Evening star., 1950-04-22
Mr.. Budenz Tells His Story

II the testimony of Louis F. Budenz against
owen baltimore does nothing else, 1t serves to
illustrate the difficulty, If not the hopeessness
OF trying to determine what is true and what
is false in controversy of this kind.
Mr.. baltimore, some three weeks ago, took
the stand before the Tydings committee, and
categorically denied Senator McCarthys charges
that he was the top Communist espionage agent
in this country. He also denied that he had ever
been Communist, or that he had sympathized
with the Communists, or that he had ever know
ingly assisted them in any way. He made these
statements under oath, and thereby invited a
prosecution for perjury if any of them could be
proved false.
Senator Mccarthy said he had witness,
trusted by the Department of Justice, who would
testify that Mr.. baltimore was member of the
Communist Party and subject to Communist
discipline. That witness is Mr.. Budenz.
Until he left the party and returned to the
Catholic faith, Mr.. Budenz was an important
Communist holding important party positions,
Worker, the official Communist newspaper. He
might be expected to know great deal about
the inner workings of American communism.
His pertinent testimony before the Tydings
committee however, belongs in the category of
some one else not facts to which he could testify
of his own knowledge. He said he had been told
by Frederick Vanderbilt Field that MIR. baltimore
was Soviet espionage agent. Mr.. Field has
denied making the statement. Mr.. Budenz testi-'
ned that Mr.. baltimore was a member of
communist cell in the Institute of Pacific Rea-
tions, and that he had heard Mr. Field and Earl
Browder, former Communist leader, speak in
complimentary terms of Mr.. Lattimore's success
in placing Communist writer's on institute publi-
cations. This has been denied by both Mr. Field
and Mr. Browder.
Mr.. Budenz told the committee that Jack
Stachel, whom he described as the party's disci-
plinarian, had instructed him to regard Owen
baltimore as Communist which meant, Mr..
Budenz explained, that in his capacity as an
editor of the Daily Worker he should treat as
authoritative anything that Mr.. baltimore would
say or advise. Yet the witness told the committee
that he had never met Mr.. baltimore, that he had
read few If any of his writings, and he did not
claim that he had ever received any advice or
guidance from him. Finally, there Is the interest
ing point that Mr. Budenz, though questioned at
great length by FBI agents after deSerting the
Communists in 1946, did not mention Mr. Latti-
more's name to them.
When this kind of testimony is placed against
Mr.. Lattimores own statement, what is one to
believe? The hearsay statements made by Mr..
Budenz would not be accepted as evidence in any
court. Still, congressional hearing is not a
court trial, and the statements, if true would
be very significant despite their hearsay char
acter If one does not believe Mr. Budenz is
telling the truth, then it follows that he has
invented his story, and that raises the question
as to what possible motive he could have in
doing 50.
These are some of the questions that are
bound to trouble any one who has not closed
his mind, but who tries to sift out the truth
from the mass of contradictions. At this stage,
about all that can be said with certainty is that
there is great deal more darkness than light
In the picture. There is nothing to be done now
except to urge that the committee keep digging
and expose to public appraisal all of the in
formation it can fnd