DEAR MR. CARTER: I was greatly interested in reading a copy of your letter to Wellington Liu inquiring whether there was any posibility of securing the services of Chen Han-seng for permanent work in the I. P. R. It is an excellent suggestion and I hope you will keep pushing it. Chen is a first-class researcher with the good knowledge of Russian, French, German, and English as well as one or two Chinese dialects and reading knowledge of Japanese. He is a hard worker and one of the few Chinese researchers whose eyes are not blinded to the real conditions of rural China. While of course he could render great service to the China Council as a colleague working with Liu, I believe from many points of view it would be worth your while appointing him to the Secretariat as my colleague. I shall certainly be glad to make drastic economies in my own budget in order to secure Chen. As you probably know by now, Chen is living here in Tokyo completing a study of rural conditions in South China and also working over some materials on Chinese economic history at the Oriental Library in Tokyo. He has taken a house here with his wife and will return here again in December after making a short trip back to China in order to get field work started on his I. P. R. study of standards of living in tobacco-producing regions in China. One reason why I think it is worth your while to push the question still further is that Chen's relations with the Sun Yat-sen Institute and especially with Academia Sinica are not very happy. He is much too close to the radical elements in China to suit the Nanking authorities and I understand that for the time being it is better for Chen's political health to be out of China. I shall be seeing him in a day or two before he goes back to Shanghai and I shall endeavour to sound him out as discreetly as possible on his views about working for the I. P. R. Sincerely yours, WLH: MI Copy to Mr. Loomis. Copy to Mr. Liu. Research Secretary. EXHIBIT No. 804 MEMORANDUM W. L. HOLLAND TO E. C. CARTER OCTOBER 4, 1935. With reference to Harriet Moore's list of discussion questions of Soviet national policy, I suggest that we write to all the other Councils immediately after the Lee Conference, making it clear that "national policy" is being used in a very different sense in the Round Table on Soviet Policy. I would strongly support Harriet's plea for changing the word from "national" to "nationality." All this is assuming that we would want to limit the Soviet Round Table to the two questions of economic development and policy towards minor nationalities and dependent peoples. There ought to be rather careful discussion of this point to make sure first of all how much of a limitation this really is, and, second whether the Soviet Council would be unwilling to broaden the discussion program to include more general and political aspects of Soviet policy in the Far East. As you know, I would like to have the broader interpretation so that the Round Table would be more in line with the other Round Tables on Japanese, American, and Chinese national policy. While the Soviet policy towards minor nationalities in its Far Eastern territories is certainly a major element in the total Soviet Far Eastern policy, it would be unfortunate if the discussion went too deeply into the details of cultural autonomy, the language question, et cetera, when there will be nothing comparable in the discussions on other questions, and when most of the other delegates will no tbe in a position to participate in the discussion for want of detailed knowledge. (Incidentally, I wonder if you have thought of suggesting to Crawford at the University of Hawaii that you and Keesing might invite a Soviet expert to the Conference on Government and Education in Dependent Territories. A Russian could make a real contribution, and would certainly throw a lot of monkey wrenches which ought to be thrown.) EXHIBIT No. 805 W. L. H. Copy to F. 129 EAST 52ND STREET, New York City, March 28, 1939. DEAR BILL: I apologize for not having sent you an earlier answer to your letter of March 13th. In the meantime, however, I have sent formal invitations to Miss Dietrich and Hayden for the Secretariat Inquiry monographs. After consultation with Carter I decided to offer Hayden $150 and to give him the opportunity to make the report 20,000 to 25,000 words. I have asked Fred to send on to you copies of both letters. I also took up with Carter the question of having authors' names printed on the cover and title page of Inquiry reports and he has now agreed to make this a general practice. I am glad to have the news about Riesenfeld and have told Fred that I certainly approve paying him the necessary $50. In fact, I should be prepared to pay $75 if necessary. To avoid complicating our bookkeeping I have suggested to Fred that this amount should be paid out of the available funds which the American Council now has and that any necessary additional payments from the International Research Fund should be made later this year. In Washington I had quite a long talk with Saugstad who was extremely cooperative. The reason for the slightly mysterious tone in his letter to you was that the person he recommends for the shipping study is Mr. Henry L. Deimel, Jr., Assistant Chief in the Division of Trade Agreements (private address 4414 Macomb Street NW., Washington). Deimel, whom I met briefly, has apparently done a good deal of work on shipping and has at various times worked in association with Henry Grady who, incidentally, is his father-in-law. The reason for Saugstad's mysterious phraseology is that (confidentially) Sayre is probably being sent out soon to