(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Control of subversive activities. Hearings before"







r5~ 



m 



<\m£.'**\<\o 




Given By 




3* 



13? 



v\ 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

eightieth congress 

SECOND SESSION 
ON 



H. R. 5852 



AN ACT TO PROTECT THE UNITED STATES 
AGAINST UN-AMERICAN AND SUB- 
VERSIVE ACTIVITIES 



MAY 27, 28, 29, AND 31, 1948 



Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 




Csr. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 



HEARINGS 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTIETH COXGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

ON 

H. R. 5852 

AN ACT TO PROTECT THE UNITED STATES 
AGAINST UN-AMERICAN AND SUB- 
VERSIVE ACTIVITIES 



MAY 27, 28, 29, AND 31, 1948 



Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 





UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
:■>:" WASHINGTON : 1948 




-** 



f^Cftf/fo 



U D S. '-SUPERIHTEHOENT Of UOUU*MM 

OCT 8 1948 



COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ALEXANDER WILEY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota PAT McCARRAN, Nevada 

HOMER FERGUSON, Michigan HARLEY M. KILGORE, West Virginia 

CHAPMAN REVERCOMB, West Virginia JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi 

E. H. MOORE, Oklahoma WARREN G. MAGNUSON, Washington 

FORREST C. DONNELL, Missouri J. WILLIAM FULBRIGHT, Arkansas 

JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky J. HOWARD McGRATH, Rhode Island 

Robert B. Young, Cltrk 
II 



X 



CONTENTS 



Testimony of — Page 

James Lamar Barfoot, Peoples Progressive Party of Georgia 412 

Philip Bartell, attorney, Cleveland, Ohio 287 

Stanford H. Bolz, Washington representative of the American Jewish 

• Congress 237 

Joseph Cadden, executive director, Civil Rights Congress 225 

Joseph Connor, chairman of the Political Action Committee, Local 

600, CIO, 3250 Monroe Boulevard, Dearborn, Mich 390 

Julian Cornell, lawyer and writer, 25 Broadway, New York City, 
appearing on behalf of Friends Committee on International Legis- 
lation 278 

Rev. John Francis Cronin, Sulpician Fathers, Washington, D. C 29 

Thomas I. Emerson, New Haven, Conn., representing the National 

Lawyers Guild 146 

William Z. Foster, president, American Communist Party 95 

Osmond K. Fraenkel, American Civil Liberties Union, 170 Fifth 

Avenue, New York, N. Y 86 

Rev. Erwin A. Gaede, Madison Ministerial Association, of Madison, 

Wis 178 

John Gates, editor in chief, the Daily Worker, New York, N. Y 95 

Paul Griffith, past national commander, the American Legion, Wash- 
ington, D. C 50 

Manuel Guardado, Local 600, CIO, 605 West Grand Boulevard, 

Detroit, Mich 390 

Ewart G. Guinier, international secretarv, United Public Workers, 

CIO, 2 Lafayette Street, New York, N. *Y 402 

William Haber, representing Civil Rights Congress of Ohio 285 

Donald Henderson, president, Food, Tobacco, Agricultural and 

Allied Workers, CIO 410 

Lewis G. Hines, national legislative representative, American Fed- 
eration of Labor, Washington, D. C 141 

Katherine Hoffman, executive secretary, Greater Newark CIO 

Council 237 

James Imbrie, New Jersey Independent Citizens League 301 

Hon. Leo Isacson, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New York 55 

Albert Kahn, representing the National Council of Art, Sciences, and 

Professions; and the Jewish Peoples' Fraternal Order 202 

Joseph Kehoe, international secretary-treasurer of the American 

American Communication Association, CIO 380 

Robert J. Kenney, former attorney general of the State of California. 269 
Rockwell Kent, president of the International Workers Order and 

president of Artists League of America 252 

William S. Lawrence, on behalf of the International Longshoremen 
and Warehousemen Union and president of the Los Angeles Council, 

CIO, 5851 Avalon Boulevard, Los Angeles 3, Calif 389,400 

Aaron Lewittes, representing the American Jewish Congress 337 

Rt. Rev. Theodore R. Ludlow, D. D., Suffragan Bishop of Newark . _ 236 
Hon. Vito Marcantonio, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York 70 

Horace S. Meldahl, attorney, Charleston, W. Va 290 

Godfrey L. Munter, Washington Bar Association, Washington, D. C. 298 

Elliott H. Newcomb, national executive director, AMVETS 65 

Hon. Richard M. Nixon, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California 33 

Carl H. O'Brien, Michigan Progressive Youth for Wallace Party 412 

in 



IV CONTENTS 

Testimony of— Continued p as e 
John R. O'Brien, Passaic, N. J., representing Americanism commit- 
tee, Marine Corps League, Inc 283 

Isaac Pacht, chairman, Prison Board; chairman, Crime Commission; 

president, California Council of Civic Unity 270 

Kenneth Parkinson, Washington Bar Association, Washington, D. C_ 
Hon. J. Hardin Peterson, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Florida 298 

Donald R. Richberg, attorney, Washington, D. C 47 

Paul Robeson 10 

O. John Rogge, lawyer, 400 East Fifty-second Street, New York, 315 

N. Y , 366,387 

Rabbi Benjamin Schultz, Yonkers, N. Y 361 

David Scribner, general counsel, United Electrical, Radio and Ma- 
chine Workers of America, CIO 181, 394 

Joseph W. Straley, department of physics, University of North Car- 
olina, Chapel Hill, N. C 398 

Teachers Union, Local 555, UPW-CIO 413 

Norman Thomas, representing the Socialist Party 239 

Rev. A. M. Van Dyke, Hawthorne, N. J 235 

Henry A. Wallace 256 

Joseph F. Walsh, Tennyson, Wis 196 

William B. Waltmire, chairman, social action committee, Madison 

Council of Churches 179 

Alexander Washington, Local 600, 105-50, Dearborn, Mich 390 

John C. Williamson, assistant legislative director, Veterans of For- 
eign Wars of the United States 54 

George F. Wuchinich, representing the American Slav Congress 215 



APPENDIXES 



Page 

1. Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., attorney (constitutional brief) 415 

2. John W. Davis, attorney (constitutional brief) 420 

3. Tom Clark, Attorney General (views) 422 

4. Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service, Federal Law Sec- 

tion (memorandum dealing with legal propositions raised in hearings) _ 425 

5. American Civil Liberties Union (memorandum) 428 

6. Louis Waldman, attorney (statement and brief) 432 

7. Morris L. Ernst, attorney (telegraphic statement) 436 

8. Lee Pressman, general counsel for International Fur and Leather 

Workers Union, and the International Mine, Mill, and Smelter 
Workers Union (statement) 436 

9. Seth W. Richardson, attorney (memorandum) 443 

10. Robert R. Milan, chairman, special committee on Bill of Rights, 

American Bar Association (letter and resolution) 447 

11. Merwin K. Hart, president, National Economic Council, Inc. (letter) __ 448 

12. George Roberts, attorney (letter) 448 

13. W. R. Thomas, representative, Michigan American Youth for Democ- 

racy (statement) 449 

14. Mrs. Margaret Hopkins Worrell, president general of the Wheel of 

Progress (statement) 450 

15. Communist Party of the United States (brief in opposition) 451 

16. Walter S. Steele, chairman, security committee of the American Coali- 

tion of Patriotic, Civic and Fraternal Societies (statement in favor) _ _ 458 

17. Hugh J. O'Donnell, chairman, Americanism committee, Brooklyn 

Council, Kings County, VFW (letter in favor) 461 

18. Harry See, national legislative representative, Brotherhood of Railroad 

Trainmen (statement) 461 

19. Mrs. Joseph M. Welt, national president, National Council of Jewish 

Women, Inc. (letter) 462 

20. Congress of Industrial Organizations (statement) 462 

21. Clifford T. McAvoy, labor director of the Progressive Party of Massa- 

chusetts (statement) 467 

22. Senator Alexander Wiley, United States Senate (Wisconsin), chairman, 

Senate Committee on the Judiciary (open letter to the editors of the 
Daily Worker) 470 

23. J. Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation (article 

in Red Book magazine) 472 

24. John Thomas Taylor, director, National Legislative Commission, the 

American Legion (letter in favor) 474 

25. The Milwaukee Journal, May 20 and June 10, 1948 (editorials) 475 

26. Milwaukee Sentinel, May 26, 1948 (editorial) 476 

27. The Atlanta Journal, June 2, 1948 (editorial) 476 

28. New York Herald Tribune, May 3 and 18, 1948 (editorials) 479 

29. New York Times, May 21, 1948 (editorial) 481 

30. Brooklyn, N. Y., Eagle, May 16, 1948 (editorial) 481 

31. Samuel B. Pettengill, text of broadcast over ABC, Sunday, May 23, 

1948 482 

32. The Christian Science Monitor — article bv Roscoe Drummond, June 1, 

1948 (editorial) 485 

33. Congressional Record — extension of remarks of Hon. Charles J. 

Kersten (Wisconsin) 486 

34. Proposed redraft of H. R. 5852, and statement bv Chairman Alexander 

Wiley 488 

v 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 



THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1948 

United States Senate, 
Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, D. C. 
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9 o'clock a. m., in room 318 
Senate Office Building, Senator Alexander Wiley, chairman, presid- 
ing. 

Present : Senators Wiley (chairman) , Ferguson, Moore, Donnell, and 
Eastland. 

The Chairman. The committee will come to order. 
This hearing is scheduled for the purpose of receiving testimony 
and opinions in relation to the constitutionality and practicality of 
H. R. 5852, which will be placed in the record at this point. 
(H. E. 5852 follows :) 

[H. R. 5852, 80th Cong., 2d sess.] 
AN ACT To protect the United States against un-American and subversive activities 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States 
of America in Congress assembled, 

SHORT TITLE 

Section 1. This Act may be cited as the "Subversive Activities Control Act, 
1948". 

NECESSITY FOR LEGISLATION 

Sec. 2. As a result of evidence adduced before various committees of the 
Senate and House of Representatives, Congress hereby finds that — 

(1) The system of government known as totalitarian dictatorship is char- 
acterized by the existence of a single political party, organized on a dictatorial 
basis, and by an identity between such party and its policies and the government 
and governmental policies of the country in which it exists, such identity being 
so close that the party and the government itself are for all practical purposes 
indistinguishable. 

(2) The establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in any country results 
in the ruthless suppression of all opposition to the party in power, the complete 
subordination of the rights of individuals to the state, the denial of fundamental 
rights and liberties which are characteristic of a representative form of govern- 
ment, such as freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of religious 
worship, and results in the maintenance of control over the people through fear, 
terrorism, and brutality. 

(3) There exists a world communist movement which, in its origins, its de- 
velopment, and its present practice, is a world-wide revolutionary political move- 
ment whose purpose it is, by treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups 
f governmental and otherwise), espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and any other 

means deemed necessary to establish a communist totalitarian dictatorship in 
all the countries of the world through the medium of a single world-wide com- 
munist political organization. 

(4) The direction and control of the world communist movement is vested 
in and exercised by the communist dictatorship of a foreign country. 

1 



2 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

(5) The communist dictatorship of such foreign country, in exercising such 
direction and control and in furthering the purposes of the world communist 
movement, establishes or causes the establishment of, and utilizes, in various 
countries, political organizations which are acknowledged by such communist 
dictatorship as being constituent elements of the world communist movement; 
and such political organizations are not free and independent organizations, but 
are mere sections of a single world-wide communist organization and are con- 
trolled, directed, and subject to the discipline of the communist dictatorship of 
such foreign country. 

(6) The political organizations so established and utilized in various coun- 
tries, acting under such control, direction, and discipline, endeavor to carry 
out the objectives of the world communist movement by bringing about the over- 
throw of existing governments and setting up communist totalitarian dictator- 
ships which will be subservient to the most powerful existing communist totali- 
tarian dictatorship. 

(7) In carrying on the activities referred to in paragraph (6), such political 
organizations in various countries are organized on a secret, conspiratorial basis 
and operate to a substantial extent through organizations, commonly known as 
"communist fronts," which in most instances are created and maintained, or 
used, in such manner as to conceal the facts as to their true character and pur- 
poses and their membership. One result of this method of operation is that 
such political organizations are able to obtain financial and other support from 
persons who would not extend such support if they knew the true purposes of, 
and the actual nature of the control and influence exerted upon, such "communist 
fronts." 

(8) Due to the nature and scope of the world communist movement, with the 
existence of affiliated constituent elements working toward common objectives 
in various countries of the world, travel of members, representatives, and agents 
from country to country is essential for purposes of communication and for the 
carrying on of activities to further the purposes of the movement. 

(9) In the United States those individuals who knowingly and willfully par- 
ticipate in the world communist movement, when they so participate, in effect 
repudiate their allegiance to the United States and in effect transfer their alle- 
giance to the foreign country in which is vested the direction and control of the 
world communist movement; and, in countries other than the United States, 
those individuals who knowingly and willfully participate in such communist 
movement similarly repudiate their allegiance to the countries of which they are 
nationals in favor of such foreign communist country. 

(10) In pursuance of communism's stated objectives, the most powerful exist- 
ing communist dictatorship has, by the traditional communist methods referred 
to above, and in accordance with carefully conceived plans, already caused the 
establishment in numerous foreign countries, against the will of the people of 
those countries, of ruthless communist totalitarian dictatorships, and threatens 
to establish similar dictatorships in still other countries. 

(11) The recent successes of communist methods in other countries and the 
nature and control of the world communist movement itself present a clear and 
present danger to the security of the United States and to the existence of free 
American institutions and make it necessary that Congress enact appropriate 
legislation recognizing the existence of such world-wide conspiracy and designed 
t<> prevent it from accomplishing its purpose in the United States. 

DEFINITIONS 

Sec. 3. For the purposes of this Act — 

(1) The term "person" means an individual or an organization. 

(2) The term "organization" means an organization, corporations, company, 
partnership, association, trust, foundation, or fund: and includes a group of 
persons, whether or not incorporated, permanently or temporarily associated 
together for joint action on, or advancement of views on, any subject or subjects. 

(3) The term "communist political organization" means any organization 
in the United States having some, but not necessarily all, of the ordinary and 
usual characteristics of a political party, with respect to which, having regard 
to some or all of the following considerations : 

(A) the extent and nature of its activities, including the expression of 
views and policies, 

(R) the extent to which its policies are formulated and carried out and 
its activities performed, pursuant to directives or to effectuate the policies, 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 6 

of the foreign government or foreign governmental or political organization 
in which is vested, <>r under the domination or control of which is exercised, 
the direction and control of the world communist movement referred to in 
section i! of this Act, 

(C) the extent to which its views and policies are the same as those of 
such foreign government or foreign organization, 

i I) i the extent to which it supports or advocates the basic principles and 
tactics of communism as expounded by Marx and Lenin. 

(E) the extent to which it receives financial or other aid, directly or 
Indirectly, from or at the direction of such foreign government or foreign 
organization. 

(P) the extent to which it sends members or representatives to any 
foreign country for instruction or training in the principles, policies, strategy, 
or tactics of such world communist movement, 

fG) the extent to which it reports to such foreign government or foreign 
organization or to its representatives, 

i II i the extent to which its members or leaders are subject to or recognize 
the disciplinary power of such foreign government or foreign organization 
or its representatives, 

II) the extent to which (i) it fails to disclose, or resists efforts to ob- 
tain information as to, its membership (by keeping membership lists in 
code, by instructing members to refuse to acknowledge membership, or by 
any other method): ( ii ) its members refuse to acknowledge membership 
therein; (iii) it fails to disclose, or resists efforts to obtain information 
as to. records other than membership lists: (iv) its meetings are secret; 
and (v) it otherwise operates on a secret basis, and 

( J ) the extent to which its members consider the allegiance they owe 
to the United States as subordinate to their obligations to such foreign 
government or foreign organization, 
it is reasonable to conclude that it is under the control of such foreign govern- 
ment or foreign governmental or political organization. 

(4) The term "communist-front organization" means any organization in 
the United States (other than a communist political organization and other 
than an organization having substantially all the ordinary and usual character- 
istics of a political party) with respect to which, having regard to some or all 
of the following considerations : 

(A) the identity of the persons who are active in its management, direc- 
tion, or supervision, whether or not holding office therein, 

(B) the sources from which an important part of its support, financial 
or otherwise, is derived, 

(C) the use made by it of its funds, resources, or personnel, and 

(D) the position taken or advanced by it from time to time on matters 
of policy, 

it is reasonable to conclude (i) that it is under the control of a communist 
political organization, or (ii) that it is primarily operated for the purpose of 
giving aid and support to a communist political organization, a communist 
foreign government, or the world communist movement referred to in section 
2, or (iii) that its views and policies are in general adopted and advanced 
because such views or policies are those of a communist political organization, 
a communist foreign government, or such world communist movement. 

(5) The- term ••communist organization'* means a communist political organ- 
ization or a communist-front organization. 

(»>) The term '•publication" means any circular, newspaper, periodical, 
pamphlet, hook, letter, postcard, leaflet, or other publication. 

(T) The term "United States," when used in a geographical sense, includes 
the several States. Territories, and possessions of the United States, the District 
of Columbia, and the Canal Zone. 

(8) The term "interstate or foreign commerce" means trade, traffic, com- 
merce, transportation, or communication (A) between any State, Territory, or 
possession of the United States (including the Canal Zone), or the District 
of Columbia, and any place outside thereof, or (B) within any Territory or 
possession of the United States (including the Canal Zone) or within the District 
of Columbia. 

(9) The term "final order of the Attorney General" means an order issued 
by the Attorney General under section 13 of this Act, which has become final 
as provided in section 14 of this Act, requiring an organization to register under 
section 8 of this Act as a communist political organization or a communist- 
front organization. 



4 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

CERTAIN PROHIBITED ACTS 

Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person — 

(1) To attempt in any manner to establish in the United States a totali- 
tarian dictatorship the direction and control of which is to be vested in, 
or exercised by or under the domination or control of, any foreign govern- 
ment, foreign organization, or foreign, individual ; 

(2) To perform or attempt to perform any act with intent to facilitate 
or aid in bringing about the establishment in the United States of such a 
totalitarian dictatorship ; 

(3) Actively to participate in the management, direction, or supervision 
of any movement to establish in the United States such a totalitarian 
dictatorship; 

(4) Actively to participate in the management, direction, or supervision 
of any movement to facilitate or aid in bringing about the establishment 
in the United States of such a totalitarian dictatorship ; 

(5) To conspire to do anything made unlawful by this subsection. 

(b) Any person who violates any of the provisions of subsection (a) of this 
section shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than 
#10,000 or imprisonment for not more than 10 years, or both such fine and 
imprisonment. 

(c) Any offense punishable under this section may be prosecuted at any time 
without regard to any statute of limitations. 

LOSS OF UNITED STATES CITIZENSHIP 

Sec 5. (a) Section 401 of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, is hereby 
amended by striking out the period at the end thereof and inserting in lieu there- 
of a semicolon and the word "or", and by adding at the end of such section a 
new subsection to read as follows : 

"(k) Committing any violation of section 4 of the Subversive Activities Con- 
trol Act, 1948, provided he is convicted thereof by a court of competent juris- 
diction. 

(b) Section 403 (a) of the Nationality Act of 1940, as amended, is hereby 
amended to read as follows : 

"(a) Except as provided in subsection (g), (h), fi), or (k) of section 401, no 
national can expatriate himself, or be expatriated, under such section while 
within the United States or any of its outlying possessions, but expatriation 
shall result from the performance within the United States or any of its out- 
lying possessions of any of the acts or the fulfillment of any of the conditions 
specified in such section if and when the national thereafter takes up a residence 
abroad." 

EMPLOYMENT OF MEMBERS OF COMMUNIST POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS 

Sec. 6. (a) It shall be unlawful for any member of a communist political 
organization, knowing that the organization is a communist political organi- 
zation — 

(1) to seek or accept any office or employment under the United States 
without revealing that he is a member of such organization ; or 

(2) after thirty days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to hold 
any nonelective office or employment under the United States. 

(b) It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States to 
appoint or employ any individual as an officer or employee of the United States, 
knowing that such individual is a member of a communist political organization. 

DENIAL OF PASSPORTS TO MEMBERS OF COMMUNIST POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS 

Sec. 7. (a) It shall be unlawful for any member of a communist political 
organization, knowing that the organization is a communist political organi- 
zation — 

(1) to make application for a passport, or the renewal of a passport, to be 
issued or renewed by or under the authority of the United States ; or 

(2) after sixty days after the date of the enactment of this Act, to use 
or attempt to use a passport theretofore issued. 

(b) It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States 
to issue a passport to, or renew the passport of, any individual knowing that 
such individual is a member of a communist political organization. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 5 

REGISTRATION AND ANNUAL REPORTS OF COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS 

Sec. 8. (a) Each communist political organization (including any organi- 
zation required, by a final order of the Attorney General, to register as a commu- 
nist political organization) shall, within the time specified in subsection (c) of 
this section, register with the Attorney General, on a form prescribed by him by 
regulations, as a communist political organization. 

(b) Each communist-front organization (including any organization required, 
by a final order of the Attorney General, to register as a communist-front organi- 
zation) shall, within the time specified in subsection (c) of this section, register 
with the Attorney General, on a form prescribed by him by regulations, as a 
communist-front organization. 

(c) The registration required by subsection (a) or (b) shall be made — 

(1) in the case of an organization which is a communist political organi- 
zation or a communist-front organization on the date of the enactment of this 
Act, within thirty days after such date ; 

(2) in the case of an organization becoming a communist political or- 
ganization or a communist-front organization after the date of the enact- 
ment of this Act, within thirty days after such organization becomes a 
communist political organization or a communist-front organization, as the 
case may be ; and 

(3) in the case of an organization which by a final order of the Attorney 
General is required to register, within thirty days after such order becomes 
final. 

(d) The registration made under subsection (a) or (b) shall be accompanied 
by a registration statement, to be prepared and filed in such manner and form 
as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, containing the following 
information : 

(1) The name of the organization. 

(2) The name and last-known address of each individual who is at the 
time of the filing of such registration statement, and of each individual who 
was at any time during the period of twelve full calendar months preceding 
the filing of such statement, an officer of the organization, with the designa- 
tion or title of the office so held, and with a brief statement of the duties 
and functions of such individual as such officer. 

(3) An accounting, in such form and detail as the Attorney General shall 
by regulations prescribe, of all moneys received and expended (including the 
sources from which received and the purposes for which expended) by the 
organization during the period of twelve full calendar months preceding the 
filing of such statement. 

(4) In the case of a communist political organization, the name and last- 
known address of each individual who was a member of the organization at 
any time during the period of twelve full calendar months preceding the filing 
of such statement. 

(e) It shall be the duty of each organization registered under this section to 
file with the Attorney General on or before February 1 of the year following the 
year in which it registers, and on or before February 1 of each succeeding year, 
an annual report, prepared and filed in such manner and form as the Attorney 
General shall by regulations prescribe, containing the same information which 
by subsection (d) is required to be included in a registration statement, except 
that the information required with respect to the twelve-month period referred 
to in paragraph (2), (3), or (4) of such subsection shall, in such annual report, 
be given with respect to the calendar year preceding the February 1 on or before 
which such annual report must be filed. 

(f) It shall be the duty of each organization registered under this section to 
keep, in such manner and form as the Attorney General shall by regulations 
prescribe — 

(1) accurate records of the names and addresses of the members of such 
organization and of persons who actively participate in the activities of 
such organization ; and 

(2) accurate records and accounts of moneys received and expended (in- 
cluding the sources from which received and the purposes for which ex- 
pended) by such organization. 

(g) It shall be the duty of the Attorney General to send to each individual 
listed in any registration statement or annual report, filed under this section, 
as a member of the organization in respect of which such registration statement 
or annual report was filed, a notification in writing that such individual is so 



(3 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

listed; and such notification shall be sent at the earliest practicable time after 
the filing of such registration statement or annual report. 

( h) In the case of failure on the part of any organization to register or to file 
any registration statement or annual report as required by this section, it shall 
be the duty of the executive officer (or individual performing the ordinary and 
usual duties of an executive officer) and of the secretary (or individual per- 
forming the ordinary and usual duties of a secretary) of such organization, and 
of such officer or officers of such organization as the Attorney General shall 
by regulations prescribe, to register for such organization, to file such registration 
statement, or to file such annual report, as the case may be. 

KEEPING OF REGISTER ] PUBLIC INSPECTION ; REPORTS TO PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS 

Sec. 9. (a) The Attorney General shall keep and maintain in the Department 
of Justice a register of all organizations which are registered under section 8, 
and such register shall be known as the "Register of Communist Organizations." 
Communist politi :al organizations and communist-front organizations shall be 
listed separately in such register. 

(b) Such register, together with the registration statements and annual re- 
ports filed under section 8, shall be kept and maintained in such manner as to 
be open for public inspection. 

(c) The Attorney General shall submit to the President and to the Congress 
annually (and at any time when requested by either House by resolution) a 
report with respect to the carrying out of the provisions of this Act, including 
the names of the organizations listed in such register and of the data (including 
the names and addresses of the individuals listed as members of such organiza- 
tions) contained in registration statements and annual reports filed under 
section 8. 

MEMBERSHIP IN CERTAIN COMMUNIST POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS 

Sec 10. It shall be unlawful for any individual to become or remain a member 
of any organization if (1) there is in effect a final order of the Attorney General 
requiring such organization to register under section 8 of this Act as a com- 
munist political organization, (2) more than one hundred and twenty days have 
elapsed since such order became final, and (3) such organization is not registered 
under section 8 of this Act as a communist political organization. 

USE OF THE MAILS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE 

Sec 11. It shall be unlawful for any organization which is registered under 
section 8, or for any organization with respect to which there is in effect a final 
order of the Attorney General requiring it to register under section 8, or for any 
person acting for or on behalf of such organization — 

(1) to transmit or cause to be transmitted, through the United States 
mails or by any means or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce, 
any publication which is intended to lie, or which it is reasonable to believe 
is intended to be, circulated or disseminated among two or more persons, 
unless such publication and any envelope, wrapper, or other container in 
which it is mailed or otherwise circulated or transmitted bears the following, 
printed in such manner as may be provided in regulations prescribed by the 
Attorney General, with the name of the organization appearing in lieu of 
the blank: "Disseminated by , a communist organization"; or 

(2) to broadcast or cause to be broadcast any matter over any radio 
station in the United States, unless such matter is preceded by the following 
statement, with the name of the organization being stated in place of the 
blank: "The following program is sponsored by , a communist organi- 
zation." 

DENIAL OF TAX DEDUCTIONS AND EXEMPTION 

Sec 12. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no deduction for 
Federal income tax purposes shall be allowed in the case of a contribution to or 
for the use of any organization if at the time of the making of such contribution 
(1) such organization is registered under section 8, or (2) there is in effect a 
final order of the Attorney General requiring such organization to register under 
section 8. 

(b) No organization shall be entitled to exemption from Federal income tax, 
under section 101 of the Internal Revenue Code, for any taxable year if at any 
time during such taxable year (1) such organization is registered under section 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 7 

8, or (2) there is in effect a final order of the Attorney General requiring such 
organization to register under section 8. 

CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINATIONS 

Sec. 13. (a) Whenever— 

1 1 i in the ease of any organization which is not registered under section 8 
of tins Act. the Attorney General has reason to believe that such organization 
is a communist political organization or a communist-front organization (or 
the Attorney General is requested, by resolution of either House of Congress, 
to investigate whether such organization is a communist political organiza- 
tion or a communist-front organization), or 

i L' ) the Attorney General receives from any organization registered under 
section 8 an application that he make a finding that the organization is not a 
communist political organization or a communist-front organization, as the 
case may be, and by order cancel its registration and relieve it from the 
requirement of making further annual reports, and such organisation, in 
support of such application, presents evidence which, in the opinion of the 
Attorney General, makes a prima facie showing that the organization is 
not a communist political organization or a communist-front organization, 
as the case may be. 
it shall be his duty forthwith to institute and conduct a full and complete investi- 
gation to determine whether such organization is in fact a communist political 
organization or a communist-front organization, as the case may be. The 
Attorney General shall not make such a determination with respect to any 
organization without first affording to it, after timely notice, an opportunity for 
a hearing. 

(b) For the purposes of such investigation the Attorney General, or any officer 
of the Department of Justice authorized by him, may hold hearings, administer 
oaths and affirmations, may examine witnesses and receive evidence at any 
place in the United States, and may require by subpena the attendance and 
testimony of witnesses and the production of books, papers, correspondence, 
memoranda, and other records deemed relevant to the matter under inquiry. 
Subpenas may be signed and issued by the Attorney General or any such author- 
ized officer. Subpenas shall be issued on behalf of the organization being investi- 
gated upon request and upon a statement or showing of general relevance and 
reasonable scope of the evidence sought. Such attendance of witnesses and the 
production of such documentary evidence may be required from any place in the 
United States at any designated place of hearing. Witnesses summoned shall 
be paid the same fees and mileage that are paid witnesses in the district courts 
of the United States. In case of disobedience to a subpena the Attorney General 
or such organization may invoke the aid of any court of the United States in 
requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of 
documentary evidence. Any of the district courts of the United States within 
the jurisdiction of which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy 
or refusal to obey a subpena issued to any person, issue an order requiring such 
person to appear (and to produce documentary evidence if so ordered) and give 
evidence relating to the matter in question: and any failure to obey such order 
of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. All process 
in any such case may be served in the judicial district whereof such person is an 
inhabitant or wherever he may be found. 

(c) All hearings conducted under this section shall be public. The organiza- 
tion shall have the right to present its case by oral or documentary evidence, 
to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examinathm as may be 
required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. The testimony in any 
hearing conducted under this section shall lie reduced to writing and filed in 
the office of the Attorney General. 

(d) If upon an investigation pursuant to clause (1) of subsection (a) of this 
sect'on the Attorney General determines that the organization is a communist 
political organization or a communist-front organization, as t' ; e case may be, 
he shall make a report in writing in which he shall state his findings as to the 
facts and shall issue and cause to be served on such organization an order requir- 
ing sue' 1 organization to register as such under section 8 of this Act. 

(e) If upon an investigation pursuant to clause (2) of subsection (a) of this 
section the Attorney General determines that the organization is not a communist 
political organization or a communist-front organization, as the case may be, 
he shall make a report in writing in which he shall state his findings as to tb° 
facts and shall by order cancel the registration of such organization and relieve 



8 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

it from the requirement of further aunual reports. A copy of such order shall be 
sent to such organization. 

(f) If upon an investigation pursuant to clause (2) of subsection (a) of this 
section the Attorney General determines that the organization is a communist 
political organization or a communist-front organization, as the case may be, he 
shall make a report in writing in which he shall state his findings as to the facts 
and shall issue and cause to be served on such organization an order refusing 
to cancel the registration of such organization and to relieve it from the require- 
ment of further annual reports. 

JUDICIAL REVIEW 

Sec. 14. (a) Such organization may obtain a review of an order issued under 
subsection (d) or (f) of section 13 in the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia by filing in the court, within sixty days from the date of 
service upon it of such order, a written petition praying that the order of the 
Attorney General be set aside. A copy of such petition shall be forthwith served 
upon the Attorney General, and thereupon the Attorney General shall certify 
and file in the court a transcript of the entire record in the proceeding, including 
all evidence taken and the report and order of the Attorney General. Thereupon 
the court shall have jurisdiction of the proceeding and shall have power to affirm 
or set aside the order of the Attorney General. The findings of the Attorney Gen- 
eral as to the facts, if supported by the preponderance of the evidence, shall be 
conclusive. If either party shall apply to the court for leave to adduce addi- 
tional evidence, and shall show to the satisfaction of the court that such addi- 
tional evidence is material, the court may order such additional evidence to be 
Taken before the Attorney General and to be adduced upon the proceeding in such 
manner and upon such terms and conditions as to the court may seem proper. The 
Attorney General may modify his findings as to the facts, by reason of the addi- 
tional evidence so taken, and he shall file such modified or new findings, which, 
if supported by the preponderance of the evidence, shall be conclusive, and his 
recommendations, if any, with respect to action in the matter under consideration. 
If the court sets aside an order issued under subsection (f ) of section 13 it may 
enter a judgment canceling the registratison of the organization and relieving 
it from the requirement of further annual reports. The judgment and decree 
of the court shall be final, except that the same shall be subject to review by the 
Supreme Court upon certiorari, as provided in section 240 of the Judicial Code, 
as amended (U. S. C, 1940 edition, title 28, sec. 347) . 

(1)) Any order of the Attorney General issued under subsection (d) of section 
13 shall become final — 

(1) upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for review, 
if no such petition has been duly filed within such time or 

(2) upon the expiration of the time allowed for filing a petition for certio- 
rari, if the order of the Attorney General has been affirmed or the petition 
for review dismissed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District 
of Columbia, and no petition for certiorari has been duly filed ; or 

(3) upon the denial of a petition for certiorari, if the order of the Attorney 
General has been affirmed or the petition for review dismissed by the United 
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ; or 

(4) upon the expiration of ten days from the date of issuance of the 
mandate of the Supreme Court, if such Court directs that the order of 
the Attorney General be affirmed or the petition for review dismissed. 

penalties 

Sec. 15. (a) Any person failing to register or to file any registration state- 
ment or annual report as required by section 8 of this Act shall, upon conviction 
Thereof, be punished by a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $5,000; 
except that in case such failure is on the part of the executive officer (or indi- 
vidual performing the ordinary and usual duties of fin executive officer) or 
secretary ( or individual performing the ordinary and usual duties of a secretary I , 
or any other officer, of an organization required to register under such section 8, 
the punishment for such failure shall be a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more 
than $.1,000, or imprisonment for not less than two years and not more than five 
years, or both such fine and imprisonment. For the purposes of this subsection, 
if there is in effect with respect to an organization a final order of the Attorney 
General requiring it to register under section 8, each day of failure to register, 
whether on the part of the organization or any individual, shall constitute a 
separate offense. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 9 

(b) Whoever, In a registration statement or annual report filed under section 
8 of this Act, willfully makes any false statement or willfully omits to state any 
fact which is required to be stated, or which is necessary to make the statements 
made or information given not misleading, shall, upon conviction thereof, be 
punished by a line of nol less than $2,000 and not more than .$5,000, or by imprison- 
ment for not less than two years and not more than five years, or by both such 
fine and imprisonment. 

. (c) Any person violating any provision of this Act for violation of which no 
penalty is provided by section 4 or by subsection (a) or (b) of this section shall, 
upon conviction thereof, be punished by a fine of not more than $5,000, or by 
imprisonment for not more than two years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 

APPLICABILITY OF ADMIX !STRATIVE PROCEDUKE ACT 

Sec. 16. Nothing in thisAct shall be held to make the provisions of the Admin- 
istrative Procedure Act inapplicable to the exercise of functions, or the conduct 
of proceedings, under this Act, except to the extent that this Act affords addi- 
tional procedural safeguards for organizations and individuals. 

SEPARABILITY OF PROVISIONS 

Sec. 17. If any provision of this Act, or the application thereof to any person 
or circumstance, is held invalid, the remaining provisions of this Act, or the 
application of such provision to other persons or circumstances, shall not be 
affected thereby. 

Passed the House of Representatives May 19, 1948. 

Attest : 

John Andrews, Clerk. 

The Chairman. At this time I incorporate into the record by ref- 
erence the hearings before the subcommittee on legislation of the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, 
Eightieth Congress, second session, on H. R. 4422 and H. R. 45SI. 
which took place on February 5, G, 9, 10, 11, 19, and 20, 1948. The 
chairman desires to make the announcement that the committee ar- 
ranged the program as follows : 

Today there will be testimony by the proponents throughout the 
morning, and tomorrow in the morning and Saturday morning, the 
opponents will have opportunity to be heard. 

Thereafter, the committee will decide what, if any, further hearings 
will be held. 

I thought, in view of the seriousness of this matter, we should pro- 
ceed to swear witnesses. Yesterday I had a telephone call from Mr. 
Henry Wallace's manager stating that he wanted to have an oppor- 
tunity for Mr. Wallace to appear, and Mr. Wallace was told that Iim 
could appear Saturday morning. It is the purpose of the chairman, 
as far as is possible, to limit the hearings to discussion of the legal 
phases of the bill and whether or not it provides a practical answer, 
whether or not it is constitutional. We do not want any political 
speeches. We do not want this to present an opportunity for some 
folks to get a lot of political advertising. I say that because I suspect 
that there will be plenty said in and out of the papers in relation to 
the conduct of the hearing. 

The Congress of the United States is burdened with matters, and 
at least as far as this chairman is concerned, he is going to see to it 
that this hearing is not turned into a three-ring circus. 

Donald Richberg, we are very happy to see you back here again. I 
read the testimony that you gave at the House hearing, which has 
been incorporated by reference into this hearing, and if you will be 
sworn, please. 



10 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give in this matter 
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God ? 

Mr. Richberg. I do. 

The Chairman. Carry on in your own manner. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD R. RICHBERG, ATTORNEY, 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Mr. Richberg. Mr. Chairman, since the testimony which I gave 
before the House committee has been incorporated in this record, I 
will avoid anything in the nature of repeating what I said there. I 
judge it is quite unnecessary to say anything on the broad question 
as to whether legislation of this kind is or is not necessary. It seems 
to me it is so obviously necessary to have some legislation providing 
better protection against Communist propaganda and activities than 
we have at present, that that subject doesn't need a great deal of dis- 
cussion. I understand the precise matter you wish to address yourself 
to is as to whether this act, this bill, which has passed the House, is a 
practical and constitutional method of dealing with a problem on the 
assumption the problem itself is there and presumably needs to be 
dealt with. 

On that, I just make one or two general statements, and then I 
prefer very much to have the opportunity to answer any questions. 
In the first place, let me explain that I am here at the invitation of 
the committee; that I didn't invite myself: that I do not represent 
any organization or any client. I represent onl} 7 a fraction of public 
opinion that may happen to agree with me. I think there is a 
fraction. 

One word as to my possible experience as a basis for having views 
on this subject. I will simply say briefly that I am in the forty- 
fourth year of my practice of law. That has been a varied practice, 
but a great deal of it has had to do with Federal legislation for many 
years. 

I also have had the opportunity to assist in drafting a certain 
amount of Federal legislation. I have made a study of constitutional 
questions such as are involved in this bill for many, many years; 
and it seems impossible to present a constitutional argument with- 
out writing a book on the subject, so I won't try to present any extensive 
arguments on the constitutional question. Rather. I will present 
somewhat baldly my opinions. 

As to the genera] validity of an act of this character, I haven't 
any doubt that it comes within the general constitutional power of 
the Congress and in general the procedure which is followed in the 
act again I have no question as to the constitutionality of that. By 
that, I mean the constitutionality requiring the exposure of secret 
devices and programs and conspiracies which are hostile to the public 
interest. 

Senator Doxnell. Might I ask Mr. Richberg what he means by 
saying this comes within the general constitutional power of Con- 
gress? I think we would like to know what he specifically has refer- 
ence to. 

Mr. Richberg. I simply meant within the fundamental legislative 
power of the Congress to enact legislation necessary and required to 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 11 

protect and defend the United States itself and to support and de- 
fend the Constitution and the form of government established 
under it. 

Senator Ferguson. You might say self-preservation of the Gov- 
ernment. 

Mr. Richberg. Self-preservation, yes. without reference to any 
one section, although there are plenty of definite sections in the Con- 
stitution which would authorize this sort of legislation. I think in 
view of the type of legislation which has preceded it in the nature 
of espionage acts and other acts, alien registration, and acts of that 
character, there would not be any serious question raised by anyone as 
to the broad issue of constitutionality. So it seems to me it comes 
down to a question as to whether the particular methods here adopted 
in themselves violate any constitutional restraint upon the powers of 
the Congress or, secondard question, as to whether they are practical. 

I don't think I will try to say very much on the subject of the 
practicality, because it seems to me that those are the matters of 
which each man must be the judge for himself. 

As a legal machinery, I think again this provides a practical method 
of dealing with the problem, and I think it provides protections for 
innocent persons and those who may be accused which do not exist at 
the present time, and are very properly put in, such as protections put 
around an investigation by the Attorney General and possible judicial 
review of any finding of the Attorney General. 

Before I forget to say a word about it, I would like to refer to one 
matter which is minor, a matter of criticism, but since most of what I 
have to say is entirely favorable to the bill as drafted, I should be sure 
to put in this. I have been a little uncertain — I haven't had an oppor- 
tunity to study the precise question enough to see if possibly my fears 
are ungrounded, but I have been a little uncertain as to the provision 
requiring the organization to register Communist political organiza- 
tions or Communist front organizations, for this reason, and that is 
that the provision is that the organization shall register is not made, 
as I read the bill. I hastily reread the bill as passed by the House this 
morning to be sure there had not been a change in it. but, as I under- 
stand it. the bill provides that the organization shall register, not 
that a particular person shall. 

Senator Ferguson. That is right. 

Mr. Richberg. There is later made a provision for a penalty to those 
who fail to register. I find in section 15 — 
Any pei-son failing to register or to file a registration statement as required. 

It may be the intent to provide that regulations of the Attorney 
Generafshall determine what officer shall be obligated to register, but 
I thought of this particularly because previously I had read and 
reread the testimony of Attorney General Clark before the House com- 
mittee, and in that— I am here referring to page '21 of the House hear- 
ings for your later reference — he said that one objection to the Voorhis 
Act was the fact the act makes no particular officer of the organization 
responsible for filing the registration statement has been as influential 
as any other in this regard. That is the difficulty of prosecution. It 
seems to me if there is a practical matter of administration, that situa- 
tion still remained, and I did not see that it had been corrected. 

