examination of the Secretary until his return, if he is to return, or whether the committee would prefer that we proceed this afternoon.

I am sure, speaking for myself, that I would be glad to go ahead, although I realize that there is a possibility of unnecessary duplication in view of the fact that I do not know what his testimony was this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. I will say to the Senator that it is not the fault of the committee that the Senators were not here. As soon as I was advised as to what the attitude of the committee was this morning I notified the chief of the staff here to notify both Senator Donnell and Senator Watkins that we were going to meet at 10:30 and we would be pleased to have them.

I had assumed also that the public announcement I had made on the floor of the Senate several days ago to that effect, in which we invited all Senators to be present, if they desired, had come to the notice of Senators Donnell and Watkins prior to the meeting of the committee this morning.

I am not complaining that you were not here: I am simply trying to show that it is through no action of the committee that you were not here.

Senator DONNELL. May I say to the chairman that I am sure there is no desire to enter into a controversy on the matter, but the fact is that on the 23d day of March there was delivered to the chairman, by myself, a letter, jointly from Senator Watkins and myself, requesting not merely the privilege of attendance, and not merely the privilege of interrogation to such extent as someone else might deem proper, but all the privileges of members of the committee, except the right to vote, in connection with these hearings.

Our request was based primarily on the fact that we felt that the committee had already, as to 12 out of the 13 members, expressed themselves as being in harmony with certainly the theory of the treaty, and subsequently, I may add, that the other member, Senator Lodge, had expressed himself to a similar effect by a newspaper article.

I may say that we received no response whatsoever to our letter, and this morning the communication to which the chairman refers was merely a statement-I have a copy substantially of it in my pocketto the effect that we were invited to come to this meeting, with no statement as to whether we were entitled to interrogate, no statement as to whether our letter was being acceded to, no other statement at all, except that we were invited to come, as other Senators.

I think that was stated by Dr. Wilcox. The exact language is available if the chairman needs it.

As to the invitation on the floor of the Senate, I think the chairman will find on an examination of the record that there was no invitation, as far as I find at any rate, in the announcement by the chairman yesterday. It was no invitation. It was simply a request for an excuse by the committee for attendance, and previous announcement was to the effect that the hearing would start today.

I say, however, there is no desire on my part to enter into controversy. Our request, however, has never been complied with, or acknowledged, until 10 minutes before the hearing this afternoon, at which time I received a letter from the chairman, who told me some 40 or 45 minutes before, I should say, substantially, that he was going to send me such a letter.

The CHAIRMAN. The Senator knew, and the Senator from Utah also knew, that we were going to meet today for these hearings. That was told on the floor of the Senate. We thought that the interest of the two Senators would be such that they would appear.

The Senator from Texas, who is the chairman of this committee, could not reply to the Senator's long and involved letter without knowing what the views of the committee members were. As soon as I found out what the attitude of the committee was I called you this morning. Until that time no definite conclusion had been reached.

Now, the Senator's letter, and his statement here now, refers to all of the privileges, all of the privileges except voting. The precedent, so far as I know, in the Senate, has been that frequently noncommittee members of the Senate attending a hearing are invited to ask questions, and to sit. But other than that I do not know what these privileges are that the Senator refers to.

Certainly he cannot have the privilege of voting, and he did not ask for that. But the primary responsibility on this committee is for the members of this committee to investigate these facts.

Now, the Senator referred to the fact that he understands that the members of the committee are for the pact. I do not know. I have taken no vote. But certainly everybody knows that the Senator from Missouri and the Senator from Utah are not for the treaty, and that they are here not to-if I may say it-elucidate such information as we had this morning, but they are here to impede and obstruct and delay and hinder and filibuster, if I might say, against the treaty.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, it is somewhat difficult, in view of the statement by the chairman

The CHAIRMAN. I do not say that in any hostile spirit.

Senator DONNELL. I know that. I observe it is very friendly and nonhostile. May I say that when such terms as impede, obstruct, delay, hinder, and filibuster are used against a fellow Senator, I cannot help resenting any such language; and I do resent it.

