EXHIBIT No. 1315-D Mr. MORRIS U. SCHAPPES, DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D. C., October 29, 1942. School for Democracy, 13 Astor Place, New York, N. Y. MY DEAR MR. SCHAPPES: Mr. Welles has asked me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of October 26, 1942, in which you request a copy of the text of a memorandum which he gave on October 12 to Mr. Earl Browder in regard to this Government's policy with respect to China. The above-mentioned memorandum has not been published by the Department. However, a verbatim text of the memorandum, as given by Mr. Browder to the press, appeared in the October 18, 1942, issue of The Worker. Sincerely yours, GEORGE ATCHESON, Jr., Assistant Chief, Division of Far Eastern Affairs. EXHIBIT No. 1315-E Hon. SUMNER WELLES, Oxon Hill, Md. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Washington, D. C., September 26, 1951. MY DEAR MR. WELLES: The Department has under consideration a request from Senator McCarran of Nevada for information concerning a meeting which purportedly took place between Mr. Earl Browder, Mr. Robert Minor, Mr. Lauchlin Currie, and you at the State Department, October 12, 1942, to discuss American policy toward China. Mr. Browder testified before a Senate committee headed by Senator Tydings in May 1950 that you handed him a written statement of the United States Government's views on the Far East at the conclusion of this meeting. Although a very careful search has been made of the Department's files, we have not been able to locate the statement described by Mr. Browder or any record of your conversation with him. The files do reveal, however, that Mr. Browder released to the press and the Daily Worker published October 16, 1942, the text of a memorandum allegedly handed to him by you. It is realized that it is difficult to recall details of events which transpired many years ago, but it would be greatly appreciated if you could furnish the Department such details concerning this matter as you might have available. In this connection it might be helpful to you to read the enclosed statements by Mr. Browder taken from the Daily Worker. I am most reluctant to bother you with this request, but the absence of sufficient information in the Department's files has led us to seek your assistance. Sincerely yours, DEAN RUSK, Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern Affairs. Enclosures: Daily Worker, October 4, 1942, and October 16. 1942. Hon. DEAN RUSK, EXHIBIT No. 1315-F OXON HILL MANOR, Oxon Hill, Md., October 10, 1951. Assistant Secretary of State, Department of State, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. RUSK: I have been away from home for some time and your letter of September 26, 1951, has consequently only now been brought to my attention. I regret the delay in replying to your inquiry. In view of the many years that have passed since the interview of which you refer in your letter, it is unfortunately very difficult for me to recollect in any detail what took place during the course of the interview. Of one thing, however, I am certain, and that is that any memorandum that may have been handed to Mr. Browder at that time was not prepared by myself, but by the Far Eastern Division under the supervision of either Dr. Hornbeck or Mr. Max Hamilton. There is no copy of any such memorandum in my own files. I also think I am correct in my recollection that some official of the Far Eastern Division was present at the interview and subsequently prepared at my request a memorandum of the conversation that took place. It occurs to me that it might be helpful to you to consult either Dr. Hornbeck or Mr. Hamilton since their recollection of what took place at the interview and of any documentation that might have been prepared with regard to the interview might be more accurate than mine. I am very sorry not to be able to be more helpful to you, but neither my memory nor my own files throw much light on the matter. Believe me, Yours very sincerely, (Signed) SUMNER WELLES. EXHIBIT No. 1315-G The Honorable STANLEY K. HORNBECK, 2139 Wyoming Avenue NW., Washington, D. C. MAY 19, 1950. MY DEAR DR. HORNBECK: During his recent testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee under the chairmanship of Senator Tydings, Mr. Earl Browder stated that in October 1942 he called on Mr. Sumner Welles, then Under Secretary of State, to discuss American policy toward China and that Mr. Welles handed to him a written statement of the United States Government's views on this subject. He further stated that, while the Department considered that this statement did not represent any change in United States policy toward China, he did consider it a change in policy and thus an important document. In subsequent debate in the Senate, Senator Knowland referred to this portion of Mr. Browder's testimony and expressed the view that this was an extremely important document since it apparently marked "the turning point of American policy in China." Senator Knowland has not requested the Department to furnish him a copy of the statement, together with any other pertinent documents leading up to the issuance of the statement. Alhough a very careful search has been made of the Department's files, we have not yet been able to locate the statement described by Mr. Browder or any record of Mr. Welles's conversation with him. The files do reveal, however, that Mr. Browder released to the press and The Worker published on October 18, 1942, the text of a memorandum said to have been handed to him by Mr. Welles. The files also contain memoranda indicating that the matter of Mr. Browder's call and the statement given him by Mr. Welles were brought to your attention. It is realized that it is difficult to recall the details of events which transpired many years ago, but it would be greatly appreciated if you would furnish the Department such details regarding this matter as you can reconstruct from memory. In this connection, it might be helpful to you to read the enclosed copy of a dispatch from the New York Herald Tribune of October 16, 1942, which gives Mr. Browder's version of his call on Mr. Welles. I am reluctant to bother you with this request, but the absence of sufficient information in the Department's files make it necessary for us to seek your assistance in this regard. Similar inquiries are being made of other officers of the Department then in the Division of Far Eastern Affairs who might have some knowledge of the matter. Sincerely yours, Enclosures: DEAN RUSK, Assistant Secretary. 