78257—48 2 



12 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

It seems to me it might be wise to provide some method that where 
it is provided here that the organization shall register that that shall 
be the duty of a certain officer of the organization who may be desig- 
nated by the organization named by law. 

Senator Ferguson. It is different from a corporation. There you 
might say it requires the corporation, and therefore the president is 
required to carry out the functions of the corporation and he should 
register, but here it is a voluntary association, as it were, without such 
officer. 

Mr. Richberg. Yes, Senator. As you say, in a corporation duties 
generally devolving upon the corporation are to be performed at least 
by the chief executive and no one else. But you have an organiza- 
tion which may be in the form of a committee. Maybe you have a 
chairman or what not, and a secretary. The question is who is re- 
sponsible. 

Senator Ferguson. A very loose organization. 

Mr. Richberg. Yes. There are many of the political organiza- 
tions which are front organizations of that type. It does seem to me, 
and I make this suggestion as a mild and limited criticism, but I want 
to be sure not to overlook it, it does seem to me this nailing down of 
who is responsible for filing the registration ought to be determined in 
the law, particularly if there is to be a penalty because someone does 
not do that which is made his legal duty. 

I have thrown this in right at the outset. I didn't want you to 
think I simply picked up the bill and swallowed it whole and said it is 
a wonderful document. I have really studied it, I have studied it 
on three or four previous occasions. When I was called up 3 7 esterday 
and asked to testify I took it up again for the purpose of refreshing 
my mind as to the various sections, and the reactions I had had to 
them. 

I would like to say one thing in general about the problem dealt 
with here. I think the draft that we have here, this bill, in a very 
ingenuous way meets a very difficult problem. As one who has had 
some experience with draftsmanship, I have certain admiration for 
its being done that way. Here is a situation in which it is quite obvi- 
ously the desire of the Congress and the desire of the drafters of the 
bill to avoid proscribing a political organization as such, to avoid the 
phrase, I don't want to get into a controversy over words, but the 
phrase "outlawing" the Communist Party, to avoid preventing men 
from joining a political organization or other organization devoted 
to the propagation of ideas and mutual help and support of a political 
program. 

That, of course, I am sure the Congress doesn't want to legislate 
against. You don't want to have anything in the nature of thought 
control legislation, or even expression of thought. Even ideas that 
in the old phrase are fraught with hate and death. We don't want 
to stop the expression of the right of people to get together and dis- 
cuss and to work for the eventual change of our social or economic 
system in accord with ideas that we may think are very terrible. 

Xevertheless, that is our idea of freedom. 

On the other hand, you have an organ izat ion here which notoriously, 
and I have made a study for many years of the Communist organiza- 
tions, so this is no offhand opinion, engaged in what is conspiracy 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 13 

against all other forms of government, to establish a single form of 
government laid down to meet the political and economic ideas of 
essentially Marx, carried on by Lenin, which arc of extraordinary 
rigidity compared with most political programs. So you know what 
communism is and yon know what its objectives are. Yon also know 
that it has a method which is very difficult to combat, and that is a 
method of infiltration, of deceit, of treachery, of adopting the simple 
phrase that the end justifies any means, a method which makes it 
exceedingly difficult for people who live in the normal atmosphere 
in which we live, which is one of a reasonable amount of faith and 
trust in our fellow men, it makes it very difficult for us to meet that 
sort of antagonistic organization. 

I think, as I say, that the effort here has been very ingenuously 
devised to avoid the proscribing of any party, hateful as we may think 
it is to American institutions, but to lay the emphasis on the criminal 
side of-this and the side that carries with it penalties on those actions 
which are part of a conspiracy to establish a totalitarian dictatorship 
under foreign control, let us say. 

Senator Ferguson. Do all the sections really go back to section 4? 

Mr. Richberg. As I have read it, Senator, I think it is all tied in. 

Senator Ferguson. To section 4 ? 

Mr. Richberg. Yes; section 4 has the critical phrase in section 4 
(a) (1), which I have noted was overlooked sometimes by those who 
have been debating this on the air. That is, that it is unlawful to 
attempt to establish in the United States a totalitarian dictatorship. 
They don't stop there : 

The direction and control of which is to be vested in or exercised by or under 
the domination or control of any foreign government, foreign organization, or 
foreign individual. 

Senator Ferguson. Dictatorship and under foreign control. 

Mr. Richberg. Yes. In other words, those who might philosophi- 
cally believe in a totalitarian dictatorship are still free to advocate 
that as an eventual solution. They are free to work toward it, but 
not one which is under the control of a foreign government or persons 
outside the United States. 

Senator Ferguson. I am concerned about that word "attempt." 
Will you read it there? 

Mr. Richberg [reading] : 

To attempt to establish. 

Senator Ferguson. Attempt, yes; what is your definition of that 
word "attempt"? 

Mr. Richberg. I have had a good deal of trouble with that in legis- 
lation in the past, but it seems to be one of those unavoidable things 
you have to do. I mean, you take the question of monopolies or to 
attempt to monopolize. All through the law we have the situation 
whenever we try to proscribe some act as wrongful, we find it neces- 
sary to go back and say not only that, but to attempt to do it. Of 
course, you get it in criminal law in the form of attempted crime. 

Senator Ferguson. But an attempted crime is that you have to be 
in the position that if carried out would actually carry out the crime. 
What about this word "attempt" here? How far must you go? Must 
it be rensonably certain that it could accomplish this? 



14 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Richberg. I think it has to be tied in with everything else 
here, which involves, you might say, an overt act of some sort. The 
second phrase goes further. 

Senator Ferguson. That is much easier. 

Mr. Richberg. To perform or attempt to perform any act which 
would facilitate. 

Senator Ferguson. That is a much easier one to handle. 

Mr. Richberg. I think the first clause can be regarded largely, as 
I say, as directed toward anything in the nature of a putsch, an 
overt act. or to seize control of some vital key situation which would 
be a definite attempt. 

Senator Ferguson. It would have to be that it could be reasonably 
carried out. 

Mr. Richberg. For instance, this doesn't certainly refer to the fact 
that if you got together an organization of three tailors from Tule 
Street tomorrow and said, "We are going to establish a totalitarian 
dictatorship and our bosses are over in Moscow." that that would im- 
mediately become the subject of this unlawful action. In other words, 
that would be philosophical propaganda or discussion or gradual 
formation of an organization for purposes that might eventually 
become unlawful. 

I would certainly construe this to mean that it meant an overt definite 
attempt, something in the nature of the clear and present danger rule. 

Senator Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Richberg. When you come to the third clause here — 

actively to participate in the management, direction or supervision of any move- 
ment to establish * * * 

you have then definitely attacked the thing which I think his bill 
fundamentally attacks, and that is what might be called the core of 
the Communist movement. The core is in the leadership. It isn't in 
the masses, the rank and file, many of whom know very little about 
what the thing really is. 

Senator Ferguson. In your opinion would it get the executive 
secretaries of the present Communist Party and the committee and 
the board? 

Mr. Richberg. I think it would get the directing officers of the 
present Communist Party on the basis of legal proof. 

Senator Ferguson. You would have to furnish legal proof. 

Mr. Richberg. I put that in for this reason, that I have no question 
in my own mind as to the present activities of the Communist Party 
and where they are directed from, and I think very few people have 
who have made any study of it, but the question of* legal proof as to 
the fact of foreign direction has been made very difficult because of 
the policy, I think it is called, if I may use a technical phrase, I 
think it is called the two-truth policy. In other words, any Communist 
statement is to be read for, first, what it is supposed to be truth to 
the public, and second, what is supposed to be truth to the Communists. 

Senator Ferguson. Double-talk. 

Mi-. Richberg. Yes. The statement, for example, would read that 
they support democracy and freedom of speech and American institu- 
tions and so forth. Then after it is refined it is found that every 
member must adhere to the doctrines of Marx and Lenin which means 
just the reverse. So that kind of organization, as I said, is exceedingly 
difficult to deal with. We all have to accept that. In order to carry 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 15 

out our legal protection, we have to have proof of these parties. I 
think that they can be proved in cases such as you have mentioned. 
I think it would be almost impossible to avoid on an adequate trial of 
the fact- proof of foreign control, despite all the protestations of the 
American Communist Party, which T think is not American at all. 

Senator P'ergusox. Of course, you meet that situation of proof in 
many cases. That is no reason why you should not pass a law, because 
it may be difficult to convict somebody under it. 

Mr. Richberg. As a matter of fact, I think the very difficulty indi- 
cates the need of a law. Where you have a situation in which wrong 
is not so obvious as to be open to everyone's understanding and obser- 
vation, you need a law to provide for a legal determination of what is 
the truth. 

Senator Doxxell. Might I ask Mr. Richberg- to revert for a moment 
to the question of what is the power of Congress to enact this type of 
legislation? As I understand it, generally, Mr. Richberg responded 
a little while ago that there is the general power of Congress in the 
nature of the power of self-preservation of our Government. 

Mr. Richberg. Yes. 

Senator Doxxell. Then he referred to various other specific pro- 
visions. Could you give us an illustration or two of the specific pro- 
visions that you think would be applicable \ 

Mr. Richberg. I didn't bring my pocket copy of the Constitution 
with me, today, I am sorry to say, which I usually bring around, but 
if you take the general legislative section of the Constitution giving the 
legislative powers of the Congress. In that section, just to refer to a 
few things, to provide for the national defense and so forth, to regulate 
commerce among the States, under which we have had this tremendous 
breadth of laws that have been passed out on the ground of obstruc- 
tion of commerce. 

Senator Doxxell. You think this would come under that? 

Mr. Richberg. I think they are all involved in the sense that it. 
comes so obviously within the general purview of the legislative power 
to protect the Government against its enemies and to provide against 
internal disorders and conspiracies to bring about internal disorder 
and so forth. 

Without going into all the other phrases of it, of course there is and 
has been a good deal of talk about guaranteeing to each State the 
republican form of government and things like that, which never has 
been very carefully construed and we don't know just what the con- 
struction is eventually going to be. 

Senator Doxxell. In your testimony before the House Committee 
did you discuss the constitutional basis of the proposed act? 

Mr. Richberg. I think not. I have an outline of the statement I 
made at that time, but I expanded it in discussing the matter before 
the committee. I think I only discussed one phase which I wanted 
to say a word about now, because there has been so much talk about 
in antagonism to this sort of law. 

That is the curious idea that has grown up that there is now a con- 
stitutional guaranty of the right of secrecy. I want to put it that 
way. because it is commonly referred to as the right of privacy. The 
right of privacy is one thing, and that is to keep private my own 
private concerns, but the right to keep secret my conspiracies against 
the public, my secret intentions to do harm to other individuals, there 



16 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

is no such right of secrecy ever recognized in the law in anything and 
couldn't be as a matter of self-preservation. I think just because it is 
so worth while, there is a short and simple statement in one judicial 
opinion from which I would like to quote, just one sentence, which I 
think is exceedingly pointed. That was in the opinion which was 
handed down in the so-called Josephson case. I don't know whether 
you are familiar with that. That was the case in which Josephson 
was convicted of refusing to testify. And it was the opinion of the 
Second Circuit Court of Appeals, opinion by Chase, dissent by Justice 
Clark. Opinion by Chase and Swann. I think this is very, very good 
sentence. In referring to the argument that the first amendment for- 
bids the gathering of information by an authorized Congressional 
committee — this is what the court said : 

If this be true, the Constitution itself provides immunity from discovery and 
lawful restraint for those who would destroy it. 

I think that is a very good answ<|r in a broader way on the ques- 
tion of testimony and right to require publicity. I want to quote two 
sentences that I believe I did not incorporate in my House opinion. 
One is the rule of law laid down some centuries ago in England, it is a 
leading case, the public has a claim to every man's evidence and no man 
can plead exemption from this duty to his country (Crosby v. Potts, 
69 S. E. 582). That is on the question of testimony requirements. I 
took at the same time this language from one of our courts which I 
thought was exceedingly pointed: "There is no privilege of silence 
when reticence if tolerated would thwart the public good" (In re 
Edge Holding Corp., 176 N. E. 537) . 

This idea has grown up recently that the right of free speech is the 
right not to talk at all. If there were anything in that we would not 
have any testimony in courts, we wouldn't be able to have the adminis- 
tration of justice carried on at all. 

Senator Ferguson. It would close the courts. 

Mr. Richberg. The courts would close. All the man would have to 
do was to say "I have a right to keep the matter private. The thing is 
very personal to me." 

That is very absurd. Political opinions, economic opinions, political 
affiliations, those matters have no more sanctity from the standpoint 
that they should be kept private, At a matter of fact, if political opin- 
ions mean anything, they should be made public because presumably a 
man's political opinions are those he wants translated into the govern- 
ment, and therefore it is the concern of all. 

I mention that because we hear a lot of this loose talk about the 
right of privacy, that a man should not be subjected to these Govern- 
ment inquisitions, that he shouldn't be required to file reports with 
the Government. The answer is whether it is pertinent and relevant 
to a proper inquiry on the part of the Goverment. Whether it is a 
committee investigating the need of legislation or whether it is an 
officer of the executive department endeavoring to enforce a law, or 
the judicial. There certainly is no question of the constitutionality 
of requiring persons to furnish relevant evidence to a pertinent in- 
quiry. That is what it all comes down to. So that phase of the law 
I think the objections to it are wholly unsound. I don't think they 
are even very seriously made by a good many who present them be- 
cause they must realize that the Government itself would be completely 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 17 

paralyzed if you didn't have such powers us are put into this law, 
that of law enforcement. 

The curious thing is they have never been made by those we will 
think malefactors, to use an old phrase, who have been able to hire the 
most high-priced legal talent over the years and object to laws passed 
by Congress which they felt invaded the privacy of their business. 

* These, objections have come up only in recent years when there was 
an attack made against the sort of political conspiracy that the Com- 
munists delight in and other secret movements, and then all of a 
sudden this attack has come up, and yet as I said over the years when 
you have had investigations of corporate affairs, when we have had 
investigation of personal affairs under authority of law, you never 
heard this question raised in case after case where there had been the 
most vehement attack on the constitutionality of the law which in- 
volved just such provisions. I think it was simply because any well- 
trained lawyer who had respect for himself and his profession would 
not make such a statement. 

Senator Donnell. I notice in your testimony in the House, Mr. 
Richberg, there is set forth a copy of an article by yourself in the 
Washington Sunday Star of December 7, 1947, in which you discuss, 
as I understand it, the same general opinion to which you are giving 
attention now. 

Mr. Richberg. That is true. I had forgotten that had been in- 
corporated. 

Senator Donnell. You mention in the article the more recent lan- 
guage of an American court, reading : "There is no privilege of silence 
when reticence, if tolerated, would thwart the public good." Do you 
recall what that case was for our records? If you do not, would you 
be kind enough to furnish it to us ? 

Mr. Richberg. I was going to suggest this morning that I do that. 
That was in a newspaper article and I find it is very boresome to popu- 
lar audiences to say "221 U. S. 342," or something like that. 

Senator Donnell. I think we would like to have it. 

Mr. Richberg. You ought to have it. I will be very glad to get 
the two citations that are there. (The citations referred to are : In re 
Edge Holding Corp., 176 N. E. 537, and Crosby v. Potts, 69 S. E. 582.) 

Senator Donnell. That is on page 72 of your testimony. 

Senator Ferguson. I wonder if I could ask a question. 

The Chairman. Senator Ferguson. 

Senator Ferguson. There has been some contention over the fact 
that you make a thing a crime and then you require that that person 
register. What have you got to say about that ? Is that in this bill ? 

Mr. Richberg. No. 

Senator Ferguson. In other words, does section 4 make these or- 
ganizations illegal and then the remaining sections require the partic- 
ular organization to register as an illegal organization ? 

Mr. Richberg. I think there is basis for a little confusion there, 
but as I understand the intent of the bill there is a distinction. A 
Communist political organization is defined as one having certain 
characteristics, and then to use the phrases used with respect to which, 
having regard to certain considerations, it is reasonable to conclude 
it is under the control of a foreign government or foreign govern- 
mental or political organization. In a sense that means that a Com- 



18 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

munist political organization would be an unlawful organization. If 
you assume that then its purpose is to establish in the United States 
a totalitarian dictatorship under the direction and control of a foreign 
government. 

As a matter of fact, as I understand it, the Communist Party at 
present openly disavows either an intention to overthrow the Govern- 
ment by force or violence, which phrase by the way I think is not used 
in this bill. 

Senator Ferguson. That is right. It is used in the Smith Act. 

Mr. Richberg. But it is not used here, very wisely, because that is 
one of the escape valves of that they found recently and they have 
disavowed any force or violence; treachery, deceit, and fraud being 
substituted therefor. But force and violence we know comes in even- 
tually. To go back to this point : This makes unlawful an organiza- 
tion which is attempting to establish a totalitarian dictatorship under 
the control of a foreign government. They disavow that. As I 
understand it, if the organization itself were found guilty of it, that 
sort of organization would be outlawed. It doesn't outlaw in other 
words a party of American citizens controlled by Americans. 

Senator Ferguson. To do anything? 

Mr. Richberg. To do anything. 

Senator Donnell. The bill does not make illegal, does it, Mr. Rich- 
berg, the Communist political organization or the Communist-front 
organization as such. That is to say, Communist-political organiza- 
tion, I don't find, is declared to be in itself illegal. 

Mr. Richberg. That is precisely the point. It is not. It is not 
declared. It is simply defined. 

Senator Donnell. Various acts are defined. 

Mr. Richberg.- It is defined as the type of organization which comes 
close to the purpose and intent of establishing a totalitarian dictator- 
ship, but as long as that isn't their open and avowed intent and that 
isn't proved that that is their intent, they are not an illegal organi- 
zation. The Communist organization today claims that they are not 
under foreign control. They claim that they do not intend to estab- 
lish a proletariat dictatorship except by peaceful means, constitutional 
means. 

Senator Ferguson. Is this an analysis of that, that these two organ- 
izations could exist just as defined and have to register, but unless 
they did something prohibited in section 4 they would not be guilty 
of any crime? 

Mr. Richberg. That is correct. 

Senator Ferguson. And they must commit the various elements in 
section 4 ; is that correct \ 

.Mr. Richberg. That is my understanding of it; yes. I think that 
is exactly the line of distinction that is drawn. These organizations 
can exist ; they can do a great many things in the way of propagandiz- 
ing, in the way of political activity, in the way of organization, but 
these particular things which are prescribed in section 4, to come to 
the heart of it, are unlawful for any person to do. It may again be 
an organizational matter, not a personal matter, but it covers matters 
which it is unlawful for the organization to do also. 

Senator Ferguson. It isn't the thinking. It is doing something, it 
is overt acts in section 4. 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 19 

Mr. Richberg. These are definitely overt acts. I think they are so 
defined. Since they arc in the nature of criminal acts with criminal 
penalties, they have to be strictly constitutional. 

Senator Ferguson. Is the word "totalitarian" or "dictatorship" 
sufficiently defined in the bill? 

Mr. Richberg. Proletariat 

Senator Ferguson. No, no; totalitarian and dictatorship as used 
in the bill. 

Mr. Richberg. I don't think that either of them is defined. 

Senator Donnell. They are not denned at all; are they, Mr. Rich- 
berg ? 

Mr. Richberg. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you not think they ought to be defined in 
order that you could prove jour elements in section 4? 

Mr. Richberg. Let me say this : In the findings of the committee — 
you always forget to go back to the findings. In the findings, which 
is section 2, it starts out by defining the system of government known 
as totalitarian dictatorship by its characteristics. That is, it says 
it is characterized by the existence of a single party and all that sort 
of thing. I think the entire findings section here, which is very well 
written, the 11 paragraphs of section 2, gives a very good, broad pic- 
ture of the Communist movement and its purposes and its methods. 
In other words, you have the basis for something which, while the 
courts won't accept the findings of Congress against truth and reason, 
nevertheless are a strong impress upon the courts if they are based 
on a reasonable basis of evidence, which they are here. 

Senator Ferguson. They are really not part of the act, except as 
to the reason for Congress' passing the legislation. 

Mr. Richberg. That is what I was going to point out. Under this 
statement that Congress finds these facts, that is, as I understand it, 
intended primarily as the basis for the need for the legislation. To 
some extent, of course, the use of the words "totalitarian dictatorship" 
would be referable back to section 2 for definition. 

The Chairman. Do you agree those findings are in accordance with 
truth and reason \ 

Mr. Richberg. As far as I know, and I think I have read them over 
several times, if there hasn't been a change in this from the original 
bill introduced in the House, which I did study very carefully, I would 
say they are extraordinarily accurate; they are based on not only 
the voluminous evidence before the committee, and of course that is 
monumental in size, but they fit in with the readings that any person 
like myself has done in this field. 

I can't comprehend it but anyone who wants to plow through the 
three-volume history of the Russian revolution and a few other lengthy 
documents, such as the writings of Marx, can hardly come out with 
any other conviction than that this description is an accurate descrip- 
tion of the Communist movement and purposes. 

Senator Ferguson. To go back to that question : Do you think that 
"totalitarian" and "dictatorship" are sufficiently defined in America 
so that the courts could construe section 4 and determine that a man 
had done something to establish a totalitarian dictatorship? The 
other seems clear, but I wonder whether the act should not have a 
definition of those two words. 



20 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Riciiberg. I will say that it is not the easiest thing in the world 
to define, but it seems to me that this definition which comes at the 
very outset of section 2 providing that the totalitarian dictatorship is 
characterized by a — 

single political party, organized on a dictatorial basis, and by an identiy be- 
tween sncb party and its policies and the government and governmental poli- 
cies of the country in which it exists, such identity being so close that the party 
and the government itself are for all practical purposes indistinguishable — 

is a pretty good thumbnail description of what a totalitarian dictator- 
ship is. 

Senator Ferguson. Could it not be put in as a section of definitions 
so as to tie it into the act ? 

Mr. Richberg. As a short method, I would suggest that for example, 
in section 4. if it were desirable to say a totalitarian dictatorship as 
previously defined, or as defined in section 2, would certainly bring 
it in ably by reference. 

Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to take up any more time than the com- 
mittee desired. I haven't any particular line of discussion to volun- 
teer. If there is any other question that anyone would like to ask, I 
would be glad to hear them. 

The Chairman. I would like to ask a few questions. First, I under- 
stand from your testimony that the forepart of this act as included in 
pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and down to definitions in your opinion states the 
correct picture in relation to 

Mr. Richberg. The Communist movement ? 

The Chairman. Yes; if you want to call it that. You used the 
phrase before that — I thought once I would interrupt. You said when 
Congress makes certain recitations that generally it is accepted if it 
is within reason or states the truth. So I asked you before whether 
or not in your judgment a good delineation of the facts and the truth 
was the case. You answered "yes." The next question is : You are 
satisfied that the bill itself is constitutional ? 

Mr. Richberg. Yes. 

The Chairman. There appeared in the morning papers a certain 
editorial in which they say — in which they call this proposed legisla- 
tion the "most sweeping program of political repression since the alien 
and sedition laws were enacted a century and a half ago." 

Is there any political repression contained in this bill? 

Mr. Richberg. Mr. Chairman, I don't think it is political repression 
to uncover and expose and make unlawful conspiracies to create dis- 
order in the internal affairs of the Nation, to undermine its confidence 
of the people in their Government, to obstruct their commerce. 

I don't think it is political repression to stop that sort of procedure, 
it is quite obvious and has been to anyone who knows the slightest 
thing about the Communist movement that it isn't a pure political 
movement in the sense of merely a desire to establish a certain form 
of government at all. It is a very radical movement in the true sense, 
and that is, it goes down to the very roots of upsetting the entire politi- 
cal, economic and social organization, and by the use of a political 
organization, by the use, in other words, of government information to 
change the economy and the social organization of the country. 

That is more than a political plot. Furthermore, may I suggest this 
in line with that particular editorial expression, which I object to very 
much: At the time of the alien and sedition laws there was perhaps 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 21 

an unreasoning amount of fear of the type of communism that was 
developing in France at the lime of the revolution. In those days, 
3,000 miles across the water by sailing vessel from Europe, in those 
days of limited transportation and communication, in those days of 
limited population in this country, the problems that we faced had no 
relationship whatsoever to the problems that we face today. 

I think that when the finding is made that there is a clear and pres- 
ent danger from the Communist movement in the United States, I 
think that is a phrase which should be accepted as a statement of 
truth by our editorial writers and commentators. 

Frankly, I think anyone who doesn't think we are in danger from 
the Communist movement in Russia and from the Russian Govern- 
ment's attitude, I think must be a plain fool. I can't go beyond that 
and say that I expect we are in danger of having war with Russia or 
anything of the sort. No one knows, when a deep antagonism and a 
deep aggression develops, when it will break out explosively. It will 
be in a year or maybe it will in 10 years. Xo one knows. But when 
that situation exists where you are facing a foreign movement which 
is hostile, very definitely, to your institutions and your people, when 
that foreign movement has an organization within the country which 
is promoting its activities all the time and by every type of secret, 
treacherous method, I think to say there isn't a present danger to our- 
selves is simply to make fools of ourselves. 

Obviously, it would be a clear and present danger to me if I had a 
neighbor next door who was inclined to burglarize me and was con- 
stantly acquainting himself with various ways of getting in my house. 
I would think I was in clear and present danger of burglary. 

The Chairman. I want to carry on a bit with a few questions. 

I am glad to have that expression in relation to political repression. 
I agree fully with your present statement that what we have found in 
this country of late is that every time someone wants to blow up the 
ship and they are caught in it, they claim we are interfering with some 
political rights of theirs. 

In relation to the constitutional power, you referred to the instru- 
ment itself, and that is the Constitution. You referred to cerain lan- 
guage and clauses contained in the Constitution. I call your atten- 
tion to another phase of this power subject, as least to me which is very 
clear, and I would like to get your reaction on it. 

It has been held many times that domestically the Federal Govern- 
ment is a Government of delegated power, but when foreign policies 
and matters relating to foreign affairs and matters relating to sover- 
eignty are involved, they don't derive those powers from the Consti- 
tution. 

Do you have any discussion on that subject that would sustain 
what you said is the inherent constitutional power? I would like to 
have a few words from you. Here, it is very plain that the very in- 
ception of the need for this sort of legislation is that you are having 
meddling by a foreign power through their own agencies or through 
American agencies that they have infiltrated, and are influencing for 
their own purposes. Is there any question in your mind as to the right 
of a sovereign to interfere by legislative means in the acts of folks 
who interfere in our own affairs? 

Mr. Richberg. In the first place, Mr. Chairman, there isnt any 
question that as far as delegated power is concerned, the States def- 



22 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

intely delegated — that is, the people — delegated, let us say — to the 
Federal Government the control of American foreign policy and the 
power to legislate and to act for these United States as a whole, as a 
Nation? 

That was one of the fundamental reasons for the Constitution, in 
order to have national unity in dealing with foreign governments. 
I don't have to go back and read the debates to have that made per- 
fectly obvious. As far as the necessity of protecting the Government 
in its relations with foreign governments and protecting its interests 
as a whole in relation to foreign governments, I do not think there 
can be any question whatsoever as to the constitutional authority 
of the Federal Government. 

I say that on the basis of a position which I have taken very strongly 
on many occasions, and that is that I am one of those who is opposed 
in general to the overextension and expansion of Federal powers, 
very much, our domestic affairs in getting more local self-govern- 
ment and not more National Government. So I am not a nationalist 
to that extent. I am very strongly of the other conviction. I think 
we have gone entirely too far in a great deal of the Federal legisla- 
tion, in evading the authority of the State and local governments, 
so we have gotten too far away from the democracy of local, self- 
government. 

I have made that statement. I want it perfectly clear that here 
we are in an entirely different field, and that is the protection of 
the interests of the Nation as a whole, the protection of the interests 
of the Nation against foreign aggression. In that, I don't think 
there can be any possible question of the power of Congress to pass 
any legislation that is appropriate for that purpose and is designed 
within the other limitations of the Constitution so that the civil rights 
of American citizens as such are not invaded. 

The Chairman. On the third subject that I want to ask yon a 
definite question is this matter of civil rights of the citizens. We 
talked about political rights under the phrase contained in the morn- 
ing papers. 

Is there any interference here in your judgment with the civil rights 
of American citizens? 

Mr. Riciibero. I have studied backward and forward in this. I 
don't see how there can be any interference with any civil right 
except this claimed right, which I do not agree exists, of a freedom 
of speech and freedom of the press, which has no limitation, and of 
a claimed right within the words "freedom of speech" to maintain 
silence and secrecy as to matters that are of public interest. That 
is what the claims are based on, as I understand it. They claim that 
this invades civil rights on the basis that it abridges freedom of 
speech and that it abridges freedom of the press; that it denies the 
right of secrecy which is supposed to be a part of the right of freedom 
of speech. 

Senator Ferguson. Could not the same claim be made on criminal 
slander and libel and all the others? 

Mr. Richrero. The claim could be made on anything. Freedom of 
the press has never been made freedom to libel and yet on the basis 
of present claims, that would mean that the press was completely free. 
It has meant, as we all know who have studied the law, a restriction 
upon previous restraints on utterance. 









CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 23 

In other words, censorship of the press, which is opposed by freedom 
of the press, and previous restraint on publication, but not freedom 
to publish anything you want without responsibility; no. That never 
has been part of the freedom of the press. 

The same way with freedom of speech. Of course, freedom of 
speech has never meant freedom to say anything you wanted on any 
occasion, because quite obviously that would open the door to every 
kind of utterance like the typical one of yelling "fire"* in a crowded 
theater or stirring up a mob with false statements and inciting people 
to murder. If you are going to have the freedom of speech that the 
Communists want, you must have complete freedom to incite people 
to murder or steal, because that is part of freedom of speech. That 
type of claim doesn't make good sense. 

The Chairman. Mr. Richberg, in this same editorial in the Post 
this morning they used this language, and I am very sorry to see it : 

to insist that there be full debate on a proposal so radically at variance with the 
institutions which have been the source of American freedom and vitality. 

Mr. Richberg. I think that is nonsense, if you want my opinion. 

The Chairman. Do you want to put the word "damned'' before 
that >. 

Mr. Richberg. I will allow you to do that. I will accept the amend- 
ment. 

I think it is about time we began to devote our attention to pre- 
serving some of these institutions of ours before they are destroyed 
from under us. That is what I am interested in at the present time. 

Senator Ferguson. There you come back to that self-preservation. 

Mr. Richberg. Exactly. 

The Chairman. On the fourth question which I want to get in here, 
which was in my opening statement, Ave are supposed to be a practical 
bunch of people. Do you know of any other way, any other mecha- 
nism, that in your most critical judgment would meet head-on the 
situation you have called a menace and all of us agree is a menace to 
our own liberties and our own institutions? 

Do you know any better way, any more practical way ? 

Mr. Richberg. Mr. Chairman, I was asked to present any sugges- 
tions I had in the way of legislation to the House committee when it 
had this matter under consideration. I studied the matter with a 
great deal of care for quite awhile. It seemed to me the fundamental 
thing to do was to take away the secrecy of these organizations that 
are operating against the public interest. It seems to me if you throw 
this sort of activity out in the open, it would not be successful. 

That seems to me to be the fundamental problem. How to do it, 
I think the committee devised an effective w T ay. The need of a 
stronger law is quite obvious because of the fact that we already have 
two or three laws on the books which apparently were intended to deal 
with this, as the alien registration, and yet they have been ineffective. 

Here is another effort which seems to me to be pretty well directed, 
because it is based on exposure to start with, and an opportunity for 
innocent people to get out of the way and find out the kind of organiza- 
tions they belong to. I know perfectly well very good friends of mine, 
people whom I highly respect, belong to organizations that I think arc 
just as hostile to the interests of the country as a direct Communist 
Party organization, but people don't know. 



24 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

The first thing to do is to expose the facts about these organizations 
and let people have an opportunity to see the sort of organizations 
they are associating with. I agree it is a bad thing to proscribe people 
on the basis of associations. We often get into bad company without 
intending to, but I think, ordinarily, that if people insist on remaining 
in bad company when they find out how bad it is, they subject them- 
selves to the inevitable results of that association. 

Senator Eastland. Mr. Richberg, I have not heard all your testi- 
mony, but if I understand it, you say that if Congress finds a danger 
to the country exists, we have the constitutional power to enact this 
bill because it is our duty to protect the United States, and the people 
or the States delegated the authority to the United States to pro- 
tect itself? 

Mr. Richberg. That is right. 

Senator Eastland. Also to protect the States in their enjoyment of 
the republican form of government? 

Mr. Richberg. That is correct. 

Senator Eastland. Who is the judge? We decide that a peril 
exists. How far can we go and who is the judge of the extent of 
that peril ? 

Mr. Richberg. There is no question of your power to provide for 
the national defense. 

Senator Eastland. That is correct. 

Mr. Richberg. Meaning in the old phrase raising armies or navies 
so as to be able to shoot people who want to take you. 

Now, we have a situation in which we have a new form of aggres- 
sion which has been effective all over the world. It has been said over 
and over again that this Constitution is a living document, and is 
capable of growth. Certainly if the Constitution is capable of growth, 
then the word "defense" is capable of growth. If this is a part, and it 
is obviously the history of other nations, part of the defense of the 
United States, to root out and destroy the effectiveness of subversive 
organizations, then that certainly is within the legislative power of 
the Congress. 

Senator Eastland. Aside from the duty of Congress to provide for 
the public defense, we manifestly have the duty to protect the United 
States. Every government must have the power to protect itself. 

Mr. Richberg. Exactly. 

Senator Eastland. I agree with that, but I am interested in just 
how far we can go, and where it will lead us. Under what kinds of 
circumstances can we determine a danger to exist? 

Mr. Richberg. That raises a very difficult question. 

Senator Eastland. It would be subject to the Supreme Court, then ? 

Mr. Richberg. Let me say a word on that subject. 

The Chairman. The checks and balances are always in existence. 

Mr. Richberg. They are there. As to the method by which you 
proceed. For example, the determination of the Congress that action 
is necessary for defense of the United States. I do not think is subject 
to the review of the Supreme Court. That is a political question 
entirely. 

As to the method by which you proceed, then the question is, "Have 
you invaded any right which the court is required under the Con- 
stitution to protect?" Surely, that is a matter of the machinery. As 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 25 

to the power to enact such a law which on its face is designed reason- 
ably to accomplish the purpose. 

For instance, there is no doubt in my mind that you have the power 
to outlaw a party which is not consistent with our constitutional in- 
stitutions. I have no doubt you have that power. I think it would 
be a bad practice as a practical matter. I think that is the reason it is 
desirable here to define what it is you are making unlawful; an act, 
not merely a party, and to make action the test of unlawfulness and 
not mere association. 

I think that is where the law as here drafted is soundly developed. 

The Chairman. I wanted again to get your definite answer to this 
question of practicality. Do you feel this is a practical answer to 
the problem ? 

Mr. Richrekg. I think it is as near as one can see ahead in establish- 
ing a somewhat new machinery. I think it is the proper approach. 
If details develop meaning there is a need for improvement, they 
develop all of experience. They always do. You can't write a perfect 
law in advance over and over again. 

I did make the one suggestion which I reiterate, and that is that 
it seems to me that the penalty for failure to file a proper registration 
statement and the responsibility of filing should be definitely located 
in the law to a person who could be identified, that is, to a representa- 
tive, the proper representative. 

I used the phrase once in trying to meet this kind of situation that 
the organization should designate the person authorized or in default 
of such organization, the person should be so and so. That is entirely 
proper, like designating a person for subpena. 

On the other hand, you serve a subpena on an overseer of the cor- 
poration. In the same way, I think the requirement could be imposed 
on someone, unless a person is designated by the organization as the 
responsible party. 

The Chairman. I want to ask you this question because it again 
appears in the papers : 

It is there stated that the combination of section 2 (6) and section 
4 (a) would make any strike by a union in an important industrial 
field illegal. 

Mr. Richberg. Of course, Mr. Chairman, that isn't an intelligent 
construction of this. That is a totally unfair construction. It is 
quite obvious that a strike of a union has been held over and over 
again, where it is not — where it is motivated for ordinary purposes, 
for wage or improvement of conditions, is a legal activity and has 
nothing to do with the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship, 
even though Communists might direct the strike. 

One of our difficulties is that we have to reserve the right of the 
workers to organize and bargain and protect themselves, even though 
their leadership be intent on other purposes. 

So that is not a fair construction of the law, and certainly no court 
would ever so construe it. 

The Chairman. Here is another one : 

The denunciation of monopoly in general and of the United States Steel Corp. 
in particular by Philip Murray would clearly lie illegal as an attempt to stir 
up economic strife, one of the methods used by Communists in attempting to 
carry out their purposes, although Philip Murray is a vigorous anti-Communist 
labor leader. 



26 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Richberg. That is typical of methods of trying to break down 
intelligent enactment, making it out to be something it doesn't provide. 
It doesn't reach to any such extent, and no such construction could 
be reasonably placed upon this. 

The Chairman. In your opinion no court would ever construe it 
in that manner; would it? 

Mr. Richberg. I would be positive it would not. Let me give you 
an example. briefly : 

When political contributions were first denied to corporations, the 
question was raised, and it was raised then only on corporate con- 
tributions — the question was raised in court that that was an indefinite 
word. What was a political contribution, and so forth. The only 
one case I know on the subject, which didn't get any further than 
that, the determination was that it could be properly left to the in- 
telligence of the court and the jury to determine whether it was a 
contribution as intended by the act. It was perfectly clear what 
the act intended to prevent, and that was a contribution, to be sure. If 
you make a contribution, you violated the act, but if you sent some- 
body on a picnic that wasn't a political contribution. That was 
raised, and immediately dropped. It never became an issue. 

Until the same phrase was written in as to labor organization, 
then the question was immediately raised. Contribution is an in- 
definite word. You don't have to make contributions. You just 
spend $4,000 or $5,000. 

Thereupon, this Congress wrote the word "expenditures" into the 
Taft-Hartley Act, obviously for the same purpose. In other words, 
to be intelligently construed, not to prohibit any expenditure which 
might aid a political candidate, but in the nature of a contribution. 
There again that law has been very badly distorted, and editorially 
and otherwise treated as though it was something entirely irrational. 
Yet, for years the law against corporate contributions was on the 
statute books, which was just as difficult to understand as the present 
law. 

As a matter of fact, most corporations understood what it meant; 
that was all. As I say, there was practically no litigation over it. 

Senator Donnell. I have one matter I would like to present 
to Mr. Richberg at this point, and possibly one other: Mr. Rich- 
berg, } T ou have the act before you, would you be kind enough to 
refer to section 8(a) where it is provided that — 

each Communist political organization — 

I emphasize that part — 

including any organization required, by a final order of the Attorney General, 
to register as a Communist political organ ization — 

closing the emphasis — 
shall register- 
an d so forth. 

Then over in section 10 on page 18 : 

It shall be unlawful for any individual to become or remain a member of 
any organization if there is in effect a final order of the Attorney General 
requiring such organization to register under section 8 of this act as a com- 
munist political organization. 

Do you think there is any danger of section 10 as read in con- 
junction with section 8 being invalid on the ground that there is an 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 27 

indication there that the Attorney General has a power of deter- 
mination himself as to whether an organization is a Communist 
political organization, and that the illegality imposed by section 10 
would not be merely an illegality against an individual belonging 
to a Communist organization of this type, but would charge him 
with a crime if he should become a member of an organization if the 
Attorney General decided the organization was a Communist politi- 
cal organization ? 

Mr. Richbekg. I think that has to be read in connection with the 
provision for a hearing by the Attorney General. That is what I 
was trying to get into; in that there is a provision for anyone going 
into certain administrative determinations. Here it is: 

The provision is that if anyone objects to a classification then they 
can go in and ask to have it held not a Communist organization, or 
if any complaint is made that a certain organization is a Communist 
organization, they can ask for a determination. 

The order of the Attorney General, as I understand, is not a final 
order unless it has been approved on judicial review, or the 60 days 
have passed without an application for judicial review. 

So you haven't any fiat of the Attorney General. You have the 
Attorney General holding an administrative hearing like the Securi- 
ties and Exchange Commission or the Federal Power Commission. 

The order becomes final if then it isn't reviewed or if it is approved 
on judicial review. You have a judicial process there, and if anyone 
is embarrassed or expects to be embarrassed by the fact that an organ- 
ization of which he is a member has been found to be an unlawful 
organization, I should assume — I have checked this over rapidly — he 
would have a right of review. 

The organization can obtain a review. I don't know whether that 
would permit an individual or not. At least, an organization's indi- 
vidual could demand the organization act, or if it didn't, he could 
resign. 

Senator Doxxell. Would it be well, Mr. Richberg, for our com- 
mittee to give very careful attention to section 10 to be certain that 
that does not investigate — that that does not vest in the Attorney Gen- 
eral the power to determine whether a given organization is a Com- 
munist organization ? 

Mr. Richberg. That is correct. I want also to point out that is an 
improvement over section 10 as originally presented to the House, 
which this followed, regardless of a final order of the Attorney Gen- 
eral. That is, if you were a member of an organization which, was 
a Communist organization, as I remember the original draft. This 
purpose, as I assume it to be, in changing section 10 as it is now written. 
was to make the unlawfulness rest upon the foundation that there had 
been a hearing by the Attorney General and an opportunity for people 
to determine the character of the organization. 

Senator Doxxeix. The other question I wanted to ask you is this: 

f< a emphasized the fact that this bill is not one which undertakes 

to restrict people in their thinking or even in the formation of or 

membership in an organization which may think differently than some 

t;f the rest of us think. 

