Category: Economists

 

In preparing the post for the syllabus of Tinbergen and Tsuru’s 1957 course “Socialism and Planning” at Harvard, I came across an article in the Harvard Crimson (see below) that reported a letter written by four Harvard professors (John K. Fairbank, John K. Galbraith, Seymour E. Harris, Edwin O. Reichauer. Published May 20, 1957, page 24) that protested the treatment of their guest professor from Japan as a subpoenaed witness at the hands of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee for the Administration of the Internal Security Act. The Japanese government was likewise not amused.

The exhibits submitted from Tsuru’s papers that he had left behind in Cambridge in 1942 because of his hasty departure for repatriation to Japan provide a glimpse of Communist Party agit-prop measures on university and college campuses in general and at Harvard in the 1930s in particular. A critical distinction between “Comrades” and “Friends” in one of the exhibits provided Tsuru a robust defence of his “honor”, at that time he was merely a naive fellow-traveller, a useful intellectual for helping to build educational nurseries for potential cadres of the future.

Warning: this is a long post that includes the entire Senate Subcommittee testimony given by Tsuru Shigeto that you will want to time- and coffee-budget for.

Plot spoiler: the big fish to fry was not Tsuru Shigeto or even Harvard University but was the Canadian diplomat Egerton Herbert Norman (who was to commit suicide, stepping off a nine-story building in Cairo, only a few weeks after the Senate hearings of which Tsuru’s testimony was one part). 

On Tsuru’s life and career, see: Kotaro Suzumura (2006) Shigeto Tsuru (1912 – 2006): Life, work and legacy, The European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 13:4, 613-620. 

Fun Fact:  Tsuru introduced Paul Samuelson to his future wife, Marion Crawford.

______________________________

Four Professors Hit ‘Procedure’ In Senate Investigation of Tsuru
Cite Repercussions in Japan

The Harvard Crimson, May 21, 1957.

Four College professors have attacked Congressional action in the case of Tsuru Shigeto ’35, visiting lecturer in Economics, a recent witness before the Senate Internal Subcommittee. 

In a letter to the New York Times, Edwin O. Reischauer, professor of Far Eastern Languages; J. K. Galbraith ’99, professor of Economics; John K. Fairbanks ’29, professor of History; and Seymour E. Harris ’20, professor of Economics, charged the Subcommittee with “damaging procedures” in the Tsuru case that have had “serious” repercussions in Japan. 

Tsuru, who returned to Harvard this year as a visiting lecturer, was subpoenaed before the Eastland Subcommittee and questioned for two days about his activities as a student in this country. Tsuru freely admits that he “acted, spoke, and wrote like a communist in this period” but his beliefs have changed.  

The letter points out the incident has been looked upon by the Japanese public “as an act of unimaginable rudeness to a foreign guest.” The professors go on to say that Tsuru has been criticized in the Japanese press both for having answered the subcommittees’ questions and for supposedly giving secret testimony, a charge the letter calls “groundless.” 

He also was attacked for not leaving the country as soon as he was subpoenaed, although the professors write that by staying he took “the courageous course.” 

Reischauer said last night that Tsuru “had been terribly hurt” by the experience and that “he thought that he had been embarrassing the people that had invited him to this country.” Reischauer added that this incident has given the Communists an excellent opportunity to “stir up a furor.” 

______________________________

Source:  Official transcript of Tsuru’s testimony available at hathitrust.org.

[3687]

SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES
TUESDAY, MARCH 26, 1957

UNITED STATES SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT
AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:15 a. m., in room 424, Senate Office Building, Senator Olin D. Johnston, presiding.
Present: Senators Johnston and Jenner.
Also present; Robert Morris, chief counsel; J. G. Sourwine, associate counsel; William A. Rusher, associate counsel; and Benjamin Mandel, director of research.

Senator Johnston. The committee will come to order. Attorney Morris will take charge.

Mr. Morris. I think it best that, Mr. Tsuru be sworn again.

Senator Johnston. Do you swear that the evidence you give before this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes, I do.

TESTIMONY OF SHIGETO TSURU, CAMBRIDGE, MASS., ACCOMPANIED
BY CHARLES GLOVER, HIS ATTORNEY

Mr. Morris. Mr. Tsuru, will you give your name and address to the stenotype reporter?

Mr. Tsuru. My name is Shigeto Tsuru — S-h-i-g-e-t-o T-s-u-r-u. At present my address is 18-A Forest Street, Cambridge 40, Mass.

Mr. Morris. What is your business at this time, business or profession?

Mr. Tsuru. My profession is professor of economics at Hitotsubashi University, Tokyo. I am on the permanent staff of this university. Currently I am at Harvard University as a visiting lecturer, invited by the American-Japan Intellectural [sic] Interchange Committee for the term of 1 year.

Mr. Morris. And what do you do, do you teach at Harvard?

Mr. Tsuru. Under the terms of this invitation, my main job at Harvard is research. But I assist occasionally in a number of courses, to give sort of guest lectures.

Mr. Morris. Now you also, I think, as you told me in that letter, you are also doing broadcasting on the Voice of America?

[3688]

Mr. Tsuru. I have made an appointment with Voice of America to broadcast on April 18 on my impressions of the United States after visiting this country after 15 years.

Mr. Morris. Now what other cultural exchange are you engaged in at this time?

Mr. Tsuru. Aside from doing research at Harvard University and giving lectures there, I participate occasionally in academic conferences, such as the forthcoming conference of Asian studies to be held in Boston in the first week of April, where I shall present a paper on the problem of employment in Japan.
I have also agreed to participate in the student conference of Columbia University student council, also in the first week of April. When I am invited by university communities to give lectures on my own special subject, so far as my time permits, I accept invitations and give such lectures.

Mr. Morris. Now is there anything else, Senators, about the present activities that you would like to know?

Senator Johnston. Any questions?

Senator Jenner. No questions.

Mr. Morris. Where were you born, Mr. Tsuru?

Mr. Tsuru. I was actually born in Tokyo, Japan. However, technically, I was born in USA — that happens to be the same as USA Oita prefecture in Japan.
If you would like me to, I shall explain the difference between actual and technical?

Mr. Morris. I do not think it is necessary in this case. Will you tell us briefly what your education was in Japan?

Mr. Tsuru. I had the normal experience as a Japanese student, to go through grade school, what we used to call middle school, and higher school. Middle school usually takes 5 years, but I finished it in 4 years, and entered the Eighth Higher School of Nagoya, in 1929. However, I did not finish the Eighth Higher School. I left Japan in 1931 and came to this country for study.

Mr. Morris. I see. What year were you born, Mr. Tsuru?

Mr. Tsuru. I am sorry, 1912.

Mr. Morris. And you came to the United States for the first time when?

Mr. Tsuru. September 1931.

Mr. Morris. And how long did you stay at that particular time?

Mr. Tsuru. I entered Lawrence College, Appleton, Wis., as a freshman, stayed there for 2 years, and transferred myself to Harvard College in the fall of 1933 as a provisional junior and returned to Japan for a temporary stay in the summer of 1934. I came back to the United States again in September 1934. Would you like me to continue?

Mr. Morris. I think that is satisfactory at this point.
In other words, you would make intermittent trips back to Japan?

Mr. Tsuru. I did make a number of trips back to Japan, for each one of which I had a special purpose.

Mr. Morris. Now what university did you attend in the United States?

Mr. Tsuru. As I mentioned, I was at Lawrence College, Appleton, as a freshman and sophomore, and then Harvard University where I got my bachelor’s degree, master’s degree, and doctor of philosophy.

[3689]

Mr. Glover. Could he amplify an earlier answer?

Mr. Morris. Yes.

Mr. Tsuru. I mentioned about my returning to Japan intermittently, and each time I had a special purpose. I did not amplify it, but I should like to say the occasions and purposes of my return were such as my mother’s death, marriage—

Mr. Morris. Who did you marry, Mr. Tsuru?

Mr. Tsuru. Miss Masako Wada.

Mr. Morris. She is the niece, is she not, of the Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal?

Mr. Tsuru. The former Lord Keeper of the Privy Seal, Koichi, K-o-i-c-h-i, I believe — K-i-d-o.

Mr. Morris. Now when were you at Harvard University?

Mr. Tsuru. I was at Harvard University from September 1933 to June 1942.

Mr. Morris. And what did you do during that period?

Mr. Tsuru. At first I was a college student, junior and senior, and then became a graduate student in economics. I received my masters’ degree in 1936, and then I had some research assistant’s jobs, odds and ends, and in a subsequent period worked for my doctor of philosophy, which I got in 1940. However, I remained at Harvard University until June 1942.

Mr. Morris. And then in June 1942 what did you do?

Mr. Tsuru. Previously Mrs. Tsuru and I had applied for repatriation. However, we were told, I believe by the State Department, that since we were living unmolested in the United States, we shall be on the low priority list so far as repatriation is concerned. Thus we were reconciled to the idea of staying on in this country for further years, but suddenly, I believe it was June 2, if I remember correctly, we received a telegram from the State Department that we shall be repatriates by the first boat for repatriation, Gripsholm, and we were to report ourselves at Ellis Island, I believe, by June 7.
So we did so, and we were repatriated by the Gripsholm.

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Chairman and Senator Jenner, the purpose of this hearing today is to ask Mr. Tsuru to identify for the public record, which he has already done in executive session, portions of his papers and books which he left behind at the time of his repatriation in 1942, about which he has just told us. I would like to offer for the record the following documents:
A letter dated August 31, 1936, signed by Tsuru — who gave as his address: “At present: Madison but please answer care of the International House, 1414 E. 59th Street, Chicago, Illinois” with the salutation: “Dear Bill” and, in parentheses, “W. T. Parry.”

Mr. Glover. Mr. Morris, as each one of these comes up, we would like to check it over.

Mr. Morris. Maybe, while I am putting these in the public record now, we will get back to them together.

Mr. Glover. We may want to object to some of them going into the record.

Mr. Morris. You have acknowledged they are his documents.

Senator Jenner. He acknowledged they are his documents. He examined them and said he recalls them.

[3690]

Mr. Tsuru. Excuse me. I said in executive session, when this group of records was presented to me for the first time, I skimmed through very quickly, and I felt they either belonged to me, or were written by me.

Mr. Glover. But I think, now they are going into the record, that we should have a change[sic] to—

Mr. Tsuru. I should like to make certain.

Mr. Morris. Why don’t you read it aloud, this first one we are talking about, Mr. Tsuru? Will you do that for us?

Senator Johnston. Read it, then.

Mr. Morris. And then you can tell us if it is not yours.

Mr. Glover. Now, we have had a chance to look at this one.

Mr. Tsuru. The first one, I think, was written by me.

Senator Johnston. You think? You know your own handwriting, don’t you?

Mr. Morris. It is typed.
I wonder if you would read it aloud? Senator Johnston, unlike Senator Jenner, has not read this one. Would you read it aloud for us?

Mr. Tsuru. You know, I have been speaking from this morning I may get tired. If you order me to, I shall be willing to read it. But for one thing, my pronunciation may not be quite correct. Since I have already admitted it is mine, could not one of your —

Mr. Morris. Senator, in order to relieve Mr. Tsuru, maybe Mr. Mandel, our research director, could read the first letter for us.

Senator Johnston. Mr. Mandel, will you read the letter?

Mr. Mandel (reading):

At present: Madison
But please answer care of The International House, 1414 E. 59th Street, Chicago, Ill.

August 31, 1936.

Dear Bill—

Mr. Morris. You knew Mr. Parry at this time?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes; I did know Mr. Parry then.

Mr. Morris. Who was Mr. Parry at that time?

Mr. Tsuru. I believe Mr. Parry was an instructor of philosophy at Harvard University.

Mr. Morris. And you knew him at the time?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes; I did know him at the time.

Mr. Morris. And what was the nature of your association with him?

Mr. Tsuru. I cannot be exact because I do not remember exactly, but most likely from around 1934 to around 1940 or so.

Senator Johnston. That is after you finished your bachelor of arts degree?

Mr. Tsuru. I finished my bachelor of arts degree in 1935.

Mr. Morris. Did you know him well?

Mr. Tsuru. I knew him well enough to call him by the first name.

Mr. Morris. But your association was not what you would call an intimate association?

Mr. Tsuru. I would not call it a very intimate association.

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, for the record, I would like to identify Mr. Parry.
[3691]
Mr. Parry is Mr. William T. Parry, who was identified before the House Un-American Activities Committee by Richard G. Davis, a college professor who had been a Communist in the past and testified as to the makeup of certain Communist cells in the area of Boston.
One of the persons he identified as a Communist on the Harvard faculty was William T. Parry.
When Mr. Parry was called before the House Un-American Activities Committee, he refused to answer, claiming privilege under the fifth amendment, as to whether or not he had been a member of the Communist Party.
The date of that testimony, Senator, was May 19, 1953.

Senator Johnston. Proceed.

Mr. Mandel (reading):

Thus far I have not reported to you anything concerning the matter of the Association of Marxian Studies, mainly because the entire matter in this district has been only in the formative stage both with respect to its theory and practice. It still is. For a definite reason, however, I feel it necessary to report immediately the major problems which have arisen here in connection with the matter of organizing the association.
First, I shall try to formulate my understanding of the nature of the educational activities centered around the magazine. The publication of the magazine itself, without the association or study groups around it, has its educational significance.

Mr. Morris. Excuse me, Mr. Mandel. What magazine are you talking about there, Mr. Tsuru?

Mr. Tsuru. I believe science and society.

Mr. Morris. I see. What was your connection with Science and Society?

Mr. Tsuru. I think it was also around 1936, this Mr. Parry approached me, asking me if I would not cooperate in the publication of this magazine, Science and Society, since they did not have sufficiently good men in the field of economics, and I was known to him, I believe, as a student of economics who knew Karl Marx — I do not mean I knew Karl Marx myself, but Marx’s writings.
And he approached me if I would not cooperate, so I told him “I shall be willing to do so, if it is not to be as a member of the editorial board or such things, but simply to give advices on articles which appear, or the kind of things which might be proposed for publication, that is, the kind of subjects which might be dealt with in this type of magazine. ”
I agreed to do so.

Mr. Morris. Now, did you ever write for the magazine?

Mr. Tsuru. Not that I recall, but I may have written one book review.

Mr. Morris. I see. Did you use your own name or did you use an other name?

Mr. Tsuru. I used the name of Alfred Z. Lowe.

Mr. Morris. What is the meaning of Alfred Z. Lowe, what is the significance of that name?

Mr. Tsuru. Well, if you write AZL in capital letters, those of the members of the committee who know the Japanese characters would be able to tell those three letters in capital letters look very much like Japanese characters Bon, in phonetics, TO, and the Japanese character Jin.
[3692]
Bon-To-Jin used to be my pen name from my early school days.

Mr. Morris. Would you tell us what that is for the record — spell that for the record?

Mr. Tsuru. Bon-To-Jin, B-o-n—T-o—J-i-n, a pen name which I started using in my high-school days in Japan, and which I still continue to use when I write in Japan for light materials. And Bon means common or ordinary, To means urbane or urban, and Jin means man. To happens to be the first character of my name and Jin happens to be the last character of my name in Japanese.

Mr. Morris. Now Mr. Lowe was not your Communist Party alias, was it?

Mr. Tsuru. Oh, no. I am sorry, I have never been a member of the Communist Party, nor am I.

Mr. Morris. Well, Mr. Tsuru, had you not been a member of the Young Communist League in Japan prior to your coming to the United States?

Mr. Tsuru. No; I was never a member of the Young Communist League in Japan. I think Japanese authorities will verify that for me if necessary.

Mr. Morris. Well did you organize the Anti-Imperialism League?

Mr. Tsuru. I was a member of the Anti-Imperialism League when I was in—

Mr. Morris. What is the Anti-Imperialism League? That was a form of the Communist organization in Japan, was it not?

Mr. Tsuru. Well, one is free to interpret that if you like. I personally do not think so; 1929 and 1930, when I was a member of this Anti Imperialism League in Japan, was the period when Japan was about to start the invasion of Manchuria. And we younger students wanted to oppose that invasion, and we voluntarily organized what we called the Anti-Imperialism League. When I say “we”, actually I was not the first one to do so, but I came in right after it was organized in my school. The main purpose was to oppose the Government policy as regards China.

Mr. Morris. Well now, you were arrested in connection with this activity, were you not?

Mr. Tsuru. I was arrested in December 1930 in connection with this activity but released without indictment after about 2 months and a half.

Mr. Morris. Now were you also associated with the International Communist Relief Corps, which is a part of the overall MOPR — Soviet Relief Organization?

Mr. Tsuru. I do not believe I was.

Mr. Morris. Did you have any dealings with that organization at all?

Mr. Tsuru. I do not think I ever did.

Mr. Morris. How about the Senki? Senki, which translated means warfly, which is a national organization of the Japanese Communist Party. Were you ever associated with that in any way?

Mr. Tsuru. Senki?

Mr. Morris. Senki.

Mr. Tsuru. Oh, Senki. It is pronounced Senki. I was never as sociated with that magazine, although I read some numbers of that magazine.

Mr. Morris. But you did not write for it?

[3693]

Mr. Tsuru. I never wrote one, wrote any, article or review or anything for that magazine.

Mr. Morris. All right. Now in connection with your activity at Harvard, did you join the Communist Party while you were at Harvard?

Mr. Tsuru. I never joined the Communist Party anywhere in the world.

Mr. Morris. I see.
The reason I asked, Senator, if you come to know these documents, some of these papers are obviously the detailed arrangements that are being made by a group of people to further the work of the Communist Party in the United States. I think, Senator, as we go through these particular documents, that will become apparent.

Mr. Glover. Mr. Morris, I think Mr. Tsuru may want to respond to your characterization of these letters.

Mr. Morris. Even before we finish the reading?

Mr. Tsuru. You have already characterized the letter in a certain way. So since it is the letter I wrote, if I may, I should like to—

Mr. Morris. Why don’t we wait until the Senator hears it, and then you may say anything you like about it?

Senator Johnston. Proceed with the reading of the letter.

Mr. Mandel (reading):

The prospectus is sufficiently clear in this regard. It is as regards the aspect in the use of the magazine as an active propaganda weapon that I should like to develop further. We have already various forms of organization for the educational purposes, for example the Worker’s School.

Mr. Morris. Now when you say “We have already various forms of organization for the educational purposes, such as the Worker’s School,” what do you mean by “We have,” Mr. Tsuru?

Mr. Tsuru. May I amplify my answer, first, by giving the background of this letter so that I can explain what I meant by “we”?
Besides attending Lawrence College and Harvard University, I also attended, I think on three different occasions, summer sessions of the University of Wisconsin, Madison. I also attended, not regular sessions but occasional lectures, at the University of Chicago, and I came to know a number of people in Madison and Chicago around 1934 to 1937–38, I believe. And at the time, of course, Japan was preparing its China war, I was very critical of the Japanese Government policy as regards China, and I was very eager in my own personal way to bring about a situation which would stop Japan’s invasion of China.
I had no organizational relations with any political parties, or political organizations, but I came to know a large number of people who expressed the same opinion as I did as regards Japan’s policy on China. Among them I believe there were a number of Communists, although I never attempted to identify them. It was not necessary for me to do so for the intellectual purpose I had in mind.
So among the people I knew in Madison, Chicago, and Cambridge, there were a large number of people who had, let us say in general, leftist tendencies. And in association with them, and in connection with the publication of Science and Society, when I traveled, I saw them and discussed the question of the use of the magazine Science and Society.
[3694]
So in a personal, informal letter like this, I might have said “we” without in any way trying to say that “we, some organization.”

Senator Jenner. Who were some of these Communists then that you referred to as “we”? Name them.

Mr. Tsuru. Well, I want — pardon me, I was not referring to Communists when I said “we.”

Senator Jenner. Well, left wingers?

Mr. Tsuru. People whom I knew.

Senator Jenner. You called them left wingers, Communists. Who are they? Name them?

Mr. Tsuru. I was presented with this letter just this morning, and I shall try my best—

Senator Jenner. You have had the letter, you have studied the letter. Now you are making explanations about what you meant by  “we”, and we want to know who “we” is.

Mr. Tsuru. Actually, I may have written some names in one of the letters, you know—

Senator Jenner. Let’s talk about this letter, now.
You were trying to explain what the “we” meant in that letter, let’s talk about this letter.

Mr. Tsuru. Well, since you asked the names, in order to enable me to recollect best, if I can look through the letters and refresh my memory about the names, I may be able to answer this question better, I think.

Mr. Morris. You mean you cannot recall for the Senator now who the people you refer to as Communists a short time ago are?

Senator Jenner. In Wisconsin and in Chicago and at Harvard? You cannot recall a single name?

Mr. Tsuru. Pardon me. At Harvard let me start at Harvard, shall I?

Senator Jenner. Well we were out in Wisconsin and Chicago, I thought.

Mr. Tsuru. You see, my association was not very close to the people there, and the names have dropped out of my mind a long time ago. Now, if I can refresh my memory by going through all these letters, then it may come to my mind. That is why I suggested it.

Senator Jenner. You will have a chance.
Go on and read the letter.

Mr. Morris. May I ask a question?
You see, Mr. Tsuru, you said this “we” was used in a very loose sense, but I think that very sentence we are talking about here says “We have already various forms of organization with the word “organization” underlined, “for the educational purposes, such as the Workers School.”

Senator Jenner. And the Workers School is the Communist school in Boston?

Mr. Morris. And it was right in Communist Party headquarters, was it not?

Senator Jenner. Does that refresh your memory?

Mr. Morris. 1919 Washington Street, Boston.

Senator Jenner. Does that refresh your memory as to who “we” was?

[3695]

Mr. Tsuru. I was writing from Madison. I do not know what Workers School I refer to. I may have referred to the Workers School in Boston.

Senator Jenner. You did, the Workers School.

Mr. Tsuru. I may have referred to the Workers School in Chicago. I do not know whether a Workers School existed in Chicago.

Senator Jenner. It was also a Communist school in Chicago, wasn’t it?

Mr. Tsuru. Well, Senator, if I may

Senator Jenner. You are a well educated man, don’t try to banter this committee around, just tell us the truth.

Mr. Tsuru. I am not going to avoid any questions. I am trying my best to reconstruct the circumstances which made me write these letters, and trying to explain.
As I said earlier, I was opposed to the Japanese invasion of China, and probably I deliberately sought for people who were opposed to the same and also, and I had a share of youthful adventure, and I am sure I overstepped the limits of propriety in my association.
I do not deny it. However, I was confident in my own mind what I believed in, and I thought I could cope with — probably I was over confident — thought I could face anyone and resist any temptation of being led into something. So I was ready to talk with Communists, ready to talk with Fascists, ready to talk with anyone.
So, my association, you might say, was generally free, so I came in contact with these people also. But those whose friendship I cherished best, I do remember — even though a long time ago — their names and so on. A large number of people I came into contact with while I was in this country last time, and in certain moments of stresses, I may have done something which, in my own deep reflection, I should not have done. And I regret it if I find any of these mistakes.
The very fact I have left these letters back in my apartment, without even taking care of them, is, I think, an indication that my records were open for anyone to see.
I was willing to answer the questions —

Mr. Morris. Mr. Tsuru, you sent someone back to retrieve the letters, didn’t you?

Mr. Tsuru. No; I did not. Would you like me to explain the circumstances of my —

Senator Jenner. Mr. Chairman, don’t you think we ought to get this one letter in the record so we will have some idea of what we are driving at, and then we can take this up?

Senator Johnston. Yes; let’s go ahead with the letter.

Mr. Mandel (reading):

The existing forms are adapted mainly for the members of the working class and the lower middle class or for the members of the party and YCL—

that means Young Communist League—

Senator Jenner. What party were you referring to there?

Mr. Tsuru. I believe this reference is to the Communist Party.

Senator Jenner. For the party. All right, go ahead.

Mr. Mandel (continuing reading letter):

for the fairly large group of professionals and the majority of the middle class, however, we either have not developed an effective organization or have tried to develop one without success.

[3696]

Mr. Morris. There, again, you use the word “we,” do you not, Mr. Tsuru?

Mr. Tsuru. Well, you keep on pressing me on that.

Mr. Morris. Here you are talking about “we” you are using the expression “we,” Mr. Tsuru, and you are talking about “we” have need of a certain organization.

Senator Jenner. The party, the party has the need for it.

Mr. Tsuru. Mr. Chairman, may I respond to this question?

Senator Johnston. Proceed.

Mr. Tsuru. If you are trying to establish the fact that I was a member of the Communist Party or the YCL, as I am under oath, I can truthfully say I never was. But if you are trying to establish the fact that I had associations with persons who were known to me as either members of the Communist Party, or at least pretty close to the Communist Party, then I think I did associate with such people.