1. Excerpt from The Worker, October 18, 1942. 2. Excerpt from the New York Herald Tribune, October 16, 1942. EXHIBIT No. 1315-H 2139 WYOMING AVENUE, Washington 8, D. C., June 7, 1950. The Honorable DEAN RUSK, Assistant Secretary of State. DEAR MR. RUSK. In reply to your letter of May 19 regarding statement recently made by Mr. Earl Browder and a memorandum released to the press by Mr. Browder and published by The Worker on October 18, 1942, and with reference especially to your request that I furnish the Department such details regarding this matter as I can reconstruct from memory. You will doubtless have been informed by Mr. Sprouse that, after the receipt of your letter under reference, I some days ago spoke with him on the telephone and informed him that, although I clearly recall having known at the time that Mr. Welles talked with Mr. Browder and that Mr. Browder thereafter issued a statement and released therewith the text of a memorandum which he said had been handed him by Mr. Welles, there was little that I could add from memory to what is set forth in your letter and the enclosure thereto. At the same time I offered to come to the Department at any time for he purpose of discussing the matter or seeing what the files disclose, or both. That Mr. Welles gave Mr. Browder a memorandum there can be no doubt. The account given in that text of the matters to which it relates is, I believe, substantially accurate. How or by whom that text was drafted I am not able to say. There are passages in it which might have been drafted by me or by any one of several officers on duty and concerned with China and relations with China as of October 1942, and there are passages which might have been accepted or approved by me but which would not, I believe, have originated with me. I recall that Mr. Welles communicated with me regarding Mr. Browder's call, and I do not recall at what stage or stages. I believe that he asked in advance for a memorandum for his (Mr. Welles') information and guidance, and, although I do not recall the circumstances of the drafting, I believe such a memorandum was prepared with participation on my part and for those purposes. I recall being informed after the call that Mr. Welles had given Mr. Browder a memorandum: and I recall having felt that the text of the memorandum thus given was not entirely such as I would have drafted or recommended for that purpose. More important, in my opinion, that the question of the origin of the memorandum under reference is the question whether there took place in 1942 a "change" in American policy regarding China and whether this memorandum or the facts of the situation to which it related marked a "turning point." What Mr. Browder may have had in mind when he expressed himself in 1950 to the effect, as stated in your letter, that "he did consider it a change of policy," we need not for present purposes attempt to conjecture. Looking at the text of the memorandum as copied from The Worker of October 18, 1942, I can say: In that memorandum, dealing with and refuting assertions and charges which had been made by Mr. Browder, there was given an obejctive account of developments in and regarding China and an honest review of what had been and was the official position of the United States with regard to the question of "civil strife" in China. A review of the whole history of American policy in relations to China will show that although the United States had consistently deprecated not only aggression by other countries against China but civil strife with or without foment or support by other countries-within China, the United States had long been committed to the principle of nonintervention in the internal affairs of other countries. It will show also that for many years before 1942, and in that year, and for some time thereafter the Government of the United States, in the formulating of official policy regarding China, both kept in mind and respected that commitment and that principle. There was official noting of civil strife in China; there was official giving of advice that civil strife be avoided; there was official collaboration with the Government of China toward strengthening China's effort in the war; but there was with regard to the civil conflict within China no official taking of a position either "against" or for any party or faction. There were on the part of some American nationals some manifestations in some contexts of a tendency to ignore or misinterpret or disregard official policy, but the thoughts and the acts of such nationals in those respects were their own, not those of their Government, and were, incidentally, in most cases favorable to, certainly not "against," the Communists. On the basis of what I then knew and of what I have from subsequent study learned, I find no warrant for an opinion or a conjecture that there took place in 1942 a change in the official attitude and policy of the United States regarding China. Both "turning point" and "change of policy" came later. A case could be made for a contention that the "turning point" came at the time of the Teheran Conference (November-December, 1943); a better case, that it came toward the end of the next year, 1944; but search for a clearly discernable and describably "change of policy" leads into and through the year 1945. It will be recalled that there took place in 1944-and not until then-the first of a series of reorganizations of the Department of State; that during that year there were substantial shiftings of personnel within and outward from the Department, including, in December, the retirement of Secretary of State Cordell Hull; and that there took place in 1945 the Yalta Conference, the death of President Roosevelt, the San Francisco Conference, the capitulation of Germany, the capitulation of Japan, the Potsdam Conference, the