INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE ADMINISTRATION
OF THE INTERNAL SECUKITY ACT AND OTHER
INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS
OP THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIAEY
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-SECOND CONGKESS
SECOND SESSION
ON
THE INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
PART 6
JANUARY 24, 25, 26, AND 30, 1952
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Orcein Eacir DEC^'
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 22848 WASHINGTON : 1952
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PAT MCCARRAN, Nevada, Chairman
HARLEY M. KILGORB, West Virginia ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota
WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington HOMER FERGUSON, Michigan
HERBERT R. O'CONOR, Maryland WILLIAM E. JENNER, Indiana
ESTES KEFAUVER, Tennessee ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah
WILLIS SMITH, North Carolina ROBERT C. HENDRICKSON, New Jersey
J. G. Sourwine, Counsel
Internal Security Subcommittee
PAT MCCARRAN, Nevada, Chairman
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi HOMER FERGUSON, Michigan
HERBERT R. O'CONOR, Maryland WILLIAM E. JENNER. Indiana
WILLIS SMITH, North Carolina ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah
Subcommittee Investigating the Institute of Pacific Relations
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman
PAT MCCARRAN, Nevada HOMER FERGUSON, Michigan
Robert Morris, Special Counsel Benjamin Maxdel, Director of Research
II
CONTENTS
Testimony of — Pag»
Vincent, John Carter 1683-1996
For appendix I see part 7, page 2286.
in
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC KELATIONS
Resolution
Whereas testimony of John Carter Vincent was received in executive sessions of the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary on each of 3 days, January 24, 25, and 26, 1952 ; after which Mr. Vincent testified in public session on 4 days, January 30, 31, and February 1 and 2, 1952 ; and
Whereas repetition in public session of all of the testimony given in executive session was deemed undesirable, from the standpoint of efficiency and economy ; and, therefore, substantial areas of the testimony given in executive session were not again traversed in the public sessions which followed ; and
Whereas before the decision was made not to repeat all of the executive testimony at the public sessions, the question of making the executive testimony public was discussed with the witness and his counsel ; and
Whereas the witness, John Carter Vincent, and his counsel after having opportunity to read the record of the aforesaid 3 days of executive sessions, stated on the record, during one of the subsequent public sessions, that they had no objection to the public disclosure of the testimony taken in executive session ; and
Whereas the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary deems the release of such executive testimony to be in the public interest : Therefore be it
Resolved by the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, That the testimony of John Carter Vincent taken at the executive sessions of the subcommittee on January 24, 25, and 26, 1952, be released from the injunction of executive secrecy, and be printed and made public together with the public hearings held on January 30 and 31 and February 1 and 2, 1952.
Pat McCarran. James O. Eastland. Herbert R. O'Conor. Willis Smith. Homer Ferguson. W. E. Jenner. Arthur V. Watkins.
THURSDAY, JANUARY 24, 1952
United States Senate, Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal
Security Laws or the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D. C.
EXECUTIVE session CONFIDENTIAL
The subcommittee met, at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to call, in room 424, Senate Office Building, Hon. Pat McCarran (chairman of the com- mittee), presiding.
Present: Senators McCarran, O'Conor, Smith, and Ferguson.
1683
1684 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Present also: Senators Magnuson and Hendrickson; J. G. Sour- wine, counsel; Kobert Morris, subcommittee counsel; and Benjamin Mandel, research director.
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Vincent is the witness, Senator.
The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand ?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give be- fore 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 WAITER 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 com- mittee, 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 De- partment 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 de- clined 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.
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1685
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 pre- serving 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 forma- tion 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 ques- tions 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 De- partment'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 De- partment. 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
1686 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
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. Vincent. I see what you mean.
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 So- viet 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 Gen- eral 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?
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1687
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sotjrwine. For the purposes of this hearing is the committee satisfied with that brief qualification of Mr. Vincent ?
The Chairman. Very well.
Mr. Sotjrwine. 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 ques- tioned 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 subcom- mittee.
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.
1688 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
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 subcom- mittee 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 en- deavored 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 Com- munist and have never been a member of the Communist Party. I have never sympathized with the aims of communism. On the con- trary, 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 mem- bers 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 in- stitutions because of unfounded allegations made by Budenz or any- one else.
We cannot dismiss the Budenz testimony as a "mistake." Any at- tempt 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 demo- cracy 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 in- accurate ; 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 Na- tionalist 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.
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1689
But, gentlemen, my main purpose in seeking an opportunity to come before you has been accomplished. At the subcommittee hearings of October 5, 1951, Senator Smith is reported as saying :
Mr. Vincent should come here and challenge Mr. Budenz' statement and say "I am not a Communist." That draws the issue.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I now solemnly re- peat : I am not and never have been a member of the Communist Party. I so draw the issue.
The Chairman. Let me say to you, Mr. Vincent, that it is not alone membership in the Communist Party that constitutes a threat to the internal security of this country ; it is sympathy with the Communist movement that raises one of the gravest threats that we have.
Mr. Vincent. Mr. Chairman, I think I said in here that I had no sympathy with the aims of the Communists.
Senator Ferguson. Mr. Vincent, that raises a question, if I might ask. ( Membership in the Communist Party is pretty difficult to de- termine, is it not ? You have had experience with Communists ?
Mr. Vincent. Senator, I would not say that I had enough exper- ience with the Communist Party to know whether membership is dif- ficult or not to determine.
Senator Ferguson. To prove ?
Mr. Vincent. To prove whether one is or is not. I suppose one could prove very easily that one was a member of the Communist Party.
Senator Ferguson. You think it is easy for a person to prove
Mr. Vincent. One could prove it I suppose by producing a Com- munist Party card.
Senator Ferguson. Well, do you not realize that many members do not carry a card, never have a card ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Senator Ferguson. Is that not true ?
Mr. Vincent. That is true as far as I know.
Senator Ferguson. You are now saying in this testimony that you are not a card-carrying member and you have never been a member in any form, directly or indirectly, is that correct ?
Mr. Vincent. That is correct, sir, and that I have had no sym- pathy with the aims of the Communist Party.
Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Vincent, as an expert on the Far East do you recognize that communism is one of the maior problems in the Far East?
Mr. Vincent. I certainly do, Mr. Sourwine, and have recognized it for some time.
Mr. Sourwine. Have you ever seen or read the Communist Mani- festo, by Marx and Engels ?
Mr. Vincent. I have seen it but have not read it.
Mr. Sourwine. Have you ever seen or read State and Eevolution, by Lenin ?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Mr. Sourwine. Have you ever seen or read Left-Wing Commu- nism : An Infantile Disorder, by Lenin ?
Mr. Vincent. I have not.
1690 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know about it ?
Mr. Vincent. I haven't ever heard of that last one.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever see or read Foundations of Leninism, by Stalin?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever hear of it ?
Mr. Vincent. I don't recall having heard of it.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever see or read Problems of Leninism, by Stalin ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever hear of it ?
Mr. Vincent. Not that I recall.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever see or read History of the Commu- nist Party of the Soviet Union, authorized by the Central Committee of the Communist Party ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever see or read Program of the Commu- nist International and Its Constitution, third American edition?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Any edition ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever see or read The Revolutionary Move- ment in the Colonies and Semi-Colonies, a resolution of the Sixth World Congress of the Comintern ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir, I haven't. My reading of Communist docu- ments has not been broad.
Mr. Sourwine. Would you be able to characterize those docu- ments as a group at all ? Do you know what they represent ?
Mr. Vincent. I should say from the titles, and I can only speak from the titles, that they represented the Communist point of view on various and sundry subjects, as you mentioned.
Mr. Sourwine. That would be all you know about them ?
Mr. Vincent. That would be all I know about them and I would gather that from the titles.
Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Vincent, I have here a list of names of a number of individuals.
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. I want to simplify the questioning. The first question we want to ask is, Did you or do you know the individual named ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Second, Did you know, under any other name, an individual whom you now know or believe to be the person referred to ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Third, if so, what were your associations with the individual ? Fourth, did you know at any time that the individual was connected with the Communist movement? If so, in what way, to your knowledge, was the individual connected with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. You understand that is the information we want about each one of these persons ?
Mr. Vincent. And you will ask the questions?
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1691
Mr. Sourwine. If agreeable with you I will simply read the names and it is intended to cover the first two questions : Did you or do you know the individual named ? Did you know, under any other name, an individual whom you now know or believe to be the person referred to?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. If you say "No" when I read the name you are answering "No" to both the questions ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. If you say "Yes" we will go into it. A "No" an- swer is a denial that you ever knew the individual or that you ever knew an individual whom you now believe to be the person referred to.
Solomon Adler ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. What .were your associations with Mr. Adler?
Mr. Vincent. I have a piece here on Solomon Adler because I anticipated that, if you let me. I don't like to be inaccurate as to dates because there are many people.
The Chairman. What are you reading from ?
Mr. Vincent. These are notes, Mr. Chairman, that I made in anticipation because I haven't too good a memory for dates and people that I have known in the dim, distant past.
The Chairman. Are those notes made by yourself ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Morris. Were they all made by you ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir. I had assistance in getting the facts to- gether.
The Chairman. You had assistance in getting the facts together?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, from Mr. Surrey.
The Chairman. Who gave you that assistance ?
Mr. Vincent. People in the State Department who would look up and find out as to when and where I had met somebody if I did not recall the circumstances. You see, many of these concern places and people whose service has not exactly coincided with mine.
Mr. Sourwine. Are you now here testifying as to Mr. Adler and the others on the basis of your own recollection, as refreshed ?
Mr. Vincent. As refreshed.
Mr. Sourwine. You are not simply telling the committee this is what somebody in the State Department says is the facts?
Mr. Vincent: No (reading) : I first met Mr. Adler in Chungking and that was in 1942, early 1942. It may have been late 1941. He came out as an assistant to Dr. Manuel Fox, who died some months later, in the matter of administering our interest in the Chinese cur- rency stabilization loan, I think, of about half a billion dollars.
The Chairman. Under what department or authority did he come out?
Mr. Vincent (reading) : He came out under the authority of the Treasury Department, Mr. Chairman. I at that time was counselor of our Embassy in Chungking. In the course of the natural business be- tween the Embassy and these people with the Treasury Department I did see Mr. Adler from time to time during that year and a half.
I was transferred back to Washington and did not see Mr. Adler
1692 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
again until sometime in 1945. I think he made a trip home. I saw him once or twice then on business connected with China.
Mr. Sourwine. In 1945 ?
Mr. Vincent. In 1945 or 1946, 1 wouldn't be sure (reading) : He at that time had become Treasury attache. I then went to Bern as Min- ister. I did not see Mr. Adler again and have not seen him since that time. At Bern I remember receiving a letter from him in which, and I do not recall the exact contents, he asked me to give some estimate of his work at Chungking when he was associated there with me.
I did and replied that he had been, as far as I knew, a conscientious and hard-working Government employee and that I had no reason whatsoever to question his loyalty. I assumed from the character of his request that at that time, although I cannot testify to this, he was being examined by the Treasury Department.
Mr. Sourwine. And that was when ?
Mr. Vincent. That was in either late 1948 or early 1949.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know where Mr. Adler is now ?
Mr. Vincent. I do not. I have heard from someone that he is teaching school somewhere, but I do not know.
Mr. Sourwine. In the United States ?
Mr. Vincent. That I do not know.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you recall who introduced you to Mr. Adler?
Mr. Vincent. I should say that Dr. Manuel Fox introduced him be- cause he came after Fox.
Mr. Sourwine. Had you ever heard of him before that?
Mr. Vincent. I had not.
Mr. Sourwine. You have told the committee your full associations with him ?
Mr. Vincent. To the best of my knowledge.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know at any time that Mr. Adler was con- nected with the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. I did not, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you have reason to believe that he was?
Mr. Vincent. I did not.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you now know or have any reason to believe that he is or ever was in the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. I do not.
The Chairman. Mr. Adler in Bern asked you to make some kind of a statement as to his loyalty ; is that true ?
Mr. Vincent. As to his work at Chungking.
The Chairman. And at that time did he give you a reason for his request or why he was seeking such a statement from you ?
Mr. Vincent. He did, sir. He indicated that the Treasury Depart- ment wanted a statement from me on his work because he was — here I must testify completely from memory — that investigation was being made into his work while he was in Chungking. Senator Ferguson. Loyalty ? Work ?
Mr. Vincent. His work. I would not say the letter said "loyalty" ; but I do not deny it might have.
Senator Ferguson. Mr. Vincent, you were familiar with the loyalty program ?
Mr. Vincent. Not at that time, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Had you ever heard of it ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes ; I heard of it but had no familiarity.
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1693
Senator Ferguson. Did you know that different departments were making inquiry about the loyalty of their members ?
Mr. Vincent. I did.
Senator Ferguson. This indicated to you then that this was a loy- alty investigation?
Mr. Vincent. It indicated to me that there might have been a loy- alty investigation into Mr. Adler, but my testimony on him was solely as to his work and my estimate of his work in Chungking.
Senator Ferguson. Did you not put in the reply that you believed him to be loyal ? Did you not cover the question of loyalty ?
Mr. Vincent. Senator, I would have to have a copy of the letter which I don't have to be able to answer that.
Senator Ferguson. Do you not think they would have been able to judge his work on other questions? They would have been able to determine what he had accomplished and so forth as far as being a representative of the Treasury ?
Mr. Vincent. Well, I will say this : That I would have, and may have been perfectly free to say that I had no reason while Mr. Adler was working in Chungking to question his loyalty.
The Chairman. Right there, Senator, may I interrupt you ? I am called away and I believe we might suspend for a few minutes.
Senator Ferguson. Let the record show that the committee will recess until 3 o'clock this afternoon.
(Whereupon, at 12:20 p. m., the subcommittee recessed to recon- vene at 3 p. m. of the same day.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
Senator Smith. We will come to order. Mr. Sourwine?
TESTIMONY OF JOHN CARTER VINCENT, ACCOMPANIED BY WALTER STERLING SURREY, COUNSEL— Resumed
Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, we were discussing various names. I assume that the witness does remember the questions but it has been some time ; this is an unusually long recess. The mention of the name is intended to ask these two questions : Did you or do you know the individual named and did you know under any other name an indi- vidual whom you now know or believe to be the person referred to ?
I believe we had completed the discussion of Mr. Solomon Adler?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. The next name is Robert W. Barnett ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. What were your associations with Mr. Barnett?
Mr. Vincent. To the best of my recollection (reading) : Mr. Bar- nett came to China, Chungking, in 1942 with the OSS I believe on a very short mission. It's the first time I ever saw Bob Barnett. Then later, back in the Department of State after the war was over he came into the State Department to do some kind of economic work. He was never to my knowledge — I was in the Far Eastern Division and my associations with him were not close, primarily because our jobs were of a different character. He was an economist and still is in the State Department.
1694 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
I saw him here some days ago in the State Department, but as I say he was a man that I met casually from time to time and may have been on committees where I served, but I didn't know him very well ever.
Mr. Sourwine. He is not a social acquaintance of yours?
Mr. Vincent. Never. I don't know his wife, I don't think.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know at any time that Mr. Barnett was connected with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Did I ask you that question with regard to Mr. Adler?
Mr. Vincent. You did not.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you at any time know that Mr. Adler was connected with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. I did not.
Mr. Sourwine. The next name is Joseph Barnes.
Mr. Morris. When did you first hear Mr. Adler's name connected with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. I never have heard his name connected with the Communist Party, Mr. Morris.
Mr. Morris. You are not acquainted with the testimony taken by this committee?
Mr. Vincent. No ; I am not.
Senator Smith. Where is Mr. Barnett ? Is he here now ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Senator Smith. Was not his father a missionary to China?
Mr. Vincent. I think he was. Most of those boys were sons of missionaries to China.
Senator Smith. I used to know his father years ago.
Mr. Vincent. It is surprising how many of them are sons of mis- sionaries and some day somebody can write a book on the influence of the sons of missionaries in the Far East.
Senator Smith. This is a man who used to go to student conven- tions down in South Carolina during the summer \
Mr. Sourwine. Joseph Barnes ?
Mr. Vincent. Joseph Barnes. Let me see. I have never had much association with Mr. Barnes.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know him ?
Mr. Vincent. I know him. I just want to see the dates.
Mr. Sourwine. Who is Mr. Barnes?
Mr. Vincent. Mr. Barnes, when I knew him, was a newspaperman. Yes; here I have a note jotted down (reading) : I met Mr. Barnes first in 1942 when he came to China with Wendell Willkie. Subse- quently on my return to Washington I probably saw Mr. Barnes once or twice. I met him socially in New York, I think, on one occasion. I have forgotten what the occasion was.
I have never met Mrs. Barnes, and we were not close associates.
Mr. Sourwine. When was the last time you saw him, do you know ?
Mr. Vincent. The last time I saw him, my guess would be, was in 1946, but it might turn out to be 1947. It was at some time when I was in New York making a speech and there was a dinner afterward and he was present after the dinner.
Mr. Sourwine. Have you ever been in his home ?
Mr. Vincent. Never.
Mr. Sourwine. Is he married ?
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1695
Mr. Vincent. I am told lie was.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know whether Mr. Adler is married ?
Mr. Vincent. Mr. Adler is married, or was married the last time I met him, because he told me he had a new wife.
Mr. Sourwine. Had you ever met his wife ?
Mr. Vincent. No; but I think I met her when he came back here.
Mr. Sourwine. When was the last time he visited Washington ?
Mr. Vincent. My recollection would be that he was here some time before I departed for China and after the war closed, which would be in 1946, more likely than not, if that is when he married. I don't know when he married, but at the time I learned he was married was the last time.
Mr. Sourwine. This was the occasion when he told you he had a new wife?
Mr. Vincent. Yes. I think I either had lunch with him or saw him at the Cosmos Club, because I have a recollection of seeing his wife and was introduced to her as the new wife.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you remember who else was present on that occasion?
Mr. Vincent. I would say offhand that it was just the three of us, although my wife may have been present. It was one of these down- town lunches.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you give the party or did he?
Mr. Vincent. I think I did. I think I did because I don't think he is a member of the Cosmos Club. I may have told him to meet me at the Cosmos Club.
Mr. Sourwine. Is Mr. Barnett married ?
Mr. Vincent. I think he is, but I don't know his wife, at least I don't recall his wife, although I may have met her.
Mr. Morris. Mr. Vincent, when you said you met Mr. Barnes at a dinner in New York, under what auspices was that?
Mr. Vincent. I don't know. I think he came in after dinner some time.
Mr. Morris. You said you were the speaker ?