Senator Jenner. Name some of them.

Senator Johnston. Didn’t you go just a step further than that? You aided them and advised them how to organize and go forward. Didn’t you also do that?

Mr. Morris. I call your attention, Senator, to the fact the word ” organization ” in that 1 paragraph is underscored 3 times.

Mr. Tsuru. As I said earlier, under the circumstances of the 1930’s, I may have gone beyond the limits of what I considered to be my proper action. I was quite young, sort of adventurous, so I can well imagine myself in making such mistakes. But I was never a member of the Communist Party.
I have become increasingly critical of Marxism, let alone the Communist political policies, and such critical attitudes of mine are a matter of public records in Japan.

Mr. Morris. On that point, Mr. Tsuru, may I just mention here: You know the book the Theory of Capitalist Development by Paul M. Sweezy?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes; I do.

Mr. Morris. You wrote part of that book; did you not?

Mr. Tsuru. I did write an appendix to that book.

Mr. Morris. That has just been republished, has it not, by the Monthly Review Press here in the United States?

Mr. Tsuru. So I understand; yes.

Mr. Morris. And hasn’t Maurice Dobb, the famous economist in England, just written a very favorable review of that book?

Mr. Tsuru. I have not read any book review by Mr. Dobb recently.

Mr. Morris. I read here from this book for which you have written an appendix:

This is the first comprehensive study of Marxian political economy in English, Out of print for several years, it is reprinted because of increasing demand. It should lead to better understanding of an enormously influential current of social thought which has often suffered from ignorant and superficial treatment.

I also might point out, in the accompanying circular there is a book recommended by Solomon Adler.

Mr. Tsuru. May I comment on this point?

Mr. Morris. Yes, Mr. Tsuru.

Mr. Tsuru. The appendix I wrote for Mr. Sweezy’s book I believe is called On Reproduction Schemes. It is a comparison of
[3697]
reproduction schemes of three economists: One is Quesnay, another is Karl Marx, and another is John M. Keynes. And it is extremely, as I consider it, a technical treatment of the manner in which three economists in the past have dealt with the question of social flow of commodities in a simplified form.

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel, will you continue reading the letter, please?

Mr. Mandel (reading):

It seems to me that the main cause of this failure lies in the fact that the group in question generally abhors organization and that we did not accommodate our policy to that characteristic. Tied up with their abhorrence to organization is the fact that most of them have very specific organization is the fact that most of them have very specific interest, especially in the case of professional groups. Engineers are first of all interested in engineering. Social case workers are interested more in psychiatry than in dialectic materialism in general. Now, to meet this special circumstance, the flexible form of study groups, in my opinion, is a most appropriate answer. These study groups shall originate, needless to say through our initiative, along the most natural and easy tie of association. For instance, the Korb’s group in Cambridge arose among those who were dissatisfied in the Marx seminale [sic]. Lunning’s group arose among the members of the law school. A group may originate through the fact of professional homogeneity, like in the case of social caseworkers. A group may originate through the preexisting social ties. A study group on Plato may turn into a study group on Marx, as has been done this summer in Madison. In short, study groups will avoid the formal aspect of organization as much as possible and make use of the special interests which professional groups possess. The Association of Marxian Studies can come only after this. It will turn out to be harmful or ineffective if we organize the association too prematurely in any particular locality. In either case, the magazine serves as a weapon for promoting, as well as in conducting and developing, such study groups.
No less important than the foregoing point, however, is the necessity of leading ordinary members of these study groups into a more mature form of organization or of activities. To be a member of a study group may be a step toward enrolling the worker’s school; it may be a step toward joining the American League Against War and Fascism; it may be a step toward becoming a member of YCL or of the party. It is absolutely necessary to keep a study group from becoming a self-perpetuating, stagnant cloister for the few.
As to the relation between the educational activities centered around the magazine and those of the worker’s schools, I do not think there is any conflict or duplication. The former apply to those groups which usually cannot be reached by the worker’s school on account of their abhorrence to organization or of their too specific an interest.
Now, as to what has been done in Madison and Chicago. In Madison, the practical step has been already taken, although the major portion of it will not be effected until the university opens in September. At present, there are three study groups going. Two among members of the Farm Labor Progressive Federation, one using Corey’s The Decline of American Capitalism, and the other Engels’ Anti-Dühring. The first group consists mainly of clerical workers. The third group is among students of the university; it has been carried on during the summer session in the form similar to that of the group on dialectic materialism in Cambridge. The teacher’s unit appointed a special committee headed by the agent for the magazine to outline concrete avenues of approach in the educational activities centered around the magazine. The report has been submitted and the discussion on it is going on. In Chicago the practical step has not yet been taken. There the question of cooperation with the worker’s school has to be settled. In fact, a member of its staff, I am informed, has expressed in his casual talk a sense of alarm at the possibility of duplication. I think that such an alarm is largely based upon the misunderstanding of the nature of study groups which the association is to organize. Miss Constance Kyle, who probably will act as the main agent for the magazine in the Chicago district, tells me that there are many possibilities of study groups among those people whom the school will not be able to reach effectively. The association will not go beyond filling such a gap. On this matter, I shall try to discuss with the staff of the
[3698]
school when I go to Chicago in a few days, and shall report to you on the result. But meanwhile, I think it will help a great deal toward clarifying the matter here if you let me know as soon as possible your reaction to my report above. In the matter of the association, as well as in that of the magazine, I have constantly asked for suggestions of K. H. Niebyl.

In order to facilitate—

Senator Johnston. Wait a minute. Who was Niebyl?

Mr. Tsuru. Mr. Niebyl was an economist whom I met for the first time, I think, in the summer of 1933 in Madison, Wis. He was studying economics at the University of Wisconsin at the time.

Mr. Morris. Did you know him to be a Communist?

Mr. Tsuru. I had suspicion that he was pretty close to — I knew he had come from Germany after Hitler’s coming into power, so anyone who has been sort of ousted, or came out of Germany under Hitler, I interpreted it to be sort of leftish. And from conversations, I gathered that he was pretty close to the Communist activities.

Mr. Morris. To answer your question, Senator Johnston, Karl H. Niebyl is a director of economics section and publication sections of the Editor Review and Forecast; has a Doctor of Philosophy degree from the University of Wisconsin; Master of Arts degree from the University of Frankfurt; was a fellow in economics, University of Wisconsin; has also done graduate studies at the University of London, London School of Economics, and the University of Paris, University of Frankfurt, and University of Berlin. He became assistant professor of economics in Carleton College, and later on he became the economic adviser on monetary and fiscal policies for the Advisory Commission to the Council on National Defense. He is an associate professor of economics and chairman of the graduate department of economics at Tulane University, where we presume he now is, Senator. I do not know exactly. And his name appears in the Abraham Lincoln School catalog in the fall of 1943, whence this information I have just read is taken.

Senator Johnston. Fine. Proceed.

Mr. Mandel (reading further):

In order to facilitate the task of the agent in Chicago in coordinating the campaign in the adjoining districts, I should like you to send us immediately the list of names and addresses of those persons in the Middle West district whom you have already contacted. Especially persons connected with the universities.
All the subscribers around here are eagerly looking forward to the appearance of the magazine. I hope that the first issue will be published in October as has been promised, and not in November or December!
Signed “Sincerely, Tsuru.”

Mr. Morris. Now, Senator, I think the answer from Mr. Parry to Mr. Tsuru to that letter is important, particularly because of this paragraph. I would like this to be offered with that first letter, Senator, because the two are together.
If I may read this one paragraph?

Senator Johnston. Proceed.

Mr. Morris (reading):

On the matter of the study groups discussed in your last letter especially* * *—

Mr. Glover. Mr. Morris, could you tell us which one —

Mr. Morris. This is the answer of September 6. This is the letter that is probably appended to the first one. [Reading:]
[3699]

On the matter of the study groups discussed in your last letter especially: I do not see how there can be any doubt that such study groups are a very desirable thing. Unquestionably they can bring in many people who would not go to the workers school. They do not conflict with the workers school. It is the duty of the more advanced members of the groups to draw the others closer to the revolutionary movement by involving them in activities, as you suggest. If anyone raises any objection to these study groups—

Senator Johnston. Wait a minute. What do you mean by “revolutionary movement”?

Mr. Tsuru. This is not my writing.

Senator Jenner. This is in reply.

Senator Johnston. It is an answer to you, though. He is talking to you about the matter, and he expects you to understand what it means.

Mr. Tsuru. I do not think I mentioned about revolution in my letter.

Senator Johnston. I know you did not, but he is writing back to you.

Mr. Morris. And attributing it to you.

Mr. Tsuru. Well, if it is in answer to my letter, you see, he is attributing something which I did not mention.

Senator Johnston. I know, but how do you answer that?

Mr. Tsuru. He is attributing more than—

Senator Johnston. That shows what he is thinking about the letter which you wrote to him.

Mr. Tsuru. I cannot conjecture about his own mind.

Senator Johnston. What is that?

Mr. Tsuru. I cannot conjecture as to Mr. Parry’s—

Senator Johnston. I do not think there is much conjecture in there. I think he realizes what he is talking to you about, and I think you realize what he is talking about, too.

Mr. Tsuru. I think my intention at the time, if you would like me to answer as fully as I can, was to make Science and Society a success as a magazine. And once I set my mind to doing so, I did it as—

Senator Johnston. Success for whom?

Mr. Tsuru. Success — well, from my own point of view, I think I have already said it before, but, I was very much interested in upsetting the Japanese program of invasion in China, and I was quite adventurous in that respect.
If you ask me about the positions I did take in those days, or earlier, some of these letters which I just left back, it is very difficult for me to justify now because I entirely take a different position at present. And at present, you see, my views on these matters are so different that it is really painful for me. I know it is a duty for me to answer your questions but it is painful for me to try to develop all the ramifications of those excesses which I committed.
If you ask my present views, then it is much easier for me. And especially, Mr. Parry says, “revolutionary movement”; I did not say it. What I was trying to do, I think, in this exchange of letters with Mr. Parry was to make Science and Society a success. That was I think that must have been, my intention in writing such letters.

Mr. Morris. When you refer in your article, of January 1954, as to the “stealthy footsteps of America,” what do you mean by that? You took a position, Mr. Tsuru, did you not, opposing the position
[3700]
of the United States in implementing the United Nations Resolution on Genocide and criticizing the Anglo-Americans for deliberately distorting the not unreasonable reply of November 1954 of the Soviet Union.
Do you remember that article?

Mr. Glover. Do you have a copy of it, Mr. Morris?

Mr. Morris. Not with me. I will have it for you tomorrow.

Mr. Tsuru. I think I do remember it.
May I answer that question?

Senator Johnston. Surely.

Mr. Tsuru. I think Mr. Morris has referred to two aspects of the article. One was the question of genocide; the other was a question of the failure of the United States and United Kingdom Government to reply to the Soviet note of November 1954—failed to reply promptly. Now, as to the question of genocide, we are very much concerned about that question in Japan. The Japanese Army itself has been suspected of trying to develop the genocide weapon during the Second World War, and I have no authentic proof, but I have a suspicion that at least they tried to do so.
So, when various indications arose as to the use of genocide weapons — I am sorry, the genocide weapon is the weapon which kills a large number of people—

Mr. Morris. The genocide resolution is, of course, the resolution to the eliminating of a whole nation.

Mr. Tsuru. May I retract what I said? I was under a misunderstanding.

Mr. Morris. Perhaps you would like to let your answer go until you see the article fully, Mr. Tsuru.¹

¹ Following the hearing Mr. Tsuru furnished the subcommittee with a copy of the article which was placed in the files.

Mr. Tsuru. I think I can recall, however, because I think I can guess what you are trying to make me answer.
I have been known as an anti-American in Japan in the postwar. Because I think I have expressed my views publicly as regards a number of problems to which America has been closely connected.
One is the question of experimental explosion of nuclear weapons; the other the question of the political restrictions on Japan’s trade with mainland China. Another is the question of the United States foreign policy as a whole.

Mr. Morris. Mainland China being what we know as Red China?

Mr. Tsuru. I use the words “mainland China” because the United Nations use that expression in referring to the Continent of China.
And another one is with respect to the question of so-called strings attached to the American aid.
On these number of questions I have expressed my views in public, and the passage which Mr. Morris read refers to, I believe—

Senator Johnston. When you say “strings attached to foreign aid” what do you mean there?

Mr. Tsuru. You would like—

Senator Johnston. I would like to know just what you mean.

Mr. Tsuru. I criticized that aspect especially in connection with what we call mutual security agreement between Japan and the
[3701]
United States. We received aid of wheat in the first instance from the United States under the mutual security agreement. Subsequently, such aid of wheat shipment was formalized in the form of surplus agricultural disposal, and which I think the Japanese Government negotiated already about three times.
The mechanism of the aid is to ship, let us say, American wheat or cotton to Japan, sell these products to the Japanese against Japanese local currency, and this local currency is accumulated as a counterpart fund, and this counterpart fund is used to fill various purposes for the development of Japan.
Now the part I objected to most was the degree of control which America seems to have insisted on the disposal of the counterpart funds. I felt, if it was to be an aid from the United States, and it was called an aid, I felt it would be best for the mutual relations between the United States and Japan if the disposal of the counterpart fund was entirely left in the hands of the Japanese Government, whereas, the use of the counterpart fund, to a greater degree, was controlled by the United States, especially in the direction at first of expanding Japanese armaments.
I hold the view, even now, that Japan should not arm too fast, and I had various indications that the United States Government was pressing the Japanese Government to arm beyond what I would consider the proper limit at the present time, especially in view of the fact we have the article IX in our Constitution which clearly states that we renounce war and have no armaments, either of land, sea, or air, in the future.
So I called such a degree of controls over surplus disposal counterpart funds as “strings attached.”

Senator Jenner. Counterpart fund, though, is a fund owned by the United States Government, isn’t it? They belong to us, why should you have the say about spending our money?

Mr. Tsuru. Excuse me, Senator. According to the agricultural surplus disposal negotiations, I believe the counterpart fund is regarded as a loan by the United States Government to the Japanese Government. It is a loan, a loan repayable either in yen or dollars. If it is to be repaid in dollars, then the rate of interest is lower than if we repaid in yen. But it is a loan.

Senator Jenner. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask this witness a question. He says he is going to be on the Voice of America program right away.
Have you prepared your manuscript yet for the Voice of America?

Mr. Tsuru. I have not — the suggestion came to me, I believe, before I received a subpoena from your committee. I agreed to do so, and the date was set for April 18. So I thought it was a very good opportunity for me to express my—

Senator Jenner. Anti-American views?

Mr. Tsuru. No, sir.

Senator Jenner. Well you said you were known as an anti-American.

Mr. Tsuru. I said I was known, but I was trying to explain what my position was, and I was sort of interrupted.

Senator Jenner. I do not quite understand some of your explanations. Are you here on a United States Government grant?

Mr. Tsuru. No, sir.

[3702]

Senator Jenner. How are you here at Harvard University now?

Mr. Tsuru. Well I think I explained it at first. I am on the American-Japan intellectual interchange program.

Senator Jenner. Would you tell us a little more about that?

Mr. Tsuru. I personally do not know the details of this program.

Senator Jenner. Who furnishes the money?

Mr. Tsuru. It is operated by Columbia University.

Senator Jenner. Columbia?

Mr. Tsuru. And I think it is — well, since I do not know the details probably I should not say so. That is the extent I needed to know. And under this program, I was to be a visiting lecturer at Harvard University.
But, Mr. Chairman, I was trying to explain earlier my position and I was interrupted. I would like to finish it if I may?

Senator Jenner. Your position on what?

Senator Johnston. On what?

Mr. Tsuru. On what I was called or regarded as an anti-American in Japan, and also the question—

Senator Jenner. But you are not anti-American?

Mr. Tsuru. Not anti-American. You see, I have been criticized as being anti-American.

Senator Johnston. Who criticized you as being anti-American

Mr. Tsuru. Well I have indications — I do not recall any definite printed version of this, but I have indications that I have been regarded as an anti-American. But I just wanted to finish it very briefly, what I was trying to say—

Senator Johnston. So much so as to have invited you into the Communist Party, isn’t that right?

Mr. Tsuru. The Communist Party?

Senator Johnston. They never did invite you to join the Communist Party?

Mr. Tsuru. Never.

Senator Johnston. No one? No one ever discussed anything about that?

Mr. Tsuru. No one did.

Mr. Morris. Senator, may I just finish that last sentence that I was reading here? [Reading:]

It is the duty of the more advanced members of the groups to draw the others closer to the revoutionary movement by involving them in activities, as you suggest. If anyone raises any objection to these study groups, see to it that his position is corrected, if necessary appealing to the district leadership.

Now isn’t that advice to you to take the problem up with the district leadership of the Communist Party if you have any dissention whatever in following out your plan?

Mr. Tsuru. Well here again, the only way I can answer, I think, is I committed excesses, and I had committed mistakes in widening too much my association with various people, and probably I was too eager to make Science and Society a success at the time. But truthfully, I never was a member of the Communist Party; I never identified anyone as a member.

Senator Jenner. When you got a letter like that, referring to taking it up with the district leadership, to whom did you think he was directing his remarks? Was there any doubt in your mind, did you question him about it? Who was the district leadership he was referring to in his reply to your letter?

[3703]

Mr. Tsuru. I was concerned only with Science and Society, and I suppose I interpreted this—

Senator Jenner. Did you tell him that you were not interested in district leadership, you were only concerned with Science and Society? Did you tell this gentleman that?

Mr. Tsuru. No.

Senator Jenner. No?

Mr. Tsuru. Excuse me, may I answer it?

Senator Jenner. Yes.

Mr. Tsuru. I was interested in Science and Society, mainly, so probably I interpreted the sentence to mean so far as Science and Society is concerned.

Senator Jenner. Did the Science and Society have a district leadership?

Mr. Tsuru. No, it did not, sir. Well, we had a number of people who were interested in developing this magazine, Science and Society, in different districts.

Senator Jenner. Yes, a journal dedicated to the growth of Marxism scholarship. Isn’t that the purpose of Science and Society, a journal dedicated to the growth of Marxian scholarship?

Mr. Tsuru. I think that was the purpose of the Science and Society at the time. But may I say, as I understand Marxism, and as I understand it now — Marxism, I understand it as a body of doctrines which contains a number of elements. I was interested mainly in the economic analysis part. I should say that Marx’s contributions can be generally classified into three parts: His vision, his analysis of the society, and his political programs. I was mainly interested in the analysis of the society part, and so far as Marx’s analysis of social development was concerned, I was a student of it.
I did make various studies myself. I tried to test hypotheses of Marx as regards the development of society, especially in terms of Japan. And I found some of these hypotheses applied to the case of Japan, especially during the period of development from feudalism to capitalism in the mid-19th century. As a man in the profession of scholarship, I wanted to keep on testing the hypotheses on various parts of the world. But I have taken the position, even then and now much more strongly than before, some of the hypotheses, even in this economic analysis part of Karl Marx, were entirely wrong. For example, the thesis that the working class would become increasingly poor as capitalism develops. I hold the view that his diagnosis in this regard is entirely wrong, opposite to the fact.
Marx says that there is a tendency toward a falling rate of profit under capitalism. I also question it.

Mr. Morris. You question it now, or you questioned it then?

Mr. Tsuru. I question it now, yes.

Mr. Morris. Senator, I think maybe Mr. Tsuru misunderstands our asking about these particular memorandums. We came upon these recently, Senator, in connection with another inquiry that is going on, and they reflected the intimate detailed organization of an important portion of the Communist Party as operating in the late 1930’s and 1940’s in the United States.
One of the persons that we have seen so far, at least went on to what seems to be an important Government office from there. There are names throughout these papers that are of great interest to us. Some
[3704]
of these people have been, in the late 1950’s [sic, 1940’s?], witnesses before the committee, and apparently, were still then Communists. It details a great deal of information and evidence which is going to be very helpful to the committee.
Now it occurred to us, Senator, that the man who wrote these letters, particularly later on when he talks about comrades and party factions, that obviously such a man writing these letters must, himself, be right in the middle of the whole thing.
So, we want from Mr. Tsuru, a detailed expression as to what went on. Perhaps his information will tell us a great deal about the present Communist organizations now going on.
And I think that your reference to what your present position is now in connection with Marx or something, is nothing, Mr. Tsuru, that is of interest to us. What we are interested in is the Communist Party as it is now operating in the United States.

Mr. Tsuru. Now operating in the United States?

Mr. Morris. Yes, as reflected by these papers that you have identified are yours, and with the aid of which, I think you told us, you were going to tell who the Communists were whom you knew and worked with at that time.

Mr. Glover. Mr. Morris, if I may, there is a 20-year interval between these letters, and now—

Mr. Morris. They were left in 1942. These letters go up to 1942.

Mr. Glover. The ones we are looking at now are dated 1936.

Mr. Morris. This particular one. Now, as you know, Mr. Parry was teaching at Harvard in 1953, and, apparently, the evidence indicated he was still a Communist. Now, Mr. Niebyl, you indicated you suspected was a Communist; is that right?

Mr. Tsuru. That is right.

Mr. Morris. And there is, as you will notice back here later on, a whole breakup of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 study groups which you were then writing to Mr. Niebyl about – I do not know whether that was up in Cambridge — which included over 100 people. Now, perhaps you will tell us about all those things.

Senator Johnston. I would like to call attention to the attorney that the Senate is in session and is really meeting right now. I suppose this might be a good place to break and come back tomorrow, and it will give him time to read his manuscripts here, and identify them for the record tomorrow.

Mr. Morris. All right, Senator. I would like to offer for the record at least those two letters, the letter of Mr. Tsuru and the reply from Mr. Parry. I would like those to go into the record before we adjourn.

Senator Johnston. They shall become a part of the record.

(The letters referred to were marked “Exhibit Nos. 442 and 443” and are as follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 442

At present: Madison
But please answer care of The Interna-
tional House 1414 E. 59th Street,
Chicago, Illinois

August 31, 1936.

Dear Bill (W. T. Parry): “Thus far I have not reported to you anything concerning the matter of the Association of Marxian Studies, mainly because the entire matter in this district has been only in the formative stage both with
[3705]
respect to its theory and practice. It still is. For a definite reason, however, I feel it necessary to report immediately the major problems which have arisen here in connection with the matter of organizing the Association.
First, I shall try to formulate my understanding of the nature of the educational activities centered around the magazine. The publication of the magazine itself, without the Association or study groups around it, has its educational significance. The prospectus is sufficiently clear in this regard. It is as regards the aspect in the use of the magazine as an active propaganda weapon that I should like to develop further.
We have already various forms of organization for the educational purposes, e. g., the Worker’s School. The existing forms are adapted mainly for the members of the working class and the lower middle class or for the members of the party and YCL. For the fairly large group of professionals and the majority of the middle class, however, we either have not developed an effective organization or have tried to develop one without success. It seems to me that the main cause for this failure lies in the fact that the group in question generally abhors organization and that we did not accommodate our policy to that characteristic. Tied up with their abhorrence to organization is the fact that most of them have very specific interest, especially in the case of professional groups. Engineers are first of all interested in engineering. Social caseworkers are interested more in psychiatry than in dialectic materialism in general. Now, to meet this special circumstance, the flexible form of study groups, in my opinion, is a most appropriate answer. These study groups shall originate, needless to say, through our initiative, along the most natural and easy tie of association. For instance, the Korb’s group in Cambridge arose among those who were dissatisfied in the Marx seminale [sic]. Lunning’s group arose among the members of the Law School. A group may originate thru the fact of professional homogeneity, like in the case of social caseworkers. A group may originate thru the preexisting social ties. A study group on Plato may turn into a study group on Marx, as has been done this summer in Madison. In short, study groups will avoid the formal aspect of organization as much as possible and make use of the special interests which professional groups possess. The Association of Marxian Studies can come only after this. It will turn out to be harmful or ineffective if we organize the Association too prematurely in any particular locality. In either case, the magazine serves as a weapon for promoting, as well as in conducting and developing such study groups.
No less important than the foregoing point, however, is the necessity of leading ordinary members of these study groups into a more mature form of organization or of activities. To be a member of a study group may be a step toward enrolling the Worker’s School; it may be a step toward joining the American League against War and Fascism; it may be a step toward becoming a member of YCL or of the party. It is absolutely necessary to keep a study group from becoming a self–perpetuating, stagnant cloister for the few.
As to the relation between the educational activities centered around the magazine and those of the Worker’s Schools, I don’t think there is any conflict or duplication. The former apply to those groups which usually cannot be reached by the Worker’s School on account of their abhorrence to organization or of their too specific an interest.
Now, as to what has been done in Madison and Chicago. In Madison, the practical step has been already taken, although the major portion of it will not be effected until the University opens in September. At present, there are three study groups going. Two among members of the Farmer Labor Progressive Federation, one using Corey’s The Decline of American Capitalism and the other Engels ‘ Anti-Dühring. The first group consists mainly of clerical workers. The third group is among students of the University; it has been carried on during the summer session in the form similar to that of the group on dialectic materialism in Cambridge. The teacher’s unit appointed a special committee headed by the agent for the magazine to outline concrete avenues of approach in the educational activities centered around the magazine. The report has been submitted and the discussion on it is going on. In Chicago, the practical step has not yet been taken. There the question of cooperation with the Worker’s School has to be settled. In fact, a member of its staff, I am informed, has expressed in his casual talk a sense of alarm at the possibility of duplication. I think that such an alarm is largely based upon the misunderstanding of the nature of study groups which the Association is to organize. Miss Constance Kyle, who probably will act as the main agent for the magazine in the Chicago district, tells me that there are many possibilities of study groups among those
[3706]
people whom the School will not be able to reach effectively. The Association will not go beyond filling such a gap. On this matter, I shall try to discuss with the staff of the School when I go to Chicago in a few days, and shall report to you on the result. But, meanwhile, I think it will help a great deal toward clarifying the matter here if you let me know as soon as possible your reaction to my report above. In the matter of the Association, as well as in that of the magazine, I have constantly asked for suggestions of K. H. Niebyl.
In order to facilitate the task of the agent in Chicago in coordinating the campaign in the adjoining districts, I should like you to send us immediately the list of names and addresses of those persons in the Middle West district whom you have already contacted, especially persons connected with universities.
All the subscribers around here are eagerly looking forward to the appearance of the magazine. I hope that the first issue will be published in October as has been promised, and not in November or December!
Sincerely,

(Tsuru).