I would like to ask you whether you think that the bill might pos- 
sibly even go further with wisdom than it does in this respect. The 

78257 — 48 3 



28 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

bill defines a Communist political organization to be an organization 
of certain characteristics from which, as I understand it, it is reason- 
able to conclude it is under the control of such foreign government or 
foreign governmental or political organization. 

Would you think it would have been entirely legitimate and possibly 
wise to insert in this bill a provision that anybody who is guilty of the 
action of organizing an organization which is under the control of a 
foreign government or foreign governmental or political organization 
is violating the law? 

Mr. Richberg. I think as a general answer to your question, Senator, 
the framers of the bill have been exceedingly careful to avoid, you 
might say, being as tough as they might have been. 

•Senator Donnell. I see that. 

Mr. Richberg. For instance, I was considerably puzzled by the cir- 
cumlocution of saying with respect to the following considerations it 
is reasonable to conclude. I felt very much inclined toward forth- 
right statement, and saying "if that has these characteristics, it is." 

I think, as I say, there was a very strong desire, which is probably 
commendable in this situation, in view of the kind of comments the 
bill is likely to get, a strong desire to make it just as fair and con- 
siderate and reasonable as possibly could be without being too 
arbitrary. 

I think from what we know about Communist organizations you 
could perfectly well find that the American Communist Party, for 
example, is under foreign control. If you put the finding absolutely 
flatly, you might have the question then as to whether there was an 
adequate basis, and so forth. Probably these hearings which are 
available here would be productive of a good deal of evidence in a 
form that might be more convincing to the courts than some of the 
evidence that I have seen that was very convincing to me, but didn't 
seem to be to some of our judges. 

Senator Donnell. I can well appreciate the point you are making, 
Mr. Richberg, as to the extreme care being used here, not in any sense 
to infringe upon the right of thought or the right of formation of an 
organization merely because it reflects certain thoughts. 

It seemed to me in that connection, while I am not advocating that 
this be done, either, necessarily, nevertheless, it seems to me that it 
might have been entirely permissible and entirely wise to have pro- 
vided that if people organize in this country a political organization 
under the control of a foreign government or a foreign governmental 
or political organization, such action in itself shall be illegal. Would 
you care to comment on that? 

Mr. Richberg. As I say, I didn't think there is any question about 
your right to outlaw political organizations under foreign control if 
that foreign control, for instance, is of a type which is hostile to our 
Government itself in the interest of our people. 

You might have an organization, for example, which is under 
foreign control which might be philosophic or scientific or anything. 

Senator Donnell. This is political organization. 

Mr. Richberg. This is political organization to accomplish a specific 
purpose. You might even have a poltical organization, for example, 
which advocated certain economic and political theories, so long as 
they were not directed at a direct change of the government and by 
such means as are here involved. 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 29 

I can see that such organizations must be and should be protected, 
but the type of organization which is here involved, its purposes, and 
its foreign control combined, seem to me to make it entirely practical 
to go as far as one thought was desirable. 

The difficulty, as I see it, is the question of the whole business of 
driving underground an organization, whether it isn't better to leave it 
with a certain legitimacy so it has to stand out in the open. 

Senator Donnell. Thank 3^011 very much. 

The Chairman. In your judgment, is the bill sufficiently clear as to 
the acts it prohibits to meet the constitutional test that a law must 
define understandinglv what the citizens affected can or cannot do 
under it ? 

Mr. Riciiberg. I think it is. Mr. Chairman, although that is legally 
one of the most difficult questions to be presented. As you know, there 
is a line of cases in which the Supreme Court of the United States has 
held there was a lack of definition or definitness to support a criminal 
charge and in other cases that was sufficient and everybod} 7 knew what 
that meant. 

It is not an easy problem. I have read too many cases on the sub- 
ject to say that you can immediately answer and say, for instance, 
that the Supreme Court would say this was sufficiently definite or not. 
To m} r personal judgment, yes. I think it is quite clear. 

The Chairman". Quite clear. 

Have you any suggestions to make it any clearer? 

Mr. Kichberg. If I had. I would be very glad ro present them. I 
haven't at the present moment. 

The Chairman. Will you give a little thought to it and let us have 
your judgment on that ? 

Mr. Eichberg. I will be very glad to. 

The Chairman. I want to thank you very much for your very clear, 
forceful, and forthright presentation of this subject. It is a matter 
that all good citizens are interested in, and you have made a valuable 
contribution, I am sure. 

Mr. Riciiberg. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. Father Cronin ? 

I am glad to see you, Father. Tell us a little bit about yourself. 
Have you any objection to being sworn ? 

Father Cronin. No objection whatever. 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will 
give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God? 

Father Cronin. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF REV. JOHN FEANCIS CRONIN, S. S., 
WASHINGTON, D. C. 

Father Cronin. My full name is Rev. John F. Cronin. My title 
is Assistant Director of the Department of Social Action, National 
Catholic Welfare Conference. I am speaking here as an individual, 
not to represent the conference. The conference has taken no stand 
whatever on the bill. We frankly have not had enough time to call 
our members and reach am- kind of conclusion. 

The Chairman. What is your background? I presume you have 
studied theology. Have you studied law? 



30 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Father Cronin. I am an economist. I don't know whether that is 
something to brag about or not. I have written several books on the 
subject. From that I got into labor relations. I did quite a bit of 
arbitration work and conciliation work with unions, and so forth. 
That led me into this Communist problem with this by virtue of the 
fact that during the war a number of unions in Baltimore found that 
some outside organizers were coming in and taking over control. 
Being a friend of these labor organizations they asked me to help 
them to fight this outside Communist influence, which I did. From 
that I became interested in the subject and started going into it a little 
bit further and I have studied it at some length in the meanwhile. 
The Chairman. Carry on. 

Father Cronin. I wish to testify in favor of the principles enumer- 
ated in this bill, for reasons which I shall presently present. 

In the first place, there is evidence that communism imperialism is 
meddling in the internal affairs of nations throughout the world. 
Communism has been imposed by force in the lands behind the iron 
curtain. It is a constant threat in western Europe. There is evidence 
that it was behind the attempted revolution in Colombia, and that 
it is stirring up trouble elsewhere in Latin America. It is waging 
civil war in China and is active in many other parts of the Far East. 
Coming closer to home, Canada uncovered a Communist spy ring, 
apparently connected with a similar organization in the United States. 
We cannot be complacent about these moves. 

Secondly, the American Communist Party is an agent of the 
Kremlin. There is abundant evidence that it follows every twist of 
the Soviet line. It subordinates American interests to those of the 
Soviet Union. Accordingly, we cannot look upon the American Com- 
munist Party as just another political party, to be accorded all the 
rights given to other parties. It is a tool of a hostile foreign govern- 
ment; an agent of world revolution. Eegulating communism is not 
a matter of interfering with political thought; rather, it is a gesture 
of self-protection by democracy against tyranny. 

Thirdly, the American Communist Party has done serious harm 
here, largely through undercover methods. It has penetrated the 
labor movement; stirred up strife among minority groups, and en- 
gaged in successful propaganda campaigns through its front organi- 
zations. It is incredible how successful Communists have been 
through their front organizations. They have influenced millions of 
Americans who would never listen to them if their propaganda had 
been correctly labeled. They have Communist-front organizations 
for youth, women, lawyers, scientists, writers, and artists, intellectuals, 
liberals, from foreign-language groups, religious groups, veterans — 
practically every profession and group in the Nation. They have 
organized fronts for every occasion important for them and in every 
field in which they can exploit our gullibility. 

It would be foolish to underestimate the power of indirect Com- 
munist propaganda through front organizations and infiltrated 
groups. It has been an amazing spectacle through the years to watch 
a program grow from its first announcement in the Daily Worker 
through some front organization, then into the liberal press, and 
finally into our general press and radio. As specific illustrations of 
this technique, it would be interesting to note the pressures which led 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 31 

to our original policies in Germany — the Potsdam agreement — in Ar- 
gentina and in China neutrality. We have since repudiated the poli- 
cies as utterly unworkable and contrary to American interests. But 
have we forgotten the organizations which put pressure upon the 
executive branch to adopt these original policies? 

The very campaign against this bill is an illustration of the effective- 
ness of Communist propaganda. Thousands who never read the bill 
have protested against it in language originally coined by the Daily 
Worker. Congress has been flooded with protests using almost iden- 
tical language, and repeating misrepresentations which were not and 
could not have been coincidences. 

Tli is is the real menace of the Communist Party here. There is 
no foreseeable danger of an American Communist revolution. But 
there is danger that the American Communist Party will confuse and 
mislead public opinion through its subtle propaganda methods. 
There is the constant attempt to infiltrate and control legitimate re- 
form groups. There is the fear lest Communists in Government and 
among our scientists act as Soviet espionage agents or as tools in push- 
ing Kremlin policy. In normal times, we might overlook these moves, 
feeling that America is too strong to be hurt by them. But these 
are not normal times. We cannot consistently engage in a cold war 
abroad and leave our enemies to work freely at home. We can hardly 
urge other countries to suppress communism, while we do nothing 
about it here. 

As to the Subversive Activities Control Act, present laws are not 
adequate to meet the real danger of communism. Possibly they would 
be sufficient to deal with open treason or espionage, if diligently en- 
forced. But they can do nothing to force exposure of Communist- 
front organizations or to label Communists who have infiltrated into 
reputable liberal societies or labor unions. Yet these activities, which 
are not technically treason, constitute a serious menace to our welfare. 

The present bill meets this problem in a manner consistent with 
the American tradition. We have laws for truth in securities, correct 
labeling of food and drugs, truthful advertising, and general honesty 
in business dealings. Surely it is as important to protect the public 
against mislabeled propaganda as it is to safeguard it from mislabeled 
drugs, dishonest securities, or the use of the mails with intent to 
defraud. 

The registration provision, in my judgment, is the only important 
new provision in the present bill. I would say that sections 4 and 6 
merely tighten existing laws against treason and the employment of 
Communists in Government positions. Other parts of the bill deal 
with minor, although useful, remedies against communism. But if 
the Congress Avere to drop these other provisions and retain section 8, 
together with the definitions and administrative provisions, the essen- 
tial purpose of the bill would be met. 

Furthermore. I believe that the bill could be enforced, if enacted 
into law. The party declares that it will refuse to register. But the 
Fede7-al Bureau of Investigation has the facilities to discover the 
names of Communists and to force them into the open. I believe that 
public sentiment would support such a move. It would not be perse- 
cution for political beliefs: but prosecution for conspiracy and under- 
hand methods. As a Nation, we are honest and open in our dealings. 



32 COXTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

We do not relish deceit and conspirac}*. Surely the least we can do 
to agents of a hostile foreign movement is to force them to operate in 
the light of day. 

I know that many sincere liberals, strongly anti-Communist, are 
not in favor of this bill. Frankly, I believe that some of them have 
unconsciously been misled by indirect Communist propaganda. In 
talking to many opponents, I found that some had not read the bill 
and were opposing it for features which it did not actually contain. 
Thus, it does not prohibit strikes or criticism of government. It does 
not call for registration of members of front organizations. And it 
does give an accused group every right to defend itself and cross- 
examine witnesses. The bill will not affect non-Communist liberals, 
Socialists, or similar groups. Its language is carefully drawn to affect 
only Communist groups following the Moscow line. 

Apart from objections based on misreading or nonreading of the 
bill, there are two main difficulties raised against it. The first is based 
on the radical departure from traditional American methods. We 
have never before so drastically regulated a political party. I would 
not personally concede these points as faults. I do not consider the 
Communist Party a genuine political party; it is a subversive con- 
spiracy. Furthermore, exposure of fraud is in the American tradi- 
tion. But even if the bill is an innovation in American law, it was 
made necessary by new dangers to our securit}'. We have ample evi- 
dence elsewhere that Communists work by methods not covered in 
previous definitions of aggression. We have the constitutional right 
to protect ourselves from new forms of aggression, as well as from 
open military attacks. 

The second objection stems from fear of abuse on the part of an 
unscrupulous Attorney General. This danger appears to be far- 
fetched, when compared with the danger arising from Communist 
activities. 

There are abundant safeguards written into this bill. If there is 
any doubt on the matter, more could be added. Moreover, in enact- 
ing any law, we just must trust the basic integrity of our public officials 
and the courts. If a situation arises where this law could be seriously 
abused, any other law could be equally perverted to serve the cause of 
tyranny. 

In conclusion, I would say that Congress should take positive action 
to meet the problem of communism. If this bill is imperfect, it can be 
amended. If there is a better approach to the problem, then we should 
have it. The one approach that is surely wrong is inaction in the 
face of a serious threat to our internal security. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Father. We appreciate 
your testimony very much. 

Father Cronin. Thank you, Senator. 

The Chairman. Congressman Nixon? 

We are glad to see you. Congressman. Will you be sworn, please? 

Do you solemnly swear the evidence you will give in this matter 
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God ? 

Representative Nixon. I do. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 33 

TESTIMONY OF HON. RICHARD M. NIXON, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS 
FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Representative Nixon. I appreciate being here, Senator. 

The Chairman. You are a lawyer, are you, Congressman? 

Representative Nixon. Yes, by profession. 

The Chairman. Where is your home ? 

Representative Nixon. My home is in Whittier, Calif., a town 12 
miles from Los Angeles, to the east. 

The Chairman. How old are you ? 

Representative Nixon. I am 35 years old. 

The Chairman. Have you practiced law considerably before you 
came to Congress ? 

Representative Nixon. Yes. I became a member of the bar in 1937. 
the California bar. I am a graduate of Duke University School of 
Law. I have been a member of the bar since that time. 

The Chairman. Carry on in your own way. I do not know whether 
you were here when Donald Richberg talked. Were you here? 

Representative Nixon. Yes, sir. I heard the latter part of his 
statement, and I understand that he went into some detail concerning 
the provisions of the bill. 

The Chairman. Yes. You are the co-author of this bill, as I under- 
stand it ; is that correct ? 

Representative Nixon. Yes. I was chairman of the legislative sub- 
committee which considered the original bills which were referred to 
the committee, and I worked on the revisions to the bill and presented 
it to the Congress in final form. 

The Chairman. If you will give us in your own way the legal basis 
for the bill ; please give us in the record the constitutional arguments 
for the bill, the practicality of the same, and whether or not you feel 
there is any invasion of any civil or political rights of any of our 
citizens. 

Representative Nixon. I might say on the question of constitution- 
ality, first, Senator, that I have had made available for the members 
of the committee a study which was made by the Legislative Refer- 
ence Service of the Library of Congress on constitutionality. I think 
that mimeographed copies of that study are now available for each 
member of the committee. 

I have gone over that statement quite carefully, myself, and I have 
read the cases which are referred to in the statement. I would like to 
submit it for the consideration of the members of the committee. 

The Chairman. It will be incorporated in the record at this point. 

(The document follows:) 

Constitutionality of H. R. 5852, Eightieth Congress, Second Session 
(Prepared by Legislative Reference Service, the Library of Congress) 

I. IN GENERAL 

H. R. 5852, in its declaration of purpose and in the definitions of "Communist 
political organization'' and "Communist-front organization," is quite specific and 
detailed. It would thus seem to avoid the objection that the word "Communist" 



34 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

has been given no definite meaning (see Feinglass v. Reineekc (N. D. 111. 1942), 
48 F. Supp. 438), or that the statute is so vague and indefinite that a person can- 
not determine the offenses penalized and, therefore, is unconstitutional as a vio- 
lation of due process (17. S. v. Josephson (C. C. A. 2d, 1947), 165 F. (2d) 82, cert, 
den. (1948) 1G LW 3253). The proposed statute by defining carefully all terms 
used and the offenses covered is not open to the challenge that it uses undefined 
terms such as "gang," or the like, about the meaning of which a person must 
speculate (see Lanzctta v. New Jersey (1939 306 U. S. 451 (citing Connolly v. 
General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, and others) ). A statute does not have 
to be so exact as to eliminate all possible variances of meaning. In Nash v. U. 8. 
((1913) 229 U. S. 373, 377), Mr. Justice Holmes said: "* * * the law is full 
of instances where a man's fate depends on his estimating rightly, that is, as the 
jury subsequently estimates it, some matter of degree. If his judgment is wrong, 
not only may he incur a fine or a short imprisonment, as here ; he may incur the 
penalty of death." 

It cannot be contended successfully that the bill is unconstitutional because it 
invokes the principle of guilt by association (assuming for the purposes of argu- 
ment that it does so). Despite Mr. Justice Murphy's concurring remarks in 
Bridges v. Wixon ( (1945) 326 U. S. 135), the majority opinion in that case indi- 
cated that where a person conducts himself so that he brings about a status of 
mutual recognition on a fairly permanent basis with the organization condemned, 
raising an element of dependability and mutual cooperation, he may be said to be 
affiliated or associated with the organization. In Lanzetta v. New Jersey, supra, 
the statute there involved was found lacking in definiteness, but was not held in- 
valid because it invoked guilt by association. Indeed, the opinion suggests that 
had the statutory language been more snecific. it would have been uphehl- 

Section 2 of the bill contains findings to demonstrate that Communist organi- 
zations are part of a world-wide conspiracy, seeking ultimate overthrow of our 
present form of government by violence or any other means, lawful or unlawful, 
and seeking to impose a dictatorship by force and against the will of the people. 
This meets the objection that a statute dealing with the Communist Party must 
do more than find merely that the party advocates a different economic or gov- 
ernmental system in general or supports "the political principles of foreign na- 
tions." Feinglass v. Reinecke, supra. 

It has been said that the findings of a legislature that the public interest re- 
quires restriction of certain political or other activity will be respected by the 
courts. {Communist Party v. Peek ( 1942) 20 Cal. (2d) 536) . H. R. 5852 does not 
single out any specific organization which it condemns but defines generally a 
type of organization and activity which is to be regulated, leaving it to adminis- 
trative and judicial determination whether particular parties, persons, or acts 
come within the provisions of the statute. The bill thus avoids the objection that 
the legislature by statute condemns a particular named party as violating its 
terms. Communist Party v. Peek, supra. 

Any contention that H. R. 5852 violates the first amendment by restricting free- 
dom of speech or press can be met by the proposition that even these freedoms can 
be curtailed where there is a "clear and present danger" which the Government 
seeks to meet. In Schenck v. U. S. ((1919) 249 U. S. 47, 51-52), Mr. Justice 
Holmes said : 

"It well may be that the prohibition of laws abridging the freedom of speech is 
not confined to previous restraints, although to prevent them may have been the 
main purpose, as intimated in Patterson v. Colorado (205 U. S. 454, 462). AVe 
admit that in many places and in ordinary times the defendants in saying all that 
was said in the circular would have been within their constitutional rights. But 
the character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done. 
Aikens v. Wisconsin (195 U. S. 194. 205. 206). The most stringent protection of 
free speech would not protect a man iii falsely shouting 'fire' in a theater and 
causing a panic. It docs nor even proteel a man from an injunction against ut- 
tering words that may have all the effect of force. Gompers v. Buck* Store and 
Range Co., 221 U. S. 418, 439. The question in every case is whether the words 
used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear 
and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress 
has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree." 

See also (Schaefer v. V. S. (1920) 251 U. S. 466 ; Hartzel v. 17. 8. (1944) 322 U. S. 
680; Okamoto v. U. 8. (C. C. A. loth. 1945) 152 F. (2d) 905). In the latter case 
the circuit court of appeals declared ; 

"Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly guaranteed 
by the first amendment are fundamental rights. But, though fundamental, they 
are not in their nature absolute. These rights are not unbridled license to speak, 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 35 

publish, or assemble without any responsibility whatever. Their exercise is 
subject to reasonable restriction required in order to protect the Government 
from destruction or serious injury. The delicate and difficult question usually 
presented is whether speech, press, and assembly are of such nature as would 
produce, or are calculated to produce, a clear, present, and imminent danger of a 
substantive evil which Congress has the constitutional power to prevent. 
(Schenck v. United State*. 249 U. S. 47, 39 S. Ct. 247, 63 L. Ed. 470; Hartzel v. 
United State*, 322 U. S. 680, 64 S. Ct. 1233. 88 L. Ed. 1534). Ordinarily 'the sub- 
stantive evil must be extremely serious and the degree of imminence extremely 
high' in order to warrant punishment for the exercise of speech, press, or as- 
semblv. ( Bridge* v. California. 314 U. S. 252, 62 S. Ct. 190, 86 L. Ed. 192 ; Thomas 
v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 65 S. Ct. 315. ) " 

H. R. 5852 sufficiently sets out circumstances indicating the clanger sought to 
be repelled and its immediacy. As pointed out in Chafee, Free Speech in the 
United States ( 1941 ) 31, while freedom of speech and press is of the highest im- 
portance, yet there are purposes of government, such as order and protection 
against external aggression, which must be balanced against the right of unlim- 
ited discussion interfering with these functions. "The essential rights of the 
first amendment in some instances are subject to the elemental need for order 
without which the guaranties of civil rights to others would be a mockery." 
(United Public Workers v. Mitchell (1947) 330 U. S. 75, 95.) 

It could also be argued that Congress is exercising its power under the Consti- 
tution to guarantee to the States a republican form of government. Article IV, 
section 4. In the Federalist No. 43, Madison observed that the scope and intent 
of this provision was to protect the States, among other things, from "experi- 
ments" produced "by the ambition of enterprising leaders, or by the intrigues and 
influence of foreign powers." 

In addition, it should not be forgotten that the United States is still in a 
technical state of war. (Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking and Lumber Co. (1947) 
331 U. S. Ill ; Woods v. The Clotjd W. Miller Co. (1938) 333 U. S. 138, 16 LW 4165) . 
Although the Supreme Court has indicated that there are constitutional bound- 
aries which even a technical state of war may not serve to extend (Ibid; Eartzell 
v. U. 8., supra), yet the governmental war powers are viewed very broadly. In 
Hirabayashi v. U. S. ( (1943) 320 U. S. 81), Mr. Chief Justice Stone declared : 

"The war power of the National Government is 'the power to wage war suc- 
cessfully.' See Charles Evans Hughes, War Powers Under the Constitution 
(42 A. B. A. Rept. 232, 238). It extends to every matter and activity so related 
to war as substantially to affect its conduct and progress. The power is not 
restricted to the winning of victories in the field and the repulse of enemy forces. 
It embraces every phase of the national defense, including the protection of 
war materials and the members of the armed forces from injury and from the 
dangers which attend the rise, prosecution and progress of war." 

Accordingly, the war power would support on a broad scale such govern- 
mental action as Congress deems necessary to the successful prosecution of or 
preparation for war. And anything considered essential to the national defense 
is embraced within this power. U. S. v. City of Chester ( (C. C. A. 3d. 1944) 
144 F. (2d) 415). "Nor can it he considered necessary that the United States 
must be at war in order that Congress * * * possess the constitutional 
sanction to prepare for it. Such an interpretation would be so unrealistic as 
not to warrant serious consideration." Ibid. "Congress * * * can invoke 
the war power * * * during times of peace, for the future protection of the 
Nation." Henderson v. Bryan ((S. D. Gal. 1942) 46 F. Supp. 682) ; see also 
Ashwender v. T. V. A. ((1936) 297 U. S. 288, 327-328). Testimony has been 
given before the Committee on Un-American Activities by an authoritative officer 
of the United States that the Communist Party in the United States is dedicated 
to force and violence for the overthrow of the United States Government, that 
the party maintains as a fundamental principle support of Soviet Russia, that 
the "Communist Party of the T T nired States is a fifth column if there ever was 
one" and is "far better organized than were the Nazis in occupied countries prior 
to their capitulation." House hearings on H. R. 1884 and H. R. 2122, Eightieth 
Congress, first session ( (1947) 35-36, 43 (testimony of Hon. J. Edgar Hoover) ). 

The argument that a bill such as H. It. 5852 invades the m'ivate or personal 
rights of anvone mav well be answered bv the statement of the court in U. 8. v. 
Josephson ((C. C. A. 2d, 1947) 165 F. (2d) 82. cert. den. (1948) 16 LW 3253), 
as follows : 

"If * * * propaganda takes the form of, for example, advocacy of the 
overthrow of the Government by violence, it is rightfully called 'Un-American' 
and a sensible regard for the self-preservation of the Nation may well require 



36 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

its investigation, with a view to the enactment of whatever remedial legislation 
may be needed or to the amendment thereof. One need only recall the activities 
of the so-called fifth columns in various countries both before and during the 
late war to realize that the United States should be alert to discover and deal 
with the seeds of revolution within itself. And if there be any doubts on the 
score of the power and duty of the Government and Congress to do so, they 
may be resolved when it is remembered that one of the very purposes of the 
Constitution itself was to protect the country against danger from within as well 
as from without. See the Federalist, Nos. II-X. Surely, matters which poten- 
tially affect the very survival of our Government are by no means the purely 
personal concern of anyone." 

II. SECTION 4 

The constitutionality of section 4 of the bill may be supported by what is said 
in part I, supra. 

III. SECTION 5 

Section 5 of the bill provides for loss of citizenship through expatriation. '•Cit- 
izenship - ' conveys the idea of membership of a nation. Minor v. Happersett' 
( (1875) 88 U. S. 162) ; Ex parte Fung Sing ( (W. D. AVash. 1925) 6 F. (2d) 670). 
"Citizenship is a political status, and may be defined and the privilege limited 
by Congress." Ex parte Fung Sing, supra. When a person becomes a citizen of 
this country by birth (Nationality Act of 1940, sec. 201, 8 U. S. C. sec. 601), that 
citizenship must be deemed to continue unless the person "has been deprived of 
it through the operation of a treaty or congressional enactment or by * * * 
voluntary action in conformity with applicable legal principles." Perkins v. 
EJg ((1939) 307 U. S. 325, 329) ; see also In re Botter ((S. D. Cal. 1946) 66 F. 
Supp. 566). 

Expatriation is "the voluntary act of abandoning one's country and becoming 
the citizen or subject of another." U. 8. ex rel. Wrona v. Karnnth ( (W. D. N. Y. 
1936) 14 F. Supp. 770) . This right is generally recognized throughout the civilized 
world, and is recognized in the United Stales by statute. "Congress has the 
power to say what act shall expatriate a citizen." U. S. ex rel. Wrona v. Karnuth, 
supra; see also Ex parte Fung Sing, supra. Nor does the fourteenth amendment 
prevent citizenship acauried either by birth or naturalization from being lost by 
expatriation. Reynolds v. Haskins ((C. C. A. 8th, 1925) 8 F. (2d) 473, 45 
A. L. R. 759). In Mackenzie v. Hare ((1915) 239 U. S. 299). it was argued that 
Congress could not. by legislation, provide that certain acts by a natural-born 
citizen amounted to expatriation, in this case marriage to a foreigner. The 
Supreme Court denied this contention, pointing out that the United States as a 
sovereign may impose conditions for the maintenance of citizenship and provide 
that certain situations voluntarily entered into, with notice of the consequences, 
may deprive one of such citizenship. Whether the acts defined by the statute have 
been performed in particular cases, however, must be subject to judicial determina- 
tion. Ng Fung Ho v. White < (1922) 259 U. S. 276) . 

Section 5 appears to meet these tests. 

IV. SECTION G 

Section 6 regulates employment by the United States. The right of the United 
States to regulate the political actviity of its employees or to say who shall not 
be employed is clearly supported by United Public Workers v. Mitchell ((1947) 
330 U. S. 75). A person may or may not have an absolute right to indulge in 
certain political activity, but he has no constitutional right to be a public job- 
holder. See Mr. Justice Holmes in McAuliffe v. New Bedford ((1891) 155 Mass. 
210. 220. 29 N. E. 517). 

V. SECTION 7 

This section of the bill denies the issuance of passports to members of com- 
munist political organizations. The granting of passports is not obligatory in 
any case and is only permitted where not prohibited by law ( (1869) 13 Op. Atty. 
Gen. 90). Congress has always assumed the authority to prescribe the conditions 
under which passports may be issued. (See 22 U. S. C. sees. 211-229). 

VI. SECTIONS 8, 9, 10, AND 15 

These sections require registration and the filing of annual reports by Com- 
munist organizations, prescribe penalties for failure to comply, and make it un- 
lawful for anyone to become or remain a member of such an organization which 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 37 

lias not compiled with the statutory requirements. Similar regulations by a 
State have been upheld by the Supreme Court as not violative of due process or 
equal protection of the laws, or as not infringing on privileges and immunities 
or imposing unjust discrimination. New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman 
((1928) 278 U. S. 60). 

It is true that the Supreme Court has said, with respect to a speech by a union 
organizer, that one who is "required to register as a condition to the exercise 
of his right to make a public speech * * * to enlist support for a lawful order" 
is deprived of his rights under the First Amendment. Thomas v. Collins ( (1944) 
323 U. S. 516). But this was based on the premise that "Lawful public assem- 
blies, involving no clement of grave and immediate danger to an interest the 
State is entitled to protect, are not instruments of harm which require previous 
idenification of the speakers." [Italics supplied.] The Court referred to New 
York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman, supra, and did not overrule it but distin- 
guished it (p. 539). And as noted in part I, supra, it can be argued that there 
is a clear and present danger of harm which H. R. 5852 is designed properly to 
forestall. 

In Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan ((1913) 229 U. S. 288), it was held that 
the requirements that newspapers tile certain statements with the Postmaster 
General and mark all paid for matter as "advertisement", as conditions for 
securing second-class mailing privileges, were not unconstitutional denials of the 
freedom of the press under the First Amendment. And in Jones v. S. E. C. ( (C. 
C. A .2d, 1935) 79 F. (2d) 617) revd. on other grounds 298 U. S. 1, the requirement 
(15 U. S. C. sec. 77f) of registration with the SEC before the mails could 
be used in the sale of securities was upheld as not violating the Bill of Rights 
or due process of law. 

vii. SECTION 1 1 

Section 11 penalizes the use of the mails or interstate commerce under certain 
circumstances therein set out. 

Under article I. section 8, clause 7 of the Constitution Congress is vested with 
the authority "To establish Post Offices and post Roads." This power "has 
been practically construed, since the foundation of the government, to authorize 
not merely the designation of the routes over which the mail shall be carried, 
and the offices where letters and other documents shall be received to be dis- 
tributed or forwarded, but the carriage of the mail, and all measures necessary to 
secure its safe and speedy transit, and the prompt delivery of its contents." 
Ex parte Jackson ((1878) P6 U. S. 7-!7). And while the legitimate end of the 
exercise of the power in question is to furnish mail facilities for the people of 
the United States, "it is also true that mail facilities are not required to be 
furnished for every purpose." In re Rapier ( (1892) 143 U. S. 110) . As a general 
proposition, Congress has long exercised, and the courts have sustained, the 
Federal power to prevent the facilities of the mails from being used to accom- 
plish ends deemed inimical to the general welfare. Electric Bond and Share Co. v. 
S. E. C. ((C. C. A. 2d, 1937) 92 F. (d) 580, aff'd 303 U. S. 419). This power 
extends to newspapers and like publications as well as to other matter. Ex parte 
Jackson, supra. In Badders v. U. S. ( (1916) 240 U. S. 391), Mr. Justice Holmes, 
speaking for the Court, declared : 

"The overt act of putting a letter into the post office of the United States is a 
matter that Congress may regulate. Ex parte Jackson (96 U. S. 727). Whatever 
the limits to its power, it may forbid any such acts done in furtherance of a 
scheme that it regards as contrary to public policy, whether it can forbid the 
scheme or not." 

The postal power, of course, like all other congressional powers, is subject 
to the Bill of Rights. S. E. C. v. Timetrust, Inc. ( (N. D. Calif. 1930) 28 F. 
Supp. 34.) But the examination and inspection of newspapers, magazines, 
pamphlets, and other printed matter, in a condition to be examined, is not a 
violation of the fourth amendment, prohibiting unlawful searches and seizures; 
nor is the prohibition of the circulation of such publications a violation of 
the first amendment, protecting freedom of speech and the press, so long as 
their transportation by some means other than Mie mails is not forbidden. 
Ex parte Jackson, supra. The Government may constitutionally decline to 
become itself an agent in the circulation of printed matter which it regards 
as injurious to the people. In re Rapier, supra. 'The freedom of communica- 
tion is not abridged within the intent and meaning of the constitutional pro- 
vision unless Congress is absolutely destitute of any discretion as to what 
shall or shall not be carried in the mails, and compelled arbitrarily to assist 
in the dissemination of matters condemned by its judgment, through the gov- 



38 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

erumental agencies which it controls." Ibid. Moreover, Congress in exerting 
the postal power may fix certain standards with respect to newspapers and 
like printed publications and impose certain conditions for their mailing, and 
this does not involve any unconstitutional lack of uniformity or unreasonable 
classification. Lewis Publishing Co. v. Morgan ((1913) 229 U. S. 288). 

The bill is not objectionable in that it makes every mailing in violation of its 
terms a punishable offense. See Banders v. U. &., supra, where the Court said 
that "there is no doubt that the law may make each putting of a letter into the 
post office a separate offense." 

The punishment provided by the bill for violations of its terms does not appear 
to be cruel or excessive. Compare Badders v. U. S., supra. 

The only possible argument against section 11 is that it also denies the use 
of the facilities of interstate commerce, as well as the mails, under certain 
conditions. See Ex parte Jackson, supra. But cf. Oklahoma -Texas Trust v. 
S. E. C. ((C. C. A. 10th, 1939) 109 F. (2d) 888). The propriety of this step, 
however, could be based, if necessary, on what has been said in part I, supra. 
Congress may regulate interstate commerce to prevent the spread of any evil 
or harm among States (Brooks v. U. S. (192r>). 267 U. S. 432: American Power 
and Light Co. v. -S. E. C. (1946), 329 U. S. 90, 99-100), and such regulations 
may have the quality of police regulations (Caminetti v. U. S. (1917), 242 
U. S. 470). 

VIII. SECTION 12 

Section 12 provides, under certain circumstances, for a denial of tax deduc- 
tions and exemptions. Deductions allowed in computing income taxes are 
matters of legislative grace (New Colonial lee Co., Inc. v. Helvering (1934), 
292 U. S. 435; Avery v. Commissioner (C. C. A. 7th, 1936), 84 F. (2d) 905, 
cert. den. 299 U. S. 604). Consequently, no right is infringed by their denial 
upon specified conditions 

Similarly, Congress has the right to make or withdraw exemptions as it sees 
fit. Brusliaber v. Union Pacific Co. ( (1916), 240 U. S. 1 ; Fit tit v. Stone Tracy Co. 
(1911), 220 U. S. 107,173). 

IX. SECTIONS 13 AND 14 

Section 13 provides for certain administrative determinations by the Attorney 
General, upon due hearing, and section 14 provides for a judicial review. It is 
well settled that Congress may confide to administrative or executive agencies 
the duty to make findings of facts and The application thereof with respect to 
certain statutory standards. This is not an improper grant of power; nor do 
the facts that penalties ultimately may be imposed and that Congress has chosen 
an administrative process rather than judicial one amount to a denial of due 
process of law. (See, among others, Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brim- 
son (1894) 154 U. S. 447; Lloyd Sabaudo Societa v. Elting (1932) 287 U. S. 329; 
Yakus v. V. 8. (1944) 321 U. S. 414; President, Managers and Company of the 
Mononguhela Bridge Co. v. U. S. (1910) 216 U. S. 177; Louisrille and Nashville 
R. Co. v. Garrett (1913) 231 U. S. 298.) So long as the statute is not incapable 
of affording those appearing before the administrative tribunal the protection 
of procedural due process — such as adequate notice, a right to be heard, and a 
fair and impartial hearing— there can be no complaint. (See Yakus v. U. S., 
supra.) Due process of law does not necessarily require the interference of the 
judicial power. In Public Clearing House v. Coyne ((1904) 194 U. S. 497, 509), 
the Supreme Court, quoting Judge Cooley, said : 

"There is nothing in these words ('due process of law,') however, that neces- 
sarily implies that due process of law must be judicial process. Much of the 
process by means of which the government is carried on and the order of society 
maintained is purely executive or administrative. Temporary deprivations of 
liberty or property must often take place through the action of ministerial or 
executive officers or functionaries, or even of private parties, where it has never 
been supposed that the common law would afford redress." 

It is not objectionable that the Attorney General is given the power of sub- 
pena. See Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, supra. This is a power 
commonly exercised by many executive and administrative agencies today. The 
question whether a particular search or seizure, in the exercise of this power, 
will be unconstitutional under the fourth amendment cannot be determined in 
advance of the event. That question is one to be determined judicially, in view 
of all the circumstances of the particular case presented (Mason v. Rollins (C. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 39 

C. 111. 1869) 16 Fed. Cas. No. 9202 : V. 8. v. Batemtw (S. D. Cal. 1922) 278 Fed. 
231). 

As previously noted, section 14 of the bill provides a method of judicial review 
of the determinations of the Attorney General. The fact that a period of only 
60 days is provided within which a petition for review may he filed is not ob- 
jectionable Compare Yakus v. U. 8., supra. And the fact that the determina- 
tion of an administrative agency may become final because of failure to act 
within the statutory time to secure a judicial review, likewise is not objec- 
tionable. (See 1 Vom Baur, Federal Administrative Law (1942) 87; Yakus v. 
U. S., supra.) 

X. SECTION 15 

The punishment stipulated in section 15 does not appear excessive. In Bad- 
tiers v. U. S. ((1916) 240 U. S. 391), the punishment imposed (under statute) 
of 5 years on each of seven counts, the periods being concurrent, and a fine of 
§1,000 mi each of seven counts, was held not to be cruel, unusual, or excessive 
within the prohibition of the Constitution. 

Federal Law Section, May 31, 1948. 

Representative Xixox. For the benefit of the committee, I should 
like to say also that the approach which the subcommittee in the House 
made to this problem was a very conservative approach having in mind 
the grave constitutional policy questions involved. 

The Chairman. How much time was devoted to that? I raise 
that question because in the morning's paper an editorial suggested 
that no time was given to it. 

Representative Nixon. I should like to go into that because it is 
quite typical of the Communist tactics in opposition to this bill to 
attempt to create the impression that no time was given to its con- 
sideration. 

I say it is typical of Communist tactics. I should amend that to 
say it is typical of Fascist tactics. I think all of us should recognize 
that all totalitarianism, whether brown, black, or red, uses the same 
tactics. The tactic of the big lie is to declare exactly the opposite to 
be the facts from what the facts are. In this case the statement has 
been made, for example, that no hearings were held on this legislation. 
The statement has been made that it was considered by the committee 
in closed sessions without giving an opportunity for the opponents to 
come in. that it was rushed through the House without sufficient debate, 
that we attempted to gag the opposition, and that we did not allow 
the opponents to offer amendments. I understand your committee 
also is being accused in a similar fashion. 

Briefly, I want to summarize for the members of the committee just 
what our subcommittee did do in considering this legislation. One 
year ago the full committee on Un-American Activities held hearings 
on the general problem of whether or not the Communist Party in the 
United States should be outlawed. Appearing before that committee 
at that time were J. Edgar Hoover, of the Federal Bureau of Investi- 
gation: Mr. William Green; Mr. William Bullitt, and other experts 
in the field of Communist activity in the United States. 

The committee at that time, after hearing those witnesses, came to 
the conclusion that a bill outlawing the Communist Party was not the 
proper approach and we continued our study of the problem. On 
February 5 of this year the Subcommittee on Legislation of the Un- 
American Activities Committee conducted open hearings on two bills 
which had been referred to the committee. One of those bills, which 
had been introduced by Mr. McDonough, of California, would in effect 
have outlawed the Communist Party. 



40 COXTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

The Chairman. Let me say this morning before you arrived I made 
those hearings a part of the record in this case by reference. 

Representative Xixon. I see. 

The Chairman. So that is all in the record at this time. 

Representative Xixon. I don't intend to take the time of the com- 
mittee to go into the hearings, but I would like to say that during 
the hearings we considered Mr. McDonouglrs bill which in etfect 
would have outlawed the Communist Party. It would have made the 
practice of communism in the United States treasonable. 

The other bill which was before the committe was one introduced 
by Mr. Mundt, of South Dakota, which required the registration of 
Communist-front organizations. Those two bills were considered by 
the committee at that time, and I think that if the members of this 
committee, will have the time just to glance through even the table 
of contents to see witnesses that we called before that subcommittee 
in open hearings. I don't see how you can possibly come to any other 
conclusion but that we were attempting to find the right approach to 
this problem not only from a policy standpoint but from the constitu- 
tional standpoint. 

Some of the ablest constitutional lawyers in the country appeared 
before the committee. We intentionally invited people who did not 
have reputations of being violently anti-Communist. We invited peo- 
ple who in many cases we thought might be opposed to any legisla- 
tion. We heard also the Communist Party which was represented 
by Mr. Benjamin Davis. For 30 minutes the members of the com- 
mittee heard Mr. Davis vilify the Congress, the President, the Attor- 
ney General, and, of course, the provisions of the bill. 

We felt the Communist Party's attitude toward the bill should be 
in the record, and it is in the record for the consideration of this 
committee. 

As a result of those hearings, our committee came to the conclusion 
that neither of the bills which was referred to us offered a proper 
solution to the problem. We felt that the McDonough bill which 
would make the practice of communism treasonable was too vague, 
that it went too far, and that it attempted in effect to attack the 
problem by outlawing ideas rather than actions. We felt that it was 
essential that any legislation which the Congress should be directed 
primarily to actions rather than to ideas. 