Mr. Vincent. No, no, it was at a time when I was in New York making a speech and stayed on in New York. I was never given a dinner.
Mr. Morris. Where was the speech given?
Mr. Vincent. It may have been my speech before the National Trade Council or it may have been the speech I made before the for- eign affairs group.
Mr. Sourwine. The Foreign Policy Association?
Mr. Vincent. I made one. I was up there three or four times during the year. If I could recall I would tell you which one. I didn't usually go ;up to New York except to go up there to make a speech. I couldn't afford going up there.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever have any correspondence with Mr. Barnes ?
Mr. Vincent. Not that I recall.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know at any time that Mr. Barnes was connected with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. I did not, sir.
22S48— 52— pt. 6 2
1696 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Sourwine. The next name is Dr. Norman Bethune, B-e-t-h- u-n-e.
Mr. Vincent. I can't, Mr. Sourwine, recall knowing Mr. Bethune, yet the name rings a mild bell somewhere. If you could possibly aid my memory in what connection I may have known him I might be able to contribute something.
Mr. Sourwine. I am sorry, I could not, naturally, make a sug- gestion in that regard.
Mr. Vincent. Then my testimony is that I don't recall Mr. Bethune and yet there were so many people in and out of Chungking and in and out of my office that Bethune was somebody that I might have known.
Mr. Mandel. Could I refresh your memory?
Mr. Vincent. You could.
Mr. Mandel. He was the head of a hospital in China. He is en- gaged in medical relief in China.
Mr. Vincent. Chong Chow ? There was a hospital that I was in myself in 1937. In Peking? There was the Peking Medical Society Hospital, a Rockefeller hospital, but I don't recall any association with him.
Mr. Sourwine. The next name is T. A. Bisson, B-i-s-s-o-n.
Mr. Vincent. I have a note here on Bisson, I think, if I may refer to it as to when I met him. The note here, well, could I say I have a recollection of meeting Bisson on several occasions? The one that is the most prominent in my memory, the others have faded away, is the IPR conference in Hot Springs in 1945.
Mr. Sourwine. Who was Mr. Bisson ?
Mr. Vincent. Mr. Bisson at that time was connected with the IPR in some capacity and wrote for the IPR.
Mr. Sourwine. What has been your association with Mr. Bisson?
Mr. Vincent. Very slight indeed, as I have put here. As I say (reading) : I may have met him on half a dozen occasions. These peo- ple came into the office on one matter or another. I don't know a Mrs. Bisson, I don't know where he lives.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you say you don't know Mrs. Bisson or a Mrs. Bisson?
Mr. Vincent. I don't know a Mrs. Bisson.
Mr. Sourwine. Is he married?
Mr. Vincent. I don't know.
Mr. Sourwine. Have you corresponded with him ?
Mr. Vincent. Not that I recall.
Mr. Sourwine. At any time?
Mr. Vincent. There may have been an exchange of letters during 1944 or 1945 during that period when I was connected with the IPR, but as I say I don't recall any correspondence or the nature of it.
Mr. Sourwine. But you have not corresponded with him at any other time ?
Mr. Vincent. No. He may have written me a letter while I was in China and I didn't know him. He may have written while I was consul in Dairen.
Mr. Sourwine. Would you know him?
Mr. Vincent. I wouldn't say that I did. But people would write you letters wanting to know what is going on in Mukden or Dairen.
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1697
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know where you met Mr. Bisson, first met him?
Mr. Vincent. I don't.
Mr. Souravine. I take it you don't recall how you met him?_
Mr. Vincent. Mr. Bisson didn't make much of an impression on me, but I do know he was at the Hot Springs conference.
Mr. Sourwine. Was that the last time you saw him ?
Mr. Vincent. I wouldn't want to testify that was the last time, that was the last time according to my recollection.
Mr. Sourwine. You did not make any appointment with him for a meeting at any subsequent time ?
Mr. Vincent. Not that I recall. I never sought him out.
Mr. Sourwine. If you met he sought you out ?
Mr. Vincent. That would be my testimony based on my recollection.
Mr. Sourwine. Or a chance meeting?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. The next name is Earl Browder?
Mr. Vincent. I have never met to my knowledge Earl Browder.
Mr. Sourwine. I forgot to ask the standard question, sir, with re- gard to Mr. Bisson. Did you know at any time that Mr. Bisson was connected with the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. The next name is Evans F. Carlson, C-a-r-1-s-o-n.
Mr. Vincent. I don't recall ever meeting Evans Carlson at all. I have heard of him and understand he wrote a book, which I never read, but I never met him to my knowledge.
Mr. Sourwine. We come now to the first of what will, before we are through, be many Chinese names. I do not speak the language, and I must apologize for what will undoubtedly be improper pro- nunciation in many cases.
Mr. Vincent. May I apologize, too, that there are going to be many of these names that will be Chus or Yus or Yings and Yangs who just not through a lack of desire to be helpful but that I won't be able to place unless you can place them for me.
Mr. Sourwine. The first name I have here is with my inadequate pronunciation, I will spell it — C-h-e-n H-a-n-s-e-n-g.
Mr. Vincent. Chen Han-seng. I don't recall meeting Chen Han- seng. I knew him by repute in China, a professor there, but I don't recall my meeting with him. I want to continue that testimony. You meet many Chinese and I want to be quite frank with you that Chen Han-seng may have been in a meeting at Chungking or when I was in Kunming or he may have come here to the State Department with other Chinese but I don't recall meeting him.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know where he was a professor ?
Mr. Vincent. I thought he was down in Kunming.
Mr. Sourwine. About what time was that?
Mr. Vincent. It would be the time when I was in China, which would be the last time, 1941 to 1943.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know where he is now ?
Mr. Vincent. I do not.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know anything about the present connec- tions of Chen Han-seng? Mr. Vincent. I do not.
1698 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know at any time that he was connected with the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. I did not.
Mr. Sourwine. The next name I have here is Ch'ao Ting Chi, C-h-'-a-o T-i-n-g C-h-i. Or perhaps the Chi should come first ?
Mr. Vincent. Chi. I have met Chi (reading) : I met him in Chung- king when he was acting as assistant to Dr. H. H. Kung, K-u-n-g, when he was assistant to Dr. Kung and also was connected with the Stabiliza- tion Board. I saw him from time to time.
Mr. Sourwine. Had you met him before that ?
Mr. Vincent. I had not to my knowledge.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you recall who introduced you to him ?
Mr. Vincent. My thought would be that the logical person would have been either Dr. Kung or Manuel Fox, who was head of the Stabilization Board.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you remember whether it was the logical per- son who did introduce you ?
Mr. ^incent. I do not remember whether it was the logical person.
Mr. Sourwine. You do not know, in other words, who did introduce you?
Mr. Vincent. No. I met him frequently on social occasions in the house of General Chiang Kai-shek because he was also a man who was there at any social functions.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you meet him socially elsewhere?
Mr. Vincent. Not that I recall. Probably in Chinese homes.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you yourself have any personal social inter- course with him?
Mr. Vincent. Not that I know of.
Mr. Sourwine. Was he in your home or you in his ?
Mr. Vincent. He may have been in Dr. Gauss' home. We invited Chinese over to have lunch once a week and he may have been one of them.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you have any correspondence with him ?
Mr. Vincent. I don't recall any correspondence with him.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know where he is now ?
Mr. Vincent. I do not.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you recall when or approximately when is the last time you saw him ?
Mr. Vincent. I would say that I haven't seen him since I left China, but if he came to the States and was around at large func- tions such as they have in New York, Dr. Chi may have been there.
Mr. Sourwine. Is he a doctor ?
Mr. Vincent. No; I think we called him Dr. Chi because he is a professor.
Mr. Sourwine. Is he a Ph. D ?
Mr. Vincent. I don't know. I fell into the "Doctor" because he was a professor.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you recall when you last heard about him from anyone else?
Mr. Vincent. I do not.
Mr. Sourwine. Have you heard anything from him in the last 2 or 3 years?
Mr. Vincent. No, I haven't.
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1699
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know and do now know that at any time Dr. Chi was connected with the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. I do not. Judging by the closeness he had with Chiang Kai-shek and H. H. Kung I would certainly have thought he was the opposite.
Mr. Sourwine. You would be surprised to know that he was con- nected with the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. The association that I had with him was in Chung- king where he was almost a habitue of Chiang Kai-shek and Kung's home.
Mr. Sourwine. Have you read any of the hearings of this sub- committee ?
Mr. Vincent. I have read those that were particularly pertaining to me.
Mr. Sourwine. How did you find out which were the ones particu- larly pertaining to you ?
Mr. Vincent. By going through and picking up my name; that on August 3 Mr. Bunclez testified about me.
Mr. Sourwine. Who would tell you that ?
Mr. Vincent. Who would tell me? The books are up in the State Department, the three books that are now
Mr. Sourwine. I thought that in going through the books you had checked the subject index and read the pages where your name ap- peared ?
Mr. Vincent. I did in the first and in the second.
Senator Ferguson. Has the State Department anyone working on these records?
Mr. Vincent. What records?
Senator Ferguson. Our hearing.
Mr. Vincent. The books are all down there in the legal adviser's office and I have access to these books.
Senator Ferguson. But is there any particular person working on it down there that helps you ?
Mr. Vincent. Several people who helped me, Senator.
Senator Ferguson. Who is assigned to the task for instance?
Mr. Vincent. There is no particular person assigned to the task. It is a matter where if we are trying to recollect a situation or some- thing.
Senator Ferguson. I meant for instance you say that in the legal department. Is there anyone there that reads them daily and di- gests them and gets in touch
Mr. Vincent. With me ?
Senator Ferguson. Or with somebody ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Or with whoever is mentioned ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. You do not know of anybody like that?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. The gentleman with you is your counsel ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Senator Ferguson. Private personal counsel ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Not from the State Department ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
1700 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Senator Ferguson. Go ahead, Mr. Sourwine.
Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Vincent, do you want the committee to under- stand that you have, with respect to the first two volumes, read those portions and only those portions which were listed in the index as pertaining to you and that with respect to the third volume you have read some portions pertaining to you and that you have not read the fourth or subsequent volumes yet ?
Mr. Vincent. Mr. Sourwine, I would want the committee to know that I read, I believe, the volume of August 23. Is that not the date? I ran through, I believe, the index afterward of that one. How thor- oughly I ran through the index of the next two volumes as they came out printed, I wouldn't know.
I read pretty thoroughly the volume of Admiral Cooke and the volume in which Mr. Budenz made his second appearance. There are many of the volumes that I have not gone through.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know how many volumes there are as of now that have been released ?
Mr. Vincent. I am afraid I don't, Mr. Sourwine. I would guess about 12, but that may be wrong.
Mr. Sourwine. Are you reading them in manuscript form?
Mr. Vincent. If you mean by manuscript form
Mr. Sourwine. Typescript.
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. You are not reading the printed record? It's typescript, in the form of duplication.
Mr. Vincent. Typescript, but I had already read the August 23 one, but when the typed one came out I probably referred to the typed one because the typed one has some of the exhibits in it, I believe.
Mr. Sourwine. I should point out that if you are reading them in the — that is, the 8-by-ll or 8-hy-liy2 size sheet, there is no index in those, so I have been talking about something that is nonexistent. When I was talking about the index I was talking about the printed volumes.
Mr. Vincent. Yes, I am aware that the printed volumes have an index where my name occurs.
Mr. Sourwine. But you have not had occasion, or for some other reason, you have not read those through ?
Mr. Vincent. I have not read those through. I have no doubt the first volume, which I think carries the Budenz testimony, I again went through it to the extent of trying to see what exhibits were put in.
Mr. Sourwine. You say you read the original through? You are not saying that you read all of the originals through or all of the original through?
Mr. Vincent. No. I do not recall seeing any mention in any of the volumes I read of Dr. Chi.
Mr. Sourwine. That is what I meant. There is mention of him in those hearings.
Mr. Vincent. If I saw it, it didn't ring a bell.
Mr. Sourwine. The next name I have here is spelled Chou En-lai, C-h-o-u E-n-1-a-i.
Mr. Vincent. It is pronounced Chou En-lai, the present Premier of Communist China.
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1701
Mr. Sotjrwine. Do you or did you know him ?
Mr. Vincent. I did know him.
Mr. Sourwine. Will you tell us to what extent and what was the nature of your association ?
Mr. Vincent. If I may check here because I would like to refer to these notes on him. Yes, here I have jotted down these things as exactly as I can (reading) : As consul of the American Embassy I met Chou En-lai in Chungking several times. He was the representative in Chungking of the Chinese Communists, who had their seat of gov- ernment at Yenan. He had an official position recognized by Chiang Kai-shek, and it may have been a reception at Chiang's where I first met Chou.
I recall also meeting him at a luncheon in the home of an American manager of the British-American Tobacco Co. Also I met him when he made a courtesy call on Ambassador Gauss soon after Gauss' arrival and my own in the summer of 1941.
The last time I saw him was before my departure for the United States in May 1913. He called at the Embassy as I was leaving to meet George Atcheson, who was taking my place as charge at the time.
Mr. Sotjrwine. I see you are using your notes for that ?
Mr. Vincent. Other things reminded me of that. I got the date for that.
Mr. Sourwine. Have you attempted in those notes to set down, and have you attempted here in telling us about it to tell us about, all of the instances and occasions when you met Chou En-lai?
Mr. Vincent. I have named so far all of the instances that I can recall of meeting Chou En-lai. I have another note here that (read- ing) my few conversations with Chou concerned conditions in the areas of North China occupied by the Communists. That would have been a logical topic of conversation, in particular, the conduct of military operations against the Japanese.
The information obtained by me and by other officers of the embassy was of considerable value to us in evaluating conditions in an area to which we had no access whatsoever at that time.
Senator Ferguson. Would he go out into the field himself?
Mr. Vincent. Chou?
Senator Ferguson. Would he?
Mr. Vincent. He could have gone to Yenan from time to time. Whether he did pass backward and forward I don't know, I would think he did.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you recall whether you ever had any private conferences with him ?
Mr. Vincent. I never had a private conference with him in the sense of the two of us getting together. He was at the luncheon I speak of. He came and told me goodby when I was leaving. He met Atcheson. I recall it was made the subject of a memorandum, what he was describing as conditions, and I believe it must have certainly been submitted to the Department after my departure because I would have been home.
Senator Ferguson. That would have been one of the papers sent by you, an appraisal of the Communists after you conferred with him ?
Mr. Vincent. It would have been a paper sent by me. To the extent
1702 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
it would have been a factual report, it would have been what he had to say. I was more of a reporter than I was an appraiser.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever have a conference with him at which you were the highest-ranking State Department official present?
Mr. Vincent. Well, Mr. Sourwine, I wouldn't call them conferences, but I was probably the highest-ranking State Department official when the British- American Tobacco man gave his luncheon, which was the first time I recall meeting him.
Mr. Sourwine. I was not referring to that kind of conference.
Mr. Vincent. I would say that the conference when he came over and called to say good-by, that Atcheson was senior to me. We were both the same grade, but he had assumed charge of the Embassy.
Mr. Sourwine. That was not Dean Acheson but another ?
Mr. Vincent. George Atcheson, now dead.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever participate in a conference with Chou at his headquarters or at his office ?
Mr. Vincent. I never was in his office that I can recall at all. I never made a call on him.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever participate in a conference with him at his home ?
Mr. Vincent. I may have been in his home one time when he was there, but I don't recall it.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever participate in a conference with him away from American official premises and not in connection with some social gathering?
Mr. Vincent. Not that I recall, Mr. Sourwine. I can give an all- embracing answer, I never had a secretive conference with Chou. That wasn't your question, but I can assure you I didn't have that.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever correspond with him ?
Mr. Vincent. Never.
Mr. Sourwine. Have you answered fully in your opinion the ques- tion of whether you know that at any time he was connected with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. I know he was connected with the Communist move- ment.
Mr. Sourwine. And you have known that since you first met him?
Mr. Vincent. When I met him he was a known Communist repre- sentative.
Senator Ferguson. What was his official title, if you have it?
Mr. Vincent. That I don't recall, Senator, but it was something of the order of Representative of the District Government of Northern Shensi, and the Chinese were careful not to use the word Communist too much.
You see, the theory was maintained always, even the theory, that there was an official connection between Chungking and Yenan during those years.
Senator Ferguson. Even the Communists let that be believed ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes. As a matter of fact, the Communist Army was described under the same general designation as other armies in China, I have forgotten, something like the Eighth Route Armies or Sixth Route Army. The Chinese Armies were given the designation "Route Army."
Senator Ferguson. The Communists wouldn't say "Communist Army," they would refer to it as the Eighth Route?
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1703
Mr. Vincent. They would refer to it as the Eighth Route Army or the Shensi Border Army or some title of that kind. No, officially it was not called the Communist Army.
Senator Ferguson. Was their government called the Chinese Gov- ernment ?
Mr. Vincent. No, it was called, I think — you are speaking now of what, the Chinese?
Senator Ferguson. Chou's Government.
Mr. Vincent. I think the Chinese would have referred to it as Shensi. Shensi is the province where the Yenan Government was located. We called it the Chinese Communist.
Senator Ferguson. You were not deceived from the fact that it was the Communists?
Mr. Vincent. I was not, I can recall.
Senator Ferguson. So he was known to be a Communist ?
Mr. Vincent. They were not, as 1 say, I recall quite distinctly myself that they were not agrarian democrats.
Senator Ferguson. Did you refer to them as agrarian farmers ?
Mr. Vincent. I never did, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. We will go on to the next name here, sir.
Mr. Mandel. Mr. Sourwine, may I ask one question %
Mr. Sourwine. Yes.
Mr. Mandel. Would you describe the nature of the luncheon with the British- American Tobacco official ?
Mr. Vincent. I can describe it only that there were probably half a dozen people there and the only person I can remember is the host himself and the fact that Chou was there, which made quite an im- pression on me. The host was Dick Smith, Richard Smith, manager for the British-American Tobacco Co.
Mr. Mandel. Is it not rather- curious that you should be invited together with Chou En-iai ? What was the purpose of it ?
Mr. Vincent. I don't know. Smith spoke Chinese. I didn't speak Chinese well. Chou speaks some English, and he was up there on business, just that kind of luncheon. I would like to be able to tell you that it had some special significance, but it didn't have any special significance to my mind.
I had, as I say, met Chou at a reception of Chiang Kai-shek before this luncheon, and he had made a courtesy call on Mr. Gauss.
Mr. Sourwine. Was that luncheon at the home of the host ?
Mr. Vincent. At the home of Mr. Smith.
