Mr. VINCENT. Mr. Sourwine, I told you in executive session that a summary in shortened form was prepared in the State Department. I did not prepare it. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know who did prepare it? Mr. VINCENT. I can't recall. It was probably Mr. Stanton who prepared it. I could refresh my memory by going up there to see whose initials were on it. Mine was a 20-page running thing. As usual, it was narrowed down to much shorter pages. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know who did prepare it if it was not Mr. Stanton? Mr. VINCENT. Mr. Sourwine, I could name half a dozen people there. It was the kind of a thing that Mr. Stanton might have done, it is the kind of thing-who else was in the Division, this was in 1944there was a Miss Ruth Bacon there who did that kind of thing quite frequently, of going through things, she had legal training, she would reduce things. I would have to see who the personnel was to guess who put the initials on. I do know it was reduced and summarized for the Secretary. Mr. SOURWINE. It was prepared from your notes? Mr. VINCENT. Yes, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know whether a copy of that summary was ever given to Mr. Wallace? Mr. VINCENT. I do not know as a matter of fact whether the summary was given to Mr. Wallace or not. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you think it would be given to Mr. Wallace? Mr. VINCENT. I think it would be logical that it would be given. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you remember having seen that summary? Mr. VINCENT. I remember seeing the summary. I did not prepare it myself. It was prepared in the normal procedures of summarizing things. Mr. SOURWINE. Would you recognize that summary if you saw it again? Mr. VINCENT. Yes, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. I want to ask you, if this, that I show you is in any way to you reminiscent of that summary. Mr. VINCENT. No, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. It is not? Mr. VINCENT. No. Mr. SOURWINE. Now, what I have just shown you, does it appear to be a summary of the Vice President's trip? Mr. VINCENT. No; this is not a summary of the trip insofar as I can see which has anything to do with the memo I wrote, which is a summary of the conversations. Mr. SOURWINE. This that I have showed you refers to the Vice President in the third person, just as your notes did; does it not? Mr. VINCENT. Yes. I always referred to him as Mr. Wallace or the Vice President. Mr. SOURWINE. Yes. Mr. VINCENT. This is Henry Wallace's letter of July 10 to the President. Mr. SOURWINE. How do you know? Mr. VINCENT. Because I have seen it-I have it right here myself— since it was published. I have never seen it before. Mr. SOURWINE. I want to know how you know it was Henry Wallace's letter? Mr. VINCENT. I know only by the fact it was published. Mr. SOURWINE. Was it published as Henry Wallace's letter? Mr. VINCENT. I have to see what it is. Mr. SOURWINE. What you have is a letter. What I have shown you is headed "Summary report of Vice President Wallace's visit in China," is it not? Mr. VINCENT. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. It is dated the 10th of July 1944. Mr. VINCENT. That is right. Mr. SOURWINE. It was transmitted apparently to the President with a note by Mr. Wallace: "Dear Mr. President: I am handing you herewith a report on my trip to the Far East. Sincerely yours, H. A. Wallace." Mr. VINCENT. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. But it does not say it is Henry Wallace's own report, does it? He says "a report." Mr. VINCENT. Yes; he does. Mr. SOURWINE. And it is in the third person? Mr. VINCENT. This? Mr. SOURWINE. Yes. The report refers to Mr. Wallace in the third person? Mr. VINCENT. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. As you said you referred to him in the notes? Mr. VINCENT. That is right. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you have anything to do with the preparation of that report? Mr. VINCENT. No; I did not. I did not even know of its existence until this thing was published here, until the last 3 or 4 months. If there is any confusion in your mind about the relationship of that and the summarization of the memoranda of conversation between Chiang Kai-shek and the Vice President, this has no relation to that. Mr. SOURWINE. Are you sure? Mr. VINCENT. I am sure. Mr. SOURWINE. How can you be sure? Mr. VINCENT. I can be sure because I have seen the summary of the memorandum that I wrote on the conversations and I have just testified it was prepared by some officer in the