We felt also that the Mundt bill, in its original form, was not the 
proper approach to the problem for two reasons. In the first place, 
the bill specifically named the Communist Party of the United States 
and attempted to build its definitions around the name of the party. 
From having heard the witnesses before our committee, we came to 
the conclusion that naming the Communist Party by name and at- 
tempting to build the entire registration provisions around such a 
definition was an unconstitutional approach and consequently the 
committee attempted to find a legislative device for meeting the 
problem in a constitutional manner. The other objection that we 
had to the original Mundt bill was that we felt it went too far in 
attacking the members of Communist-front organizations. If you 
will read the original bill which was before the committee, you will 
find that a Communist-front organization is defined not simply as 
one which is under the control, directly or indirectly, of a foreisru 
government, but one which even advocates the principles and theories 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 41 

of communism without regard to foreign control. We felt that went 
too far. 

Consequently, the committee, after thorough consideration, rec- 
ommended unanimously to the Congress the bill which is now be- 
fore your committee after some amendments which were accepted 
by our committee on the floor during the course of the debate. 

I think that I have effectively answered the argument which has 
been made that no hearings were held on this legislation. Hearings 
were held. The technical argument that is made by the opponents of 
the bill is that the number of the bill which was originally considered 
by the committee happened to be different when our hearings were 
held than the one which was finally referred to the Congress. Of 
course, as the members of this committee know, this is a common prac- 
tice. A new bill was introduced by Mr. Mundt as a result of the re- 
visions which had been made to the original bill so that we could have 
a clean bill to work with and refer to the Congress. 

Let me say that the approach of the committee to the problem, 
and I think that you have indicated in your question that you par- 
ticularly want me to discuss that point, was one which, as I indicated 
before, had in mind the very difficult policy and constitutional prob- 
lems involved. Consequently, as a result, we rejected the approach of 
attempting to outlaw ideas. We decided that it was essential to build 
this legislation around the principle of whether or not an organization 
or an individual was acting under the control of a foreign Commit- 
nist government or of a foreign dominated Communist political or- 
ganization. In other words, it is foreign control which is essential 
to be shown either in the case of the finding concerning a Communist 
political organization or a Communist-front organization. 

I might say that considerable pressure probably will be brought 
to bear during these hearings, as was brought to bear on our commit- 
tee, and during the course of the consideration of the bill in the 
House, for broadening the approach. In other w T ords, for example, 
there will be sentiment for providing that the Attorney General can 
find that an organization is a Communist-front or a Communist po- 
litical organization even if it is not under foreign control because 
many people think that communism in itself is bad, and that any or- 
ganizations that espouse communism, even though domestically con- 
trolled, should be required to register. 

We feel that the legislation which is before you goes as far as we 
should go and that foreign control should be shown. A careful read- 
ing of the definitions in the bill and a careful reading of the prohibited 
acts in the bill, and of the registration sections, will show clearly that 
foreign control, direct or indirect, is the essential element which is 
required to be proved in all cases. 

A word now as to whether existing legislation is adequate to cope 
with the problem. I realize that that argument has been made quite 
strongly in a number of instances, and from quarters in many cases 
which certainly could not be held to be pro-Communist in any sense 
of the word. I think that a study of the existing laws will indicate 
why new legislation is needed in this field. 

A study of existing laws, for example, will show that we have at the 
present time the provision of the Constitution covering treason. Trea- 
son, however, consists of levying war against the United States or 
adhering to its enemies. 



42 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

At the present time Ave do not have technically an enemy, though 
the Soviet Union might be considered to be unfriendly to the United 
States. The crime of treason therefore could not be charged to the 
Communists, even though they have found methods of taking over 
governments without resorting to actual warfare, That is why we 
have section 4 in the bill, to deal with subversive activities if those who 
are not technically guilty of treason but who are engaged in actual 
treasonable activities in peacetime. 

Reference also has been made rather loosely to a number of other 
laws that are supposed to be on thebooks which would supposedly con- 
trol the Communist conspiracy in this country. One example is the 
Seditious Conspiracy Act of 1861. But when we read that act, we 
find that it is a crime only to conspire to overthrow or put down or 
destroy by force the Government of the United States: so with the 
Espionage Act of 1917, which applies only in time of war. 

The Smith Act, the Alien Registration Act of 1940, makes it unlaw- 
ful for a person to advocate the overthrow of government by use of 
force and violence. 

Referring, then, to the specific provisions of the present laws, we 
find all of them are built around either one of two principles. First, 
as in the case of the provision of the Constitution on treason and in 
the case of the Espionage Act of 1917. a state of war must exist. In 
the case of the Smith Act and in the case of the Seditious Conspiracy 
Act, there must be advocacy or use of force and violence. Obviously 
a state of war does not exist at the present time. Insofar as force and 
violence is concerned, I have only to point to the recent experience of 
Czechoslovakia to show that the Communists have developed tech- 
niques for taking over governments and bringing them under the 
domination of the Soviet Union without using force and violence, and 
it is against just such techniques that this bill is directed. 

I should like to refer at this time to an article in the current i^-sue 
of the Reader's Digest. It is entitled "How To Take Over a Govern- 
ment," by Bertrand De. Jouvenal. This article refers to the methods 
that Communists use to take over a government. Not once in that 
article is any reference made to the use of force and violence. It is 
that point that I wish the committee to consider particularly in study- 
ing this legislation, because too often those who are studying the prob- 
lem of communism in the United States come to the conclusion that if 
you have laws which prohibit force and violence, you can successfully 
meet the Communist threat. 

That is not the case. The Communists have developed techniques 
for taking over governments without using force or violence, and it 
is against those techniques that this legislation is directed. 

I should also like to refer very briefly to two registration statutes on 
the books at the present time, the Voorhis Act and the McCormack 
Registration Act. The McCormack Registration Act requires the 
registration of individuals who are under the control of a foreign 
government or agents of a foreign government. 

The Voorhis Act requires registration of organizations which are 
under the control of foreign governments. The difficulty with those 
two acts, as the Attorney General pointed out in his testimony before 
our subcommittee, is that they are so rigid in their definitions that the 
Communists have found methods of evading them. There are also 
certain defects in the acts themselves which I will not go into but which 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 43 

arc remedied by the registration provisions of the bill which is 
presently before you. 

In summary, as far as the adequacy of existing legislation is con- 
cerned, there is no law on the books at the present time which would 
prevent, in the United States, the seizure of our Government by 
Communist forces, as occurred in Czechoslovakia. There is no law 
which would successfully prevent that, and which would allow our 
democracy to protect itself against those who are sworn to destroy our 
democracy. 

It is because of the inadequacies of existing legislation that this 
bill did pass the Congress by an overwhelming majority. I think that 
if in considering this legislation, this committee comes to the con- 
clusion, after thorough consideration, that it has policy objections or 
constitutional objections, to this particular bill, this committee has 
the responsibility to the country to recommend to the Senate for con- 
sideration an alternative measure which will meet this problem. It is 
not enough to find fault with what the House has recommended. I 
know that your committee will bear that in mind in considering this 
matter. 

Referring to the bill which is before you. obviously I am prejudiced. 
I have lived with this bill and with this problem for over 18 months. 
In the drafting of the bill and working with the legislative counsel 
on its language we have attempted to eliminate from the bill every 
possibility that we thought could exist for this legislation to apply to 
groups or organizations which were not Communist groups and from 
which no danger could be expected. 

The legislation we do not pretend is perfect. No legislation is per- 
fect. YVe certainly do not contend that 3-011 can take 10 constitutional 
lawyers in the country and have all 10 of them find that this bill is 
completely constitutional. In that connection it is well to remember 
that the Supreme Court of the United States seldom reaches a unani- 
mous opinion on whether any controversial bill is constitutional. 
Five-to-four opinions are quite common. What I will say is this: 
You have just heard Mr. Richberg, who is probably one of the ablest 
constitutional lawyers in the country. We consulted with him 
throughout the drafting of this measure. His opinion is that it is 
constitutional. My colleague. Mr. Peterson, will refer to another 
distinguished lawyer who has come to the same conclusion after thor- 
ough stmty of the measure. It is the opinion of the members of our 
committee that this measure meets all constitutional objections. The 
question of constitutionality is, of course, important, and I believe 
that your committee is eminently qualified to rule upon that point. 

From the standpoint, finally, of the effectiveness of the legislation, 
all that I can say is this : 

You are not going to find any legislation which will completely meet 
the Communist problem in the United States. We are dealing here 
with an organization which is something new under the sun. The 
founding fathers, when they drafted the Constitution, did not have 
in mind, and could not have had in mind, the kind of international 
conspiracy of which the Communists in the United States are a part, 
and this legislation is at best only one of the weapons which our law- 
enforcement authorities can use and will have available to strike 
at this organization and the front organizations which are dedicated 

78257—48 1 



44 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

to the destruction of our liberties and to the overthrow of our Gov- 
ernment in the interests of a foreign power. 

We do feel, however, that the legislation as it is drafted, if it is 
enacted into law by the Congress, will prove effective in meeting the 
threat to a substantial extent. We feel that the registration provisions 
of the bill, particularly, will have the effect, if enforced, of bringing 
the movement into the open where the American people can have 
an opportunity to make a fair choice as to whether they wish to accept 
the Communist form of foreign-dominated ideology or whether they 
wish to accept the democratic ideology which most of us believe in. 

As our committee said in the conclusion of its report, we are per- 
fectly willing to allow the ideas of communism and democracy to meet 
in the open market place of political ideas. But we certainly believe 
that the Communists should not have the advantage in this ideological 
battle of the aid and assistance of a foreign Communist power unless 
the people know that that is the case, as our registration sections 
provide. 

I have spoken somewhat informally here. I should like to cover 
briefly just one other point which I think the members of the com- 
mittee should bear in mind. 

I trust that in the consideration of this measure, and I know this 
will be done, every member of the committee will take the time to read 
carefully the actual provisions of the bill, and that the members of 
the committee will not rely upon the statements which are being made 
by those who are opposed to the legislation and who have not taken 
the time to read the bill. 

I give you one example of that: I have before me a resolution on 
the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1948. which was mailed to 
me by the United Auto and Aircraft Council, District No. 5, Los 
Angeles, CIO. I wish to say that as far as the Los Angeles CIO 
organization is concerned, the great majority of its members without 
question are anti-Communist. This organization has not been cited 
by the Attorney General as being a Communist front. 
Let me read what it says : 

This hill would create a dictatorship of the reactionary Wall Street inihrai v 
clique over the people of the United States, stilling all opposition to their will 
by the use of the following provisions which are contained in the bill: One, to 
declare any strike which interferes with trade or commerce as illegal; two, to 
make it illegal for any organization to oppose the foreign policy of the United 
States and members of such organizations to he subject to arrest for treason. 

Mr. Chairman, you have read the bill. You know that neither of 
these provisions is in the bill. You know also that there is no possible 
way of interpreting this bill to declare any strike which interferes 
with trade or commerce as illegal, or to make it illegal for an organiza- 
tion to oppose the foreign policy of the United States. 

But organization after organization, many of them known to be 
non-Commimist, have sent to the Members of Congress letters and 
resolutions in which they have opposed sections and provisions which 
are not even in this bill. How does that happen ? 

A study of the propaganda history on this measure will open the 
eves of every Member of the Congress and every Member of the 
Senate. You will find originally that these deliberately false state- 
ments appealed first in the Daily Worker and in the People's World. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 45 

Then you will find them in resolutions passed by Communist fronts 
and eventually you will find people who are non-Communists re- 
peating these falsehoods and referring to sections that are not even 
in the bill. 

I only point that out. Senator, because I feel that the tactics used 
against this measure by the Communist Party, the way that they have 
been able to centralize Communist-front organizations, and even infil- 
trate organizations which are not Communist fronts, and to mislead 
them as to what the bill actually does, is one of the most compelling 
arguments that I know for the passage of this measure requiring that 
such organizations register with the Attorney General so that the 
people will know that whatever they say is suspect. 

That concludes my statement, and I would be glad to answer any 
questions that you have. 

The Chairman. I want to thank you, Congressman, for a very fine 
statement. 

We have a number of witnesses that we want to try to get to in this 
next hour. 

I have just one or two questions : 

How many lawyers were there on this committee that considered 
this bill? 

Representative Nixon. There were four lawyers. I might name 
them for the record : Mr. Rankin, Judge Wood of Georgia, Mr. Peter- 
son of Florida, who will testify later, and myself. 

I might say that Mr. Vail of Illinois, although he is not a lawyer, 
has had extensive legal training as well. 

The Chairman. Then in relation to the bill, you have had the coun- 
sel of Donald Richberg as to the constitutional provisions, and as 
indicated by the brief that is already part of the record. You had 
these constitutional provisions gone into by the Legislative Reference 
Service, as I understand it. 

Representative Nixon. We did. 

The Chairman. They have there, as we know, some very competent 
lawyers. 

Representative Nixon. I will say that I think from reading that 
brief the members of this committee will come to the conclusion, I 
am sure, that it is probably one of the ablest treatments of this 
relatively new held of the law, that has ever been prepared. The 
Legislative Reference Service certainly deserves a great deal of com- 
mendation for its work on this brief. 

I might say also. Senator, that in addition to this brief, I con- 
sulted with the Legislative Reference Service and they were most 
helpful in preparing for me briefs on specific cases which bore on 
this problem. Some of the cases you are no doubt familiar with. 
>8ch//ik v. U. S.; Gitlow. v. U. S.; Bryant v. Zimmerman. The Ku 
Klux Klan case in New York which, incidentally, I think without 
question upholds the registration sections of this particular bill. 

I do not want the committee to get the idea that all we did was 
to rely upon a brief prepared by somebody else. There has been a 
great deal of original research on the part of the members of this 
committee in the actual cases themselves in attempting to find the 
constitutional answer to this problem. 

Let me say one other thing on that point. Mr. Chairman: Our com- 
mittee realizes that it would be a very dangerous thing to bring to 



46 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

the Congress and to the Senate a measure which went too far and 
which ran a great risk of being held unconstitutional by the Supreme 
Court, because we realize that the Communists would make great 
capital of such a holding. For that reason alone our committee was 
particularly careful to attempt to find a constitutional answer to this 
problem. That is the reason that we do not name the Communist 
Party. That is the reason that, we do not attempt to direct this liq- 
uidation against ideas. That is the reason that this legislation is 
directed against activities. That is the reason that these definitions 
are as narrow as they are, with the- element of foreign control required 
to be proved in each case. 

That is the reason, for example, that in the administrative pro- 
cedure section of the bill we have done something which is unprece- 
dented in the field of administrative law. As you know, Mr. Chair- 
man, at the present time most of the laws which have been passed by 
the Congress require that the Court uphold the finding of an admin- 
istrative body if substantial evidence is available to support the finding. 

We have written into this bill a provision that a preponderance of 
the evidence must support the finding of the Attorney General. As an 
additional safeguard, we have written into this bill express require- 
ments that the Attorney General must have public hearings, that cross- 
examination of witnesses will be allowed and that each side will have 
the right to subpena witnesses. 

May I say one other thing on that point, Mr. Chairman, and I won't 
take much longer. I have before me an article which appeared on the 
front page of the Washington Post today : 

The Department of Justice — 

the article reads — 

lias prepared a new list of subversive organizations, it was learned last night. 
Attorney General Tom Clark will announce, it was understood, the existence of 
the list at a press conference today, although it will not bs made public immedi- 
ately. The new list, it is believed, will include the names of several left-wing 
labor leaders, names not stated because Federal Bureau of Investigation in- 
quiries are still in progress. 

The Attorney General, reached at home last night, said he was unable to con- 
firm or deny the existence of the list. It was reported that high-placed right- 
wing union leaders were consulted on preparation of the roster, but had not 
participated in its formulation. 

I have read that. Senator, because the charge has been made against 
the registration provisions of this bill and against the proceedings 
which are held by the Attorney General that they will result in a mass 
witch hunt, in name-calling, with no adequate standards set up for 
what organizations are subversive. 

What I want to point out to the committee is this : At the present 
time the Attorney General of the United States, under an Executive 
order and without any legislative standards having been set up by 
the Congress of the United States, from time to time issues lists of 
subversive organizations. No hearings whatever are held. No oppor- 
tunity is provided for the organization accused of being subversive to 
come before the Attorney General. There is no court review. 

To get away from this type of procedure which the Attorney Gen- 
eral is now following as to Communist fronts is, we believe, one of 
the most persuasive arguments for passage of this bill. 

If this legislation becomes law. it means that an organization cannot 
be smeared as a subversive organization unless hearings are held, un- 



COXTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 47 

less there is court review, unless the organization has an opportunity 
to be confronted with the witnesses against it and to cross-examine 
them, nnd to have its day in court and court review. 

Unless these procedures are followed an organization cannot be held 
to be subversive, and what is more important, it cannot be held to be 
subversive simply on the basis of ideas, or on the basis of domestic 
activity, but only on the basis of foreign control, direct or indirect. 
This bill represents a great improvement over the procedures presently 
being followed by the Attorney General. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, Congressman. 

Representative Nixon. Thank you. 

The Chairman. J. Hardin Peterson, Congressman from Florida. 

Will you be sworn? 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give will be the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Representative Peterson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. J. HARDIN PETERSON, A MEMBER OF 
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Representative Peterson. Mr. Chairman, I concur in what our dis- 
tinguished chairman has said on the subject. I sat on the committee, 
and I saw day after day the conscientious effort of the chairman of 
the subcommittee to assist in the preparation of legislation which 
would not only serve in part to curb a menace in this country, but to 
draw legislation which would be held constitutional. 

If we followed the easiest course, all types of suggestions were made, 
but as you analyzed them and culled out those suggestions, you will 
see from the hearing efforts were made actually to draw legislation 
which would stand up. 

I will briefly and quickly analyze the bill. I do not want to go too 
much into detail because it is before you. 

The first portion of the bill deals with the necessity for the legisla- 
tion itself. After that, section 3 deals with definitions. When you 
get to section 4, there are the prohibited acts. Section 4 makes it un- 
lawful for any person to attempt in any manner to establish in the 
United States a totalitarian dictatorship, the creation, direction, and 
control of which is to be vested in or exercised by or under the domina- 
tion or control of any foreign government, foreign organization, or 
foreign individuals. 

The other subsections are for the purpose of amplifying that par- 
ticular section. In other words, we have clearly set forth there 
that there must be an intent to establish a totalitarian dictatorship, 
it must be under the control and domination of a foreign country. 
By putting those words in, it became more difficult to prove, but it 
clearly shows we were within the rights under the Constitution and 
that the act is for that purpose. 

The loss of United States citizenship is not new under our system 
because today the States in many instances for certain election viola- 
tions cause the loss of citizenship and the right to vote. 

Treason and bribery in many States have been held to be proper 
cause for the loss of citizenship. Then the employees of members 
of Communist political organizations, section 6. Our own Supreme 
Court has dealt with that particular problem before in setting 



48 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

forth that the matter of employment by one State or government is 
not an inherent right, but is a privilege. 

The denial of passports to members of Communist political or- 
ganizations. It is clearly within the Constitution to make provision 
for restrictions on travel of a citizen abroad. 

The registration and all annual reports of Communist organiza- 
tions. Today the law requires the major political parties to make 
reports and registration. Then the subsequent sections deal largely 
with that and the use of the mail and proper management. 

Then the judicial review : The distinguished chairman of this com- 
mittee, by reading the bill, is sure to see that we are very careful there 
to protect the rights. We went much further, as pointed out by 
the chairman of our subcommittee, than has been done in other ad- 
ministrative acts. 

And we had before our committee a very distinguished citizen of 
my own State. He came not because he was from my State, but 
because of the fact that he was chairman of the bill of rights com- 
mittee of the American Bar Association. His whole testimony — and 
I invite the attention of the chairman to that testimony — is showing 
that he did not want to go too far, that he wanted clearly to respect 
the rights of citizens to express themselves, and that we did not want 
to be carried away in our zeal to do away with those privileges. 

In part, he said this : 

As to the first, that the full protection of the Constitution must be accorded 
to the members of any minority group, including Communists, is beyond question. 
Even though such group in the public opinion stands adjudged as subversive, 
even treasonable activity. Because we differ with the Communists is all the 
more reason we must uphold his right to express himself. This is the very 
essence of our democratic system. 

But the zeal to afford protection to an individual need not blind us to the 
paramount need of defending our form of government which alone secures to 
all individuals the freedom that communism is dedicated to destroy. 

You can see from that that he wasn't running off on a tangent. 
He wanted clearly any legislation passed to be constitutional. This 
bill was the result of considerable work in the subcommittee: we 
went over it section by section. We discussed and rewrote and 
analyzed. We had the benefit of the testimony which we had. We 
had the benefit of our own drafting service, and from time to time we 
ourselves dug out decisions as has been pointed out by Mr. Nixon. 

After this subcommittee draft was reported out, I sent that to Mr. 
Milam, who was former president of the Florida Bar Association and 
as I pointed out, chairman of the Bill of Rights committee of the 
American Bar Association, and point-blank asked him to tell me 
whether in his opinion it was constitutional. 

He wired me back and said : 

I am in favor of the general purposes and objects and requirements of trie 
Mundt bill, H. R. 5852, as amended. It is carefully drawn, and in my opinion 
constitutional. The Communist threat here is dangerous and should be checked 
before it becomes greater. 

Since then I have talked with him over the phone and he tells me 
that he considers it a well-drafted piece of legislation. He is an at- 
torney of high standing in my State, is well known, and is considered 
a very eminent attorney. 

In our own courts, it has been pointed out in the Cramer case, in 
which there is a sphere and space in which we have not enacted leg- 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 49 

islation. that some things that do not come up to the rank of treason, 
and treason, of course, is difficult to prove because of the constitutional 
] -revision requiring proof of the overt act by 1 wo witnesses. The Court 
in the case of Oramer v. U. S., the Supreme Court, said : 

The power of Congress is in no way limited to enacting prohibiting legislation 
of specific acts that are detrimental to our wartime safety. The loyal and the 
disloyal alike may be forbidden to do acts which place our security in peril 
and the trial therefore may be focused upon defendant's specific intent to do 
those particular acts, thus eliminating the acquisition of treachery and of gen- 
eral intent to betray, which is of such passion-rousing potentialities. 

Congress repeatedly has enacted prohibition of specific acts thought to en- 
danger our security and the practice of foreign nations with defense problems 
more acute than our own affords examples of others. 

Then the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania said in a case from the 
circuit court of appeals: 

What the policy of the Communist Party is does not appear from the evidence 
but the courts have long recognized and have taken judicial notice that com- 
munism is a political movement, is dedicated to the overthrow of the Govern- 
ment, of the United States, and with the government of the States as a necessary 
incidence in our system of divided sovereignty, by force and violence (U. S. v. 
Wallace, 268 Fed. 413; Skevington v. Katseff, 277 Fed. 129). 

The Court in that same case continued, and said : 

For ourselves, we are not willing to say that courts are such impotent instru- 
ments of government that they may not take judicial notice of facts so well 
known to the man upon the street. Destruction of other existing governments 
by violence is not the suggestion merely of a secret pact among Communists. 
It is vaunted as an objective of the party, openly declared by its recognized 
spokesmen. In the meantime, although Communists concede that these ends 
cannot be attained except by violent and revolutionary processes, they have 
sought to maintain their status as a legitimate political party entitled to a 
place on the ballot. 

You have a large number of witnesses appearing before you today. 
You have the benefit of the hearings which we have already held.. 
And I do not want to take too much time of the committee. 

I have gone into this bill carefully. I sat in the subcommittee as it 
was drafted. In my dealings I try to be more or less conservative, and 
I raised certain questions and there is certain verbiage in here from 
time to time as a result of discussion. 

In my opinion, the bill is constitutional. In my opinion it is needed 
today. I consider the work very carefully done. I think I would 
be amiss in my duty unless I did pay tribute in this record to the pain- 
staking, conscientious work of the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. 
Nixon. I had not been associated with him until I came to this com- 
mittee, but throughout, those who saw him preside were impressed by 
the fact that he was trying conscientiously to reach the problem and 
to do it in a constitutional way. 

I consider that bill is constitutional. I have no hesitancy in making 
that statement for the record. That is concurred in by the former 
President of the Florida Bar Association and the chairman of the 
Bill of Rights committee of the American Bar Association. 

I thank you very much. 

The Chairman. John Thomas Taylor. 

Mr. John Thomas Taylor (director, national legislative committee, 
the American Legion, Washington, I). C). Mr. Chairman, I just 
want to express the appreciation of the American Legion for the op- 
portunity to appear on this bill, which we favor, and as our witness I 
want to present Past Commander Paul Griffith, former chairman of 



50 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

our Americanism commission, who will have some words to say 
upon it. 

The Chairman. We are very happy to have Col. Paul Griffith in- 
troduced by Gen. John Thomas Taylor. It is always a pleasure to 
see the general. 

Now, Mr. Griffith, if you will be sworn. Do you solemnly swear 
that in the testimony you are about to give you will tell the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Griffith. I do. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL GRIFFITH, PAST NATIONAL COMMANDER 
THE AMERICAN LEGION, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

The Chairman. If you will just give us a little story about your- 
self, your qualifications. Are you a lawyer? 

Mr. Griffith. I am not. I am a business consultant here in Wash- 
ington. 

The Chairman. Carry on in your own manner. 

Mr. Griffith. I served as national commander of the American 
Legion during the years 1946 and 1947. For many years I served as 
a member of the National Americanism Commission and during the 
years 1933 and 1934 I served as the chairman of that commission. At 
present, as a past commander, I am chairman of what is called the 
liaison committee with the Americanism commission, which is a repre- 
sentative group from the executive committee which served with all 
commissions and committees of the Legion. I come here today as a 
designated representative of the American Legion, so designated by 
the national commander. 

The position of the American Legion on the necessity of curbing 
subversive activities in the United States is so well known, I am sure, 
to all members of this committee that I need devote very little time to 
any recapitulation of our convention mandates covering this subject. 
Suffice to say that America's largest veterans' organization has 
throughout its 28 years of life continuously and energetically pressed 
for effective legislative controls — often almost alone — to curb or out- 
law the criminal Communist conspiracy masquerading in our midst 
since 1920 as an alleged "political party." 

The unfolding of history, particularly the developments of the past 
3 years since the end of the war, has finally vindicated to the hilt the 
patriotic warnings of the Legion down through the years since the 
AEF returned from France in 1919. 

Gentlemen, the American Legion has well been called "the most 
typically representative American organization" because its member- 
ship has been drawn from every village and county of the United 
States and from every strata of society and walk of life in this great 
Republic. Our 3,000,000 veterans and their families truly represent 
the North and South, the industrial East and the agrarian West and 
every shade of the political spectrum from left to right barring only 
Fascists and Communists from membership. 

If there is any national organization which correctly reflects the 
sentiment of all Americans with even greater accuracy and fidelity 
than so-called opinion polls. I submit that it is the Legion which I have 
the honor to represent here today. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 51 

Our national executive committee, the highest policy-making body 
in the Legion between national conventions, only 2 weeks ago unani- 
mously and unequivocally endorsed H. R. 5852 in principle at its semi- 
annual session in Indianapolis. I say "in principle" advisedly be- 
cause as you know the American Legion has asked for far more drastic 
curbs on the Communist "fifth column" in this country than the Mundt- 
kixon bill contemplates. The 3,000,000 war veterans of America's two 
great world wars wholeheartedly support this measure and strongly 
urge its speedy enactment into law. 

It would be repetitious and burdensome of the record to set forth 
even in briefest outline a general summation of the problem posed by 
world communism. The committee is undoubtedly already thoroughly 
familiar with the several excellent reports and studies released in 
recent times by various committees of Congress. I refer in particular 
to Communism In Action, the scholarly and carefully documented 
reports of the House Un-American Activities Committee, and the 
House Foreign Affairs Committee's recent Strategy and Tactics of 
World Communism. 

The facts and evidence are now all in — America looks to Congress 
for a verdict of guilty or not guilty. 

I want to assure this committee that Americans today are pro- 
foundly disturbed if not alarmed by the full implications of Soviet 
'•fifth column" operating in our midst with apparent full legal im- 
munity and sheer, brazen impudence. We live in perilous and porten- 
tious times. 

We have all seen the sinister power for evil and destruction of all 
human values which the alleged "political parties" of world com- 
munism have exercised in eastern Europe as well as France, Italy, 
and elsewhere. Nor need I remind this committee of the events in 
Bogota only a few weeks ago or of the Canadian atomic spy dis- 
closures 2 years ago that the Western Hemisphere is not outside the 
sphere of Soviet interest. The American people are disturbed and 
deeply concerned and they now demand action and not mere talk or 
denunciations. We have investigated, talked, debated, exposed, de- 
nounced, and complained about communism for 28 years without 
taking any effective countermeasures with the natural result that we 
have today in our midst the largest "fifth column" of potential spies, 
saboteurs, demoralizers, traitors, and wreckers ever seen in modern 
times. Even Hitler's infamous "fifth columns" in Norway, Holland, 
and France at the outbreak of the war in 1939 pale into insignificance 
when compared with our 100,000 trained and seasoned quislings of 
the Communist front, aided and protected as they are by an estimated 
million or more fellow travelers, sympathizers, and dupes. 

Under the ferocious onslaught of dynamic world communism, one 
free country after another has fallen under the iron heel of Red fascism 
in recent years. Not a single nation ever surrendered its freedom 
voluntarily but somehow they all lacked the wit, courage, or simple 
will to protect themselves against the death of totalitarianism. Most 
of them were subverted and destroyed from within as was the case of 
Czechoslovakia and Hungary. The free world, what there is left of 
it today, looks anxiously to America as the last citadel of human free- 
dom and the strongest single world force blocking the otherwise 
inexorable advance of world communism. 






52 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

We are pouring out billions of our national wealth in a world-wide 
war of economic and political containment of everexpanding Soviet 
aggression. The question has well been raised why try to stop com- 
munism in Greece, Germany, or Korea at tremendous cost when 
nothing — absolutely nothing has been done right here at home to 
eradicate or at least curb the unnumbered and unidentified divisions of 
the Kremlin operating with complete impunity in our own country. 
And how effective and convincing can our foreign policy be when we 
ask Europeans to eliminate communism from their countries when we 
have not had the courage and resolution to clean the vermin out of 
our own house? 

The Americans who fought on every sea and in every clime in our 
two World Wars and wdio left behind them on the field of battle 
nearly 400,000 of their comrades in order to smash and destroy for all 
time the Axis threat to our country, feel deeply and strongly that Con- 
gress should and must act now effectively and decisely to deal with a 
far greater threat to our liberties than Hitler, Tojo, and Mussolini 
represented in 1941. 

Our National Americanism Commission's research staff reports that 
the Communists have mobilized and thrown into action all their man- 
power, allies, and resources. The Communist Party is collecting a 
war chest of a half million dollars with which to defeat this legisla- 
tion. Every fellow traveler, stooge, and deluded dupe has been thrown 
into the line. Communist propaganda has been planned with con- 
summate cunning and guile. In the main the tried and trusted old 
radical scare tactic, of using the Constitution and Bill of Rights as 
a shield has proven most effective. A few otherwise intelligent, pa- 
triotic, and well-informed citizens have already made abundant use 
of typical Communist arguments and propaganda devices in attack- 
ing or opposing H. R. 5852. 

Minorities, some labor groups, and certain well-meaning but not 
too sophisticated liberals or people calling themselves "liberals"' have 
already allowed themselves to be panicked by the sly Communist scare 
tactic "It's not the Communists but you that they are really after." 
Communists fully appreciate that all real Americans revere the Con- 
stitution which they have sworn to defend and uphold with their 
lives. So like cornered gangsters or S. S. desperadoes who seized 
women and children and used them as living shields in order to shoot 
their way out of tight spots, the Communists attempt to hold up be- 
fore them the Bill of Rights and all that is sacred in our American 
way of life. 

The question is simply one of whether constitutional government 
can draw up effective legislation to protect itself against a criminal 
conspiracy striving to overthrow all forms of constitutional govern- 
ment. If it cannot, or dare not, then democracy is obviously doomed. 
In conclusion I want merely to observe that the American Legion 
feels certain the Senate is sufficientlv familiar with fraudulent Com- 
munist propaganda techniques to dismiss and ignore the noisy but 
nevertheless impressive campaign of ballyhoo presently being whipped 
up against H. R. 5852 by the masterminds of Stalin in this country. 
All the sound and fury when carefully analyzed and traced will be 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 53 

found to emanate almost exclusively from individuals speaking for 
only themselves, from paper organizations and letterhead lobbies, from 
organizations of doubtful patriotic character and from a few badly 
misguided and misinformed honest groups which either have not 
read or do not understand the bill or have permitted their better 
judgment and patriotism to be panicked and tricked into opposing this 
most vital piece of legislation. 

The American Legion strongly urges the speedy adoption into law 
of H. R. 5852. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Colonel. 

There is just one question I want to ask you. You mentioned that 
a certain part of your organization had arrived at certain conclusions. 
What was that committee? 

Mr. Griffith. I said the investigators for our Americanism com- 
mission. We have in the American Legion a commission known 
as the American Legion Americanism commission, which has a 
subdivision of that subdivision, a committee known as subversive 
activities committee. They employ a full-time investigator whose 
duty it is to keep abreast with the activities of all subversive activities 
in this country, and they have reports from that investigator. They 
considered the reports in committees and in over-all committee meet- 
ings which I have been a part of. They are 100 percent for this bill 
because they believe it does in part what we as an organization have 
been striving to do through the years. 

The Chairman. As a result of this investigatory .activity, I assume 
that using the facts arrived at and other information, it is from the 
gathering together of these things that you have arrived at the 
conclusion that communism is a living menace to our institution. 
Is that right ? 

Mr. Griffith. That is correct. 

The Chairman. I was interested in your telling about the cam- 
paign of the opposition. I think there are pouring into this com- 
mittee telegrams at the rate of several thousand a day. There are 
no arguments. I can assure you as far as the committee is con- 
cerned that has no weight one way or the other. We are supposed 
to be a judiciary committee. We want people to tell us what is the 
matter with the bill, if there is anything the matter with it. We 
want to have pointed out to us any constitutional violation of the civil 
or political rights of our citizens, if there are any. 

I think we can assume that every thinking person who has ears 
to hear with and eyes to see with, we can assume that that person 
knows that communism is a dangerous force abroad not only in the 
world but in this land, and it is a menace to our way of life. 

Assuming that, the other question remains, Is this a practical 
way to approach that menace? Is it a constitutional way? Those 
are the two real issues. That is what we would like evidence on. 
I want to thank you for a very fine statement, sir. 

Mr. Griffith. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Mr. John C Williamson? 

What is your position, sir? 



54 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

STATEMENT OF JOHN C. WILLIAMSON, ASSISTANT LEGISLATIVE 
DIRECTOR, VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS OF THE UNITED 
STATES 

Mr. Williamson. I am assistant legislative director of the Vet- 
erans of Foreign Wars of the United States. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn? Do you solemnly swear that 
in the testimony you are about to give you will tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God 1 

Mr. Williamson. I do. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I will be very brief 
in my testimony this morning. I have no prepared statement because 
I was advised by Mr. Ketchum only last night to present the views 
of the organization. I would like to state that I am a member of 
the bar of the District of Columbia and of the Supreme Court, and 
have given the bill considerable personal study and discussed the 
bill with our national legislative committee, most of the members of 
which are prominent attorneys throughout the country. 

The Veterans of Foreign Wars in years past have adopted and re- 
adopted resolutions designed to curb the growing menace of commu- 
nism in the United States as a national-security measure. The reso- 
lutions that have been adopted have all pointed toward the outlawing 
of the Communist Party, the declaring of the illegality of the Commu- 
nist party in the United States. It has been very difficult for the 
lawyers in our organization on the national level to transform such a 
resolution into legislative language, because it was the opinion of those 
of us who tried to work on this resolution that the outlawing of the 
Communist Party would be unconstitutional, and that it would not 
be practical to devote all of our efforts along that line. We felt that 
it would be unconstitutional because we recognized the essential differ- 
ence in a complete abrogation of certain fundamental rights and, on 
the other hand, an effort to place a curb on those fundamental rights 
in order to preserve them for all the people. 

We think that this bill is sound in that respect and that it is con- 
stitutional. 

We have long since recognized the fact that communism is a new 
social dynamism in this country that seeks to bring all nations into a 
common mold in which the individual will be subservient to the state. 
It is a new challenge brought into being by the industrial era brought 
in the wake of the industrial area. We feel the United States has 
to meet that challenge. Our decline as a free people depends on how 
we meet that challenge. 

All great states, the great states of the past, the universal states, 
have all fallen because they failed to meet the challenges of new ideas, 
just as Rome failed to meet the challenge of Christianity, and the great 
Moslem civilization failed to meet the challenge of European economic 
aggrandizement. That is why they are not great nations today. 
This is one challenge that we have to meet. These things weaken us, 
divide us. The spread of communism in this country seriously re- 
tards our ability to meet another struggle, should it come. Conse- 
quently, we feel that it is very important that we do something to 
expose communism in this country. We have given the bill a great 
deal of study, particularly the section of the bill devoted to judicial 
review, and we find that it is consistent with due process, consistent 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 55 

with the whole spirit of our Constitution it" we accept the Constitu- 
tion as a living thing, which it is. 

The Chairman. Do you want to say whom you mean by "we." 

Do you have a corps of lawyers that you have consulted in rela- 
tion to this matter and arrived at the conclusion that it was con- 
stitutional? 

Mr. Williamson. Our national legislative committee. I can give 
their names? 

The Chairman. Are they lawyers? 

Mr. Williamson. I will give the names of the lawyers. The chair- 
man is Rufus K. Lawans, of San Francisco, an attorney; Edward L. 
Foster, of Maryland, an attorney: and I will have to give the lawyers 
who were on the legislative committee for the last 2 years because 
they have discussed that: Alex Miller, of Des Moines, Iowa; Basil 
Stockbridge, of Georgia ; Theodore Evart, of Texas. Those are the 
legal members of the legislative committee. The other members are 
Edward Inman, a newspaper publisher; Murril Hopper, of Michigan; 
and Frank Hilton, of Pennsylvania. 

The Chairman. We thank you very much, sir, and, as I understand 
it. that is a committee of your organization who constituted the per- 
sonnel you mentioned here who gave thorough consideration? 

Mr. Williamson. I believe so ; yes. 

The Chairman. And arrived at the conclusion stated here by you ? 

Mr. Williamson. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Williamson. Thank }'ou. 

The Chairman. Elliott Newcomb, executive director of the 
AMVETS. Is he here? (No response.) 

Is Congressman Leo Isacson here ? 

I am glad to see you, Congressman. Will you be sworn, sir? 

Do you solemnly swear in the testimony you are about to give you 
will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God? 

Representative Isacson. I do. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LEO ISACSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The Chairman. Do you have a prepared statement ? 

Representative Isacson. I have not, sir. I would like to speak 
extemporaneously. 

The Chairman. That is all right. Carry on in your own way. 
Your home is where ? 

Representative Isacson. 182 East Two Hundred and Tenth Street, 
Bronx. X. Y. 

The Chairman. Have you had any legal education '. 

Representative Isacson. I am a member of the New York State Bar. 

The Chairman. Did you get your degree in New York? 

Representative Isacson. I got a bachelor of science degree and I 
got a degree of jurisdoctor of law. 

The Chairman. Where did you get your degree '. 

Representative Isacson. New York University Law School. 

The Chairman. All right : carry on. 

Representative Isacson. Thank you. 



56 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Gentlemen, I would not take the time of this committee if I did not 
feel very strongly that this Congress is confronted by a measure 
which, if enacted into law, spells actual disaster to the American 
people. I have been in Congress only a few short months. I came 
here laden with the problems of the people in the district which I have 
the honor to represent. I came here imbued with the idea that I 
would try to help some of their problems toward solution and try 
to extend the system of democracy under which we are fortunate to 
live. 

My fear concerning this legislation is that it is not the legislation 
of a democracy against something which menaces that democracy, but 
that the legislation in itself menaces the very demoerac} T which it 
purports to protect. 

The Chairman. Have you any idea, on the subject of communism, 
whether or not there is such a thing abroad in the laud? 

"Representative Isacson. I intend to develop that, if I may. I have 
a certain sequence of thought I would like to extend here, and then 
of course I would be happy to answer any questions. 

The first thing I did when confronted with this proposed bill in 
its original form, was to try to analyze the existing legislation. I refer 
to the Smith Act, which makes it a crime to advocate the overthrow 
of the Government of the United States by force or violence; the 
McCormack Act, and the Voorhis Act. I looked at that legislation 
and came to the conclusion that it adequately dealt with those indi- 
viduals who would overthrow this Government 1 y force and violence. 
When I went to the report of the subcommittee. I don't know whether 
you gentlemen have it, the subcommittee, the original committee, 
there is a statement there that the existing law, referring to the three 
acts that I have just mentioned 

Senator Moore. Is this the report of the subcommittee on the 
pending measure ? 

Representative Isacson. Yes, Issued April 10, 1948. It says : 

Had the law-enforcement authorities vigorously enforced existing laws against 
Communists in the United States — 

referring to the Smith, McCormack, and Voorhis Acts — 
the growth of the movement undoubtedly would have been stultified. 