Mr. Sourwine. Is that all, Mr. Mandel ?
Mr. Mandel. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. The next name I have here would be, I imagine, Chu Teh, C-h-u T-e-h.
Mr. Vincent. It's Chu Teh. I know he was head of the Chinese Communist Army. He never came to Chungking to my knowledge, and I was never in Yenan.
Mr. Sourwine. The next name is O. Edmund Clubb. I have these alphabetically, which accounts for the intermixture.
Mr. Vincent. Yes. I put it down so I could be sure and tell you where Clubb's service and mine were together.
Mr. Sourwine. I might say that we deliberately put these alpha- betically so there would be no possible parallelism.
1704 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Vincent. Mine are not in alphabetical order (reading) : I find that I first met Edmund Clubb when he was assigned for language study in Peking in 1929. I was a student of Chinese there from 1928 to 1930, and our duties overlapped for about 9 months.
Our paths have crossed from time to time during the next 10 years, but we did not have service together again until 1941. In 1941 I stopped in Shanghai briefly on the way to Chungking as a consul and was later assigned to Chungking. I wanted to make a note that he was in Shanghai for those few months I was there.
I was a consul and Mr. Clubb came to Chungking after the people were let out of Shanghai by the Japanese, and he was assigned by the secretary to the Embassy in Chungking in 1942. I recall that his job at that time, which he was briefly there, was looking after our relations with the OWI activities.
Subsequently he was assigned to Tihwa in Sinkiang. Mr. Clubb served briefly with me in the Department during the period of 1943- 44 before he was assigned to Vladivostok. I believe he was home on leave once before I left for Switzerland in 1947 and I no doubt saw him when he was about the Department.
That is a record of any associations I have had. I may add there that I have had associations with these younger officers from time to time. My association with Clubb probably has been less than with any others through no design of my own, but we just haven't been together in places and socially we never have been close.
Mr. Sourwine. I take it that with regard to what you have just testified to, it was more from notes than from memory. You are stating facts that you would not be expected to remember, is that right?
Mr. Vincent. For instance, if I did not have these notes, if I had not looked up Clubb's history, I would have forgotten that Clubb was there when I went to Shanghai.
Mr. Sourwine. What you testified to is merely what the records of the State Department show ?
Mr. Vincent. And what his duties were. His duties in Chung- king were with OWI.
Senator Ferguson. Where would you find this kind of informa- tion in the State Department ?
Mr. Vincent. I found this in the record of Edmund Clubb's bio- graphic career.
Mr. Sourwine. That is the Official Eegister of the State Depart- ment ?
Senator Ferguson. As to when he was at a certain place ?
Mr. Vincent. That is correct.
Senator Ferguson. But that would not tell you that you met him at this spot and at this luncheon ?
Mr. Vincent. No, no.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you recall the last time you talked with Mr. Clubb?
Mr. Vincent. I do not, Mr. Sourwine, but I would imagine it was when he was home on leave in between his coming from China and going to Vladivostok.
Mr. Sourwine. Where is he now ?
Mr. Vincent. So far as I know he is here in the city.
Mr. Sourwine. Have you seen him since you got back ?
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1705
Mr. Vincent. I haven't seen him since I got back.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you remember corresponding with him ?
Mr. Vincent. No. I do not remember corresponding with him.
Senator Ferguson. Did you ever talk over the subject of communism withClubb?
Mr. Vincent. I don't believe I ever did talk over the subject of communism with him.
Senator Ferguson. Do you feel that you have a real knowledge of communism ?
Mr. Vincent. I have a real knowledge of communism in the sense that I have seen it operate in China. As I indicated this morning, I am not a student of communism.
Senator Ferguson. I notice you haven't read even the manifesto?
Mr. Vincent. That is right.
Senator Ferguson. How can a man be a Foreign Service officer these days and not know about communism ?
Mr. Vincent. Senator, that is a very difficult question, but I have to answer the question that I am not.
Senator Ferguson. I am wondering how a man could be a Foreign Service officer and not understand communism.
Mr. Vincent. Well, I just have to reply that it's part of my edu- cation that has been limited. While I was in the State Department I was busy and haven't had an interest.
Senator Ferguson. But I am talking as part of your work. How can a man really do the job as a Foreign Service officer in the State Department and not know communism, not know what it is ?
Mr. Vincent. You mean not be a student of it ?
Senator Ferguson. That is right, know what its aims are and what it is doing and everything.
Mr. Vincent. I would say, Senator, that, without having read these books that were listed this morning, that just by watching it in China I had a pretty clear idea of what its aims were.
Senator Ferguson. What books have you read on communism or Marxism ?
Mr. Vincent. Senator, I don't recall of any that I have read. I probably have read one, but I can't recall one.
Senator Ferguson. Do you think it is possible that some of your acts, some of your statements, may be in line with this philosophy and you not know it?
Mr. Vincent. Some of my acts ?
Senator Ferguson. Yes. If you have not been a student of it, could it be that you may be paralleling it in some lines and not know it?
Mr. Vincent. That is certainly a possibility. As I say, I have to testify that I have not made myself a student of communism, and I have not read to any extent at all Communist books.
Senator Ferguson. So your knowledge of communism is based on how the Communists acted in China?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Is that right?
Mr. Vincent. That is right.
Senator Ferguson. Go ahead, Mr. Sourwine.
Mr. Sourwine. To follow Senator Ferguson's thoughts, have you read the two publications of the House Un-American Activities Com- mittee on communism ?
1706 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Vincent. I have not.
Mr. Soukwine. Have you read the American Bar Association brief on communism ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sotjrwine. Did you know they had a brief on communism ?
Mr. Vincent. I did not.
Mr. Sotjrwine. The next name I have here is Frank V. Coe, C-o-e.
Mr. Vincent. Frank V. Coe, I recall, was in the Foreign Economic Administration.
Mr. Sotjrwine. I beg your pardon; I forgot to ask you the ques- tion whether you knew at any time that Mr. Clubb was connected with the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. I did not.
Mr. Sotjrwine. Now go ahead with Mr. Coe.
Mr. Vincent. Mr. Coe, I recall, was an officer of some sort in the Foreign Economic Administration during the — well, how long he was there I don't know, but I was there from October until January — that is, October 1943 into January of 1944 when he was over in the Eco- nomic Cooperation Administration under Mr. Crowley. There is where I first met him, and as far as I can recall it's the last I met him until he, I believe, was a delegate at the IBP conference.
I could tell quickly whether or not he was.
Mr. Sotjrwine. Which IPR conference?
Mr. Vincent. Hot Springs.
Mr. Sotjrwine. Is that the only one you ever attended ?
Mr. Vincent. That is the only one I ever attended.
Senator Ferguson. Would you yield for a moment ?
Mr. Sourwine. If the Senator would pardon me for just a moment?
Senator Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. Was that the end of your association with Coe ?
Mr. Vincent. That was the end of my association with Coe.
Mr. Sotjrwine. All right, Senator.
Senator Ferguson. You were asked a question by me about the Communists, and you indicated that you had knowledge of what they were, what they stood for and did in China, and then you were asked the question about Mr. Clubb, I think it was, as to whether or not you knew he was a Communist or sympathetic to the Communists, and your answer was "No."
Would you state for the record what were the principles of the Communists in China at the time you knew them and if they changed ? Tell us what the change was.
Mr. Vincent. The principles of the Communists as I first knew them in China, and that would have to be dated 1941, the announced ones were the unification of China and resistance to Japan. I am speaking now of what were their announced objectives.
At that time when I was there
Senator Ferguson. You mean unification because China was separated ?
Mr. Vincent. Separated because Manchuria was in the hands of the Japanese.
Mr. Sourwine. You mean unification under Chinese Communist domination, do you not ?
Mr. Vincent. I was coming to that. They were not announcing they wanted unification under Communist domination. It became
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1707
apparent, as you went along and became more conscious of what they were doing in China, that their objective was not simply the creation, as they professed, of a unified democratic China, but it was a China which insofar as they could bring it about would be controlled by them.
In other words, it was a matter of wanting power. It was not so clear at that time how they meant to get the power.
Mr. Sottrwine. That was true; and their desire and objective was clear even as early as 1940 to you, was it not?
Mr. Vincent. In 1940 I would have not reached that conclusion so quickly, because in 1940 the unity between the Generalissimo and the Communists had not broken down. You may recall, Mr. Sour- wine, from 1937 to 1940 there was a fairly close military cooperation between the two, and it looked like the objective was as stated for the two to work together for defeating the Japanese.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you want the committee to understand that you, despite all your prior years in China and your familiarity with what was going on out there, did not until 1940 know the true nature and objectives of the Chinese Communists?
Mr. Vincent. The true nature of the Chinese Communists?
Mr. Sourwine. The true nature of the objectives of the Chinese Communists.
Mr. Vincent. No ; I don't want the committee to get that impres- sion. I realize that a Communist Party was out to seize power. I saw it in 1930 — not 1930 — in 1926 when the wrangle came up between the two, and they tried there at Hankow and Canton to seize power.
Chiang Kai-shek eventually triumphed in 1927 over the Commu- nists, and you had the other thing. There was clear evidence of what they wanted. I was speaking, when I said the other, the obvious thing when you were out in 1941 there was a certain unity in trying to defeat the enemy.
Mr. Sourwine. That unity, that rapprochement, was a partial vic- tory and a step toward total victory ?
Mr. Vincent. That was my interpretation.
Mr. Sourwine. Was that not recognized by you and other well- informed persons?
Mr. Vincent. That the Communists, if the opportunity presented, would seize power.
Mr. Sourwine. That that was their objective?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Senator Ferguson. There was one other thing along that same line. They had two known things in mind, and that was, you say, in uniting of China, which would be getting back from Japan Manchuria, and the defeat of the Japanese ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Senator Ferguson. That was really one; defeat of the Japanese would have accomplished both of them ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Senator Ferguson. How was that made known ? "Was that a pub- lished fact, or was that said in their open speeches ?
Mr. Vincent. On the contrary, their open speeches, as I can recall them, it was always based upon the desire for national unity in order to defeat the Japanese at that time. The Communists themselves, in- sofar as I can recall, never made an open declaration of a desire to achieve full power in China.
1708 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Senator Ferguson. Not full power, but to have the land, not indi- cating who was to control it ; is that right ?
Mr. Vincent. That is right.
Senator Ferguson. When did you first come to the conclusion that the Communists of China were part and parcel of the Communists of Kussia ?
Mr. Vincent. I should say that I never came to a definite conclu- sion, and I will frankly admit that there were many of us who hoped they never would for a long time. But it became, I believe, clearer toward the end of 1942 and 1943.
Senator Ferguson. What was Mao's position in the Chinese Army ?
Mr. Vincent. Mao was always the head of the government.
Senator Ferguson. Head of the Communist Government?
Mr. Vincent. Up in Yenan where they had their seat ; Mao Tse- tung.
Senator Ferguson. Had you not known that he had been a Kussian Communist, had been to Moscow?
Mr. Vincent. He had been to Moscow, but Chiang Kai-shek had been to Moscow. I am not saying that Mao Tse-tung was not a Com- munist. I knew he was a Communist from the way he acted and talked. He never made any bones about it.
Senator Ferguson. Did they talk about Russia?
Mr. Vincent. In those days ?
Senator Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. Not that I recall, but I never had any conversation with Mao.
Senator Ferguson. You have never seen Mao ?
Mr. Vincent. I have never seen Mao.
Senator Ferguson. Had you any doubt back at the earliest time that there were Communists trying to dominate in China; that they were the regular Communists with headquarters in Moscow.
Mr. Vincent. Senator, I would not be able to answer that question fairly in saying that — did I ever have any doubt that they were Com- munists and had their headquarters in Moscow.
Senator Ferguson. You would not say that you had?
Mr. Vincent. I wouldn't say that I had knowledge that they were regular Communists with headquarters in Moscow.
Senator Ferguson. Do you know that now ?
Mr. Vincent. I would certainly take it for granted. I don't know it as a positive fact. I think they take their direction from Moscow.
Senator Ferguson. When did you come to that conclusion that they were Communists and that they had their headquarters in Russia and were part of the regular Communist Party?
Mr. Vincent. I would say I came to that definite conclusion some- time during the period of General Marshall's mission to China in 1946 ; that I was also convinced that it was a Communist movement which wanted to achieve power in China, but it was only after the war that it became clear to my mind.
Senator Ferguson. At the time of the Marshall mission, what brought you to the conclusion that they were then under Russia ?
Mr. Vincent. Because it seemed to me that the difficulties which General Marshall was having with his mission out there clearly indi- cated that the Communists were getting support from just not them- selves ; that they were, if you want to put it, being guided by Moscow.
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1709
Mr. Sourwine. What did the Communists do to make General Mar- shall's mission difficult?
Mr. Vincent. By holding out for terms. You may recall — I may have to be a little lengthy there, and I am speaking purely from mem- ory. You will recall that General Marshall went out in early 1946. There was at that time called by the Chinese, you remember, a consti- tutional convention or a people's political council, I thing it was, as a preliminary thing to which the Communists were to send delegates.
When General Marshall arrived, I think that thing was about to be convoked or had been ; and he had a certain degree of success, you may recall, in the first 3 months in bringing about a truce which was, I know as a matter of fact, one of the main objectives of General Mar- shall to try to stop civil war.
I mention civil war because in my mind, correctly or incorrectly, the worst that could happen in China in those days was the all-out civil war. As the negotiations went on after the spring, it became more and more apparent from General Marshall's telegrams back — we sent very few to him because he was in charge; it was his own show — that the Communists were making it more and more difficult in trying to get not a majority position in this so-called constitutional govern- ment but a position of greater influence than they were warranted in having, plus the fact that there was a certain amount of anti-Marshall propaganda that came out from time to time from the Communists that seemed to be inspired from elsewhere, it appeared to me.
I make that statement from memory because I do recall at one time Marshall complaining.
Senator Ferguson. Where did the propaganda come from?
Mr. Vincent. From the Communists in China. One or another would make a statement or speech throwing, or casting, some doubt on the sincerity of General Marshall in trying to undertake his mission to bring about peace.
Senator Ferguson. Did you think that was inspired by Russia?
Mr. Vincent. I thought so ; yes, sir.
Senator Ferguson. What made you think that ?
Mr. Vincent. Because it seemed to have the flavor of propaganda that was coming out of a place not Chinese. That is hard to ex- plain, but at the initial stages, in the initial stages, the Communists had seemed from Marshall's report to be quite agreeable to calling off war and of sitting down and talking things over with the Generalis- simo, which is just what the Generalissimo wanted.
But in the spring it seemed to me that situation changed. Now I have purely a surmise, Senator. You recall I think it was in March that Mr. Byrnes — Secretary Byrnes, Jimmy Byrnes — was at a foreign ministers' conference in London; and at that conference, I think it was, it was the first time that the Secretary of State of the United States and the Foreign Minister of Russia — mind you, the war was only over 4 months, 6 months — really got to calling each other names.
It was a very uncongenial conference. I have, as I say, in trying to piece these matters together, thought that at that moment the chances of success of Marshall's mission were certainly lessened tremendously because of the animosity that was developing between us and the Russians.
Senator Ferguson. Well, then you felt that Russia was in complete charge at that time of China's policy — that is, the Communists?
1710 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Vincent. That is I think difficult : saying Eussia was in com- plete charge. I think at that time Russian influence on what Chinese Communists did or did not do increased.
Senator Ferguson. What was your position in China when Mar- shall came out ?
Mr. Vincent. I was back here in the States, Mr. Senator, I was back in the Department of State.
Senator Ferguson. You were back in the Department of State ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Were you familiar with the memorandum as to what his mission was ?
Mr. Vincent. I was, sir. You mean the one that had been called the directive ?
Senator Ferguson. Yes. Were you familiar with that ?
Mr. Vincent. I was familiar with that.
Senator Ferguson. Who drafted it?
Mr. Vincent. It was drafted, I believe, in the War Department. If you wish I have dates and I can read a 2-page memo I have to be sure that I know what the sequence was.
Senator Ferguson. What about that mission? When did it first come to your attention ?
Mr. Vincent. When did what come to my attention?
Senator Ferguson. The Marshall mission.
Mr. Vincent. The Marshall mission came to my attention for the first time when as you recall at the end of November General Hurley resigned, and the next day the President appointed or requested Mar- shall to go to China.
Senator Ferguson. All right; now when did Hurley resign?
Mr. Vincent. As far as I can recall Hurley resigned on Novem- ber 26.
Senator Ferguson. November 26?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Senator Ferguson. 1945 ?
Mr. Vincent. I have that here. I don't want to tell you the twenty- sixth when it really was the twenty-seventh. Yes, on November 27 the President asked General Marshall to undertake a mission for him. General Hurley had submitted his resignation as Ambassador the day before.
Senator Ferguson. All right. On the twenty-sixth he resigned, and on the twenty-seventh the President asked General Marshall to go?
Mr. Vincent. Undertake a mission, not as an Ambassador.
Senator Ferguson. No. When did you first hear about the di- rective ?
Mr. Vincent. I first heard about the directive in the sense that it came over from the War Department. I was asked on the 28th of November to draw together quickly something on the basis of which Byrnes could talk to General Marshall about what was his general idea of his mission.
Senator Ferguson. You were asked to draw up a memorandum for Byrnes so that Byrnes could have a conversation with Marshall as to his mission on the twenty-eighth ?
Mr. Vincent. As to what were the Department's general ideas on the thing. It was not a directive.
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1711
Senator Ferguson. It was getting in line for a directive ?
Mr. Vincent. Marshall had to have something as a background.
Senator Ferguson. So the next day after hjs naming Marshall — was that a public naming on the twenty-seventh ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Senator Ferguson. It was public?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Senator Ferguson. George Marshall was then testifying before a joint committee here in the Senate?
Mr. Vincent. On Pearl Harbor.
Senator Ferguson. He was then under cross-examination.
Mr. Vincent. I remember that.
Senator Ferguson. He was named and indicated that he had to leave immediately for China ; is that not true ?
Mr. Vincent. He left on the fifteenth of December, I think; that is true. Up until the day almost that he left I am told he was with the committee.
Senator Ferguson. All right. Did you draw a memorandum as to what a directive should contain ?
Mr. Vincent. Not as to what the directive should contain because I want to be exact. I have it here.
Senator Ferguson. All right, if you want to.
Mr. Vincent. I would like to as a matter of history. The follow- ing is my recollection of the development of the directive to General Marshall.
Mr. Sourwine. If you will pardon the interruption, did your counsel assist you in that ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir, this is from my own memory in getting dates. You will find at times I couldn't even get a date.
