However, the facts are these: During the San Francisco Conference, as I have already testified, I was an assistant on judicial organization to the United States delegation drawing up the charter for the United Nations. My assignment was to work on the legal commission of that conference which was charged with preparing the draft of the statute of the International Court and various international legal questions arising in the framing of the charter.

I served in that connection under Mr. Hackworth, who was then the legal adviser of the Department of State, and now the Judge from the United States on the International Court of Justice.

I served also with and under Judge Fahy, who was then the Solicitor General of the United States.

Krylov was the Russian representative on this same legal committee. He subsequently has been the Soviet judge on the International Court.

As part of my official assignment I, as well as Judge Hackworth and Judge Fahy, naturally worked with Krylov on that committee as we worked with the delegates of all the other countries represented there in that Commission, dealing with legal questions.

What he had in mind aside from that I do not have the vaguest idea. I do not know whether Mr. Vishinsky at the time of the Berlin blockade sent a message to Moscow saying that I was important from their point of view, because, if I may say so with due modesty, I think I put a spoke in their wheels on that.

But what the background of the Krylov thing is, I do not have any idea.

Senator SPARKMAN. I am not sure that I am familiar with that expression "put a spoke in their wheels." Is that the same as putting or throwing a monkey wrench into their gears?

Ambassador JESSUP. That is right, sir. I am back in the horseand-buggy days. I will change it to monkey wrench.

I think that comes from the old days when you used to wreck a cart by putting a spoke in and knocking them out.

The second man is a man I believe named Aronoff.

JACOB ARONOFF

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes. it is Jacob Aronoff.

Ambassador JESSUP. I have searched my files and my recollection in regard to such person. I have no identification of him whatsoever. As far as I know I never heard the name until it was raised in these connections and I have no recollection of the man, of ever dealing with him or ever seeing him. I do not know who he is and I know nothing whatever about him.

MICHAEL GREENBERG

On Michael Greenberg, as pointed out, I think, in the question, he was associated with the Institute of Pacific Relations. He became an associate of the Pacific Council. That is one of the staff of research in 1940 when, as I explained, I had agreed to continue in a titular capacity after the expiration of my 1 year, when we found it impossible to get the confirmation of Admiral Yarnell.

During that subsequent period, as I pointed out before, I was unable to devote much time to the institute, but consented to remain

in the post because it was impossible to secure unanimous vote on the selection of my successor.

Then I find from consulting the records that in 1941 Owen Lattimore, who had been editor of Pacific Affairs, resigned and Mr. Carter, who was secretary-general of the international organization, took over as editor of Pacific Affairs, but asked Greenberg to serve on a temporary basis as managing editor.

Now, I have also been informed that when Greenberg applied for a job with the Board of Economic Warfare, sometime during the war, he gave my name as a reference. Why he did, I have no idea. My contact with him was merely that I was the titular chairman at the time that he was serving temporarily as editor of the institute's magazine.

I have searched the files, my records and recollection, and so far as I know, I was never actually asked by anybody about him; I never wrote in support of his nomination and nobody even addressed to me an inquiry as to whether I supported him for the post.

I have not been in touch with him since and it is my understanding that he has returned to what I believe was his previous position, that of a professor at Trinity College in Cambridge.

My association, therefore, in summary, was in this official connection through the institute at a time when I was not in close operation with the organization, but had continued to serve in a titular capacity while he was serving temporarily on the research staff and in the editorship of the magazine.

JESSUP'S LOYALTY

Senator SPARKMAN. Dr. Jessup, of course the question of loyalty is involved here. I believe the essence of Senator McCarthy's charges has been that you had a peculiar affinity for Communist organizations and Communist-front organizations, and furthermore that at times you did follow the Communist line.

Now I think that you have certainly given a complete statement relating to all of those charges but I believe it would be well for the record to have categorical answers and for that reason I propound these questions now.

Are you, or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party? Ambassador JESSUP. No, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. Are you, or have you ever been knowingly a member of a Communist-front organization?

Ambassador JESSUP. No, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. Have you ever consciously followed the Communist line?

Ambassador JESSUP. No, sir.

To avoid any misunderstanding on that, sir, may I repeat what I have said in my testimony, that at the present time, for instance, the Communist line is that they are in favor of peace. That is the line. It is not the fact. I am in favor of peace. I have not followed the Communist line.

Senator SPARKMAN. Of course, I meant the question in its usual connotation. That is, of unswervingly carrying out the mandate.