 

EXHIBIT No. 443

SCIENCE AND SOCIETY: A MARXIAN QUARTERLY
6½ Holyoke Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts

Sept. 6, 1936.

Dear Tsuru: Please do not think from the fact that we have been somewhat negligent about answering your letters that we do not appreciate them, and your numerous activities for the magazine. On the contrary, we find them to be very valuable. However, Kenneth and I have been out of town now and then; and, with most everyone away, I have not been able to get anyone to do typing, etc., for me most of the time. Also, we have a last-minute rush at present, since the magazine is going to the printer this week. I can assure you, therefore, by the way, that the first issue will actually appear in October — in fact, about the first of October.
On the matter of the study groups discussed in your last letter especially: I do not see how there can be any doubt that such study groups are a very desirable thing. Unquestionably they can bring in many people who would not go to the Workers School. They do not conflict with the Workers School. It is the duty of the more advanced members of the groups to draw the others closer to the revolutionary movement by involving them in activities, as you suggest. If anyone raises any objection to these study groups, see to it that his position is corrected, if necessary appealing to the district leadership.
The organization of these study groups, I think, should be flexible, following natural lines as you indicate, and the Association should not be too formal at first. Such study groups and Science & Society will mutually help one another’s development.
We have not very many people in the Middle West who have agreed to work for the magazine besides those you and Niebyl know about. Miss Constance Kyle can count on help from Joseph Doob (math.), also of Univ. of Illinois. Prof. J. F. Brown, Univ. of Kansas, Lawrence, Kan. (psych.) will help. These 2 we know to be reliable people. Brown has given us names of psychologists, to whom we have sent prospectuses. (In the Midwest, he listed the following as “probably very sympathetic”: I. Krechevsky, U. of Chicago; N. R. F. Maier, Univ. of Michigan; Ross Stagner, Univ. of Akron, Akron, O.)
Frederick L. Ryan, Assoc. Prof. of Economics, Univ. of Oklahoma (Address: Faculty Exchange, Norman, Okla.), wrote us that he will help, and will try to start a group to support magazine.
Mins may have some other names. But I suggest one of you write to him, stating a little more exactly what sort of information you need (e. g., do you want lists of subscribers?), and what territory is included.
With regard to Great Britain, J. D. Bernal of U. of Cambridge (68 Walnut Tree Ave., Cambridge, Engl.) has agreed to be our agent. H. Levy of Univ. of London is also acting as a Foreign Editor. We have written to (or will write to) about a dozen outstanding Marxists. However, we can always use more contacts. But I suggest that any extensive campaign for subs, or any suggestions for articles, be first discussed with us, or directly with Bernal (preferably the former where possible).
[3707]
Will you please make it clear to the people you communicate with who are serving as agents for the magazine that we prefer to have business matters (including subs.) sent directly to Mins, at 10 Fifth Ave., N. Y. C., and editorial matters left to this office. (But they may send us a single letter if they have to deal with both kinds.) (Book reviews may be handled thru either office.) Thanks for all your assistance. I shall be seeing you soon.
Yours,

/s/ Bill Parry (William T.).

Mr. Glover. Is there any possibility, Mr. Chairman, since this witness is from out of town, that we could continue this afternoon?

Senator Johnston. It will be impossible. Here is the trouble, we have a rule that we are not supposed to meet while the Senate is in session. I do not believe so. What do you think?

Senator Jenner. I would not think so.

Senator Johnston. As for me, I just do not think it would be possible.

Mr. Tsuru. If you are going to recess, may I just say a word?

Senator Johnston. Yes, sir, but try to be brief, because we do have to leave here.

Mr. Tsuru. Yes.
I have agreed, as I wrote to Senator Eastland by personal letter, that I am willing to testify, cooperate with the committee to the best of my ability. And I have tried to do so this morning, and I shall continue to do so in the future. However, I am here on the American Japan intellectual interchange program, which I consider to be very important.
And I was interrupted earlier — on the Voice of America program, I was going to say my impressions of America, in which I was going to include my sense of surprise about the vigor of the economic development, the degree of prosperity you have. In general, I was going to do my best to cement and promote the interests of the cultural interchange between our two countries.
Now, I consider my job as such, a cultural interchange man, quite important. So, though I shall be at your service any time you would like me to come, I would appreciate very much if you could also let me carry out some of the commitments I have under this program.

Senator Johnson. We will try our best to finish tomorrow.

Mr. Morris. Particularly, Mr. Tsuru, if you will look at these letters, so we can go through them all at great length.

Senator Johnston. The committee stands adjourned until 10:30 tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 10:30 a.m., Wednesday, March 27, 1957.)

______________________________

SCOPE OF SOVIET ACTIVITY IN THE UNITED STATES
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 27, 1957

UNITED STATES SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT
AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS,
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,

Washington, D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:45 a. m., in room 424, Senate Office Building, Senator Jenner, presiding:
Also present: Robert Morris, chief counsel; William A. Rusher, associate counsel; J. G. Sourwine, associate counsel; Benjamin Mandel, director of research.

Senator Jenner. The committee will come to order.
Proceed with the testimony of the witness. The witness was sworn yesterday so this is a continuation.

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Tsuru has requested an opportunity to read a statement here.

Senator Jenner. You may proceed.

Mr. Tsuru. Mr. Chairman, at yesterday’s hearings the questions asked me ranged over a time span of more than 25 years, often without regard to chronology. To put matters in perspective, I would like to make this statement at the beginning of today’s hearing.
1. I am a Japanese citizen, and a professor of economics at Hitotsubashi University in Tokyo. I took my undergraduate and graduate training in the United States, receiving the following degrees from Harvard University in the years indicated (bachelor of arts, 1935; master of arts, 1936; doctor of philosophy, 1940). In 1941, when war broke out, I was a research assistant in the economics department at Harvard. My wife and I were not interned but were subsequently repatriated on the Gripsholm in June, 1942.
2. I am currently on leave of absence from Hitotsubashi University in order to come to this country under the American-Japanese intellectual interchange program, a privately sponsored program, to do economic research at Harvard, give some guest lectures, and generally reacquaint myself with a country which I have not seen for 15 years.

Senator Jenner. You will furnish this committee the method by which you came here, who is financing it, and so forth.

Mr. Tsuru. I will do so, sir.¹ I shall continue reading.
3. In the postwar years in Japan I served as an economist in SCAP (1946-47).

¹ A statement regarding the Intellectual Interchange program, which Mr. Tsuru said was prepared by Prof. Hugh Borton, chairman of the American committee, is printed as appendix I of this volume.

[3710]

Senator Jenner. That was under General MacArthur ?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes. When a coalition Cabinet was formed in 1947 under Premier Katayama, I was asked to become Vice Minister of Economic Stabilization. In that capacity I helped to initiate measures to curb inflation in Japan, measures which, incidentally, were vigorously opposed by Japanese Communists.
4. I am not “anti-American ” unless that term can be extended to include one who, as a Japanese citizen, on occasion publicly differs with specific United States policies, such as the test explosion of nuclear bombs in the Pacific, severe restrictions on trade between Japan and mainland China, and emphasis on Japanese rearmament.

Senator Jenner. May I interrupt right there?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes, sir.

Senator Jenner. You have made public statements, I assume, in regard to the explosion of nuclear tests by the United States Government.

Mr. Tsuru. I have written articles for publication on the opinion of mine regarding this question, not only the tests by the United States Government, but by all the governments.

Senator Jenner. In other words, it is public knowledge you have written on it.

Mr. Tsuru. Yes. May I continue.

Senator Jenner. Sure.

Mr. Tsuru. Since my return to the United States I have become aware, through firsthand observation, of the vitality and the potentiality for growth of the American economy and have written, for example, an article for ASAHI, Japan’s leading newspaper, reporting, from an economist’s viewpoint, the extremely high standard of living in the United States, and the increasing emphasis of American consumers on quality, rather than quantity. I am extremely grateful for the opportunity provided me by the exchange program to reacquaint myself with the United States, and I am sure I shall have occasions to prove this gratitude through my lectures and writings while in this country and after I return to Japan this fall.
5. As I have testified, I am not and never have been a member of the Communist Party. Attention has been called to a handful of letters written by, and to, me in 1936–37, some 20 years ago when I was a student at Harvard. These letters were apparently among the possessions which I left behind in my apartment in Cambridge when I was repatriated on the Gripsholm. During that period of time, as these letters indicate, I was acquainted with some individuals who were Communists or Communist-sympathizers, and, for a brief while I showed interest in the publication, Science and Society (some of whose editors were Communists), and in groups in Cambridge which discussed, among other things, Marxist doctrine.
Looking back over 20 years, I can only explain such interests during my student days in terms of youthful indiscretion of which I am ashamed.
I soon lost interest in Science and Society and saw less and less of those individuals in Cambridge and elsewhere who had been active in
[3711]
it. As I matured, my attitudes changed. One of the major factors which influenced me in the direction of my current beliefs, which I would characterize as democratic socialism, was my realization, after the bold economic measures taken by the United States Government to curb the 1937-38 recession, of the constructive promises which the American system of economy seemed to hold for the future.
Although I would not in any way condone my youthful indiscretions during my student days, I consider that this experience enables me to hold to my present views with greater strength and confidence and to challenge Communist doctrines more effectively.

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, that this hearing may be kept in perspective, I would like to bring into the record the evidence which Mr. Tsuru has been identifying, which indicates a very widespread and rather formidable infiltration in Americans, which is apparently continuing down to date.
Mr. Mandel has compiled a list of professors and their universities which indicates the spread with which Science and Society, the magazine, Science and Society, has been operating on our American campuses.
Also, we are not dealing here, Senator — these papers don’t reveal youthful indiscretion or any such thing. The witness, in his own statement yesterday, was talking of the necessity of leading ordinary members of study groups into a more mature form of organization or activities. He went on say that to be a member of a study group may be a step toward enrolling in the workers’ schools; maybe a step toward joining the American League Against War and Fascism. It may also be a step, he said, toward becoming a member of the Young Communist League or of the party. “It is absolutely necessary,” said Mr. Tsuru, “to keep a study group from becoming a self-perpetuating stagnant cloister for the few.”
I think, at the outset of the hearing today, Senator, Mr. Mandel should offer, for the record, a list of individuals with their colleges listed, who have been contributing editors — or let him furnish the description — to the publication Science and Society.

Mr. Tsuru. May I interrupt a second?

Senator Jenner. Yes.

Mr. Tsuru. I think Mr. Morris started out by saying, “Mr. Tsuru said yesterday” —now the letter was read yesterday in which the quotation was contained. The letter which I wrote in 1936.

Mr. Morris. Yes; you acknowledged you had stated in 1936 Mr. Tsuru. Yes—

Senator Jenner. All right; proceed, Mr. Mandel.

Mr. Mandel. The attached list of contributors to Science and Society shows the spread of the magazine among American colleges and universities. The tabulation is necessarily incomplete because we do not have all copies of the magazine available and because, in some instances, no college or university connection is given. It must be kept in mind that contributors listed may or may not be presently connected with the magazine and that they may or may not be presently connected with the college or university listed. Persons who contributed on more than one occasion are not repeated in the list.
[3712]

(The document referred to was marked ” Exhibit No. 444” and reads as follows:)

 

EXHIBIT No. 444

Writers for Science and Society

 

Issue	Name	University or college indicated
Winter 1939	J. W. Alexander Francis Birch. Theodore B. Brameld. Dorothy Brewster Ralph J. Bunche Addison T. Cutler E. Franklin Frazier Louis Harap Granville Hicks. Eugene C. Holmes Leo Huberman Oliver Larkin Herbert M. Morais Broadus Mitchell Brooks Otis Herbert J. Phillips Samuel Sillen Harry C. Steinmetz Paul M. Sweezy Louis Weisner Edwin Berry Burgum Vladimir D. Kazakevich V. J. McGill Margaret Schlauch Bernhard J. Stern D. J. Struik Robert K. Merton Walter B. Cannon Curtis P. Nettels Horace B. Davis Abraham Edel	Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton. Harvard. Adelphia. Columbia. Howard. Fisk. Howard. Harvard. Do. Howard. Columbia. Smith. Brooklyn. Johns Hopkins. Hobard. Washington (State). New York. San Diego State. Harvard. Hunter. New York. Columbia. Hunter. New York. Columbia. Mass. Inst. of Tech. Harvard. Do. Wisconsin. Simmons. City College of New York.
Spring 1939	Paul Birdsall Elton P. Guthrie William O. Brown Alfred Lowe Leslie Reade	Williams. Washington (State). Howard. — New York.
Summer 1939	Harold Chapman Brown Henry David Benjamin Paskoff Luis C. Hunter	Stanford. Queens. City College of New York. American.
Fall 1939	A. D. Winspear Lyman R. Bradley Alexander Sandow Katharine De Pre Lumpkin	Wisconsin. Brooklyn. New York. Smith.
Winter 1940	Joseph Kresh Samuel Yellen Lester Tarnopol Charles Obermeyer Irving Mark Howard Selsam	Brooklyn and City College of N.Y. Indiana. Kentucky. Columbia. Brooklyn. Do.
Spring 1940	Lewis S. Feuer Charles Hughes Bailey W. Diffie	City College of New York. Hunter. City College of New York.
Ditto	Kingsley Davis Leopold Infeld Harry Slochower	Pennsylvania State. Toronto. Brooklyn.
Summer 1940	Karl H. Niebyl H. V. Cobb Francis Ballaine	Carleton. Do. Adelphi.
Winter 1942	M. F. Ashley Montagu	Hahnemann Medical.
	Mitchell Franklin, Tulane
Summer 1942	George Herzog Marion Hathway	Columbia. Pittsburgh.
Fall 1942	Slice D. Snyder Alan R. Sweezy	Vassar. Williams.
Spring 1943	Robert A. Brady Leslie C. Dunn	California. Columbia.
Summer 1943	Vernon Venable	Vassar.
Winter 1944	Carl O. Dunbar Norman Levinson	Yale. Mass. Inst. of Technology.
Spring 1944	Frank E. Hartung	Wayne.
Summer 1944	Lillian Herlands Hornstein S. Stanfield Sargent	New York. Columbia.
Fall 1944	T. Addis Frederic Ewen Barrows Dunham Selden C. Menefee	Stanford, School of Medicine. Brooklyn. Temple. National.
Spring 1945	Charles E. Trinkaus, Jr.	Sarah Lawrence.
Summer 1945	Ernst Riess	Hunter.
Fall 1945	Joseph W. Cohen	Colorado.
Spring 1947	John A. Wolfard Hans Gottschalk	Montana State. Iowa.
Summer 1947	Oliver O. Cox Norman Cazden William Mandel Meyer Reinhold	Tuskegee. Harvard. Stanford. Brooklyn.
Spring 1948	Morris Swadesh Perez Zagorin	City College of New York. Amherst.
Fall 1948	Surendra J. Patel Shou Shan Pu Ralph H Gundlach	Pennsylvania. Carleton. Washington (State).
Winter 1948-49	Wallace W. Douglas Kenneth May	Northwestern. Carleton.
Spring 1949	Bernard F. Reiss W. T. Parry Kirtley F. Mather	Brooklyn. Buffalo. Harvard.
Summer 1949	Ray H. Dotterer Alvin W. Gouldner Henry Aiken	Pennsylvania State. Buffalo. Harvard.
Fall 1949	E. Burke Inlow	Princeton.
Spring 1950	Russell B. Nye G. M. Gilbert	Michigan State. Princeton.
Summer 1950	Lullian Gilkes G. W. Sherman	New York. Montana State.
Fall 1950	David V. Erdman	Minnesota.
Winter 1950-51	Otto Nathan Robert B. MacLeod	New York. Cornell.
Spring 1951	Frank S. Freeman	Do.
Fall 1951	Alfred Young Vera Shlakman Eda Lou Walton	Wesleyan. Queens. New York.
Winter 1951-52	Kenneth Neill Cameron Ray Ginger	Indiana. Western Reserve.
Spring 1952	Henry Pratt Fairchild Arthur K. Davis Ernest F. Patterson	New York. Union. Alabama.
Winter 1953	Norman Cazden Ray Ginger Philip Morrison	Illinois. Harvard. Cornell.
Fall 1953	William Appleman Williams	Oregon.
Winter 1954	Vernard Mandel	Penn.
Winter 1955	L. R. Lind	Kansas

Mr. Morris. Now, Senator, I might point out that in this list are people who have been identified as members of the Communist Party, many of whom, when asked under oath whether the specific evidence is accurate or inaccurate have claimed privilege under the fifth amendment. I might point out, Senator, that that process of congressional committees learning the identity of these men is something that has taken years to ascertain.
In a letter which has already been submitted to Mr. Tsuru on February 22, 1937–

Senator Jenner. Do you want to offer this list for the record?

Mr. Morris. Mr. Mandel has offered it.

Senator Jenner. It may go into the record and become an official part of the record.

Mr. Morris. Science and Society is still published?

Mr. Mandel. Yes. I have here three issues of 1956 and if I may mention some names which appear in these issues—

Mr. Morris. Just offer them for the record.

[3714]

Senator Jenner. They will go into the record by reference and become an official part of this committee’s record.

(The issues above referred to were numbered “Exhibit No. 445, 445–A and 445–B may be found in the subcommittee files.)

Mr. Morris. I would like to read from your [Tsuru’s] letter of February 22, 1937, page 3.

Connie

Who was Connie?

Mr. Tsuru. This is Miss — she was then Miss — I don’t know what happened to her subsequently, Miss Constance Kyle.

Mr. Morris. And she was a professor of psychiatry at the University of Illinois, was she not?

Mr. Tsuru. University of Illinois or Chicago.

Mr. Morris. On that memorandum we come to later—

Mr. Tsuru. Yes, I believe it says—

Mr. Morris. It says department of science at University of Illinois.

Mr. Tsuru. Yes, Mr. Morris.

Mr. Morris. May I continue reading?

Senator Jenner. Proceed.

Mr. Morris (reading):

Connie had expressed her anxiety, when she received a letter of acknowledgment from Miss Olson (a secretary to Mins)—

Now Mins is Henry Felix Mins, is he not?

Mr. Tsuru. Mr. H. F. Mins, I don’t know his second name.

Mr. Morris. There is a Mr. H. F. Mins associated with the magazine who has been identified in our record as a Communist and was called as witness in late 1952 and rather than answer, claimed his privilege under the fifth amendment. He was then a New York schoolteacher. I think the board of education subsequently took action and brought about his removal if he didn’t resign.
And who was Miss Olson?

Mr. Tsuru. Miss Olson, I do not know.

Mr. Morris (continuing):

as to the care with which the fraction and the official body are being distinguished. Not only your letter made it clear that the memorandum is addressed to the fraction, but I also repeated it verbally to Parry. Parry explained to me, however, practically all of the members of the editorial board either are or once were members of the party, and that the fraction and the editorial board are almost identical.
This fact itself reveals a shortcoming in my mind. Most concretely, the short coming came into light at the time our memorandum was brought down to New York. At that time most editors were terrifically busy in other duties of theirs (in connection with the fight against Trotskyists) and, according to Parry, were not in the position to take up our memorandum for discussion immediately. My concrete suggestion is: the S. and S. should be able to enlist progressive intellectuals (who are not party members) who could make their activities in the S. and S. as their primary task. (The success of Left Book Club in England seems to me to be partially due to this factor.) I do not mean to say that our memorandum would have received a faster response had there been such persons active for the magazine; but I mean to say that the magazine and all other words connected with it (e. g. study groups) should not be solely in the hands of party members who are very often called to their duties even when they are needed in the magazine.

(The letter of February 22, 1937, was marked “Exhibit No. 446” and reads as follows:)

[3715]

EXHIBIT No. 446

36 Claverly Hall, Cambridge, Mass.,

February 22, 1937.