In the autumn of 1945 we in the Department were becoming in- creasingly concerned over developments in China. It looked as though China were heading rapidly toward a general civil war. There was much press and public criticism over the stationing of our marines in North China. Disarmament and repatriation of Japanese soldiers in China was moving slowly.
We had flown three or four of Chiang Kai-shek's divisions from South and Central China to North China, mostly to the Peking- Tientsin area. The objective of this move was to place Chiang's troops in the position to take the surrender of Japanese troops. But there was strong indication that the Nationalist Army was finding it difficult if not impossible to gain control of rural areas held by Communists.
Our marines had to be used directly in effecting surrender of Jap- anese troops.
I have that as a background [reading] :
In late October or early November I was asked to prepare a memo- randum regarding the situation and what we could do about it. This I did, setting forth four alternative procedures which may be briefly described as follows :
(a) All-out support for the government of Chiang Kai-shek;
(b) Normal diplomatic relations with the National Government while refraining from taking any part in internal affairs ;
22848—52 — pt. 6 3
1712 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
(c) Assistance to the Chinese Government in bringing about a settlement with non-Kuomintang groups including the Communists in order to avoid general civil war (at this time discussions were under way among the various Chinese political groups with that idea in mind, but they were making little headway) ;
(d) An international conference of interested powers to seek a solution.
Senator Ferguson. Those are the four ?
Mr. Vincent. Those are the four. That was a memorandum.
Senator Ferguson. That was a memorandum that you had pre- pared ?
Mr. Vincent. That is a memorandum that I had prepared.
Senator Ferguson. That was while Hurley was still in China?
Mr. Vincent. That is correct.
Senator Ferguson. Did you make a recommendation on any of those ?
Mr. Vincent. No. I have never seen that memorandum. I did it over a week end and haven't seen it since that day.
Senator Ferguson. Do you know how long it was before the 28th?
Mr. Vincent. That would have been done the latter part of October or the early part of November, probably the latter part of October, so probably it would be a month before Hurley resigned.
Senator Ferguson. Now on the 20th did you prepare a new mem- orandum?
Mr. Vincent. This memorandum was submitted to the Secretary of State, to the White House, and to the War Department. Procedure (c) was chosen as furnishing the most practical approach to the exist- ing problem.
Senator Ferguson. Was (c) the one?
Mr. Vincent. Yes; (c) was the one chosen to assist the Chinese Government and avoid civil war. In other words, to bring about a settlement with the non-Kuomintang groups, including the Com- munists, in order to avoid civil war.
Senator Ferguson. All right, in your memorandum in the last part of October did you recommend a taking of the Communists into the Chiang Kai-shek government?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir ; these were four alternative procedures that I set forth as clearly as I could, and I was never consulted at any time as to the selection of (c) .
Senator Ferguson. When did you first learn that they had chosen (c) ? Your (c) is so indefinite I would not know how a man would take that and say that it was a consolidation of the two governments.
Mr. Vincent. Well, I am trying- to do this from memory because I haven't seen that document since I wrote it 5 years ago, but that was the general tenor of it, assistance to the Chinese Government in bring- ing about a settlement with non-Kuomintang groups, including the Communists, in order to avoid civil war.
It was not a new idea. It was an idea that General Hurley had pursued during his Ambassadorship of trying to bring about some kind of settlement during the war for military cooperation.
Senator Ferguson. On the 28th what did you do ?
Mr. Vincent. I had better read here.
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1713
General Hurley had submitted his resignation as Ambassador the day before. On November 28 I was asked to prepare something to indicate to General Marshall our line of thinking in the Department. That was the first time that I realized
Senator Ferguson. When did you prepare that ?
Mr. Vincent. That was when it was indicated to me that that was going to be prepared along the lines of my point (c). This I did in the form of a rough outline of possible courses of action. This mem- orandum was, I believe, handed to General Marshall on November 28 or 29 by Mr. Byrnes.
Senator Ferguson. So you did not take long to draw that up?
Mr. Vincent. No ; it was a rough memorandum.
Senator Ferguson. What did you recommend ?
Mr. Vincent. In my memorandum I suggested assistance to Chiang in recovering Manchuria and steps to assist the Chinese in bringing about a military truce and a settlement of political difficulties through a general political conference.
I also stated that political peace in China was impossible as long as there existed autonomous armies such as the Communists had, and suggested that all armies be united and organized under the National Government.
Senator Ferguson. Did you recommend the taking of the Commu- nists into the Government?
Mr. Vincent. The Communists were included in my statement here, ,4a settlement of political diiliculties through a general political con- ference."
Now whether that would have resulted in the Communists coming into the Government or not I wouldn't know, but it was in my mind, I can assure you that.
Senator Ferguson. It was?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Did you recommend in this memorandum the taking of the Communists into the Nationalists ?
Mr. Vincent. I do not recall that I recommended specifically, but when I said taking other political parties in I had the Communists in mind.
Senator Ferguson. You had the Communists in mind. Did you not indicate that the Communists if they went in wanted such power that they would in effect take it over ?
Mr. Vincent. That brings up a question of tactics which I would be glad to explain. We were, as I say, terribly concerned over the results of an outbreak of general civil war in China. I was particu- larly. I had been in China and had seen the effects of civil war on the country.
Senator Ferguson. But coming back, I understood you to tell me before that you knew that if you took the Communists in that they wanted a greater power than they were entitled to, indicated to you that Russia was in command?
Mr. Vincent. Yes ; that is what I was coming to, Senator, was in my conception that you had a better chance of taking the Commu- nists in in more ways than one by bringing them into a government
1714 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
on a minority basis, not against the wishes of Chiang Kai-shek's government, but they themselves were at that time negotiating.
Senator Ferguson. Mr. Vincent, you told me in the meeting in London it was clear to you then that they wanted a domination. Prior to that, were you not also of the opinion that if you ever took the Communists in they would dominate the Government?
Mr. Vincent. I would have been willing to say that the Commu- nists would try to dominate the Government, but I still believed that you could have taken them in, not forced them on Chiang, but Chiang could have taken them in in more ways than one on a minority basis.
There were at the time Communists in the Italian and French Governments who were eliminated. But I was trying to avoid what I thought honestly was the worst possible disaster that could come to Chiang, which was the outbreak of general civil war.
Senator Ferguson. Could that be any worse as far as America was concerned than to have the Communists take over the government and not have a civil war?
Mr. Vincent. Senator, my concept was that the Communists would come into the Government on a minority basis and that we could, through support of the Chiang Kai-shek government, and I think you will find this philosophy stated in my memorandum, that with help from us we could eventually strengthen the Chinese Government enough to eliminate the Communists.
Senator Ferguson. To kick them out?
Mr. Vincent. I think I stated that in so many words.
Senator Ferguson. In this memorandum of the 28th did you state that ?
Mr. Vincent. I did not, but I did in the subsequent memorandum.
Senator Ferguson. How long after that?
Mr. Vincent. I should say some time in the spring or summer of 1946.
Senator Ferguson. When did this memorandum come over, back from the Army?
Mr. Vincent. The memorandum came back from the Army — this memorandum, as far as I can recall, was handed by Mr. Byrnes to General Marshall.
Senator Ferguson. On the 28th or 29th?
Mr. Vincent. On the 28th or 29th. Subsequent to that, some time in the following week, a memorandum came back from the War Department which General Marshall either drafted or had drafted. This statement then came back. Mine had been entitled "Rough Outline."
This one came back as Statement of Policy Toward China.
Mr. Sourwine. Beyond the change in titles what difference was there ?
Mr. Vincent. There was a vast difference. It was a memoran- dum, as I have said here, and some of the phraseology and thought in my memorandum was there, but it was in composition and charac- ter a much bigger paper. Mine ran to two pages, I think, and this one ran to probably six, and mine was not a directive.
I didn't realize that Marshall was going to want a directive. This was jotting down the ideas that I thought were important.
Senator Ferguson. Then Marshall drafted his own directive?
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1715
Mr. Vincent. Marshall drafted or had drafted. I would doubt that General Marshall, as busy as he was with the committee, had drafted it.
Senator Ferguson. Somebody in his Department ?
Mr. Vincent. Somebody at the War Department, if he did not himself, drafted this long statement.
Senator Ferguson. You feel that if it had been drafted in the State Department that you would have been part of it?
Mr. Vincent. If it had been drafted in the State Department, as Director of the Far Eastern Office I would certainly have had something to do with it.
Senator Ferguson. Were you called in conference at all?
Mr. Vincent. No. I want to finish this (reading) : That memo- randum came back to the State Department sometime during the first week of
Senator Ferguson. December?
Mr. Vincent. December [reading] : There were some changes and I can't recall them, but they were not changes of any great merit. This was already Marshall's idea. Some additions were made for clari- fication and then it was sent back again to the War Department during the first week of December.
Then the next thing, and the last thing I had anything to do with it, was on December 9, as I think both General Marshall and Mr. Acheson testified. There was a meeting in Byrnes' office to go over the final draft of this statement of policy toward China, which has been called the Marshall directive, and it was agreed upon by Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Marshall.
Senator Ferguson. Were there any changes made at that time ?
Mr. Vincent. At that meeting I don't recall, any other drafting.
Senator Ferguson. Were you present?
Mr. Vincent. I was present, Mr. Acheson, Mr. Byrnes, Mr. Hull, and General Marshall.
Senator Ferguson. Then it appears that here when there was a grave diplomatic move to be made that the Army dictated that move. It was their directive ?
Mr. Vincent. I couldn't say that the Army dictated that move, but I am sure that General Marshall, who then considered himself as a civilian, had ag reat deal to do, not with the drafting, but with the general ideas.
Senator Ferguson. What did he know about the situation in China ? Here was a memorandum drafted in the War Department, you assumed in your answer, and said it was Marshall that directed it. What did he know about the conditions in China?
Mr. Vincent. He probably had kept up with them as well as any intelligent man would, but he had in the War Department, I am quite sure, officers who had just come back from service in China.
Senator Ferguson. Do you know who they were ?
Mr. Vincent. I do not, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Did you feel that you had a grasp of the situa- tion in China ?
Mr. Vincent. I did.
Senator Ferguson. Both politically and militarily?
Mr. Vincent. Insofar as I could trust the information that was coming to me. I hadn't been in China for some time.
1716 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Senator Ferguson. For how long?
Mr. Vincent. I hadn't been there since 1943.
Senator Ferguson. You left there in 1943 ?
Mr. Vincent. I left there in 1943, and this was in 1945.
Senator Ferguson. Who in the State Department knew more about conditions in China at that time, at the time of the drafting of this document, than you ?
Mr. Vincent. That is a difficult question, Senator, to say. Let me think of the people who might have known more of conditions than I. We all read the same papers and had the same information.
Senator Ferguson. Were you the top man ?
Mr. Vincent. I was the Director of the Far Eastern Office.
Senator Ferguson. Yes. So it would be natural that they would come to you as the man who had the most knowledge and the best insight into the whole problem; is that not right?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Senator Ferguson. Now did you sanction and agree that the Marshall directive as drafted by the War Department was the way to solve this problem ?
Mr. Vincent. I did, sir.
Senator Ferguson. You were consulted?
Mr. Vincent. I was consulted, the memorandum, as I say, came back, and we saw the full draft. There were some minor changes made in it, but I want to say that I was fully in support of the objectives of what General Marshall was going to try to do.
Senator Ferguson. You say you were ?
Mr. Vincent. I was.
Senator Ferguson. You say the objectives, did you believe in the method that was laid down to do it, of taking them in ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Senator Ferguson. What made you believe that if you ever took them in you could get them out ?
Mr. Vincent. What made me believe that was the fact that they were going to come in on a minority basis ; that was clear all the time. The Chiang Kai-shek government was to be strengthened, not pub- licly, through assistance, and that there would be positions where, as I have stated before, and I have this on record some place or another, that the idea was to take them in in more ways than one.
Let me make this clear about Marshall's mission. One of the main things was the stopping of the civil war. As I say, I don't know that I was right or wrong in that, but I dreaded the idea of China being em- broiled in the civil war immediately after the war.
Senator Ferguson. But did you argue the point that you always had to keep Chiang Kai-shek's government in the forefront with aid and support?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Senator Ferguson. In such a way that this other would always be a minority ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir, so much to the point that I said it to a mem- ber of the Chinese Embassy here in this city.
Senator Ferguson. No, no, but did you say it to Marshall ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1717
Senator Ferguson. So lie understood how you felt about it, that if they did not dominate the situation they would lose this thing, is that right?
Mr. Vincent. Yes. That the Chinese had to dominate.
Senator Ferguson. That is, the Nationalist Government?
Mr. Vincent. And in the last analysis that is what — I am working from memory here now — what in the last analysis broke it down was the excessive demands of the- Communists as to representation in a new government.
Senator Ferguson. Well now, you did not know anything about the strategy in the military situation over there ?
Mr. Vincent. In what military situation, sir?
Senator Ferguson. In China?
Mr. Vincent. I mean in the military situation, the war was over.
Senator Ferguson. Between the Nationalists and the Communists ?
Mr. Vincent. We knew that, as I have testified here, that in north China Chiang was having a terrible time taking over those areas from the Communists.
Senator Ferguson. Then did you not know that if you stopped that, that you might give the Communists a great edge over Chiang?
Mr. Vincent. If you stopped this war ?
Senator Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. I did not know that, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Did Marshall tell you that?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Did he know anything about the conditions there ?
Mr. Vincent. He found out very quickly, and an indication of that is that General Marshall immediately set about organizing these truce teams to stop the fighting ; that was his own idea.
Senator Ferguson. I am trying to find out about giving aid. What did you know about that ?
Mr. Vincent. That was not taken into consideration that you were actually aiding the Communists by preventing a civil war.
Senator Ferguson. Were you ever consulted after the final draft of the Marshall document?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Was Acheson present at the final draft ?
Mr. Vincent. I had already taken off for Moscow with Mr. Byrnes. The final draft, when it was adopted in the White House and handed to General Marshall, if that is what you mean, that was on the 14th.
Senator Ferguson. Was Dean Acheson in the Department with you?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Senator Ferguson. Did he consent to this draft ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Senator Ferguson. Did Byrnes consent to it?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir, on the 9th, and a day later he was over to the White House, took it over to the President and the President ap- proved it. It was approved by General Marshall.
Senator Ferguson. Was there any argument at all to the effect that once you put the Communists into this Government there was a probability that it would be the government of the future ?
1718 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Vincent. No, sir, no argument that I heard of because it was based probably mostly on the hope that this plan would succeed in subordinating the Communists in the Government rather than mak- ing a trial of arms and civil war.
Senator Ferguson. Yes, but you do not solve problems by hopes, do you?
Mr. Vincent. I know you don't, but I will say that was the estimate you had to operate on.
Senator Ferguson. You knew the military upper hand was in the Communists ?
Mr. Vincent. The upper hand insofar as Chiang holding central and south China?
Senator Ferguson. The upper hand was held by the Communists in north China?
Mr. Vincent. We had assistance. We helped Chiang in taking over Tientsin and Peking by flying his divisions over there.
Senator Ferguson. After Marshall left here with the directive you did not know whether or not the State Department was consulted?
Mr. Vincent. Consulted in what manner ?
Senator Ferguson. As they were going along?
Mr. Vincent. On the general operation of his mission ? No. Gen- eral Marshall, under the directive, had, I should say, a free hand.
Senator Ferguson. And exercised it ?
Mr. Vincfnt. And exercised it.
Senator Ferguson. How long did you stay in Russia? Did you go over with Byrnes ?
Mr. Vincent. I went over with Byrnes in December for that short conference at Christmas time with the Russians and came back.
Senator Ferguson. That was a very short time ?
Mr. Vincent. Half a month.
Senator Ferguson. Did Marshall consult the State Department at all?
Mr. Vincent. After he went to China?
Senator Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. That I do not recall. My general impression is that we did not have telegrams from him asking for advice. He kept us very well informed in telegrams of about once every 10 days or 2 weeks.
Senator Ferguson. But not asking for advice, is that right ?
Mr. Vincent. That is right.
Senator Ferguson. When did he come back?
Mr. Vincent. He came home in March, and there were conferences that he had with Byrnes, but they were not in the sense of conferences having to do with what he could do.
Senator Ferguson. Telling you what he had done? When did he make the statement to the effect, "Plague on both your houses" ?
Mr. Vincent. He made that, I should say, in the first week of January 1947, after he came home.
Senator Ferguson. After he finally came home ?
Mr. Vincent. After he finally came home. Whether he had as- sumed the secretary of stateship by that time or not I don't recall, but it was all in that week.
Senator Ferguson. When did you leave this China desk or the Far East desk?
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1719
Mr. Vincent. I left the Far East desk July of 1947.
Senator Ferguson. So you were in all the time?
Mr. Vincent. All the time the mission was out there and after Marshall came back.
Senator Ferguson. And there was no advice sought from your desk on the situation ?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. That is right ?
Mr. Vincent. That is right.
Senator Ferguson. Mr. Sourwine ?
Mr. Vincent. When I make a positive statement like that there may have been questions as to this, that, or the other.
Senator Ferguson. But you do not recall any of them ?
Mr. Vincent. On the over-all policy.
Mr. Sourwine. May I ask a series of questions ?
Senator Ferguson. You go right ahead.
Mr. Sourwine. Since this subject has been opened up I would like to ask a series of questions. Going back, sir, you said you had pre- pared a memorandum on the situation ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. This was prior to the directive, it was not a direc- tive, it was what you got together hurriedly, as you say ?
Mr. Vincent. I am trying to distinguish between that one I made at the end of October and the one I made at the end of November.
Mr. Sourwine. The rough draft for the use of Mr. Byrnes?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. That was sent over to the State Department and subsequently a draft came back which was a much longer draft, in pages about a 2 to 6 ratio ?
Mr. Vincent. I would say so.
Mr. Sourwine. I want you to tell the committee what, if anything, there was in the Marshall draft — that is, the one that came from the War Department — that was at variance with any of the concepts or suggestions that were in your rough memorandum.
Mr. Vincent. I don't think there were any.
Mr. Sourwine. It was merely an expansion then ?
Mr. Vincent. The Marshall draft came back incorporating this idea of trying to seek a truce ; that was one of the ideas. It had more ideas than mine.
Mr. Sourwine. But there was no variance ?
Mr. Vincent. Not that I recall.
Mr. Sourwine. You say there were some changes by way of clarifica- tion before it went back to the War Department the second time?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you participate in making any of those changes ?
Mr. Vincent. I don't recall.
Mr. Sourwine. You knew then that there were changes, but they were not of any consequence ?
