. Salisbury, Louise H. Schatz, Celestine G. Mott, Ruth D. Carter.1

1. Approval of minutes

The minutes of the last meeting of the board, held on November 26, 1946, the minutes of the annual meeting of members, held on February 18, 1947, and the minutes of the executive committee meetings of December 23, 1946, February 11, and March 12, 1947, were approved and accepted.

2. Members' meeting of April 22

It was reported that the notice of the meeting for the April 22 meeting, called to consider Mr. Kohlberg's proposals for an investigation of the IPR, were going forward on March 18 and 19. The material being sent to the members is attached as appendix A.

3. Vacancies in the board of trustees

It was moved, seconded, and voted to elect for a term of 1 years, or until the election and qualification of their successors, the following to membership in the board of trustees: Dwight L. Clarke, of Los Angeles; Ken R. Dyke; Richard Heppner; Donald B. Straus; and Juan Trippe, of New York; and Paul G. Hoffman, of South Bend, Ind.

4. Appointment of committees and election of officers

With regard to the appointment of the education advisory committee, the research advisory committee, the nominating committee, and the finance committee, it was moved, seconded, and voted to accept the recommendations of the executive committee at its meeting on March 12. The committees thus appointed are set forth in appendix B.

It was moved, seconded, and unanimously voted to accept also the recommendations of the executive committee with regard to the election of the vice chairmen, the assistant treasurer, and the secretary as set forth in appendix B.

5. Controversial persons

Mr. Carter then brought up the matter of the criticisms of Mr. Field and himself which were being made in San Francisco and Seattle. The bay region committee had first passed resolutions that both Mr. Field and Mr. Carter should cease official connection with the IPR. Subsequently, resolutions had been passed to the effect that though the IPR should represent all shades of opinion in American life, members of its governing body should not be connected with controversial organizations; and also that as it had become known to the bay region committee that Mr. Carter was looking for a successor, a committee of three should be appointed to cooperate with Mr. Carter and make a report within 4 months. Mr. Carter stated that he was aware of his 68 years and didn't want to remain in his job any longer than the board desired him to. He asked the board to appoint a small committee to look into the matter of his successor.

In order to give the board a chance for freer discussion, Mr. Carter then asked Mr. Dean to take over the chairmanship of the meeting and retired from the room. Mr. Field also withdrew at this point.

Executive session.-The board then went into "executive session." In setting forth the bases of the dissatisfaction on the part of certain members in San Francisco, Mr. Dean read letters which stated that in Seattle and San Francisco

1 These three persons withdrew from the meeting during the discussion of Mr. Carter's and Mr. Field's positions in the IPR.

there was vehement opposition to Mr. Carter and Mr. Field. The opposition to Mr. Carter was on the basis of his administration of the IPR. According to one letter from San Francisco, Mr. Carter had, over a long period of years, acted in arbitrary and dictatorial manner toward many people, particularly businessmen. The opposition to Mr. Field was because he is associated in the public mind with the Communist Party. It was reported that the executive committees of the IPR in both San Francisco and Seattle had stated that it was in the best interests of the IPR if Mr. Carter and Mr. Field were no longer officially connected with the Institute. Mr. Dean said he had studied the matter as carefully as possible. In his opinion the opposition in San Francisco could be traced to a few rather excitable people. Part of it consisted of personal animosity; part was born of dissatisfaction over the fact that the national office is located in New York rather than in San Francisco. He thought, too, that some of the dissension was due to Mr. Carter's association with Russian relief during the war. He reported that after the annual meeting on February 18, Mr. Gilchrist and he had had a long talk with President Sproul about the dissatisfaction in the bay region and that all three had agreed that Mr. Carter should be retained as executive vice chairman.

With regard to Mr. Field, President Sproul had been of the frank opinion that the best way out might be for Mr. Field to agree to withdraw from the executive committee. During the course of the discussion, Mr. Dean and Mr. Gilchrist had pointed out that Mr. Field was one of the most valuable and objective members of the executive committee and that they had never known him to show any political bias whatever as far as the IPR had been concerned. They also had argued that if Mr. Field were removed from the committee, it would be welcomed by Mr. Kohlberg who would then concentrate his efforts on getting rid of other members who participate actively in the IPR. They had further pointed out that Mr. Field had been reelected to the board with a majority-that, in fact, he had received a majority of the votes of the California members. It was noted in this connection that the nominating committee in preparing the ballots for the new board of trustees informed the entire membership that Mr. Field was a member of the editorial board of the New Masses.