That is a very interesting statement. It is a statement which indi- 
cates that the laws that are presently on our statute books if vigorously 
enforced are adequate to meet the situation. We are not here con- 
cerned with the question of enforcement, because if there is to be 
inadequate enforcement there may be inadequate enforcement of the 
proposed legislation just as well as there may have been inadequate 
enforcement of the existing statutes. Rather, the question before 
us is. Is there a necessity, is there a requirement for additional legis- 
lation? If the legislation we presently have adequately deals with 
the question of force and violence and prescribes penalties for those 
who would attempt to overthrow our Government by force or violence, 
then it must necessarilv follow that the proposed legislation would 
deal with a category of individuals other than the one already men- 
tioned, to wit, it must deal with a category of individuals who do not 
propose to overthrow the Government by force and violence, because 
that situation is already covered. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 57 

Let us look at the legislation and see whether that is not the sit- 
uation. Section 4 of this bill deals with penalties. It says that — 

it shall be unlawful for any person to attempt in any manner — 
and those words are important — 

to establish in the United States a totalitarian dictatorship — 
et cetera — 

or to perform or attempt to perform any act with intent to facilitate or aid the 
bringing about of the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship. 

I emphasized some of the language that I consider to be very loose. 
Then it does a very remarkable thing. 

In the preamble, section 2, subdivision 9, which appears on page 4 
of the bill, it says: 

In the United States those individuals who knowingly and willfully participate 
in the world Communist movement repudiate their allegiance to the United 
States— 

and there is additional language. What does it mean when it says 
"willfully participate in the world Communist movement"? That in 
turn is defined by setting up two categories of organizations. One, is 
category of a Communist political organization and, second, the cate- 
gory of a Communist-front organization, the intention being that any- 
one who is a member of these organizations or who is active and 
participates in the work of these organizations and comes within 
subdivision 9 of section 2 and under the penalties which are defined 
in section 4. We can halt right there, because we have now reached a 
point where we are pointing this legislation not against any activities. 
This does not say. as does any language which describes a felony in 
our criminal law, that if a person does such and such an act, enters a 
house with a dangerous weapon or anything like that. This now says 
if he is a member of an organization. This is guilt by association. 
I was very much interested to read in the newspaper this morning that 
this committee had invited Charles Evans Hughes, Jr., here to testify, 
because it brought back to my mind something which I would like to 
testify to here. I think it is of interest. I was a member of the New 
York State Legislature, not back in 1920. but I am aware of what 
occurred in 1920 and I would like to refer to it. That was the time 
that several Socialist assemblymen were elected to the New York State 
Legislature. There was a movement made to oust these gentlemen 
from the New York State Legislature, not because of anything they 
had done, not because of any act they had committed, but simply 
because they represented a party which some people in the legislature 
thought was inimical to the welfare of the State of New York, just 
as some people may think that some organizations are inimical to the 
interests of the welfare of the country. 

At that time there -was a brief filed with the New York State Legis- 
lature by Charles Evans Hughes. Sr.. as well as people like Marshall 
and Ogden Mills. The language there is \evy interesting because 
I think it refers to our situation here today, if you will permit me 
just a second to read a veiy brief excerpt : 

That it is of the essence of the institutions of liberty that it be recognized 
that guilt is personal and cannot be attributed to the holding of opinion or to 
mere interest in the absence of overt acts, that a member elected to the assembly 
is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence and that a member 






58 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

of the assembly duly elected, being of sound mind and possessing the qualifica- 
tions prescribed by the Constitution, cannot be expelled or denied the privileges 
of his seat, except upon charges duly laid and upon proof duly taken of personal 
misconduct. 

Then it says : 

We deem it important that this vital issue, the proper decision of which is 
essential to the security of the Republic, should not be obscured by the reception 
of testimony, statements, or declarations as to the matters here or abroad in the 
attempt to indict a political party or organization without first laying proper 
charges with proper specifications directly connecting the members accused 
with personal and guilty participation in illegal acts. 

That is the end of the quotation. 

I think as we develop the provisions of the bill here the applicability 
of this statement, and the analogous situation which existed at the 
time will probably become more apparent. 

I said before that this bill, and I did hear the chairman say very 
properly that what you are interested in is someone to say what is 
wrong with this legislation, to come down to it and sav here is a sec- 
tion I don't like, here is a clause I don't like. These are the conse- 
quences which flow from the bill, and they are bad. That is what 
I am going to try to do, if I can. 

The Communist political organizations are defined in section 3. 
The language there again is extremely loose. It is on page 6 of the 
bill, and it means any organization in the United States having "some.*' 
but not necessarily all, of the ordinary and usual characteristics of a 
political party. I pause there because, How many? Is one, two, 
three characteristics enough ? That is loose language. 

With respect to which having regard to some or all of the following 
considerations. Again the question, One consideration, two consid- 
erations? What test do we set up here in this very important legis- 
lation? 

The Chairman. How would you correct it? 

Representative Isacson. When I get through, sir. you will find that 
I will correct it by saying that I am opposed to the bill entirely. 

The Chairman. You did not have to make that statement. I got 
that impression long ago. You are a Congressman of the United 
States are you not ? 

Representative Isacson. That is right, Senator. 

The Chairman. You are interested, I assume, in protecting the 
fundamental rights of American citizens. 

Representative Isacson. That is precisely the reason why I opp<>>e 
this bill. 

The Chairman. All right. I understand that. Xow let me find 
out how much more you are willing to agree with. You are willing to 
agree to protect the fundamental rights of American citizens. Are you 
willing to agree that there are movements in this country that would 
decimate those rights? 

Representative Isacson. Well, I believe that any individual, any 
American citizen, has the right to hold any beliefs that he may hold. 
That is the very essence of our Bill of Rights. That is the essence of 
the guaranties of free speech. I think that what we should 

The Chairman. iTou did not answer my question. 

Representative Isacson. I am not through answering it . sir. I think 
what legislation should be directed toward is acts and not beliefs, sir. 
because i did not believe in the limiting of beliefs. I do not believe 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 59 

in a sort of Nazi-book-burning activity in this country. People are en- 
titled to any information, all information. They are entitled to any 
ideas, to think for themselves and to believe for themselves. They are 
entitled to practice free speech, free movement. All we can do is say 
that anyone who acts in a forceful or violent manner, such activities 
should be prohibited. 

The Chairman. Are you willing to say that you are entitled to those 
beliefs and exercise free speech under the domination of a foreign 
power to the detriment of this country? 

Representative Isacson. I, sir, will say as Voltaire said, I may disa- 
gree with everything you say, but I will defend to the death your 
right to say it, and I believe that once 3'ou start limiting that doctrine, 
you are emulating the activities of countries which were Fascist in 
nature and against whom we fought this war. I think, if you will 
permit me to develop my thoughts here, you may find an answer to some 
of the questions which occur, and then if there are any questions which 
remain. I would be very glad to answer them at that time. 

The Chairman, What you ought to do, is at least answer the ques- 
tions of the presiding officer in this committee instead of avoiding 
the answer. 

Representative Isacson. I tried to answer them as best I can, sir. 

The Chairman. I have no question about it and no doubt that you 
and I can agree on Voltaire's statement. That was not my question. 

Representative Isacson. If we do, sir 

The Chairman. The question is whether or not you had a right 
under the domination of a foreign power or foreign agency to exercise 
the right of free speech to the detriment of your country. 

Representative Isacson. This bill does not attack that problem at 
all, sir. This bill under the guise of attacking that problem would 
seriously limit the right of free speech of American citizens without 
proving that that free speech was dominated by — as a matter of fact, 
the concept of domination of speech is a concept which is foreign to 
me. Frankly. I do not quite understand the implication that you seek 
to establish. Speech is free. I cannot imagine anyone dominating 
the speech of any individual. Perhaps I do not understand your ques- 
tion. At any rate, let me proceed. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you another question. 

Representative Isacson. Surely. 

The Chairman. Are there people in this country under the domina- 
tion of Russia ? 

Representative Isacson. I don't think that there are any folks in 
this country, American citizens, who are under the domination of 
Russia. I don't believe that there is a menace today of communism in 
this country. As I have studied the question, I find that the Com- 
munist Party in the United States is a very small party, that it has 
very few joeople 

Senator Moore. It is a very small party in Russia, also, is it not? 

Representative Isacson. No ; I understand it is quite a large party 
in Russia, sir. 

The Chairman. Are you a Communist, sir? 

Representative Isacson. No, I am not a Communist; but you see the 
very fact that you have asked that question is a very clear indication to 

78257 — 48 5 



60 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

me of what this bill is intended to do. You see, the mere fact that 
someone comes here and appears here to oppose legislation which is 
disastrous to the American people, opposes legislation which actually 
would set aside the Bill of Eights, and I am prepared to prove it, not 
merely by the indulgence and platitudes and cliches, but by going 
through the bill section by section, but the mere fact of opposition 
immediately establishes the foundation, apparently, in the minds of 
the committee for the question that has just been asked. 

Does that mean that we are trying to preclude opposition to the very- 
bill itself? Does that explain, perhaps, why this bill was rushed here 
in most unseemly haste? Does that explain why legislation of this 
type which would completely change our form of government has not 
been opened for public investigation, for public scrutiny, for public 
discussion? 

The limit for this hearing itself has been made in the course of 3 
days, and those 3 days occurring on a holiday when most people are 
away. Those 3 days occurring so rapidly so they haven't had a chance 
to study the bill? I trust not. I trust that these gentlemen of the 
committee will deliberate on this, that they will give it adequate con- 
sideration, and that they will not consider it in a spirit of hysteria. 

I know that there exists today a spirit of hysteria in this country, 
of people going around virtually looking under their beds. As a mat- 
ter of fact, the great danger in this country today, the great danger 
which confronts the American people is not so much from without our 
shores but right here from within our own borders and it comes not 
from the hungry people who want their status in life bettered, but 
perhaps from the profit-hungry denizens who inhabit the canyons of 
Wall Street. Let us get back to the bill, shall we, and let us try to 
analyze it in as calm and dispassionate a manner as possible. 

This section attempts to define a Communist political organization 
and I have already referred to the looseness of a definition which uses 
the word "some." Then it has several subdivisions. The first sub- 
division defines a Communist political organization and says: 

The extent and nature of its activities, including the expression of views and 
policies. 

What does that mean? It is a very general statement, the extent 
and nature of its activities. It means whatever the organization does r 
which is a blanket clause which might mean almost anything. "In- 
cluding the expression of views and policies." But that is a violation 
of the first amendment of the Constitution which forbids Congress to 
pass any law abridging the freedom of speech and press. That is 
the very thing that is contemplated in the subdivision. Let us look 
at subdivision ± The extent to which its policies are formulated and 
carried out and its activities performed pursuant to directives or to 
effectuate the policies of a foreign irovernment. 

Then 3— 

the extent to which its views and policies are the same as those of a foreign 
government or foreign organization. 

Sir. does that mean that any political organization in the United 
States which has some policy, not all, but one or tAvo policies, which 
may coincide at any particular moment with the policies of a foreign, 
government or foreign organization, comes within this definition? 
A ppa rent ly it does that. How does that work out ? I was very much 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 61 

interested in the partition plan concerning Palestine. There was a 
time when the United States came forth advocating a trusteeship plan 
rather than a partitioning plan. The party of which I am a member, 
the party of Henry Wallace, the new party in America, also believed 
that the partition plan for Palestine was the right plan for Palestine, 
that it was necessary in order to give justice to the Jewish people, 
that it was necessary in order to keep the pledge w T ord of America, that 
it was necessary in order to support the decision of the United Na- 
tions, which we consider the one lasting vestige of hope for world 
peace. 

Does the fact that at that particular moment the Wallace party 
believing in a partition of Palestine, the Soviet Union, and other coun- 
tries believing in the partition of Palestine, but the United States 
at that moment believing in trusteeship, does that put the new party 
of Henry Wallace under this definition? It might very well. It 
might very well. And that is what worries us, because it is directed 
against activities of this sort. I will try to define that later. 

Those definitions are broad, but a definition concerning a Com- 
munist front organization is even broader. Those definitions can be 
found on page 8. subdivision 4. There they talk about an organization 
having substantially certain characteristics, and there they define this 
front organization by the fact that one or two persons who may be 
active in its management or supervision, whether or not they hold 
office, might be connected with a political party. It says if it is reason- 
able to conclude that it is primarily operated for the purpose of giving 
aid and support to a Communist political organization. 

Gentlemen, under this definition a trade-union might be included 
here. You ma}' think that is far-fetched. I have done some research 
and I know that certain strike activities engaged in by trade unions 
in the past, for example in September 11)38, the same committee, the 
Committee on Un-American Activities, labeled a strike called by the 
transport workers a political strike. Under this definition that trade 
union would become a Communist front organization. 

In October 1938, two organizational strikes in the automobile in- 
dustry in Michigan were labeled by this same committee as un-Amer- 
ican strikes, as subversive strikes, as political strikes. Under this 
definition those trade-unions could be very well considered Communist 
front organizations and subject to the penalty of the bill. 

What happens? How does this thing work out? There is a neces- 
sity and a requirement here under section 8 that any Communist po- 
litical organization register in 30 days after this bill becomes law. So 
any Communist front organization must register under the same sec- 
tion in 30 days. If the Communist political organization does not 
register, if it does not register in 3 months, the membership in that 
Communist political organization is illegal and the members must 
leave, otherwise being subjected to penalties. 

If the organization does not register, even if there is no order — this is 
more. I think, in importance — even if there be no order of the Attorney 
General, if the organization does not register and later is determined 
that this organization is a Communist political organization or a Com- 
munist-front organization in the case of a trade-union or a different 
civic organization. Then, too, there are penalties imposed even though 
the failure to register was not preceded by an order of the Attorney 
General. 



62 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

That is contained in section 15 (a). In other words, the final order 
of the Attorney General is not a condition precedent, because on top 
of page 27 it says for the purposes of this subsection if there is in effect 
with respect to an organization a final order of the Attorney General, 
then in that case every day of the failure to register constitutes a 
separate offense, under which I think there can be an additional 
penalty for every day of $2,000 or $5,000 and imprisonment for not 
more than 2 years. If there was no order of the Attorney General, 
then there is no separate offense each and every day, but there is the 
initial penalty of $5,000 or $2,000 and the 2 years in jail. 

In other words, if people are active in a trade union or active in a 
political party, they have never been told by an agency of this Gov- 
ernment that such organization is a Communist political organiza- 
tion or a Communist-front organization, and without that statement 
on the part of the Attorney General they still may be subjected to the 
penalties imposed in this act. 

Suppose the organization is branded a Communist -front organiza- 
tion or a Communist political organization and the organization does 
then register in an effort to avoid penalties. Then what happens? It 
is my contention if it does register under section 4 every member may 
be subjected to penalty, even if these organizations comply with the 
law, because under our definition in section 2, subdivision 3, we talk 
about people who engaged in this world Communist movement as 
being subjected to the penalties of this bill, and there is a section 
under penalties which says that any penalty not specifically prescribed 
in section 4 — there is a blanket omnibus penalty for violating any 
other section of this complete act. Then in section 4 you have the 
regular penalties which are prescribed. Mere membership in a front 
organization or in a Communist political organization is defined in 
this act as such activities as are prohibited. 

So a person is in a dilemma. If the organization does not register, 
it is subjected to penalties. If the organization complies with the 
law and does register, then its members are certainly subjected, to- 
gether with its officers, to penalties. I think in either case the penalties 

I have tried to go into some of the specific aspects of the bill not 
so much from the point of view of attempting to correct those par- 
ticular sections, but by showing the looseness of this entire piece of 
legislation to indicate that what this bill really tries to do is not to get 
at communism. This bill, I believe, is an attempt to equate loyalty 
with conformity. It assumes that there is a fixed and static content 
to loyalty, and it attempts to stifle criticism of the existing policies of 
our administration. I am reminding you of Walt Whitman's state- 
ment concerning the never-ending audacity of elected people who 
set themselves up as judge and jury in these cases. This effort to freeze 
America into a status quo is in my opinion a pernicious effort because 
it distracts attention from those who are really disloyal to America. 
Who is really disloyal to America ? Those who inflame racial hatreds, 
those who sow religious and class dissensions and those who preach 
antisemitism and Jim Crow, those who impair democracy by denying 
equal educational opportunities, those who oppose an antilynching 
law ? 

I would like to refer to the fact that some other legislation far more 
vital to the interests of this country is bottled up in committee and 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 63 

has not been reached with the haste that this committee has reached 
this legislation. Those who deny freedom of the speech and press 
and assembly. Those are the people who are really disloyal to our 
Government. Would this legislation interfere with the activities of 
those people ? The answer is no. 

Senator Moore. What are you reading from ? 

Representative Isacson. Some remarks that I had made previously. 
These are all 1113' own remarks. 

I feel very strongly about this bill, gentlemen. 

The Chairman. Let me suggest to you, if you feel very strongly 
about the bill, submit a memorandum where you feel the bill is inad- 
equate, violative of constitutional rights. Start in as you started to 
talk here, but you rambled quite a ways. If you will take it by para- 
graph, title, and page, and say what is wrong and do not write out 
a whole paragraph or page on it. Just say this is wrong because — 
and then if you have any authority, show it. 

That will be helpful to this committee because I need not tell. you 
that this committee is having the advice of the best legal minds that 
it can find in this country. We are submitting it to some of the best 
minds in New York City as well as elsewhere. That is the point. 
You heard the first witness this morning, Donald Richberg, who dis- 
agrees with you 100 percent, as to constitutionality, as to its purpose, 
as to this and that. So you arrive at a point where men disagree. 
If you have authority, show us where these things do what you say. 

This committee, in spite of your insinuations, is not hastening along, 
but it is not going to conduct a three-ring circus for people who want 
to come up here and make political speeches and criticisms of Con- 
gress, either, sir. 

Representative Isacson. I am sure you are not referring to any of 
my own remarks. 

The Chairman. Some of them had a few barbs in them. 

Representative Isacson. If they had barbs, sir, let me say this: 
It is only because we feel that the attempt to stifle criticism is directed 
against precisely the sort of movement that the new party represents. 
What I say is therefore not political. 

The Chairman. Why, sir, we are allowing Henry Wallace to come 
here and talk for himself at 10 o'clock Saturday morning. You come 
over here and listen to him. 

Representative Isacson. May I suggest that you, allowing Mr. Wal- 
lace to talk, is not a matter of suffrance, but it is a matter of his right 
as an American citizen of quite some prominence to make known 
his views, which I am sure are of interest to you gentlemen. I would 
just like to say this in conclusion 

The Chairman. Let us get that straight. It is a matter of right 
that he can talk, but who talks before this committee is determined 
by this committee. 

Representative Isacson. I am very sure of that. 

The Chairman. Do not forget that. 

Representative Isacson. Wnat I am urging, sir 

The Chairman. When I said "allowed," I meant "allowed." 

Representative Isacson. What I am urging, sir, is that you allow 
the great number of prominent Americans in every walk of life who 
seek to express their position on this bill, and I am inclined to think 
there are so many that are against. I read some of the editorials 



64 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

in newspapers. I have seen very prominent educators all over the 
country startled by what this bill seeks to do. 

The Chairman. You mean they were startled by what was repre- 
sented that this bill intends to do. The misrepresentation that has 
gone out, and I know no better argument for the bill to be reported 
favorably than the tremendous number of telegrams and misrepre- 
sentative statements that have come in indicating that the Communists 
are organized and organized to the hilt from every State in the Union. 
Before this bill even came to this committee we had telegrams telling 
us what to do. 

Representative Isacson. Did you have thousands of telegrams, sir ? 

The Chairman. We had plenty of them. 

Representative Isacson. I want to suggest, sir, that those telegrams 
did not come from the Communists, but from the rank and file of 
America. 

The Chairman. How clo you know what the Communists do if you 
are not one ? 

Representative Isacson. Because if you have had the great number 
of thousands of telegrams that you refer to and the great piles of 
telegrams, I am saying, sir, that of necessity there aren't that many 
Communists and it must be that at least a few of those telegrams and 
letters must have come from the plain, ordinary citizens of America. 

The Chairman. That is right. They had very few Communists 
in dear little Finland. They did not have them in Czechoslovakia. 
The}' just got control of the key men and then they took over. The 
story is very definite. Even in Russia you haven't over 2 percent. 
That is, according to a Russian statement here in Washington made a 
few weeks ago. You get them into key positions where you take over, 
and that is the thing we are going to see is not going to be done in this 
country. 

Representative Isacson. My last statement- 



The Chairman. I assume you agree with that. Do you want the 
Communists to take over this country? 

Representative Isacson. Sir, I have said on the floor of the House 
ancl I say it now, that I believe in our American form of government 
and that it is because I believe in that form of government and love it 
that I am here opposing this bill, because I believe that existing legis- 
lation adequately deals with the one thing that it should deal with, 
and that is activities which are based on force and violence. As far as 
beliefs are concerned, as far, also, as free speech is concerned 

The Chairman. You did not answer my question. 

Rej:>resentative Isacson. I told you, sir, that I believe in this form 
of government and I hold this form of government dearer than any 
other form of government in the world. 

The Chairman. The question is, do you want the Communists to 
take over this country; "no" or "yes ,? would answer that question. 

Representative Isacson. Of course I do not. Of course I want 
this 

The Chairman. That is the answer, you did not have to make a 
political speech. 

Representative Isacson. I am not making a political speech. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further you want to say on the 
merits of the bill? 



be 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 65 

Representative Isacson. I would like to make this last statement, 
sir, just a sentence or so. 
The Chairman. Yes. 

Representative Isacson. I am considerably depressed over what is 
happening. I fear that the zeal with which this legislation is being 
prosecuted will be regretted for a long time by many of the people 
who are pushing it at this time. I think that we could all stand a little 
temperate analysis here, and we might do very well to see to it that 
the economic situation in our country is improved, that the civil 
liberties of our people are preserved, and, if these things are done, 
I am sure, sir, that we will not have to worry about the menace of any 
other form of government. 

I thank you very much for having allowed me this time here this 
morning. 

The Chairman. We want to thank you. You are a challenging 
young man. You have your ideas. If you believe in this system of 
ours as you say you do, and you love this country, and you love the 
freedoms 

Representative Isacson. That is why I am against the bill. 

The Chairman (continuing). And you love the freedoms that you 
say you do, then just keep your eyes open a little bit and your nose 
open a little bit to some of this Communist smell that is going on and 
you will help this country. We have not made any decision on this 
bill. Nobody has arrived at a decision. 

Representative Isacson. I am glad you said that and I hope some 
of the things I have said here today may be of some small influence. 
Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. Mr. Newcomb ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give is 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Newcomb. I do. 

The Chairman. Tell us who you are, Mr. Newcomb, and whom you 
represent. 

STATEMENT OF ELLIOTT H. NEWCOMB, NATIONAL EXECUTIVE 
DIRECTOR, AMVETS (AMERICAN VETERANS OF WORLD WAR II) 

Mr. Newcomb. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: My 
name is Elliott H. Newcomb. I am the national executive director of 
AMVETS, the Americans Veterans of World War II. 

Mr. Chairman, AMVETS since its inception has been unalterably 
opposed to communism and communism agitation in this country. 
Article 4 of our national constitution specifically provides : 

No person who is a member of, or who advocates the principles of, any organi- 
zation believing in, or working for, the overthrow of the United States Govern- 
ment by force, and no person who refuses to uphold and defend the Constitution 
of the United States shall be privileged to become or continue to be, a member 
of this organization. 

This constitutional provision has always been construed to mean 
that no person who belongs to the Communist Party or who espouses 
Communist principles shall be a member of AMVETS. 

AMVETS alone among the World War II organizations has never 
been accused of accepting Communists into its membership. 



66 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

We believe that what is healthy and good for AMVETS is healthy 
and good for the country at large ; we believe that some form of na- 
tional proscription against Communists is essential to the well-being 
of the Nation, too ; this belief is based on the firm conviction that no 
member of the Communist Party can maintain allegiance of this 
country so long as he obeys the dictates of the Communist Party, which 
has demostrated through scores of its actions that it is taking its orders 
from a foreign government. 

AMVETS' national commander, Edgar C. Corry, Jr., appeared 
before the House Committee on Un-American Activities February 10, 
1948, and asked that Congress take the following measures toward 
controlling the Communists in this country : 

1. That any person who is a member of the Communist Party or of 
any organization, association, or other combination of individuals 
which is dominated, directed, or controlled by the Communist Party 
be required to register publicly with the Department of Justice as an 
agent of a foreign principal. 

2. That all publications, papers, and any and all mediums of politi- 
cal propaganda disseminated by such persons or organizations be 
clearly labeled under the law for what it is, namely, Communist 
propaganda. 

3. That the postal regulations concerning the dissemination of the 
propaganda described above be drastically tightened to restrict their 
mailing privileges to first-class mail only. 

4. That the right of a Communist to be a candidate for any elective 
office or any political office be denied by law. 

5. That all aliens, whether Communists or not, be required to report 
their addresses once a year to the Justice Department and that the 
Justice Department be authorized to hold aliens for a definite length 
of time when their own countries refuse to take them back. 

6. That officers of all subversive groups be made personally re- 
sponsible for the registration of their groups under the existing Voor- 
his Act requiring registration of groups under foreign control aimed 
at overthrow of the Government by force. 

These measures have been substantially incorporated in H. R. 5852. 
AMVETS supports this bill. 

No Americans have made greater sacrifices to safeguard freedom 
in America than have the veterans of World War II. Today we con- 
tinue to jealously guard those freedoms which we successfully de- 
fended at such great cost during the recent horrible war. Many who 
oppose this bill have said that its provisions endanger our civil lib- 
erties — that thought control would result. Careful study of H. R. 
5852 should dispel these fears. No part of this legislation restrains 
any individual or organization from expressing ideas or convictions 
in any field so long as these beliefs are not fostered by undercover 
methods at the direction of a foreign government toward the establish- 
ment of a totalitarian dictatorship in the United States. How can 
the sincere defenders of civil liberties in this country fail to rally 
behind legislation aimed at those who would with the help of a for- 
eign government take away these very liberties in question by the es- 
tablishment of totalitarian dictatorship? 

If the Communist Party in the United States severed its relation- 
ship with Soviet Russia and gave up its undercover methods, H. R. 
5852 would not deny it the privilege of openly advocating it beliefs. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 67 

The very fact that the Communist Party opposes this legislation 
so violently is convincing evidence that they intend to remain a 
puppet manipulated by a foreign government. 

Under section 14 of H. R. 5852 is adequate safeguards for fair 
hearings before our Federal courts. No innocent parties have cause 
to be alarmed. Our Federal courts stand guard over civil liberties 
and the right to fair trial by the accused. 

Americans must awake to the fact that Communist Russia has over- 
rim more, countries since World War II than Hitler's Germany did in 
precipitating the war. The Communists prefer to attack from within 
but the results are the same. It would be a fatal mistake for Amer- 
icans to fail to defend themselves at home as well as on our frontiers. 
We urge the immediate passage of H. R. 5852. 

Senator Moore. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. The point you made about the Communists taking 
over foreign countries, they took over most of them without force 
and violence, too. 

Mr. Newcomb. Without obvious force and violence. 
The Chairman. In other words, they simply infiltrated, got the peo- 
ple to sleep. It Avas only 8 days before Czechoslovakia was taken over 
that we were told in the press and otherwise that Czechoslovakia was 
safe. Czechoslovakia was the greatest little democratic land in Eu- 
rope, they said. The Czechs would not stand for it. 

Are you a lawyer ? 

Mr. Newcomb. No. sir. 

The Chairman. Have you had any lawyers of your organization 
pass upon this measure? 

Mr. Newcomb. Yes, sir; we have; several have studied it carefully. 

The Chairman. Is it their opinion that the bill is constitutional? 

Mr. Newcomb. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And does not invade the civil or political rights of 
the citizens of this countiy? 

Mr. Newcomb. The} r have made a careful study and find no section 
of this bill, no provision of this bill, which invades the constitutional 
rights of any American citizen. 

The Chairman. I thank you. 

We stand adjourned until 9 o'clock in the morning. 

(Thereupon, at 12:30 p. m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene 
at 9 a. m., Friday. May 28, 1948.) 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 



FRIDAY, MAY 28, 1948 

United States Senate, 
Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, D. G. 
The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9 a. m., in room 
424, Senate Office Building, Senator Alexander Wiley (chairman) 
presiding. 

Present : Senators Wiley (chairman) , Ferguson, Revercomb, Moore, 
and Donnell. 

The Chairman. The meeting will come to' order. 
I want to state that last night when I got home I turned to Time mag- 
azine and I read in Time something from a gentleman, Justice Doug- 
las, ayIio has never been considered ultraconservative. I am going to 
read it into the record because it seems to me it confirms very well the 
preamble to the bill that we have here. I quote : 

Against a living democracy, the assaults of Communists will be unavailing. 
Communists assume that the basic problem in society is class warfare. But 
the only real aristocracy we know is the aristocracy of individual initiative 
and achievement. Men who work in overalls today can become corporation 
executives tomorrow. The lists are open to all ; and the ribbons go to the fleet. 
Class warfare and the American character are foreign to each other. 

Communists adopt the tactics of parliamentary government, but their pur- 
pose is to seduce the liberals, mislead the conservatives, and confuse everyone. 
A truly liberal government is an anathema to them. They do not want reform 
for others. They want power for themselves. 

Communists' techniques have been the political tools of tyrants from time 
immemorial : murder and terror. We refuse to accept fraud and deceit as 
standards of public conduct. We reject murder and terror as political 
weapons * * *. 

I want to say to the witnesses who are to testify that we are inter- 
ested in this bill to ascertain, first, whether it is a practical answer to 
this problem that is presented so very well in these words of Justice 
Douglas. 

Second, Is it constitutional? If it is neither, what constructive sug- 
gestions have you to meet the menace that everyone admits is alive ? 
I want to say for the record that the telegrams are pouring in. I 
suppose this morning another thousand have come in, and letters 
have come in opposing this bill. They lend no light to the subject. 
They are just well-organized opposition. This committee wants light. 
We want the truth that will solve this problem that is so evident in 
the world and evident in America. If this is not the solution, what 
is the solution? We do not want political speeches. We want inter- 
pretation of law. 

We assume, as Justice Douglas here assumes, because he, as I say, is 
not put down in the category of an ultraconservative — we assume the 

69 



70 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

fact that communism exists, that it is a threat to every system of or- 
ganized government based on the liberal theory of life. It is a threat 
to our Government. 

I want to answer an inference made by one Congressman who in- 
ferred that because you attempt to build up against crime, you are 
against evolution, you are against growth, you are against develop- 
ment. That was just poppycock. But if we have to have a police 
state, we had better have the police state under the rule of Americans 
rather than under the rule of foreign Communists such as exists in 
other lands. We do pray, however, that a police state will never be 
necessary ; we abhor gestapos and gestapo methods. 

So, for the witnesses who testify today, let it be on the question of 
whether there is an invasion of the civil or political rights of citizens. 
Is there a remedy for the situation that we face in America ? We are 
looking for the answer. 

So, Congressman Vito Marcantonio, we are glad to have you here, 
We understand that you oppose the present measure. We welcome 
your ideas on the subject. 

Representative Marcantonio. Thank you. 

The Chairman. If you will be sworn, please. Do you solemnly 
swear the evidence you will give in this matter is the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Representative Marcantonio. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. VITO MARCANTONIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

The Chairman. Proceed, Congressman. 

Representative Marcantonio. My name is Vito Marcantonio, a 
Member of the House of Representatives. 

In dealing with this proposed legislation I have come to the con- 
clusion, after a great deal of serious study and research, that if this 
proposed legislation became law, it would constitute the most sub- 
versive attack against our form of government. This legislation is 
an innovation. It substitutes for our form of government as we 
have known it a new system of determination of guilt. 

When the founding fathers, gentlemen, drew up the Constitution 
of ours, they did not just draw a diagram and divide the Government 
into three branches. They had good reasons for setting up an execu- 
tive, a legislative, and a judicial branch. These reasons went all the 
way back to the Magna Carta. Separate powers were established 
in order to prevent the abuses that had existed under a system where- 
by either the executive or the legislative could bring about determina- 
tion of guilt. In establishing the judicial branch of our govern- 
ment, the distinct reason for that was to prevent legislative and execu- 
tive determination of guilt. 

In order to insure the rights of the individuals, the liberties of the 
people, the judicial branch was established, to protect citizens against 
legislative determination of guilt, and executive determination of 
guilt where the abuses which the royal parliaments had been guilty 
of, and the abuses which the kings of every land had been guilty of. 

So we find even in the first article of the Constitution a certain pro- 
hibition. We find that in section 9 of the Constitution, article I, which 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 71 

prohibits the finding of guilt by legislative fiat which specifically 
prohibits enactment of any bill of attainder. 

Senator Ferguson. "What section do you have specific reference to? 

Representative Marcantonio. I will come to that, Senator. What 
is that, sir? 

Senator Ferguson. In the bill, what section? 

Representative Marcantonio. I will come to that. I would like to 
develop my thesis. 

Senator Ferguson. Could you name it now so I know what you are 
talking about? 

Representative Marcantonio. You can take every section. I will 
give them to you one by one. The legislative determination of guilt 
is established as follows. First, we have the legislative findings in 
section 2 of the bill. 

Senator Ferguson. They are findings of fact. 

Representative Marcantonio. They are findings of fact. Legisla- 
tion, effective findings of fact. 

Senator Ferguson. They convict no one of any crime. 

Representative Marcantonio. Yes; they do. 

Senator Ferguson. Are you a lawyer? 

Representative Marcantonio. I certainly am. 

Senator Ferguson. You say they convict a person of a crime? 

Representative Marcantonio. Yes ; and I should show you how it 
does. I will answer your question. You have to read section 2 in 
connection with section 3, definitions. Then you go to section 13, 
which confers on the Attorney General the administrative powers. 

Senator Ferguson. You have an appeal there to the court. 

Representative Marcantonio. An appeal to the court is not a sub- 
stitute, not an adequate substitue for what is provided in amendment 
No. 6 of the Constitution, which is a jury trial. 

Senator Ferguson.- I understand that today, or within a short time 
the Attorney General, without any right to appeal to a court, will issue 
a statement to the loyalty board as to what are Communist fronts. 
There is no appeal from that one. 

Representative Marcantonio. I definitely quarrel with that pro- 
cedure also, but there is this distinction to be made, that under that 
procedure we find no criminal statute created. If you will permit me 
to proceed, I want to develop my thought on this. I am sure that while 
I may not answer to your satisfaction, at least it will constitute what 
I deem to be an answer to the question that you have just raised. 

We first find that we have in existence now two statutes. We have 
the Voorhis Act and we have the McCormack Act. The Voorhis Act 
provides that any person who is a foreign agent must register. The 
McCormack Act provides that any person who advocates willfully the 
overthrow of the Government by force and violence is guilty of a 
felony. Bearing those two acts in mind, we go to the necessity of the 
legislation or why this bill was conceived. 

The Attorney General testified before the House committee, and 
I have the hearings here, and you will find that the tenor of his testi- 
mony as to the failure to prosecute under these two acts was what ) 
The lack of evidence, that there was no evidence that the Communist 
Party 



72 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Senator Ferguson. Did you know that Mr. Bicldle back in January 
1942 did find that the Communist Party was an instrumentality to 
overthrow this Government by force and violence % 

Representative Marcantonio. Then certainly Mr. Biddle should 
have taken the Communist Party to court and prosecuted it under 
the McCormack Act. 

Senator Ferguson. I agree with you. 

Representative Marcantonio. But the reason he did not do so I 
think is not due to dereliction. The reason he did not do so is that 
he had no evidence to sustain his findings. 

Senator Ferguson. Do I understand that you have in mind that 
communism is a menace to America ? 

Representative Marcantonio. What is a menace to America is not 
communism. 

Senator Ferguson. Then I understand that you see no need 

Representative Marcantonio. What is a menace to America as I 
see it is the failure of monopoly capital to provide adequate homes, 
What we are doing in bottling up the T-E-W (Taft-Ellender-Wagner) 
bill is a menace to America. 

Senator Ferguson. Get back to my question. 

Representative Marcantonio. You opened the door and I would 
like to walk through it. 

Senator Ferguson. Just a minute. Do you believe that communism 
is a menace to America today ? 

Representative Marcantonio. No, I do not; and I think that that 
is the bogey that is being raised. I am going to complete my answer, 
Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. I want you to. 

Representative Marcantonio. If you please. I think that that is 
the bogey that is being raised to conceal and cover up the failure 
on the part of the big trusts who control the picture today to per- 
form in behalf of the common people of this country and so we raise 
the Red bogey in order to cover up the program of war and depres- 
sion that the big trusts are throwing the American people into. Let 
us see what are the dangers. 

Senator Ferguson. That is an answer. 

Representative Marcantonio. I haven't completed my answer. 

Senator Ferguson. Oh, you have not completed it. 

Representative Marcantonio. No, I have not ; because we ought to 
get down to facts. 

Senator Ferouson. My question, you know, was whether or not 
you believed that communism was a menace. You can answer it 
"yes" or "no." 

Representative Marcantonio. Those questions are not limited to a 
"yes" or "no" answer. I do not think that is fair. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you think any legislation is essential to cope 
with communism in America ? 

Representative Marcantonio. No ; no legislation at all. You have 
enough legislation to cope with acts of violence, conspiracy to over- 
throw the Government. You have legislation to cope with any overt 
act. But what is important here, what is the important consideration, 
is, are you going to enact legislation which is subversive of our 
Bill of Rights. That is the issue that is involved as far as this bill 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 73 

is concerned, and I maintain Ave should stick to the issue. But com- 
pleting my answer to your previous questions- 



Senator Ferguson. As to whether Communists are a menace- 



Representative Marcantonio. Let us see what is the menace in this 
country. 

Senator Ferguson. I did not ask you what the menace was. 

Representative Makcantonio. It is not a menace. I say the Com- 
munist bogey is being used to cover all 

Senator Ferguson. Is not that just what the Communists say, merely 
what you are saying here is the Communist line, is it not? 

Representative Marcantonio. Is that so ? 

Senator Ferguson. Is it not? 

Representative Marcantonio. Let me tell you something, sir. 

Senator Ferguson. Is it not? 

Senator Donnell. A point of order. Just a minute, please. The 
witness need not raise his voice to a point here that makes it extremely 
difficult to follow this matter without irritation. I think he should be 
permitted to testify. 

Representative Marcantonio. I should be permitted to complete 
mv answers. 

Senator Ferguson. That is correct. 

Representative Marcantonio. Then may I complete my answer? 

Senator Ferguson. I asked you the question, is that not the Com- 
munist line, the one that you were giving. 

Representative Marcantonio. I will answer your questions one at a 
time. 

Senator Ferguson. Answer that one. 

Representative Marcantonio. I will answer that one first. I do 
not care who savs the same thing. The Communists wear clothes. 
I am not going to advocate the establishment of a nudist colony. The 
point is, is it correct or is it not correct ? The Communists also advo- 
cate FEPC, and I understand you do, too, Senator. Are you following 
the Communist line? 

Senator Ferguson. I asked you whether or not the statement you 
made about the trusts and so forth is not the Communist line. 

Representative Marcantonio. That statement is the statement of 
every liberal progressive American. 

Senator Ferguson. Is it the Communist line? 

Representative Marcantonio. The Communists also say the same 
thing. 

Senator Ferguson. All right. 

Representative Marcantonio. But that does not make that line a 
Moscow line or a Communist line, and it does not give the Communists 
a monopoly in the fight against the trusts. 

Senator Ferguson. Are the American Communists under the Com- 
munist domination of Moscow or Soviet Communists? 

Representative Marcantonio. I refer you to United States v. 
Schneider man. Let us see what the Supreme Court says about that. 

Senator Ferguson. You tell us what you think about it. 

Representative Marcantonio. I am bound by the law, and I will 
tell you what the Supreme Court says about that in United States v. 
Schneiderman. 



74 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Senator Ferguson. Xo; but what are the facts, not what the law is. 

Representative Marcantonio. All right, then let us look at the facts. 

Senator Ferguson. Are they under Moscow? 

Representative Marcantonio. The facts are that they are definitely 
not. If you had any proof that they were, why did not the Attorney 
General prosecute them ? You have the Voorhis Act. If there was 
any evidence that they were under the control of a foreign government,, 
that would constitute them as foreign agents under the Voorhis Act. 
That is a matter of court proof. That has never been established. 

Senator Ferguson. I was asking you about the fact. 

Representative Marcantonio. The fact is that no eveidence has been 
submitted to any court, and there has never been any judicial finding in 
the affirmative. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you have any knowledge as to whether or 
not the American Communists are under the domination of the Soviets ? 

Representative Marcantonio. I have no intimate knowledge on 
that subject. 

Senator Ferguson. Have you intimate or any other knowledge ? 

Representative Marcantonio. No. The only knowledge I have is 
the knowledge that every American Congressman has on this sub- 
ject, and that is this, that we have a Voorhis Act. The Voorhis Act 
provides for registration of any group of persons who are under 
foreign domination. If they do not register, the Attorney General 
can prosecute. There has been no prosecution. Therefore that proves 
in my estimation that they have no evidence to that effect, because it 
they had, certainly the Attorney General would have prosecuted. 

The Chairman. In that connection, I want to ask you a question. 
If there is not any influence from Russia, how do you explain the 
change, in attitude of the Communists in this country immediately 
after Hitler invaded Russia? 

Representative Marcantonio. Let me state this, gentlemen : I have 
come here to testify on this bill. 

The Chairman. I want you to testify on the bill and I prefer' that 
you keep to that line. 

Representative Marcantonio. That is what I have been doing. 

The Chairman. You have opened this up. Will you answer my 
question ? 

Representative Marcantonio. I haven't opened it up. The Senator 
asked me questions. 

Senator Ferguson. I wanted to know. 

Representative Marcantonio. Exactly, and I have answered the 
questions to the best of my ability except that I have not completed 
one answer, and then I would like to complete that and then come 
back to your question, Senator Wiley. 