conclusion (with American encouragement) of an Agreement between the Soviet Union and China, the first meeting of the Council of Foreign Ministers, and, in December, announcement by President Truman of a "United States Policy toward China" which was then and thereafter declared to be a "new" policy. It was then, in the year 1945-and not before then-that the Government of the United States, first having taken action inconsistent with tradition and commitment in regard to China, embarked upon what became a course of intervention in regard to the civil conflict, the conflict between the National Government and the Communists, in China. It was then that words and action of the Government of the United States began to be expressive of an "against" and a "for" attitude; then and thereafter that the Government of the United States brought to bear pressures, pressures upon the National Government, pressures which were not "against" the Communists but were on their behalf, pressures not to the disadvantage of the Communists, but, in effect, to the disadvantage of the National Government. To the circumstances of the "change," to the content and purport of the policy devised in 1945, proclaimed on December 15 of that year, and given expression in word and in deed since then, and to the gross and the net consequences thereof, there is no need for attention in the present context. There is however, in my opinion, great need that in the context of present American involvement as a leading participant, in a third global conflict, wherein "Communist" totalitarianism is making war both "cold" and "hot", on all States, Governments, peoples, institutions, organization and persons disinclined to accept domination by it, there is urgent need that the Government of the United States give solicitous attention to the question: Must the United States follow to the bitter, tragic and discrediting end the downward path, in relations with China, on which its feet were set in the fateful year of military victories and diplomatic vagaries and vitiations, 1945? I should welcome an opportunity to talk with you on the implications of query. Yours cordially and sincerely, [s] Stanley K. Hornbeck STANLEY K. HORNBECK. Mr. MORRIS. This is a copy of a letter, Mr. Chairman, you sent to the Secretary of State dated May 1, 1952, wherein you renew your demand for the handwritten notes of Alger Hiss taken at the Yalta Conference in 1945. May that go into the record? The CHAIRMAN. Was there an answer to that? Mr. MORRIS. No. The CHAIRMAN. That may go in the record. (The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 1316" and is as follows:) EXHIBIT NO. 1316 MAY 1, 1952. The SECRETARY OF STATE, The State Department, Washington, D. C. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: On February 21, 1952, I wrote to you asking that the handwritten notes of Alger Hiss taken at the Yalta Conference in 1945 be made available to the Internal Security Subcommittee. In my letter of February 21st it was pointed out that a witness before the Subcommittee, Dr. Edna Fluegel, an employee of the State Department from 1942 to 1948, testified that, in the course of her official duties in the Department, she dealt with and handled the penciled notes of Mr. Hiss. This letter is written to determine what action has been taken on my request of February 21, 1952, to you. Sincerely, PAT MCCARRAN, Chairman. Mr. SOURWINE. The original request is already in the record. These will be made available, Mr. Holland, if you want to see them. The next will be a copy of a letter by you, Senator McCarran, addressed to Rear Adm. Robert L. Dennison, dated May 1, 1952, in connection with a request that the Forrestal diaries and papers be made available to this committee. May that go into the record? The CHAIRMAN. That may go in the record. (The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 1317" and is as follows:) EXHIBIT No. 1317 May 1, 1952. Rear Admiral ROBERT L. DENNISON, The White House, Washington, D. C. DEAR ADMIRAL DENNISON: My attention has been called to the story appearing in the New York Times today concerning the intention of the White House not to make available to the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee the diaries and papers of the late James Forrestal. As you know, on December 3, 1951, a subpena was served on the New York Herald Tribune directing that it make available the papers and diaries of Mr. Forrestal. It is my understanding these are the property of the New York Herald Tribune. The Subcommittee has been assured by the New York Herald Tribune that as far as it is concerned it has done everything possible to comply with the demands of the subpena. The staff of the Subcommittee contacted you about this matter because it was understood you were holding these papers for the owners. The New York Times story referred to above, which credits a White House source, treats this matter as though the documents in question were Executive papers and wholly subject to Presidential control. If for any reason you have decided to refuse to make these subpenaed papers and diaries available to the Subcommittee, it is requested you directly inform me, as Subcommittee Chairman, of the position you choose to take. Kindest personal regards and best wishes. Sincerely, PAT MCCARRAN, Chairman. Mr. MORRIS. We have a letter from Mr. Edwin O. Reischauer dated September 26, 1951, which he requested to go into the record. This was discussed before. We held it up on the grounds that we had hoped possibly that we might have a sworn statement by Mr. Reischauer, but, in view of the fact that we are a little pressed, will you accept this letter? Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chairman, it is the opinion of counsel that this letter is distinguishable and should be distinguished from an offer of proof which is not made in affidavit form, since this letter is a recital which does not appear to be at variance with the facts; is that correct, Mr. Morris? Mr. MORRIS. That is right, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. All right; it will go in the record. (The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 1318" and is as follows): |