There then ensued a frank and full discussion of the points at issue. Several of the business members of the board expressed surprise at the criticism from San Francisco members with regard to Mr. Carter's relations with businessmen. These members maintained that Mr. Carter gets on extremely well with businessmen. As a banker member phrased it: "He knows how to go after people and has the confidence not only of businessmen but of the foundations. In any opinion, we couldn't get a better man."

In the course of their remarks, one member noted that Mr. Carter had been elected to the Board by a large majority of votes.

Another member asked the Board to look at its problem on the background of the total national picture in which "political emotionalism confronts the American people on every side." Since there was no evidence of any incompetency on either the part of Mr. Carter or Mr. Field, he favored holding the line.

Another stated that although he did not agree with Mr. Field's writing in the New Masses, he wanted to stress the fact that he had been most helpful on the executive committee-so much so in fact, that he regarded him as the most valuable member of the committee.

Another member directed the attention of the Board to a letter from Mr. Mortimer Graves of the American Council of Learned Societies in Washington which was included in the trustees' docket (see appendix F) with which he wished personally to associate himself.

Yet another emphatically supported what had been said with regard to Mr. Field's objectivity and scholarly performance with regard to every IPR activity with which he had been connected and pointed out that Mr. Field was an exception to an assertion with regard to the lack of intellectual integrity on the part of people who cooperate with Communists. He urged the committee to confirm Mr. Field's appointment to the executive committee.

Another member urged the trustees to resist the effort to remove Mr. Field from the executive committee. He stated that here in a nutshell was a situation which was going to confront many intellectuals during the next few years-the threat of a Communist taint. In his opinion, the board must avoid letting reactionary thinking cause a fear of communism. He pointed out that there is also danger of fascism in this country, and that perhaps it is more dangerous than communism. He stressed the fact that this board has a real responsibility—to

preserve democratic thinking and performance in the IPR. Mr. Field is the easiest point of attack by the Kohlbergs and the reactionaries, but if he is to be excluded from the executive committee now because of this attack upon him, next it will be Mr. Salisbury or somebody else.

A member from the Middle West declared that he had served with Mr. Field' for the past 12 or 14 years in many IPR activities-the only exception being the executive committee-and that he had never seen Mr. Field follow the party line in any way as far as the IPR was concerned. He added that, though he had frequently been called upon to explain Mr. Field's connection with a scholarly organization like the IPR, he favored continuing him on the executive committee, first, because he was always scholarly and objective as far as the IPR was concerned; and second, because removing him from the committee at this time would be regarded generally as giving in to Mr. Kohlberg's attacks.

A business member of the board pointed out that if Mr. Field is causing disruptions in the IPR, the trustees should give this most serious consideration. It was clear, he said, that Mr. Field was making enemies for the institute and that no one could foresee what effect that might have on the future of the IPR. After extensive discussion of the pros and cons of both issues, it was voted unanimously to express appreciation of Mr. Carter's achievements as executive vice chairman during the past year. It was further voted unanimously that Mr. Carter be asked to serve for at least another year as executive vice chairman and to approve Mr. Carter's suggestion that a committee be appointed to explore the matter of securing a new member for the staff who, after training, might serve as a deputy, and if he made good, might eventually succeed Mr. Carter.

Mr. Dean thereupon appointed a committee to consist of Mr. Huntington Gilchrist, Mr. Brooks Emeny, and Mr. W. W. Lockwood for this purpose.

Mr. Dean then called for a vote on the question as to whether Mr. Field should be included in the executive committee for 1947. Fourteen trustees voted in favor of Mr. Field's serving on the executive committee for 1947 and one voted against. (As Mr. Carter and Mr. Field were absent from the meeting when the vote was taken, they therefore did not vote either on the Field or the Carter resolution, although as members of the board they would have been entitled, if they wished, to vote.)