Mr. Vincent. They were not of any consequence.
Mr. Sourwine. Then the final draft came back?
Mr. Vincent. The War Department got it, and they brought it over to this meeting of December 9.
Mr. Sourwine. Had they again made further changes ?
Mr. Vincent. I think they did.
1720 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Sourwine. Were they of any consequence ?
Mr. Vincent. None.
Mr. Sourwine. You sat in on the conference approving the final draft?
Mr. Vincent. Approving the final draft insofar as Byrnes and General Marshall were concerned. The President finally approved it.
Mr. Sourwine. You had three cracks at it? First, you prepared the rough draft memorandum ; and, after that had been expanded but without in any way changing your concepts or suggestions, you had a chance to make further suggestions and did make or approve some; and then you were present and concurred in the final approval ?
Mr. Vincent. My concurrence was not necessary in the final ap- proval when General Marshall and Mr. Byrnes were there.
Senator Ferguson. Not to interfere with your line of thought, I just wanted to know when George Marshall left the War Department.
Mr. Vincent. Let me see. That is a question that I will just have to guess on here. My recollection is that he left almost immediately after the war was over with Japan. At least he hadn't been out more than 2 or 3 months when he was asked to come back.
Senator Ferguson. But he was not in the Government at the time the President asked him to come back?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. How do you account for the fact that the War Department, of all departments, was drafting a diplomatic document and implementing and saying how it should be implemented? You did not have any implementation in it at all. How do you account for the War Department, of all departments, drafting a diplomatic docu- ment and handling its implementation?
Mr. Vincent. Senator, there were many people over in the War Department who had a great familiarity with the situation. There was still in China — our own forces which had not been deactivated. I want to be fair to the Army. There were many people over in the Pen- tagon Building who had a very up-to-date and clear idea of the situa- tion in China, which even still was military in the sense of the surren- der of the Japanese troops.
I don't know how many there were, but it was something over a million.
Senator Ferguson. But there was that great diplomatic problem of the negotiation between the Communists and the non-Communists. You had had an Ambassador, you had had a Department of State staff there, and you were head of the Far Eastern Division?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Senator Ferguson. Here was the Army drawing the .directive and the implementation of a directive, taken out of your hands really ; is that right ?
Mr. Vincent. Well, I hate to testify that it was taken out of my hands, because they did send it back and give us a crack at it.
Mr. Sourwine. It was not taken very far out of your hands when you had initiated the policy, and had one chance to correct it, and saw it at the finish ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes. Not just I, but Mr. Byrnes and Mr. Acheson.
Mr. Sourwine. I was speaking specifically of you because it was from you virtually alone that the initial rough draft came ?
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1721
Mr. Vincent. Yes. As I testified, I had no argument with the docu- ment as it came over.
Senator Ferguson. Did you confer with any of these Army people ?
Mr. Vincent. No. While it was being drafted ?
Senator Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. And you did not confer with them?
Mr. Vincent. No ; except on the 9th when General Marshall came over.
Senator Ferguson. Go ahead.
Mr. Sourwine. You made a very interesting statement, sir, in the course of your discourse with Senator Ferguson and in response to his questions you said, speaking, I presume, of yourself and others, "We all read the same papers, we all had the same information."
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. What papers and what information are you talking about ?
Mr. Vincent. I am speaking of information coming in from re- ports. I think we will have to go back and remember what Senator Ferguson's question was. Who did I consider the best-informed per- son on the Far East? When I say "we all," I have in mind my own Deputy Director, who is Mr. Penfield.
Anything of importance was read by Mr. Acheson ; and the Chief of the China Division, who was Mr. Drumright at that time, would read them. These were not immature people, I mean. Everybody in the State Department had access to them.
Mr. Sourwine. Would that include reports from Mr. John Stewart Service ?
Mr. Vincent. That would include whatever reports came in. John Stewart Service during this time was not in China; he had already been sent to Tokyo.
Mr. Sourwine. I was not thinking of a particular period.
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. It would include such reports as were coining back. In other words, would it be correct to say that the thinking not only of yourself, ex officio, so to speak, but of the others around you in the State Department was conditioned by the reports that came in that you all saw ?
You all depended primarily on the reports you saw from the field ; therefore, you and the others around you could be expected to have sub- stantially the same views about the matters which you were consid- ering ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes; and we also saw reports from General Wede- meyer. His reports were made available to us, too. I will say that in an operation of that kind we didn't depend entirely on reports from the field for making up our minds on things. It was a case of bringing our experience to bear and using the reports to reach a decision.
Mr. Sourwine. If the reports or memoranda were in the Depart- ment, would they also circulate the same way so that they would all see them ? \
Mr. Vincent. They wouVl in the Far Eastern Office. Any person with sufficient rank to merit having it. For instance, General Mar- shall's reports back were seen only by General, Carter, who was in the
1722 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
State Department as his assistant; myself; Dean Acheson; and the Secretary.
Mr. Sourwine. Now, to turn to another point, you have three times used the phrase, "take the Communists in in more ways than one." I got the feeling that you perhaps had used that phrase yourself at an earlier time either in arguments or something you had written.
Mr, Vincent. That is correct.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you recall where you used it ?
Mr. Vincent. I used it, and I have to — before I left China in 1942.
Mr. Sourwine. It is a phrase you have used often ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes ; I know it was a concept I had that the best way to take the Communists in — and it is based on the knowledge of fight- ing and civil war — was to take them in.
Mr. Sourwine. We were discussing your use of the phrase "take the Communists in in more ways than one."
Mr.. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. You intended, did you, by the use of that phrase on various occasions, as you have here, to suggest that there was some advantage to the Nationalist Government, some disadvantage to the Communist Government, in bringing the Communist Government into a coalition government ?
Mr. Vincent. I did, through the avoidance of civil war and the other component part of this, which was the dissolution of a Com- munist army and integration into a national army.
Mr. Sourwine. I want to examine that a little bit. You spoke of your first point there, the avoidance of a civil war?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. That is actually merely a matter of inducement; that is a club because a civil war would not have been a direct dis- advantage to the Chinese Communists, would it ?
Mr. Vincent. A civil war ?
Mr. Sourwine. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. A civil war, I believe, would have been a direct advantage to the Communists ; it would have stirred up more trouble in China. I couldn't foresee any conclusive
Mr. Sourwine. It was an alternative, was it not, civil war or bring them into the Government ?
Mr. Vincent. It was an alternative to bring them into the Govern- ment and dissolve this army; they were supposed to dovetail.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you think the Communists would give up their power in the north to any government that they did not control or expect to control ?
Mr. Vincent. I did assume that they would if given a part in gov- ernment. They had said they would and joined in conferences to that effect.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you believe them ?
Mr. Vincent. Well, I hoped they would. Yes; I will say that I believed that General Marshall going out there could bring about this kind of a solution. I don't believe I could have, but I thought General Marshall could.
Mr. Sourwine. In view of what you have testified to today with regard to your knowledge, going back a long way, as to the nature of the Chinese Communists and their objectives, you never did believe,
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1723
did you, that the Communists would give up their power in the north to a government that they did not control or expect to control ?
Mr. Vincent. I did.
Senator Ferguson. And give up that advantage that you said they had?
Mr. Vincent. The advantage militarily ?
Senator Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. It was an advantage of creating or continuing to create disorder in the country.
Mr. SouRWiNE. You thought really that you would be putting something over on the Chinese Communists by bringing them into a coalition government ?
Mr. Vincent. I did.
Senator Ferguson. At the time you felt that they had the upper hand in north China ?
Mr. Vincent. In the rural districts, Senator, and they had had this kind of advantage even over the Japanese. We watched this, and it was tremendously difficult to deal with the guerrilla operation that they carried on.
Senator Ferguson. And they would give that up ?
Mr. Vincent. That is correct.
Senator Ferguson. And become a minority in a government and give that up ?
Mr. Sourwine. In justice to yourself, sir, is it possible that you would like to amend that, that you thought that would be so if the Nationalist Government retained the upper hand in the coalition?
Mr. Vincent. That was implicit in all of the negotiations that they had had with the Communists and the minor parties. It was on that point, as I say, that I believed the negotiations finally broke down.
Mr. Sourwine. If the Nationalist Government was not to have the upper hand, then bringing the Communists into a coalition govern- ment would not be putting anything over on the Communists, would it?
Mr. Vincent. Would you state that again, please?
Mr. Sourwine. If the Nationalist Government was not to have the upper hand in the coalition, bringing the Communists into the coali- tion government would certainly not be putting anything over on the Communists, would it?
Mr. Vincent. It would not.
Mr. Sourwine. It would not be taking them in in any sense except by bringing them into the Government ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes; and the point was always that the National Government was the National Government of Chiang Kai-shek, which was to be organized under a constitutional form and in which there would be some minor — I think the highest figure ever used was that the Communists would have 7 or 8, and I am just calling on memory now, out of a possible 21 in a provisional government.
Mr. Sourwine. But, regardless of the form of the government or mere matters of form, it was absolutely essential that the Nationalist Government retain control of the coalition ; otherwise the Communists by getting the coalition won a great victory ?
Mr. Vincent. That is true, sir, and General Marshall never thought in any other terms.
1724 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Sourwine. Would you, sir, point out what there is in the Marshall directive or in any official statement of the State Department at or about that time which says or implies that it is important or essential that Chiang retain control of the coalition government ?
Mr. Vincent. There is a paragraph in the Marshall directive which, I recall, says just exactly that, that we continue to recognize and support the National Government of China, which is the Govern- ment of Chiang Kai-shek.
Senator Ferguson. Get us that, please.
Mr. Vincent. We don't have the Marshall directive here. Is there a copy of the famous book, the White Paper, here ? I am sure it is in there, and I can produce it tomorrow if necessary.
Senator Ferguson. Why did you say "the famous book, the White Paper"?
Mr. Vincent. Because it has been referred to, and I had a part in it, and it has become rather famous, in my opinion.
Mr. Sourwine. I refer to that particular language. Do you believe that that particular language clearly expresses the view that in any co- alition government Chiang would have to control and the Commu- nists would have to have a minority interest ?
Mr. Vincent. I believe it does, and added to
Mr. Sourwine. Actually, if there was a coalition government and it was called the Nationalist Government of China, even though the Communists took over that government and maintained control of that government, it would still come within the phrase which you have cited?
Mr. Vincent. I don't believe so, but we are both — at least I would have said it was the Nationalist Government of China under Chiang Kai-shek. I will go on to say from my memory of General Marshall's telegram back that it was very clear that at no time did he ever con- ceive of the Communists getting a majority control of the Government.
Mr. Sourwine. When you talked about the Nationalist Government of China you meant the Chiang Kai-shek government?
Mr. Vincent. The Kuomintang government, whether Chiang Kai- shek
Mr. Sourwine. Kuomintang government would have been what- ever Government was controlled by the Kuomintang regardless of who composed the Kuomintang and whether or not Chiang still had a part in it?
Mr. Vincent. It would.
Mr. Souravine. So that all that that part of the directive said was that the United States Government should continue to support the National Chinese Government without regard to whether Chiang was in it or not?
Mr. Vincent. Support the National Government. It was Chiang Kai-shek's party. The Kuomintang was Chiang Kai-shek.
Mr. Sourwine. It was at that time.
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. Is it your conception that the directive was making it clear that we were to maintain it as Chiang's Government ?
Mr. Vincent. To maintain it as a Kuomintang government under Chiang.
l& tov
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1725
Senator Ferguson. We were to maintain it as a Kuomintang gov- ernment under Chiang. In other words, we were to continue to main- tain Chiang as over that particular government ?
Mr. Vincent. That is right.
Mr. Sourwine. In other words, we were supporting Chiang?
Mr. Vincent. We were supporting Chiang.
Mr. Sourwine. And we were continuing
"to
Mr. Vincent. If Chiang Kai-shek had resigned as head of the Kuomintang and somebody else had taken over that position as head of the Kuomintang, Dr. Kung or T. V. Soong, it wouldn't have meant that we wouldn't support that government.
Mr. Sourwine. No. Suppose that Chou En-lai had taken over instead of Mr. Soong, would it have meant that we would not support that?
Mr. Vincent. We certainly would not have to do that because Chou En-lai couldn't have taken over a Government of the Kuomin- tang, could he?
Mr. Sourwine. Assume that the Government was taken over by some Communist as the result of bringing into the Kuomintang of a majority of Communists or pro-Communist elements. If it were still in the form of the Kuomintang government and still called the Nationalist Government of China, would not the United States have felt itself committed to cooperate and to support that government under the Marshall directive?
Mr. Vincent. I don't think so, it would change its entire character.
Mr. Sourwine. It certainly would have. Are you saying that it was your conception, that it was the conception of the State Depart- ment, that it was the conception of General Marshall, that it was intended to continue to support in power Chiang Kai-shek as the head of the Chinese National Government?
Mr. Vincent. That is right.
Mr. Sourwine. That is what we were committed to do ?
Mr. Vincent. That is what we were committed to do.
Mr. Sourwine. We were going to assist in the attaining of that objective by bringing the Communists into the coalition government?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Senator Ferguson. And we were going to take the whole Army?
Mr. Vincent. We were going to amalgamate the Army and call it the National Chinese Army.
Mr. Sourwine, And you thought it was a feasible program?
Mr. Vincent. I thought it was a feasible program.
Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Chairman, that perhaps is a good note on which to recess.
Senator Ferguson. I think so. We will resume tomorrow morning at nine o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 9 a. m., Friday, January 25, 1952.}
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC BELATIONS
FRIDAY, JANUARY 25, 1952
United States Senate, Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration
of the International Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws of the Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D. C.
EXECUTIVE session — CONFIDENTIAL
The subcommittee met at 9 a. m., pursuant to recess,, in room 424, Senate Office Building, Hon. Homer Ferguson, presiding.
Present : Senator Ferguson.
Also present : J. G. Sourwine, committee counsel, and Benjamin Mandel, director of research.
Senator Ferguson. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Vincent, you have been previously sworn.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN CARTER VINCENT, ACCOMPANIED BY WALTER STERLING SURREY, COUNSEL— Resumed
Mr. Sourwine. I believe I asked you about Frank V. Coe.
Mr. Vincent. You had.
Mr. Sourwine. The next name is Lauchlin Currie.
Mr. Vincent. May I consult my book here?
Mr. Sourwine. Yes.
Mr. Vincent (reading) : I first met Dr. Currie in 1936 or 1937 when he was an officer with the Federal Reserve Board. I saw him occasion- ally during the next 2 years prior to my departure for Geneva in 1939. Upon my return from Switzerland late in 1940 en route to China I saw Dr. Currie several times. He was then an administrative assistant to President Roosevelt. He was interested in China officially and he was a White House representative. We had several discussions on the matter of financial aid to the Chinese Government. The currency stabilization loan at that time either had just been passed or was being passed.
In 1942 President Roosevelt sent Dr. Currie to China to see Chiang Kai-shek and consult the Chinese Government officials on matters of common interest regarding the war. I saw him several times there. I gathered his conversations were largely on financial and economic matters. I did not participate in the conversations with Chiang Kai-shek.
Senator Ferguson. Did you attend any conferences with Currie and any Chinese?
22848 — 52 — pt. 6 4 1727
1728 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Vincent. No (reading) : When I returned to Washington in 1943 I was loaned by the State Department for several months to the newly-established Foreign Economic Administration. Mr. Sourwine. You got back when, December 1943 ?
Mr. Vincent. No, June, and had a vacation, a couple of months in the far eastern office and went over there for a matter of 4 months, (reading) : Dr. Currie was Deputy Administrator of the FEA. I saw him directly during this period. After I returned to State in February of 1944, 1 had little occasion for contact with Dr. Currie.
In 1945 he left the Government and went into business in New York. The last time I saw him was in New York in 1949 when I had lunch with him and Mrs. Currie at the Metropolitan Club. I was home for a brief period of consultation in Washington at that time. I have not seen him since this meeting.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you recall how you met or who introduced you ?
Mr. Vincent. He was up in New Hampshire where he had a little farm. I was with Mr. Grew. He had a farm and had loaned his farm to my wife and children. They had one at Hancock.
Mr. Sourwine. You have covered fully your associations with him?
Mr. Vincent. So far as I can recall them.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know whether he had any connection with the Institute of Pacific Relations?
Mr. Vincent. I don't think he did. I never connected him in my own mind with the Institute. He wasn't at the one meeting I went to at Hot Springs that I recall.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever consult with him and with persons known to you to be members of the Institute ?
Mr. Vincent. With him at the same time as other members?
Mr. Sourwine. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. I do not recall any such consultation.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you recall ever being asked by the IPR, or some- one representing it, to talk with Mr. Currie ?
Mr. Vincent. About any specific subject?
Mr. Sourwine. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. I can't recall any.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you at any time know or have reason to believe that Mr. Currie was connected in any way with the Communist move- ment ?
Mr. Vincent. I did not, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. The next name here is John P. Davies.
Mr. Vincent (reading) . I first met Davies when he was a language student in Peking. I was consul in Dairen. That was in 1932 or 1933. Our paths no doubt crossed from time to time during the next 10 years, but we did not serve together.
In 1942 Mr. Davies was assigned to China while I was counselor of the Embassy. His job was, he said, a sort of political adviser to General Stilwell. He was not directly connected with the Embassy. I saw him from time to time during this period.
Also after I returned to Washington, Mr. Davies would come in to see me when he was on home leave or on assignment by General Stilwell to Washington I would see him. In December 1945, I again saw Mr. Davies in Moscow when he was Secretary of the Embassy
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1729
there. We were having the Moscow conference of the foreign secre- taries. I saw him last in Washington in 194:9 briefly when I came home on consultation. I have not seen him since.
Mr. Soukwine. Did you know at any time if Mr. Davies had any connection with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir, I did not .
Mr. Soukwine. Eugene Dennis ?
Mr. Vincent. Eugene Dennis, I do not know him, and I have not followed matters well enough to know who he is ; but I know who he is now. He was Secretary of the Communist Party, but I don't know him.
Mr. Sourwine. Laurence Duggan?
Mr. Vincent (reading). Laurence Duggan was in the State De- partment at the same time I was in 1936 to 1939. I don't recall any contact with him. I was junior to him. He was concerned with Latin- American affairs and I was assistant desk officer in the far east- ern office. I can recall no association with him, other than I might have met him at some meetings that did take place in the Department or something where I would see him casually in the hall. He was not a person with whom I had any reason to have official contact, and I had no social contact with him.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know at any time that Mr. Duggan was connected in any way with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. I did not, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. John K. Emmerson.