Ambassador JESSUP. My reply is a categorical "No," Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPARKMAN. I suppose this is a proper comment, although it may be in the nature of testimony, but I think it is proper in connection with the questions regarding these three incidents mentioned in the McCarran letter, that he states that those matters are in your security file.

I assume that you are aware of the fact that those files have been reviewed by the Loyalty Review Board of the State Department and that you were given clearance on that review.

Ambassador JESSUP. Yes, sir, and I believe you read into the record. a letter from Senator Bingham_indicating that his board had confirmed the findings of the State Department.

Senator SPARKMAN. Yes; that was my next question, if you were aware of that fact also.

Ambassador JESSUP. Yes, sir.

Senator SPARKMAN. I hope we have not omitted any questions that I promised anybody we would ask. Do you have anything further? Senator SMITH of New Jersey. Yes.

I would like to call Dr. Jessup's attention to this. At my request the staff of the McCarran committee prepared a list of names of persons who at present hold positions or formerly held positions in the IPR who had been identified in sworn testimony by witnesses, as a member, or in the service of the Communist Party, the Soviet Union, or the international Communist movement.

The names appear here, and the relation to the IPR appears here, and the witnesses who identified them in that form. There are between 30 and 40 names. It is quite a startling demonstration. Whether they can all be proved to be Communists or connected with Communist organizations, I do not know, but I think Dr. Jessup ought to be aware of the fact that these charges have been made and that these people are the ones indicated.

I think for the record we ought to have this list, because it may be necessary in the future sometime to check it up. I do not know whether you care to make any statement about any of these names. will submit it to you if you desire.

I

I will suggest to the chairman that if Dr. Jessup cares to make any statement after he sees this list in the record, he will be given the privilege of doing it.

STAFF OF THE INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS

I have this further question: You testified very clearly this morning that in your judgment the IPR had no influence on our change of foreign policy in the Far East.

Can you say as much for all the staff of the IPR, and all these persons, especially some of those to whom I called your attention this morning, and to which you indicated relations, as far as their being delegates to these conferences are concerned.

Do you know whether the staff might have had an influence in the change on far-eastern policy?

Ambassador JESSUP. I think insofar as the staff is concerned, that my answer would be the same, that I doubt very much. I have no personal knowledge as to any contact that any individual may have had with any other individual but my generalization would be that

the staff did not influence the foreign policy of the State Department.

ment.

What I would like to point out, Senator, which I think is apparent from the discussion of the IPR, is that practically everybody in the United States who was prominent in far-eastern affairs, in Government, in business, in academic life, at one time or another was a member, or participant in the affairs of the IPR. It was that kind of an organization. It had such a good reputation that everybody active in the field had some part in it.

Now the result of that is that you do find that people who were active in the IPR at one time or another also in positions in the Government. That is the natural result of the fact that the organization was an organization of such breadth and extent. But in the face of this kind of insidious influence I think it is roughly comparable to talking about the question of whether the American Bar Association has had an influence on the American Government. A lot of lawyers who belong to the American Bar Association have also been in important Government positions. I think the two things are roughly analogous in that sense.

Senator SPARKMAN. Do you not think there may be one difference, though, the American Bar Association passes resolutions.

Ambassador JESSUP. That is true, sir. They may get more influence in that way and as I pointed out the IPR avoided passing resolutions or taking positions. Therefore, as an organization it did not, but I was addressing myself to Senator Smith's inquiry about individuals.

Senator GILLETTE. I did not understand your identification of the document you wish to put in the record, Senator Smith.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I asked the staff of Senator McCarran's committee if they would go through the record of the committee and find who in the IPR had been named by some of the witnesses as having been connected with some Communist movement.

I thought the list would be valuable to have, to see how extensive that was.

Senator GILLETTE. What end did you think would be served by having that in our record?

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. It was just because the point had been raised about the IPR. I think Dr. Jessup has given a good explanation of the IPR, and evidently there have been a lot of employees that have been in the picture.

Senator GILLETTE. I have no objection, Mr. Chairman.

Senator SPARKMAN. By the way, the correct name of that Committee is the Internal Security Subcommittee.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. I referred to it as the McCarran committee because Senator McCarran is the chairman of it.

Senator SPARKMAN. I felt that perhaps you called it the UnAmerican Activities Committee.

Senator SMITH of New Jersey. No; it has nothing to do with unAmerican activities. It is the subcommittee of Judiciary of which Senator McCarran is chairman.

Senator SPARKMAN. Let this be printed in the record.

(The document referred to appears in the record, as follows:)

List of IPR personnel prepared by the staff of the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security

Attended IPR conference; Japanese Willoughby, Aug. 9, 1951.