There is no such attitude on the part of either Senator Watkins or myself. We have just as much right to our opinion as any member of this committee has, and we are not here in a desire to impede, obstruct, delay, hinder, or filibuster.

I may say we have devoted considerable time to this matter, and we should like to examine the witnesses and do so intelligently. I am quite willing to proceed with examination of Secretary Acheson this afternoon, if it is the pleasure of the committee. On the other hand, as I started out by making the inquiry, in view of the fact we did not hear the testimony this morning, I asked whether or not you desire us to proceed.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not intend to offend the Senator by those terms. The future conduct of the Senators in their questioning will reveal whether or not I am correct in my original view.

I withdraw the language, however, and apologize. I want to be courteous, I want to be fair. But this Senate, and this committee, have some considerations in this matter as well as the two Senators from Missouri.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Watkins, I am sorry to say, is not from Missouri. We would like to have three Senators.

The CHAIRMAN. I assume the Senate would like to have everybody on this committee, for that matter.

Senator DONNELL. Is it all right for us to proceed with this matter? The CHAIRMAN. It is perfectly agreeable to me. I do not know what the engagements of the Secretary are.

Secretary ACHESON. I am at your disposal.

The CHAIRMAN. Tomorrow we have booked former Senator Austin, who will be here. I suppose we can work that out. For the time being we will go on with the interrogation. If it is necessary to suspend it, we will postpone the remainder of it.

Senator WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, since my name has been mentioned, and since certain statements have been made concerning my views, my commitments

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly you can make a brief statment. I would appreciate the courtesy of making a brief statement.

Senator WATKINS. In the first place I have made no commitment for or against this treaty. I have asked some questions which I think ought to be answered. Maybe some of them have been answered.

The CHAIRMAN. Would the Senator mind saying now whether he is for it or against it?

Senator WATKINS. I cannot say. I have not completed my investigation of it.

The CHAIRMAN. You have not finished? That is fine.

Senator WATKINS. If the chairman would please, I was trained as a lawyer and as a judge. When I do not understand a matter I try to get all the information on both sides. I think my conduct has been absolutely fair in the matter.

The statements in the Record, in the Congressional Record, contain exactly what I have said, and I defy you or anyone else to go into those statements and find that I have been reflecting upon any Member of this body, or have taken a definite position one way or the other.

The record is there, and I rely entirely upon it. I would like to say something about this

The CHAIRMAN. I want to be courteous to the Senator, and respectful to him, and he has a right to his views.

Senator WATKINS. I have received your letter. I think I received mine at 2: 20 this afternoon, although my letter was addressed to you about a month ago.

The CHAIRMAN. That is true. I explained to you why I did it. I am not the whole committee. This committee is the only authority that has any power to control the proceedings here on who shall appear or not appear and what they shall ask or not ask. I did not assume to decide that question for myself.

The Senator knows we have been under tremendous pressure here. We have just had the ECA for a month or more.

Senator WATKINS. I realize all that. I thought probably the decision had been made. This afternoon when I was on the Senate floor and picked up my home-town paper in the Senate reading room I found that apparently on last Saturday the Associated Press reporter had interviewed the distinguished chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in which it was announced that Senators Donnell and Watkins would be permitted to appear here and ask questions.

That is in substance what it was. I got it today. It is dated April 23. It was apparently known in Salt Lake City on last Saturday.

The CHAIRMAN. All that shows is that the Salt Lake paper is better advised as to what is going on in Washington than the Senator from Utah.

Senator WATKINS. That is true. I thought perhaps I would have to go home to get the information. I can get it right here, close by. But apparently I have to read my home-town papers in order to get the answers.

The CHAIRMAN. I commend that practice.

Senator WATKINS. I have an invitation that has been extended to me now. I call the attention of the committee to the statement in this letter:

This is to advise you

and this is the last paragraph

that the committee meets again at 2:30 p. m. in the caucus room, in the Senate Office Building, to hear Secretary of State Acheson, and the committee invites you and Senator Donnell to appear. Each of you will be permitted to ask Secretary Acheson appropriate questions respecting his testimony and the Atlantic treaty.

