(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 1269 to 1291, inclusive; 1293 to 1312, inclusive; and 1314," and appear on pp. 5272 through 5303.)

Mr. SOURWINE. I hand you additional groups of documents and ask you if you will identify those.

Mr. MANDEL. I have here an inventory of documents from the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations beginning with one marked "Atomic Energy and U. S. Int. Policy," and ending with one addressed to "Secretary, Lithuanian Legation," which is an inventory of documents from the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations, and a second batch which is headed "A Second Batch," of which the inventory begins with a document to E. C. Carter and ends with one to E. C. Carter. This is an inventory of documents from the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations.

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Mandel, in each case does the list represent an inventory of the actual documents to which it is attached?

Mr. MANDEL. It does.

Mr. SOURWINE. The inventory was prepared under your supervision?

Mr. MANDEL. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. And the documents themselves are all from the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations?

Mr. MANDEL. They are.

The CHAIRMAN. Are they, or are they photostatic copies?

Mr. MANDEL. They include originals, carbons, as taken from the files, and photostats.

The CHAIRMAN. Photostats of instruments in the files; is that right? Mr. MANDEL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The photostats were made under your direction? Mr. MANDEL. They were.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, the reasons for the recurrence of the photostats are many. In most cases the reason for it is that we have gone through the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations on Fiftyfourth Street and taken out certain documents there. We returned the original documents to the Institute of Pacific Relations, but had them photostated before returning them. That is the reason for the photostating.

The CHAIRMAN. The photostats were not themselves taken from the files? The instrument was taken from the files and photostated, and the photostats are here; is that right?

Mr. MORRIS. In almost every case. I think in some cases there were photostats in the IPR files.

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chairman, I ask in regard to these two groups of documents and the list attached thereto that Mr. Mandel has most recently identified they be offered to Mr. Carter with the same stipulation as the earlier one.

The CHAIRMAN. They will be inserted in the record and offered to Mr. Carter with the same stipulation as to his making an affidavit. (The documents referred to were marked "Exhibit Nos. 889 to 903, inclusive; 905 to 954, inclusive; 956 to 964, inclusive, and appear on pp. 5031 through 5083.)

Mr. SOURWINE. I hold in my hand a file of material which was offered for the record during Mr. Bogolepov's testimony. The Chair

88348-52-pt. 14-2

ruled that it would be accepted and inserted in the record, but there was the proviso that it be offered to Mr. Carter for identification. I would like to ask has this ever been offered to Mr. Carter and has Mr. Carter had an opportunity to examine it?

Mr. MARKS. No, he has not. He just got it.

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that these documents, which I shall briefly identify, the first headed "Confidential, not for distribution outside the office," under date of August 10, 1934

The CHAIRMAN. Where do they come from?

Mr. MORRIS. They have been identified by Mr. Mandel at an open session of the hearing as having been taken from the files of the Institute of Pacific Relations, and they were admitted by you provisionally on their being recognized by Mr. Carter.

Mr. SOURWINE. I simply thought, Mr. Chairman, that since the record at this point does not specifically identify what we are handing Mr. Carter there should be this identification: Under date of August 10, 1934, headed "Memorandum of Personnel on Soviet Studies." The next item is called "Confidential, not for distribution outside the office, Report on Soviet Relations with the Institute of Pacific Relations." The next is to Frederick V. Field from Edward C. Carter under date of January 16, 1935. The next is headed "Meeting, April 9, Institute of Oceanography; ECC; OL; HM, Harondar."

The next is headed "Report of the Visit of the Secretary General to Moscow, December 20-31, 1934." The next is a letter or what appears to be a letter, under date of April, 1934. It is headed "Communist Academy, Volkhonka, 14 Moscow, U. S. S. R." The next is a letter, and the date is Hotel Richemond, Geneva, September 12, 1934, and it begins "Dear Owen."

Then there is a letter to Senator McCarran under date of March 24 from Carlisle Humelsine and the attachment thereto.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Carter would have nothing to do with that last.

Mr. SOURWINE. The attachment, sir, is the one which raises the question as to whether Mr. Carter can add anything by way of identification.

The CHAIRMAN. These are to be made available to Mr. Carter for his comment and his affidavit?