Dear Karl-Heinrich (Niebyl): Connie has written me from Washington, telling me that Gertrude had returned to Chicago though not with complete recovery. At least, I am glad that her sickness was not very serious, but I hope she will take a good care of herself not to invite a relapse. You have been well as usual?
I remember that I promised you in my long letter of about three weeks ago to let you know about the situation in Cambridge more in detail so far as the matter of S&S is concerned.
At the beginning of the current school-year (October 1936), the situation was as follows: questions directly concerned with the magazine (such as, subscription, contribution) were almost exclusively in the single hands of W. T. Parry with some assistance from L. Harap, a contributing editor. Parry was doing even such things as contacting with, and carrying magazines, to various news stands. There was in existence, at that time, a very informal, loose organization called The Association of Marxist Studies which consisted of representatives (either approved or nonapproved) from each study group. Following study groups were represented in the Association:

	Attendance
SG1, white collar workers’ group socialists predominating text—Leontiev’s Pol. Ec	10-15
SG2, a group branched off from SG1 because the number of SG1 became too large. text — the same as above	5
SG3, graduate students and instructors in the Economics Dept. text—Capital	5-8
SG4, graduate students and instructors in the Ec. Dept., some overlapping with SG3 seminar “Economics of Socialist Society”.	5-8
SG5, graduate students from various depts. text— Lenin’s work	5-10
SG6, graduate students from various depts. seminar “Dialectic Materialism”.	5
JRS1, John Reed Society classes, mostly undergraduates topic “Historical Materialism”.	20-30
JRS2, John Reed Society class; mostly undergraduates topic “Current Events”.	20-30

Except SG2 which emerged at the beginning of this current academic year, all the above groups existed during the last spring. As far as I know, the Association was the only place where various problems connected with study groups were discussed.
After the first issue of the magazine came out, it was suggested that the Association be transformed into Science and Society Club, especially because the leadership in the Association then was of stultifying type. The fact that the Association did practically nothing in the way of cooperating with S&S is to be explained, in my opinion, both in terms of the shrinking questism of the Association leadership and in terms of insufficient realization on the part of S&S of the necessity of cooperation with the Association. Through the transformation of the Association into the SSC, it was deemed that new blood could be injected into this sphere of activity, fusing more intimately the Association and S&S.
The first meeting of SSC was called at the beginning of December to discuss the first issue and S&S in general. Burgum came from New York to represent editors. There were about 20 people present. But because of the technical error, the matter of SSC was not broached until a few minutes before the closing hour of the Hall. Thus this meeting remained merely as a meeting called by the editors of S&S to discuss the magazine. At that time the number of subscribers in the state of Massachusetts was 101, according to the list submitted from New York.
During the month of January, the old members of the Association met a few times and voted to hold the second meeting of the subscribers and the SG members and their friends. At the beginning of February, the situation was as follows: As regards the matter of S&S, Parry was not completely single-handed, because Harap headed the committee on “A Guide to Marxian Studies,” the bibliography projected. Following study groups were in existence: SG1; SG2 (now, taking up Lenin’s Teachings of Karl Marx with sufficient amount of reference readings; the number of participants increased to 10); SG3; SG5 and SG6 combined into one dwindling in number and taking up the question of Fascism and
[3716]
Social democracy; both JRS1 and JRS2 nominally existed but had not yet started their activities for the semester. In other words, no new groups and two less than before. But SG1 and SG2 not only grew as time went on, but also developed politically. SG1 is again ready to undergo “cell division.”
The second general meeting to discuss S&S was held on Feb. 12. (The list of subscribers at that time numbered 128 in the state of Massachusetts, Cambridge accounting for about one-half of the number.) The discussion with the participation of Struik, Sweezy brothers, and Professors Leontief and Mason was quite lively. There were about 30 people present (two undergraduates, two or three non-University middle class intellectuals, the rest was graduate students and instructors of the University). But again the matter of SSC was not effectively brought up; thus the Club was not organized. Those undergraduates and white-collar workers who were present and could be taken as typical of their respective groups voiced the identical opinion after the meeting that both the magazine and the meeting were too “high brow” for them. The white-collar worker who voiced this opinion was one of the ablest members of SG1. He was the only one present out of all the members of SG1 and SG2.
In view of the above situation, I have made the following practical considerations:
(1) So far as Cambridge is concerned, what is most important is the drawing in of new blood. For this purpose, the unit which has been and still is somewhat aloof to the question of SG should reconsider its policy. Whether we shall form SSC or not is not so important as the question of the drawing in of new blood into the theoretical front and the question of the thoroughgoing reconsideration of the policy on study groups.
(2) As to the S&S as a whole, I should not like to make any additional remarks to what we said in our memorandum until we receive an answer from New York. But I am beginning to feel more strongly than before that present editors do not regard the S&S as a political weapon.
Connie had expressed her anxiety, when she received a letter of acknowledgment from Miss Olson (a secretary to Mins), as to the care with which the fraction and the official body are being distinguished. Not only your letter made it clear that the memorandum is addressed to the fraction, but I also repeated it verbally to Parry. Parry explained to me, however, practically all of the members of the editorial board either are or once were members of the Party, and that the fraction and the editorial board are almost identical.
This fact itself reveals a shortcoming in my mind. Most concretely, the shortcoming came into light at the time our memorandum was brought down to New York. At that time most editors were terrifically busy in other duties of theirs (in connection with the fight against Trotskyists) and, according to Parry, were not in the position to take up our memorandum for discussion immediately. My concrete suggestion is: the S&S should be able to enlist progressive intellectuals (who are not party members) who could make their activities in the S&S as their primary task. (The success of Left Book Club in England seems to me to be partially due to this factor.) I do not mean to say that our memorandum would have received a faster response had there been such persons active for the magazine; but I mean to say that the magazine and all other works connected with it (e. g. study groups) should not be solely in the hands of party members who are very often called to their duties even when they are needed in the magazine.
I wish to get your reaction to these problems, as well as to previous letters, as soon as you get some moments to scribble down. I am sending a copy of this letter to Connie.
Warmest greetings

(TSURU).

Mr. Morris. Now, you wrote that, did you not, Mr. Tsuru?

Mr. Tsuru. Mr. Chairman, since this is a copy, I cannot absolutely identify it but from internal evidence I am certain I wrote it.

Mr. Morris. And that would make it very clear that at that time you knew that the makeup of the board of Science and Society was made up virtually of members of the Communist Party.

Mr. Tsuru. That is the way Parry told me, and since I have no way of checking on the matter and I was not especially interested on checking the matter at the time, I more or less took Mr. Parry’s word for it.

[3717]

Mr. Morris. Now, earlier in that memorandum you make—

Mr. Tsuru. Memorandum?

Mr. Morris. Letter, I am sorry, February 22, 1937, letter, you mention the makeup of study groups in what you call the association. And there you mention, as follows:

	Attendance
SG1, white collar workers’ group socialists predominating text—Leontiev’s Pol. Ec	10-15
SG2, a group branched off from SG1 because the number of SG1 became too large. text — the same as above	5
SG3, graduate students and instructors in the Economics Dept. text—Capital	5-8
SG4, graduate students and instructors in the Ec. Dept., some overlapping with SG3 seminar “Economics of Socialist Society”.	5-8
SG5, graduate students from various depts. text— Lenin’s work	5-10
SG6, graduate students from various depts. seminar “Dialectic Materialism”.	5
JRS1, John Reed Society classes, mostly undergraduates topic “Historical Materialism”.	20-30
JRS2, John Reed Society class; mostly undergraduates topic “Current Events”.	20-30

Now, that totals more than 100, does it not, Mr. Tsuru?

Mr. Tsuru. There might have been overlapping ones.

Mr. Morris. These are study groups that generally include material about Science and Society. You were then writing to Mr. Karl Heinrich Niebyl at this time?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes. I am not quite sure because as I recall, there was an attempt to organize this Association of Marxist studies which would not necessarily confine the attention to Science and Society. I personally felt at the time that Science and Society could be used for the association, as sort of rallying point, but certainly other books and magazine materials could be utilized for the purpose of study.

Mr. Morris. And as you said earlier in your letter— “with these study groups, however,” of which you wrote in in your August 31 letter, August 31, 1936—

Mr. Tsuru. Yes.

Mr. Morris (continuing):

is the necessity of leading ordinary members of these study groups into a more mature form of organization or activities. To be a member of a study group may be a step toward enrolling the Worker’s School; it may be a step toward joining the American League Against War and Fascism; it may be a step toward becoming a member of YCL or of the party. It is absolutely necessary to keep a study group from becoming a self-perpetuating, stagnant cloister for the few.

In other words, as you suggested in your February 22 letter, were these people to be directed toward the Communist Party?

Mr. Tsuru. May I answer this question—

Senator Jenner. You may.

Mr. Tsuru (continuing). In slightly amplified form?

Senator Jenner. Certainly.

Mr. Tsuru. From my experience in Japan as a member of the Anti-Imperialism League about which I related yesterday, I had a certain preconception about the publication of a magazine like Science and Society. That is to say to publish such a magazine and do nothing else would be meaningless. That was my idea. And I felt that if we are going to publish a magazine like Science and Society at all, we should do our utmost to introduce people into Science and Society and
[3718]
through that association with Science and Society go into more political activities. That is a preconception which, I might say, I learned from my experience in the Anti-Imperialism League. That is the way I operated, for example, “operate” is not a very good word, but I worked in the Anti-Imperialism League, first introduced students into study groups, and then tried to persuade them to come into more active works like fighting against war in China.
Now, I carried over these preconceptions and at the time these letters were written, I can now see, although I did not remember before these letters were shown to me, I can now see I was strongly convinced of the importance of such matters. Therefore, I do not make any attempt to deny that in this period of 1936 —, in particular, I acted like a Communist, I spoke and wrote like a Communist. But as I said yesterday, I should like to state again, I never was a member, either of the Young Communist League or the Communist Party anywhere in the world.
In philosophic terms, I should consider myself that I was then a free agent, a free agent is a philosophical term, so do not misunderstand me if I use the word “agent”— free agent, I was free to decide on my own actions and ideas, not subject to any discipline by any organization.

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer for the record, I would like to have go into the record — I haven’t finished examining the witness on this point — the letter of September 6, 1936, to Mr. Tsuru.

Senator Jenner. It may go into the record and become a part of the official record.

(The document referred to is printed as exhibit 443 at page 3706.)

Mr. Morris. I would like to have go into the record the letter of December 14, 1936, to Mr. Karl-Heinrich Niebyl.

Senator Jenner. It may go into the record and become a part of the official record.

(The document referred to was marked ” Exhibit No. 447 ” and reads as follows:)

 

EXHIBIT No. 447

36 Claverly Hall, Cambridge, Mass.

December 14, 1936.

Dear Karl-Heinrich (Niebyl): I write this letter with eager hope that I shall be able to see you in Chicago sometime during the Christmas vacation and to discuss some of the matters I mention below. I expect to arrive at Chicago on December 24th and to stay there or thereabouts at least until January 3rd.
As you might have heard, the subscription to S&S has gone over the figure of 1,500 and the total sale is exceeding 8,000, although the sale of over 10,000 seems to be necessary to make the magazine self-sustaining. (the above figures from the Managing Editor.) One piece of information, however, has “disturbed” us a little. That is, that most of the subs coming in recently are from the Middle West and Far West. Although some editors are commenting on this fact as ‘a welcome good sign,’ I observe two things. Firstly, we have failed in the eastern part of the country in organizing and systematizing the subscription drive. Knowing the way Connie was doing in Chicago or the way Herman and Cookson were doing in Madison, I think that the extent to which we paid our attention in the east to the question of subs has been extremely inadequate. (In November, it was estimated that about 30 percent of the total sub was from the state of New York and about 10 percent from that of Massachusetts.) I am trying my best within my power to mend this shortcoming. Secondly, the increasing subscription from the Middle West suggests to my mind immediately the lack of adequately coherent contacts between New York (which is now the headquarter for the magazine) and other districts throughout the country. In this connection, these specific problems come to my mind:
(1) the problem of Science and Society Clubs: you undoubtedly know the decision of the editorial board on the question. There has been a
[3719]
new development in Cambridge, and S.S.C. has been organized. I should like to discuss with you further on this question when I see you.
(2) the nature of the magazine S&S: it is being discussed in Cambridge whether the primary emphasis is on the educational significance of S&S to the intelligentzia [sic] or on the academic research of Marxists.
(3) the problem of establishing the mechanism of contacts between N. Y. and other districts: I have suggested to W. T. Parry to bring this matter concretely at the next editorial meeting. I suggested that we should encourage in all the districts to establish a responsible agent whose primary task is to serve as a channel between the editorial board on the one hand and readers and contributors on the other. Such channels from all the districts are directed to N.Y. like spokes of a wheel; and there shall be a committee in N. Y. to receive them for coordinating purposes. As to my article on Lange and Sweezy, I didn’t hear from N.Y, for long time. So, I finally went down there to find out what’s the matter with it. They seem to be agreed on publishing it with slight alterations, but apparently didn’t take any action toward publishing it in the second issue. The article is now floating somewhere, and we are unable to trace it thus far. In any case, since the time I wrote that article, there has appeared Mises’ book on Wirtschaftsrechnung in English translation and another article of Lange’s in the October issue of The Review of Economic Studies on The Economic Theory of Socialism. Meanwhile, S&S has accepted, I hear, the review of Mises’s book (above mentioned) by Paul Sweezy — the review which merely restates what Lange says in the above article. Thus, the extensive rewriting of my original article and publishing it in the third issue of S&S seems to me to be necessary. I hope I shall be able to prepare a rewritten manuscript before I leave here for Chicago, so that I can again call your assistance in straightening out my ideas.
As I hope you have been informed, the editorial board is planning to prepare A Guide to Marxist Studies. It “will serve to indicate the best expositions of Marxism and its implications for the special branches of knowledge. The Guide will therefore be neither exhaustive nor for the advanced student as such, but for the ordinary intelligent student of socialism.” (quoted from the prospectus) The classification of contents, indicated in the prospectus, seemed to me to be very unsatisfactory. Thus we called a meeting in Cambridge to discuss that matter, and arrived at an alternative suggestion to which the Chairman (for preparing this Guide) still disagrees. The original classifications [sic] is in outline as follows:

1. 1. 1. General introduction
      2. The United States:
         
         1. History
         2. Labor Movement
         3. Political theory
         4. Literature
      3. The History of Socialism:
         
         1. Doctrine
         2. Revolutionary movements in Europe
         3. Socialism in practice
      4. Philosophy of Dialectic Materialism
      5. Political Economy
      6. The Sciences:
         
         1. The Physical sciences
         2. The sciences of human life
      7. The Arts:
         
         1. Literature
         2. The fine arts
         3. Music
         4. Drama
         5. Film
      8. Law
      9. Education
      10. Periodicals
      11. Index of Authors

The alternative I suggested is as follows:

1. 1. 1. Introduction
      2. Dialectic Materialism:
         
         1. Philosophy
         2. Applications in natural sciences

[3720]

1. 1. 3. Historical Materialism:
         
         1. Theory
         2. Application in general history
         3. Applications in Special fields of superstructure
            1. Political theory and law
            2. Sociology and anthropology
            3. Education
            4. Arts
      4. History of Socialist Movements
      5. Political Economy
      6. Contemporary World Problems:
         
         1. Imperialism and colonial problems
         2. Fascism
      7. Tactics of Revolutionary Movements
      8. Socialism in Practice: U.S.S.R.
      9. Periodicals

On this question also, I should like to have a discussion with you when I see you in Chicago.
I regret very much that I have not been able to fulfill the promise of sending you the list of whatever worthwhile references and materials which came to my attention. The reason for my failure is that I myself have been too busy during the semester to keep such things up to date.
Best wishes to Gertrude and Connie.
Looking forward to seeing you soon.

TSURU.

Mr. Morris. I would like to have go into the record the letter of August 31, 1936, to Mr. Bill Parry.

Senator Jenner. It may go into the record and become a part of the official record.

(The document referred to was marked “Exhibit No. 442” and appears at p. 3704).

Mr. Morris. I would like to have go into the record the letter of April 9, 1937, to Constance Kyle.

Senator Jenner. It may go into the record and become a part of the official record.

(The document referred to was marked “Exhibit No. 448” and reads as follows:)

 

EXHIBIT No. 448

36 Clavery Hall,
Cambridge, Mass.,

April 9, 1937.

Dear Connie [Constance Kyle]: Have you received an answer from N. Y. to our memorandum? I have repeatedly inquired Parry about it, but no avail. Finally I suggested that I shall go down to N.Y. in the weekend of April 10 to discuss the matter. Parry, who is now in N.Y. wrote me to-day that “I don’t think it’s worth your while to come down to N.Y. so far as S&S is concerned.” He does not mention about the memorandum at all. Instead, he tells me that “Constance Kyle has only paid five dollars and some cents for 100 copies of the first issue, and is vague about the rest of the money. She doesn’t seem to know even whether the copies have been sold or not.” This is not the first time that my mention of memorandum was responded by their reference to you in one way or another. I have persistently repeated to Parry that the matter of the memorandum is of immediate and primary importance and that according to my impression their slow response is partly due to their slipshodness with which they distinguish the party fraction from the editorial board. The memorandum is addressed to the fraction; and it seems to me that it is a breach of discipline for them to have laid it aside for more than two months. I have no authority to say anything further on this matter. So, I hope that you and Karl-Heinrich will press this matter and work toward dispelling any misunderstandings.
With warmest regards

TSURU.

Also a copy to K. H. N. [Karl Heinrich Niebyl].

Mr. Morris. I would like to have go into the record the letter of April 14, 1937, to Shigeto.

[3721]

Senator Jenner. It may go into the record and become a part of the official record.

(The document was marked Exhibit No. 448-A” and reads as follows:)

 

EXHIBIT No. 448-A

430 Hyde Park Blvd., Chicago, Illinois,

April 14, 1937.

Dear Shigeto: I am enclosing a copy of the letter to Mins as the simplest way of showing you the present status of business aspect of SandS. This checks with New York accounts and settles funds to date. I don’t know what you think of local sentiment on the single copy question but there is nothing final about it and we’re open to suggestions and your opinion. It’s quite possible that the sentiment among local agents suffers from some of the same difficulty as you mention in the Editorial Board — to many diverse demands on the time of our own people. However, I doubt if agents work will be taken on by any but our own people and it will certainly simplify the business details with the New York office if subs are sent from us and single copies are regarded as the province of regularly constituted book stores.
The following is a quote from Miss Olson’s letter of Feb. 4th and the only reference I have received to the memorandum:
“The long letter of criticism, of which you were one of the signers, has just come down to the New York Editors. It will be considered very carefully by them and will undoubtedly be answered. They wish to thank you in advance for your part in the criticism, and to express their appreciation of your cooperation. ”
You’ll know best how much they should be pushed for such an answer. The material included there on the contents of the first issue is of course more or less outdated by now. We would like to know of it if there has been any extensive use made by study groups elsewhere, and especially if any other Workers’ School has some experience accumulated by now.
I’ve never been very clear as to what might be expected of us in the way of taking responsibility for territory outside of the city of Chicago. Frankly, Shigeto, it’s a physical impossibility unless we can get more personnel involved. Let me know what you think should be done so that I can use it as a basis for discussion with responsible people locally to determine how they think we can manage it. It’s highly probable they will veto any consideration of my dropping other work to follow this up in other cities. But lets [sic] get clear first on what needs to be done.
Hope we can look forward to your coming to the middle west as vacation time rolls around.
Sincerely,

/s/ Constance (Kyle).

Mr. Morris. I would like to have go into the record the letter of January 31, 1937, to Karl-Heinrich.

Senator Jenner. It may go into the record and become a part of the official record.

(The document referred to was marked “Exhibit No. 449” and reads as follows:)

 

EXHIBIT NO. 449

36 Claverly Hall, Cambridge, Mass.,

January 31, 1937.

Dear Karl-Heinrich: I received your letter and the memorandum yesterday; and after going through it again, I handed the memorandum to Parry. I should like you to let me know whether you can use your own name as an editor. I understood you to say so, but I should like to make certain of it.
After I came back here in the middle of the month (I was detained in a hospital in Pittsburgh for influenza), I found the situation here to be very unsatisfactory, so far as the matter of S&S is concerned. No inroad had been made into undergraduates; efforts expended were scattered and unco-ordinated; study-groups were waning both in number and vigor; and so on. Tightening up will follow, at least I shall see to it that all the efforts be made to that end, when and as soon as our memorandum is discussed here. So, as to the situation here, I shall let you know on the next occasion.
[3722]
The project of compiling “A Guide to Marxian Studies” has been progressing rather falteringly. Harap, the chairman, asked Webbs to take one assignment; but they, as could have been expected, refused. Some of the completed assignments were discussed by the committee in Cambridge last week. Salient contradictions in the original plan came out concretely into relief; such as, the lack of care concerning the personnel, the nature of the guide, etc. Harap explained to me that (1) as to the inadequate choice of personnel, we can mend it by checking and rechecking, and (2) as to the vagueness of the nature of the Guide, we might as well pool all the informations first and later use knife and scissors. I did not raise any problems, because I thought that the memorandum would. Undoubtedly, we shall have a discussion on the matter of the Guide soon. Meanwhile, Harap has repeatedly urged me to hasten whomever I have asked to take the assignment on Political Economy to finish it and send it to Cambridge. This “whomever,” as I hope you remember, means you yourself.
Although I trust the truth of Parry’s explanation, I feel very much annoyed about my article. I handed in two copies. And now I am told that the only person who read it in New York is Ramsay (and a few others whom Ramsay showed). Both copies are “lost.” Since the editors never broach the subject to me unless I do it first, I gather that they are not, according to their editorial policy, very eager to have the article in the magazine at this moment. Although I could not very well emphasize the timeliness of the topic (Laski stressed the necessity of the Marxian critique on the problem in his recent article in The New Statesman and Nation) because it concerns my own article, I suggested to Parry that I shall rewrite it again as soon as possible so that it will be in time for the third issue, if the editors want me to. Parry thinks that the editors wish me to do so. While we are tarrying, two more articles have appeared on the subject of economic planning in a socialist society; one by Alan Sweezy in the volume in honor of Taussig (Alan is the elder brother of Paul Sweezy) and another by Darbin in the current issue of Economic Journal. Lange’s concluding article will appear shortly in the February issue of the Review of Economic Studies. (By the way, when you get through with the last copy of R.E.S. which I left with you in Chicago, I should like you to send it back to me. I wish to use it in rewriting my article.)
As to Paul Sweezy’s review of von Mises’s book on economic planning, Parry does not know precisely why it was left out of the second issue of S&S. I am not quite certain whether the second issue is really very much of an improvement over the first. I haven’t read all the articles, though. As to Darrell’s article: (1) His exposition of Keynes’ ideas, in spite of covering such a wide space, is inadequate in the sense that it does not bring out the salient points into relief and further that it is almost incomprehensible to non-economists. (I have found this out by talking to those who have read the article). (2) Points of agreement between Marx and Keynes which Darrell finds are superficial. In Keynes, the matter of talking in terms of homogeneous labor and of calculating cost by the unit of such homogeneous labor alone is only a technical device suited for his own convenience and is not an essential element. Perhaps the most likely similarity between Keynes and Marx, if at all, is their theory of the rate of interest (distinguished from the rate of profit). (3) Too many running comments of quibbling nature. Often these hide behind them very important questions. (4) Darrell’s major criticism thus far (because this is only the first installment) is that the Keynes’s method essentially concords with a subjective theory of value. (He calls in the authority of Hicks who only says that Keynes’s technique is the technique of Marshall.) Though Keynes resorts to “a fundamental psychological law” and uses a number of quasi-psychological terms, I feel that the weakness of Keynes lies not in “psychologizing” (Darrell) but in inventing those categories which, by taking care of imponderables in a bundle fashion, enable him to render his theoretical formulation precise and to give the appearance of its usability in prediction and control. Before I see the second installment, I could not say, of course, that Darrell has not dealt with the fundamental weakness of Keynes. To my knowledge, Leontief in Q.J.E. and Schumpeter in Journal of American Statistical Asso. have done more damage on Keynes than Darrell. It is unfortunate that Darrell’s review had to come in two installments. Parry tells me that he did not even read the article because it came in too late.
As to Hogben’s article: (1) First of all, I must report to you that this article has been received rather favorably by a large number of my university acquaintances around here. (2) I have a serious objection to this article. When Hogben shows concretely the relation between ideology and basic structure, I only
[3723]
applaud. But when he comes, in the last third of the article, to condemn “the obsessional Germanophilia” and ask for the acceptance of the limitations imposed by a common linguistic culture, I feel he is overanxious to the extent of clouding the element of truth which his message contains. His overanxiousness in this regard goes so far that in the first part of his article he gives the credit of being a pioneer in the labor theory of value to William Petty by quoting a sentence which does not have an intimation of the labor theory of value (cf. p. 142) and then makes alluding remarks here and there to the effect that Anglo-American scientists of the 18th century were already historical materialists (cf. p. 143 11.13–17, p. 146 1.29), and finally attributes erroneously the formalism of Robbins to the scholastic tradition of English universities (p. 144). The upshot is to call the method of dialectic materialism as “a foreign creed” or “a pot of message.” One gets the impression as if he were saying that we in England and America have scientists who were the pioneers in the labor theory of value and historical materialism, why should we bother reading Hegel or even Marx! To criticize formula-ism is one thing; to condemn the study of the method of dialectics by studying Hegel is another thing. It is not “our social (?) heritage” which we must nurture and develop (in fact, we must revolutionize much of our social heritage), but it is the application of the new method (in understanding our heritage and in deriving whatever fruits we may derive) that we must learn and learn despite the bourgeois heritage.
As to the review by Kuznets, I feel that it does not have a place in Science and Society. A Marxist review should take its place on those books of the Brookings Institution.
As to the review by Schuman, I feel very sorry that the editors had to cater to those intellectuals who are awed by the name of Schuman, if such was the reason (since I do not see any other reason) of including this review. On the books of Grover Clark also, we can afford to have a Marxist review; and there are more than a few persons who can do it.
I also read Leo Roberts’ article. It starts out well with promises attractive enough (cf. p. 169 1.30). But the whole thing is a disappointing muddle.
I am sending you, under a separate cover, the January issue of The Left News. You may have seen it. But just in case you haven’t. And I enclose here four coupons. Though Americans are not eligible as members, you can get around it by writing to G. C. MacLaulin as is indicated on the coupon. MacLaulin, like Ralph Fox, was killed in a battle near Madrid recently. But his friends are taking care of this agent-job. In the Left News, read especially an account “The Groups Month by Month” by the organizer of the local groups, Dr. John Lewis.
As we say in our oriental proverb, we may learn from them though they are “stones from other mountains.”
Do take care of your health. And warmest regards to you and Gertrude.

(TSURU)

Mr. Glover. Mr. Morris has promised to obtain for us the documents from which these copies were made.

Mr. Morris. He didn’t promise.

Senator Jenner. He said he would attempt to.

Mr. Glover. Because the comments Mr. Tsuru made with respect to this first letter are applicable to the other letters.

Mr. Sourwine. I respectfully suggest that if counsel is going to testify, he be sworn.

Senator Jenner. If you want to confer with your client at any time, permission will be granted, but we want no further interruption.

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call the witness’ attention to the reference to the memorandum in the letter of February 22, 1937, last large paragraph:

This fact itself reveals a shortcoming in my mind. Most concretely, the short coming came into light at the time our memorandum was brought down to New York.