Mr. Vincent (reading). He is a junior officer in the State Depart- ment who had specialized, I believe, in Japanese affairs rather than Chinese. I cannot recall when I first met Emmerson. He served in the far eastern office sometime during the period 1914 to 1945, maybe somewhat earlier than that.
He was in China, I think, just at the end of my term of duty. I can recall no specific meeting with him. I have seen him since I came back this time. He is now an officer there in the State Depart- ment.
I have seen him once or twice casually, but I had not anticipated his name, so I have not got the State Department register to see about him.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you have any reason to believe he was con- nected with the Communist Party ?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Mr. Sourwine. Wilma Fairbank.
Mr. Vincent (reading). She is the wife of John K. Fairbank. I first met her — I may say I met her because he was in China, but I think I first met her at the IPR conference where she Was either on the secretariat or a delegate. From that time on we saw her from time to time. My wife was a good friend of hers while they were stationed here. We visited them once before he went off to Switzerland in 1946 or 1947, I should say, and the last time I saw them was when I was passing through Cambridge. I had come back from visiting my son at Exeter. We visited the Fairbanks in Cambridge then.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever know or have any reason to believe that she was in any way connected with the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Miriam S. Farley.
1730 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Vincent. I have no clear recollection of having met Miriam* Farley, but I probably did see her at the IPR conference. I wouldn't know her now if I saw her.
Mr. Soukwine. What position did she hold with IPR ?
Mr. Vincent. I think she was a member of the secretariat. I no> doubt met her in that capacity.
As I say, if I saw her I don't believe I would know her. She may- have written at some time or called. It is purely a name to me.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know at any time or have reason to be- lieve that she was connected in any way with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Frederick V. Field ?
Mr. Vincent (reading). Frederick V. Field I met casually and' briefly at a large cocktail party at the IPR, conference. That is the- only time I have a distinct recollection of having met him. I do recall) there was a preparatory meeting of the American delegation that went to the IPR conference. He may have been there. If he was, it made- no impression on my mind.
I never had any vis-a-vis conversations with him or any contact with him other than through that conference.
Mr. Sourwine. Were you asked to assist in any way when Mr. Field was trying to get a commission in the Army ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Did you ever know he tried to get a com- mission ?
Mr. Vincent. I did not.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know at any time or have reason to believe- that Mr. Field was connected in any way with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. At the time I knew him I had no reason to believe- he was connected with the Communist Party.
Mr. Sourwine. Julian R. Friedman ?
Mr. Vincent (reading). Friedman was a young fellow assigned to> the Far Eastern Division and assigned to my office in the China Divi- sion in 1944. I had nothing to do with his assignment either to the divsion or to my division. He worked there in the division for a matter of, I should say, a year. He was then particularly interested in the field of labor and had, I think, come to that division from the Labor Division, as it was called, in the State Department, primarily be- cause he had indicated an interest in the Far East and China, and had hoped to get an assignment as a labor attache as soon as the war was over, attache to China.
He got the assignment in the fall, I think, of 1945, at the end of the war. I don't recall having seen him since then. The last recol- lection I have of him was his sending me a notice he had gotten married when I was in Switzerland. His duties in the China Divi- sion were those of a junior officer who was a leg man. He went to- the IPR conference as a member of the secretariat and he was also out in San Francisco at the United Nations Conference.
Senator Ferguson. How would a man like that get to the United Nations Conference and the IPR conference ?
Mr. Vincent. Take the second one. I don't know how he got there. I know there was a notice that went around that they needed
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1731
young people on the secretariat at San Francisco. He, being an energetic young man, probably went down and applied for a job on the secretariat. I did not recommend him.
Senator Ferguson. Did they not look into these people to see whether or not they had Communist leanings? Did they not in the State Department have any idea that there might be disloyalty?
Mr. Vincent. I can't say as to that. I had no suspicions of Fried- man.
Senator Ferguson. Or anybody else ?
Mr. Vincent. He was a very active young man probably with free ideas. I disagreed with him, but I did not suspect him of having Communist leanings.
Senator Ferguson. Did it ever enter your mind while in the serv- ice during these days we are talking about that the Russians might be trying to penetrate our Foreign Service and our diplomatic service?
Mr. Vincent. No evidence of it ever came to my attention.
Senator Ferguson. You were not conscious of it ?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. You did not look into that question at all ?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. It never entered your mind, in fact ?
Mr. Vincent. Do you say "it never entered my mind"? I can vouch that it never entered my mind.
Senator Ferguson. Do you recall of any instance you may have thought well, now, this person or that person may be working for the Kremlin, for the Communist Party?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. It never entered your mind ?
Mr. Vincent. But there were several divisions in the State De- partment that were supposed to look into that.
Senator Ferguson. But in the Far East situation nothing ever en- tered your mind that there could be an influence of the Communist Party?
Mr. Vincent. Within the Foreign Service ?
Senator Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. Even as far as Friedman was concerned?
Mr. Vincent. I never suspected Friedman at any time or any of my associates there in the Department.
Senator Ferguson. Were you at the United Nations?
Mr. Vincent. I was part time.
Senator Ferguson. What did Friedman do out there?
Mr. Vincent. He was working down on the secretariat and keep- ing contact with the various labor organizations represented out there.
Senator Ferguson. Would that not have been a good place to put a Communist ?
Mr. Vincent. To have contact with the labor unions there?
Senator Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. It probably would.
Senator Ferguson. Would it not have been a good place to put a Communist in relation to the work of our delegation?
Mr. Vincent. I should say it would have been a very good thing for the Communists to try to plant people there.
1732 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Senator Ferguson. You never thought about it at that time, never thought about questioning any of these people ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Or to look into the records or anything of that kind?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir. I may say again we had security divisions that were supposed to look into these people.
Senator Ferguson. When were you first questioned on security?
Mr. Vincent. Myself you mean?
Senator Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. I don't know I was ever questioned as to security; never in my mind.
Senator Ferguson. I just wondered whether they questioned everybody.
Mr. Vincent. No.
Mr. Sourwine. Are you sure that you have not understated Mr. Friedman's importance in any way ? Was he in any sense more than a f etcher and carrier?
Mr. Vincent. So far as I know that is all he was. I can't recall the particular assignments he had. He sat in a far corner of the room. I had a big office there. He looked over the papers that came in with regard to labor conditions. I can recall of no major assignment Friedman had.
Mr. Sourwine. Did he work directly under you?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, in the China Division.
Mr. Sourwine. You supervised his work?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. Was there any official in the echelon between you and him, or did you supervise his work directly ?
Mr. Vincent. I had an Assistant Chief of the China Division who probably exercised supervision over him as well as I did.
Mr. Sourwine. Did he actually exercise supervision over him?
Mr. Vincent. I can't say to what extent.
Mr. Sourwine. Who was the Assistant Chief?
Mr. Vincent. Mr. Paul Meyer. I would have to consult the reg- ister, but the period in there is somewhat vague.
Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Friedman was never given any real responsi- bility?
Mr. Vincent. Not that I recall.
Mr. Sourwine. He never substituted for you or acted as your deputy in any matter?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Mr. Sourwine. Did Mr. Meyer act as your deputy ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, occasionally. I think what you have in mind is some area committee that Mr. Dooman has mentioned where he went in. He was not my deputy or representative. He was simply there. I went sometimes myself to this area committee. Mr. Dooman has testified on that, but not in the capacity as my deputy. He had started going to those meetings when he was still in the Labor Divi- sion and continued to go. I attended them very seldom.
Mr. Sourwine. You are referring to the meetings of the Far Eastern Committee of SWNCC?
Mr. Vincent. No, he never, went to the SWNCC committees. There was a rather vague committee called the Area Committee that various
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1733
divisions would sit in on and discuss problems in a general way. He attended those from time to time so I am now told or gather from the testimony. I would not recall that.
Mr. Sourwine. But he never did attend the meetings of the Far Eastern Committee of SWNCC ?
Mr. Vincent. Not that I recall.
Mr. Sourwine. Nor ever had any authority to represent you there ?
Mr. Vincent. In the SWNCC meetings ?
Mr. Sourwine. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. I have no record of his ever going to the SWNCC meetings. I think he had left the Department for China before I ever became connected with SWNCC.
Mr. Sourwine. When did he leave ?
Mr. Vincent. I can't recall the date. I would have to have the register, but my recollection is the early autumn as soon as the war was over.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know or have any reason to believe that Mr. Friedman was connected in any way with the Communist move- ment?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know or have any reason so to believe?
Mr. Vincent. I have seen nothing that would indicate it.
Mr. Sourwine. The next name is Mark J. Gayn.
Mr. Vincent. I did not know him and I have never met him.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know who he is ?
Mr. Vincent. He was with Amerasia. The name clicks in that way that he was connected with Amerasia, but I never met him.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know whether that name sticks in your memory because associates or persons might have mentioned him to you, or did you read it in the newspapers?
Mr. Vincent. I read it in the newspapers. I am trying to remem- ber ; that is where he was.
Mr. Sourwine. Mark Ginsbourg.
Mr. Vincent. No, I have no recollection of a Mark Ginsbourg.
Mr. Sourwine. Louis Gibarti?
Mr. Vincent. No recollection.
Mr. Sourwine. Harold Glasser?
Mr. Vincent. Yes [reading] : He was with the Treasury Depart- ment. I met him, I should say, once or twice on Treasury business that had to do with State. He was at the UNNRA conference, if I recall correctly, at Atlantic City. That was in 1944. I had very lit- tle contact with Glasser.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you recall where you first met him ?
Mr. Vincent. My estimate would be it was at the conference at Atlantic City, but it may have been earlier.
Mr. Sourwine. Your association with him was very slender after that?
Mr. Vincent. Very.
Mr. Sourwine. You were not on a friendly social basis?
Mr. Vincent. I never saw him socially that I can recall.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever know or have any reason to believe he was connected in any way with the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
1734 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Sourwine. I think I stated this before but I will ask again that question. I mean no implication that these people were, or are, Communists.
Mr. Vincent. I was hoping my answer was also that I did not then, but in most of these cases and in all of them I had no idea then or now.
Mr. Sourwine. I think the question is quite broad enough to cover that. It is so intended. I asked it specifically, notwithstanding, in the one case of Mr. Friedman, the discussion which had gone on which might have left an implication that you have some such feeling.
Mr. Vincent. I would like to say that being out of the country since 1947 almost continually, things may have happened here that I should have been aware of that I am not. Four years' absence means I have not followed it. Somebody may have admitted he was one and I wouldn't know it.
Mr. Sourwine. The committee will not hold you responsible for knowing who is and who is not a Communist in every instance. We are trying to find out what you do know.
Grace Maul Granich? '
Mr. Vincent. I did not know Grace Maul Granich. I know that she is the wife of Max Granich who was out in Shanghai. I never knew her.
Mr. Sourwine. Max Granich?
Mr. Vincent. I never knew Max Granich except by name.
Senator Ferguson. Did you know him to be a Communist, by name?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. And in any way connected with the Communist Party ?
Mr. Vincent. We have reports. The Chinese gave reports that they thought he was connected with the Communist Party. Mr. Gauss, the consul general at that time in Shanghai, asked the Chinese to pro- duce evidence. The Chinese were unable to produce it, but that did not destroy the suspicion that they were connected with the Com- munist Party. They were certainly left wing.
Senator Ferguson. Were any of these other people you may have mentioned you did not know to be Communist left-wingers?
Mr. Vincent. None that I have gone through so far.
Senator Ferguson. Even Friedman ?
Mr. Vincent. Friedman I would have called a New Dealer of an extreme sort.
Senator Ferguson. But not a left-winger?
Mr. Vincent. You have to define that. I have described him as a young New Dealer.
Senator Ferguson. That was not unusual to find those people ?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. In the Foreign Service ?
Mr. Vincent. In the Foreign Service. You have the whole politi- cal pattern from one extreme to the other in the Foreign Service.
Mr. Sourwine. Michael Greenberg?
Mr. Vincent. Michael Greenberg, I think, was at one time an assistant to Lauchlin Currie when Lauchlin Currie was a Special Assistant to the President in the White House.
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1735
Senator Ferguson. Did you know Lauchlin Currie to be a New Dealer?
Mr. Vincent. I would certainly have associated Lauchlin Currie with the New Deal.
Senator Ferguson. And Michael Greenberg?
Mr. Vincent. I know nothing- about his political views, but I would have thought if he was working for Currie he would have been.
Senator Ferguson. Would you say either one of those were left- wingers ?
Mr. Vincent. Not from my knowledge.
Senator Ferguson. Did you have any association with Greenberg?
Mr. Vincent. None other than the fact that he was an assistant to Currie at a time when Currie was handling far-eastern affairs. They had a little office. From time to time I would see him. I don't recall having any discussions with him.
Senator Ferguson. Would you say from what you knew about him or even reports from the Chinese Government that he was in any way connected with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. No. I never saw any reports from the Chinese Gov- ernment on Michael Greenberg.
Senator Ferguson. Did you on any of these other people, other than the ones you have mentioned, Granich, Max Granich ?
Mr. Vincent. I mentioned him, but I would not say I saw any report on him.
Senator Ferguson. Or any others ?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. But you did on Granich ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Senator Ferguson. Was he not operating some kind of a paper?
Mr. Vincent. He was operating something called the Voice of China, which was highly propagandist^ in character, as a magazine, in Shanghai.
Senator Ferguson. What language ?
Mr. Vincent. In English. I had no first-hand knowledge of that in the sense he was operating in Shanghai and I was in Washington.
Senator Ferguson. Joseph Gregg ?
Mr. Vincent. I have no recollection of ever meeting anyone by that name. The name doesn't ring any bell.
Senator Ferguson. You don't know anybody by that name who might have been known by some other name ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Alger Hiss ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes ; I might like to refer to these papers [reading] :
My first recollection of meeting Alger Hiss was in 1940 when he had become assistant or special assistant to Dr. Stanley Hornbeck, who at that time was political adviser for the Far East. I may have met him in the halls or elsewhere before that because he was working for Mr. Sayre, but I have no recollection of that. I am giving my first meeting where I recollect.
I was home en route to China and he was assistant to Mr. Horn- back. I went to China and did not see him again until I came back in 1943. I had occasional meetings with him. All business with Horn- beck had to pass through Mr. Hiss. When Dr. Hornbeck left the
1736 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
far eastern office some time in the spring of 1944, Mr. Hiss became, as far as I can recall, interested in the work preparatory to the Dum- barton Oaks Conference which was the prelude to the United Nations Conference. I saw him, frankly, not at all then.
Senator Ferguson. How much did you see him then ?
Mr. Vincent. Not at all. I don't recall seeing him; I may have seen him in the halls, but I had no business with him. Once he left I had no business with him.
Senator Ferguson. When you were in the Far East you had quite a bit of dealing with him ?
Mr. Vincent. He was in Washington and I was in the Far East. Therefore, he presumably saw the reports I wrote in, but I never saw him.
Senator Ferguson. Did he ever talk with you about a report ?
Mr. Vincent. Not that I recall.
Senator Ferguson. Do you know on any occasion he wrote you directly about a report you had made, not agreeing with it?
Mr. Vincent. I don't recall ever having any correspondence with Alger Hiss about any reports I made or he made.
Senator Ferguson. Did you ever have any correspondence or cable- grams or any communication with Hornbeck about these ?
Mr. Vincent. You mean when I was in China and Hornbeck was here? I would not have been able to tell about telegrams coming out from Hornbeck, because they would have been signed by the Secretary, and I have no recollection of personal correspondence between myself and Hornbeck about myself or about official matters.
The Senator had asked me whether I had any correspondence while in the Far East.
Senator Ferguson. About his reports, Mr. Sourwine. He has testi- fied the fact that Hiss was assistant to Hornbeck and therefore matters would be through Hiss to Hornbeck, the reports.
Mr. Vincent. Yes ; I had not finished with this paper. I said that [reading] he left far eastern affairs and went with some group that was preparing for Dumbarton Oaks and later I saw him only as he was Secretary General of the Conference in San Francisco and was very busy. I had no contact other than to know he was there.
After that he came back to the Department and was made, in the autumn of 1945, I believe, the chief or the director of the newly created United Nations office. In that capacity he attended staff meet- ings which I also attended where we were discussing matters where we would cut across them on United Nations affairs, far eastern affairs, European affairs. I saw him in that capacity for just a year before he resigned and went with the Carnegie Institute. I have not seen him since.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever meet with Mr. Hiss outside the State Department, or otherwise than on official duties !
Mr. Vincent. I have no recollection of it. I believe that no doubt we attended dinner parties where he was present. I may have gone to a cocktail party at his house, but I had no intimate, outside-of -office associations with him.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know at any time Mr. Hiss was connected with the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. I did not.
Mr. Sourwine. Or have any reason to believe it ?
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1737
Mr. Vincent. I had no reason to suspect him.
Mr. Sourwine. Since you have stipulated your answers bring it down to the present time, do you have any reason now to believe that Mr. Hiss was ever connected in any way with the Communist party ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you believe he was ?
Mr. Vincent. I don't say I believe he was, but I have reason to suspect that he was.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you have a belief in that regard ?
Mr. Vincent. Whether Mr. Hiss was a Communist or was con- nected with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Sourwine. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. I would say he was at one time in his life.
Mr. Sourwine. The next name here I will ask you to pronounce. It is Ho Chi Minh.
Mr. Mandel. May I refresh your memory? He is the leader of the forces in Indochina.
Mr. Vincent. That is right. No, I never had any contact with him. I certainly knew him by reputation.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you have any reason to know or believe that he is in any way connected with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. I would say most definitely I think he is connected with the Communist Party.
Mr. Sourwine. Philip Jaffe?
Mr. Vincent. I never knew Mr. Jaffe, never met him knowingly.
Mr. Sourwine. Have you ever had any communication with him?
Mr. Vincent. None that I can recall.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever send him any messages or receive any irom him ?
Mr. Vincent. No. I don't think there was correspondence between Ihim and me.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you talk with him over the telephone?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Mr. Sourwine. Owen Lattimore?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. Before you answer further, who was Mr. Jaffe ?
Mr. Vincent. Mr. Jaffe was, as I recall it, connected with the Amerasia magazine.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know that before having read it in the papers, or otherwise?
Mr. Vincent. From the papers. I don't think I knew Jaffe was on Amerasia until the case broke.
Senator Ferguson. Do you know the Amerasia magazine?
Mr. Vincent. Very slightly. I remember seeing it from time to time. I read it from time to time.
Senator Ferguson. Were you a subscriber of it ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Did the State Department get you a copy ?
