THE HONORABLE W. AVERELL HARRIMAN'S APPEARANCE 2 JUNE 1960 IN OPEN SESSION BEFORE THE SENATE

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP80B01676R003400120024-8
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 8
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 18, 2002
• Sequence Number: 24
• Publication Date: June 3, 1960
• Content Type: MFR

Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-
'REICIRARDUX FOR IKE BROM
P801?0{676R0014001.20024-8
73.3gisul
SUBJECT: The Honorable W. Avetell Harriman's appearance 2 June 1960 in
Open Session before the Senate Subcommittee on National Policy
Machinery, Committee.on Government Operations.
1. Xt. Earriman began with a prepared statement, a verbatim copy of
wkieh is attached. Committee Chairman Jackson asked Mt. Harriman whet he
tbeenht was the effect in the Soviet Union of the failure of the SUmmit
Oemfaminee. Xt. Harriman replied that the Summit failure could be viewed
as a victory far those Soviet leaders who did not agree with the detente
efforts of Ihrushehev. Mt. Barris= added that some efforts were being
made by the Soviet leadership to play down the Summit failure citing as
examples the recent release of a U.S. transport plane's personnel, and
Xhrushchev's 29 May !podia.
2. Xt. Harriman stated that he was glad to see that the President will
continue his efforts to negotiate with the Soviet leaders. He said that the
most important loss to come out of Paris was the withdrawal of the invitation
to the President to visit the Soviet Union. la said that be believed that
sr. Eisenhower would have received a more tumultuous reception than any
verld leader has experienced in recent years. While he felt the possibility
of success was unlikely, be thought that the United States must make every
eft to convince the Soviet Union to renew the invitation.
3. Xt. Harriman stated that Ebruabchev had probably been shaken by the
President 4s assumption of full responsibility for the U4 flight. Xhrushchev
had staked his reputation on the development of a personal relationship
between the President and himself. W. Harriman added, however, that the
change In attitude in the Soviet Union toward East-West detente had begun before
the U-2 incident.
4. Mk. Harriman stated that despite the Summit failure, the United States
most press for increased contacts with the Government and people of the Soviet
*ion. He stated he favored a calm, though unappeasing attitude. He said
that the people in the Soviet Union still cling to the hope of returning to
the Warld War Ii relationship between the United States and the USSR.
5. Senator javits asked Mt. Harriman's viewpoint on summitry versus
trod/times:1 dipaomacy, pointing out that Mr. George Hannan, in a recent
swears's* before the Subeommittee, had favored a return to traditional
diplOmaLle Stating that he had the utmost respect for Mt. Kennan's
judgment: Harriman said that the multi-national nature of almost every
world problem today no longer permits the use of time-honored diplomatic
OGC Has Reviewed;-/
Approved For eIease 2002/11/22: CIA-RDP80B01676R00340012?2)-8EXECUTIVE RECO N
Pmaahinery. Mr. Eirrimen added that as long as one man in the Soviet Union
must approve every decision, summit meetings are the only possible mean* for
solving international problems. Re concluded that American policy machinery
must contemplate summitry.
6. In reply to a question from Mr. Pendleton, the Minority COunzel, .
Merriman stated that the United States should not attempt to sell its own
economic system abroad but should confine its activities to fighting the
battle between freedom and dictatorship. Private enterprise, he aikido should
not be a condition of United States foreign aid.
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP80601676R003400120024-8
Attachraent
Orig. igit - DCI
4/1 - DDCI
1 - IG
SIGNED,
of General Counsel
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP80601676R003400120024-8
STAT Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP80601676R003400120024-8
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP80601676R003400120024-8
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP80801676R003409120024-8
f Oen
uit Agains
1. This
01
ii
VO? '6/4d
2. You have requested our violas on your 1401 rights aaiast B. T.
Stager /Matures, Which sold the 0110110 SUNDAY WNW an article tied
*What We Dow About Russia's Strength,* by AlleftW. Dulles, Director, Central
iatelligemee Agency, and published in the TRIBUNE's Benda Megasine section
on IT July 1960. (Attachment 1).
3. A review of the article in the ICBM indicates that it is sub.
stantially a rewrite of your 8 April 1959 speech befOre the Edison Electric
Institute. The article is composed predominantly of verbatim lacteal from
that speesh, although sUbatential potions of the speech are omitted. After
extensive research, we have concluded that agoesible elation lies both against
Singer Features and the CS10A00 TRIBUNE. Also, if MO. Lloyd Wendt, Bundmy
Editor of the TRIBUNE, hes described accurately his contact with I. Singer,
the letter's representation that be had the rights of plblieetion weld give
the TRIMS& grounds for a frond action eaminst Binger and his compamy.