As to menace. I say that the facts demonstrate continuously and 
conclusively that the Communists are not responsible for high prices. 
and that is a menace to the economy of the American people. 

The Chairman. Do not get into that, gentlemen. 

Representative Marcantonio. That is very important, I submit that 
the Communists are not responsible for lack of housing, and that is 
a menace to the best interests of the American people. I say the Com- 
munists are not responsible for segregation and Jim Crow and that is 
a definite menace to the democracy of the American people. I could 
go right down the line. What was your question again, Senator? 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 75 

The Chairman. Forget it. Get on to the law. 

Representative Marcantonio. Fine. Let us get back to the law. 

As 1 w,as saying, we have the Voorhis Act and the McCormack 

Act. There has been no prosecution under those acts. The Attorney 
General has testified before the House committee to the effect that 
there has been no evidence that could stand up in court. 

The Chairman. You are talking to the point that there is no neces- 
sity for the act. 

Representative Marcantonio. I am talking to the point of why 
this bill was conceived. So, being confronted with the fundamental 
proposition of lack of evidence, being confronted with this language 
m the Schneiderman case, which I think is very, very important — in 
the Schneiderman case the Supreme Court said, as follows : 

There is a material difference between agitation and exhortation, calling 
for present violent action which creates a clear and present danger of public 
disorder substantive evil, and mere doctrinal justification or prediction of the 
use of force under hypohetical conditions at some indefinite future time. 

Being confronted with the subsequent decision in the Bridges 
case which reaffirmed the principles laid down in the Schneider- 
man case, being confronted also with the prohibition that exists in 
section 9 of article I against a bill of attainder, being confronted 
with the due process amendment No. 5, being confronted with amend- 
ment No. with respect to jury trial, this committee of the House 
then attempted to do by indirection what the Constitution, the 
Supreme Court interpretations, prohibited it from doing directly. 

How does it do it by indirection? That brings us to the bill. 

We have definitions here under section 3 which defines what is a 
Communist political organization. These definitions, incidentally, 
are very, very loose. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? 

Could you give us your definition of an American Communist? 
Then we will get to what the act tries to do. What is an American 
Communist, in }^our opinion? 

Representative Marcantonio. That is just the point. I will answer 
your question as follows: That is just the point. I think you have 
nit the nail on the head, Senator. 

Senator Ferguson. What is an American Communist? 

Representative Marcantonio. I have the idea you hit the nail on 
the head when you said that is what the act is trying to do. When 
the act is attempting to outlaw the Communist Party or to outlaw 
Communists, it is therefore enacting a bill of attainder. 

Senator Ferguson. I do not agree that it does that at all. 

Representative Marcantonio. You say it is attempting to do it 

Senator Ferguson. You give us your definition of what an Ameri- 
can Communist is. 

Representative Marcantonio. I am not a student of Marxism to the 
extent of being able to tell you what is an American Communist, and 
I am not going to get into that subject. I prefer not to be diverted 
from the discussion that I am iioav making on the bill. 

Senator Ferguson. How can we tell this is loose if we do not know 
what an American Communist is? 

Representative Marcantonio. I am giving you an answer as to why 
it is loose. Let us read this. The term, Communist political organ- 

78257—48 6 



76 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

ization means any organization in the United States having some, but 
not necessarily all, of the ordinary and usual characteristics of a politi- 
cal party with respect to which, having regard to some or all of the 
following characteristics. What are the characteristics? 

The extent and nature of its activities, including the expression of views and 
policies. 

Senator, you have been a good criminal lawyer. 

Senator Ferguson. I have never been a criminal lawyer. 

Representative Marcantonio. You have been a prosecutor. 

Senator Ferguson. I have never been a prosecutor. 

Representative Marcantonio. I am sorry. I thought you were. 

The Chairman. We can agree on that now, can we not ? 

Representative Marcantonio. That is one thing on which there is 
no disagreement. Under that language, how can a defendant be con- 
fronted with a specific charge? What do we mean by the extent and 
nature of its activities, including the expression of views and policies. 
How do you line that up with the first amendment to the Constitution ? 

Let us go further. Another one : 

The extent to which its policies are formulated and carried out and its activi- 
ties performed. Pursuant to directives or to effectuate the policies of the foreign 
government or foreign governmental or political organization in which is vested, 
or under the domination or control of which is exercised, the direction and con- 
trol of the world Communist movement referred to in section 2 of this act. * * *. 

It is as wide as the world. I could pick out any one of these 10 con- 
siderations and place them under the same test of looseness, under the 
same test of vagueness, and I am sure, Senator, that the courts will 
say to this Congress, if we enact this kind of legislation, just what have 
you done, gentlemen ? What kind of criminal statute have you enacted 
here ? 

. The Chairman. Up to the present you have come to the conclusion 
that communism is not a menace. Second, that even if it were, this 
bill, in your judgment, is so indefinite and uncertain that it would not 
be the answer. 

Representative Marcantonio. No, no. It is worse than that. Under 
this bill you could take in anybody and everything, and I will show 
vou how, Senator. 

May I bring you to section 2, again, page 8, line 4. The Attorney 
General, and looking over any 1 of these 10 considerations, any 1 
of these 10 characteristics, saying and pointing out their loose char- 
acteristics, if it is then for him, }'OU see, for the Attorney General — 
test one, who is to establish who is a Communist or what is a Com- 
munist political organization, if it is reasonable to conclude, if it is 
reasonable for the Attorney General to conclude 

Senator Donnell. Mr. Chairman, I do not see, Mr. Marcantonio, 
where it says anything about the Attorney General there. It says the 
term, "Communist political organization 7 ' means any organization, et 
cetera, with respect to which, having regard to all these considerations, 
it is reasonable to conclude. 

Representative Marcantonio. That is right. Then you have to read 
section 3, the definitions section, with section 13, the administrative 
section. 

Senator Donnell. Could you tell us, please, Mr. Marcantonio, where 
you read into line 1 any discussion of the Attorney General? 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 77 

Representative Marcantonio. I am coming to that. First we take 
the language on line 4 — 

it is reasonable to conclude that it is under the control of such foreign government 
or foreign governmental or political organization. 

Now, let us turn to section 13 — 

Seo. 13. (a) Whenever (1) in the case of any organization which is not 
registered under section 8 of this act the Attorney General has reason to believe 
that such an organization is a political organization or a Communist front or- 
ganization. * * * 

Senator Donnell. Pardon me. That does not leave it to the At- 
torney General to determine whether or not the organization is a Com- 
munist political organization, does it? 

Representative Marcantonio. Oh, yes. 

Senator Donnell. Does it not provide that in the case where he has 
reason to believe ? It is a question of the existence of the reason, rather 
than any arbitrary discretion on the part of the Attorney General. Is 
that not true ? 

Representative Marcantonio. Except that we give him this power. 
By reading section 13 together with section 3, the Attorney General 
may say to the XYZ organization, "I have reason to believe that you 
are a Communist political organization. I am going to give you a hear- 
ing. You come before me." I charge you with being a Communist 
political organization and I submit whatever evidence I have to the 
Attorney General to the effect that you are a Communist political or- 
ganization. I am guided by what ? I am guided by section 2 by defini- 
tion. Correct, Senator? 

Senator Donnell. I do not just know what you mean by your 
question there. 

Representative Marcantonio. The Attorney General in determin- 
ing whether or not this organization is a Communist political organiza- 
tion, whether or not the XYZ organization is a Communist organiza- 
tion, is bound by the definitions as set forth in the law. 

Senator Donnell. I do not mean to interrupt the continuity of your 
testimony. I am very anxious to hear all your testimony in full. The 
thought I had in mind, however, is that at page 8, line 4, 1 understood 
you to construe that to vest in the Attorney General discretion to de- 
termine whether it is the reasonable conclusion that the organization 
is under the control of a foreign government. 

Representative Marcantonio. That is right. 

Senator Donnell. Then you do by reference to section 13 ? 

Representative Marcantonio. That is correct. 

Senator Donnell. As I read it — I may be wrong — but as I read 
it that does not vest in the Attorney General any arbitrary power. 
It prescribes that whenever, as a matter of fact, he has reason to 
believe, not what he may think he has reason to believe. 

Representative Marcantonio. That is right. 

Senator Donnell. I think your criticism might much better be 
addressed to section 10 where it is said that it shall be unlawful for 
any individual to become or remain a member of any organization if 
there is an effective, final order of the Attorney General requiring 
such organization to register. 

Representative Marcantonio. That is another matter. 



78 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Senator Donnell. I raised that question yesterday, and I want to» 
give consideration to it. 

Representative Marcantonio. Definitely. 

Senator Donnell. I do not want to interrupt the continuity of your 
testimony but I did think I would like to get your theory on line 4,. 
page 8. 

Kepresentative Marcantonio. Section 10 is an entirely different 
matter, on which I agree with your criticism. In fact, I am going to 
urge some criticism in connection with it. 

Senator Donnell. I am not saying, Mr. Marcantonio, I have come 
to a final conclusion on section 10.' I raised that question with Mr. 
Richberg. 

Representative Marcantonio. I will urge criticism on section 10 r 

but coming back to section 3 

Senator Donnell. Line 4 of page 8 ? 

Representative Marcantonio. Yes, sir. Coming back to section 13, 
section 13 gives to the Attorney General the power to hold hearings,, 
to subpena people, and after these hearings he is to determine whether 
or not an organization is a Communist political organization. 

Senator Donnell. Page 23, line 7. 

Representative Marcantonio. Correct. What guide do we give to- 
the Attorney General ? Where do we find a guide ? We find it in the 
definitions, do we not, as to what is a Communist political organiza- 
tion? 

Senator Donnell. I think you are correct. 

Representative Marcantonio. In giving him a guide, let us see what 
the guide is. "It is reasonable to conclude." That is the yardstick 
that we give to the Attorney General in the definitions. 

Isn't that correct, sir ? Do you follow me ? 

Senator Donnell. I think it is, but is not that the same general rule 
that is applicable, for illustration in a negligence case? As I see it r 
the statement that the term "Communist political organization" means 
any organization having certain characteristics from which it is reason- 
able to conclude it is under the control of such foreign government is 
no more violative of the reasonable principles to be incorporated in the 
statutes than is the rule that is applicable in a negligence case. A man 
is responsible for the exercise of a reasonable degree of care. Am I 
not right on that? 

Representative Marcantonio. May I answer the Senator's question ? 

Senator Ferguson. May I put in one word. The negligent homi- 
cide statute. 

Senator Donnell. The same principle would be applicable there. 
I do not want to interfere with you unduly, Mr. Marcantonio, but the 
point to which I would like to have you address yourself, is whether 
or not this is vesting in some official an arbitrary exercise of power. 
I think we would all like to hear you on that. 

Representative Mai;cantonio. Exactly. 

Senator Donnell. Thus far, it would appear to me that the portion 
to which you have referred, namely that on page 8. does not, nor that 
in section 13 does not, it seems to me, vest in the Attorney General any 
such arbitrary power. 

Representative Marcantonio. So we have to confine ourselves here- 
to what? To bearing in mind that we are creating here a criminal 
statute. In your negligence cases as well in negligent homicide 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 79 

•cases, who makes the determination? It is a judicial determination. 
Isn't that correct? It is a determination by the courts. In other 
words, the determination of guilt has always rested with the courts. 

Senator Donnell. You do not understand, Mr. Marcantonio, that 
under this statute a conviction could be secured because the Attorney 
General decides that a certain particular organization is a Commu- 
nist-front organization ? 

Representative Marcantonio. Exactly. 

Senator Donnell. Where do you get that conclusion? 

Representative Marcantonio. I will come to that. I am awfully 
glad you asked that question. Now we are getting down to the heart 
of the situation. 

The Chairman. We have had 35 minutes. We had better get at 
the heart. 

Senator Donnell. Perhaps I had better not interrupt you any 
further. 

Representative Marcantonio. I have been asked a lot of extraneous 
•questions. If we had confined ourselves to the bill I think we would 
have gotten along much further. 

The Chairman. You suggested the issues, as I saw them, in the 
beginning. 

Representative Marcantonio. May I answer the Senator? I think 
lie raised an interesting question. 

The Chairman. Let me finish my sentence, I am presiding at this 
table, sir. I suggested at the beginning what I thought w T as the issue. 
I think one of those issues was brought out very clearly by Senator 
Donnell's question. I will be glad to have you answer that question 
and then carry on because we can travel along here for weeks and get 
nowhere. 

Representative Marcantonio. Heretofore, until we have had this 
legislation, the determination of guilt has been by the courts, jury 
trial, amendment No. 6; due process, amendment No. 5. Here the 
determination of guilt is first by legislation and then by administra- 
tive decree. Under section 2 we have legislative findings, and I call 
your attention to subsection 6 of section 2. The language there : 

The political organizations so established and utilized in various countries, 
acting under such control, direction, and discipline, endeavor to carry out the 
objectives of the world Communist movement by bringing about the overthrow 
of existing governments and setting up Communist totalitarian dictatorships 
which will be subservient to the most powerful existing Communist totalitarian 
dictatorship. 

Now we go to section 4. This is the felony section : 

To attempt in any manner to establish in the United States a totalitarian 
dictatorship, the direction or control of which is to be vested in or exercised by 
or under the domination or control of any foreign government, foreign organ- 
ization, or foreign individual. 

You note that language, and you compare that with the language in 
subsection 6. It is almost identical. Under section 2 we have the 
loose definitions as to what is a Communist political organization, and 
section 13, the Attorney General finds under the power vested in him 
under section 13 that the XYZ organization is a Communist political 
organization pursuant to the definitions under section 3. 

The XYZ organization, its members, and its officers are subsequently 
indicted first, let us say, under section 13, the penalty section. They 



80 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

are indicted for failure to register, for not having registered after they 
have been directed to register. What defense has that organization ? 
The only question that can be raised is whether or not (1) did the 
Attorney General issue the order; (2) did the organization register 
or did the organization not register? The substantive question of 
whether or not that organization is a Communist political organiza- 
tion, whether or not that organization constitutes a clear and present 
danger, whether or not that organization seeks to establish a totali- 
tarian dictatorship under the control of a foreign power — those sub- 
stantive questions are all predetermined by the findings of the Attorney 
General. 

So, for all practical purposes, the XYZ organization is given no 
jury trial whatsoever. 

Then we go further and see what happens under section 4. 

Senator Donnell. Pardon me. Mr. Marcantonio. Does not the 
proposed statute in section 13 give a judicial review to any action by 
the Attorney General ? 

Representative Marcantonio. Yes. On that proposition here you 
have a judicial review by the circuit court of appeals, and the findings 
of fact are not to be disturbed if they are sustained by a preponderance 
of the evidence. But that does not constitute a judicial trial. 

You are determining the guilt on the substantive proposition of 
whether or not the XYZ organization, to save words, is a subversive 
organization. 

Senator Donnell. Your point is that the statute does not afford a 
jury trial. 

Representative Marcantonio. Exactly, sir. 

Senator Donnell. Therefore you deem it unconstitutional. 

Representative Marcantonio. I deem it unconstitutional on that, 
proposition, but worse than that, sir, it substitutes for our time-hon- 
ored system of judicial determination* of guilt two doctrines that are 
alien and repugnant to our Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence and 
to our Bill of Rights, and that is determination of guilt and determi- 
nation of guilt by judicial decree. We have legislative fiat established 
by the language in section 2. 

I will tell you why, sir. Let us say that XYZ members are indicted 
under section 4. After the XYZ organization has been decreed 

Senator Donnell. A jury trial exists under section 4. 

Representative Marcantonio. That is right, and a jury trial exists. 
The XYZ organization, its members and officers are indicted for hav- 
ing violated section 4. This is after the Attornev General has issued 
an order to the effect that the XYZ organization is a Communist 
political organization. What happens at that trial? First of all, the 
court is bound to charge as a matter of law. legislative findings in 
section 2. Isn't that correct ? 

Senator Donnell. Pardon me, Mr. Marcantonio. Section 4 does 
not refer, does it, to any findings by the Attorney General? 

Representative Marcantonio. I am showing you how that comes 
about. 

Senator Donnell. Very well. 

Representative Marcantonio. Senator, section 4 states: 

to attempt in any manner to establish in the United States a totalitarian dicta- 
torship, the direction and control of which is to be vested in — 

and so on and so forth. 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 81 

The Attorney General under section 13 has found that the XYZ 
organization is a Communist political organization. What does that 
mean '. It means that the members of that organization are members 
of what? They are members of a Communist political organization 
as defined in section 3 and as established by legislative findings in 
section 2. Subsection 6 of section 2 states that such an organization 
seeks to overthrow the Government by force and violence. It is on 
page 3. And that the section seeks to establish in its place a totali- 
tarian dictatorship under the control of a foreign power. That is a 
legislative finding. Is that correct, sir ? 

Senator Donnell. Go ahead with your statement. I want to hear 
your argument. 

Representative Marcantonio. So now the trial takes place. The 
prosecutor proves that the XYZ organization has been found by the 
Attorney General to be an organization which is a Communist politi- 
cal organization. The Attorney General has found that. There has 
even been a court review, and the court review has sustained the find- 
ings of the Attorney General. Assuming the best for the other side. 
That is proved by the Attorney General. What defense is left to Mr. 
Smith, who is an officer or member of that organization? His at- 
torney says, "Your Honor, I ask Your Honor to charge that the jury 
must find on competent evidence that the XYZ organization is a Com- 
munist political organization and that the XYZ organization is an 
organization that seeks to overthrow the Government by force and 
violence, that the XYZ organization is an organization that seeks to 
establish a totalitarian dictatorship, before this jury can find this 
defendant guilty of having violated section 4." 

The court is constrained to refuse to so charge. Then the prose- 
cutor can request and properly request that the court must charge 
that John Smith, being a member of the XYZ organization which the 
Attorney General has found to be a Communist political organization. 
Then the court must charge the law, if so requested, and what is the 
law? The law is the legislative finding in section 6. The judge then 
must turn around to the jury and say, "The XYZ organization, which 
is found to be a Communist political organization, is the following: 
It is a political organization established and utilized in various coun- 
tries acting under such control, direction, and discipline, endeavoring 
to carry out the objectives of the world Communist movement by 
bringing about the overthrow of existing governments and setting up 
Communist totalitarian dictatorships which will be subservient," and 
so forth. 

So the legislative findings here constitute the predetermination of 
defendant's guilt under section 13, under section 4, also, a predeter- 
mination of defendant's guilt on the substantive question of whether or 
not his activity is a subversive activity. 

Why has this been done? There is a reason for this, sir. There 
is a reason for this circumvention of judicial process. It is because 
there has been no evidence, according to the Attorney General himself, 
to act under the Voorhis Act. He has had no evidence to act under 
the McCormack Act. He has had no evidence to bring the Communist 
Party to court and say this organization and its members and its 
officers are foreign agents. 

He could not prove it by court evidence. He could not prove it by 
judicial process. He could not prove it. He could not prove that 



82 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

the Communist Party advocates the overthrow of the Government by- 
force and violence in violation of the McCormack Act. There is no 
evidence to do that. 

So, finding itself unable to comply with the time-honored juris- 
prudence of ours by determining by judicial process, this bill is worked 
out to bypass judicial process and substitute in its place legislative 
finding of guilt under section 2 and section 3 and administrative find- 
ing of guilt under section 13 and section 14. 

There is one thought I want to leave with you, Senator. After 
having studied this bill carefully, will the question of whether or not, 
and after all we are living in America, and we are living by a system 
of law that we all believe to be excellent. It has been tried time and 
time again under fire and serious fire, and it has stood up. That 
system has been judicial determination of guilt. The fifth amend- 
ment, the sixth amendment, section 9 of article I of the Constitution, 
prohibition against a bill of attainder — all enacted because of abuses 
that had taken place. 

What kind of abuses? Legislative determination of guilt, executive 
determination of guilt. All this system was enacted to do away with 
that. 

Let me ask this question that I would like to leave with the gen- 
tlemen of the committee. Whether or not the Communist Party advo- 
cates the overthrow of the Government by force and violence, under 
this bill do we not take that question away from the court and jury 
and establish it by legislative finding? 

The answer is "yes." Whether or not the Communist Party seeks 
to establish a totalitarian dictatorship? Do we not take that away 
from the court and jury by the provisions of this bill? The answer 
is "yes." 

Whether or not the Communist Party constitutes a clear and present 
danger? Do we not take that away from the court and jury? The 
answer is "yes." 

So we have circumvented, or if enacted we circumvent by this bill 
the constitutional prohibitions against a bill of attainder, against 
legislative determination of guilt, against executive determination of 
guilt. 

We seek to circumvent the findings of the Supreme Court in the 
Schneiderman case, and we bypass the proposition that before you can 
find a man guilty of any crime you have to submit proof in a court 
which will prove beyond a reasonable doubt the guilt of that person. 
That time-honored system is placed on the scrap heap, and it is done 
under this hysteria such as was revealed by one of the questions this 
morning. 

Is communism a menace? Is it not a menace? Building up this 
hysteria, this anti-Red bogey Frankenstein, which is marching with 
seven-league boots every day, destroying the democratic rights of 
every American. 

Senator Donnell. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Marcantonio has given us 
very clearly his views. I would like to state in two or three sentences 
the fact that I cannot see the point that he makes as applicable to 
section 4 of this bill. Section 4 declares it to be unlawful for any 
person to do any one or more of certain acts, one of which is to at- 
tempt in any manner to establish in the United States a totalitarian 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 83 

dictatorship, the direction and control of which is to be vested in any 
foreign government, et cetera. 

Then any person who violates it shall upon conviction thereof be 
punished. The offense may be prosecuted at any time without regard 
to any statute of limitations. I fail to find anything in that section, 
Mr. Chairman, which vests in the Attorney General, or anybody else, 
except the court and jury, the power to determine whether or not the 
violation charged has occured. It seems to me there is not the slight- 
est deprivation of the right of the defendant to be tried in court, and 
the determination is to be made. The prosecution, it would seem to 
me, must establish as a fact that the defendant has performed one of 
these acts; for illustration, to establish a totalitarian dictatorship. 
There might be well raised the question as to whether or not the bill 
is adequate in its definition of what is totalitarian dictatorship, but 
assuming that the definition is clear on that, then the prosecution 
must establish, as I see it, an act on the part of the defendant in 
attempting to establish that. 

The proof must be, of course, in accordance with the general law 
governing criminal cases. I take it no man could be convicted unless 
the evidence adduced were sufficient in quantity and quality under the 
general rules of law. 

So I fail to see, notwithstanding the very clear and forcible presen- 
tation made by Mr. Marcantonio, any danger at all under section 4. 
I do think it is well for us to give attention to his further point. We 
should, of course, give attention to all his points, and will, but I think 
his further point as to whether or not an undue power is vested in the 
Attorney General is worthy of careful thought and consideration. I 
am not thus far convinced that there is any undue power vested in the 
Attorney General, but I do think Mr. Marcantonio's point there is 
certainly worthy of careful thought, but I see no ground for the appre- 
hension which he suggests under section 4. 

Representative Marcantonio. May I dwell on section 4 just a 
moment, sir ? 

Senator Donnell. Yes, sir. 

Representative Marcantonio. We talk of a defendant; that de- 
fendant, if he is a member of the XYZ organization, the XYZ 
organization has been found by the Attorney General under section 
13, by the power vested in him in section 13, has been found bv the 
Attorney General to be a Communist political organization. What 
does a Communist political organization do? You find that in the 
legislative finding of fact, subsection 6 of section 2. 

Senator Donnell. Section 4 does not refer to a Communist political 
organization at all, does it? 

Representative Marcantonio. No. I am coming to it. Just a 
moment. Remember the language in subsection 6, section 2, sir. That 
says that a Communist political organization is set up to do what? 
To establish a totalitarian regime under the control of a foreign power. 
What is the substantive crime here in section 4. The substantive 
crime here in section 4 is what ? To attempt to establish in any manner. 
So that John Smith, as a member of the XYZ organization, which 
has been proscribed by the Attorney General to be a Communist 
political organization, which under section 2, subsection 6, says that 
such an organization functions to overthrow the Government by vio- 



34 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

lence and substitute in its place a totalitarian dictatorship, is not 
membership in such an organization a violation of section 4? Then 
John Jones is so indicated. What happens at that trial? Can John 
Jones go into the question of whether or not the XYZ organization 
is or is not a Communist political organization as defined in section 3? 
He cannot. He is precluded. 

Senator Doxxell. Where is he precluded from doing that? 

Representative Marcaxtoxio. Because we have a finding by the 
Attorney General saying that the XYZ organization is a Communist 
political organization. 

Senator Doxxell. You think that finding could be introduced in 
evidence against the defendant in a prosecution under section 4 ? 

Representative Marcaxtoxio. According to this bill if it became 
law. 

Senator Doxxell. Where does it say it ? 

Representative Marcaxtoxio. It is very simple. 

Senator Doxxell. It does not say it, does it ? 

Representative Marcaxtoxio. Of course it does. I will tell you 
why it does. The words "in any manner." To "attempt in any 
manner to establish in the United States." 

The Chairman. You mean that phrase establishes a new rule of 
evidence, "in any manner?" 

Representative Marcaxtoxio. This phrase in connection with the 
powers granted to the Attorney General in section 13, pursuant to 
the loose language of section 3, pursuant to the legislative finding in 
section 2, definitely you are establishing a new system of criminal 
proof. 

Coming back to your point. Senator, what is to be proved at the 
trial? The Attorney General establishes that the defendant is a 
member of the XYZ political organization. The prosecutor estab- 
lishes that. Then he establishes. No. 2. that the Attorney General 
has determined the XYZ political organization to be a Communist 
political organization. That is a matter of evidence. Isn't that right ? 

Senator Doxxell. I am not at all sure that the finding of the At- 
torney General would be admissible at all under section 4 (a) . There 
is nothing that says it can be. In order for a man to be convicted, 
under section 4 (a) would seem to me that as set forth, the various 
elements that are set forth in that section must be established under 
the existing rules of evidence of the court. I do not find anything so 
far in this statute that would in any sense change the ordinary rules 
of evidence applicable in the courts. 

Representative Marcaxtoxio. Yes. Let me answer that question 
with this question : Are you not convinced here, that under section 
4 (a), membership in an organization which has been declared to be a 
Communist political organization pursuant to the definitions under 
section 3, and the legislative findings of section 2, whether that mem- 
bership alone does not constitute a violation of section 4? 

Senator Doxxell. I would want to give that consideration before 
I answered that question, but I get your point. 

Representative Marcaxtoxio. I think that is a question that should 
be considered. 

Senator Doxxell. I think it is a point to be considered, too, but 
I do think there is nothing under section 4 that says that the mere 
fact that the Attorney General has held that organization X is a 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 85 

•Communist political organization can be admitted in evidence at all 
in a prosecution under section 4. I would like for you, if you think 
you can, to point out where in the bill it says so. 

Representative Marcantonio. Because membership would come un- 
der the words "in any manner." 

Senator Donnell. I do not see that. It says "to attempt in any 
manner." 

Representative Marcantonio. "In any manner." That is why the 
language is so loose. That is why everything is permissible. Any 
person who attempts in any manner. To do what? To establish 
in the United States a totalitarian dictatorship. Under that language 
membership would come in under the broad term "in any manner." 
That is another question I submit for your consideration. 

So much for that. 

I want to leave this thought with this committee. 

The Chairman. Will you pardon me just a minute? Will you 
briefly make a resume, one, two, three, four, of what your arguments 
are ? 

Representative Marcantonio. My arguments are, first, that there is 
no proof according to the Attorney General, that the Communist Party 
has violated the Voorhis Act which act requires registration of foreign 
agents, and that there is no proof to establish that the Communist 
Party has violated the McCormack Act which makes it a felony to 
advocate the overthrow of the Government by force and violence. 
Surely if the Attorney General had had such proof he would have 
prosecuted. Not having prosecuted and having practically testified 
to the lack of court proof — and I submit for the committee's con- 
sideration the Attorney General's testimony before the Committee on 
Un-American Activities in the House on the question of this bill. 
Since there is no proof, this bill is conceived to bypass the require- 
ments of law that before you can convict anybody you have to convict 
them on evidence which establishes his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 
To whose satisfaction? The satisfaction of a court and jury. In 
place of that, we have this bill which substitutes for that. What? 
Legislative determination of guilt and executive determination of 
guilt. Which is repugnant to our whole Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence. 

It specifically therefore violates section 9 of article I, and it violates 
the fifth amendment, the due process amendment, and violates the 
sixth amendment, which requires trial by jury. 

Further, the registration features of this bill are violative of the 
first amendment to the Constitution. This whole bill is conceived to 
bypass the principle of judicial determination of guilt and substitute 
in lieu thereof an innovation in our law; judicial determination of 
guilt, legislative determination of guilt. 

If we do that, then we are establishing in these United States, a 
form of jurisprudence which is fascist, totalitarian, subversive of our 
Bill of Rights. 

One final thought, and then I will conclude, and I want to thank 
you for the time you have given me. The thought is this : If we 
bear in mind that the people of Italy and Germany had defended the 
constitutional rights of the Communists and the Communist Party in 
those countries, there would have been no successful Hitler and no 
successful Mussolini, and there would have been no fascism. 



86 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

The contemporary history of the world has demonstrated one thing, 
that the test of when we have gone over the line, the test of when we 
have stepped into the realm of fascism, is when we have curbed the 
constitutional rights of Communists. Why? Because the constitu- 
tional rights of Communists have always been the first objective of 
Fascist offensive against the democratic rights of all the people. 

I thank you, sir, for your time. 

The Chairman. All right, sir. 

We have a large list of witnesses here. We have given the Con- 
gressman an hour. 

Representative Marcantonio. You got me up early this morning, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. If we really got the Congressman up, it is probably 
the first time. 

Representative Marcantonio. It is the first time I have known a 
sunrise session on an important bill. I can't understand this hurry, 
Senator. 

The Chairman. That is one of the arguments we got tens of thou- 
sands of telegrams on. 

Representative Marcantonio. Ten thousand people can't be wrong. 

The Chairman. I have known them to be wrong before, and they 
might be wrong this time, but that is not this case. 

We will hear Mr. Osmond K. Fraenkel. We have rules in this com- 
mittee that you are supposed to have a statement. I am glad to see 
you have a statement. 

Will you be sworn, sir? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony 
you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Fraenkel. I do. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. Just tell us who you are. 

TESTIMONY OF OSMOND K. FRAENKEL. AMERICAN CIVIL 
LIBERTIES UNION, NEW YORK. N. Y. 

Mr. Fraenkel. My name is Osmond K. Fraenkel. I am here on 
behalf of the American Civil Liberties Union, being a member of its 
board of directors and one of its associate counsel. 

The American Civil Liberties Union has been in existence for ap- 
proximately 25 years as a voluntary membership organization devoted 
to the advancement of the guarantees contained in the Bill of Rights 
of the Constitution. It is wholly nonpolitical. It is concerned pri- 
marily, so far as this bill is concerned, with questions of freedom of 
speech and freedom of assembly and questions affecting fair trial. 
We have no brief to hold for communism or the Communist Party. 
We believe, however, that any attempt to abridge the constitutional 
rights of the one group in the community is bound to lead to infringe- 
ment of the constitutional rights of other groups in the community 
and to result in the break-down of our system of government. 

We therefore have analyzed this bill and come to the conclusion that 
many portions of it are not only unwise but also unconstitutional. 

As I said, we are particularly concerned with questions of freedom 
of speech and freedom of assembly. We have found from our read- 
ing of history that under the pretext that a particular group in the 
community was dangerous, legislation has been advocated and some- 






— 



COXTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 87 

times enacted which destroyed fundamental liberties. It must be 
remembered that every bill which restricts the liberty of a minority 
group has wide repercussions because such a measure acts as a terror- 
istic measure. It frightens people. It is an attempt to secure con- 
formity of ideas. If you seek to restrict membership in an organi- 
zation because the organization is supposed to be a Communist or- 
ganization, people will become timid about joining any organization 
which has the least tinge of radicalism which is in any way off center, 
people will be afraid that organization will next be labeled a Commu- 
nist organization. 

There is no better weapon for conformity, which is contrary to the 
spirit of American ideas, than measures of this general kind. To be 
specific about this bill, in our view the registration provisions are both 
futile and unconstitutional. We believe that they are futile because in 
effect you are asking certain organizations to register and admit that 
they come within the character of the findings and the definitions in 
this bill which are so comprehensive and extensive that anyone who 
registers under those bills would immediately lay himself open to a 
prosecution under section 4. 

Either the registration provisions are unconstitutional because they 
compel self-incrimination, or they are wholly worthless. 

Aside from that, I share the view expressed by Congressman Marc- 
antonio that the power given to the Attorney General in connection 
with the registration provisions of the bill are much too great. We 
have become accustomed in recent years to a vast increase in the powers 
of administrative agencies, and we have reconciled ourselves to the 
extension of that power because in certain areas administrative tri- 
bunals have been set up with special competence to deal with the par- 
ticular subjects. 

I do not think that the administrative agency has been used as a 
device to circumvent the ordinary trial by court and jury. We have 
here provisions which require registration of organizations of a cer- 
tain type. Assuming for the moment that there is a reasonably suf- 
ficient definition of who is required to register, and I will come back 
to that later, because we believe also on that score the bill is defective. 

The Chairman. I will give you 20 minutes. See if you can consoli- 
date your statement. 

Mr. Fraenkel. I will try to be within the 20 minutes, sir. 

Assuming that there are sufficiently definite requirements for regis- 
tration, if an organization is required to register because it comes 
within those definitions, that would be a matter ordinarily deter- 
mined by a court and jury, but this bill goes further. This bill makes 
it a penal offense to refuse to register after the Attorney General has 
made a finding. It makes it a penal offense to distribute mail unless 
that is marked in a certain way in case the Attorney General has made 
a finding, and so on. 

It is our view that that is a break-down of our traditional system and 
it is unconstitutional under the sixth amendment because it makes a 
finding of guilt dependent not on what is proved in court on the nature 
of the organization, but merely to the finding of the Attorney General 
as to its character. 

While of course that finding is subject to court review, as you recog- 
nize, the method of court review does not permit any review of the 
weight of the evidence, but merely as to whether there is a fair pre- 



88 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

ponderance of it. There is another constitutional difficulty in that 
connection. The Attorney General isn't required to determine that 
by the weight of the evidence the organization comes within the char- 
acter described. He is permitted to conclude that it does if there is 
reasonable ground to believe that it does, which is a wholly different 
matter. 

We think the definitions in the bill are vague, and it is impossible 
to conclude from a reading of the elements contained in the definition 
of what is a Communist political organization or a Communist-front 
organization what weight will be given to any of them. 

Some matters referred to are by some standards clearly lawful. I 
would say most of the matters set forth are clearty lawful. We see no 
justification for requiring organizations to register and be labeled as 
Communist-front organizations because, for instance, they support 
the principles of Marxism and Lenin. There are many other items of 
that kind which make it impossible to determine how an organization 
is to be judged, which make it impossible to determine for the indi- 
viduals who belong to such organizations or their officers, whether 
they come within the category or not. 

In section 4, which is the penal section of the bill, there is a term 
"totalitarian dictatorship" which is nowhere defined in the bill, which 
has no judicial meaning. We believe, therefore, that the criminal 
offenders created by that section is void for lack of definiteness. 

We believe also that the criminal provisions of that bill violate the 
first amendment because they punish 

Senator Donnell. You mean of that section? 

Mr. Fraenkel. Of that section; yes. Because advocacy of ideas 
tending toward totalitarian dictatorship are made a crime. The 
first provision of that section, the first subdivision of that section,, 
deals apparently only with acts, but the rest of the section is drawn 
in such a way as to bring within its scope every conceivable thing,, 
every suggestion, anything which might be considered as assistance 
in any way to the establishment of such a dictatorship. 

We do not see any constitutional basis for punishment of the ad- 
vocacy of the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship, provided 
an advocacy itself is by wholly legal means. 

The bill also in its general set-up 

The Chairman. The bill does not make that a crime, does it? 
The attempt in any manner to establish totalitarian dictatorship 
must be under the direction and control or domination of a foreign 
government. 

Mr. Fraenkel. That is true, but suppose someone sought to amend 
the Constitution of the United States to permit participation in a 
world federation, and it was charged that the world federation was 
a totalitarian federation. That would be an offense under this bilL 
The whole spirit which infuses the bill is in our opinion contrary 
to the traditions of our way of life and to the specific provision of 
the Constitution which prohibits bills of attainder because this is 
not a bill set up as ordinary criminal statutes, or even registration 
statutes, to deal with a general subject. It is set up to deal with 
what is conceived to be a particular group. The preamble of the 
bill makes that perfectly clear. This is aimed at the Communist 
Party and its supporters, its friends, if you will. 






COXTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 89 

Tn that respect, it is a bill of attainder, it is the legislative singling 
out of a particular group in the community for condemnation. The 
very form of the registration statute bears that out, because the regis- 
tration statute requires any organization which is registered under 
this bill to label itself as a Communist organization and therefore to 
label itself as having all the odious characteristics which in the pre- 
amble to the bill the Congress has ascribed to Communist organizations. 

That is an attempt in advance to smear. We believe it is contrary 
to our fundamental law. 

As to the specific constitutional grounds, on the subject of vague- 
ness, I refer to the recent decision of the United States Supreme 
Court in Winters v. Xew York, a case decided on March 29 of this 
year, with an opinion by Mr. Justice Reed, where a New York statute 
was held unconstitutional because it was vague. The Court referred 
with approval 

The Chairman. How would you make this more definite and 
certain? 

Mr. Fraenkel. In the first place, if the term totalitarian dictator- 
ship is to remain in the bill, there should be a definition of that term, 
which there is not. Whether it is sufficiently defined for a criminal 
statute, I am not sure. I have seen attempts to define it. 

The Chairman. I assume that you will concede that Hitler was 
such and Mussolini was such. 

Mr. Fraenkel. Oh, yes. In every case where the question of vague- 
ness comes before the Court, it is always possible to find examples of 
.the matter which is mentioned in the law, but the courts have never 
held that it was enough for the prosecution to be able to pick out 
examples. It is required, it is one of the elements of our form of gov- 
ernment as distinguished from a tyranny or a dictatorship, that 
the law be sufficiently definite and precise so that the ordinary com- 
moner may have some idea as to whether or not he is violating the 
law. It was for that reason that in this Winters case they held 
that, for instance, a statute which would punish the distribution of 
matter principally made up of criminal rules, police reports, or 
accounts of criminal deeds or pictures or stories of deeds of blood- 
shed, lust, or crime was too vague to be criminally enforcible, although 
of course it was perfectly obvious that examples could be found which 
would by common consent be of the character described. 

The Chairman. Do you agree that the Communist techniques have 
been the political tools of tyrants from time immemorial, murder and 
terror \ 

Mr. Fraenkel. There is no doubt that the Communist techniques 
are similar to the techniques which have been used by other persons 
who wanted to obtain power by unscrupulous means. We hold no 
brief at all for the means used in many places by the Communist 
Party, none whatever. We recognize that the Communists are a 
problem. They are a problem to many organizations. But we be- 
lieve that the problem of the Communists can be dealt with in two 
ways. In the first place, by vigilance. In any particular organiza- 
tion the people who are active in that organization quickly learn 
whether there are Communists who are working in it and learn how 
to deal with them. But the most important method of dealing with 



90 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Communists is to remove those thing's in the body politics which 
create breeding grounds for Communists. 

After all, communism or fascism, for that matter, and they are 
similar in certain respects and widely different in others. That I 
won't debate here. But all movements which seek to overthrow 
established government, whatever their name, have always thriven 
on the misery of the mass of the people. Where there are discon- 
tented people, where there are people who have no work, where there 
are people who have no opportunities for advancement, whether that 
be due to economic dislocation or to racial discrimination or what- 
ever the reasons; in such situations movements will thrive which 
seek to subvert, it doesn't make any difference when or where, in the 
world's history it has always been so. 

The move against the Communists today is meaningless because 
tomorrow there will be some other group, as half a century ago it was 
a different group. 

There is only one secure way in which our liberties can be protected, 
and that is to remove progressively and as quickly as is possible those 
sore spots in the community on which subversive groups feed. 

The Chairman. That is the only solution you have? 

Mr. Fraenkel. That is. 

The Chairman. Just a moment, sir. I quoted the language of Jus- 
tice Douglas here as to communism. You have made two suggestions. 
This committee is trying to find the answer to a problem that is ap- 
parent to all of us. You made the suggestion that we must bring 
about the millenium economically and politically. 

Mr. Fraenkel. No. 

The Chairman. Just a moment, sir. My thought is this : AVith your 
fine organization, can you not give thought to the point that it is not 
necessary to burn the house down to get the rats, but we had better 
get some of the rats out before they entirely undermine the house? 
While we do not need to go into the philosophy of that because you 
have 5 minutes left, go on with the rest of your points. 

We will be glad to incorporate the rest of it in the record. We want 
to hear Mr. Foster, who is the next witness. 

Mr. Fraenkel. I haven't read what is in my analysis, but the entire 
thing is for the record. I have summarized the main points of it. Of 
course, our organization has given a great deal of thought to this 
problem. We have had this problem in one form or another for 25 
years. At another time it was IWW. Another time it was the So- 
cialists. At another time it was the Socialist Labor Party. There 
always have been groups that were on the extreme ledge against which 
it was urged that they w T ere subversive and dangerous. Our experi- 
ence has been that there is no power in the community which is wise 
and self -retained enough to determine what group is so dangerous that 
it should be supervised. While this bill in form does not seek to sup- 
press the Communist Partj 7 , in substance in our opinion that is its 
objective, and that would be its effect. Obviously 

The Chairman. Do you claim oppression would mean going under- 
ground entirely? 