Mr. Vincent. It would come into- the State Department, or people would bring it. I can't say whether the State Department subscribed to it or not.
Senator Ferguson. Did you ever get any idea it was a left-wing magazine?
1738 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Vincent. I had no thought at the time I was reading it. I don't recall reading it. I remember the first issue. I thought it was a rather good magazine. Dr. Hornbeck contributed an article to it, but I didn't follow the magazine.
Senator Ferguson. Did you ever contribute to it?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Were you ever asked to contribute?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Owen Lattimore?
Mr. Vincent. I can do Owen Lattimore [reading] : I first met Lat- timore probably in 1930 when he was in Peking. At that time I be- lieve he was connected with some scholarship that he had ; whether it was the Crane Foundation or something else. Our paths from then on might have crossed. I have no recollection. I was not an inti- mate friend of his.
My recollection of meeting him was when he came to China in 1941 in the late autumn or early spring as the President had sent him out to be a special — I don't know his title, but he was supposed to be an ad- viser to Chiang Kai-shek in Chungking. I did not see him very often at that time primarily because he was connected with Chiang Kai-shek and I believe Lattimore himself thought that too close an association with the Embassy would probably not be conducive to his good rela- tions with the Generalissimo. He would think he was reporting back- wards and forwards.
I did not know his work. I would see him in Chungking from time to time. He left Chungking before I did.
When I came back here, I found that Lattimore had become, I think, Deputy Director of OWI for the Pacific, for matters in connection with the Pacific area under Elmer Davis. We no doubt had contact, although it was not close, because he was busy. I was busy, and the liaison between the State Department and its various divisions and OWI was carried on by an office especially designated for that purpose. I recall Mr. Merrill Meyers was our liaison with OWI. He would keep them currently informed and point out what they were doing in the way of their programs.
My next association with Lattimore was on the trip to China with Mr. Wallace. He, as you know, was a member of that group. I saw him, of course, there, when we were in a plane for 50 days, with great frequency. I would say in passing that in Siberia and Central Asia Lattimore interested himself primarily in visiting museums, educa- tional institutions, whereas I stayed more closely with Wallace in visiting agricultural places, industrial things, and attending social affairs in the evening that were usually given for us.
We returned from that trip, and I think soon thereafter Lattimore resigned. I don't know at what time he went back to his work at Johns Hopkins. I can't recall. I wasn't keeping in close enough touch to remember when he quit OWI. It is in his own record.
I saw him from time to time. We knew his wife, Mrs. Lattimore- I remember visiting them once in Towson, Md., and Baltimore.
The question has arisen, and we might as well deal with it now, of the matter of a proposal that he become a consultant in the State Department. I would just as soon make that statement now. In the early spring of 1945 Mr. Lattimore had a form made out, and I don't know what the form of employment was, for consultant in
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1739
the State Department on a per diem basis. I thought it was a good idea. We needed somebody who as a tactical expert would give us information or prepare background data on those borders and areas of Sinkiang and Outer Mongolia.
He had written a book called the Inner Asian Frontiers of China, I think is the name of it, and was in my estimation the foremost expert on that area in the States. We had at that time Dr. Kennedy, the late Dr. Kennedy, of Yale, who was furnishing in the far eastern office similar information and background work done for Indonesia, and I think also other Southeast Asian areas.
So I recommended, if you want to call it "recommended," Mr. Lattimore be taken on in this job. The recommendation was approved by my chief, who was then Mr. Ballentine. Mr. Grew, however, told me he did not think it was a good idea to hire a man who was engaged in publicity to the degree that Lattimore was at that time. He was contributing to magazines and other things. There the matter was dropped. I did not know
Senator Ferguson. Was that the only reason he assigned?
Mr. Vincent. That is the only reason he assigned to me.
Senator Ferguson. I would think that was the kind of man you wanted. •
Mr. Vincent. Mr. Grew put it on the basis of "who was engaged m publicity." I think Lattimore was writing articles for maybe the Baltimore Sun or something else, contributing once or twice a week. He was certainly a contributor to magazines.
Subsequently I have learned through seeing Mr. Dooman's testi- mony that he took it up with Mr. Grew and had it stopped. But Mr. Grew did not tell me that then.
Senator Ferguson. Do you have any reason to believe he should not have come with the Department?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir; as a matter of fact, I thought as a man to work on a tactical subject he was ideally suited, and those areas were little known to us.
Senator Ferguson. What would he have received in compensation ?
Mr. Vincent. I don't know what the per diem was. I know it probably ran — I just don't know what it was. I knew Dr. Kennedy was getting a per diem.
Senator Ferguson. How much ; $50 ?
Mr. Vincent. It was not as high as $50. The financial side of it would not have been an inducement for anybody to come down.
Mr. Sourwine. Was it Mr. Lattimore's idea, or someone else's, that he apply for this position with the Department?
Mr. Vincent. It was the result of discussions between Mr. Latti- more and myself.
Mr. Sourwine. Was it your suggestion ?
Mr. Vincent. That I would not recall, whether I suggested it or he did.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ask him if he would accept one of these jobs that had no financial inducement?
Mr. Vincent. I would say the financial inducement was not a con- sideration. We discussed the matter of needing a better source of in- formation on these areas which were certainly going to come up in any subsequent negotiations of a peace treaty. I may add this : That at the time we discussed that, neither I nor he, or anybody else, any-
1740 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
body else on my level in the State Department, knew that the Yalta agreement was going on and you might say certain disposition was being made there, particularly with regard to Outer Mongolia. That did not become known to me until June 1945.
Mr. Soukwine. Do you recall where this conference with Mr. Lat- timore took place at which you asked him if he would accept a job with the State Department?
Mr. Vincent. I do not. I don't recall whether I asked him or whether he indicated it was a job he thought should be done.
Mr. Sourwine. I understand you to testify
Mr. Vincent. It came out in a conversation with him. I am per- fectly willing to say I may have asked him to accept the job and he may have accepted the job and I said "Yes, it is a good idea." Who produced the idea I don't know.
Mr. Sourwine. Was this in your office ?
Mr. Vincent. I don't recall, or whether it was on the week end in Towson. We went up Saturday night and came back Sunday.
Mr. Sourwine. Was that week end before or after this occasion? Can you definitely place it?
Mr. Vincent. I can.
Mr. Sourwine. Was it only the one week end?
Mr. Vicent. With Lattimore, that is the only week end I recall.
Mr. Sourwine. You were not in the habit of interchanging visits with him or you and your wife with him and his wife ?
Mr. Vincent. No. He could not have spent a week end with us be- cause we did not have any place to put him up. He was down in Washington and would probably call up and say, "I am here. Won't you have lunch with me?" My relations with Lattimore were of that sort.
Mr. Sourwine. You are or were quite friendly over a long period of time ?
Mr. Vincent. He would certainly let me know. Over the period I would say of 1941 on down
Mr. Sourwine. You first knew him as early as 1930 ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. You would not say you have been unfriendly since then ?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Mr. Sourwine. You have been friendly since then ?
Mr. Vincent. There was a whole gap of 10 years when I saw him. When we were associated it was after he had an official position in Washington.
Mr. Sourwine. We don't have to see a man every day to be good friends, do we ?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Mr. Sourwine. Mr. Lattimore is your good friend ?
Mr. Vicent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. So you undoubtedly saw him on enough occasions outside the office so that you would not be able to pinpoint any par- ticular one or necessarily remember the sequence of all of them?
Mr. Vincent. That is right.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Mr. Lattimore was connected in any way with the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. No.
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1741
Senator Ferguson. Did you ever know him to be a left-winger?
Mr. Vincent. Again I would say I felt Lattimore was a person of New Deal complexion. He was a man with liberal ideas rather than a left-winger.
Senator Ferguson. That brings up the definition of liberal. What is a liberal in your opinion ?
Mr. Vincent. Senator
Senator Ferguson. ISow, you said he was a man with liberal ideas.
Mr. Vincent. I confess I don't have any definition ready for a liberal.
Senator Ferguson. I claim to be a liberal and my views are entirely opposite to that of Lattimore. I want to know what your definition of a liberal is.
Mr. Vincent. I suppose the best way to put it would be if a person is looking for means and ways of improving and changing conditions as they exist where he finds them unsatisfactory that he is liberal in his views, because he is not tied to any preconceived ideas as to exactly how our democratic things work. That would be the best definition I can give. Maybe I am getting confused with a humanitarian.
Senator Ferguson. Would you say a man who works to relieve people from activities of Government was a liberal ?
Mr. Vincent. I don't quite understand what you mean by the activ- ities of Government.
Senator Ferguson. The Government dictating the policies and do- ing things for everybody.
Mr. Vincent. I would certainly say a person could be a liberal and still resent that.
Senator Ferguson. Do you think a liberal would be the man who would want the Government to do things ?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. Was not Owen Lattimore that kind of a man?
Mr. Vincent. Not that I recall. He was a person who believed in the Government. You have got to define what you mean by the Government doing things.
Mr. Sourwine. Let us not talk about Mr. Lattimore in the past tense. 1 think he is still very much alive and you have not ceased to know him or associate with him.
Mr. Vincent. 1 have not seen him since 1947. I would rather not try to discuss Mr. Lattimore as a liberal.
Senator Ferguson. Was he not the kind of man that wanted the Government to do everything?
Mr. Vincent. You are getting me into an area now
Senator Ferguson. You said he was a liberal. You class New Deal- ers as liberals. You said he was a New Dealer and a liberal. You used the term, not me.
I want to know what it is now. Here is a man that you describe as a liberal. What was he?
Mr. Vincent. I described it here as a man who was not tied to a preconceived idea of how things should be done but was looking for ways to improve Government.
Senator Ferguson. Do you call communism liberalism?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Do you call Marxism liberalism?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
1742 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Senator Ferguson. Do you call socialism liberalism ? Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Do you call New Dealers liberals ? Mr. Vincent. I do.
Senator Ferguson. What is the difference between New Dealers and socialism ?
Mr. Vincent. I don't think the New Dealer ever — I should not get into this because I am not a political philosopher. The New Dealer, to my mind, never, as I saw it, wanted to bring about Government ownership. There may have been cases where the New Deal did in a broad sense. I know there was TVA. Government ownership of the means of production I do not think was ever the program of the New Deal.
Senator Ferguson. Were you a New Dealer?
Mr. Vincent. I would describe myself as being in favor of some of the New Deal's policies.
Senator Ferguson. What about the policies you were in favor of ? What were they ? .
Mr. Vincent. Such things as banking and insurance. I was not mixed up in the New Deal at all. I was opposed, for instance, to the Supreme Court, if you want to call that New Deal.
Senator Ferguson. You mean packing the Supreme Court? Mr. Vincent. That was one thing. I would not know. You would have to name what measures.
Senator Ferguson. Was not the idea of packing the Supreme Court to give the Government power over people ? Mr. Vincent. I didn't like the means at all. Senator Ferguson. Was not that the idea ? Mr. Vincent. I don't know the objective at the time. Senator Ferguson. Do you think that was a liberal movement to pack the Supreme Court?
Mr. Vincent. I do not, and I was opposed to it. Senator Ferguson. Can you give us any more information as to what Lattimore was ? Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. He was a New Dealer and a liberal ? Mr. Vincent. I don't know that Lattimore himself would call him- self a New Dealer. I find myself in a disagreeable position because our conversation was about China and not about internal politics. Mr. Sourwine. Would you describe him as a humanitarian? Mr. Vincent. I would think so. There again I don't want to be put in the position of having to describe a humanitarian.
Mr. Mandel. Would you estimate precisely and briefly the authority of Owen Lattimore in the field of far-eastern affairs according to your own personal opinion ?
Mr. Vincent. As an authority ? Mr. Mandel. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. I think he has been a very serious student of Far Eastern affairs. I have not any exact recollection now just what the thesis is in his book, the last book he wrote on the Far East. I found myself in agreement with some of his ideas in that book and in dis- agreement with others. That would not mean I didn't think he was an authoritative writer on the Far East, but some of his ideas I have found to be not in agreement with mine.
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1743
Mr. Sourwine. Are you intending to hedge on Lattimore? Did not you call him earlier the outstanding authority on the Far East?
Mr. Vincent. On these inner areas. I thought we were covering a much broader subject. I did. I would get around to that.
That was his principal field of claiming to be an expert. As to the Far East, he certainly has already lived there all his life, and I have looked at him as a man having a certain knowledge about the Far East.
Mr. Mandel. You read all his books ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir. I have glanced through and read the Inner Asian Frontiers and that other book I am trying to recall. I do not recall reading anything else.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you read Solution in Asia ?
Mr. Vincent. That is what I am talking about. I know certain parts of that I was not too much impressed with. There were others I thought were sound. I would have to have the book to know what I was talking about.
Senator Ferguson. I am going to ask some question about Latti- more.
Mr. Sourwine. We have an additional line of questioning about him.
Senator Ferguson. I will come back to that, then.
Mr. Sourwine. I will ask one question out of order.
Do you know what a Communist means when he refers to someone as a liberal?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Mr. Sourwine. The next name here is Duncan Chapin Lee.
Mr. Vincent. I don't recall meeting him. He may have been a per- son who came into my office or may have been in the Far East at one time. I don't recall him.
Mr. Sourwine. Michael Lee?
Mr. Vincent. If that is the man I think it is [reading] down in FEA at one time when I was there for a short time, I saw him in and out of FEA during that period in 1943 through January of 1944 when I was there. I don't recall seeing him since.
Mr. Sourwine. How well did you know him ?
Mr. Vincent. I did not know him well at all.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know where he is ?
Mr. Vincent. I do not. I heard at one time he went to the De- partment of Commerce after I left Washington, or even before, maybe.
Mr. Sourwine. How about Li Shao Chi ?
Mr. Vincent. Li Shao Chi — I don't recall meeting anybody by that name.
Mr. Sourwine. Does the name mean anything to you ?
Mr. Vincent. No. There are many Li's whose last names I would not have known.
Mr. Mandel,. Could I come back to Michael Lee for a moment? Michael Lee was in charge of far-eastern shipments in the Depart- ment of Commerce. Wouldn't it be logical to believe he was in touch with the State Department on matters pertaining to the Far East and in touch with you ?
Mr. Vincent. I don't think while I was there — he may have been in touch with the State Department, but while I was there I was not in
22848—52— pt. G 5
1744 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
touch with him. I don't think he was in charge of that operation while I was in Washington. I left in early 1947 or the middle of 1947. I can't quite place Michael Lee as of the time he went into Commerce.
Mr. Sourwine. Raymond Ludden?
Mr. Vincent. He is a young Foreign Service officer. I think I have him just for dates here in my book [reading] : He was a junior officer whom I may have met from time to time, but my first association with him which I recall was when he was assigned to China in 1943 some- what before my departure for America.
I met him casually since then. He was assigned to China at Kun- ming. I recall in 1950 I had met him in Brussels when he was there with Mr. Bob Murphy as Ambassador and had dinner at Mr. Murphy's with him. He is back in America now and I saw him once in the State Department since he has been back. He is not one of the junior officers I have known as well as some of the others like Davies.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you remember reading any of his reports?
Mr. Vincent. He made reports from time to time from Kunming which I no doubt read. They don't stick in my memory, though.
Mr. Sourwine. I will ask this question and go back on it : Did you know or did you ever have any reason to believe that Mr. Ludden was connected in any way with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know or did you ever have any reason to believe that Michael Lee was connected in any way with the Commun- ist movement?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Did I ask you that question about Owen Lattimore?
Mr. Vincent. I believe you did. I am sure you did.
Mr. Sourwine. Selden Menefee?
Mr. Vincent. That name recalls something if you will give me a minute. I have not thought of the name in years. Can I put it in the form of a question ? Was he connected with radio broadcasting ? I am trying to place him as a young man.
Mr. Sourwine. He is.
Mr. Vincent. He was a young man who used to come in and assist during a period when we were using these broadcasts on various and sundry subjects in the State Department. If I am not mistaken, he was working with Fischer of NBC, and arranged the broadcast which General Hildring and someone else and I gave on Korea and on Japan.
I think there was a series of about four. To what extent Menefee each time was engaged in this — I would say that he came in and tried to piece these things together because they were prearranged debates on Far Eastern policy. He would get my ideas, Hildring's ideas, and patch them together, and he was an arranger of radio programs.
Mr. Sourwine. He wrote the scripts ?
Mr. Vincent. He wrote some of them. I wrote most of mine, but he would fit it in. If you mean he arranged the scripts, he may have written some of them.
Mr. Sourwine. In a sense of writing the script, the man who writes it is the man who puts down the words in the order in which they were said. Did you write the script or prepare a memorandum of the ideas you wished to express ?
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1745
Mr. Vincent. Menefee would come in and interview me, get that, and take out of it what I said and rearrange it to make it in the form of a conversation among the three of us.
Mr. Sourwine. Inserting questions by others or responses by them to questions by you?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. Was that script then submitted to you for approval before you went on the air with it ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. Was it submitted also for the approval of the other- participants ?
Mr. Vincent. I assume it was.
Mr. Sourwine. As far as you know was the procedure the same in the case of the others that Mr. Menefee would interview them and then write the script ?
Mr. Vincent. So far as I know, yes.
Mr. Sourwine. You did not suggest what the others on the pro- gram should say ?
Mr. Vincent. Not that I know, but I don't recall in these meetings we ever met together to arrange a program.
Mr. Sourwine. You met for the first time at the radio station?
Mr. Vincent. In the case of Hildring we were meeting in the State Department, but insofar as the program was concerned
Mr. Sourwine. You would see the whole script in advance for approval ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever make any suggestions in any of those scripts for changes in what any of the others said ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir ; not that I recall.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you make suggestions for changes with regard to your own, or did Mr. Menefee do a good job Of putting on paper what 3^011 had told him ?
Mr. Vincent. I no doubt made changes in the way he had put it down as to what I said.
Mr. Sourwine. So the scripts when they went on the air were made up of your language and not his?
Mr. Vincent. Insofar as I recall they were.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever know or have any reason to believe Mr. Menefee was connected in any way with the Communist move- ment ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. William Mandel.
Mr. Vincent. No; I don't — the first name?
Mr. Mandel. He is an expert on the Soviet Far East, a writer, a lecturer.
Mr. Vincent. He wrote a book which I think had to do with the Soviet, with Siberia, the Soviet eastern Siberia area. I never met him, and I don't know whether I read the book or not. I can't recalL That is the man. Thank you.
Mr. Sourwine. Mao Tse-tung?
Mr. Vincent. General Hurley used to call him "Mouse Tung." No; I never met him.
Mr. Mandel. Have you read any of his works ?