Then in the letter of April 9 you write:

I have persistently repeated to Parry that the matter of the memorandum is of immediate and primary importance and that according to my impression their
[3724]
slow response is partly due to their slipshodness with which they distinguish the party fraction from the editorial board. The memorandum is addressed to the fraction; and it seems to me that it is a breach of discipline for them to have laid it aside for more than 2 months.

You mean it is a breach of Communist Party discipline?

Mr. Tsuru. I think that is the implication I gave at that place. But please look at the following sentence where I say, “I have no authority to say anything further on this matter.”

Mr. Morris. That seems to say there is a limitation in your authority?

Mr. Tsuru. I was not a member of the Communist Party although I was aware that the memorandum was to be addressed to the fraction I could not bring the matter into, in the Communist organization personally.
The only thing I could do was to speak to Mr. Parry and I think that is the reason I—

Senator Jenner. Now, Mr. Parry was a Communist.

Mr. Tsuru. That is my understanding at the time. If you ask me what I think of him now, I haven’t seen him since about 1940 so I cannot testify anything about him since 1940.

Senator Jenner. You don’t even know where he is?

Mr. Tsuru. I don’t even know where he is. So the very fact that I was not a member of the Communist Party made it necessary for me, under the circumstances, to press Parry constantly on the matter, and I wrote to Miss Kyle that I have no authority to say anything further in this matter.

Mr. Morris. Now, I offer you, and you have seen it overnight, have you not, a document which purports to be a memorandum to the editors of Science and Society?

Mr. Tsuru. To the editors; yes.

Mr. Morris. Now you have had a chance to look at that; have you not?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes.

Mr. Morris. And this is the memorandum to which you refer in this last letter that I have read?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes.

Mr. Morris. And this is the memorandum that you said was addressed to the party fraction?

Mr. Tsuru. Exactly.

Mr. Morris. You were one of the three people who signed this?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes; but if I may, I should like to explain.

Mr. Morris. It bears the signature, Senator, of Constance Kyle, Department of Psychiatry, University of Chicago; Karl Niebyl, Department of Economics, Carleton College, and Alfred Z. Lowe? Yesterday you remember that the witness told us he used the name Alfred Z. Lowe?

Senator Jenner. In other words, you signed this document as Alfred Z. Lowe?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes, sir.

Mr. Morris. And I might say, subpoenas have been issued for the others.

Senator Jenner. This memorandum will go into the record and become a part of the official record of this committee.

[3725]

(The document referred to was marked “Exhibit No. 450,” and reads as follows:)

 

EXHIBIT No. 450

Editors of S. and S. (Science and Society)

After the distribution of the first issue of S. and S. the undersigned feel it necessary to review the work done and the methods employed with special refer ence to the middle west.
We are informed indirectly that the Middle West has been showing relatively better response to the magazine in subscription as well as in study groups than in other by no means less important parts of the country. Before we critically evaluate the results of our work as well as the work in general, we would like to give a clear conception about the method which we employed along with the basic considerations upon which we arrived at the actual determination of this method.
It is our opinion that ss did not appear accidentally at this particular time. The fact that a magazine of the similar nature has appeared in the last forty years in Germany, Russia, Switzerland, and Japan while not in the Anglo-Saxon countries especially not in the US seems to us to reflect a basically uneven development the recognition of which is fundamental to our determination of the method which we have to employ in regard to SS in the US. According to the analysis of the Seventh world congress, capitalism has entered its crisis as such. For the US this meant that the very basis of the position of the intellectual — while we are not of the opinion that SS is only or even primarily directed to the intellectuals, a point which will be clarified later on, we think that it is best to develop our analysis from that specific point in the class struggle where SS originated, the intellectual — the economic basis for the opportunism and for the lack of their being forced to develop class consciousness in the form of revolutionary theory has withered away and that this necessity in many different forms was becoming apparent. Reviewed in this way, SS is not only a manifestation of the grown contradictions in the American capitalist society but represents in itself an active force and an important and indispensable weapon within the struggle of these contradictions.
More concretely, this means that SS as a manifestation of this stage of the contradictions is to be not only a platform for increasingly class-conscious intellectuals but as an active force is also to be used to drive the members of those middle-class strata whose very basis in these days is for the first time being generally shattered towards such an analysis as put forward in Ss. In this way we arrive at an exactly contrary result to that which the editors of SS seem to have arrived at by advocating a conscious neglect of study groups.

PART ONE

Regarding the foregoing as an introduction, we shall review concretely this problem of study groups. The opinion of the editors as communicated to us indirectly (and this very fact is in itself a high indictment of the policy of the editors to neglect practically the whole of the middle west-we have received no communications outside of a few purely business matters which in themselves were either too late or not to the point), we understand to be that no initiative shall be taken by the editors of SS to encourage the formation of study groups, although when they already exist the editors are willing to give whatever assist ance those study groups may wish to receive. In the light of the foregoing, this seems to us to be a declaration of bankruptcy. Again according to indirect communication, three main reasons are given for your stand (and, if this is not correct, we should very much like to be corrected, as we generally would appreciate very much to be regularly informed of the policy formulated by the editorial board. In fact, we feel that it would not be asking too much for the friends in the Middle West to be consulted on such matters).
(1) ” Fear of setting up factional opposition between Stalinists and Trotzkites. ” We are unable to comprehend this point. We would appreciate further elucidation on this point.
(2) It has been maintained by some members of the editorial board that ss is not a political organization. Right ! But whoever has maintained that SS was in itself to be conceived of as a political organization? We have outlined the general situation of today above. In this situation, the question of political organization does not confront all parts of middle classes with an equal immediacy.
[3726]
It is here that SS has to fulfill one of its most important functions (may we remind ourselves at this point that we are speaking about the function of SS in connection with the position of the intellectuals and not in many other respects in which it is most certainly not of no small importance, as is indicated by the role played by Unter dem Banner des Marxismus for the theoretical clarification within the party) to serve as an effective weapon against conflicting and contradictory bourgeois theories and offering at the same time to these groups basis through which political organization of these groups (e. g., the League against W. and F., Teachers ‘ and other professional unions, C. P.) will only be possible. Again more concretely, it is not enough to sell the magazine and to feel self-satisfied with the growing sub. list which is pouring in because of the general situation and in spite of ourselves. But we have to be active at exactly those weak links of bourgeois intelligentsia where SS is read; active in the sense that:

1. we have to deepen or even first to prepare the ground for an understanding of the Marxist content of the magazine. Such a necessity is abundantly clear from the last issue. (We specifically refer to the articles by McGill, Struik, and Brameld.)
2. we help these people already responsive to the magazine to find the “political ” contents of the magazine.
3. we make a conscious effort of extending this field of responsiveness by organizing study groups around specific scientific fields, for instance, modern problems in physics, or relation of biology to political science, or the function of law and dictatorship, etc., etc., in each case bearing in mind that our function is to expose the inherent contradictions in the bourgeois approach and to lead the members of the study groups to realize the only correct approach: the approach of dialectic materialism. The initiating spark for such study groups by no means has to be SS, but the magazine will prove to be an indispensable tool for the operation of such study groups after once they are formed.
4. it is obvious that these study groups (we are speaking of only those types mentioned under 1, 2, and 3) will be helped materially by some kind of loose central organization — the editorial board could perhaps perform this function-by (a) stimulating particular study groups, and (b) by exchanging valuable results between different study groups as regards methods employed, fields discussed, and results obtained.

In our opinion this does not infringe in any way the function performed by Workers’ Schools. For the following reasons:

1. As far as intellectuals are concerned, their attending of classes in Workers ‘ Schools presupposes a definite decision on their part; not only many of them at the moment are not willing to make such a decision due to lack of conviction, but many external circumstances impose the degree of precaution which they most certainly are not willing to forego before having attended a study group. Furthermore, there are a number of people whose right to precaution under the circumstances given would certainly not be denied.
2. Study groups are not to be perceived as regular courses beginning with the reading of Manifesto and ending with the application of the Third Volume of Capital to their specific fields. Such a course would certainly belong to Workers’ Schools. Positive contents of such study groups have been outlined above.
3. There should be no reason why SS study groups could not be organized within the framework of Workers ‘ Schools as actually done in the W.S. here in Chicago. Such a group would serve a similar function as those groups mentioned before only for slightly more developed intellectuals who do not object to going to a W.S. but might find it difficult to start their Marxist education on an elementary basis. Secondly, there are those within such a group who are far more easily approached via their own fields. The problem we have to keep in mind, with intellectuals defined as middle-class people suffering to a higher degree from ideologies, is always to make them conscious of the ideological nature of their thought and to involve them by means of this process in political action. If these intellectuals would be induced to join and come into W. S. (which in itself is highly improbable), then there would be a danger that because of the above-mentioned ideological nature of persons concerned the immediate teaching of the principles of Marxism to them would tend to strengthen their ideologies although changing forms (the elevation of the Marxist concept of revolution into a theory
[3727]
of revolution, as for instance Trotzkism). That danger would be offset bythe existence of SS   groups within the framework of Workers’ Schools.

If these considerations prove the necessity of SS study groups in our struggle for the winning over of the intellectuals, then this by no means exhausts the function of SS as a political weapon.

PART TWO

In a letter by Stalin to the editors of the central organ of the YCL of the Soviet Union (unfortunately, we do not have material with us to check), several years ago, Stalin stressed the great importance of the practical work performed in the Soviet Union since the revolution as something to be extremely proud of. But he said that little had been done for the struggle on the theoretical front. And this established one of the weakest points in the development of Soviet Union. He then stressed the responsibility of the Party and urged the concentration on this point. We think that a lesson could be taken from this letter to our own situation.
We feel it our duty to ask ourselves the question: what work has been done in analyzing the present complex situation in this country? Most certainly the analysis of the Seventh World Congress has given the basis for the analysis which was concretized and applied to the US in the Ninth convention. These analyses, however, could stress because of their very nature only the changes in the basic structure as well as certain specific aspects of it. The manifestations of these changes in, for instance, bourgeois economic theory, philosophy, natural sciences, etc., still wait for appropriate analyses and, even more, we are still waiting (and the fact that we are waiting is in itself an indictment) for an adequate expression of these changes in Marxist theoretical terms. The general attempt made in this direction is an analysis by Varga which should perform for us the same function as the Seventh World Congress to the Ninth Party Convention. The only concretization, however, which has as yet appeared (besides the attempt by a capitalist economist like Bonn) is the one by Corey of which we have as yet not even published an adequate critique. Comrade Bittelman’s critique in the Communist is extremely valuable and necessary, but it treats only one aspect of the book and does not develop in positive terms our analysis of the total situation. Unter dem Banner des Marxismus was used in Germany by no means only by those groups described in Part One, but did become an indispensable weapon in many shop and street units. The frequent objection against an expressed desire to see SS function in the similar way is that our working-class comrades would not understand and even more would not be interested in the problems dealt with in SS. May we suggest that such an attitude exhibits an unwarranted snobbishness on the part of some intellectual comrades who conclude from the fact that the highbrow terminology is not understood that the workers are not interested in the subject matter. However, not only the function of U. d. B. d. M. in Germany or earlier Iskra in Russia, but the very fact that Lenin found it necessary to devote many months of study to write a volume on philosophy “Empiriocriticism” and the subsequent extraordinarily wide circulation of this book among the working class seem to us to prove conclusively that there is something wrong with us and not with the subject matter. The conclusion to be drawn from above seems to us to be twofold: first, that the editors have to keep definitely this function of SS in mind, and, secondly, that our conscious effort should not go only in the direction as outlined in the Part One but also to use SS in the direct party work as outlined in the Part Two.

PART THREE

In this following part we would like to give an account of some major developments in Chicago area as to the sub. and contributors drive and the SS study groups as far as it elucidates important problems in connection with which we would like to make in part four some concrete suggestions.

A. When late last summer the appearance of SS was announced, the undersigned got together and on the basis of considerations similar to those outlined above we made the following plan:
We had access to the student groups at universities; we had a very few contacts with the faculty; in the city we had a contact with the social worker groups and teachers’ organizations. Our first objective was to have one reliable agent for each one of these groups and one central agent to coordinate the work of those agents and to maintain the contact with Cambridge and New York. The function
[3728]
of these agents was definitely determined. With the help of propaganda material, they had to cover those groups of which they were chosen as representatives for sub. as well as contributions, having at the same time in mind the extension of those groups to which they already had access as well as the forming of study groups among those who showed more than ordinary interest in the objective of the magazine. It might be emphasized at this point that this plan was by no means a purely organizational application of a theoretically perceived outline, but that many and lengthy discussions were held, not only with the agents, but with other people as well in order to make as clear as possible that the function was not purely that of a sub. agent but in itself a fight on the theoretical front.
As a further device for distribution, we first contacted the three Chicago Workers bookstores and discussed with them on the sale of this magazine and made arrangements for the prominent display of posters and propaganda materials. Further arrangements were made to use the regular channels of distribution of Marxian literatures to the bourgeois bookstores. Direct contact was established with the managers of the two bourgeois bookstores on the U. of C. campus. Although they agreed to contact with N.Y. directly, we supplied several copies to meet the immediate demand. In addition to this regular method of distribution, one hundred copies of the first issue were obtained by the central agent and distributed to those agents and those interested persons who before the actual appearance of the first issue already started the sub. drive and now followed up their contacts with actual copies.
If these were the methods which we had planned, the following are the difficulties which we have encountered. As far as the difficulties with the distribution of the magazine were concerned, the outstanding one was response resulting (a) from the nature of the magazine, and (b) from the character of the first issue. The former, being of general nature, has been dealt with above and was to be expected, with one exception: the reception of the magazine among certain white collar sections of the party. It necessitated considerable — to convince the comrades in the white-collar faction of the necessity of spending time and energy for the distribution and utilization of SS as a political weapon. Arguments used by us were those used in the Parts One and Two, with the result that the objection has been largely overcome. As to the latter (b), objections of varied types have been encountered:

(1) to take typical objection raised by people who more or less came for the first time into contact with the Marxian scientific literature, we have encountered the criticism that the articles seem to approach the problem with an a priori thesis and manipulate the subject matter to fit this a priori thesis. Although this common bourgeois objection has been met by Marx in his explanation of his method when dealing with his critics in the postscript to the second edition of Capital, we still might profitably raise the question whether the actual methods used in the articles of the first issue are Marxian dialectics, or whether they are not, as it seems to us, a mechanical use of dialectic terms. (Cf., somewhat classical example of Struik’s article.) This is not the place to go into specific criticisms of different articles.
(2) The second objection which has been brought to our attention is the lack of an observable editorial policy in the sense that not sufficient attention has been paid to the weighing of relative importance of different topics which might be treated. We assume, however, that editors were aware that such objection might be raised, the objection traceable to difficulties largely inherent in the situation.

If we regard these as outstanding examples of difficulties which we encountered, discounting those difficulties which of course arise constantly because of the very nature of the magazine with which we dealt above, there still remains the possibility of a difficulty arising out of the appearance of The Marxist Quarterly. The tactics employed by the MQ of avoiding any clear-cut distinction between the two magazines seems to indicate to us a difficulty as well as a hope. A difficulty in making clear the distinction at this moment to our readers. A hope because we think that the absence of a clear Trotzkyite line will only put the actual burden of justifying the existence of two journals upon those who elsewhere justify the existence by being an opposition to us. Secondly, with the absence of a clear editorial policy of either being Lovestoneites or Trozkyites, it tends to bring the opposing forces within this group to so much the more rapid disruptive conflict.

Let us consider now some of the shortcomings on our own part, both in general and specifically in Chicago.
First, we in Chicago failed to anticipate the actual extent of the demand for the magazine. Concretely this was seen in (a) our failure to realize the actual
[3729]
possibilities as quickly as we might have; (b) our failure to utilize our sympathizers to satisfy this active demand; and (c) the underestimation of workers bookshops in ordering their stocks.
Furthermore we did not succeed always in preparing our agents to the extent we had planned about the promotion of SS not only as a source of information but also as a political weapon.
We did not succeed as intended to collect donations for SS to an adequate extent. The reason for that, besides the lack of the realization of its necessity, is that the groups we contacted first were professionals whose resources were quite heavily drawn upon by various professional organizations or students, and it is only now that we, especially study groups, begin to penetrate into groups which might be effectively used for this purpose.
As to the question of contributions to the magazine, we are slowly beginning to see the first results of our strenuous advocating of the necessity for contributions among the sympathizers of SS; this, however, does not mean that printable articles will be available in the near future. But the foundation seems to be laid. As regards contributions by recognized scientists, we have not yet succeeded in obtaining any. Certain connections have been made, for instance in the U. of Minnesota, but it will take some more time before common platform will be reached to such people which will make contributions valuable to us. Here again, SS study groups have proved indispensable. As communicated to you in the earlier date, many foreign possible contributors have been contacted. Most of them will have contacted you directly. As far as we, the undersigned, are concerned, (1) Lowe has written an article on economics which has not yet been returned to him since the beginning of August. In view of the timeliness of the article, we consider it very unfortunate that such negligence has occurred;

(2) K.H.N. intended and still intends to write an article on the qualitative changes which have taken place in the trade-union structure since the great depression. Although the article has not been written because of the too heavy teaching role during the last semester, N. has never heard from the editors whether such an article is actually in line with their policy or not. As regards the book review, N. had been asked by Sam Sillen whether he would be willing to write a review of Manheim’s Ideology and Utopia, and consented, but never received a copy of the book. As yet, N. has not been asked to write any other review, although he has made several suggestions especially in the direction of treating economic subjects more extensively.
In regard to the general shortcomings, the last point made emphasizes already the lack of adequate communication between the middle west and the editors. N. has, for instance, written several letters to New York as well as to Cambridge; and except for the promises for the future, he has never received an adequate reply. The same is true as to the technical organization. As a good example might serve the letter of the central distributing agency for the Workers bookstore to N. Y. requesting information about the discount and other business matters. But an answer was not received before the first issue came out. Instead they received 150 copies with no information as to the terms on which they were to handle. This was particularly serious as they had already planned to order 500 copies of the first issue upon receipt of the answer to their letter on business details. These examples could be multiplied. N. gave the addresses of several important contacts at one time, and at another time he sent subscriptions for several people and ordered several copies for himself. He never received an answer nor copies. Aside from these particular instances, the matter of general organization and planning comes up. When we had appointed Miss K. as the central agent in Chicago area, we had suggested that she should make reports of her work to the editors. Lowe whom we had asked to arrange for this got into contact with the managing editor but no provision was made. In consequence, no report was made. According to our information, the same holds true for the relation between Madison, Wis., and NY. This is the matter definitely to be remedied, and as it seems to us, not only for the Middle West but for all places where SS is being distributed.
When N. was in NY last summer, he talked with McGill about several points, among them the necessity for translations of classical writings of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and others. Concrete suggestions were made. Thus, Natur and Dialektik, parts of Deutsche Ideologie, of Theorien über den Mehrwert, etc. Not only did nothing come out of it, but The Marxist Quarterly performed this task which we neglected.
We understand that it is the policy of the editors not to review any foreign books. We sincerely hope that this is misunderstanding. Although due space
[3730]
should be allotted to American publications, the very distinction between books which appeared outside of US and those within the present boundaries of US seems to us a fallacious one. To us, there seems to be only one distinction possible; that of relevant, less relevant, and irrelevant books, relevancy being determined by the problems which we as Marxists face in a specific situation, this in turn to be evaluated in the editorial policy.

B. Study groups:
The general situation and our policy germane thereto have been described above. In accordance with that policy, we allotted our forces to penetrate into the following channels:
Marxism as a science was of course studied at several points outside the Workers School before SS appeared. During the last year, students at the University had tried to organize Marxist Study Clubs sponsored by YCL. But this did not succeed very well because the clubs were regarded primarily as recruiting fields for YCL. When SS appeared, it was possible to use it as a means to revive the interest in the study of Marxism. We were fortunate enough to find a responsible person to devote more or less his whole time to this purpose. In close contact with the central agent, he went out to find responsible persons in the different departments on the campus who in turn would be able to mobilize all the potential interests in Marxism in these specific departments. In this way, we reached far beyond the previous scope of the Marxist study clubs. And by attacking the problem on the ground of their special field of interest, we succeeded in involving persons who heretofore had not been cognizant of the bearing which the Marxian analysis has on their accustomed ways of and materials for thinking. It has been possible already to involve some of those persons in direct action which after all is the major objective. Such groups are functioning or ready to function in economics, social sciences, humanities, and physics.
In the faculty of U. of C. we find a replica of the general situation outlined in the previous parts; that is, the deepening schism or the far greater preparedness to study Marxism on the one side and reaction on the other. The first actual study group among the faculty has been established and will begin its works in the coming week.
In Northwestern U., the situation is somewhat different. Situated in the most reactionary suburb of Chicago, a stronghold of the Liberty League, with a strong church background of the University itself, the faculty tends to be still more conservative than the one of Chicago University. The few contacts we had in the faculty of Northwestern, therefore, we brought together with another independent group of teachers and other intellectuals in that neighborhood, who had formed already a study circle for which they employed regularly a teacher from the Workers School.
Still another difficulty was that we were able to contact the faculty only from the outside as we had no one trustworthy and capable enough on the campus to act as a leader. The purpose and meaning of SS was then fully discussed with the already established group and they have been using the magazine effectively in their group. On the Northwestern Down Town Campus (Med. School, Law School, etc.) we have as yet only one person who is distributing the Magazine and looking for other persons interested in our aims with the view of getting subs as well as forming a study group before long.
The other colleges and universities in Chicago have not yet been covered with such a concentrated effort. This is mainly due to the fact that we had insufficient direct contacts with them, and we might add here that we would appreciate if you would communicate to us any addresses of persons who might serve such a purpose. However, this does not mean that nothing was done in that direction. The party faction of the teachers, with whom we had long and thorough discussions, had been largely responsible for the above-mentioned study group. Besides that they had established another Marxist study group in the city comprised of about thirty-five members also under the direction of a teacher from the workers school. Into this latter study group S. and S. has been introduced and is being used. Beyond that, however, the faction works as an agent for us and we hope that it will soon be possible to have more study groups and extend the field of influence of SS.
Similarly we proceeded with the social workers. The faction was here to our starting point, through which we brought S&S into the work of the units as well as contacted through them outside persons. One S&S study group under the leadership of two able comrades was formed here and has been meeting weekly since September. It is with this group that we gained our
[3731]
most valuable experience. We found that such SS study circles must be very carefully organized on an extremely flexible basis. The group which came together here was of a relatively heterogeneous character. We found that several members of the group were soon able to attend directly the courses in the workers school, a fact which was not soon enough realized but meanwhile remedied. Similarly we found that topics of too general or “fundamental” a nature tended to weaken the interest of certain members, nothing to say about the fact that they tended to repeat only what more effectively could have been done by the workers’ school. In positive terms, this is being remedied by dividing the group as far as possible into definite fields of professional interest or, where this is not possible, by clearly stating the different fields in advance, pointing out the problems involved and taking up one field after the other.
As a last instance of forming SS study groups we would like to discuss briefly the formation of such a group within the framework of the workers’ school. Our general ideas about this have been given above. The course which is officially announced in the bulletin of the workers’ school was thoroughly discussed with the friend who is going to lead it. The participants consist of psychiatrists, physiologists, a psychologist, a dentist, lawyers, a biologist, a journalist, an artist, and a philosopher (we are well aware of the fact that these seem to be strange bedfellows). It is obvious that, to say the least, such a heterogeneous group offers very difficult problems. As these people, however, by consenting to come to the workers’ school, had already made the definite decision which that implies, and as we had to find a common working basis, we suggested that they should start with a more fundamental though general discussion on dialectics based perhaps on the short article by Bukharin in Marxism and Modern Thought. To support this, we compiled an outside reading list. This discussion was to go over about five to six evenings; after this the main fields of interest were to be selected and if possible the members were to be divided into such interest groups with the objective of studying such fields more specifically; as for instance, biology and Marxian method, the science of law of Marxism, etc. In order to avoid too vague a treatment, specific concrete problems within those fields were formulated and reading lists for each of the fields compiled. As the members of this group consist of people who speak different languages, the untranslated writings of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, as well as modern Russian publications were included. The leader of the group is so optimistic as to hope that they will get several papers written which he intends to collect and make available not only to other study groups here but to send to you with the hope that other groups might do the same; and that material thus collected might be made mutually available through you.
In Minneapolis we got a foothold at the University of Minnesota where a group of a few economic historians, political scientists, and a philosopher was meeting with N. fairly regularly. The discussion revolved mainly around an interpretation of history coupled, of course, with an understanding of present events. Fairly good headway has been made. There is a possibility that the group will have to be reorganized because two of the members will go to Washington, DC, after Christmas.
We have worked in close contact with Madison, Wisconsin, and N. was there only a few weeks ago and found that the friend in charge of S&S there, though extremely capable, encounters certain difficulties inherent in the situation in Madison. We suggest, however, that you might get directly in touch with Mr. John Cookson, 701 West Johnson Street, c/o Herman Ramras, Madison, Wisconsin.
We conclude by saying that we would appreciate your reactions to this formulation of our experience in regard to study groups and that we would like to hear from you equally elaborately about the experiences in this respect in other places.

