In the next two minutes you'll see a series of mixed up scenes because we can't
show you what really happened.
We'll have to tell you we're getting now to the heart of this matter.
The police housing which the committee calls that quote communist led riots.
First you must know
that there were two police authorities in operation at city hall on this particular
Black Friday. There was no apparently is armed between them.
On one side Rashard Carberry on the other inspector McGuire of the city police.
The sheriff seemed to be working in one direction. The inspector in another.
Naturally there was confusion. Friday morning.
The sheriff approached the students saying in effect. Wait in the rotunda.
And I'll try to arrange for you to be admitted to the hearing room through no fault
of his sheriff Carberry could not make the necessary arrangements in time for the
afternoon session in the meantime the responsible student leadership made several
attempts to cooperate with the police they were rebuffed they sense the danger in
the situation and made frantic efforts to contact the mayor
or some other responsible city official no one was available at noon on Friday the
students start their efforts were to be successful
that at last they were to be let in on a first come first served basis.
And again they were treated to the spectacle of the pass holders being admitted
ahead of them. They felt cheated.
They felt they'd been betrayed sheriff Carberry had led them to expect the
afternoon sessions with the admissions on a more equitable basis.
Ironically enough.
The sheriff had done as he promised he'd gotten the permission he was after
and he was on his way back to City Hall with that information.
When the whole thing began under inspector McGuire's direction a squad of policemen
moved up the city hall stairs.
The students quieted down they expected the police to make them stay.
That some request for them to leave the building
but nothing was said the committee's version keeps emphasizing
that the students were warned.
It's true the police asked a few individual students to leave.
But there was never a general warning to the students.
No hint was given of what was to come out of the side of the students the police
began calling the fire hoses the students tried to demonstrate their nonviolent
intentions by sitting down.
Some witnesses heard a policeman shout something to this effect.
So you want some of this to you where you're going to get it
and then the water was turned on. That's what really happened.
But here's the committee's version of what happened.
That the new.
I'm afraid has become more and more one
that has stayed grabbed the police didn't
just forward from the door at least in fact there are others that are on the trial.
Well you surely know
that Robert Mizen back was acquitted in the San Francisco trials.
If you saw a Life magazine of May twenty third one thousand nine hundred sixty.
You saw a photograph of Meissen back standing perfectly dry over against the wall
of the rotunda looking on while the students were being hosed.
Not even the committee will suggest the communist tricks so adroit
that a man can touch off a riot.
Beat a police officer be granted with fire hoses
and get away all dried off within a matter of seconds.
It can't be done and wasn't done.
Even the officer who supposedly was assaulted admitted after trial there was no
barricade jumping by my son back. And another curious fact.
Despite all the experienced press
and television cameramen on the spot all the footage that was taken.
No one has come forward with their single frame showing anyone jumping any
barricade
nor as the committee would have it quote any mob surging forward to storm the doors
and quote do you see anything of that kind.
Here you can bet that if it had occurred.
Someone would have pictures of it and you can bet at even longer odds
that if such pictures existed.
The committee would have publicized them far
and wide look at the scenes the police rousting students from city hall
which group is using or allowed violence.
The students but the police
and just suppose for the sake of argument that a student had leaped a barricade
and assaulted an officer that would certainly be grounds for his arrest but
that if it occurred have justified the police in handling all the students in this
way.
The fact is no one leaped the barricade no one assaulted an officer then why did
the police use the hoses only the police know that
and they aren't saying there has been a widespread awareness.
Not only in San Francisco but nationally that the evidence points to brutality
and violence on the part of the police rather than on the part of the students we
ask you to grow your own conclusions.
Remember
that most of the scenes use are just prior to the hosing were actually taken that.
Day before on Thursday.
But the makers of operation abolition weren't satisfied with the truth.
It wasn't dramatic enough. It didn't prove their point about a communist led riot.
So by combining the two demonstrations the film editors were able to create a
distorted and crude but persuasive effect.