1746 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know or have reason to believe that he is connected in any way with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Souewine. What is that connection ?
Mr. Vincent. He is now president of the Communist regime, if that is the title they use. He may be chairman of the board or chairman of the party as well.
Mr. Sourwine. In China ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mr. Sourwine. Was he an active Communist at the time you were in China ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know him as such then ?
Mr. Vincent. I knew him as such.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever meet him ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Kate Mitchell?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir. I never met Kate Mitchell to my knowledge.
Mr. Sourwine. Did 'you know who she was?
Mr. Vincent. She also I think was connected with the Amerasia matter, wasn't she ?
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know that only from reading about it ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Mc Sourwine. V. E. Motylev ? But, before you go to that name, do you know or did you have any reason to believe Kate Mitchell was connected in any way with the Communist movement ?
Mr. Vincent. I do not.
Mr. Sourwine. V.E. Motylev?
Mr. Vincent. No. I have no recollection of meeting anybody by that name.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know who he is ?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Mr. Sourwine. Constantine Oumansky?
Mr. Vincent. He was a Soviet, either charge or ambassador, for a period. I never met him other than I think I attended the Soviet big to-do and this annual celebration where I shook his hand one time. Otherwise I had no contact with him.
Mr. Sourwine. You had no conferences with him on any other occasions ?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Mr. Sourwine. Or participated in conferences that he was partic- ipating in ?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Mr. Sourwine. J. Peters?
Mr. Vincent. No.
You don't want me to recall when I might have met him ? The name means nothing. If I met him, it made no impression.
Mr. Sourwine. When I name one of these names — it will do no harm to refresh your recollection — I am asking two questions : Did you or do you know the individual named ? Did you know by any other name an individual whom you now know or believe to be the person referred to ?
I
i
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1747
Mr. Vincent. No. I didn't know him.
I may say we skipped that other one frequently : Did I know any- body by any other name ? That is understood, is it not ?
Mr. Sourwine. That is understood in each case.
Mr. Vincent. I would say I don't know anybody that I might havn known under some other name at other times other than somebody who might have gotten married.
Mr. Sourwine. Mildred Price?
Mr. Vincent. I don't think I ever met Mildred Price.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know who she is?
Mr. Vincent. May I look here? I went through some of those names.
Mr. Mandel. May I refresh Mr. Vincent's memory ?
Mr. Sourwine. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. I wish you would.
Mr. Manuel. She was executive secretary of the China Aid Council.
Mr. Vincent. I don't think I ever met her. If she had turned up at the IPR conference, I don't know. She may have been at a func- tion, but I never had any contact that made any impression on my memory of her.
Mr. Sourwine. LudwigRajchman?
Mr. Vincent. Ludwig Rajchman was a man out in China and asso- ciated with Mr. T. V. Soong. I think I met him here in Washington once or twice at social functions* I don't recall ever having any con- ferences with him on any business. He was a name well Known to me in China because he was in Nanking but never when I was sta- tioned there. He came out with the League of Nations in the first- instance, or maybe not.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know or have any reason to believe that he was ever connected in any way with the Communist movement!
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Vladimir Rogoff?
Mr. Vincent. I recall having a luncheon at the Cosmos Club in January 1944 with Rogoff and some other people. At the present time my recollection is that Bill Johnstone, of George Washington University, was there. Rogoff had some connection with Tass Newa Agency, I believe, and had been recently in China. I don't recall who arranged the luncheon. I did not. It could not have been Rogoff, because it was at the Cosmos Club. It was probably John- stone. I never met him before or since.
Senator Ferguson. Are you a member of the Cosmos Club ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
The conversation was of a general character, and it did not make such impression on me as to recall now what it was about.
Mr. Sourwine. Was that a long luncheon?
Mr. Vincent. It lasted longer than a luncheon would normally last. We had that little room, I think, in the Cosmos Club where you don't sit completely apart but have a little room there, and we probably stayed on, instead of 1 hour, 2 hours.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you recall who else was there ?
Mr. Vincent. I don't recall other than Bill Johnstone was there. I remember talking with him.
Mr. Sourwine. Was Mr. Lattimore there?
1748 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Vincent. If he was, I don't recall it. Maybe the testimony of these hearings has indicated who it was, but I don't recall who else was there.
Mr. Sourwtne. I thought perhaps from your consultation of your notes, which you told us were prepared by people who had access to the hearings, that the notes covered what had been said in the hear- ings about that particular conference.
Mr. Vincent. I have made no record here of who else was there. I remember Johnstone. I do recall other people were there, but I don't recall the names.
Mr. Sourwine. These notes are intended to cover instances which have been made mention of in our hearings? That is, concerning you?
Mr. Vincent. That is right. That is the reason some of them I have and some I have not.
Mr. Sourwine. We will come back to that last conference later, Mr. Chairman.
Vladimir Romm?
Mr. Vincent. No ; I don't recall. Could I ask my other question as to how I may have met him? I just don't recall him.
Mr. Sourwine. Let me go back to Rogoff. Did you know or have reason to believe that he was connected in any way with the Com- munist Party?
Mr. Vincent. I would certainly have thought he was connected with the Communist Party, since he was a Tass correspondent.
Mr. Sourwine. You mean a Tass correspondent has to be a Com- munist ?
Mr. Vincent. I don't say he has to, but I would say I assume he was.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know whether he has to be ?
Mr. Vincent. No ; I don't.
Mr. Sourwine. Andrew Roth?
Mr. Mandel. You skipped Romm.
Mr. Vincent. I said I didn't know him. Mr. Mandel had some- thing to offer there ?
Mr. Mandel. He was the Tass correspondent sometime prior to Rogoff and was purged subsequently in Russia. He was Tass cor- respondent in Washington for a number of years.
Mr. Vincent. I don't recall ever meeting him.
Mr. Sourwine. Andrew Roth?
Mr. Vincent (reading) : Andrew Roth was a young man who was in the Navy who first came to my attention when the Amerasia case broke. I don't think I knew of him before that time. I don't think I ever met Roth more than two or three times in my life, never had any business dealings with him, but know the name, and met him.
Mr. Sourwine. Had you met him before the Amerasia case broke?
Mr. Vincent. I don't recall meeting him before that. He may have come into the office on one thing or another. He was particularly interested in Japan. He may have been in, but it made no impression on me. He was a man who would go around. I never had any what you would say business dealings with him that I recall.
Mr. Sourwine. Do you know or have any reason to believe Mr. Roth was connected in any way with the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Mandel. Have you read his book; Dilemma in Japan ?
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1749
Mr. Vincent. No; I have not. His very recent book?
Mr. Mandel. No.
Mr. Sodkwine. Laurence Salisbury?
Mr. Vincent. Yes [reading] : Laurence Salisbury is or was a For- eign Service officer whom I met from time to time as our paths crossed as Foreign Service officers. The first time I recall serving with Salis- bury was in Nanking, China. No; he was not there. He was in Peking but came to Nanking frequently. We had a double Embassy office there. He was in Peking, and I was in Nanking. He would come down to Nanking.
I had met him before, but that was casually. When I came back to the Department in 1943, Salisbury was in the Far Eastern Office. 1 suppose he was handling Japanese affairs because that was his specialty. He had studied Japanese.
I will go back and say he was with the Lytton Commission that came to Manchuria in 1936. I met him there. I never saw the Lytton Commission, but I saw him. I think that would be the first time I met him.
In 1944 Salisbury became, in the reorganization, Chief of the South- east Asian Office of the State Department. He resigned some months after that. My recollection would be either in the summer or autumn of 1944 Salisbury retired ; and now he is living, so far as I know, in retirement in Connecticut. I have not seen him for many years. I have not seen him since I went to Switzerland, and I don't recall seeing him since he retired.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever correspond with him?
Mr. Vincent. Not that I recall. There might have been corre- spondence.
Mr. Sour wine. Did you ever know or have reason to believe he was in any way connected with the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. John Stewart Service?
Mr. Vincent. Yes. I have something on him [reading] : Service was a junior secretary. I was going to precede it with the fact that, Service being in the Foreign Service, I no doubt run across him in the State Department, but I am limiting myself to periods when we served together. He may have been in Shanghai for that brief 2 months T spent there, but I don't recall. I do know he came to Chungking and worked when I was there as consul under Mr. Gauss. He was •one of the secretaries, the second or third.
For a while during this period he lived with Mr. Gauss and me for a short time. He was an active and intelligent young officer. I do not recall the exact date of his assignment. In 1943 Service went to General Stilwell's headquarters on loan as a sort of political adviser in the same way that Davies was lent. I don't know whether you are familiar with that arrangement, but there were about five •or six of these young officers who were attached to Stilwell's head- quarters to assist him in any way they could. I probably should not emphasize the word "political," although that was what they were called.
My next contact with him was in 1944 when he came home on a short vacation, and that was purely seeing him in the Department. In 1945 he was in Washington again. He was assigned at that time to the Office of the Director General of the Foreign Service doing
1750 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
some kind of administrative work. It was this time that the Amer- asia case broke. I never discussed the case with Service, nor did I have anything to do with the Amerasia case. I did, along with some other friends, make a small contribution to assist him in the business of obtaining legal counsel at that time. I believe he repaid me.
Senator Ferguson. Tell us how that was brought about. Did he solicit you ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir. I have forgotten who did.
Senator Ferguson. Did somebody ?
Mr. Vincent. Somebody must have started the idea of trying to get him some money. I remember Mr. Gauss was one of them that contributed. I was one, and I wouldn't know who else.
Senator Ferguson. How much did you contribute ?
Mr. Vincent. I have forgotten, but it was not more than $50, and it may have been $40 or something like that. I think Service repaid it.
Mr. Mandel. Was it an interdepartment project, or did Mortimer Graves
Mr. Vincent. He was another contributor.
Senator Ferguson. Did he solicit you ?
Mr. Vincent. He may have. He may have been the person who conceived the idea of getting money for Service, although I wasn't one who would have to be prodded or solicited on the thing if I thought he needed any money.
Senator Ferguson. What was he being accused of?
Mr. Vincent. At that time I think the accusation was espionage- Senator Ferguson. You mean as a Foreign Service officer you would not need to know any of the facts but that a fellow employee in the Department was accused of espionage and that you would contribute to his defense ?
Mr. Vincent. I contributed toward helping him get a lawyer for his defense. That is exactly the case. He was not guilty.
Senator Ferguson. Wait a minute. Did you know anything about the facts ?
Mr. Vincent. Only what I read in the papers. I had no consul- tation with him.
Senator Ferguson. Why would you in your position contribute to a man when you didn't know whether he was guilty or not ?
Mr. Vincent. Because of a matter of friendship.
Senator Ferguson. Would you contribute to a man who was guilty if the facts showed he was guilty ?
Mr. Vincent. I would not.
Senator Ferguson. Did you contribute any to the Hiss defense ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Were you asked to ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. To any other defense?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. You said you made a contribution of $50, I think.
Mr. Vincent. Yes ; I said $40 or $50.
Senator Ferguson. Was it paid back?
Mr. Vincent. I could not recall, but I think Service paid it back.
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1751
Senator Ferguson. What was the occasion for Service paying it back?
Mr. Vincent. He did not have any money at the time. He later got money to pay it back. I am testifying that I think he paid it back.
Senator Ferguson. This is the only time in your life, is it, that you ever contributed to a fund for a man's defense ?
Mr. Vincent. So far as I know.
Senator Ferguson. You don't know any more about it than you are telling us now?
Mr. Vincent. Any more about what ?
Senator Ferguson. The contribution.
Mr. Vincent. All I know is what I am telling you.
Senator Ferguson. You certainly are not clear on what you did, when you got it back, what the facts are. You do not know who solicited you ? You mean to tell us this is the only occasion and your memory is no better on this than you are giving us ?
Mr. Vincent. My memory is no better than I am giving you here.
Senator Ferguson. Think a minute about this fund. "Who solicited you?
Mr. Vincent. Mr. Mandel-
Senator Ferguson. He is not trying to-
Mr. Vincent. I know he is not. I don't recall who solicited me. If he said Mortimer Graves solicited me, he may have.
Senator Ferguson. Did you ever talk to Graves about it ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Senator Ferguson. What did Graves say about it?
Mr. Vincent. Graves had been in touch with Service and said he needed money.
Senator Ferguson. Did he ask you for a certain amount?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. Did you ask him what the facts were?
Mr. Vincent. Of the case?
Senator Ferguson. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. You did not care whether he was guilty or not? You were going to contribute?
Mr. Vincent. I was going to contribute to a man who was in trouble who had been a friend of mine, who lived with me in Chung- king just as the Ambassador did the same thing. If he had been proved guilty, but he had no money to even hire counsel.
Senator Ferguson. It is not a question of that. I wanted to know whether or not you asked anything about the facts before you con- tributed. You were a United States official, were you not?
Mr. Vincent. That is right.
Senator Ferguson. He was then being accused of betraying the very Government that was hiring you ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Senator Ferguson. And you made no inquiry as to his guilt or innocence ?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. Before you contributed?
Mr. Vincent. Before I contributed to his defense, to hiring a lawyer for his defense.
1752 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Senator Ferguson. You knew who the lawyer was?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. What was the occasion for you being repaid?
Mr. Vincent. I have said I don't recall whether I was.
Senator Ferguson. Why?
Mr. Vincent. If I was, I don't recall whether he did or not. I think he did. Probably he simply repaid the money when he was able. He was home on leave and had no money.
Senator Ferguson. You don't even recall whether you were repaid this money, you say?
Mr. Vincent. I don't recall whether I was paid it. My impression was he did repay it.
Senator Ferguson. You don't recall the facts of the repayment?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Do you really think that is possible, that a man who once in his life makes a contribution cannot recall whether or not it was repaid to him?
Mr. Vincent. That is my testimony, sir, that I do not recall whether Service repaid it. My impression is he did.
Senator Ferguson. He did.
Mr. Vincent. He did.
Senator Ferguson. Where, here?
Mr. Vincent. I don't know.
Senator Ferguson. Your memory is blotted out as to where he may have repaid it?
Mr. Vincent. Yes ; if he repaid it. I never asked him to repay it.
Senator Ferguson. When you made the donation or gave the money, was it understood it would be repaid ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. You cannot give us any more light?
Mr. Vincent. It was not contributed with the idea it woulcj be repaid.
Senator Ferguson. That is all you know about it ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sourwine. Did you know or have any reason to believe that Mr. Service was connected in any way with the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. Just a minute. If he took papers and gave them to the Communist movement, and that is what you were paying the money for, to get him a lawyer, to defend him on that, do you want your answer to stand to that last question ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes, sir.
Senator Ferguson. As to whether or not you knew or had any knowledge ?
Mr. Vincent. Would you read the question again, please ? (The question was read by the reporter.)
Senator Ferguson. The fact that the United States Government was accusing him, did that not raise any suspicion in your mind at all I It is your Government and mine.
Mr. Vincent. Just a minute. At that time it was not even estab- lished, as I recall, that Amerasia itself was connected with the Com- munist movement.
Senator Ferguson. No, but the fact that he was being accused of espionage, it had to be connected with some other government. You
INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS 1753
are a Foreign Service officer, an employee of the United States. Here was the United States Government accusing a newspaper or a maga- zine of espionage, and Mr. Service, another Foreign Service officer, was accused in the same conspiracy. You knew that the espionage was with Russia did you not ?
Mr. Vincent. I knew there could be espionage. I knew of none.
Senator Ferguson. But if it was true it would be with Russia ? That was the claim?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Senator Ferguson. Did you not make any inquiry about what Service was charged with?
Mr. Vincent. Except I saw it in the newspapers.
Senator Ferguson. Did it not tell you?
Mr. Vincent. It told the case.
Senator Ferguson. Did that bring anything to your mind at all that Service may have had some connection with the Soviet?
Mr. Vincent. No.
Senator Ferguson. Did you know Service in China ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes. I have just testified to that.
Senator Ferguson. You knew him well ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
(Off the record discussion followed.)
Mr. Mandel. Did you know he lived with Solomon Adler?
Mr. Vincent. In China?
Mr. Mandel. Yes.
Mr. Vincent. If he lived with him, it was after I left Chungking. I think he was living with Mr. Gauss and myself up to the time we
left.
Senator Ferguson. Mr. Vincent, as a Government employee, if a man did get papers from the State Department that would get into the hands, or that he knew might get into the hands, of the Soviet Government, you would then say that if you had that knowledge that he was in some way connected with the Communists, but in this case you made no inquiry from the State Department itself whether or not Mr. Service could have taken those papers out ?
Mr. Vincent. No, sir.
Senator Ferguson. You now know that the Loyalty Board has found that he did take the papers?
Mr. Vincent. I do.
Senator Ferguson. And he did give them to Amerasia?
Mr. Vincent. I do.
Senator Ferguson. Does that lead you to believe on this question that he had any connection with the Communists?
Mr. Vincent. This recent thing?
Senator Ferguson. This question is not only past, it is present.
Mr. Vincent. If it is present, then certainly this last finding of the committee would indicate that he had this connection.
Mr. Sourwine. With the Communist movement?
Mr. Vincent. Not with the Communist movement. I still do not think he thought he was having a connection with the Communist movement.
Senator Ferguson. Why do you say that when the facts are that he gave it, the information, to aid the Communists?
1754 INSTITUTE OF PACIFIC RELATIONS
Mr. Vincent. I don't believe, sir, that Service knew when he gave those papers he was giving them aid, but I have not read his testimony.
Senator Ferguson. Have you made inquiry ?
Mr. Vincent. I have not read the hearings of the Review Board that came out. I am here simply stating that I do not believe that Service at the time he did that felt that he was aiding the Communist Party,
Senator Ferguson. The way you have acted in this case, with your donation and everything, you would say that it would be very difficult for the State Department itself to get the facts so that it would ever be convincing that a man had any connection with the Communist Party ; is that right ?
Mr. Vincent. You would have to restate that.
Senator Ferguson. I will strike that out.
You won't now believe and you have not gone into the facts to as- certain whether or not a fellow officer had any connection with the Communist Party; is that right?
Mr. Vincent. That is right. You are speaking of Service?
Senator Ferguson. Yes. You cannot believe that Service
Mr. Vincent. I find it extremely difficult to believe that Service purposely did this in order to aid the Communist Party.
Senator Ferguson. I am going to ask this question : You would be one of the people that the Government might want to get evidence from as to whether or not Service was connected with the Commu- nists and took these papers out and gave them to Jaffe or Amerasia ; is that not true ?
Mr. Vincent. Yes.
Senator Ferguson. Before you learned anything about the facts or were consulted, you