the Philippines as High Commissioner, and Deimel is being asked to go as his economic advisor. There would be a possibility, however, that Deimel would get leave of absence for about four or five months during the summer before going out to Manila, and during this period he would be willing and in a very good position to prepare a report for the I. P. R. The State Department would raise no objections to such a procedure and Deimel would also be willing to collect additional information on the way out to Manila. In the meantime he would be able to get access to a great deal of more or less confidential information in Washington. Deimel impressed me as a capable and well informed person, but I have too little evidence to judge whether he is the best possible person we could get. On the whole, however, I am inclined to offer him the job partly because it might be an extremely valuable way of making use of State Department and other governmental material, and incidentally of working in closely with the State Department. I emphasized to Deimel the fact that the report would have to be of an international character and not merely present American policy and point of view. In the meantime I should be glad to have your comments on the scheme, and also any other information about Deimel or about the shipping project generally. I shall not make any move until I hear from you. Meanwhile Hubbard has just sent you a copy of the Imperial Shipping Committee's report on British Shipping in the Orient which is being sent to you. It is better than I had expected and provides a good deal of the information we should want. It is obvious, however, that there is still room for a great deal of work along the lines of more systematic analysis of the problems from an international point of view and quite certain that we should go ahead with the I. P. R. study. I did not call on Gates in the Civil Aeronautics Commission, chiefly because Saugstad had already warned me off him because Gates apparently, being a fighting young lawyer, has become identified with an anti-Pan-American group and is interested in nothing but ways of reducing the monopolistic power of PanAmerican. It also appears that the State Department which has to handle most of the foreign negotiations has more or less unconsciously found itself lined up against Gates as an advocate of Pan-American. Saugstad also emphasized the fact that the State Department has all the information available to the Civil Aeronautics Commission, and in fact is better informed on the international aspects. His recommendation was, therefore, that if we wanted to get any profitable cooperation from people in Washington, it would be much better to do it through the State Department, and he said that he would be prepared to see that we did get the necessary cooperation. Apparently they already have one or two capable young men working on the problem. Obviously there is a little bureaucratic jealously here, but I think there is a good deal in what Saugstad says, and unless we find strong evidence to the contrary, I should be inclined to take his advice. Here, again, however, I should be glad to have a word from you before I write again to Saugstad. With best regards, Sincerely yours, W. W. LOCKWOOD Esq. Research Secretary. EXHIBIT No. 806 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS Amsterdam-London-Manila-Moscow-New York-Paris-Shanghai-Sydney-Tokyo Toronto-Wellington OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY-GENERAL GIANNINI FOUNDATION, ECC from WLH: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, I was somewhat startled to receive your wire saying that Andrew Ross was waiting for me to write him about a supplementary chapter to Levy's report, but on looking through my files I find a slip of paper with the name Andrew ROTH of 3150 Rochambeau Avenue, written on it. So I am afraid I have clearly been negligent in forgetting all about him. I enclose herewith a note which you might send on to him if it seems suitable. The amount of writing to be done cannot be very great and if Levy's manuscript is only just going to the press there need be no delay in its final appearance. If you or Kate or Jack have any doubts about the present letter, don't hesitate to scrap it and write Roth directly. (Incidentally you had better find out whether his name is really Ross or Roth.) I apologize sincerely for having slipped up on this matter. I should not think it was necessary to get Levy's formal permission for this supplementary chapter, but presumably you ought at least to notify him that we are getting it done. I note that no Inquiry funds will be available for Lockwood's suggested study by Quigley on the Open Door. The study is not within the present field of the International Research Committee and I don't think it would interest Lockwood's committee, although a related study of the Open Door as a cardinal factor in American policy might. I would not regard the suggested Quigley study as of major importance, though it might come on the list of new studies to be undertaken if we get additional Inquiry funds. The subject might be better treated as one chapter of a larger study of new diplomatic machinery for the Far East. How would it be to consult two or three people like Blakeslee, Willoughby, Hornbeck and Quincy Wright, as well as Quigley, about the possible scope and importance of the study? It might also be possible to have the subject treated in a PACIFIC AFFAIRS article and expanded later if it seemed worthwhile. I agree with so much of what you say in your letter of May 8 about Japanese Trojan Horses in the bosoms of various influential people (a vastly