Mr. TAVENNER. Was the suggestion then made to you by the Institute of
Pacific Relations that you seek employment with the United Nations?
(At this point Representative Morgan M. Moulder left the hearing room.)
Mr. STENHOUSE. I think it was suggested to me there that this
commission was being formed--the commission was already in effect, but
that there was this job to do on this subcommittee of trade relations
and that I should contact a Dr. Lokanath. He was an Indian economist.
(At this point Representative Morgan M. Moulder returned to the hearing
room.)
Mr. STENHOUSE. I think that may have been the channel through which
it came. I am not entirely certain. But I did contact him and got the
appointment.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did the person or persons with whom you conferred in the
Institute of Pacific Relations know of your Communist Party membership?
Mr. STENHOUSE. No.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did you furnish any references to the Institute of
Pacific Relations when you went there to confer on the subject of your
employment?
Mr. STENHOUSE. I think I probably did. You mean a sort of curriculum
vitae.
Mr. TAVENNER. The real purpose of my question is to find out whether or
not you were recommended to the Institute of Public Relations by any
person who knew you had been a member of the Communist Party.
Mr. STENHOUSE. No. I went there entirely on my own initiative.
Mr. VELDE. Did you know any of the defendants in the Amerasia case?
Mr. STENHOUSE. No.
Mr. VELDE. Had you ever met any of them?
Mr. STENHOUSE. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. VELDE. Do you know who it was from the Institute of Pacific
Relations who first interested you in the United Nations?
Mr. STENHOUSE. I was interested in the United Nations myself.
Mr. VELDE. Naturally, I suppose you were. Was any one person at the
Institute of Pacific Relations responsible for your employment by the
United Nations?
Mr. STENHOUSE. No. I went to the Institute of Pacific Relations as one
of many, many sources for a new occupation. And in the office of the
Institute of Pacific Relations I was told that there was this opening.
So I applied to the United Nations. I have at home a file about that
thick [indicating] of letters to many business firms that I wrote to
and had interviews with.
Mr. VELDE. Do you have any written memorandums or anything else in
writing that would show your contact with the Institute of Pacific
Relations at that time?
Mr. STENHOUSE. I have nothing to hide about my Institute of Pacific
Relations contacts. I was a subscriber to the Institute of Pacific
Relations. I thought they were doing a good job of objective reporting
on the Far East. I was interested in it because of my background.
While I was in Washington, D. C., I went to several Institute of
Pacific Relations meetings and discussion groups. It was only natural
that that should be one place where I would go to find out if there was
any firm or any organization that was associated with the Far East who
would be interested in my background.
Mr. VELDE. Of course, I don’t want to cast any reflections on the
individual members of the Institute of Pacific Relations or any others
you have contacted, but I do feel it would be valuable to the committee
if you would make available the various letters you used when applying
for jobs in order that we might search our records. Would you be
willing to make those available?
Mr. STENHOUSE. Do you want me to tell you the names of the people in
the Institute of Pacific Relations?
Mr. VELDE. No. I am not particularly anxious for that. Again, I want
to say if you do mention names of persons in the Institute of Pacific
Relations, it should be no reflection upon them whatsoever because you,
as a former Communist, contacted them.
I am interested in finding out who you contacted or who in the
Institute of Pacific Relations recommended you for a job with the
United Nations.
Mr. STENHOUSE. I haven’t been asked that question.
Mr. VELDE. I ask you that question.
Mr. STENHOUSE. If you want to know who it was in the Institute of
Pacific Relations who I think gave me the information, I am very frank
to tell you that it was Mr. Carter.
Mr. VELDE. Do you know his first name?
Mr. STENHOUSE. Edward C.
Mr. VELDE. Was he in his office at the time you went to the Institute
of Pacific Relations?
Mr. STENHOUSE. Yes, sir.
Mr. VELDE. What did he do to promote your appointment in the United
Nations?
Mr. STENHOUSE. He may have contacted Dr. Lokanath, for all I know. I
think he possibly did.
Mr. VELDE. Did you get recommendations from members of the Institute of
Pacific Relations other than Mr. Carter?
Mr. STENHOUSE. No.
Mr. VELDE. Did you have recommendations of any kind other than the
Institute of Pacific Relations?
Mr. STENHOUSE. Yes.
The chief of my division gave me a very fine recommendation. A
colleague who was in the China legal section gave me a very fine
recommendation.
Mr. VELDE. Did either Mr. Carter or the chief of your division know
that you were a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. STENHOUSE. No; they did not.
Mr. VELDE. What type of formal application did you make for the
position you sought and afterward obtained in the United Nations?
Mr. STENHOUSE. I don’t recall now any formal application. I have in my
files a letter of appointment, but I don’t recall a formal application.
Mr. VELDE. Proceed, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. TAVENNER. After accepting the position with the United Nations,
were you sent on a project to China?
Mr. STENHOUSE. Yes, sir.
Mr. TAVENNER. Before your selection for that project, were you
interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Mr. STENHOUSE. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. TAVENNER. When was it you were interviewed by the Federal Bureau
of Investigation at which time you refused to advise them as to your
previous Communist Party membership?