Mr. SOURWINE. Along the same lines with regard to any identity he should make, and he should have the privilege if he cares to include in that affidavit any voluntary statement or comment about it.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

(The documents referred to were previously marked "Exhibit No. 58" and appear on p. 262, pt. I. For the other documents, see exhibits 749, 758, 759, 760, 761, 763, respectively.)

Mr. MARKS. With reference to comment, it is obvious from the record that we have not made any comments or the contents of these. Mr. SOURWINE. That is correct. It is not completely correct because in the instance of Malik he had a comment to make.

Mr. MARKS. You are right there.

Mr. SOURWINE. With regard to any others he has not made a comment. He is not bound, but if he wants to make comment as to these submitted for study, he is to have the right to include in that affidavit any comment he desires to make.

Mr. MARKS. We would like to reserve whatever rights we have to comment on the others.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Holland or Mr. Carter, are you going to offer any documents to be inserted into the record at this time?

Mr. CARTER. If I may have your permission, Mr. Chairman, on April 23 I mailed you in Washington, A Personal View of the Institute of Pacific Relations, by Edward C. Carter, and in my letter to you I promised to send a second statement on clarification and correction. This I now hand you with a covering letter, and here is a copy of my letter to Senator McCarran for Mr. Morris.

Mr. SOURWINE. With regard to these documents, Mr. Carter, have they been prepared by you?

Mr. CARTER. They have.

Mr. SOURWINE. Are you offering them as part of your testimony, that is, that the material in here is true to the best of your knowledge and belief where it is stated to be on knowledge and belief, and if not so stated it is true?

Mr. CARTER. That is my position.

Mr. MARKS. Just one moment, Mr. Sourwine; I am not sure that Mr. Carter understood the import of that.

Mr. SOURWINE. I do not mean to take advantage of him in any way. Mr. MARKS. I understand that, but I think as to everything he states it is true to the best of his knowledge and belief. He is not using a pleading style and stating upon information and belief thus and so, but he is doing his best to represent the facts. Is that all right?

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Carter has handed here a document of over 50 pages, nearly 60 pages, including the appendix, headed "Amplification, correction, and clarification of testimony." Obviously if Mr. Carter is going to amplify, correct, and clarify his testimony, he has to do it under oath.

Mr. MARKS. I am sure that Mr. Carter will say that this shall have the same status as if these things were read orally or stated orally at any committee hearing.

The CHAIRMAN. Under oath?

Mr. MARKS. Under oath; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Does he make an affidavit to this?

Mr. SOURWINE. No, sir, that is another point. There is no jurat on this. Whatever the form is immaterial, but the record should show that Mr. Carter fully adopts this statement, the main text of 49 pages and the appendix of 7 pages, as a sworn statement presented before this committee.

Mr. CARTER. I do.

Mr. SOURWINE. The committee staff of course has had no opportunity to see this until this moment and has of course had no opportunity to cross examine Mr. Carter with regard to it. I cannot state what the staff might desire in that regard.

Mr. CARTER. Might I ask, Mr. Sourwine, Mr. Chairman, whether my first statement was received?

Mr. SOURWINE. The statement has been received, but has not been offered in the record. You are referring to "A Personal View of the Institute of Pacific Relations." I think it should be under the same stipulation, that you were offering it as your sworn testimony.

Mr. CARTER. I would be agreeable to making the stipulation now so that it is all formally in your hands.

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Carter is stating, as I understand it, that he offers as his sworn testimony at this hearing his statement entitled "A Personal View of the Institute of Pacific Relations," which he transmitted to the chairman in his letter of April 24.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I think the regular way and most orderely way would be to have Mr. Carter present when the committee considers that and let him then swear to it. I think you are doing this by a long-distance operation here. I do not particularly like it, but we can determine that when we get to it. We can call Mr. Carter and have him go over his two statements, the one he sent before and this one, and make any comment on them and then be examined on them if you want to and let it go in the record. I think that is the clearer and more satisfactory way. I do not like to insert his first statement in the record now with a kind of an offhand saying that he swears to it.

I think it would be best to have him present and swear to it at the proper time.

Mr. SOURWINE. Is that the Chair's ruling also with regard to this document which has just been handed in?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, may I amend Mr. Sourwine's list of documents included in the material introduced during Mr. Bogolepov's testimony. I have been informed by Mr. Mandel-it is a letter from Carlisle Humelsine and so described in Mr. Sourwine's testimony-that it should not have been included in that list.