Far Eastern Office, and was a two or three page summarization of 20 pages, and it followed much the same lines as my own, that on such and such a day they talked and this was taken up. Mr. SOURWINE. Can you account for the fact, if it was a fact, that Mr. Wallace in reporting to the President on his trip, would refer to himself in the third person? Mr. VINCENT. I cannot. Mr. SOURWINE. He did not do that in the Kunming cables, did he? Mr. VINCENT. No. Mr. SOURWINE. Here was the Vice President of the United States reporting to the President of the United States; do you think it is quite the logical thing to do that in a report which he himself had written he would refer to himself in the third person? Mr. VINCENT. I can't testify on the basis of what the logic of Mr. Wallace was in using the third person. Mr. SOURWINE. On the other hand, if a report had been prepared by someone else as a summary of your notes, such a report would have had to refer to Mr. Wallace in the third person, would it not? Mr. VINCENT. It would have. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you from those facts draw any conclusion as to whether the report transmitted by Mr. Wallace to the President was written by himself or prepared by some other person? Mr. VINCENT. I think the report prepared by Mr. Wallace was written by him. As I say, I cannot testify Mr. SOURWINE. Of course, a report prepared by him was written by him. What I want to know is whether you have any conclusion, on the basis of the meager facts now at our joint disposal, as to whether this report, a copy of which you have just seen, a copy of which you have before you, was in fact prepared by Mr. Wallace? Mr. VINCENT. My belief is that it was in fact prepared by Mr. Wallace. Mr. SOURWINE. On what do you base that belief? Mr. VINCENT. Because Mr. Wallace transmitted it to the President on July 10, so he himself said. Mr. SOURWINE. He did not say it was "my report." Mr. VINCENT. He said, "Here is a report. Mr. SOURWINE. "Here is a report." Mr. VINCENT. I have no exact knowledge that Mr. Wallace himself prepared the report. My assumption is that Mr. Wallace did prepare the report. Mr. SOURWINE. The heading on that report does not say, "Report by Henry Wallace," does it? Mr. VINCENT. Counsel is just showing me a paragraph out of Mr. Wallace's letter to the President in which Mr. Wallace himself says here Mr. SOURWINE. What letter to the President? Is this what I have been referring to as the report? Mr. VINCENT. No; this is the letter to President Truman of September 19, 1951, which Mr. Wallace says, "I wrote the July report myself and went alone to the White House to present it to the President." Mr. SOURWINE. On that basis you are testifying this was Mr. Wallace's report? Mr. VINCENT. I can reach no other assumption. I have no reason why Mr. Wallace should wish to deny or lead to any subterfuge on that. Mr. SOURWINE. And it does not seem queer to you that the report was not headed "Report by Henry Wallace," but "Report of the Trip of Henry A. Wallace," and it did not refer to the Vice President in the first person, but in the third person. Mr. VINCENT. It is not a matter of my thinking it is queer or not. Mr. Wallace has testified he wrote it. Why he may have used the third person with respect to himself instead of the first person, I don't know. Mr. SOURWINE. You cannot account for that? Mr. VINCENT. I can't account for it. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you not think it is queer? Mr. VINCENT. I don't know whether it is queer or not. Mr. VINCENT. I might under certain circumstances write a report like that and not use the first person. Mr. SOURWINE. All right, sir. I would like to talk for just a little while about the conversations with General Chiang, using your notes as the basis. Mr. VINCENT. Can I go back just to clear up this matter of the possible relationship of this to the summary? Mr. SOURWINE. Surely. Mr. VINCENT. I hope it is clear to you that the summary of those conversations has no relation to this. Mr. SOURWINE. You have so stated, sir, very clearly. Mr. VINCENT. I just wanted you to be sure of that. Mr. SOURWINE. I presume you made that statement from your own personal knowledge. Mr. VINCENT. From my own personal knowledge, and I have tried to narrow down who it was in the Department that summarized my memoranda of the conversation. Mr. SOURWINE. But you remember that summary well enough that you can say definitely it is not the basis for this report? Mr. VINCENT. It has no relation to this. Mr. SOURWINE. Your memory in that regard is clear? Mr. VINCENT. Yes, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. All right, sir. Now I am reading the white paper, and if you would like to have it before you Mr. VINCENT. I have it, sir. Mr. SURREY. Do you have another copy, Mr. Sourwine? Mr. SOURWINE. The chairman has it now. You will note on page 550, at the top of the page, you wrote: Mr. Wallace expressed the opinion that there should not be left pending any question which might result in conflict between China and the U. S. S. R. President Chiang suggested that President Roosevelt act as an arbiter or middleman between China and the U. S. S. R. NOTE.