EFFORTS TO PROVE THAT U.S.A. POLICY-MAKER IS COMMUNIST

Wanganui Chronicle, 22 April 1950, Page 5

EFFORTS TO PROVE THAT U.S.A. POLICY-MAKER IS COMMUNIST

Evidence For And Against Professor Lattimore In Senate Inquiry

WASHINGTON, April 21 (Rec. 8 pm).—Communist Mr. Louis Budenz, aged 58, professor of economies at Fordham University, today swore that Professor Owen Lattimore, of the Johns Hopkins University, had been a member of the Communist “cell.”

Professor Budenz, who “renounced” Communism in 1945, was testifying before the Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Commit-tee investigating charges by Senator Joseph McCarthy, Republican, of Communist penetration of the State Department.

Professor Budenz said his information about Professor Lattimore had been given him officially in connection with his Communist Party duties as man-aging-editor of the Communist “Daily Worker,” and with the party’s Politburo.

Senator McCarthy has accused Professor Lattimore of being “top Soviet agent” in the United States and “chief architect” of the United States policy in China.

Professor Lattimore, who is recognised as a Far Eastern authority, categorically denied Senator McCarthy’s charges. When he appeared before the sub-committee recently Professor Lattimore said he was not, and never had been, a Communist or Communist sympathiser. Professor Budenz said today that the “cell” was centred around the Institute of Pacific Relations. The Institute was not a Communist organisation, but It contained a Communist “cell” which had been able at one time to gain control of the organisation. The “cell’’ was dedicated to espionage in the United States. It included Mr. Frederick Vanderbilt Field and Mr. Philip Jaffe.

“In that “cell” was Owen Lattimore,” said Professor Budenz. He added that he attended a meeting of Communist Party leaders in 1937 called by Mr. Earl Browder, then the Communist Party head, at which Professor Lattimore was “commended” by Messrs. Broder and Field for “placing Communist writers.” It was agreed at the meeting that Professor Lattimore should be given an assignment of representing Chinese Communists as “agarian reformers,” or “North Dakota Non-partisans Leaguers.”

Senator Millard Tydings asked if Professor Lattimore attended the meeting.

Professor Budenz replied: Oh no; he was not present! ; He added that he never had seen Professor Lattimore.

Professor Budenz said that at the 1943 meeting of the Politburo instructions were drafted notifying Professor Lattimore of a chance in the party line. The new line was 1o attack Generalissimo Chiag Kai-shek. Professor Budenz added that in 1944, at I he time Professor Lattimore went to China with a former vice-president of the United States, Mr. Henry Wallace, he (Professor Budenz) was advised by Mr. Jack Strachel (one of the 11 Communist leaders recently convicted of conspiring to overthrow the Government by force), “consider Owen Lattimore as a Communist.” Strachel also told him that Professor Lattimore was referred to as “L,” or “XL” in Polit-

buro reports to members. Professor Budenz said he could produce documentary evidence that Stalin had “an iron determination to conquer the United States.” Answering questions by Mr. Edward Morgan, counsel for the sub-commit-tee, Professor Budenz said that to his knowledge the statement that Professor Lattimore was “top Soviet agent” was not “technically correct.” Asked for a direct answer whether he had personal knowledge of Professor Lattimore’s alleged Communist affiliations, Professor Budenz said: “Outside of what I was officially told by Communist leaders I do not know of Professor Lattimore as a Communist.” Professor Budenz announced that he was compiling a list of about 400 Communists as “my last, will and testament to the United States.” He said he already had given 200 names to the F. 8.1. and would complete the list within a fortnight. The list included a substantial number of names of persons in Hollywood and radio and other organs of public opinion.

Professor Budenz said he had attended Communist meetings at which “discipline was exercised over Professor Lattimore.” He explained that by discipline he meant that steps were taken to make sure that Professor Lattimore carried out the party line. He added: “Being under discipline is the same as being a member of the party.” Professor Budenz said that in recent years Communists who were under actual discipline of the party had been instructed “not to have any vestige of membership in the party.”

He said that from time to time Professor Lattimore and Mr. Field

“apparently did not see eye to eye and discipline was sometimes necessary.” Brigadier-,General Elliot Thorpe, former chief of counter-intelligence for General MacArthur, told the committee that he had personally investigated Professor Lattimore on three separate occasions and was convinced he was a loyal American citizen, in no way an agent of the Communist Party. Brigadier Thorpe said Professor Lattimore rendered assistance of material value to the United States counter-intelligence forces in the Far East after the war on “matters pertaining to Russia of a confidential nature.”

Brigadier Thorpe said: “Never in my experience as an intelligence officer have I heard a man so frequently referred to as a Communist with so little basis in fact. It is my belief on a careful examination, that through the past 10 years Professor Lattimore’s opinions on China have been the primary basis for accusations of disloyalty.” The committee announced that it would give Professor Lattimore an opportunity to reply under oath to Professor Budenz’s allegations. The committee asked Budenz to complete his testimony when it resumed in closed session on Tuesday.

In Npw York today, Mr. Frederick Vanderbilt Field said that Professor Budenz’s allegation that he was a Soviet agent was “a slandrous lie.”