Mr. SOURWINE. You mean that material submitted by Mr. Humelsine is not such that Mr. Carter would be able to shed any light on? Mr. MORRIS. That is correct, and it may be excluded from the doc

uments.

Mr. Mandel, that got erroneously in this file [indicating] when it should be in this [indicating]?

Mr. MANDEL. That is right.

Mr. CARTER. I accept it.

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Morris has a few other documents to be offered for the record.

Mr. MORRIS. Mr. Chairman, we have received an answer from Carlisle Humelsine dated April 11, 1952, in reply to your letter of April 2 to the Honorable Dean Acheson of that date. May that go into the record?

The CHAIRMAN. That may go in the record.

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 1315-A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H" and is as follows:)

EXHIBIT NO. 1315-A

APRIL 2, 1952.

Hon. DEAN ACHESON,

Secretary of State,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: We have examined carefully the letter of March 19, 1952, from Mr. Carlisle Humelsine in reference to a conference which took place at the State Department October 12, 1942, between Mr. Sumner Welles, Mr. Earl Browder, Mr. Robert Minor, and Mr. Laughlin Currie. In this connection, we should like to have the full State Department records on this conference precisely as they appeared.

We should also like to know the steps by which this conference was arranged, who was responsible, and the correspondence that was exchanged in connection therewith.

Sincerely,

PAT MCCARRAN, Chairman.

EXHIBIT No. 1315-B

DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE,
Washington, April 11, 1952.

The Honorable PAT MCCARRAN,
United States Senate.

MY DEAR SENATOR MCCARRAN: I refer to your letter to the Secretary of April 2 in which you request Department of State records on the conference "which took place at the State Department, October 12, 1942, between Mr. Sumner Welles, Mr. Earl Browder, Mr. Robert Minor, and Mr. Lauchlin Currie." You also request information regarding "the steps by which this conference was arranged, who was responsible, and the correspondence that was exchanged in connection therewith."

As I stated in my letter to you of March 10, the Department's investigation into the history of this meeting reveals little more than the fact that Mr. Welles did meet with Mr. Browder on October 12, 1942, at which time Mr. Welles handed Mr. Browder a memorandum concerning U. S. policy in the Far East. Although the Department cannot locate a verified copy of this memorandum, our files do contain several letters in response to request for copies of this memorandum in which was stated that "a verbatim text of the memorandum, as given by Mr. Browder to the press, appeared in the October 18 [16], 1942, issue of The Worker." I enclose two such replies.

A thorough search of the Department's files does not reveal whether either Robert Minor or Lauchlin Currie, or both, attended the Welles-Browder conference on October 12, 1942; any invitations to Mr. Browder or to anyone else to attend this meeting; any correspondence in regard to calling the meeting; any memorandum of conversation or record of the meeting; or any record of who drafted the memorandum handed by Mr. Welles to Mr. Browder.

Since these may be of interest to you, I am also enclosing copies of the following letters which bear on the Welles-Browder meeting: (1) letter from Assistant Secretary of State Dean Rusk to Mr. Sumner Welles, dated September 26, 1951; (2) reply from Mr. Welles, dated October 10, 1951; (3) letter from Mr. Rusk to Dr. Stanley K. Hornbeck, dated May 19, 1950; and (4) reply from Dr. Hornbeck, dated June 7, 1950.

I regret that the Department is unable to provide further information in regard to the conference to which this letter refers.

Sincerely yours,

CARLISLE H. HUMELSINE,

EXHIBIT NO. 1315-C

Mr. ARNOLD B. HARTLEY,

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D. C., November 13, 1942.

Radio Station WGES, Western at Madison, Chicago, Ill.

MY DEAR MR. HARTLEY: Mr. Welles has asked me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of November 6, 1942, in which you request a copy of the text of a statement issued by him in regard to the questions of national unity in China and other United Nations.

It is thought that you may refer to a memorandum which Mr. Welles gave on October 12 to Mr. Earl Browder in regard to this Government's policy with respect to China. This memorandum, which was referred to in the press, including the New York Times and the New York Herald Tribune of October 16, has not been published by the Department. However, a verbatim text of the memo randum, as given by Mr. Browder to the press, appeared in the October 18, 1942, issue of The Worker.

Sincerely yours,

GEORGE ATCHESON, Jr., Acting Chief, Division of Far Eastern Affairs.