4. At least three possible approaches to legal action on your pert are
suggested by the filets. Met, on action for libel sight be maintained if
it can be proven that the article, ea printed, is net an accurate reflection
of your remarks in MivrOtimeas an ehlith the article is based. St. Oroean's
memorandum of 20 July 1960 (Attachment 2), indicating that Mr. Aluesr has
loos been oonsidered a pro-Oommonist, suggests a stronger motive in his
actions than the commerelal aspects of selling this article to the =SUM.
A careful reeding of materiel removed by him from the Kew Orleans speech
suggests that Singer sought, for the meet pert, to avoid statemests support
ing the belief that Neseow hes not changed its basic mission of goad con-
qoest and its technisome devoted to accomplishing this. lie has attempted
through careful editing to ULU a picture of an ever-growleg, overseers
powerful Soviet nation, operating under the guidamee of ma infallible bier
print which is designed to make it the world's seomemic leader. Se omits such
statements as "I do net ooncluie from this analysis that the secret of Soviet
success lime in greater efficiesey. On the contrern in eenDerieen with the
leading free enterprise ec000mies of the West, the Communist state-eoetrolled
system is relatively inefficient." One ?omit, in fent, conclude free the
article as it appeared that it Ls inevitable that the Soviet Union will one
day advance to first place in the world in volume of production.
5. The fundamental bests of the law of defammtion end therefore an
essential element is a plaintiff's argument is proof that the defendant has
published false matter which has injured the plaintiff's reputation. (Leen v.
gi
Approved For Release 2002/11122: CIA-RDP80801676R00340012002
Approved For Release 402/11/22 : CIA-RDP801301676R003400120024-8
Unica Electric Co. of Missouri, . 2d 1065, 144A.L.R. 624 ?rent V.
Meader's Digest Association, C.C.A 3.51. r 2d 733; Berg v. Printer** Ink
1411. Co. D.Cala. 54 Supp. 795.) AAmittedly, the present situation is some-
*et eflaild of the usual libel settee. givelly, of course, the defamer lomm
MIMI ems statement vhieh refliets direetly ma the character of the defamed
such es charging his with improper cot in office.Neverthelese it could
be argued, the eseential element - a false statement *biota injure* 4he reputation
of the demist . is presemt
6. Thik falsehood here is the sttribrtion of anthership to you of this story
published lathe TRIMS. The reader eould be expected to believe you Aid, in
facto write the article for the newspaper. therefore yenta believe that
this repreeents your current position on lioseoves salter; streagth ani summits
Mum Pros this be vould probably also conclude that this is the official
volition of the lilted States Goverement. If, in fact, this rewrite of your
orienml remarks Aid not reflect aeouretely the tenor of your original remarks
Or year present viewpoint, 15 months after the speech was first vreeented,
Mod lasso aim be made fOr the charge that false matter has beenvelbliehed which
has injured your reputetlan. lUrthermore, the ease is strengthened by epelrlog
the rule pretesting persons in their *Mee sir millings The protestioe long
afforded to tradesman to their repotationso to their callings has been generally
extended to persona bolding yeblie office. (fitsgereld v. Platte, 1923, 160
Win 625, 195 2.w. 86.) Therefore, fists 'bleb might net be eatienOble in the
case of other persons have been need successfully to *Mort an action for
injury to the *bile official Lehi. office or collies. (Lawson, "The glacier
of a Person in his Calling," 1884 OM& 2ev 513.) TO be actiomehle under
this theory the, detimmtery statement mist be vide with reference to a matter
of peculiar important* to the office itself. (Nestatememt of Teets, see 573.)
Certainly the fasts hers would quality ender this rule.
7. Aseoesd eyproadh bosoms* of action veal* bees
of the right of prinat. This erea of the law, admitted/vs
particularly in situations in *Iola aviblie offielel is mai
of his right. Nevertheless, the situation her. la thish a party liehes
article, purportedly written by another, *high, is feet, is re-
write of a public speech muds 15 Meths earlier, sweets a strong sees for
fioding that a cause of action Iles for wrongful invasion of the right of
pr veer. Proftsmor Willis. Prosier writes:
Nost courts now recognise the exiatence of
vhieb will be protested against Interference, *tisk
outrageous, or beyond the limits of oommon ideas of
The right has been held to cover intrusions upon the
solitude, p4hl1ely given to his name or Ukases* )
his in a false light in the public eye. The right is sUbjeet to a
privilege to palish netters of news lulus, or of lublie interest,
of a legitimate kind. (Prosser, PIN of 141:1110A V- 635.)
The right is recognised both in California one =Imola, the two jeriedictions
which *mid be the most likely for bringing suit in your case. (
Pa. Ca., 1951, 38 Cal. 24 273, 231 P 2d, 5651 end Ile* w Perk
3952 347 Ill. APP. 293 1062.2. 2d T42.)