PART FOUR

Concrete suggestions

1. Resulting from the consideration put forth in the above memorandum, we propose that the editorial policy should exhibit a conscious effort to make the magazine into a tool of our present-day struggle on the theoretical front rather than an encyclopaedic compedium of various learned treatments of scientific problems. This implies that the articles to be printed shall be selected from a point of view determined by an analysis of the problems confronting us at that moment.
2. Resulting from the criticisms given in the memorandum on the editorial policy concerning study groups, we propose a reconsideration of this policy
[3732]
and a change in the direction which experiences in the Middle West point to.
3. As mentioned before, we propose that serious consideration should be given to the translation of outstanding basic writings of Marxist leaders.
4. In regard to the book review section of the magazine, we propose reconsideration of the editorial policy, the only criterion possible to be the relevancy of the books under consideration, this relevancy in turn being determined by the same analysis which determines the selection of articles as outlined under 1.
5. We feel strongly that the Mid-West and if possible the Far West should be actively represented on the editorial board. The desirability of this has been acknowledged frequently for many reasons:

(a) Avoidance of the top-heaviness of the East

(b) The necessity of a conscious building of leadership as opposed to a reliance on spontaneity — c.f., Lenin What’s To Be Done

(c) The necessity for the recognition of the actual potentialities for use of S.&S. as a political weapon also west of the Alleghenys

(d) The desirability of a distribution of duties over as large an area as possible

(e) The necessity of arriving at an adequate analysis of the situation in order to determine the editorial policy of the magazine seems to us to demand an adequate representation of as many districts as possible on the editorial board. As far as the representation of the Mid-West is concerned, friend Lowe will personally make concrete suggestions.

6. We propose a reconsideration of our understanding of the general function of an agent. Practically, we propose dismissal of the concept of agents as mere subscription agents. The drive for subscriptions cannot and should not be separated from the agents’ political and educational function.
Special attention should be given to the problem of getting more of such agents and of extending the territory covered with the help of such agents.
7. “A guide to Marxist Studies.” Friend Lowe communicated to us the outline for the proposed guide to Marxist studies. May we express our surprise that no one in the Mid-West ever heard of this enterprise before it was launched. In the outline before us there seem to us to be several contradictions. It is stated that “an exhaustive Marxist bibliography for intensive research in specialized fields would prove extremely useful,” but it is not even indicated why such a bibliography could not be compiled and why only an introductory guide is attempted to be compiled. We infer that the difficulty for an exhaustive Marxist bibliography lies in the fact that such an overwhelming part of the Marxist literature has not yet been translated. This, however, seems to us to be not necessarily a valid objection, especially if we confront the attempted bibliography with the professed, and under the heading “Audience,” enumerated aims.
It seems to us meaningless to say that the guide should be neither “exhaustive” nor “for the advanced student as such” when we continue the sentence that it is intended “for the ordinary intelligent student of socialism.” We cannot quite understand what kind of students the composer of this outline had in mind when he speaks about the use of such an outline for “college courses which bear on the various aspects of socialism”; we understand still less when he speaks about “the student already possessing some knowledge of socialism who wishes to make a study of fields not yet investigated”; and we do not understand at all the snobbishness with which he speaks about the “workers who wish to deepen their knowledge of socialism.”
Needless to say, there is a flagrant contradiction between the initial modesty as regards the scope of the outline and the actually proposed contents as enumerated on the next page. Under the heading “Scope,” it is written that “the projected guide will serve to indicate the best exposition of Marxism and its implications for the special branches of knowledge.” If this is to indicate the red thread which is supposed to run through the outline, we fail entirely and absolutely to see where the composer is to get an “estimated number of two hundred items” of the “bare minimum of basic works, specifically Marxist works” of the history of the United States. If such a thing would be possible, we would see still less how this red thread could be carried out under the heading “Political Theory.” The remarks attached to this heading indicate already that the composer of this table of contents thought it impossible to collect sufficient Marxist studies in the English language in this field when he speaks about “intimations of socialist theory in American political theory.” In this way every one of the different paragraphs of the table of contents could be analyzed; the result would remain the same.
[3733]
As the outline in the proposed form seems to us for these reasons not only not to serve the purpose put forward but to add positively to the undoubtedly existing confusion, and
As on the other side we are convinced with you that a bibliographical guide to studies of Marxism is highly desirable and necessary,
We propose that:

(a) An exhaustive bibliography should be compiled of all Marxist literatures, as far as we have knowledge of it, regardless in which language it appeared.
(b) This bibliography should be compiled, of course, under certain headings. However, we propose that in the enumeration of these headings due modesty should be applied.
(c) A very valuable bibliography up to 1925 or ’26 has been compiled and published in the first volume of the Marx-Engels Archiv. If the bibliography would be brought up to date, it would be augmented by a selection of representative Russian publications (extremely necessary!) and if then this bibliography would be furnished with an introduction and the necessary elucidations of the enumerated items as well, we think that such a work would not only be extremely useful but fill a gap which has been felt for a long time.
(d) In order to make this bibliography also useful and accessible for people who are mainly interested in the more basic and fundamental Marxist works we propose that such works should be printed in bold face.
(e) As regards this reference to the treatment of the history of US, we do not think that bourgeois works “easily adapted to Marxist use” should be included especially if their number is estimated somewhere around two hundred. Bibliographies of the US history are easily available in every bourgeois library. It does not need, we hope, to be emphasized that such a principle is not to be used with absolute rigidity. Works like that of Charles Beard, if given adequate annotations, may very well serve our purpose.
(f) Especial care should be given to the selection as to the persons who are to be entrusted with the compilation of the different parts of this bibl. We cannot see for instance that Laski would be able to give an adequate bibl. of the Marxist interpretation of law. The man who in our opinion should come in this connection into our mind would be Pashkhanis of the Red Academy.
However, if there should be, because of a lack of forces available, choice to be made between such a bibliography and translations of basic Marxist works into English, we strongly advocate that the latter be given preference. We feel that the need for the translation cannot be emphasized too much.

8. It would go definitely too far to give within the framework of this memorandum an exhaustive criticism of all the articles of the first issue. We shall content ourselves with enumerating a few:

(a) As regards McGill’s article, we understand that the article in the first issue is only the first installment. This however is nowhere indicated. We therefore take the article as a whole. The critical analysis of logical positivism as given by McGill seems to us to be a mere critique within the framework of this bourgeois philosophical system, to which Marxian terms are only attached. In other words, in our opinion no visible attempt is made to understand logical positivism as an outgrowth of the specific historical situation of today and to determine its specific place in the situation. The omission of this analysis is clearly reflected in the results attained at the end of the article. It is stated there that logical positivism “is not at present… a reactionary philosophy”, and this conclusion is proved by the stand the logical positivists took at the international congress at Prague. Surprisingly enough, a few lines later, this position is explained by the observation “that the students of logical positivism at the universities of Vienna, Prague, Warsaw, etc., are typically poor and without prospect, and while their disinterested (!!! K.H.N.) devotion to the most abstract and impractical studies resembles somewhat the zeal of chess players, and also expresses surrepetitiously (sic) a revolt against the pompous idealism of the tyrannies which surround and threaten them, since, in terms of their analysis, this idealism is literally nonsense.” Although this is quoted from Earnest Nagel, McGill arrives at the conclusion that “log. pos. is thus a literary weapon against the favorite philosophies of the fascists.” We do not agree with the deduction given. The fact that the class situation of the student in Vienna, etc. forces them to stand against fascism does not elevate log. pos. into a weapon against fascism. Furthermore, the fact that there are contradictions and even violent ones between different philosophies does not make the one whose believers because of a specific class situation are forced temporarily to take a stand against fascism into a weapon against fascism. On the contrary, we would like to
[3734]
suggest that such a philosophy, although involved in such a struggle which reminds us very much of the description of the fratricidal behavior of the capitalists in the first volume of Capital, must serve in the end for its believers as an actual veil against the recognition of their class situation which alone would enable them to fight fascism effectively. This is by no means an advocation of the leftist deviation as we most heartily would agree to a united front, though temporary, with the logical positivists on specific issues. The patting of logical positivists on the back (page 79, beginning of last paragraph) is not only superfluous. No, their experimentalism is not “even acceptable if it had not cut away the material basis of experiment” because the former is not Logical Positivism without the latter. And thus the argument could be carried on. To conclude, Logical Positivism seems to us to be as much the twin brother of Pareto and similar philosophers as this was true for the semi-revolutionary phraseology of Braunthal and the other apologists of the social democracy in Germany which Stalin so adequately characterized as twin brothers of capitalism. We cannot see the validity of a reasoning that “if history and economic considerations are allowed their proper place, this trend… will cumulate in dialectic materialism.” “If” seems to indicate that we have forgotten the class roots and resulting from that, the functions of such ideology.
(b) As regards the Struik article. We understand by dialectics a mode of behavior and not a pattern conveniently attached to phenomena which on the surface resemble dialectic process. Although Struik brings out in his article many interesting facts, he seems to us to be guilty of the fallacy mentioned of applying dialectics like a pattern to these facts. He fails to develop or at least to indicate the development of those basic processes of which mathematics was a product and upon which mathematics reacted. It seems to us a lack of dialectical analysis of ideology if we read on page 84 that “the necessity of operating with large numbers leads to a pride in workmanship, to the development of a craft which finds pleasure in computing for computing’s sake, in looking for impractical problems to test the power of the method,” when such an observation leads to a conclusion “that without this pride in men like Van Cedlen * * * we never should have had the practical invention of logarithms.” We fail to understand therefore of course why such an invention as an “interac tion * * * between social necessity to get results and the love of science for science’s sake” is exhibiting “dialectics or reality, a simple illustration of the unity of opposites.” Not only that there does not seem to us to be any dialectic relationship but a mere seeing of ghosts, but the term itself in its novelty seems to ask for clarifying explanation. This concept of the pride of workmanship is repeatedly used till it is finally given the form of the active and direct cause to the birth of analytical geometry (Cf. 85). The method employed by Struik and criticized here becomes definitely obvious when on Page 88 under the pretense of historical analysis he is describing (as distinguished from analyzing) the tendence toward abstraction by mere assertions (Cf. the first half of Page 88). Or if he informs us on p. 92 that “Feudal society did not use exact science much.” Of course, it couldn’t as exact science was just in the foetal stage.
It would lead too far to investigate here the validity of such a concept as “social causality,” but we might only mention that the use of the word “therefore” in the last line of the third paragraph on page 89 by no means disposes of our criticism.
With this method applied, the definition of “genius” as always implying “an element of the irrational, the unexplainable” does not come as a surprise, nor of course the further deduction that “the history of a science which depends so much on the role of genius seems also to have elements of the irrational and the unexplainable.” The absurdity of these remarks is not covered up by the mistranslation of Engels in the following sentence in which Struik makes it appear as if by “average shape” he meant the averaging of the special forms affected by genius by the means of a mass action. “Average shape,” however, means here socially determined shape in the same way that “Durchschnittsarbeit” is used by Marx as socially determined labor (Das Kapital, Bd. I. S. 49 Adoratzky edition. We might mention at this place that in the following quotation from the Engels correspondence the second half of the third from the last line seems to be a mistranslation although we are at the moment unable to check it. Further, on page 94, the first sentence in the second paragraph only seems to make sense if an “it is” is inserted between “that” and “commodity fetishism” in the second line. On page 91, the quotation on the head of the page, the German word “Betriebes” is put after the word “cultivation,” but this is never a translation of the word “Betrieb.” The best possible translation which occurs to our mind at present is “institution.”).
[3735]
Finally, and perhaps most clearly, we see the Struik’s method in the statement that “the transition in mentality (i. e., the tendency to think far more in abstraction is reflected in the economic field in the replacement of use value by exchange value.” (88) First of all, this transition is not reflected in any replacement in the economic field, but if at all, it is vice versa. But beyond this fundamental misconception, what actually takes place in the economic sphere is by no means the replacement of use value by exchange value, but on the contrary, a dialectic growth of a form which contains both use value and exchange value as opposites.
(c) Communications on Jaensch and Comte seem to us to be valuable information in an appropriate form.

9. We have not as yet seen The Marxist Quarterly personally, but we have received from different sympathizers who had occasion to see it one uniform comment: the attractiveness of the format. We should like to call your attention to this fact.
We would be glad if this memorandum could serve as a profitable basis for discussions, and we would appreciate very much the communication of your reactions.

Constance Kyle,
Department of Psychiatry of the University of Illinois.

Karl H. Niebyl,
Department of Economics, Carleton College.

Alfred Z. Lowe.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota,
Department of Economics,

Jan. 25, [19]37.

Shigeto Tsuru,
63, Claverly Hall, Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Shigeto: I am sorry about the delay the memorandum suffered—let’s hope that it is still in time. There are a number of things I would formulate today somewhat differently, but I think it’s better we don’t begin with any rewriting but wait for the response we get.
I just got the second issue. It looks much better although I haven’t had time to read it.
Sam S. just wrote me that I should review Strachey’s new book which I think I will do as soon as I will have the copy.
Have you heard anything about your article? Sweezy’s remarks I couldn’t find in the new issue and Sillen wrote me from NY that he didn’t know anything about them.
Do write me what you think about the Keynes article. I will do the same as soon as I have read it.
I won’t be able to get to Chicago this week as planned as I am over my neck in work. Next Monday I have to begin teaching two new courses for which I haven’t prepared as yet anything. I talked to Conny several times on the phone and had several letters, the work seems to go along there nicely, although with the usual birth-pains.
I do hope you are well!

Very cordially,

K (Karl Heinrich Niebyl).

Senator Jenner. Do you want to comment?

Mr. Tsuru. I want to make clear the part I played in drafting this memorandum.

Senator Jenner. All right.

Mr. Tsuru. The memorandum was drafted, I think, in the course of the — toward the end of January 1937, from the end of December 1936 toward the end of January 1937. I was in Chicago for a brief period in the early part of the drafting, and discussed a number of questions contained in the memorandum with two other persons whose names appear there. I tried to refresh my memory yesterday, after receiving this copy, what particular part I was especially instrumental in bringing about. And I am very sorry I cannot recall any particular point, but the general observation I should like to make is that
[3736]
it is my understanding that Mr. Niebyl had a major role in play in drafting this memorandum, as is clear from the fact that I left Chicago very early in January of 1937, and the memorandum was completed only toward the end of January and sent to me by mail. And furthermore, internal evidence is—

Senator Jenner. Did you go to Chicago to collaborate on this particular memorandum?

Mr. Tsuru. The reason I went to Chicago was not simply one, but I knew I was going to Chicago. So I spoke with Mr. Parry, now I don’t quite remember but I must have spoken to Mr. Parry before I went to Chicago, and discussed a number of problems related to Science and Society and went to Chicago. But the major reason I went to Chicago was to accompany Prof. and Mrs. Kei Shibata, who had just lost their only son and were psychologically in an extremely depressed condition and they asked me to travel with them to Niagara Falls and Detroit and Chicago and they were just visiting this country at the time, so I agreed and accompanied them. That is the major reason I went to Chicago, or went around these places.
But I utilized the opportunity to discuss these matters with Mr. Niebyl and Miss Kyle.

Senator Jenner. You made a trip into Wisconsin, too. What was the purpose of that trip?

Mr. Tsuru. At that time I do not believe I made a trip, earlier I did.

Senator Jenner. Earlier, all right. What was the purpose of that trip into Wisconsin?

Mr. Tsuru. I think I stated yesterday I attended summer schools, if I remember correctly, three times at the University of Wisconsin. The main reason being that, since I was originally a philosophy major in college and changed into economics later on, I had to catch up with some of my economics courses and I wanted to do so through training at summer school. And since I like Lake Mendota during the summer, I chose the University of Wisconsin to do so.

Senator Jenner. You financed your own education?

Mr. Tsuru. I personally had no funds. My father did. Most of my college days. It was very difficult at the time to do any work under the immigration law. I could wash dishes, so I did such things occasionally. But otherwise my college days were financed by my father.

Senator Jenner. The Communist Party never paid for any of your trips out to Chicago to collaborate on this matter?

Mr. Tsuru. Absolutely not.

Senator Jenner. No Communist contributed to your expenses?

Mr. Tsuru. Absolutely not.

Senator Jenner. Mr. Parry or any of the other associate professors you referred to in your previous testimony never advanced you any money of any kind?

Mr. Tsuru. No, sir.

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit that I studied this document very carefully, and it has all the earmarks of being prepared by what the Communists call experienced “agitprop directors” of the Communist Party. Are you acquainted with that material, Mr. Tsuru?

Mr. Tsuru. I am sorry, I am not acquainted with that term.

[3737]

Mr. Morrris. Mr. Chairman, I would like to read sections of this.

Senator Jenner. Proceed. It is all in the record.

Mr. Morris. First page, paragraph 3:

It is our opinion that SS did not appear accidentally at this particular time. The fact that a magazine of the similar nature has appeared in the last forty years in Germany, Russia, Switzerland, and Japan, while not in the Anglo-Saxon countries, especially not in the U. S., seems to us to reflect a basically uneven development, the recognition of which is fundamental to our determination of the method which we have to employ in regard to SS in the U. S. According to the analyses of the Seventh World Congress, capitalism has entered its crisis as such. For the U. S. this meant that the very basis of the position of the intellectual — while we are not of the opinion that SS is only or even primarily directed to the intellectuals, a point which will be clarified later on, we think that it is best to develop our analysis from that specific point in the class struggle where SS originated, the intellectual. — the economic basis for the opportunism and for the lack of their being forced to develop class consciousness in the form of revolutionary theory has withered away and that this necessity in many different forms was becoming apparent. Reviewed in this way, SS is not only a manifestation of the grown contradictions in the American capitalist society but represents in itself an active force and an important and indispensable weapon within the struggle of these contradictions.

I would like to move over to the next page, Senator, and — may I read parts of this in the interest of time?

Senator Jenner. Yes, proceed.

Mr. Morris. And if I seem to take anything out of context, in so moving will you let me know, Mr. Tsuru? Under part 1, there is a subdivision 1, 2, and 3.

1. We have to deepen or even first to prepare the ground for an understanding of the Marxist content of the magazine. Such a necessity is abundantly clear from the last issue. (We specifically refer to the articles by McGill, Struik, and Brameld.)

Who are McGill, Struik, and Brameld?

Mr. Tsuru. Mr. McGill was one of the editors of Science and Society at the time. Mr. Struik was a professor of mathematics at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and I believe he was either an editor or contributing editor. Brameld, this name I do not recall.

Mr. Morris. Is that Theodore Brameld?

Mr. Tsuru. I do not recall, Mr. Morris.

Mr. Morris (reading):

2. We help these people already responsive to the magazine to find the “political” contents of the magazine.
3. We make a conscious effort of extending this field of responsiveness by organizing study groups around specific scientific fields, for instance, modern problems in physics, or relation of biology to political science, or the function of law and dictatorship, etc. etc., in each case bearing in mind that our function is to expose the inherent contradictions in the bourgeois approach and to lead the members of the study groups to realize the only correct approach: the approach of dialectic materialism.

Mr. Morris. Then I would like to go down to No. 1 in the next subdivision. [Reading:]

1. As far as intellectuals are concerned, their attending of classes in Workers Schools presupposes a definite decision on their part; not only many of them at the moment are not willing to make such a decision due to lack of conviction but many external circumstances impose the degree of precaution which they most certainly are not willing to forego before having attended a study group. Furthermore, there are a number of people whose right to precaution under the circumstances given would certainly not be denied.
2. Study groups are not to be perceived as regular courses beginning with the reading of Manifesto and ending with the application of the Third Volume of
[3738]
Capital to their specific fields. Such a course would certainly belong to Workers Schools. Positive contents of such study groups have been outlined above.
3. There should be no reason why SS study groups could not be organized within the framework of Workers Schools as actually done in the W.S. here in Chicago. Such a group would serve a similar function as those groups mentioned before only for slightly more developed intellectuals who do not object to going to a W.S. but might find it difficult to start their Marxist education on an elementary basis. Secondly, there are those within such a group who are far more easily approached via their own fields.

Then I would like to skip to part 2, just a half page later. [Reading:]

PART TWO

In a letter by Stalin to the editors of the central organ of the YCL of the Soviet Union (unfortunately we do not have material with us to check) several years ago, Stalin stressed the great importance of the practical work performed in the Soviet Union since the revolution as something to be extremely proud of. But he said that little had been done for the struggle on the theoretical front. And this established one of the weakest points in the development of Soviet Union, He then stressed the responsibility of the Party and urged the concentration on this point. We think that a lesson could be taken from this letter to our own situation.
In other words, Mr. Tsuru, you invoked a letter by Mr. Stalin as a guide to your political activities at this time.

Mr. Tsuru. As I indicated earlier, my part in drafting this memorandum I consider somewhat minor. I took the responsibility of putting down the name because I participated in a discussion while preparing for the draft, and I was the intermediary to carry, if it was completed, to Mr. Parry. So I took the responsibility of putting down the name, but actually, as I think you will be able to establish in the latter part of this memorandum, the memorandum refers to Lowe as Friend Lowe, whereas it refers to Niebyl by initials, KHN. I recall most of the parts of the things were written by Mr. Niebyl and my contribution was to participate in the discussion of certain aspects of the memorandum, so if you ask me if I invoke the letter by Stalin, the only thing I can say is to the extent I have put down the name, I am responsible, but it was so long as I can recall, not I who invoked Stalin.

Mr. Sourwine. May I respectfully suggest this is at a time when the witness has already testified he was acting like a Communist, thinking like a Communist.
Now, in that connotation there is nothing remarkable about putting that in this memorandum.

Mr. Morris. Well, may I just read two more paragraphs, Senator?

Senator Jenner. Proceed. Mr. Morris. The next paragraph under part 2. [Reading:]

We feel it is our duty to ask ourselves the question: what work has been done in analyzing the present complex situation in this country. Most certainly the analysis of the Seventh World Congress has given the basis for the analysis which was concretized and applied to the US in the Ninth convention. These analyses, however, could stress because of their very nature only the changes in the basic structure as well as certain specific aspects of it. The manifestations of these changes in, for instance, bourgeois economic theory, philosophy, natural sciences, etc., still wait for appropriate analyses and even more, we are still waiting (and the fact that we are waiting is in itself an indictment) for an adequate expression of these changes in Marxist theoretical terms. The general attempt made in this direction is an analysis by Varga which should perform for us the same function as the Seventh World Congress to the Ninth Party Convention.

Now, again, “Should perform for us the same function as the Seventh World Congress to the Ninth Party Convention.”

[3739]

Mr. Tsuru. I think I can only repeat the same as my answer to my part in the memorandum.

Mr. Morris. The next part only refers to Comrade Bittelman.

Senator Jenner. Was it your habit to refer to individuals as “Comrades”?

Mr. Tsuru. Mr. Chairman, I am clearly certain that it was Mr. Niebyl’s writing. He referred to Mr. Bittelman as Comrade and a little further below he refers to me as “Friend.”

Senator Jenner. But in the beginning of the paragraph you say— the word is, “we feel it is our duty to ask ourselves” — and then in the middle of the paragraph you say “Comrade.” Now I ask you, do you refer to your friends as comrades?

Mr. Tsuru. No, sir, I do not do so.

Senator Jenner. You never did.

Mr. Tsuru. I never did.

Senator Jenner. Why did you sign this document then?

Mr. Tsuru. Well, because—

Senator Jenner. Did you ask Mr. Niebyl to correct that and put Mr. Bittelman rather than Comrade Bittelman at any time?

Mr. Tsuru. I am sorry, I did not do so.

Senator Jenner. Of course, you are sorry now.

Mr. Tsuru. Yes.

Senator Jenner. How long have you been sorry?

Mr. Tsuru. Well, I think I expressed in my initial statement about the gradual changes in my views and I should say, if you would like me to develop on that point, probably I could spend a few minutes but I don’t like to take up too much of the committee’s time so I would ascribe my gradual transition to the period, the initial period from 1938 and 1939, but more intensively I began to change my views in the postwar period.