Mr. Fraenkel. Oppression would mean going underground. More- 
over, you cannot affect the basic ideas which are involved by any legis- 
lation of this type. Obviously where a conspiracy exists to overthrow 
the Government by improper means, proper steps should be taken to 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 91 

punish anybody who is involved in such a conspiracy. If there is evi- 
dence of that, that is punishable under existing law. The notion that 
you can bring the Communists out into the open by registration provi- 
sions of this kind is plausible, but in our view wholly without basis. 

In the first place, they won't register. In the second place, you 
may send a few people to jail, but will not inform the community 
for" the most part I think more than it already is informed by the 
ordinary processes of public discussion, and on that whole general sub- 
ject of disclosure legislation, I would like to quote what Professor 
Zachariah Chaffee, an eminent legal historial at Harvard had to say 
in his recent book. He pointed out there that, of course, disclosures 
give the public a great deal of information about the identity of the 
persons engaged in propaganda, but because of its effect on the ordi- 
nary timid citizen, it would deprive the public of a great deal of in- 
formation on politics and economics. 

I want to close on the note that I raised before, that legislation of 
this kind does not stop in its effects on the groups that are aimed 
at. It affects all kinds of individuals and groups on the periphery. 
It has a stultifying effect on freedom of discussion and freedom of 
association. It makes people afraid to speak their minds. It makes 
people afraid to join up. It is a weapon for conformity. One of 
the things which the Constitution of our country forbids is govern- 
mental compulsion toward conformity. Time and time again the 
Supreme Court has struck down legislation which tended in that 
direction. I venture to prophecy if this bill ever becomes law, little 
of it will survive such a test. 

I thank you. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Fraenkel. Thank you. 

The Chairman. Your entire statement will be included in the 
record at this point. 

(The prepared statement of Air. Fraenkel follows:) 

Memorandum With Regard to H. R. 5852 as Passed by the House of 
Representatives on Wednesday, May 19 

In its revised form, H. R. 5852 differs materially from its original version. 1 
The report of the House committee (No. 1S44) indicates that many of the re- 
visions were made to avoid constitutional attacks. In our view, the bill remains 
obnoxious and, in important respects, unconstitutional. 

The bill has two major objectives. It imposes criminal sanctions for a large 
number of activities; it seeks to compel the registration of certain kinds of 
Communist organizations. Before considering the provisions of the bill in detail, 
we wish to point to two underlying aspe ts which in our opinion render most 
of its provisions unconstitutional: fl) The definitions of the bill, and (2) the 
fact that determination of the basic issue in regard to the character of the 
organization is left to the Attorney General rather than to the courts. 

1. There are two basic terms in the bill, "Communist political organization" 
(sec. 3-3) and "Communist-front organization" (sec. 3-4). Neither is defined 
with sufficient precision. It should be observed, in the first place, that an 
organization comes within either category if "it is reasonable to conclude" that 
it has certain characteristics on the basis of "some or all" of certain indicated 
considerations. Thus, there is no requirement that the weight of the evidence 
establishes that a suspected organization is of the specified character. It would 
appear also that a finding could be based on any one of criteria set forth. 

In the case of political organizations, the criterion is either control by a foreign 
government or political organization, or a finding that the organization is a 



1 The amendments made on the floor of the House do not materially alter the bill. 
7S257— 4S- 7 



92 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

principal instrumentality used by the world Communist movement. Either 
criteria can be determined on the basis of a series of considerations, many of 
them wholly unrelated and entirely unlawful. Among those mentioned are sup- 
port of the principles of Marx and Lenin and the extent to which the organization 
resists the efforts to obtain information with regard to its membership. In- 
cluded are also matters more directly connected with control by a foreign govern- 
ment. 

In the case of front organizations, the criterion is either control by a political 
organization or a finding that the operations of the suspected front organization 
assist a political organization or a foreign government or the world Communist 
movement. Either of these criteria can be established on the basis of the identity 
of persons active in management, the source or use of funds and the positions 
taken by the organization on matters of policy. 

We submit that such catch-all definitions transgress the requirements of cer- 
tainly imposed by the due-process clause and operate as a serious impairment of 
freedom of speech and association. See Winters v. New York (68 Sup. Ct. 665.) 
2. The foregoing is rendered even more objectionable by the fact that the Gov- 
ernment may be able to avoid offering proof before a judge and jury that the sus- 
pected organization comes within the category of the law. For the bill in its 
registration provisions (sec. 8) compels action by an organization designated as 
coming within the scope of the law by the Attorney General under the adminis- 
trative provisions of section 13. Moreover, failure to register is a crime (sec. 
15). Membership in an organization that has not registered is a crime (sec. 10). 
Use of the mails or instrumentalities of interstate commerce or of the radio is 
a crime unless accompanied by a statement that a Communist organization is 
responsible for the utterance (sees. 11 and 15 (e) ). 

Since it is contemplated that the Attorney General will determine which or- 
ganizations are within the scope of the law, the Government may contend in a 
prosecution under the law that it need only show failure to register, failure to 
label speeches or printed matter or continuance of membership, and that the 
order of the Attorney General, if upheld on appeal, is conclusive. That we sub- 
mit is in violation of the provisions of the sixth amendment which guarantees 
trial by jury and a right of confrontation of witnesses. Kiroii v. United states 
(174 U. S. 47.) 

3. Section 4 creates criminal penalties wholly independent of the two types 
of organizations we have been discussing. Any activity aiming at the organiza- 
tion of a "totalitarian dictatorship" is punished by a possible fine of $10,000 or 
imprisonment for 10 years provided the dictatorship is under the control of a 
foreign government or individual. Domestic efforts to produce totalitarianism 
are left untouched. The bill quite plainly is aimed at every effort in this direc- 
tion and is not limited to acts of violence and to overt acts at all. For it ex- 
pressly punishes participation in any movement "to facilitate or aid'' the estab- 
lishment of such a dictatorship. The last clause of this section contains the 
unusual provision that a prosecution under it shall never be barred by limitations. 
Section 5 states that anyone convicted of this offense shall lose his citizenship. 
Section 4 (a) (1) makes it unlawful to attempt in any manner to establish a 
totalitarian dictatorship in the United States under control of a foreign govern- 
ment. There is, of course, no definition as such of what constitutes a totali- 
tarian dictatorship. But beyond that, it is quite clear that this provision on 
its face is not applicable to acts alone, but to speech and publication as well. It 
is hard to imagine a phrase broader than "in any manner" as a method of criminal 
liability. In Winters v. New York, the court said, "a statute so vague and in- 
definite, in form and as interpreted as to permit within the scope of its language 
the punishment of incidents fairly within the protection of the guaranty of free 
speech is void on its fa< e * * *." 

As to the rest of section 4, it is so vague that one would not know with any 
certainty what actions would subject one to criminal liability. What exactly is 
prohibited in the injunction against performing or attempting to perform any 
ad with intent to facilitate or aid in bringing about the establishment of a totali- 
tarian dictatorship? What is covered hy participation in the supervision of such 
a movement or the facilitation or assistance in bringing about such a system of 
government? As slated in the Winters case, supra, where a statute is so vague 
as to make criminal an innocent act, a conviction under it cannot lie sustained. 
Herndon v. Lowery (301 U. S. 242, 259). See also Stromoerg v. California' (283 
C. S. 359, 369). 

finally, this section would even outlaw a proposal to amend the Constitution 
to establish a totalitarian dictatorship. 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 93 

4. Section (! prohibits employment in the sen Lee of the United States, excepting 
only for elective offices, of any person who is a member of a Communist political 
organization. An individual can be punished for applying for such a position 
if he has reasonable grounds for believing that the organization is of such a 
character. It is not clear whether in a prosecution under this section a finding 
by the Attorney General in regard to the character of the organization would be 
binding. 

u e have consistently opposed the blanket proscription of persons from Gov- 
ernment service merely because of their affiliation. We find no justice in the 
broad scope of this bill whatever may be the question of its constitutionality. 

5. Section 7 forbids the issuance of passports to members of such a political 
organization. This provision is justified by the committee in its report on the 
ground that it would cut the thread of the international Communist conspiracy 
We have always been of the opinion that there should be as few restrictions as 
possible on travel both into and out of the United States. We see no justification 
for the restrictions here imposed. 

0. The registration requirements of section 8 require the annual listing of offi- 
cers and an accounting of receipts and activities with a statement of the sources 
of funds. The Attorney General is authorized to specify the details. These are 
required of both types of organizations. "Political" but not the "front' organiza- 
tions must also list annually the names and addresses of members. The Attor- 
ney General is required to notify any individual listed as a member. The bill,, 
however, requires the front organizations to keep records of members. 

Section 9 provides that the registration data is available for public inspection 
and that the Attorney General should annually submit to Congress a list of 
organizations and of the data given, including names of members. 

We are of the opinion that these registration provisions, as well as the pro- 
vision of section 11, which require the labeling of all material circulated by either 
of these organizations, are serious impairments of speech and association, and 
that they fall within the ban of the principles laid down in a host of Supreme 
Court decisions. We wish only to call specific attention to Judge Rutledges 
statement in Thomas v. Collins (323 U. S. 516), where he said : 

'"As a matter of principle, a requirement of registration in order to make a 
public speech would seem generally incompatible with the exercise of free speech 
and free assembly." 

7. The administrative provisions call for little comment. 

Section 13 requires a full hearing before any determination by the Attorney 
General with provision for subpenas. The Attorney General must make written 
findings. An organization which has registered may apply for a determination 
that it does not come within the law and that its registration be canceled. 

Section 14 allows judicial review by the Court of Appeals of the District of 
Columbia with final review by the United States Supreme Court. The findings 
of the Attorney General are to be conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. 
We have no criticisms of these provisions, except as indicated above. We oppose 
the possibility of a finding by the Attorney General which may be conclusive in 
a criminal prosecution against an individual. 

8. Permeating the bill are two concepts, the unconstitutionality of which can- 
not be doubted. 

1. The proposed bill imposes disabilities merely on the basis of organizational 
affiliation and not on the basis of personal illegal acts. 

In recent years, no doctrine has been more bitterly attacked than the several 
legislative and executive attempt- to impose guilt by association. Professor 
Zechariah Chafee, Jr., in his Free Speech in the United States (1941) poignantly 
illustrates the dangers and absurdities of the doctrine (pp. 470-4S4). 

Under section 10, a member of a "Communist political organization'' may go 
to jail tor 2 years merely for belonging to such a group if it has not registered. 
The default of the organization in failing to comply with the law is imputed 
to each member, thereby resulting in the commission of a separate crime by each 
membr-r for further adherence to the organization. As Mr. Justice Jackson 
stated, "* * * if any fundamental assumption underlies our system, it is 
that guilt is personal ** * *." Korematsu v. U. S. (323, U. S. 214). Section 10 
is therefore tin •(institutional. See Mr. Justice Murphy in Bridge v. Wilson (320- 
U. S. 135). 

2. The proposed legislation imposes disabilities by legislative proscription 
rather than by judicial trial and hence is unconstitutional as a bill of attainder. 

A bill of attainder is defined as a legislative act which inflicts punishment 
without a judicial trial. Cummings v. Mo. (4 Wall. 1277). The present bill 
constitutes a congressional determination that in effect all members of a Com- 



94 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

munist political organization are automatically subjected to certain penalties 
merely by the fact of membership. The bill by the registration provisions removes 
the rights of privacy from them. They may not obtain or seek privileges, such as 
passports or Federal jobs, to which other persons are el'gible. It is hard to see 
a distinction between a statute prescribing certain oaths as a condition to 
practice law in the Federal courts and a statute such as the one under considera- 
tion. If the Supreme Court has ruled the former unconstitutional because of 
some presumption of guilt which would be the basis for the denial of the 
privilege, then the latter must also fall. Cummvngs v. Mo, supra; Ex Parte 
Garland (4 Wall, 333), and see as particularly in point. United States v. Lovett 
(328 U. S. 303, 315, 317). 

We do not doubt furthermore, that while Congress may define conspiracy, it is 
the responsibility of the courts alone to-decide what groups fall within the defini- 
tion. The definition of a "Communist political organization" is an ill-disguiseu 
method to define the Communist Party as an international conspiracy. The use of 
the term "Communist" brings the statute within the Lovett case's dictum that 
"legislative acts, no matter what their form, tha apply to named individuals or 
to easily ascertainable members of a group * * * are bills of attainder" 
{United States v. Lovett, supra 315). [Emphasis added.] 



Supplement to Memorandum ox H. R. 5852 

In the light of further analysis of H. R. 5852. and after careful study of the 
debate in the House on the bill, we wish to add the following considerations to 
our argument on the bill. 

1. We oppose Communist deception and infiltration. The American Civil 
Liberties Union has no sympathy or association with communism. But from a 
policy point of view, we think the bill is unwise. It would have the inevitable 
effect of driving the Communist movement underground where it would be much 
more difficult to combat. Furthermore, we believe that there are adequate 
laws now on the statute books to combat any "clear and present danger" from 
communism. Among these are the Espionage Act, operative only in time of war 
(50 U. S. C. A. 33), the Peace Time Sedition Act (18 U. S. C. A., sees. 9 to 13), 
the Subversive Organization Registration Act (18 U. S. C. A., sees. 14 to 17). and 
the Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U. S. C. A., sees. (511 to 621). 

2. While we are strenuously opposed to the views of those who would be 
immediately affected by H. R. 5852, we must recognize the perils to which 
legislation of this type would expose the whole Nation. 

Today, Communists are condemned as un-American because their motives are 
suspected ; and so, if H. R. 5852 were to become law, those who furthered the 
Communists' program would be penalized. What of tomorrow? May the Con- 
gress of some future day conclude that other political faiths are equally "un- 
American" and "subversive" and must, therefore, be subjected to restraints and 
nenalties? Can we safely accept the proposition that the advocacy of ideas may 
be forbidden, without reference to specific acts of a criminal nature? We think 
that our whole constitutional development shows that actions, not beliefs or ulti- 
mate goals, must be the sole tests of legality. 

Chief Justice Hughes declared a decade ago: "The greater the importance of 
safeguarding the country from incitements to the overthrow of our institutions 
by force and violence, the more imperative is the need to preserve inviolate the 
constitutional rights of free speech, free press, and free assembly in order to 
maintain the opportunity for free political discussion, to the end that government 
may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes, if desired, may be 
obtained by peaceful means. Therein lies the security of the Republic, the very 
foundation of constitutional government." Ih Jonge v. Oregon (299 U. S. 353, 
365). These words have apt application to the present problem. If it be true, 
as II. R. 5852 seeks to declare, that our American institutions are threatened 
by advocacy of a totalitarianism alien to our traditions, we must meet the threat 
not by direct or indirect repression but by the "free political discussion" which 
is the very cornerstone of democracy. And in this connection it is well to recall 
Mr. Justice Jackson's observation that "freedom to differ is not limited to things 
that do not matter much. That would he a mere shadow of freedom. The test 
of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch the heart of the exist- 
ing order." Board of Education v. Burnette I .".1!) U. S. 024, 042). 

3. We have some further comments on the bill itself. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 95 

1. We think thai it has been sufficiently demonstrated that registration of an 
organization found by the Attorney General to be a Communist political organ- 
ization, would automatically subject officers and members of the group to the 
criminal provisions under section 4. (See, for example, Congressional Record, p. 
6276.) Thus, under the bill, compliance with the law automatically is prima 
facie evidence of commission of a crime. This legal paradox is merely one indi- 
cation of the dangers inherent in the bill. This conclusion is reached by the fol- 
lowing analysis : 

Under section 8, Communist political organizations are required to register 

I with the Attorney General. Such groups are defined in section 3 on the basis of 
'•some or all of the following considerations," e. g., the extent and nature of its 
activities, including the expression of views and beliefs or the extent to which 
its policies are under the "direction and control of the world Communist move- 
ment as defined under section 2 of the act." In section 2, there is a congressional 
finding that the "world Communist movement" exists to "establish a Communist 
totalitarian dictatorship in all countries of the world." Under section 4A, it is 
made unlawful to attempt "in any manner" to establish in the United States, a 
"totalitarian dictatorship under the control of a foreign government." Thus, it 
is clear that registration of an organization, if not conclusive, would be at least 
prima facie evidence that its members are guilty of a substantive crime. Clearly, 
the act in this manner establishes guilt by association, a concept held illegal by 
the Supreme Court. (See Kotteakos v. 17. S., 328 U. S. 750.) 

2. Any registration required by the Attorney General of a Communist political 
organization because of its views and policies (sec. 3A) or because of the alleged 
identity of its views with a foreign government or organization (sec. 3C) or be- 
cause of the extent to which it "supports or advocates the basic principles and 
tactics of Communists as expounded by Marx and Lenin," would seem to be a 
clear violation of the constitutional principle against prior restraints on beliefs or 
opinions. 

( 1 ) There would seem to be great doubt whether organizations may be subject 
to special treatment by law because of views alone. Certainly, it would not be 
maintained that a statute subjecting an organization to criminal penalties merely 
because of its beliefs, in the absence of any acts on its part, would be constitutional. 
(See De Jongc v. Oregon, supra, Taylor v. Mississippi, 318 U. S. 583.) Registra- 
tion which is akin to licensing would similarly seem to fall within the constitu- 
tional ban. (See various Jehovah's Witnesses leaflet cases, e. g., Lovell v. Griffin, 
303 U. S. 444, Schneider v. Irvington, 308 U. S. 147, and Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, 
319 U. S. 105.) 

(2) Under section 11, organizations which are registered may not use the 
mails unless the material is identified. There is, thus, a double violation of the 
rule against prior restraints. Cf. the Collins case, mentioned on page 5 of our 
memorandum, which we believe, correctly states the law. 

3. Proposals for disclosure may be sustained where related to some Federal 
function, such as special postal rates or identification of foreign agents. But in 
no law covering such cases, have specific groups or organizations easily identified 
been singled out for special treatment. This, we believe, is not only sound public 
policy but good constitutional law. 

The Chairman. William Foster? I see you are in the spotlight, 
sir. "Will you be sworn? 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give will be 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God? 

Mr. Foster. I do so affirm. 

The Chairman. You affirm. 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM Z. FOSTER, PRESIDENT, AMERICAN COM- 
MUNIST PARTY, AND JOHN GATES, EDITOR IN CHIEF, THE DAILY 
WORKER, NEW YORK CITY, N. Y. 

Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman, I have a very heavy cold. I might ask 
my colleague to read our statement ? 

The Chairman. Yes, you can do that. There was handed to me 
a book here. Because I know so little about communism, I wanted to 



96 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 



know if some of the things that appear in this book are still your 
convictions. 

Mr. Foster. I will be glad to answer any of those questions after 
the statement is read. 

The Chairman. I want to call your attention to page 273 of this 
book. It has just been called to my attention. You say : 

The American Soviet government will be the dictatorship of the proletariat. 
In chapter II we explained this dictatorship as the revolutionary government 
of the workers and toiling farmers. 

On page 275 you stated : 

The leader of the revolution in all its stages is the Communist Party. With 
its main base among the industrial workers, the party makes a bloc with the 
revolutionary farmers and impoverished city petty bourgeois, drawing under 
its general leadership such revolutionary groups and organizations as these 
classes may have. Under the dictatorship all the capital parties — Republican, 
Democratic, Progressive, Socialist, etc., will be liquidated, the Communist Party 
functioning alone as the party of the toiling masses. Likewise, will be dissolved 
all other organizations that are political props of the bourgeois rule, includ- 
ing chambers of commerce, employers' associations. Rotary Clubs, American 
Legion, Y. M. C. A., and such fraternal orders as the Masons, Odd Fellows, 
Elks, Knights of Columbus, etc. 

At page 276 : 

The establishment of an American Soviet government will mark the birth 
of real democracy in the United States. * * * 

Mr. Foster. Mr. Chairman, I would like to talk about the Mundt 
bill, if you please. Am I on trial here for my ideas? Is this the 
thought control that this committee is going to establish in this 
country? I propose to listen to the Mundt bill instead of this non- 
sense. 

The Chairman. I propose that you answer the question whether 
this is your language as contained in your book and whether or not 
you still hold the same ideas ? 

Mr. Foster. I stated that I would answer any question after we 
have presented our statement like any other organization. I refuse 
to be put on trial for my ideas. I came here to speak against the 
Mundt bill, which is a monstrous conspiracy against the American 
people, and I refuse to be shunted off with this nonsense. 

The Chairman. I ask you whether what I have read is contained in 
a book published under your name and whether } T ou still hold these 
ideas. 

Mr. Foster. Yes. All those ideas are political ideas and they re- 
quire elaboration and explanation, and I am prepared to explain 
and defend every one of them. 

The Chairman. Will you answer my question? 

Mr. Foster. I propose, Mr. Chairman, that we talk about the 
Mundt bill. This Mundt bill 

The Chairman. Just a moment, sir. I happen to be chairman here 
and I want to ask you a few questions before we proceed with the 
Mundt bill. You will abide by my decisions in this matter, sir. I 
am asking you this. 

Mr. Foster. I would like to protest against your decision. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 97 

The Chairman. You can protest, and you can record it in the 

record. I ask you whether on pap 1 316, among other things, your 

ideas were then: 

Religious schools will he abolished and organized religious training for minors 
prohibited. Freedom will he established for antireligious propaganda. 

The press, the motion picture, the radio, the theater, will he taken over by the 
government. 

There is on page 326 : 

A Communist world will be a unified, organized world. The economic system 
will be one great organization, based upon the principle of planning now dawning 
in the U. S. S. It.. The American Soviet government will be an important section 
in this world organization. 

Are those contained in your book ? 

Mr, Foster. Yes, sir ; they are contained in the book. 

The Chairman. You still hold those ideas? 

Mr. Foster. Under socialism, of course, when capitalism is abol- 
ished, the institutions associated with capitalism will naturally go 
with it. I think there is one point in there that I would change my 
mind on, and that is with regard to religious institutions. I think 
it is an incorrect stand toward religion that is expressed there. But 
for the rest of it, as for revolution, when we speak of the standards of 
socialism we speak of that as a revolution. I don't think we should 
be so frightened of the word "revolution" inasmuch as our own coun- 
try has passed through two revolutions. We speak of socialism as 
constituting revolution. The rest of it would require an hour's speech 
to elaborate upon those points. If that is necessary, I am quite pre- 
pared to do it. 

The Chairman. All right. If you will kindly proceed and give us 
your analysis. Have you a written statement? 

Mr. Foster. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is this it here? 

Mr. Foster. Yes. 

The Chairman. Who is this gentleman? 

Mr. Gates. John Gates. 

The Chairman. He will read the statement for you. 

Mr. Gates. My name is John Gates of New York City [Reading :] 

I wish To submit this statement in behalf of the Communist Party, whose 
reasons for opposing the Mundt-Nixon bill to outlaw the Communist Party and 
advance the establishment of fascism in the United States I here present. 

I am sure all members of the committee are conscious of the far-reaching im- 
portance which attaches to H. R. o852. The aspirants to the Presidency, winding 
up a hot primary fight, chose to make this measure the subject of a Nation-wide 
radio debate. Governor Dewey, who states that be is opposed to outlawing the 
Communist Party, and Governor Stassen who advocates its illegalization, were 
unable to agree on what the Mundt-Nixon bill actually proposes. Governor Stas- 
sen favors enactment of H. II. 5852 on the ground that it would outlaw any 
party. Governor Dewey supports it on the ground that it would not outlaw it. 

Naturally, a measure which so occupies the attention of Presidential can- 
didates, Republican and Democratic as well as Progressive, also has its pro- 
ponents and opponents among the electorate. Significantly, the alinement 
on H. R. 5S52 cuts across all party lines. It also cuts across differences on 
such major questions as foreign policy and the permanence of the two-party 
system. 



98 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

In the language of its authors, the Mundt-Nixon bill is aimed primarily at 
destroying the "hard core of the Communist Party." But opposition to it is 
by no means confined to the Communists, their friends, and sympathizers. On 
the contrary, it embraces non-Communists and many vociferous anti-Communists. 

Thus, two anti-Communist labor leaders — William Green and Philip Murray — 
have expressed the opinion that the Mundt-Nixon bill could he used to destroy 
the "hard core" of the American labor movement, and curb the activities of 
14,000,000 AFL and CIO workers. 

Americans for Democratic Action, an organization dedicated to combating 
communism and opposed to the new party headed by Henry Wallace, opposes 
H. R. ,5852 on the ground that it could be used to suppress even limited criticism 
of official policy on minor issues. 

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People calls for 
the defeat of this measure in the belief that it would prevent their organization's 
half million Negro and white members from continuing to champion the rights 
of the Negro people. 

The National Council of Jewish Women and the American Jewish Congress 
join the Protestant Council in urging defeat of the Mundt-Nixon bill. And, 
while H. R. 5852 has substantial support in the Catholic hierarchy and among 
the leaders of the Catholic War Veterans, it is strongly opposed by Bishop 
Francis J. Hass of Grand Rapids, and so outstanding a lay Catholic as Mayor 
O'Dwyer of New York. 

I shall not take the time of the committee to enumerate further the organiza- 
tions and distinguished individuals who oppose this bill which includes prac- 
tically every progressive group and leader in the United States. 

As for its most ardent supporters, they will be found among those who for 10 
years have applauded the performance of the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities, which to the late President Roosevelt, as to many democratic-minded 
Americans, appear sordid. This committee did not blush to call Franklin Roose- 
velt and Fiorello LaGuardia "fellow travelers.'' Now it presumes to order the 
Senate to put the Mundt-Nixon bill on the list of must legislation. 

The Chairman. What committee was that ? 
Mr. Gates. The Un-American Activities Committee. 
Senator Donnell. The Un-American Activities Committee? 
Mr. Gates. Yes. [Beading.] 

What is this bill, ostensibly directed only against the "hard core" of the Com- 
munist Party, to which so many non-Communists and anti-Communists take ex- 
ception? 

I think the key to the widespread opposition to H. R. 5852 lies in some prophetic 
words spoken to the Seventy-eighth Congress on January 7, 1943, by Franklin 
Delano Roosevelt. He said "If , in the formation of our future policy, we were 
guided * * * by the philosophy of our enemies * * * our victory would 
turn to defeat." 

The Mundt-Nixon bill embodies the philosophy of our Axis enemies of World 
War II. All its provisions are based on the premise that Hitler's big lie has be- 
come the gospel truth by which America must light its way. 

On March 6, 1036, Hitler called on the German Reichstag to preserve Germany 
from the "pretensions to an immediate and international world rule under the 
teachings of bolshevism which seeks to build what to us seems to be a ghastly 
world with different culture, content, and outlook. 

On May 19, 1948, the House of Representatives sent to the Senate a bill which 
repeats : 

"There exists a world Communist movement which * * * is a world-wide 
revolutionary poltical movement whose purpose it is * * * to establish a 
Communist totalitarian dictatorship in all the countries of the world." 

If there were even a shred of truth in this monstrous lie, then those who gave 
their lives in the anti-Axis war would be remembered, not as heroes and patriots, 
but as dupes or traitors. 

Congressman Mundt has a hunch that Hitler was right. But no legislative 
decree can put the stamp of truth on Hitler's big lie. In its attempt to supplant 
due process of law by legislative finding the Mundt-Nixon bill reveals that there 
is not one iota of evidence to prove Mr. Mundt's hunch. Indeed, J. Edgar Hoover 
and Attorney Genera] Tom Clark admitted as much in their testimony before the 
House Committee on Un-American Activities. There are on the United States 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 99 

statute books some 27 or more laws prohibiting treason, espionage, sabotage, in- 
surrection, the advocacy of force and violence against the Government, and 
a law requiring the registration of foreign agents. 

The director of the FBI and the Attorney General have long tried in vain 
to prosecute the American Communist Party under these laws. 

But under the traditional American system of jurisprudence the innocent can- 
not be convicted on the hunches of their political enemies. The burden of 
proof rests upon the prosecution. Under that burden, the whole trumped-up 
case against the Communist Party collapses. 

And that is why the Mundt-Nixon bill attempts to write the Nuremberg decrees 
into American law, witli little modification except that incidental to their trans- 
lation from German into English. 

I am sure that if the Senators will study the Nuremberg decrees, as well as 
the Mundt-Nixon bill, they will find that I have not been indulging in rhetoric 
but have stated an incontrovertible fact. 

For example, the Mundt-Nixon bill gives legislative sanction to the Executive 
loyalty order, promulgated by President Truman about a year ago. It states: 

"It shall be unlawful for any officer or employee of the United States to appoint 
or employ any individual as an officer or employee of the United States, knowing 
that such individual is a member of a Communist political organization." 

This section of H. It. 5S52 invites comparison with the following quotation from 
the official records of the Nuremberg war criminals trial (ch. VII-E) : 

"The political standards of the purge law were made more explicit by the 
supplementary law of June 20, 1933. Officials who belonged to any party or 
organization which, in the opinion of the Nazis, furthered the aims of com- 
munism, Marxism, or social democracy were summarily to be discharged." 

Mr. Justice Robert H. Jackson, in opening the American case before the War 
Crimes Tribunal on November 21, 1945, said of the Reichstag tire ; "The significant 
point is in the use that was made of the fire and of the state of public mind it 
produced. The Nazis immediately accused the Communist Party of instigat- 
ing and committing the crime, and turned every effort to portray this single act 
of arson as the beginning of a Communist revolution. Then, taking advantage 
of the hysteria, the Nazis met this phantom revolution with a real one. In the 
following December, the German Supreme Court with commendable courage and 
independence acquitted the accused Communists, but it was too late to in- 
fluence the tragic course of events which the Nazi conspirators had set rush- 
ing forward." 

There, Mr. Chairman and Senators, is the answer to the dangerous argument 
that you can afford to enact the Mundt-Nixon bill — and leave to the Supreme 
Court the final determination of its constitutionality. 

In a strictly legal sense, H. R. 5852 is on its face unconstitutional. It violates 
article I, section 9, which prohibits bills of attainder. The flimsy device of 
using the term "Communist political organization" cannot obscure the fact that 
there is in the United States only one "Communist political organization" — and 
that is the American Communist Party whose roots found soil in the American 
working class a hundred years ago. 

H. R. 5852 violates article III, section 3, by in effect rewriting the constitu- 
tional definition of treason. 

It flagrantly violates article I of the Bill of Rights, for it places the most 
drastic restrictions on freedom of speech, press, assembly, and petition for 
a redress of grievances. 

In this connection, I think the Senators could perform a notable public service 
by assuring their constituents that no penalties will attach to those who ex- 
press their opposition to the passage of H. R. 5852. This action is called for 
by the threats already made in the House, where sponsors of the measure sought 
to intimidate distinguished citizens who petitioned for its defeat. 

H. R. 5852 also violates articles V and VI of the Bill of Rights in a number of 
respects. 

The Chairman. If you want a record on .that, there is no record of 
intimidation on that before this committee. We are getting in wires 
and letters by the thousands. So the people out in the hinterland or 
any place else, as far as I know, have no sense of being intimidated. 
Furthermore, this committee is intimidating no one. We want an 
expression. That is why we welcome you here, sir. 



100 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Gates. This refers to the debate which took place in the House. 

Mr. Foster. Why don't we hold hearings to have the people repre- 
sented. 

The Chairman. What do you call this? 

Mr. Foster. A 2-day hearing to consider a question that touches 
the veiy life of the American people. 

Mr. Chairman. Why do you say 2 days? 

Mr. Foster. That is what it amounts to. 

The Chairman. Where do you get that ? 

Mr. Foster. Today and tomorrow, I understand. 

The Chairman. You understand. That is just as far as you go, and 
that is the trouble with all this. The committee has made no deter- 
mination as to the amount of hearings or anything else. This bill 
came in and because we are nearing the end of the session, we gave 
the proponents 1 day and the opponents 2 days and after that if the 
record is not complete, we will do what we think is right and necessary 
under all the circumstances. 

There has been no statement as to when the hearings will be closed 
or when opportunity is to be closed. 

Mr. Foster. The people of the United States understand this is a 
3-day hearing. 

The Chairman. Of course. That is part of somebody's propa- 
ganda, sir. 

Mr. Foster. Part of your propaganda. That story came from this 
committee, not from anybody else. 

The Chairman. It never came from me. There is not a news- 
paperman here who can tell you I said the hearings were closed. In 
fact, they asked me and I said the committee will determine its own 
action after these 3 days of hearings. 

Mr. Foster. We were officially notified. When I was invited down 
here, I was told by representatives of your committee that this was a 
3-day hearing. 

The Chairman. It is a 3-day hearing, sir. It is a 3-day hearing 
until the committee decides what action it will take. It is not a closed 
hearing. The committee will determine its own action without a lot 
of advice from outside, either. It will determine its own direction. 
If the hearings are not sufficient, if we cannot get from men like you 
and others and from the lawyers throughout the country who are 
versed in the law and from the Presidential candidate who will be 
here tomorrow, who have evidence for us to study, you can be sure 
that the committee will take into consideration whether or not there 
will be further hearings, whether it will be merely cumulative. You 
will raise the same points, I take it, that the gentlemen before you 
raised. The question then is to study the decision and study the facts. 

I can assure you that in any committee session that we have had 
there has been no voice raised by any member as to what his conclu- 
sion on the bill is. You are going to get as fair a hearing as you can 
get anywhere. I can assure you of that, sir. 

Mr. Foster. I can imagine. 

The Chairman. That is a fine way to insinuate, but of course we 
realize that. All right, carry on. 

Senator Donnele. I would like to ask the witness what he means by 
that statement, "I can imagine?" 

The Chairman. It is very plain. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 101 

Senator Donnell. Does tic mean to intimate this committee is not 
going to give him a fair chance? 

Mr. Foster. I mean a 3-day hearing is not a fair hearing. 

The Chairman. You have heard what the chairman said about the 
3-day hearing, have you not, Mr. Foster? 

Mr. Foster. Yes, I have; and I know that the word has gone forth 
all over the country that this will be a 3-day hearing, and many 
organizations on the basis of that have given up their prospect of com- 
ing here. 

The Chairman. Certainly the word has gone over the country. 
But who sent it over the country ? Who has been putting the pressure 
on \ I had at least 1.500 wires this morning in here. Who sent that 
word that the committee hearing will be terminated on Saturday? 
We give the proponents 1 day and the opponents 2 days, and then we 
go over the week end. The committee will have some of this matter 
before it and we will determine what action to take, but it does not 
do your side or anybody else's side, sir, any good to come in with that 
particular twist on your lip. 

Mr. Foster. We are for extended hearings. 

The Chairman. Sure you are. You want to determine the policy of 
the Congress, and that is not your business. 

Mr. Foster. It isn't? I would like to know whose business it is if 
not the business of the American people. 

The Chairman. I said you, sir. I did not say the American people. 
There is a vast distinction. From reading your quotations from this 
book we know what your attitude is on fundamental questions, but 
that is not getting a determination whether or not this law is con- 
stitutional or whether or not this is good policy. 

Mr. Foster. I think it would be advisable to hear our statement 
without so much interruption. 

Mr. Gates (reading) : 

It would substitute guilt by association for personal guilt. It negates the 
principle of due process by its priori legislative findings, its transfer of the 
burden of proof from the prosecution to the accused, its grant of extraordinary 
powers to the Attorney General and its limitations on the court's powers to 
review. 

I am sure that these legal arguments will be more exhaustively dealt with 
by other witnesses, more versed in the fine points of constitutional law. 

One need not be a lawyer, however, to recognize that the Mundt-Nixon bill, 
in its every line, breathes a Fascist spirit repugnant to the Bill of Rights and 
the Declaration of Independence. 

The inalienable right to pursue happiness implies the right to advocate funda- 
mental social change. Indeed, this right is made explicit in the Declaration of 
Independence which asserts that "whenever any form of government becomes 
destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and 
to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and or- 
ganizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect 
their safety and happiness." 

In claiming for the people this fundamental right, the founding fathers ex- 
pressed their faith that it would not be exercised for "light or transient reasons." 

Now it is significant that the Mundt-Nixon bill purports to ban only one kind 
of fundamental change — a change never yet publicly advocated by any American 
other than avowed pro-Nazis and pro-Fascists. 

H. R. 5852 prohibits the advocacy of the establishment of a totalitarian dic- 
tatorship under the control of a foreign government. 

It is conceivable that such a prohibition might once have restrained the 
Indians from selling the island of Manhattan. And it could be argued that, 
strictly interpreted, the Mundt-Nixon bill is today as zany and as harmless as a 
bill outlawing the Society To Give America Back to the Indians. 



102 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

But the apparent lunacy of the Mundt-Nixon bill is akin to the madness of 
Hitler, which enslaved the German people and engulfed the world in war. 

Millions of Americans, including the members of the Communist Party, are 
bent on the pursuit of happiness. They and we seek to curb the domestic forces 
bent on the establishment of a Fascist police state. They and we will not sur- 
render our sovereignty to any foreign power — nor will we let it be usurped by the 
power of the American monopolists. Millions are receptive to the advocacy of a 
change the direction of the present reactionary course of bipartisan domestic 
policy. They and we recognize that the Mundt-Nixon bill would effectively bar 
all of us from working to bring about such a change. 

Millions of Americans, including the members of the Communist Party, seek to 
change the bipartisan foreign policy which is dragging our country into im- 
perialist war. There is no danger that American will become the pawn or satel- 
lite of any foreign power. But there is grave danger that world peace will be 
wrecked by the American monopolists who strive to bring all other nations under 
their domination. The millions whose hopes rise with every new peace initiative 
of the Soviet Union, recognize that the Mundt-Nixon bill would bar them from 
crying out against the bipartisan diplomacy which repeatedly dashes all our 
hopes for peace. 

Millions of Americans, Communist and non-Communist, Negro and white, are 
bent on pursuit of the happiness which only full equality can bring. They seek 
to complete the fundamental change begun in 1861 — to end lynching, the poll 
tax, discrimination in employment, and to drive Jim Crow out of Army and all 
civilian life. These millions don't want to establish a totalitarian dictatorship 
under foreign control. They want to liberate the Negro people from the oppres- 
sion of the white supremacists. And they, too, see that the Mundt-Nixon bill, 
conceived in the Thomas-Rankin committee, is a bill to lynch the struggle for 
Negro rights. 

The 14,000,000 organized American workers, including the Communist work- 
ers, pursue happiness through their trade unions, which seek to defend and 
advance the living standai'ds of the workers and their families. They are 
struggling to win wage increases to meet the soaring cost of living, to curb 
the profits of the trusts, and to free their unions from the strangle-hold of the 
Taft-Hartley law. And all these trade unionists, too, see that the Mundt-Nixon 
bill would be used to knock them out in the third round of wage struggles and to 
disrupt and wreck their trade unions. 

Among all classes of Americans, and in the first place among American work- 
ers, there are those who question the immutable permanence of the capitalist 
system of production. Not only we Communists, but many non-Communists, be- 
lieve that socialism will one day replace capitalism just as surely as capitalism 
once replaced feudalism. 

A great many Americans, including many supporters of the capitalist system, 
see the Mundt-Nixon bill as a means for the suppression of all freedom of 
thought and the outlawing of all discussion of socialism. They are not deceived 
by the authors of the bill, who protest that it leaves untrammeled the purely 
academic discussion of the social science of Marxism. The Senators, as stu- 
dents of history, no doubt recall that the Inquisition similarly permitted Galileo 
to advance the idea of the earth's motion as a hypothesis — but not for very 
long. 

Some people, befuddled by the unending barrage of anti-Communist progapanda 
that rains from the press and radio, may wonder why a bill ostensibly designed 
to save America from the "subversive" activities of the Communist Party should 
so jeopardize every forward-looking and democratic group. If there were a 
grain of truth in the Un-American Committee's allegations about the nature of 
the Communist Party — that puzzle would be insoluble. 

But the fact is that Communist Party is an American workers, farmers, profes- 
sionals party — Negro and white. Its policies are made in America, by Americans 
and in conformance with American interest. It receives no funds, no directives, 
no orders from any foreign government or party. It is guided in the determina- 
tion of its policies and practices by the social science of Marxism — which is 
universal in its application just as are the physical sciences. It is imbued with 
the spirit of international brotherhood and working-class solidarity — a spirit 
which Abraham Lincoln expressed in the oft-quoted statement that "The greatest 
bond outside the family is that uniting the working people of all countries, 
tongues, and kindreds." 

The fact is that the Communist Party is blood and bone of the American work- 
ing class and people. Our immediate program is their program. Our aspira- 
tions are born of the fundamental interests of America's common people, and 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 103 

our socialist outlook for the future is an historical projection of their pioneer 
spirit and working-class aims. 

That is why every hlow struck against the Communist Party does injury to 
the American workers. That is why every curtailment of our constitutional 
rights subtracts from the civil liberties of all Americans. That is why the out- 
lawing of the Communist Party can be accomplished only at the sacrifice of the 
1 5111 of Rights, and by the enactment of an American version of the Nuremberg 
decrees. And that is why the Mundt-Nixon bill itself inevitably refutes the 
premise of a Communist menace on which it rests its whole case. 

I can assure the members of the committee that the Communist Party has 
made the most careful study of H. R. 5852. There is no shadow of a doubt that 
this bill would outlaw the Communist Party — and is intended to outlaw the 
Communist Party. The effort of its sponsors to conceal and deny this vital fact 
is of a piece with their effort to blitz the bill through Congress before the Ameri- 
can people gel wise to its full power for evil. 

H. R. 5852 bans only an unnamed Communist political organization and so- 
called Communist-front organizations which the Attorney General finds it "rea- 
sonable to believe" seek by any means to establish in the United States a totali- 
tarian dictatorship under foreign control. 