2
Approved For Release 2002/11/22: CIA-RDP801301676R003400120024-8
Approved For Release-2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP80601676R003400120024-8
8. A. Ilere !ork ease, 51$
1,1?
153, 139 LTJL, la ion that be
vas the anther of an *beard storj pravidsi the tip. of factual situstiOn with
Mach a eamperiems could be made with the present tests. Oc aesl the court
reversed the lower court's ho14ir for the plaintiff on the rcuMs, hOWNVOrg
that it iras not within the Sim York Statute coneer,M with this tip. of site-
atiom. The courts tend to find some other basis for I bi1ity than purely an
invasion of one's privacy soak as defamation, breach of an belied contract or
the invasion of some nrePer*, right. Mevertheless, Prosser not.. that there
remains 'a large and growth field in whieh privacy become important benemse
no other remedy is available,"
9. A third ewes& to a sense of action lies Is a suit to force abandon..
mut of ©right. The newepeper might oleo be tweed to print a retraction
of the article with sey elerifYlvd emovosto you might el& to make. Mame the
original speech was plowed in the poblic domain, by pUblisking it is several
planes suet as the ,---oaalReendea 30 April 1959, &direct actin for
ivgrivgOment of 0.--'"wrem of year poreenal property meal& mot
Lis. The Riekover owe, in whieh the admiral ameemeded lath* federal court,
to prohibit a lehliaher from pahlishiag speedhes Which he hod mede on objects
en ableh be is noted as an expert, scold not be /applied hers* sines the court
found is that ease then the admiral bed not puhliehed his speeches and that
they were not sonsegmeatly in the labile domain. If an motion were brought
for abandonment of the emayright Chick the C1ICA902,1391111 bee teken out on
the article, it is 'unlikely that the defendants would nalatain that *he ease
falls within the rule that materiels in the pdblie 4teeeisike7 be protected by
copyright, if there is a distingniehable variation in the arrangement and mower
of presentation. To *taiga the ease under this rule mould be to admit that
distingniablible varieties" had beennede is your original presentation whieb,
in itself, would support suit for libel,
10. In summary, Mr. ginger sad the CH1000 =IMMIX bad the right to
pUbliab your ei April 199" speedh, since it was in the Iniallo domain, provided
they eleerly indleated the sour*a emd date. They also bad the right to ?do-
ll& excerpts from the gpeetah if these emmerpts ware elearly acknowledged as
being wet end if, tan out of content, they did mat distort the overall tenor
of your remarks. ineeter, Mr. Singer had no right to represent, and the MONO
TRIM to publish, a rewrite of the speech Uhleh vas arta by emitting hey
passages of the original end to 'which we. eppended en original title seppeeedIT
withered by you. In view of the various theories %veld* an action might be
brought end the juriedietione is which south a suit wag be commenced, you
mmY wish, Shoal& you decide to pursue the matter legally* to oonsult private
practitioners eh* have bed experience with defamation seem. Of emcee, we
would sestet these attorneys in any veY we emold ImirePerettoo if that come.
Suit could be brought either In California, the jurisdiction in Uhl& Mr, Stager
and his compeer are legated, or is Minas, the jurisdiction in thieh the
article was published. La alternative *Spree& *VA all far the IMAM to
litigate its right* spine% Singer end his company.
Distribution:
Orig. & 1 - DCI
1 - ICI
A. Wont. (3)
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 3CIA-RDP801301676R003400120024-8
1 Asst to DCI (Grogan)
3 - Gen Counsel
STAT Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP80601676R003400120024-8
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP80601676R003400120024-8
Approved For Release 2002/11/22 : CIA-RDP80601676R003400120024-8
L-1-5
oc 40-11311 STAT
23 August 1,40 4111'2-
Chris
-33er fi
MEMORANDUM FOR: Director f Central latellIgeace
SUBJECT: Powers Trial
1. This memorandum cantatas a recommendation In
paragraph 2 for approval of the Director of Central Intolligenee.
2. Mr. Alexander Parker and Mr. Frank Rogers, the
two Virginia lawyers who wont to Moscow on behalf of Powers,
plan to arrive back in Now York Saturday night. We will be in
touch with them immediately en their arrival. I felt you might
want to invite them together with Mr. John Parker, the third
lawyer who remained In this country, to discuss the trial with
you. If so, I will intend the invitation and arrange a time at
tAe earliest opportunity, probably early next weak.
LAWRENCE R. HOUSTON
General Counsel
The recommendation in paragraph 2 is approved. 05 Ain 1116t
Distribution:
Orig - General Counsel
1 - DCI
) - DDCI
- ER
1 - C/SR
1 - DPD
OGC:LRapptived For Release
Date
SIGNEP
ALLEN W. DULLES
Director
2002/11(22 : CIA-RDP80601676R003400120024-8
EXECUTIVE nre,'
- Y.1;
.1 I
ig ?
r