-President Chiang's suggestion was apparently prompted by Mr. Wallace's earlier statement that President Roosevelt was willing to act as an arbiter between the Communists and the Kuomintang. Mr. Wallace made no comment at the time. By that you mean, unquestionably, that Mr. Wallace made no comment at the time of President Chiang's suggestion; but your own note suggests that Wallace previously made the statement that President Roosevelt was prepared to act as arbiter between the Communists and Kuomintang? Mr. VINCENT. That is right. Senator FERGUSON. May I ask if the record makes it clear that the white paper shows on page 549 that what you are reading was prepared by John Carter Vincent, Chief of the Division of Chinese Affairs, on note 11 at the bottom of the page. Mr. SOURWINE. These are his notes. Senator FERGUSON. That is right. Mr. VINCENT. These are the notes I made. Senator FERGUSON. So they are not Stanton's notes; they are your your notes. Mr. VINCENT. No. This is the full text of the memorandum rather than the abbreviated form. Senator FERGUSON. But these were made by you and not Stanton? Mr. VINCENT. No, sir-yes, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. They were made by Mr. VINCENT. They were made by me. Mr. SOURWINE. Then the notes continue: However, after discussing the matter with Mr. Vincent that evening, Mr. Wallace made it clear to President Chiang the next morning before breakfast that President Roosevelt had not suggested acting as arbiter between China and the U. S. S. R. That was one occasion when you pulled the Vice President back from what might have been a commitment? Mr. VINCENT. Yes, sir, because the Vice President himself had informed me of his conversation with the President in which he jotted down notes. Mr. SOURWINE. Yes. Mr. VINCENT. Which was that he could tell Chiang Kai-shek that he would be glad to be helpful in anyway to bring about a settlement of the difficulties between the Kuomintang and the Communists. That was his statement to me. Mr. SOURWINE. You wanted Mr. Wallace to make it perfectly clear to Chiang that President Roosevelt had not suggested acting as arbiter between China and the U. S. S. R.? Mr. VINCENT. I wanted him to make it clear because he himself told me that was just exactly what the President wanted him to do, was to be an arbiter if it was needed or asked for between the Kuomintang and the Communists, and not between Russia and China. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you mean to say that the President had told Mr. Wallace and that you knew about it that he, President Roosevelt, was willing-ready, willing and able, shall we say-to act as an arbiter between the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communists? Mr. VINCENT. That is what Mr. Wallace told me that the President told him. Whether he used the word "arbiter" or notMr. SOURWINE. Intermediary! Mr. VINCENT. Yes, or help settle their difficulties. Mr. SOURWINE. When you told Mr. Wallace about this situation and persuaded him to make it clear to President Chiang the next morning before breakfast that President Roosevelt had not suggested acting as arbiter between China and the U. S. S. R., did you also make it clear to him that the President was willing to act as arbiter between the Kuomintang and the Chinese Communists? Mr. VINCENT. I reminded Mr. Wallace that that was what he had told me and Chiang apparently misunderstood it to mean arbiter between Russia and China. Mr. SOURWINE. But when Mr. Wallace made his position clear to President Chiang, the generalissimo, the next day before breakfast, did he express that distinction to him, or did he simply make it clear that Roosevelt was not available as an arbiter between China and Russia? Mr. VINCENT. I was not present at that conversation. Mr. SOURWINE. You reported in your notes Mr. VINCENT. Mr. Wallace reported the conversation to me. Mr. SOURWINE. I see. Mr. VINCENT. I do not know whether Mr. Wallace made this clear to him. From his own statement to me of this conversation before breakfast |