Mr. STENHOUSE. Well, I think you gave me the date of that the other
day. I had forgotten it.
Mr. TAVENNER. Don’t you remember it?
Mr. STENHOUSE. No; I don’t. But you said it was in 1946, and I think it
probably was.
Mr. TAVENNER. So before you were selected for the position in the
United Nations and, particularly for this project in China, you had
refused to give information to the Federal Bureau of Investigation as
to whether or not you had been a member of the Communist Party?
Mr. STENHOUSE. Well, that is true, some nearly 2 years before. By the
time I had applied for the position in the United Nations I didn’t
consider myself to be whatever it was I had been before.
Mr. TAVENNER. And no governmental agency, after the FBI came to see
you, ever made any inquiry until the present time?
Mr. STENHOUSE. Well, that is not so.
Last September I was called by a Treasury representative, and he told
me he wanted to ask me some questions. So I met him at my home and he
started to ask me about the sort of work I did and whether I ever did
much traveling. And in the course of that discussion I told him that I
had been in Washington, D. C. I told him quite frankly what I had been
doing.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did you tell him you had been a member of the Communist
Party?
Mr. STENHOUSE. No. He didn’t ask me.
Mr. TAVENNER. Was that the first time you had been questioned along
this line?
Mr. STENHOUSE, Yes. But he did ask me a question did I know a certain
individual in Washington, D. C. And the name of the man was----
Mr. TAVENNER. I would suggest that you not mention the name in public.
The committee, I think, would want to know privately.
Let me ask you this:
In seeking that information from you, did it have any connection with
the Communist Party?
Mr. STENHOUSE. I don’t know what his intentions were at that time.
Mr. TAVENNER. I think, Mr. Chairman, under those circumstances, we
should not ask him to state the matter in public when we have no idea
what it is he is talking about.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. STENHOUSE. You asked me if I had ever been questioned.
Mr. TAVENNER. I mean questioned about communism in a Federal agency and
regarding the matters under discussion here.
Mr. STENHOUSE. I beg your pardon. I thought you meant had I ever been
questioned by an agency of the Government in the interim.
Mr. TAVENNER. Of course, we are not interested in whether you have been
interrogated by someone in a Government department on matters not at
all related to the functions of this committee. I understand you to say
you have not been.
(The witness confers with his counsel.)
Mr. STENHOUSE. The reason I thought you might be interested in it was
that he did ask me a question which related to the Institute of Pacific
Relations. And since it related to that, I thought that the committee
should know about it.
He asked me if I had ever known (name deleted).
And first I couldn’t remember the name. But then he said, “Well, didn’t
you ever go to a luncheon in Washington, D. C., sponsored by the
Institute of Pacific Relations?”
And then I remembered that I had, along with several hundred or so
other people, gone to such a luncheon.
Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, this being a matter about which we have no
knowledge at all, I believe we are getting into a field that should not
be explored in public without some investigation on our own part.
Mr. MOULDER. Mr. Tavenner, will you step up here, please?
(Mr. Tavenner confers with the chairman.)
Mr. STENHOUSE. May I make one concluding remark as to that last
testimony?
Mr. MOULDER. At this time the name you mentioned will be stricken
from the record until further investigation can be made of your last
testimony.
Mr. STENHOUSE. Well, this individual, I may say, addressed a large
group of people in what was substantially an open meeting, and reported
on----
Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, in light of your ruling, I suggest we
not go into that matter at all until the committee staff has had an
opportunity to investigate the witness’ last testimony.
Mr. MOULDER. Yes.
Mr. STENHOUSE. Mr. Chairman, may I make one concluding statement in
regard to my last remarks?
When the man who was questioning me heard my report he then asked me
why I was changing jobs. And I said I had no intention to change a job.
And he said, “Did you apply for a job with the Treasury Department?”
And I said, “No.”
And he said, “Well, do you know another John Stenhouse?”
And I told him I did.
Mr. TAVENNER. Will you tell the committee, please, the purpose of the
project on which you were sent to China?
Mr. STENHOUSE. I think I have already stated that. Do you want me to
repeat it, sir?
Mr. TAVENNER. Yes.
Mr. STENHOUSE. It was to study and report on the rehabilitation of
trade in the Far East.
Mr. TAVENNER. And that necessitated your travel in what part of China?
Mr. STENHOUSE. The headquarters were in Shanghai.
Mr. TAVENNER. Did you spend all of your time in Shanghai?
Mr. STENHOUSE. No. I was in Nanking--well, while I was with that
particular commission I spent all of my time in Shanghai.
Mr. TAVENNER. When was it that you went to Nanking?
Mr. STENHOUSE. After 3 months with the Economic Commission I then
was with the Food and Agriculture Administration, and the Food and
Agriculture Administration had an office both in Shanghai and in
Nanking. And it was my duty, as administrative assistant, to supervise
both offices.
Mr. TAVENNER. Will you state the dates you were stationed in Shanghai,
and the dates you were in Nanking?
Mr. STENHOUSE. I can’t do it. I was back and forth.
Mr. TAVENNER. Will you state the dates which divided your time between
the two places?
Mr. STENHOUSE. I think maybe there is a mistake in my previous
testimony as to dates.