As we said before Representative Walker has tried to defend himself by saying the
errors in the film are purely accidental you know now they were not accidental
when the committee subpoenaed the film from the photographers all sequences
but properly dated and labeled there was no excuse for error.
No excuse for mixing up the true sequence of events.
It's a matter of record that at least seven students were injured.
But Operation abolition didn't include was the original newsreel film showing
injured students lying prostrate
and apparently unconscious on the floor of City Hall or outside on the ground.
Such scenes work carefully deleted by the committee's producers in contrast see now
what tender concern they have product police.
In the words of the original narrator and or students
that are minor injuries only men entered to the point where they require
hospitalization
that might bring your freedom
or hearing the common prank on the age of sixty one
who suffered a stroke when he was not agitated.
This makes a good story from the committee point of view
but the truth as shown by the official police report.
Or is that after Dunphy merely collapsed from exhaustion
and other police injuries were minor Why shouldn't they be minor no one was turning
hoses on the police or dragging them downstairs.
And our late policemen were back at full time duty within three days
the committee are so far all fleet tied in the students with communism by declaring
that just before the hosing quote students
and to use the actively joining in on the refrains to the song about wish the
committee.
We Shall Not Be Moved lyrics to which are lifted from the old communist people
songbook
and quote actually we shall not be moved is an old religious spiritual well
known to people acquainted with folk music which appears in him novels
and is presently the theme of certain demonstrators in the south.
These are the arrested students being but later charges against all but one.
Robert Mizen back were dismissed
and mizen back was acquitted by a jury after less than three hours of deliberations.
Now with all the talk in the committee's film about communist leaders
and communist dupes.
Only two of those arrested are even alleged to be communists
and these two joined the group. Only after the hoses were turned down.
So even this flimsy pretext by the committee of communist provocation of police
falls flat.
Now the film shows you some are so-called evidence of communists agitating
California students into opposing the House committee and on American activities.
This includes clippings from the Daily Californian
and the San Francisco Chronicle The implication is
that these news stories on events surrounding the hearings are a result of
communist inspiration. Showing a page from a newspaper R.B.S.
Leaders and through this claim God are continuing scenes of pickets
and crowds taken at various times during the hearings.
Again you will see actions of some of the witnesses under subpoena in the hearing
room. You're informed in operation appellation
that in some way these witnesses were directly responsible for the demonstrations a
mile away at Union Square after the demonstrators outside city hall
and after those trying to get into the hearing the committee narrator tells you
it's a communist tactic providences to defy it.
If so why does the committee subpoena the same witnesses again and again.
Is it because they really think the witnesses will suddenly break down
and make some dramatic disclosure.
Or is it because they can't count on a stubborn defiant witness making a good
newspaper story.
The committee doesn't like statements from one kindly witnesses its rules say
that any statement can be rejected as an attack. I am a committee.
So any witness who dares disagree has no way of being heard either verbally
or in writing without the committee's indulgence.
Here we see Archie Brown attempting to read just such a statement.
I live there twenty seven three episodes ago.
I am a long time and I wanted to state.
Mr Chairman
that I have done many many one.
I want to be with my family
and I want to buy this
but my guess is it is not were directed
and to do
that with dummies like this the man
that I am going to find is now down to some.
Mr Chairman I want to stay
on the way.
I'm sorry I was subpoenaed.
And
that my mind to get
it done.
Did anybody out anything like what is happening
here
and then as Archie Brown doggedly continues
his efforts to read a statement chairman Willis threatens him with expulsion from
the hearing room.
You may fly paper out of the record. If you wish.
I wish I wish I was
playing.
I want to see
Brown is possibly removed for the third time.
The committee needn't have been surprised
that this next witness William Mandela's turned out to be hostile their narrator
described him as quote and identified agent of the Communist Party
and quotes but today expressed. Well they expected an outburst.
Because this is great publicity.
In fairness to Mr Mandela it should be said
that the testimony you hear was presented out of context.
Right.
In the United States Constitution.
If you would you.
Sandels answered that he was a lecturer. But left out.