That is very good, and all right as far as it goes. The request was not only to ask Secretary Acheson questions, but the other witnesses who were to appear here. I am wondering now, maybe this was not intentional, but it seems to limit us to the examination only of Secretary Acheson. If that is the fact, that I am limited, and by this appearance you have complied with our request, I would most respectfully decline to participate unless I am permitted to ask the other witnesses questions.

Senator LODGE. I hope these two Senators have the chance to interrogate other witnesses, too.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. That letter referred to this afternoon's meeting. I said we would meet this afternoon at 2:30 and that you could come and interrogate Secretary Acheson.

Senator WATKINS. I am asking the question now to clear it up. If that is all that you want, very fine, and I appreciate the courtesy.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all I meant for the moment. I do not know what the committee will do hereafter. It depends on how the hearings progress. When anybody appears, if they want to ask questions they can indicate so and the committee will decide whether they will hear them.

Senator WATKINS. I also want to say, not having received any reply, and not having been advised, I did not make any special preparation. I had other obligations. I knew that I could read in the record what was said. There was no necessity for me to come here to listen. I was not prepared to come here to interrogate, so I did not prepare, and I have not heard what Secretary Acheson said. I have not heard the questions that have already been asked.

The CHAIRMAN. You could have heard if you had come this morning. Senator WATKINS. I understand that.

The CHAIRMAN. You were notified before the committee met this morning that they were going to meet at 10:30, and you did not come. Senator WATKINS. I did not come, of course. I had other obligations.

The CHAIRMAN. Exactly.

Senator WATKINS. And I had not been given permission to ask questions. I would like to say, with this, that I would like to ask some questions after examining the record. I would like to read the transcript tomorrow, when it is ready, and I take it for granted that in a matter of this importance, with the Secretary here in the city, it will be possible to get him back, and we will not be unduly trespassing on his time if we ask him to return for further questions. I will not ask him anything this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Senator Donnell, do you have any questions?
Senator DONNELL. Yes, sir.

Senator VANDENBERG. I would like to say that my opinion of the wisdom of the distinguished Senator from Missouri and the distinguished Senator from Utah is such that I fully expect after their exploration of the subject that they will become ardent devotees of the North Atlantic Pact.

Senator WATKINS. That is possible.

Senator DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with the examination, I desire just to reiterate this one statement: I trust the Secretary and the committee will pardon me if I should repeat some of the matters that have come up this morning. I have no knowledge of what has come up, and necessarily it is entirely possible that some of the questions I shall ask will be repititious to that extent. I may say also that it is entirely possible that approaching this matter from the standpoint of questioning the validity of the treaty-the advisability, I should say, of the treaty-that I may ask some questions that the chairman of this committee, or possibly some others, may not agree with, and may not think will elicit information of value. Yet I assure the chairman that I will endeavor only to ask questions that I think are of importance in the proceedings.

EXPLORATORY CONVERSATIONS ON ATLANTIC TREATY

Mr. Secretary, I direct your attention to that part of your letter of April 7, 1949, to the President, which appears in Executive L, Senate, Eighty-first Congress, first session, in which letter you state that in July 1948 the President authorized Mr. Lovett to begin exploratory conversations with the Ambassadors of Canada and the parties to the Brussels Treaty. I pause until you have observed that portion of your letter. It is at page 5 of the Executive L print, up near the top.

I assume, Mr. Secretary, that these exploratory conversations that Mr. Lovett entered into, pursuant to the authority of the President, were the first of the acts participated in by the United States and other countries which ultimately culminated in the North Atlantic Treaty. Am I correct in that assumption?

Secretary ACHESON. These I believe were the first discussion with those countries about a possible treaty.

Senator DONNELL. Those countries were Canada, Belgium, France, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Is that correct?

Secretary ACHESON. I believe you stated the Brussels countries correctly; yes, sir.

Senator DONNELL. You say in this letter, Mr. Secretary, that the President, and I quote, "on the basis of these expressions of the wishes