Senator Jenner. But when you were attached to SCAP under the command of General MacArthur, you hadn’t clearly changed your views

Mr. Tsuru. I was attached to SCAP in 1946 and 1947 and I believe I had changed my views then.

Senator Jenner. All right, proceed.

Mr. Morris. Well, Senator, I thought possibly when we got to that line of development I might ask a few questions. But excuse me, sir, I will go back and finish this line of questioning.
I have just one more letter I will offer the witness at this time, dated May 9, 1937, which was shown to the witness in the executive session this morning. It is addressed to Mr. Karl-Heinrich. It reads as follows:

Dear Karl-Heinrich:
I hope that the fact that I have not heard from you does not mean that you have been ill, but rather that you have been terrifically busy as usual.
Toward the end of March we started a new study group here for the study of American capitalism from the Marxist point of view. The group consists of young instructors and graduate students in economics, history, and law, including a few men who have already established some reputation in their own field like Paul Sweezy and Robert Bryce. Thus far we met five times and discussed five papers: “Marxian Methodology in Social Sciences” by myself, “National Income and its Distribution Among Different Classes” by L. Tarshis, “American Imperialism” by E. H. Norman, “Peculiarities of Capitalist Accumulation in U. S.” by P. Sweezy, and “Agriculture in U. S. A.” by R. Bryce. We plan to meet for the last time this year two weeks from today to discuss the program of a Farmer-Labor Party.

[3740]

I haven’t finished reading the letter but that is the part I want to ask you questions about.

(The letter referred to above was marked “Exhibit No. 451” and reads as follows:)

EXHIBIT No. 451

36 Claverly Hall,
Cambridge, Mass., May 9, 1937.

Dear Karl-Heinrich: I hope that the fact that I have not heard from you does not mean that you have been ill, but rather that you have been terrifically busy as usual.
Toward the end of March we started a new study group here for the study of American capitalism from the Marxist point of view. The group consists of young instructors and graduate students in economics, history and law, including a few men who have already established some reputation in their own field like Paul Sweezy and Robert Bryce. Thus far we met five times and discussed five papers: “Marxian Methodology in Social Science” by myself, “National Income and its Distribution among different Classes” by L. Tarshis, “American Imperialism” by E. H. Norman, “Peculiarities of Capitalist Accumulation in U.S.” by P. Sweezy, and “Agriculture in U.S.A.” by R. Bryce. We plan to meet for the last time this year two weeks from to-day to discuss the program of a Farmer-Labor Party. In the discussion of Bryce’s paper, the question arose, in particular, if it is not increasingly likely that agricultural population as a whole would in future politically identify themselves as one in favoring such a measure as the AAA and that even tenant farmers and sharecroppers may line up with other sectors of agricultural population over against industrial population including industrial workers. How the program of a Farmer-Labor Party should take such a probability into consideration is one of the questions we shall discuss. Therefore, we wish to obtain some materials which explain the position of the Middle Western Farmer Labor groups on such questions. If you have them on hand, will you send them to me? Or, if you know some good articles on the subject in any of the national periodicals, will you let me know?
Other study groups are holding out quite nicely. Representatives of several study groups here sent a letter to the editors of S&S almost two months ago, asking certain specific questions and suggesting certain specific steps. But we have not heard a word from them yet.
Parry tells me that we printed 8,400 copies of S&S per issue for the last two times and we have about 1,500 annual subs, also that we need the total of 5,000 subs to make the magazine self-sustaining and otherwise we need $2,000 contributions every year. “Otherwise” means “unless we do not get additional 3,500 subs.” The editors are quite pessimistic about the prospect of getting more subs. But I think it is a mistake.
I also feel that it would be better to establish various departmental editorships. I envisage a wide potentiality under such a system. The present system with a hurried weekend editorial meeting once a month or so is almost an insult to the kind of work S&S is meant to be doing. We need more personnel with better organization, it seems to me.
If you are too busy, don’t bother with those annotations which I asked you to write; and let me know whichever way you decide.
The recent sudden death of my mother will take me back to Japan this summer. But I hope to be back in U.S. in the fall.

(TSURU)

Mr. Tsuru. Yes.

Mr. Morris. Who were in that study group to the best of your recollection?

Mr. Tsuru. First, I would like to state, this letter, although it is a copy, I am certain that I wrote it. And then as to Mr. Morris’ question about the study group, as I now recall, although I would not have recalled the details, were it not for the fact that I have seen the letter, I now recall more details of the study group which consisted mainly of graduate students and instructors at Harvard, generally in the field of social science, economics, and history, to discuss among ourselves freely the question of American capitalism. Some of us in the study
[3741]
group, not all of them, some of us including myself, and possibly Mr. Sweezy, had the idea of trying to test the theories of Karl Marx as they applied to American capitalism. I am certain others included in the study group were not, at least at the time I knew them then, so the discussion was quite free and flexible and we exchanged different points of view. And as Mr. Morris has read the part, we discussed a wide variety of subjects.

Mr. Morris. And who were in that study group?

Mr. Tsuru. Oh, Miss — although I am not certain if all of them were present at every meeting, persons like Tarshis, Mr. Robert Bryce, Mr. Paul Sweezy, and Mr. E. H. Norman were present.

Mr. Morris. Now, when did you first meet Mr. Norman, for instance?

Mr. Tsuru. I met Mr. Norman for the first time, I believe, in the spring of 1936. I cannot place exactly, but I said it is spring, because he was introduced to me through Mr. Robert Bryce, who is a Canadian economist, at the time a graduate student at Harvard University, and I believe I came to know Mr. Bryce only after several months of my academic year 1935 to 1936. Mr. Bryce introduced me to Mr. Norman at the dining room of one of the Harvard dormitories.

Mr. Morris. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to read the excerpt from a security memorandum which has previously been entered into our record.¹ A reference contained therein which reads, “Tsuru Shigato, Japanese instructor at Harvard,” — That is you, is it not?

¹ See Emmerson testimony March 12, 1957, pt. 56, Scope of Soviet Activity in the United States, p. 3645.

Mr. Tsuru. Shigato is not quite correct.

Mr. Morris. Now, at that time — 1942 — you were being repatriated, were you not? It means in connection with the repatriation purposes of 1942. [Reading:]

The FBI was approached by Norman who represented himself as an official on highly confidential business of the Canadian Government in an effort to take custody of Tsuru’s belongings.
One main item of these belongings was a complete record of the Nye munitions investigations, largely prepared by Alger Hiss.
Norman later admitted to the FBI agents in charge that his was only a personal interest and that he was not representing the Canadian Government as stated.
Another item among these belongings, as reported by the FBI, was a letter dated May 9, 1937, which related to a series of studies being promoted at Harvard by Tsuru which provided for the study of American capitalism from a Marxist viewpoint. The studies were conducted by a group of young instructors and graduate students which had met five times. They discussed certain papers which included “American Imperialism,” by E. H. Norman.

Obviously that reference there is to the letter we have just been reading.
Now, can you tell us what precisely you did with all your personal papers and books after your repatriation in 1950?

Mr. Tsuru. At the time of repatriation, that is to say, before I was repatriated, we had an intimation from, I think it was immigration authorities that, since we were living unmolested, paid by American institutions, our application for repatriation is likely to receive a low priority.
So, Mrs. Tsuru and I more or less decided in our own mind that we should stay on until probably 1943 or 1945, although we had applied for repatriation. And I negotiated with a number of professors at
[3742]
Harvard so that I could get research assistance grants for the following academic year of 1953 — I am sorry, 1942 to 1943.
I was assured of such possibilities and we were under the impression that we would just go on living in Cambridge, but suddenly, I believe it was June the second, 1942, we received a telegram from the State Department saying that we are to be repatriated by the first boat and we are to report to the Ellis Islands by June the 7th, I believe, the exact date I am not quite certain now. Which meant that I had only a few days between the receipt of the telegram and the date of my departure. I was at the time correcting exam papers for a number of courses as well as doing certain assigned jobs at the Museum of Fine Arts. I felt it was my responsibility to finish the exam corrections and my assignments at the museum before I departed.
In fact, by the first week of June, most of the Harvard professors and faculty members usually would have left Cambridge to vacation, except those who are remaining for correction of papers. I could not ask anyone to take my place.
So I considered the question of packing my belongings a matter of lowest priority. Furthermore, the State Department instruction was that I was permitted to take only one big trunk per person. It specified the cubic feet, I am not quite sure, but I found out later on it was just about the size of one big trunk per person which meant I had to leave most of the things in Cambridge.
Therefore, I decided under the circumstances, which was quite an extraordinary circumstance, from the standpoint of a Japanese citizen, our own country being at war with the country where I had lived some years, and in my personal case, I was under the conviction that Japan should not have started the war, and also felt that Japan would be defeated. So my going back, to my mind, was to go back to Japan in order to reconstruct Japan somehow out of defeat. That was the deep determination I had in my mind.
From that standpoint, for me, books, papers, furniture and those things were entirely immaterial. Those were immaterial things to me. Although I had a large number of books and documents, I freely gave to some of the economist friends who came to my apartment before I left, the books which they wanted to have. I also contacted the library of Harvard, Japanese library, saying that I was willing to present my Japanese books to the library if they can find them useful. Otherwise I instructed the janitor of the apartment that he can have my furniture, kitchen utensils, radio, and other things he wanted. Books and documents I was certain that he would have no use, so I suggested to him he can dispose of them in second-hand bookstores or just dispose of them as he liked.
One other item which I took care of was the making out of a box full of Japanese books which I intended to give to Mr. Norman because he had indicated while he was in this country a few years back of that period, that he wanted to obtain those books very much, but they were very difficult to get.
The major item in this box of books was volumes on source materials on the economic history of early Meiji period, that is to say, the third quarter of the 19th century.
I believe I included some other source books and economic history books and I left this box in care of International Student Association, it might have been called institute, I am not certain, which was
[3743]
located on Phillips Place, Cambridge. Director at the time was Mr. Lawrence Mead. And I asked him if he would be willing to keep it until Mr. Norman calls for it.
Immediately, that is at the same time, I wrote a letter to Mr. Tarshis, whose name I mentioned earlier, who I knew to be a friend of Mr. Norman, asking him to get in touch with Mr. Norman when the latter returns.
I knew Mr. Norman to be in Japan at the time and gave him my instructions to proceed to International Student Institute to take that box. That is the way I more or less disposed or left behind my belongings.

Mr. Morris. Now, what happened as a matter of fact, do you know? You met Mr. Norman subsequently?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes, as a matter of fact, repatriation, of course, was duly conducted. I came back to Japan in August 1942. And then I did serve for a while in the Japanese Army. When the war ended I was in the Japanese foreign office. Mr. Norman arrived in Tokyo, I believe some time in September, 1945. He called on our house, which he did not know to be our house, but knew to be the house of my wife’s parents, to find out where we were.

Mr. Morris. This is what year now?

Mr. Tsuru. September of 1945, either the end of September or early October. It was just about that time — 1945.
And it happened that after our house has been bombed in Tokyo, Mrs. Tsuru and I moved to the house of her own father. We were living in that house which happened to be located not very far from the location of Canadian Legation in Tokyo and I presume that he dropped in at Mr. Wada’s house to find out where we were and found us there. So, of course, we were very much surprised to see him so quickly after the war, and since that first meeting after the war, I think I met him a number of times.

Mr. Morris. Approximately how many times?

Mr. Tsuru. Oh, I should say in the course of the period from 1945 to — now I am not quite sure of the date of his departure from Japan and meanwhile he also left Japan and came back again as I know, because he was first with the SCAP and later he came as the Chief of the Canadian Legation, so there was an interval there and I think he left most likely around 1950. And subsequently I know he came to Japan, but I did not meet him at the time. I met him during those approximately 4½ years or so, possibly 20 times or so.

Senator Jenner. Did you serve with him in SCAP?

Mr. Tsuru. Pardon.

Senator Jenner. Did you serve with him in SCAP?

Mr. Tsuru. No, he was under different jurisdiction within the SCAP. I was in the Economics and Scientific Section headed by General Marquat, attached to the Research and Statistics Division within that section. Mr. Norman I understood to be working in the, some kind of intelligence service or something, I believe, under, if I correctly remember, under General Thorpe.
And during the course of my meeting with Mr. Norman, a number of times, that is subsequent to the first meeting, I inquired of him whether he finally got those books at the International Students Institute and I believe he said he got them.
[3744]
And furthermore, he indicated to me voluntarily not in response to my prompting, but he indicated to me he also visited the apartment house where I used to live, which incidentally is on Martin Street, Cambridge.
I am sorry I was not quite correct in my statement. I should have said: “not in response to my questioning, Mr. Norman related to me” that he visited the apartment house where I lived and inquired of the janitor of the apartment house about my belongings, with a hope, according to Mr. Norman, to obtain some further books on Japanese history which I possessed in large number.
Apparently he had such a hope. But after dealing with the janitor for a while, he did not get a very cooperative attitude he told me. The janitor looked somewhat queer and not very — he appeared to be equivocal about the whole matter. Although Mr. Norman pressed it, he couldn’t get anywhere with it.

Mr. Morris. You say he pressed it with the janitor to have a look at all your papers and books.

Mr. Tsuru. Well, I gathered that Mr. Norman pressed, did Mr. Tsuru leave other belongings here and if so he would like to find out if he could get hold of some more Japanese books.
I do not remember the exact words which Mr. Norman said to the janitor.

Mr. Morris. Did he tell you he had represented himself as an official of the Canadian Government?

Mr. Tsuru. Not that I recall.

Mr. Morris. He didn’t indicate that at all?

Mr. Tsuru. Not that I recall. But I believe he told me he visited the place twice or he first visited it once and then made an approach the second time, in what means I do not know, but I remember he said he made attempts twice.

Mr. Morris. And you did say he pressed on the point?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes, he pressed on the point that he wanted to see it, but could not get anywhere so he went back. So he told me now he doesn’t know what happened to my belongings which I left at the apartment.

Mr. Morris. And some of which have come into the record of the Internal Subcommittee and has given us valuable information.

Mr. Tsuru. Yes, much to my own shame of the period which is covered.

Mr. Morris. Do you know a man named Israel Halperin?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes.

Mr. Morris. Who was Israel Halperin?

Mr. Tsuru. I knew him as an instructor of the mathematics at Harvard University. He might have been a research associate, the official title I do not know. He was introduced to me, I believe, by Mr. Norman. The year I cannot remember quite exactly, but possibly around 1937.

Mr. Morris. Now, this is the same man who was arrested in the Canadian espionage case in 1934 [sic, 1946 was when Halperin was arrested]?

Mr. Tsuru. That I did not know, but I knew it later because I was questioned about him by United States Government representatives in Japan.

Mr. Morris. Did you know your name appeared in his address book at the time of his arrest?

[3745]

Mr. Tsuru. I did not know my name appeared there.

Mr. Morris. How late did you see Mr. Halperin prior to that time?

Mr. Tsuru. He never met my wife so I think I am pretty certain it was before I got married. I got married June 29, 1939, therefore, it was before that time.

Mr. Morris. I see — 1939.

Mr. Tsuru. 1939.

Mr. Morris. So you didn’t see him from 1939 to 1946?

Mr. Tsuru. No.

Mr. Morris. Now, do you know a man named Harry F. Alber?

Mr. Tsuru. Mr. Harry Alber was in the Economics and Scientific Section of SCAP in Japan at the time I was employed by the Economics and Scientific Section from 1946 to 1947. He was, however, in a different division.
I was in Research and Statistics Division, but Mr. Alber was, I think, in Price Control Division. And I came to know him through this, more or less official connections of my job as economist in the ESS. The question arose as to which years of the prewar Japan should we use as the basis of various index numbers, price level, and so forth. I was brought into the Price Control Division, Chief of the Price Control Division, I do not recall now, but Mr. Alber was there. That was the first time I met him in the office of the Chief of the Price Control Division in ESS. We discussed about the appropriate basis for various indices of Japan, the prewar years. Since then I came to know him. I believe he left the SCAP after a while and even after he left the SCAP I think I met him a number of times.

Mr. Morris. Are you now adviser to his firm in Tokyo?

Mr. Tsuru. At first he asked me to be an adviser. I think it was called—

Mr. Morris. International Economic Service, Ltd.; is that it?

Mr. Tsuru. I am not quite certain of the name but I know he had a firm of consultants, and since I know him sufficiently to call him by his first name, he asked me to be an adviser or consultant, that is to help him along, and I said not in a formal way, but I shall be glad to drop in every once in a while to give any knowledge of mine which will be helpful to him. So I think I visited his office altogether about, between 5 and 10 times, I should say.

Mr. Morris. You have been advising him then, you say informally?

Mr. Tsuru. Actually it never came to that. That is to say, there was a question of remuneration. To advise any service, of course, it is natural that Mr. Alber feels he should pay me. Now I said, “No, I don’t like to have such an arrangement,” so then Alber thought he had some other ideas, we were on friendly terms with him discussing various questions, but never came to actual solid advising work.

Mr. Morris. And when did you last see Mr. Alber?

Mr. Tsuru. I saw him for the last time, I should say, when he told me that he was being investigated and he told me about that matter and he was very much concerned about it and that was the time — might have been 1949 or 1950.

Mr. Morris. You have not seen him since that time?

Mr. Tsuru. I have not seen him since.

[3746]

Mr. Morris. Did you know he had been indicted by a Newport News, Va., grand jury on charges he committed perjury before the Army Department Security Board, April 29, 1951, hearing?

Mr. Tsuru. I did not know that.

Mr. Morris. Did you know he was an American Communist?

Mr. Tsuru. I did not know he was an American Communist.

Mr. Morris. Mr. Tsuru, were you instrumental in the resuscitation of the Japanese Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations in the postwar period?

Mr. Tsuru. I think it would be unfair to many others who were very active in the resuscitation of the IPR if I say I was instrumental. I had participated in it. But honestly speaking, I should say, there were a few others who were more active.

Mr. Morris. But you were one of those people who helped to reactivate the Japanese Council of the Institute?

Mr. Tsuru. I was one of those who participated in discussing the idea of reviving.

Mr. Morris. When was this, 1946?

Mr. Tsuru. We may have started discussing it late 1945.

Mr. Morris. Did you know at that time it was a vehicle for Communist operation?

Mr. Tsuru. Well, in the initial stage of attempt to resuscitate the IPR we had no inkling of this kind of thing, of course. I think it would be most correct if I put it this way, that some of the elder members of the active persons who wanted to resuscitate IPR became more and more concerned after they had been communicating with, I think, Mr. Holland, I believe, Mr. William Holland, that IPR was sort of under the clouds, and Japan should be very careful about choosing what kinds of people to work actively in IPR. So, a large number of people at first were engaged in the resuscitation but there was a process of selection which went on gradually dropping out younger members, and at the time it was formally organized, possibly about 1948, I was a member of the research committee of the IPR but not a member of the board of directors of the Japanese IPR.

Mr. Morris. You had been active in a moderate way in the Institute of Pacific Relations in the United States; had you not?

Mr. Tsuru. In a moderate way I was active in seeing the people in IPR because Mr. Carter — I think it was Mr. Carter — Mr. Carter asked me a number of times my opinions.

Mr. Morris. You knew Fred Field well; did you not?

Mr. Tsuru. No; I did not know Mr. Fred Field well. I think I met him only once.

Mr. Morris. You know for instance that you were recommended to do research work for the Institute of Pacific Relations?

Mr. Tsuru. I was?

Mr. Morris. Yes.

Mr. Tsuru. Which year was it, may I ask?

Mr. Morris. 1938 and 1939—1938.

Mr. Tsuru. It is quite possible that that happened.

Mr. Morris. Now, did you know a man named Chao-Ting Chi?

Mr. Tsuru. Chinese?

Mr. Morris. He was a Chinese Communist in the United States and is now with the Red Chinese government.

Mr. Tsuru. I know he is in China.

[3747]

Mr. Morris. Yes,

Mr. Tsuru. I did not know him to be a Chinese Communist in the United States, but I met him a number of times at the IPR.

Mr. Morris. When did you last see Chao-Ting Chi?

Mr. Tsuru. I saw him most likely around this period in 1938.

Mr. Morris. You didn’t see him in Japan?

Mr. Tsuru. No.

Mr. Morris. Are you active with the Institute of Pacific Relations now?

Mr. Tsuru. No, Mr. Morris.

Mr. Morris. Will you tell us the circumstances of your leaving that particular group?

Mr. Tsuru. I was a member of the research committee, I think about 1947 or 1948 and I contributed a paper for the IPR Lucknow conference that is a city in India — which I believe was held in 1950. And I asked to be present at the conference but the board of directors of the IPR suggested that it was not wise for me to go to the conference and of course I inquired why. They said, “You seem to be suspected of something.”

Mr. Morris. That is by the Japanese Government.

Mr. Tsuru. I don’t know whether it was by the Japanese Government or by some other authorities, I do not know, but I received intimation that I was likely to be—
Now, the board of directors, since I was not a member of the board of directors, I do not know the names of all of them, but I think the intimation to that effect was of a sort of general character, so I can’t specify who said it to me, but I am trying to reconstruct from my memory why I did not go to Lucknow.

Mr. Morris. Yes, I wish you would.

Mr. Tsuru. The board of directors consisted then, I believe, of persons like Mr. Saburo Matsukata.

Mr. Morris. Will you spell that for the reporter.

Mr. Tsuru. Yes, S-a-b-u-r-o M-a-t-s-u-k-a-t-a.
And I think Mr. Matsumoto. At least I believe those two names were contained. And Mr. Matsuo, M-a-t-s-u-o, was I believe, the secretary of the IPR that participated in the discussion of the board of directors and I believe it was through Mr. Matsuo that I got the intimation that in the discussion of the board of directors they were likely to come to difficulties of some sort, and I was very curious about it, but it couldn’t be helped, so I said, “All right, I will submit my paper and someone will read it. I shall not participate at the conference.”

Mr. Sourwine. That was Matsuhei.

Mr. Tsuru. M-a-t-s-u-h-e-i.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know him before he went with IPR?

Mr. Tsuru. I knew him only slightly when he was in this country before the war, but we happened to be repatriated by the same boat, and our rooms happened to be next door in the Gripsholm, and they had no children, we had no children, we were about the same age, we came to know quite well the Gripsholm.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know him in Tokyo?

Mr. Tsuru. Pardon.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know him in Tokyo while you were with SCAP?

Mr. Tsuru. While I was with SCAP I think I visited his office.

[3748]

Mr. Sourwine. Do you know what he did, where he was employed?

Mr. Tsuru. Where he was employed?

Senator Jenner. Where he was employed.

Mr. Morris. Where he was employed.

Mr. Tsuru. Mr. Matsumo, I thought he had some connection with the IPR.

Mr. Sourwine. He left a position with the office of political adviser in Tokyo to take the job with IPR. Didn’t you know that?

Mr. Morris. Did you have anything to do with inducing him to take that job with IPR?

Mr. Tsuru. Matsuo?

Mr. Morris. Yes.

Mr. Tsuru. I don’t recall that I did.

Mr. Morris. Weren’t you one of those at least one of those who urged him to leave his position with the political adviser and go and undertake the job in connection with the reorganization of IPR?

Mr. Tsuru. Political adviser’s office where, Mr. Sourwine?

Mr. Sourwine. The office of the political adviser in the American Embassy.

Mr. Tsuru. Oh, I see.

Mr. Sourwine. Didn’t you know he worked there?

Mr. Tsuru. Before the war.

Mr. Sourwine. No.

Mr. Tsuru. Oh, after the war.

Mr. Sourwine. Yes.

Mr. Tsuru. I was referring to the period before the war.

Mr. Sourwine. Yes.

Mr. Tsuru. Before the war when I did not know him very well and then I said I came to know him quite well.

Mr. Sourwine. That is right.

Mr. Tsuru. And then in the postwar period so far as my recollection goes, I did not advise him to leave the political adviser’s office of the United States Government and try to reconstruct IPR. I had the impression that he was the driving spirit of the resuscitation of IPR. He was very active in trying to resuscitate. I think he even went through some privations at one time because funds were short, and so forth, but he was still determined to carry it out — the original intentions.

Mr. Sourwine. Thank you for letting me inquire.

Mr. Tsuru. But I wanted to finish the part you asked me, Mr. Morris. Then probably 1951 or so I began to hear about the investigations about this Senate committee on the IPR. I think it appeared in Time, I believe. I saw it in one of the American magazines. And then saw it in some other papers also, and I think I can’t recall all the things where I saw the reference to the investigation but I had the general information that IPR was being investigated by the Senate committee.

Mr. Morris. Do you know Mr. Saionji?

Mr. Tsuru. Mr. Koichi—

Mr. Morris. I think he was arrested in the Sorge espionage case in Japan.