And now we hear only part of his answer to the next question whether he was a party
member and lectured that question.
One thousand nine hundred forty three by the way killed a car
and they say right when people come up to me on the street.
Perhaps they don't deserve the car.
As a hero the man who killed your macaca big
or the spirit of the day in a burning here
and I did my best to conduct myself on the matter with nothing myself today.
If there were any evidence against me under any law the starry eyed look against
him properly constituted my right.
Going to answer that but.
Next you will see Frank Wilkinson being interviewed by a news man he is described
by Congressman Gordon a cheer. As a pop communist speeches and accused of.
Agitating among the student demonstrators.
Of course this accusation is totally unsupported
and just as phony as the crowd noises
that were dumped into the film City Hall today.
No I've just been an observer of the I understood you had said you were organizing
protests against the committee.
One of the things that our committee does
and I do for our committee is to come to each community
when the committee issued a subpoena.
To assist the subpoenaed persons
and others in the community who are not familiar with the kind of unconstitutional
behavior that this committee carries on to a community
and to assist both the penie in their own self-defense in the committee hearing
today you are called an International Communist agent are you a communist at the
very flattering remarks Frank what they called a a hard core communist local
common just by Mr Sharon.
But never an International Communist The far as the basic question is concerned
until the Supreme Court has answered the fundamental constitutional question which
is now pending in my case which is one of the thirty sixth Amendment test cases of
this committee and. Resolve the matter at the player these kind of question.
Don't under compulsion to be illegal unconstitutional.
I refused to answer the questions away from the committee every truth was of
correct to the Committee to be committed. What I call.
Now you've seen the film known as Operation abolition
but I company by narration of facts rather than unfounded statements
and deliberate distortions.
I'm sure you now see that what happened in San Francisco.
Was not a communist led riot
or even a group of young Americans being killed by communists.
Once you recognize this truth. Two questions then arrives.
Why were the students there
and why did the House Committee on Un-American Activities make this film.
First the student demonstrations increasingly students have become passionately
involved in civil liberties issues. These are good for us right. American issues.
Going back a long way to the Declaration of Independence to the Bill of Rights
and coming right up to today with our serious national concerns for the civil
rights of all Americans.
There is a difference between communist dupes and high minded young men and women.
Proud of their country's traditions of freedoms.
So openly proud of that tradition that they have the courage
and conviction to protest the violations of those freedoms by the water committee
the students protested by peaceful picketing.
They started mission to what had been announced as a public hearing
and were denied on flimsy frustrating and conflicting grounds.
Yes their reaction to this denial singing
and chanting inside a public building may rightfully be criticised.
But as their record shows they maintain their self-imposed passive resistance
and acted on the whole with a restraint
and courage not always matched by their elders. Now the second question.
Why did the House Committee on Un-American Activities twist
and distort this whole episode. Why did they play scenes out of sequence.
Why did they leave out certain scenes. Why did they make.
Narration statements that were totally unsupported either by the pictures
or the facts.
Why did they give special prominence to the misbehavior inside the hearing room of
a few communists and alleged communists who had been subpoenaed.
We believe that the original film and that ration were carefully
and deliberately designed to create the impression
that all who oppose the committee are either communists or communists dupes.
In this manner.
The committee seeks to discourage further protests against it particularly among
students and to inhibit freedom of speech
and assembly get some Americans have been duped.
But in this case the duping has been done by the House Committee on Un-American
Activities Markwell
that they won't our committee did all this by indulging in a highly dubious bit of
business using its subpoena power to seize private property belonging to television
stations and turning it over to a committed commercial film producer.
Who made the distribution
and took the profits are disclosure of the distortion of this incident
and the untruthfulness of operation abolition gives the American people a concrete
example of the irresponsible manner in which the House Un-American Activities
Committee operates the A.C.L.U.
Supports the statement of the New York Times
when it says this whole un-American operation by the Un-American Activities
Committee is evidence not of the need for its continuance.
But need of its abolition of course we have urged before.
And that's why we have just shown you Operation corrections.