6. Appointment of executive committee

In view of the preceding discussion, it was moved, seconded, and voted to appoint the executive committee as set forth in appendix B.

7. Election of chairman and treasurer

It was unanimously voted to ask Dr. Sproul to continue as chairman of the American IPR for another year.

After a review of several possibilities, it was moved, seconded, and unanimously voted to elect Donald Straus as treasurer of the American IPR.

8. Rotation of terms of office of the board of trustees

It was moved, seconded, and unanimously voted to adopt the recommendation of the executive committee with regard to the rotation of terms of office of the board of trustees, namely, that: In those areas where three or more members had been elected, the term of office shall be determined by taking an alphabetical list of the members in that area and, starting at the top of the list, appointing the first person for 1 year, the second for 2 years, the third for 3 years, the fourth for 1 year, the fifth for 2 years, etc. Thus, the terms of office of the new board are set forth in appendix C.

9. Budget for 1947

As the budget subcommittee has been unable to complete its report as yet, the matter of the 1917 budget was remitted to the executive committee for action after the budget committee has completed its task.

Mr. Carter raised the question of the present cost of the Far Eastern Survey and the pamphlets in relation to the amount of receipts from the sale thereof. Printing costs have increased greatly during the past year. It has been suggested that the price of the Far Eastern Survey be increased from $5 a year to $6 a year in line with similar rises in the cost of other periodicals. With regard to the pamphlets it has been suggested that rather than increase the price of $1 for six pamphlets the pamphlets be made slightly shorter in order to save on the printing costs. Another suggestion had been made with respect to asking the regions to work out some arrangement whereby 10 percent of those gifts over a certain

amount would be sent to the national office rather than the $5.50 which is at present sent on all memberships regardless of their size. One proposal was made that the regions, instead of remitting $5.50 to the national office per membership, should increase this remittance to $7.50.

The board voted to remit this whole question to the budget subcommittee for its recommendations and to the executive committee for action after consultation with the regional offices.

10. Progress reports

The progress reports on the research, education, publications distribution, membership, and Far Eastern Survey activities for the year are presented in appendix D.

11. Letter from G. W. Fisher, of Hawaii

A letter from G. W. Fisher, the chairman of the Hawaii Group of the American IPR, dated March 8, was presented to the meeting (see appendix E). The board recognized that this brought forth interesting and helpful suggestions with reference to a closer national integration of the organization and remitted to the executive committee the matter of working out the details of the suggestion. 12. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned.

ATTITUDE TOWARD FIELD

Senator BREWSTER. What was Mr. Field's position at that time? Ambassador JESSUP. He was among the trustees and I think the question was on whether he should be included in the executive committee for 1947. This ends up:

Mr. Dean then called for a vote on the question as to whether Mr. Field should be included in the executive committee for 1947. Fourteen trustees voted in favor of Mr. Field's serving on the executive committee for 1947 and one voted against.

Senator BREWSTER. Who was secretary? Mr. Field was no longer secretary?

Ambassador JESSUP. No, sir; he was no longer secretary. He was one of the trustees.

Senator BREWSTER. When did he retire as secretary?

Ambassador JESSUP. I don't think he resumed that after he retired in 1940. I think that is correct, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. Were you present at the meeting the minutes of which you have just read?

Ambassador JESSUP. No, sir; I was not present at this meeting. I was no longer a member of the board of trustees at this time. My connection with the board and any official position there, having terminated in December 1945.

Now the thing I would like to point out, sir, is that this group of men, which included people like Mr. Arthur Dean, who was taking a leading part in this meeting as indicated here-people like William H. Herod, et cetera, with trustees and within this meeting and it reflected a point of view-and you will see this upon reading the full minute, here which was prevalent in the organization and which I shared, and that was that, curious or not as it may have been, that in his work for the IPR, Field had not revealed this Communist slant which seemed to be indicated by his outside activities.

In the discussions which I personally had, with people like Dean Calkins, the dean of the Columbia Business School, who along in the middle forties was chairman of the executive committee. People like Gilchrist and with Arthur Dean and with Sproul, people of that character, I found that there was no dissent from the proposition that in