Mr. Tsuru. That I don’t know. Koichi, I think his name, his first name is. I met him probably—

Mr. Morris. He is active in the postwar IPR?

[3749]

Mr. Tsuru. I think he was in and out but at least at one time his name was definitely on it.

Mr. Morris. But you don’t know him well?

Mr. Tsuru. I don’t know him well.

Mr. Morris. Did you know a man named Mark Nathan Rosenfeld from Spencerville, Md.?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes, he was one of the superiors. One of the superiors when I was in the Economics and Scientific Section in SCAP.

Mr. Morris. He isn’t one that recruited you for service in the Economics Section?

Mr. Tsuru. No, Mr. Morris, the way I was recruited was, I was a permanent Government official in the foreign office with permanent status. My superior was Mr. Shigeru Yoshida and I believe it was some time in February 1946, he called me to his office, I was in one of the bureaus of the foreign office at the time and he told me SCAP would like to have a Japanese expert to help them on some Japanese matters. And he suggested: “now you are well versed with the English language. You know some American people. And also you are an economist although you are working in the foreign office now, why don’t you go there. And I said, “Well, if the Minister suggests that I should go, I shall be glad to do so,” and it was an entirely official transfer, so my status even while I was in SCAP was a foreign officer’s, sort of on lend-lease agreement or arrangement to the SCAP. And I was assigned to the Research and Statistics Division where Mr. Rosenfeld was one of my superiors.

Mr. Morris. Now, did you bring in Mr. Takahashi?

Mr. Tsuru. Professor Masao Takahashi. I think it is correct to say I was instrumental in bringing Takahashi into the office.

Mr. Morris. Would you say the same of Mr. Jiro Ando?

Mr. Tsuru. In this case I am pretty certain by that time — may be Professor Takahashi came in almost immediately after I came in upon my suggestion, and then in the Research and Statistical Division, we were told by the superiors — I think, Mr. Emerson Ross was the Chief of the Division at the time — that they would like to build up a fairly large corps of Japanese experts and Japanese statisticians, helpers, and so forth.
And at the time there were only 3 or 4 of us. So we Japanese sat together and wanted to regularize the method instead of just picking up any one certain person, we wanted to have a sort of regulatory process of selection on the basis of competence, qualifications, and so forth. So I believe after Mr. Takahashi came in, about four of us Japanese who were there, with consultation of the Japanese consultant in the personnel office in the Research and Statistics Division, we used to interview a large number of people together. And I think Mr. Ando was brought in as one of them.

Mr. Morris. Had he a record of being a Communist, do you know?

Mr. Tsuru. Well, at the time we examined him, there was no such record. But after he was in the office for a while, I soon got the impression that he had strongly leftwing tendencies, so I felt it was my responsibility as one of the senior experts in the Division to ad vise him to resign. How he resigned I am not quite aware, but I think he either resigned or was ousted or I don’t know, anyway he left the office after a while.

[3750]

Mr. Morris. Was Mr. Phillip O. Keeney, in the office?

Mr. Tsuru. I do not know the name.

Mr. Morris. You knew Solomon Adler?

Mr. Tsuru. No, sir, I have never known him.

Mr. Morris. You haven’t met Solomon Adler in Japan?

Mr. Tsuru. No, I have not.

Mr. Morris. You know the man to whom I refer. He is one of the people who is publishing a book we mentioned yesterday.

Mr. Tsuru. Yes, I recall the name, but I don’t know him.

Mr. Morris. How about a man named Theodore Cohen?

Mr. Tsuru. Theodore Cohen.

Mr. Morris. In Japan, an American.

Mr. Tsuru. Oh, now I recall. He was one of the senior members, I believe, of the Economics and Scientific Section of the SCAP in the immediate postwar period in charge at first of labor problems.

Mr. Morris. And you met him?

Mr. Tsuru. I knew him in my — more in my official capacity as vice minister of Economics Stabilization Board during the period 1947 and 1948 and I had to deal with him on various matters.

Mr. Morris. Now in 1952, you were invited to attend a world peace council in Moscow, were you not?

Mr. Tsuru. 1952 — yes, I was not invited, but I received a letter from Mr. Oscar Lange.

Mr. Morris. Mr. Oscar Lange?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes.

Mr. Morris. He was then a Polish Communist official?

Mr. Tsuru. Well, I understood him to be at first Polish Ambassador to the United States and then chief delegate to the United Nations from Poland and then I understood him to have gone back to Poland but at the time I understood him to belong to United Workers Party in Poland, which is a coalition of various parties and I understood him to be not in good favor of the Communist Central.

Mr. Morris. Mr. Bialer who was one of the high officials of the Communist Poland Party, who defected in 1956, told us that Mr. Lange had become a full-fledged member of the Communist Party and, when we last heard, he was in India on a mission for the Polish Government.

Mr. Tsuru. I received a letter from Mr. Oscar Lange suggesting if I would not come and attend Moscow economics conferences and I answered him, I think it was in 1952, and said, “I personally would not be able to do so.” I did not give any reason but I declined. So I never received an invitation. I know a number of persons who received invitations and I saw the type of letters which were received by them, but the only thing I received was a letter from Mr. Lange, I suppose, trying to sound out if I would be able to come and I answered him I would not be able to come.

Mr. Morris. Had the Japanese Government said you would not be able to go?

Mr. Tsuru. No, not for such reasons, but I personally did not like to go to this Moscow conference at the time.

Mr. Morris. Didn’t the Japanese Government forbid you to go?

Mr. Tsuru. The Japanese Government never entered into this matter so far as I was concerned.

[3751]

Mr. Morris. In order to go there you would have to have a passport issued to you?

Mr. Tsuru. Passport according to the Japanese law can be issued with a certain destination and you could go to a country which is not included in the destination if you — I believe — if you get clearance from the consulate and then visas from the countries, but since Russia, at the time, was not a country with which Japan had diplomatic relations, Japan considered the travel towards Moscow or Soviet Union to be not a favorable thing for one to do. And I believe persons who went to Moscow at the time actually broke the passport law. But it just happened that the passport law had no punishment clause on that score, so they could not be punished legally.
Now, I suppose the Japanese Government is trying to amend it, but that is the incidental knowledge I have on the subject.

Mr. Morris. And you have been to Moscow for the foreign office?

Mr. Tsuru. I was in Moscow as a member of the foreign office in April 1945.

Mr. Morris. What was the nature of that assignment, if it is appropriate for me to ask.

Mr. Tsuru. I think it is quite all right for me to say now, even without consulting the Japanese Embassy.

Mr. Morris. I mean if you feel there is any—

Mr. Tsuru. I feel it is quite all right. I was what they call diplomatic courier carrying various messages, documents, materials, goods in suitcases, — I am just given the duty of carrying it safely to Moscow. And then there were 3 important posts in Russia at that time, and I stopped at each 1 of these places to deliver these things, included Moscow with the other towns and the responsible officer will again fill the suitcases and then I could go back. That is what the purpose was.

Mr. Morris. And did you just make one trip, Mr. Tsuru?

Mr. Tsuru. Just one trip.

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions of this witness.
Now, I think, however, you did not, obtain that volume — you know, the reference to Kaiso?

Mr. Tsuru. No, I am sorry.

Mr. Morris. We have been trying to get it, now Mr. Mandel has tried to get it, Senator, from the Library of Congress.

Mr. Mandel. I have not yet received it.

Mr. Tsuru. Well, Mr. Chairman, I shall be quite happy to cooperate with the committee in obtaining a copy, if I can, in this country, and sending it to you.

Şenator Jenner. All right.

Mr. Morris. And you also have written for American periodicals from time to time, have you not? For instance I refer to an article of yours in the Atlantic Monthly in January 1955, and an article in the American Academy of Policy and Sociology of 1956.

Mr. Tsuru. Yes, I have.

Senator Jenner. Anything further?

Mr. Morris. Mr. Chairman, I have no more questions except as I say, the subpoenas have been issued for Mr. Niebyl and Constance Kyle and we hope they may be able to give us further information.
Mr. Sourwine may have a few questions.

[3752]

Senator Jenner. Do you have any questions, Mr. Sourwine?

Mr. Sourwine. Is this a proper time for it?

Senator Jenner. Well, there will be no hearing this afternoon. We would like to finish with this witness if we can. It is the witness’ desire to finish completely the testimony.

Mr. Sourwine. In your letter of August 31, 1936 you referred to Mr. Korb—
Can you identify any of the members of that group referred to in that letter?

Mr. Tsuru. I can now recall the name, Mr. Korb, but I do not recall anyone in the group.

Mr. Sourwine. Which Mr. Korb was that?

Mr. Tsuru. I don’t remember his first name.

Mr. Sourwine. You referred to the Lunning group which arose among the members of the law school. Which Mr. Lunning was that?

Mr. Tsuru. I believe his first name was Jus.

Mr. Sourwine. Can you identify any of the members of that group?

Mr. Tsuru. Well, Mr. Sourwine, I had the knowledge of these groups, but I did not necessarily—

Mr. Sourwine. I am not arguing with you. Just asking, if you don’t recall, just say so.

Mr. Tsuru. I am sorry, I don’t recall any names.

Mr. Sourwine. You referred to a study group on Marxism. Can you recall any of the members of that group?

Mr. Tsuru. Here I think names I originally did not recall, but after reading through these letters, the names of John Cookson and Herman Ramras, those names came back to my mind and I believe they were connected with the study group in Madison.

Mr. Sourwine. You referred to the group on dialectic materialism in Cambridge. Can you identify that group any better?

Mr. Tsuru. I think, now here again I am mentioning the groups but I am not necessarily a member of the groups. I think William Parry, Louis Harap.

Mr. Sourwine. That is H-a-r-a-p?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes. And although I am not quite certain, so if you permit me to answer with some degree of doubt, I shall mention another name. Shall I or not?

Mr. Sourwine. Go ahead.

Mr. Tsuru. With that proviso I would say Mr. Leo Roberts.

Mr. Sourwine. Who was he?

Mr. Tsuru. He was, I would characterize him as a perennial student of philosophy. He never seems to complete his book.

Mr. Sourwine. Where is he now?

Mr. Tsuru. I think he is in Cambridge.

Mr. Sourwine. In this same letter you refer to discussions you had with the staff of the school, that school was the University of Chicago, was it not?

Mr. Tsuru. Which page may I ask?

Mr. Sourwine. Page 2 of the mimeographed copy down at the bottom. It is the third line from the bottom.

Mr. Tsuru. Oh. I said I should try to discuss with the staff of the school.

Mr. Sourwine. Yes.

Mr. Tsuru. So far as my recollection goes, I never did because in Chicago—

[3753]

Mr. Sourwine. You were talking about the University of Chicago, were you not?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes, sir.

Mr. Sourwine. When was it that you had intended to discuss that matter with the staff of the school?

Mr. Tsuru. By which I meant to discuss with Mr. Niebyl in the first instance and then on this question ask Mr. Niebyl to get in contact with the school.

Mr. Sourwine. All right, now on the next page of that letter, you speak of the agent in Chicago. Who was that?

Mr. Tsuru. Well, here probably my inadequate language was misleading. What I meant, I think, was the question of Science and Society, whoever was willing, the person or persons whoever were willing to take the responsibility of promoting Science and Society.

Mr. Sourwine. You did not have in mind any particular individual?

Mr. Tsuru. No, I did not.

Mr. Sourwine. In your letter of September 6 — I have no more questions.

Senator Jenner. I have to leave. The committee will just stand in recess, and the continuation of these questions will be after lunch, whatever time you say.

Mr. Sourwine. That is why I was inquiring whether you were able to continue.

Senator Jenner. I can go on 5 or 10 minutes and you can continue.

Mr. Sourwine. It is at the Senator’s convenience.

Senator Jenner. Do you want to do it this afternoon or how long would it take you this morning?

Mr. Sourwine. Well, we can go ahead then.
I would like to finish to accommodate the witness.

Mr. Sourwine. Referring to the letter of September 6, to you, the fourth line from the top on the first page, there was a sentence mentioning—who was that?

Mr. Tsuru. That is Mr. Kenneth Howard.

Mr. Sourwine. All right. Now, referring to the second page of that letter as mimeographed, in the second paragraph on that page, the bottom line there is a Bernal. Can you identify that individual?

Mr. Tsuru. This letter was written by Mr. Parry and I presumed him to mean a Doctor Bernal of Cambridge, whom I do not know.

Mr. Sourwine. Now, looking at the letter of September 14, the second paragraph, you say, “We called a meeting in Cambridge.” Who was the “we” referred to there?

Mr. Tsuru. Oh, I think I do not recall all the names, but at least Mr. Parry and Mr. Hanap were there.

Mr. Sourwine. Thank you. Now in the letter of January 13, to Karl-Heinrich, in the third paragraph, the second line, you will find the name Webbs. What person or persons are referred to there?

Mr. Tsuru. I think this — from internal evidence I would say I consider Sidney and Beatrice Webb of England.

Mr. Sourwine. Now, if you will look at the letter of February 2, 1937, to Karl-Heinrich.

Mr. Tsuru. Excuse me just a minute please. Oh, yes.

Mr. Sourwine. The second paragraph, the second line you will see the name Burgum. Have you identified that individual?

[3754]

Mr. Tsuru. Oh. Burgum. I think he was one of the editors of Science and Society from the beginning and I saw him, I believe, for the first time on this occasion when he came to Boston.

Mr. Sourwine. Do you recall his full name?

Mr. Tsuru. I am sorry, I do not know his first name.

Mr. Sourwine. Now, on that same page, do you see the name, Struik?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes.

Mr. Sourwine. Does that refer to Prof. Dirk Struik?
(No answer.)

Mr. Sourwine. On the third page of that letter you will see the reference to the editors of Science and Society being terrifically busy on other duties of theirs in the fight against Trotskyists. Did you refer to duties as Communists?

Mr. Tsuru. I believe I was relating the information from Mr. Parry.

Mr. Sourwine. You were distinguishing between duties as Communists from duties as editors?

Mr. Tsuru. I was relating to Mr. Parry’s words and when he said, “Did you fight against Trotskyists,” I was repeating.

Mr. Sourwine. You were complaining that their Communist duties were interfering with what you understood to be their duties as editors?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes; that is more or less the case.

Mr. Sourwine. Now, look at the letter from Constance Kyle to you, April 14, the first paragraph. Look at the third and fourth lines from the bottom of that paragraph, you will find the phrase, “Our own people,” referred to twice. How did you understand that phrase?

Mr. Tsuru Well, I think I interpreted this to mean that Miss Kyle was referring to the Communist group.

Mr. Sourwine. Yes, sir.

Mr. Tsuru, did you ever have any acquaintance with Mr. Andrew Roth?

Mr. Tsuru. No; I have not.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Mr. Phillip Jaffe?

Mr. Tsuru. I saw him, I think, a couple of times at IPR.

Mr. Sourwine. Do you remember who introduced you?

Mr. Tsuru. Well, I am not quite sure who introduced us. IPR office at the time was such that people could come around and see each other and help each other and say “Hello,” and introduce each other.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever hear of the Japan Anti-War League?

Mr. Tsuru. Japan Anti-War League.

Mr. Sourwine. Yes.

Mr. Tsuru. You are not referring to the organization I was attached to, Anti-Imperialism League, of my student days?

Mr. Sourwine. I didn’t mean to make such a reference; if there was a connection I would be glad to have you tell us.

Mr. Tsuru. I have been telling about the anti-imperialism.

Mr. Sourwine. I understand that, but if there is any connection about the—
Did you know Wataru Raj, a Japanese by that name?

Mr. Tsuru. Wataru Raj.

Mr. Sourwine. Yes.

Mr. Tsuru. Wataru sounds like a first name only. It is most unlikely that it is a last name.

Mr. Sourwine. It does not sound like a last name.

[3755]

Mr. Tsuru. I don’t think I know anyone by that name.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know of the Japanese Emancipation League?

Mr. Tsuru. No; I did not.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Joja Kiroshi?

Mr. Tsuru. Joja

Kiroshi?

Mr. Sourwine. J-o-j-a K-i-r-o-s-h-i.

Mr. Tsuru. I do not think so.

Mr. Sourwine. This Wataru apparently had the surname Kiroshi.

Mr. Tsuru. Oh, no.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you ever know Nozaka Sazo?

Mr. Tsuru. No.

Mr. Sourwine. Otherwise known as Susumu Okano?

Mr. Tsuru. Except I met him, because you see when I was in the government, I think he came once to protest something to my office, I know the face.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Emmerson Ross?

Mr. Tsuru. Mr. Emmerson Ross, the Chief of the Research and Statistics Division, yes. At the time I was in the SCAP.

Mr. Sourwine. How well did you know him?

Mr. Tsuru. Only to the extent of my being subordinated in that office.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Mr. Ross as a head of a group of persons in SCAP, who advocated collectivism and state ownership of Japan industry.

Mr. Tsuru. No; I was not aware of such ideas on his part.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Kyuichi Tokuda?

Mr. Tsuru. No; I never knew him. Again I saw his face.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Yoshio Shiga?

Mr. Tsuru. I never knew him.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Anthony Constantino?¹

Mr. Tsuru. No.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know James Fitzgerald?¹

¹ In a letter to the subcommittee dated April 27, 1957, Mr. Tsuru said:

“After rereading the transcript, I now recall that I may have met Messrs. Constantino and Fitzgerald, about whom I was questioned at p. 5057 of the transcript, in Japan during the period immediately following the war.”

Mr. Tsuru. No; I do not think so.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Maturos?

Mr. Tsuru. I don’t think so.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know T. A. Bisson?

Mr. Tsuru. I knew him.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know him in IPR or otherwise?

Mr. Tsuru. I knew him before the war at the IPR and then after the war I saw him a number of times when he was connected with the SCAP, Government Section, I believe.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Miriam Farley?

Mr. Tsuru. I think I met her a few times before the war.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Henry Brenner?

Mr. Tsuru. No; I don’t think so.

Mr. Sourwine. You knew Miss Farley in connection with IPR?

Mr. Tsuru. That is right.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know Edward Christy Welch?

Mr. Tsuru. Edward Welch.

[3756]

Mr. Sourwine. Yes. Welch.

Mr. Tsuru. Edward Welch. Is he the one — may I ask a question? Is he the one who was in the SCAP in antimonopoly legislation?

Mr. Sourwine. He was with the SCAP.

Mr. Tsuru. Then I think I met him in my official capacity.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know James Killem?¹

¹ In a letter to the subcommitee dated April 27, 1957 , Mr. Tsuru said : “At p. 5058 of the transcript I was questioned by Mr. Sourwine about an individual whose last name he spelled “Killem.” If the spelling is “Killen” rather than “Killem” I believe that I met such an individual a few times in Tokyo in 1947 in my official capacity as Vice Minister of Economic Stabilization.”

Mr. Tsuru. James Killem. No; I do not think so.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know William V. Turnage?

Mr. Tsuru. Yes; he was one of the superiors in the Research and Statistics Division.

Mr. Sourwine. Did you know any of those individuals in SCAP whose identity we have just been discussing as Communists or pro-Communists?

Mr. Tsuru. No; I was not aware of any such tendencies among these people.

Mr. Sourwine. One more question, Mr. Chairman.
If I remember correctly you stated in your initial testimony you would be willing to give the committee the names of Communists so far as you knew them or had reason to suspect them. Have you done so?

Mr. Tsuru. Well, in trying to answer every question presented to me, I have tried my best to answer as fully and truthfully as I could.

Mr. Sourwine. Have you given the committee the names of all the persons whom you knew or had reason to believe were Communists?

Mr. Tsuru. As far as I can recall; yes.

Mr. Sourwine. Will you be willing to attempt to make a list of all such persons that you can recall, and furnish the committee with it, or in the alternative, with a statement that on second thought and careful consideration you are unable to recall any other individuals known to you or that you had reason to believe were Communists.

Mr. Tsuru. Mr. Chairman, I shall be willing to be at your service for any further works of the committee for which I am required. So that if my service in regard to what Mr. Sourwine has just indicated is called for, I shall be glad to be at your service.

Senator Jenner. We are trying to accommodate you and conclude this hearing. What the committee is interested in hearing is if you have any other people that you know to be Communists or pro-Communists, would you submit them to this committee by mail or through your attorney?

Mr. Tsuru. I shall try my best to recollect of my past and try to cooperate with the committee to the best of my ability.¹

¹ In a letter to the subcommittee dated April 27, 1957, Mr. Tsuru said : “At the conclusion of the hearing on March 27 I was asked to furnish the subcommittee with the names of persons whom I know or knew to be Communists, or whom I reasonably believe or believed to be Communists, in addition to those names in such categories about which I had been questioned during the course of the hearing. I assume that the scope of this question is limited to United States citizens and persons within the United States since, in the course of my duties as Vice Minister of Economic Stabilization in Japan, I necessarily came in contact with some Japanese who are known in Japan and elsewhere as members of the Japanese Communist Party. After careful consideration I find that I cannot supply the subcommittee with any such names simply because I cannot recall any.”

Senator Jenner. Thank you very much.
Any further questions? If not the committee will stand adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 2 p.m., the committee was adjourned.)

[3757]

APPENDIX I
THE INTELLECTUAL INTERCHANGE PROGRAM

The America-Japan intellectual interchange program was established in the fall of 1951 to enable Japanese scholars and men of learning to come to the United States for limited periods of time (1) to visit American universities and other institutions in which they might be interested, and (2) to serve as visiting lecturers and conduct research in American institutions of higher learning. Under the other part of the interchange program, American scholars and men of learning visit Japan.

To administer the program two committees were established by Columbia University: One in Japan and the other in the United States. Dr. Yasaka Takagi, professor emeritus of American constitutional law at Toyko University, is chairman of the Japan committee. Others associated with him are Mr. Gordon T. Bowles, Mr. Shigeharu Matsumoto, Dr. Arao Imamura, Miss Tano Jodai, Prof. Naoto Kameyama, Dr. Shinzo Koizumi, Mr. Saburo Matsukata, Mr. Tamon Maeda, Miss Kiyoko Takeda, and Mrs. Matsu Tsuji.

The American committee is headed by Dr. Hugh Borton, professor of Japanese and director of the East Asian Institute at Columbia University. His committee colleagues include Dr. Charles W. Cole, president of Amherst College; Prof. Peter Odegard, chairman, department of political science at the University of California; Dr. Oliver Carmichael, former president of the University of Alabama; Dr. Merle Curti, professor of history at the University of Wisconsin; Dr. Edwin Reischauer, professor of Japanese at Harvard; Dr. Frederick S. Dunn, director of international studies at Princeton University; Mr. Norman Cousins, editor of the Saturday Review; Prof. John Orchard of the department of geography at Columbia University; and Profs. Carrington Goodrich and William T. DeBary of the department of Chinese at Columbia University. Harry J. Carman, dean emeritus of Columbia College and Moore professor of history at Columbia University, is executive secretary of the program.

Each committee furnishes nominees for the consideration of the other. The Japanese who have come to the United States are:

Miss Fusae Ichikawa, president of Japan’s League of Women Voters, 1952-53.

Dr. Yoshishige Abe, president of Peers College, Tokyo, 1952–53.

Dr. Hitoshi Kihara, geneticist, Kyoto University, 1953.

Mr. Yoshiro Nagayo, writer, 1953.

Prof. Iwao Ayusawa, International Christian University, Tokyo, 1955–56.

Prof. Seiichi Tobata, Tokyo University, 1955.

President Ichiro Nakayama, Hitotsubashi University, 1955.

Mr. Nyozekan Hasegawa, journalist and writer, 1956.

Dr. Shinzo Kaji, Tokyo University, 1956.

Miss Tano Jodai, president, Women’s College of Tokyo, 1956.

Dr. Shigeto Tsuru, Hitotsubashi University, 1956–57.

The Americans who have gone to Japan are:

Dr. Charles W. Cole, president, Amherst College, 1953.

Father Martin D’Arcy, Campion College, Oxford, England, 1953.

Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt, New York, 1953.

Father George B. Ford, pastor, Corpus Christi Church, New York, N. Y.,

1953.

Norman Cousins, editor, Saturday Review, 1953.

Shannon McCune, Colgate University, 1953–54.

Harry J. Carman, Columbia University, 1954.

Willard Thorp, Amherst College, 1955.

Algo Henderson, University of Michigan, 1956.

Ralph Turner, Yale University, 1957.

The program was made possible by gifts from John D. Rockefeller III, to Columbia University which has full responsibility for the administration of the program.

 

Image Source: Library, Institute of Economic Research, Hitotsubashi Universit. Flyer from Shigeto Tsuru’s War Exhibition.