intriguing metaphor when you consider what would have to be done to let the soldiers escape from the Trojan Horse) that I don't propose to do anything further about a possible visit by Alsberg to Japan, particularly as Galen Fisher's visit will be a sufficient goodwill gesture. If it is convenient I should like to look at "Contemporary International Politics" by Sharp and Kirk, the latter of whom is doing an American Council study on electrical communications in the Pacific. If it seems worthwhile, I shall write a brief review on the Far Eastern sections of the book. Among your suggested reviewers for Morgan Young's book, "The Rise of a Pagan State," I should be inclined to mention Colegrove, but we had probably better not bother him until he finishes his present assignment for us. Would you also send me Lowe's "Japan's Economic Offensive in China," as I may want to review this myself or, perhaps, ask George Taylor to do it. I am very interested to hear that the Japan Council have translated "Agrarian China." I am delighted that they have done so but so far as I remember this is the first we have been told of it, although it is a Secretariat book. I should like to have two of the copies, if possible. The book should be listed under its Japanese title in the next issue of PACIFIC AFFAIRS, but I don't think it need be reviewed separately. To the best of my recollection we have not yet reviewed "Agrarian China" in PACIFIC AFFAIRS but you might check on this; and if I am right you might get Wittfogel or Cressey or Rossiter of the Department of Agriculture to write about 300 words. WLH W. L. H. EXHIBIT No. 807 WLH from ECC: MAY 10, 1940. Jessup rang up just now and says that he fears it was you rather than he who slipped the cog with reference to the Levy supplement. He has just checked with Peffer and I have condensed his message into the following Day Letter: "Regarding Levy supplement Jessup says he, Peffer, arranged for Andrew Ross see you, that Ross says you promised write him. He is eager and ready and according to Peffer anxious and qualified to go ahead and has been awaiting daily your letter." I explained to Jessup how terribly rushed you were with a million things just before your departure. Under the circumstances, I assume that you will want to go ahead and have Ross go to work, though I suppose you are still free to cancel your tentative proposal to Ross. Somehow or other both Jessup and Peffer have the idea that Ross saw you before you left New York. His address is: care the Chinese Department at Columbia. In the view of Jessup and Peffer his knowledge of French and of France and of the Far East qualify him to do a good job. EXHIBIT No. 808 BERKELEY, July 5, 1940. DEAR PHIL GAFFE: The Hollands are duly touched and awed that our offspring should have made such an impact on 129 E. 52nd St. If you want to indicate that Amer and Asia are separated by an ever-renewed body of water, then Patricia is certainly an apt symbol. Photographs a priori and a posteriori will be forthcoming soon. I should have no objections to putting Owen's article in Amerasia and in some ways I think it would be better to print it immediately rather than have it delayed. It's a difficult topic and I think Owen has made a gallant effort, but I have a slight feeling that he has tried to find too many historical roots for the current, and obviously important, connection between Germany and Japan. Moreover there is singularly little account of the role the U. S. has played and of the fears of the U. S. S. R. regarding the intentions of both Germany and Britain. I should like to see the article end with a more outright plea that only by direct pressure on Japan from the U. S. and by a rapprochement between the U. S. and the U. S. S. R. can the Axis powers now be checked. I hope Amerasia will have a blast against the latest wave of appeasement and Lippmannism favouring a deal with Japan. My regards to Kate and the rest of the Amerasia bunch. Library of Congress Annex, Washington, D. C. DEAR REMER: You have probably already heard of this matter through Fans or Fairbank, but I understand that the publishers of the Japanese magazine CHUO KORON wrote sometime ago that they had had to discontinue mailing the periodical to the United States as the United States atuhorities had been confiscating it as propagandist literature. The United States action may have been quite justified in some cases, but it seems very probable that the Customs authorities have acted as precipitately here as they did formerly with important Soviet magazines which were urgently needed by libraries and research institutions in this country. If the matter has not alreadly been attended to, it might be worth while for your group to communicate, perhaps through Archibald MacLeish or Mortimer Graves, with the Customs authorities to see that confiscations are handled intelligently and not to the detriment of legitimate research institutions and libraries. I enclose a circular in Japanese from CHUO KORON. W. L. HOLLAND, Research Secretary. EXHIBIT No. 810 Mr. W. L. HOLLAND, Institute of Pacific Relations, COORDINATOR OF INFORMATION, Washington, D. C., March 18, 1942. 129 East 52nd Street, New York, N. Y. MY DEAR MR. HOLLAND: The research work of the Institute of Pacific Relations has been directly useful to the Office of the Coordinator of Information in its efforts to meet the urgent demands created by the war. Certain unpublished studies of the Institute have been made available to us during the preparation of reports and you have, yourself, found time to serve as consultant and adviser to our sections dealing with the British Empire and the Far East. |