Present also: Senators Magnuson and Hendrickson; J. G. Sourwine, counsel; Robert Morris, subcommittee counsel; and Benjamin Mandel, research director. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Vincent is the witness, Senator. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God! Mr. VINCENT. I do. TESTIMONY OF JOHN CARTER VINCENT, ACCOMPANIED BY WALTER STERLING SURREY, COUNSEL The CHAIRMAN. Will you please proceed, Mr. Sourwine? Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Vincent, newspaper stories which preceded your return to this country indicated, quoting friends of yours, that your primary desire when you got back here was a full hearing which would give you an opportunity to clear your name in the public eye. Is that correct? Mr. VINCENT. That is correct. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you appear here today because you want to be here and you want to testify and cooperate with the committee? Mr. VINCENT. I do. I have confirmed that in letters to the committee, I think. Mr. SOURWINE. The committee will shortly give you an opportunity to make such statement as you want to volunteer. I would like to ask at the outset, so that the record may show: when you were subpenaed to this hearing, were you requested to bring certain documents? Mr. VINCENT. That is correct. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you have those documents with you? Mr. VINCENT. I do not, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. You referred the letter of request to the State Department? Mr. VINCENT. I did, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. We have here a letter from the State Department of which a copy has been sent to you? Mr. VINCENT. I have a copy, yes. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chairman, it is respectfully suggested that for the purpose of saving time today the traverse of this State Department letter be saved and we will put the letter into the record of the public hearing and then go into detail as to the documents. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. SOURWINE. The gist of the letter is that the State Department has already furnished documents such as press releases and has declined to provide the others on the ground that to do so would inhibit free and frank expressions by Foreign Service officers. Mr. VINCENT. May I say that I do have copies of those documents which the State Department sent. They had an extra copy made for me. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you have, sir, any of the documents which the State Department did not include? Mr. VINCENT. No, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. They mention several which they say their files do not contain. Do you have any of those? Mr. VINCENT. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What is it that the State Department says, you mentioned there once, as to letters that they are not sending on here? Mr. SOURWINE. I will read an excerpt from the State Department's letter, sir: With respect to the remainder of the requests it is noted that they call for a large number of internal documents of the Department of State. In many cases these are reports from the field. It is the view of the Department that preserving the integrity of the reporting by departmental officers is a matter of principle of the highest importance. It is equally important to protect the integrity of the internal memoranda in which views are exchanged in the formation of policy. The release of these documents would undoubtedly inhibit the free and frank expression of views by the officers of the Department. For these reasons, the request for these internal papers presents such serious questions of policy and principle that it has been felt necessary to refer the matter to the White House for reply. Your request for the loyalty file on Mr. Vincent has also been referred to the White House as required by the Presidential directive of March 13, 1948. Senator FERGUSON. Did the White House refuse? Mr. SOURWINE. We have no word from the White House. This letter is dated January 22 and was delivered this morning. Senator FERGUSON. Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the State Department also has ever considered the fact that, if these are held forever secret, you lose something, in that a man can falsely report and he is never called to task for it. It appears to me that that is a big thing in this question of reports. The CHAIRMAN. I think right off the bat it puts this witness in a light that perhaps he should not be in, because it can be assumed that there is something there which may not be there at all, that they do not want to disclose with reference to this witness. To my way of thinking that is a very unfortunate situation. What is more, their excuse for not giving us that seems to me the most flimsy in the world. Senator FERGUSON. As I understand, the witness has not claimed that these ought to be secret? Mr. VINCENT. I have not. Mr. SOURWINE. I might say, on the contrary, it is the State Department's statement, in the letter, that Mr. Vincent has requested the Department to cooperate in making the documents available. Senator FERGUSON. So he wants these delivered? Mr. SOURWINE. The situation was that the committee wrote separate letters to Mr. Vincent and to the State Department asking for the documents in each of these 32 categories. Mr. Vincent referred his letter to the State Department. The CHAIRMAN. That is a matter we will have to deal with at a later time. I think the State Department has forgotten the principal point of this matter, that national defense, the internal security of this country, means more than anything internal in the State Department. If this country is to be protected and secured internally everything in every Department should be made available if necessary so that security may be obtained. Senator FERGUSON. Do you feel now, Mr. Vincent, because of the writing of this letter that you cannot disclose to this committee the contents of reports and so forth that you may have made to the State Department? Mr. VINCENT. So far as my memory would enable me to recall actions of mine, but I do not think I could disclose the contents of reports, sir, as an employee of the State Department. Senator FERGUSON. It leaves you in the position that you really cannot testify on these matters? Mr. VINCENT. Insofar as it is necessary to have those documents; no, sir. Senator FERGUSON. I know, but the contents of the documents? Mr. SOURWINE. There are four documents mentioned here which the Department says do not appear in its records, thereby implying that they are personal to Mr. Vincent. I would like to ask about those four. One is referred to as a statement criticizing the statement of six members of the House Military Affairs Committee regarding Soviet intentions in the Far East. Do you recall such a statement, Mr. Vincent? Mr. VINCENT. I do not, sir. I went over that and we looked over the statement of the six members but we found nothing. Mr. SOURWINE. You never made a statement? Mr. VINCENT. I never made a statement to my knowledge. Mr. SOURWINE. The text of a speech made at a conference of the Institute of Pacific Relations at Hot Springs, Va.? Mr. VINCENT. I have no recollection of making a speech there. I took part in panel discussions but nothing in the way of a formal speech. Mr. SOURWINE. There is nothing in your files such as a copy of a speech? Mr. VINCENT. No, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. A statement of November 4, 1946, concerning General MacArthur. Did you make a statement on or about that date? Mr. VINCENT. What date? Mr. SOURWINE. November 4, 1946. Mr. VINCENT. I have no recollection of making such a statement. Mr. SOURWINE. The text of an address delivered by you at Cornell University, January 21, 1947? Mr. VINCENT. That was made from notes, Mr. Sourwine, and I may say that it followed very closely a speech that I had made at Wellesly College which has been published in a little book by Rutgers Press, but the other speech made at Cornell was made from notes which I do not have but which may be in Tangiers. Mr. SOURWINE. Was that speech reported? Mr. VINCENT. No; it was not reported to the press. It was a closed-not a closed-but not a meeting for the public. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Vincent, I am jumping toward a conclusion for the purpose of saving time. Are you in your own opinion an expert on the Far East and far eastern affairs? Mr. VINCENT. I should say, I am. Mr. SOURWINE. You spent a substantial part—— Mr. VINCENT. As regards different areas, my primary activity has been as you know China. Mr. SOURWINE. You spent a good deal of your life in China and in dealing with Far Eastern affairs? Mr. VINCENT. Yes, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. For the purposes of this hearing is the committee satisfied with that brief qualification of Mr. Vincent? The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Vincent, I think it might be appropriate at this time to let you make any voluntary statement that you came here to make. Mr. VINCENT. Thank you, sir. I would like to read this statement, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Mr. SOURWINE. How long is it, Mr. Vincent? Mr. VINCENT. It will take me exactly 5 minutes, Mr. Sourwine. Mr. SOURWINE. I thought if it were long we could get copies. Mr. VINCENT. Mr. Chairman, I have no extra copies of it except for this one. May I proceed? The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. Mr. VINCENT. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: I have requested an opportunity to meet with you for two reasons. First, to repudiate under oath certain irresponsible but very grave allegations made against me before this committee: and secondly, to give the committee whatever assistance I may in the conduct of its investigation. On August 23, 1951, before this subcommittee, Mr. Morris asked a witness, Louis Budenz, the following question: Mr. Budenz, was John Carter Vincent a member of the Communist Party? Mr. Budenz replied: From official reports I have received, he was. Insofar as the printed record shows, Mr. Budenz did not produce or describe the "official reports" to which he referred. Later Mr. Morris again inquired: Mr. Budenz, is it your testimony that it was an official Communist Party secret shared by few people that at that time John Carter Vincent was a member of the Communist Party? "Yes, sir," replied Mr. Budenz. Mr. Budenz also testified that I was described "as being in line with the Communist viewpoint, seeing eye to eye with it." When questioned as to his source, he answered: That was stated by Communist officials in the Politburo at that time, by Mr. Browder and Mr. Jack Stachel. I have never met either Browder or Stachel, but it is pertinent to recall that Mr. Browder testified before the Tydings committee that he knew of no connection that I had with the Communist Party either directly or indirectly. On October 5, 1951, Mr. Budenz again appeared before the subcommittee. Mr. Morris asked: Mr. Budenz, have you identified John Carter Vincent to be a member of the Communist Party before this committee? Mr. Budenz replied: Yes, sir, from official communications. Later, during this same hearing, Mr. Morris said that Mr. Budenz reported to me, as a naval intelligence officer, the fact that John Carter Vincent was a member of the Communist Party, and I made a report on that fact. Gentlemen, anyone, including Budenz, who before this subcommittee or anywhere else, testifies that I was at any time a member of the Communist Party is bearing false witness; he is, to put it bluntly, lying. I do not pretend to know what motives guide Mr. Budenz. In my own case, his motives seem to be clearly malicious. He has endeavored before this subcommittee to support his allegations by strained suggestions and devious insinuation. Now, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am not a Communist and have never been a member of the Communist Party. I have never sympathized with the aims of communism. On the contrary, I have worked loyally throughout the 27 years of my foreign service career in the interest of our own Government and people. I am strongly attached to the principle of representative democracy and to our system of free enterprise. These being the facts, the members of the committee will appreciate, I am sure, how disagreeable it is for me to find it necessary to affirm my devotion to our democratic institutions because of unfounded allegations made by Budenz or anyone else. We cannot dismiss the Budenz testimony as a "mistake." Any attempt through malicious testimony to cause the American people to lose confidence in their officials, or in each other, is in itself subversive to the interests and security of our country. When, as in my case, the official represents his country abroad, the effect may be doubly harmful. I am in full accord with the objectives of this subcommittee. The internal security of the United States, now probably more than ever before in our history, is vitally important to all of us. Our American way of life is threatened from within as well as from without. But we cannot, as I wrote you, Mr. Chairman, on November 9, defend democracy with perfidy or defeat communism with lies. And I wish to state, not as an official of our Government who has been falsely accused, but as a citizen who is deeply concerned for the welfare and security of his country, that irresponsible testimony such as Mr. Budenz is wont to give, might have its use in a totalitarian state but has no place in our American democracy. Mr. Budenz has made other allegations concerning me which are equally untrue though less material. Other witnesses have appeared before your committee and made statements concerning me which are factually incorrect. Mr. Eugene Dooman's testimony concerning the formulation of a postwar surrender policy for Japan is most inaccurate; in fact, some of the policies which Mr. Dooman charges that I formulated were actually formulated under his chairmanship of the committee dealing with the problem, or by Governmental agencies in which I had no responsibility. Admiral Cook's testimony about my attitude toward making available certain ammunition to the Nationalist Government of China is in error. I wish to assure you that I am prepared to discuss and correct all such testimony and discuss any other issues which this committee may wish to consider. |