That shoe doesn't fit the Communist Party. But H. R. 5852 makes a legisla- 
tive finding that it does fit. And there is enough elastic in the section on "Defini- 
tions" to stretch the shoe until it can be made to fit any and every progressive 
group. 

If the Mundt-Nixon bill were to pass, the Communist Party would not perjure 
itself by admitting any resemblance to the monstrous caricature of its nature 
and purposes drawn in this bill. It would not dishonor the 15,000 members of our 
party who fought against fascism in World War II by giving de facto sanction to 
Hitler's big lie. That is one reason why we w T ould refuse to register. 

Furthermore, as a party of patriotic and loyal Americans, we could not and 
would not become accomplices to the murder of the Bill of Rights. That is 
another reason why we would not register. And finally, we would not register 
because we will never expose our members to persecution, ostracism, and black- 
listing in employment. 

Among the opponents to the Mundt-Nixon bill as now written, there are un- 
doubtedly many who subscribe to its professed objectives and would support some 
plain and simple method of registering Communists. We must therefore categor- 
ically state that any such proposal means the outlawing of the Communist Party, 
just as surely as does H. R. 5852. 

Any kind of discriminatory and punitive registration is abhorrent to American 
spirit and tradition. It smacks of the hateful domestic passport system. It is 
as shameful as the yellow badge which shamed, not the Jewish people, but those 
who forced them to wear it. Registration creates a caste of political untouch- 
ables — or, in the words of Congressman Mundt and Congressman Nixon — of 
political lepers. We Communists will never be party to the institution of such 
police-state practices in the country of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln. 

Nothing could be farther from the truth than the deceitful argument that reg- 
istration is a device to "force the Communists out into the open." We are battling 
with all our wits and strength to stay out in the open — while the supporters of 
the Mundt-Nixon bill are trying to bury us, and the Bill of Rights with us, feet 
underground. For us it is a daily struggle to reach the American people through 
the radio, the press, public meetings and our candidates for public office. We 
have to fight to buy advertising space, radio time, and to get on the ballot. Our 
telephone wire are tapped. Our letters are filched from the mails and find their 
way to the front pages of the newspapers. 

We would welcome legislation and Executive action to enforce the Bill of 
Rights, thereby assuring Negroes, trade unionists, and Communists equal rights 
with all other citizens. That is the only kind of legislation meriting the support 
of those who sincerely want to bring the Communist Party fully "out in the 
open." 

This should be clear especially to any worker whose memory goes back to the 
1920's and early 1930's. The trade-unions had to put up quite a fight against 
this registration idea. It was the passage of the Wagner Act that brought the 
members of the trade-unions "out in the open"' — by removing the penalties for 
union membership. 

Mr. Chairman, I now address myself to an important question. Why, after 
10 years of sniping from ambush, is the House Committee on Un-American Ac- 
tivities today able to come out in the open with this Fascist measure — blitz it 



104 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

through the House, and so speedily advance ii on the Senate calendar? Who 
wants this bill — and why? 

I believe the Senators will find the answer written in American history for 
all to read. Whenever there has been a great upsurge of democratic spirit among 
the American people — whenever they had girded themselves for a new advance — 
then the forces of reaction have resorted to new forms of repression. This was 
s<> in 1T9S, when the Federalists, feeling their rule threatened, passed the in- 
famous alien and sedition laws. The names of the authors of those laws are 
not today remembered even in infamy. But Thomas Jefferson is still a hallowed 
name, and many candidates who have no right to invoke it will do so in this 
election year. 

The rise of the abolition movement was answered by the fugitive slave law — 
a device to bring the underground railroad "out in the open." Of that law Henry 
David Thoreau said, "It rises not to the level of the head, or of the reason : its 
natural habitat is in the dirt. It was born and bred in the dust and mire, at the 
level of the feet ; and he who walks with freedom wiil tread upon it and so trample 
it underfoot, and its maker with it, like the dirt bug and its ball." 

In the 1920's and 1930's. when the workers engaged in great strikes for the 
right to organize, we had the criminal syndicalism laws, the anarchy laws, the 
Lusk laws. These laws were used also to stamp out the idea of Federal respon- 
sibility for the unemployed during the last postwar economic crisis. Those laws 
too have been swept into the ashcan of history. The great American trade-union 
movement is a reality — even though today it is again fighting for its life against 
the strangle hold of the Taft-Hartley Act's strike-breaking injunctions, open 
shop provisions, and punitive anti-Communist clauses. And unemployment 
insurance and social insurance have been enacted into law — although they were 
not so long ago labeled "Communist measures" and plenty of Communists and 
non-Communists got their heads broken by police clubs in the struggle for their 
enactment. 

But history, though rich in parallels, does not repeat itself by rote. Those 
who today press for passage of the Mundt-Nixon bill are concerned with some- 
thing more than putting down the rising people's movement for Negro rights, 
higher wages, repeal of Taft-Hartley, and the new third party. The American 
monopolists have Fascist and world imperialist ambitions, which they fear will be 
thwarted by the people's struggles for democracy and peace. 

The Mundt-Nixon bill is a Fascist act of war preparation, just as Hitler's 
Nuremberg decrees, and the Japanese ban on "dangerous thoughts" were acts 
of preparation for World War II. 

And just as the danger to the German people came from the Krupps and 
Thyssens, and not from Hitler's mythical Communist menace? — so does the danger 
to the American people today stem from the duPonts and Morgans, the Hani- 
mans and Forrestals, and not from the Soviet Union, the new democracies of 
Europe, or the rising democratic movement among the American people them- 
selves. 

I would be the last to deny that communism is growing in strength and in- 
fluence throughout the world. In every country, Communist parties are winning 
adherents by their championship of the needs of the workers and common people, 
by their defense of national sovereignty and of world peace. And in every coun- 
try these Communist parties are of native origin, and follow the indepe ident 
course dictated by the historical development and present day conditions of the 
lands which gave them birth. 

There was a time when the monarchs of the old world trembled at the men- 
tion of America — the nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposi- 
tion that all men are created equal. In those days every Republican was called 
an "American agent." But in those days hatred of monarchy and feudalism 
arose in every land, and no King Canute was powerful enough to stem the tide 
of history or to stifle his people's friendship for the American revolution and 
the new nation to which it gave birth. 

Today, to our shame, it is the seedy monarchs. the Fascist survivors and the 
feudal dictators like Chiang-Kai-shek who fawn upon their Wall Street masters — 
while the peace and freedom-loving peoples of the world hate and fear the Ameri- 
can imperialists and war-mongers. 

If the Mundt-Nixon bill passes, the world's peoples will understand that the 
danger of World War III has grown much graver — for they have not forgotten 
that World War II began with the Reichstag fire and the outlawing of the Ger- 
inan Communist Party. But nowhere in the world will those who walk with 
freedom and seek peace surrender what they wrested from the Nazis to the super- 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 105 

men «>f Wall Street. In the Soviet Union, the new democracies, the colonial 
countries and the capitalist countries the camp of peace and progress is gaining 
in cumbers and in strength, uniting Communists and non-Communists in strug- 
gle againsl the forces of war and fascism, of reaction and imperialism. 

Nor will there be any surrender to the pro-Fascists and war-makers by the 
people of these United States. Mundl bill or no Mundi bill, our Communist 
Party will know how to continue its Bgh1 for peace and progress. Mundl bill 
or no Mundt lull, the American people in growing numbers will fight beside us 
in defense of their living standards, their democratic rights and the cause of 
peace. Mundt hill or no Mundt hill, dying capitalism cannot escape its doom, 
nor prevent the American people from one day seeking their own road to a 
socialist reorganization of society. 

In conclusion, I would like to pose for the committee a few questions. I 
believe that no one who answers them honestly can fail to do all in his power to 
defeat the Mundt-Nixon bill. 

Is ir not a fact that wherever the Communist Party has been outlawed, 
or its activities seriously restricted, the democratic rights of the trade-unions 
and all people's organizations have been proportionately curtailed or destroyed? 

Is it not a fact that the war criminals of World War II sought to justify all 
their crimes against humanity on the same ground that the Mundt-Nixon bill 
takes in seeking justification for its enactment — namely, that these crimes were 
committed to stop "the world Communist movement"? 

Is it not a fact that the very haste with which the Congress is acting on this 
important measure reveals a guilty fear of the judgment of the American people? 
Is it not a fact that the people clamor for passage of the antilynch bill — and for 
defeat of the Mundt-Nixon bill? 

With those questions. Mr. Chairman, I conclude my statement of the Com- 
munist Party's opposition to H. R. 5852. But my party's fight to defeat this 
iniquitous measure will continue, and will be joined with the fight of millions 
to assure that it is never enacted into law. I am confident that we shall win 
this crucial battle. But win, lose, or draw, I am certain that the American people 
will never submit to Fascist enslavement, nor abandon their struggle to avert 
the terrible catastrophe of a third world war. And because my party is an 
integral and inseparable part of the American working class, we Communists 
will always and forever remain in the vanguard of the people's struggles — sharing 
in their hardships, earning our share in their ultimate and inevitable victory. 

The Chairman. Senator Donnell, do you have any questions? 

Senator Donnell. Not for the moment. I may after the chairman 
asks any questions he has. I may want to ask one or two. 

The Chairman. I understood from the statement that some other 
folks were going to discuss the legal phases of this. We had that this 
morning. I intimated before Mr. Foster came in what I thought were 
the issues, whether or not the bill is constitutional. Merely stating 
that the bill either is or is not does not answer that question, whether it 
is constitutional or not. It is a matter of policy to carry on a bill of 
this character. I think the statement that has been given probably in 
part gives his view on that. I was interested in one statement there. 
You said there was no affiliation between your group and the group in 
Russia. 

Mr. Foster. That is right. 

The Chairman. I have here some questions and answers which have 
been submitted to me. and I understand from this that on a previous 
occasion you gave different answers, but I will let you say for yourself. 

Question : What is the Third International ? 

Mr. Foster. The Communist International is the world party of the Com- 
munist movement. 

The Chairman. Is the Communist Party in the United States connected 
with it? 

Mr. Foster. It is. 

The Chairman. In what way? 

Mr. Foster. It is the American section. 

The Chairman. Then you take orders from the Third International, do you? 



106 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Foster. The question do we take our orders from the Communist Inter- 
national is a question which reveals the utter distance of the capitalist conception 
of organization from that of the worker. The Communist International is the 
world party, based upon the mass parties in the respective countries. Works 
out its policy by the mass principle of these parties in all its deliberations. It 
is the party that conducts the most fundamental examination of all questions 
that come before it, and when a decision is arrived at in any given instance, this 
decision, the workers, with their customary sense of proletariat discipline, 
accepts and puts into effect. 

The Chairman. Then you do take the orders and carry them out as decided 
in Moscow by the Third International of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Foster. I said it is not a question of taking orders. 

The Chaihman. Well, putting them into effect. 

Mr. Foster. It is a question of working out policies with the Comintern, in 
the Comintern as part of this proletarian organization. 

The Chairman. Well, they have to carry out those orders, do they not? 

Mr. Foster. Carry out the policies. 

The Chairman. Carry out the orders and policies as initiated by the Third 
Internationa] of the Communist Party over in Moscow. 

Mr. Foster. We carry out the policies in the way I have stated. 

I read again from this record : 

The Chairman. They look upon the Soviet flag as their flag? 

Mr. Foster. Do I get a chance to answer any of these ? 
The Chairman. Yes ; you will get a chance. 

The workers of this country and the workers of every country have only one 
flag, and that is the Red flag. That is the flag of proletarian revolution. It 
is also incidentally the flag of the American Revolution in its earlier stages. 
The Red flag has been the flag of revolution for many years before the Russian 
revolution. 

The Chairman. They do not claim any allegiance then to the American flag 
in this country? 

Mr. Foster. That is, you mean the support of capitalism in the country? No. 
The Chairman. I mean if you had to choose between the Red flag and the 
American flag, I take it from you that you would choose the Red flag? Is that 
right? 

Mr. Foster. I have stated my answer. 

The Chairman. I do not want to force you to answer if it embarrasses you, 
Mr. Foster. 

Mr. Foster. It does not embarrass me at all. I stated very clearly the Red 
flag is the flag of the revolutionary class, and we are part of the revolutionary 
class. 

The Chairman. I understand that. 

Mr. Foster. All capitalist flags are flags of the capitalist class, and we owe 
no allegiance to them. 
The Chairman. That answers my question. 

I understand, Mr. Foster, that the Communist Party advocates 
dictatorship of the proletariat, does it not? 

Mr. Foster. If I may answer some of the questions that have been 
put to me here. 

The Chairman. That is one question I put to you. 

Mr. Foster. We are talking about a fair hearing. 

The Chairman. I asked }'Ou one question. 

Mr. Foster. You asked me about half a dozen, so I would like to 
answer some of the others. 

The Chairman. Take them in your own order. 

Mr. Foster. First of all in regard to my book, that book was written 
1(5 years ago, approximately, and we have learned many lessons since 
that book was written. The principles of Marxism are rather ab- 
stractly stated, even mechanically stated. We have learned from the 
postwar experience particularly that the general path to socialism 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES ] 07 

as taken by the whole group of countries follows the general line of 
the nationalization of industries, of the major industries, the confisca- 
tion of large holdings, the setting up of national planning, the de- 
velopment of a coalition government, and a peoples* democracy. In 

these democracies the working class is in the lead, and when we speak 
of the dictatorship of the proletariat, that is all we mean. The work- 
ing class Leads the nation in socialism. 

It is a technical term which has been grossly misused and mis- 
understood, but this is the meaning. In that sense, with these modi- 
Heat ions, the basic principles of the book are correct. 

As far as the Third International is concerned, the Comintern, it 
has been abolished several years. It functioned like other organiza- 
tions in a general way. It made decisions on the basis of democratic 
discussion. Any organization that did not carry out those decisions 
was no longer a member. That is all there was to it. 

All this hobble-de-gob about it doesn't amount to a row of pins. 
It functioned like any other organization. 

The Chairman. It did not amount to anything in Czechoslovakia, 
either, did it? 

Mr. Foster. I will be glad to talk about Czechoslovakia. 

The Chairman. You could answer that question yes or no, I take 
it? 

Mr. Foster. In Czechoslovakia, if I may interrupt myself here, in 
order to understand Czechoslovakia, you would do well to understand 
Poland. Poland is the symbol of what is happening in Europe. The 
Polish people coming from under the Hitler dictatorship undertook 
to set up a free government in their country wdiere they could get 
away from monopoly capitalism and begin to move toward socialism. 

The United States and Britain undertook to force a reactionary 
government, the so-called London government, upon the Polish peo- 
ple. They wouldn't accept it. Then after the war they tried to force 
Mr. Mikolajczyk on the Polish people. The leader of the Peasant 
Party. They wouldn't accept that, either, and Mikolajczyk was de- 
feated in a democratic election overwhelmingly. Mr. Mikolajczyk 
had the backing of the United States, and he conducted his election 
campaign with the assistance of an armed uprising in various parts 
of Poland. He was defeated, and the Polish people moved to the 
left. 

That is essentially what has happened in every country in eastern 
Europe. That is what happened in Czechoslovakia as well, and if I 
may assume to prophesy under American reactionary pressure, that 
is what is going to happen in Europe altogether. The European peo- 
ple are not going to accept the domination of Wall Street. They 
are going to move to the left under that pressure, as Poland did, 
as Czechoslovakia did, as a wiiole row of other countries did. 

A- far as Czechoslovakia is concerned, the situation is something 
that is generally left out of calculation, in that the Communist Party 
was the strongest party in Czechoslovakia, with some 40 percent of 
the votes, and had a Communist Prime Minister. Under American 
pressure, they tried to force the Communists out of the Government, 
as was done in France and Italy, under American pressure. 

"Well, the people in Czechoslovakia would not stand for it. The 
masses brought pressure to bear upon the Government, and Mr. Benes 

78257 — 48 8 



108 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

had to recognize the resignation of these 13 ministers and recognize 
a cabinet that represented sentiments of the people, a Communist 
cabinet. 

The Chairman. That is Czechoslovakia's fault and Poland's fault 
because the Communists moved in. Is that what you mean '. 

Mr. Foster. What happened in Czechoslovakia was that people in 
Czechoslovakia and Poland and all the rest of the countries wanted 
to move toward socialism, and they refused to be driven back to cap- 
italism and under the control of the landlords and monopolies, as 
Wall Street is trying to do at the present time : when I say Wall Street 
I mean the Truman administration and the whole apparatus. 

Oh, yes. On this question of the flags. I think that was an incor- 
rect statement that was made there. Of course, all international 
organizations 

Senator Doxxell. Whose statement was incorrect? 

Mr. Foster. My statement that I read about the flags. 

Senator Doxxell. You reiterated that you so testified, did you not ? 
You testified to that effect back at an earlier hearing and then you 
were asked, were you not — 

Did you give that testimony in response to questions of the chairman of a 
previous committee of tha House of Representatives? 

Mr. Foster. Please identify the year. 
Senator Donxell. [Reading :] 

Question : Did you give the testimony? 
Mr. Foster. Yes. 

Did you so testify ? 

Mr. Foster. If it is in there, I suppose I did. 

Please give the dates. 

Senator Doxxell. The date of this testimony is in 1939, as reported 
at page 5391 of the un-American propaganda activities hearing. I do 
not have the date of the earlier hearing. It is set forth quite fully 
here what you testified, and you were asked whether you gave the 
testimony and you said "Yes." Is that right? 

Mr. Foster. If it says so there, I suppose. I don't remember it. I 
would like to say this about the flags. This original statement I 
think was incorrect. 

The Chairman. You mean I read it incorrectly ? 

Mr. Foster. No. The substance of the testimony is incorrect. All 
international organizations, Socialist parties, cooperatives, and vari- 
ous other organizations, probably Communist parties and so on, even 
our country, had the red flag as their symbol. Even the Labor Party 
of Great Britain, which is the most conservative organization, also 
recognizes the red flag and sings at its conventions the song. The Ked 
Flag. I think that was a sectarian statement. 

Undoubtedly we American Communists, learning from our experi- 
ence and getting a better grasp of the problems that we face made 
an error in that respect. We, in move ripened judgment, recognize 
and salute the American flag, and why do we salute the American 
flag? Because it is the flag of our country that has been carried 
through two revolutions. 

Senator Donnell. What is the second revolution to which you 
refer? 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 109 

Mr. Foster. The Civil War. And it has been carried through a 
great war to abolish Hitler. In this respect we respect it, but we 
don't respect it for such connotations of capitalism as may be attached 
to it thai is the symbol of free enterprise and the resl of this tommyrot 
that reactionaries attach to the Hag. 

Furthermore, I made such a statement several years ago. 

The Chairman. Do you consider that Stalin is anything but a reac- 
tionary '. 

Mr. Foster. I am not going to discuss that. Of course, he is not a 
reactionary. 

I would like to go back to this point of a fair trial. 

The Chairman. He is a liberal, is he? 

Mr. Foster. He is not a liberal. He is a Communist, a Socialist, a 
Communist. That is what Stalin is. That is what all Communists 
are. 

The Chairman. Does he fit into your concept of what Communists 
should be '. 

Mr. Foster. Communists are alike all over the world, taking into 
consideration their different situations and so on. But I would like 
to go back to this question. 

The Chairman. Just let me finish this. In other words, the Com- 
munist technique has been the political tool of murder, terror, fraud, 
deceit, as stated by Justice Douglas. Do you agree that those are the 
tools of Stalin and his clique? 

Mr. Foster. It is a lie. I don't care who states it. It is a lie. The 
fact of the matter is that we have had a Communist Party for 30 
years in the United States, and we have been in all kinds of struggles. 
We have been kicked around and abused and persecuted more than 
any political party in the history of the United States. You can't 
find any point in the record of our party where any of these things 
have been done. This holds true for the Communist Party all over 
the world as well. 

I would like to get back to the question of a fair trial. 

Senator Ferguson. Has it been brought out as to whether or not the 
American Communist Party is tied in any way with other Commu- 
nist, parties in the world? 

Mr. Foster. I can answer that briefly, if I may. 

No; it is not tied in any way whatsoever. Our party is an inde- 
pendent party without any world connections. 

Senator Ferguson. No strings or any connections whatsoever? 

Mr. Foster. No connections or no strings with any other party. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you follow any other program? 

Mr. Foster. No. We make our own program. You are absolutely 
right. 

Senator Ferguson. You are absolutely independent? No one else 
has anything to do with it or to say about the making of your 
program '. 

Mr. Foster. Precisely. 

Senator Ferguson. What is known as the Communist line, then? 

Mr. Foster. Marxists think the same all over the world. 

Senator Ferguson. It is just a spontaneous thought? 

Mr. Foster. Approximately. 

Senator Ferguson. That is your contention as to why 



110 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Foster. For example, I just stated a minute ago here that the 
experience in central Europe in the building of socialism has been 
such that we have learned very, very much from it — very mucn. 
That is the path that socialism takes. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you in way deviate from the Russian Com- 
munist Party? From their line? 

Mr. Foster. In what respect? 

Senator Ferguson. Any respect ? You say it is one of these spon- 
taneous things. You think like the Soviet Russians do, and there, 
fore, I want to know whether you deviate, whether the thought is 
conclusive ? 

Mr. Foster. We work out our policies, and you take a capitalist 
group in the United States. They work out a set of policies, and you 
will find that they will dovetail almost exactly to a similar capitalist 
group. 

Senator Ferguson. And I want you to answer my question. 

Do you deviate from the Soviet Union policy? 

Mr. Foster. We go along in a general way along a line of support 
of the fight for peace and so on, which the Soviet Union is following. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you deviate? 

Mr. Foster. We are Communists. Why should be deviate \ 

Senator Ferguson. All right. 

Mr. Foster. I might say we did not deviate from the policy of the 
Chinese party, either. We agree with the policy of the Chinese party. 
We agree with the policy of the British party. We agree with the 
policy of the French Communist Party. 

Senator Ferguson. Because you are all one, is that not the fact? 

Mr. Foster. We are Communists in different countries with a simi- 
lar ideology and a similar Marxism and we work out our problems 
in the same general principle. 

Senator Ferguson. It comes to this, that you have one policy the 
world 'round. 

Mr. Foster. No ; that is not true. 

Senator Ferguson. Suppose that an American came into an armed 
conflict with Russia, where would the Communist Party's stand be, 
your Communist Party? 

Mr. Foster. I will be frankly glad to answer that for you. 

Senator Ferguson. Where would you stand? 

Mr. Foster. The Soviet Union is a Socialist union. 

Senator Ferguson. That is right. 

Mr. Foster. A nonimperialist country. 

Senator Ferguson. I do not agree to that. 

Mr. Foster. We will discuss that, too. Maybe you will have to 
withdraw some of your objections. 

Senator Ferguson. Tell me where your stand would be? 

Mr. Foster. Give me a chance and I will be glad to explain it to 
your satisfaction. 

Senator Ferguson. I will be very patient if I get that answer. 

Mr. Foster. The Soviet Union is a Socialist country, and a non- 
imperialist country, ft is dedicated to the proposition of peace and 
its whole record has been a record of fighting for peace. If attention 
had been paid to what the Soviet Union said before World War IT, 
there would not have been any World War 1!. and Mr. Churchill just 
said so in his memoirs. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES HI 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know what Ribbentrop and Molotov did 
about dividing the world before the World War? 

Mr. Poster. Please let me explain. You asked me to explain a 
question, and I will do it completely. 

Senator Ferguson. I don't see how that part of the answer has any- 
thing to do with the question, but go ahead. 

Mr. Foster. I am describing to you the policy of the Soviet Govern- 
ment is a peace policy. The fact of the matter is an exchange between 
the Soviet Government of letters indicates that the Soviet is not only 
that but hundreds of people all over the world. 

The Chairman. His question was in case of war, where would your 
party stand? 

Mr. Foster. Please let me explain. 

The Chairman. You can answer without roving around the whole 
United States of America. 

Mr. Foster. That is what you think. Who is answering these ques- 
tions? 

The Chairman. You aren't. 

Mr. Foster. I will answer it. Don't make any mistake about it. 

The Chairman. You will not take all week answering that question. 

Mr. Foster. Any war, therefore, the Soviet Union being committed 
fundamentally to the proposition of peace, any war that may be de- 
veloped between the United States and the Soviet Union can only be 
an imperialist war at the instigation of Wall Street, and we Com- 
munists are against all imperialists' wars. 

Senator Ferguson. Therefore 

Mr. Foster. Just a minute, please. Whether that war be directed 
against Russia, Great Britain, France, Italy, or wherever it is, we are 
against imperialist war of all kinds. 

Senator Ferguson. Then you would be with Russia? 

Mr. Foster. What we would do in the event of such a war is we 
would fight to terminate that war at the earliest possible moment with 
a democratic 

Senator Ferguson. On whose side, on the Russian's side ? 

Mr. Foster. A peace that would conserve the interests 

Senator Ferguson. Whose side would you fight on? 

Mr. Foster. Listen, you can't make me say things 

Senator Ferguson. I am not trying to. I am trying to get an answer. 

Mr. Foster. I am telling you what we would do in the event of a 
war and what our position is. We are against all imperialist wars, 
whether it is against Russia or anybody else. 

Senator Ferguson. But you are in favor of Soviet wars. 

Mr. Foster. We are not in favor — Soviets don't make wars. No 
Socialist country makes wars. 

Senator Ferguson. All this penetration, all this murder, and all that 
goes on to penetrate is not war in your opinion? 

Mr. Foster. That is just Red-baiting. First of all, there is no mur- 
der and war. Where is there murder ? Please tell me. 

Senator Ferguson. But you would be on the side of the Communists 
in the case of tin's war ? 

Mr. Foster. In case of this war we would be on the side of immedi- 
ate democratic peace. We would not support any imperialist war. 
We have never done so. 

Senator Ferguson. You would be against America? 



112 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Foster. Then America would be against the democratic peace. 
Is that what you are telling me ? Not only would the Communists be 
for a democratic peace, but so would the American people, all except 
a handful of monopolists here who are trying to run the world. 

The Chairman. What if Russia attacked America, where would 
you be ? 

Mr. Foster. Russia would never attack America. You are asking 
me an impossibility. 

Senator Ferguson. How is that impossible ? How do you know it is 
impossible? 

Mr. Foster. Because a Socialist Government is not an aggressive 
government. 

The Chairman. What did she do to Poland ? 

Senator Ferguson. What did they do to Yugoslavia and Czechoslo- 
vakia ? 

Mr. Foster. I just recited to you what they did. 

The Chairman. They did not plan a march into Poland when Hitler 
went in one side, they did not go in the other side and take half 
of it ; no. 

Mr. Foster. They marched in there, that is right. This was just 
Russian land that the Polish Government had 

The Chairman. Let us assume a hypothesis here. What if Russia 
should attack America, where would you stand? 

Mr. Foster. You are not going to assume anything of the kind, with 
me. Such an attack cannot take place. You might as well try to say 
if Washington went up in the air at a higher level, what would I do 
in the cellar, or something. I can't conceive of such a proposition. 

Senator Ferguson. Then what is the purpose of this infiltration, 
this penetration in America of the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Foster. What penetration ? 

Senator Ferguson. You think there is not any? 

Mr. Foster. I want to say this: We have a Communist Party in the 
United States, and I have been a member of this party and its ante- 
cedents for 48 years, 48 years; 18 years before the Soviet Government 
was born. Socialism springs native to all countries. 

Senator Ferguson. You said that Russia never had 

Mr. Foster. It is not a conspiracy. There are 500.000,000 people 
in the world today following native Communist leadership, and to try 
to reduce that to the status of a conspiracy is ridiculous. Nobody 
would undertake that except some Red-baiter in America who has so 
little faith in the system that he is blowing so much about and such a 
great inferiority complex toward communism that he will find any 
kind of wild explanation to explain away realities. 

Senator Ferguson. What do you say about the war against Russia, 
that last attack of Russia on Finland ( Was that an aggressive war? 

Mr. Foster. Listen. Finland showed where it stood in the war. Fin- 
land was the tool of reactionaries of every stripe. It showed where it 
stood when it joined up with Hitler, in the war. 

Senator Fergusox. I see what you mean, then, that if the country 
that is attacked by Russia is not communistic 

Mr. Foster. There is no such country. 

Senator Ferguson. Then there is no aggression by Russia. 

Mr. Foster. There is no such country. I will tell you what the 
matter is with the world. What is the matter with the world is that 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 113 

this is the big lie of the present situation. The United States is out 
to dominate the world, and it is carrying on the most aggressive cam- 
paign of imperialistic expansion in the entire history of the world. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Foster, when did you first 

.Mr. Foster. Please ask me for details. 

Senator Ferguson. When did you lirst hear that Henry Wallace was 
going to write a letter to Joe Stalin? 

Mr. Foster. I heard it when I read about it in the newspapers. 

Senator Ferguson. You had not any advance knowledge of it? 

Mr. Foster. Nothing. 

Senator Ferguson. You never knew anything about it ? 

Mr. Foster. Please. In our newspapers 

Senator Fergusox*. Wait a minute. Did you have any knowledge 
about it '. 

Mr. Foster. Nothing. 

Senator Ferguson. You had never heard of it ? 

Mr. Foster. I read it in the newspaper. 

Senator Ferguson. Never had heard of it? Never had heard of 
the idea \ 

Mr. Foster. Never heard of the idea. 

Senator Ferguson. Never heard what was to be included in the 
letter? 

Mr. Foster. I say I never heard of it. None of the 

Senator Ferguson. Have you and Henry gotten together on how 
to get peace in the world '. 

Mr. Foster. No; we haven't. 

Senator Ferguson. You and Henry have not arrived anywhere on 
that great subject ? 

Mi-. Foster. I don't know what is the implication of that. 

Senator Ferguson. The implication is straight and clear. Will the 
Communist Party support Henry Wallace ? 

Mr. Foster. The Communist Party will support the third party. 
We have said that many times. 

Senator Ferguson. That is the first direct answer I have had for a 
long time. 

Mr. Foster. I have answered them. I would like, if I may 

Senator Ferguson. Does the record show what your income is per 
year? 

Mr. Foster. We issue financial statements. 

Senator Fergusons What is your income \ 

Mr. Foster. I couldn't say offhand. 

Senator Ferguson. You do not know ? 

Mr. Foster. Not offhand. 

Senator Ferguson. From what source do you derive your income? 

Mr. Foster. From our membership. 

Senator Ferguson. From your membership. 

Mr. Foster. Yes. Membership and elections and public meetings. 

Senator Ferguson. How much does a Communist member con- 
tribute? 

Mr. Foster. Twenty-five cents to a dollar a month. 

Senator Fergusox. What is your income? What was } T our income 
last year ? 

Mr. Foster. As near as I can recollect, the national income was 
something like $250,000 or less. 



H4 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Senator Ferguson. Your personal income? 

Mr. Foster. My personal income ? 

Senator Ferguson. Yes ; I am talking about your personal income. 

Mr. Foster. What has that to do with it; "What is your personal 
income?" 

Senator Ferguson. I am asking you. 

Mr. Foster. How dare you ask me what my personal income is? 
What has that to do with this situation ? 

Senator Ferguson. A lot, It has to do with whether you get sup- 
port from Russia. 

Mr. Foster. Do you think I get support from Russia ? 

Senator Ferguson. I am going to ask you that. 

Mr. Foster. It is ridiculous. I get $65 a week. That is my salary. 
But what has that to do with the Mundt bill, please ? 

Senator Ferguson. It has a lot to do with it. 

Mr. Foster. It has nothing to do with it. 

Senator Ferguson. It has a lot to do with whether you are tied in 
with Russia. 

Mr. Foster. I made some statements here. I will challenge any of 
you members of the committee to challenge me on it, and that is that 
the United States is carrying on the most aggressive campaign of 
imperialist expansion in the history of the world. 

Senator Ferguson. I challenge that, 

Mr. Foster. And that is the cause of the present war danger in the 
world. 

Senator Ferguson. I challenge you on that. 

Mr. Foster. I can give you a few examples. 

Senator Ferguson. My question was, How much money do you get 
per year or any time during the year from Russian sources. 

Mr. Foster. None. You know that just as well as we do. 

Senator Ferguson. I am asking you. Put it on the record. 

Mr. Foster. Not a cent. 

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, to get back to the Mundt bill, 
that this Mundt bill is a deliberate, carefully-thoughout-out plan to 
outlaw the Communist Party, so that the progressive movement may 
be more systematically attacked, and the speeding up of the building 
of fascism in this country can be accentuated, and so our country can 
be hastened on to war. This is the real significance of the Mundt bill. 
It is the most monstrous piece of legislation that ever has been intro- 
duced into the American Congress. 

You talk about a fair discussion of this bill. I propose something 
to you, Mr. Chairman, to really make this discussion fair. Why don't 
you call William Green down here and ask him what he thinks of 
this bill? Why don't you call Philip Murray down here? Mr. Green 
was quoted in the press as saying that he is very much afraid that this 
bill can bo used against organized labor, and he has very good reasons 
for his fears. Philip Muray has said the same thing. You isolate this 
thing just to the Communist Party. This a fleets the Avhole American 
people. 

Senator Ferguson. This cites Nazis and Fascists if they are con- 
ned ed with any foreign government. 

Mr. Foster. That is your hope, to put this thing through, but the 
American people will be deeply affected by this, the tradition. This 
bill is not, directed at the Communist Party primarily. This bill is 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 115 

directed at the traditions of America, al every other — at the third 
party; at every other progressive organization. If this thing goes 
through we will have such a witch hunt here that we have never had 
in the United States before. The Salem witch hunters will be novices 
compared with the witch hunt ing that we will have under this bill. 

Senator FERGUSON. Tell me this: Section 4. the first section. Are 
you familiar with that ( Would that affect the Communist Party as 
you understand it in America? 

Mr. Foster. Wait a minute. What section is that ? 

Senator Ferguson (reading) : 

It shall be unlawful for any person to attempt in any manner to establish 
in the United States a totalitarian dictatorship the direction and control of 
which is to be vested in or exercised by or under the domination or control 
of, any foreign government, foreign organization, or foreign individual. 

Mr. Foster. This whole section, including that part right there; 
what does it do I It sets up a monstrous distortion of what it sets up 
and considers to be the Communist Party program. 

Senator Ferguson. No; did you hear my question? 

Mr. Foster. I heard it, and I am answering it. Please give me a 
chance. 

Senator Fergusox. I will. 

Mr. Foster. This section that you read and all the rest that is all 
dovetailed with the set-up of a monstrous distortion of what it pre- 
tends, what it is trying to make the American people think is the 
program of the Communist Party, that the program is outlawed, and 
it associates it with us. The result is they threaten us with 10 years 
in prison if we advocate our program which is identified as this 
monstrous distortion. 

I want to tell you that you cannot outlaw the advocacy of associa- 
tion. In the United States whether you put a 10-year penalty or a 
20-year penalty or a 50-year penalty. The people of this country will 
advocate socialism in spite of any provision that j T ou may write into 
the law. 

Senator Fergusox. What is your answer to my question? 

Mr. Foster. I told you there that is a distortion, it is a deliberate 
distortion. It is not our program. 

Senator Fergusox. It is not your program? 

Mr. Foster. It is not our program but it is made to apply to us. 

Senator Fergusox. You say it is not your program ? 

Mr. Foster. It is not our program, but it is applied to the Com- 
munist political organization. 

Senator Doxxell. If it is not your program, why is there anything 
for you to object to? 

Mr. Foster. Because this monstrous thing that is written up here 
as the Communist program is applied to "the Communist political 
organization which is us. 

Senator Doxxell. This section 4 refers to an attempt — 

in any manner to establish in the United States a totalitarian dictatorship, the 
direction or control of which is to be vested in or exercised by or under the 
domination or control of any foreign government, foreign organization or foreign 
individual. 

I have heard your testimony here in regard to the Communist Party 
of this country. Do you know Mr. Stalin at all ? 
Mr. Foster. I know him in a casual way. 



116 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Senator Ferguson. When did you see him last? 

Mr. Foster. I think 20 years ago. 

Senator Ferguson. Twenty years ago. Have you ever conferred 
with him on the subject of the activities of the Communist Party in 
America ? 

Mr. Foster. In the days of the Comintern ; in the days of the Com- 
intern when all delegates discussed and talked with each other, of 
course I met and talked with all of them. Every delegate ; not only 
Stalin, but delegates from all over the world; every place. 

Senator Donnell. Does the headquarters of the Communist Party 
in this country carry on any correspondence with the Communist 
organization in Russia? 

Mr. Foster. None. 

Senator Donnell. When was the last correspondence that was ever 
carried on with the Communist organization in Russia ? 

Mr. Foster. I don't recall if we ever sent a letter or anything to the 
Russian Communist Party. I can't recall it. 

Senator Donnell. You testified before the Fish committee did you 
not, years ago, in the House of Representatives? 

Mr. Foster. What year was that? 

Senator Donnell. I do not know the year, but back in 1939 you 
stated, "When last did you give testimony?" In response to a ques- 
tion of a House committee, you said of the Fish committee. The ques- 
tion was, "Did you give testimony?" and your answer was, "Yes." 
Does that refresh your memory as to when the Fish committee was 
operating and questioned you? 

Mr. Foster. I think it was 1932. 

Senator Donnell. What was the meaning of your answer to these 
questions before the Fish committee? 

The Chairman. If I understand you, the workers in this country look upon 
the Soviet Union as their country; is that right? 
Mr. Foster. The more advanced workers do. 
The Chairman. Look upon the Soviet Union as their country? 
Mr. Foster. Yes. 

What did you mean by that testimony? 

Mr. Foster. In the sense that it is a Socialist country, and we are in 
favor of socialism. Naturally we are sympathetic with any country 
that sets up socialism. But our first interest is the United States. We 
are internationalists. 

Senator Donnell. I want to ask you about your first interest being 
in the United States. Were you asked what you would do in the 
event Russia should declare war on this country, and if so would you 
support the United States in that war? 

Mr. Foster. I stated many.times what we would do. 

Senator Donnell. What would you do? 

Mr. Foster. We would fight to bring that war to a democratic 
termination at the earliest possible moment. 

Senator Donnell. Would you serve under the flag and in the Army 
and Navy of this country if such a war were declared by Russia against 
this country \ 

Mr. Foster. We are given no alternative to that. We would be 
drafted and that is all there is to it. My answer to the question is just 
exactly what I said. We are opposed to such a war. We think that 
all those who are advocating war, and the Committee on Un-American 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 117 

Activities is one of (he principal war-monger agencies in (lie United 
Stales. They are attempting to get the United States into war with 
the Soviet Union, a war which will destroy the United States and most 
of the world with it. We are against such a war, and go down tin 1 line 
fighting it. If they precipitate such war, we would use our level best 
interest to bring i( to the earliest possible democratic conclusion that, 
then be just to America, just to the Soviet Union. 

Senator Ferguson. Would you fight on America's side? 

Mr. Foster. That is ridiculous. We are not going to fight at all. We 
are going to fight to bring it to an end. 

Senator Ferguson. Yon will not fight at all I 

Mr. Foster. Only to bring the war to an end. 

Senator Ferguson. You said yon would serve because 3^011 had to. 

Mr. Foster. I say as far as — would yon take — "no." 

Senator Ferguson. Would your heart be on America's side if you 
had to serve just to keep out of jail ? 

Senator Donnell. In other words, would you willingly serve or un- 
willingly serve in the Army and Navy of this country under such 
circumstances? 

Mr. Foster. I have stated that we are not going to fight against 
the Soviet Union. We are not going to fight any imperialist war. 

Senator Donnell. You are not going to fight against the Soviet 
Union ? 

Mr. Foster. Nor Great Britain, nor France, nor New Zealand, 
nor any other country. 

Senator Donnell. So in the event the Soviet Government should 
declare a war on this country, you would not fight against the Soviet 
Union, is that correct? 

Mr. Foster. I didn't say that. 

Senator Donnell. I understood you to say that. 

Mr. Foster. I didn't say that. 

Senator Donnell. You say you would have to, that you would 
have no alternative. 

Mr. Foster. I said there is no such possibility of the Soviet Union 
declaring war upon us. The war danger in the United States comes 
from here, not from the Soviet Union. 

The Chairman. In that connection, would you recommend revolu- 
tion in the armed services of this country under those circumstances? 

Mr. Foster. I stated what our policy would be. 

Senator Ferguson. That is a question. Answer the chairman. That 
is a direct question. 

Senator Revercomb. Why not answer it? 

Mr. Foster. The answer is "no." 

Senator Revercomb. Let me ask one question, Mr. Chairman. Fol- 
lowing the questions that have just been asked, if war came, desired or 
not desired, depending on your point of view ; accept the fact that war 
came, would you and those associated with you willingly serve in the 
armed forces of this country? 

Mr. Foster. No. We would have to be like everybody else. You 
are drafted. Communists never refused to go into the Army. We are 
not pacifists. 

Senator Revercx >mb. Getting back to the question that was asked 

Mr. Foster. Certainly wherever we were, Army or Navy or any- 
where else, in the community, we would undertake that to culminate 



118 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

the proposition of ending the war at the earliest possible moment by 
a democratic peace. 

Senator Revercomr. What do yon mean by that ? To what end 
would yon go to bring about an end of the war when you were serving 
in the armed forces of this country? 

Would you go to the end of disobeying military orders? 

Mr. Foster. That would have to depend on the circumstances. That 
I don't know. 

Senator Reyercomb. "Would you go to the end of disobeying orders 
or having your members disobey military orders while you were in 
the forces ? 

Mr. Foster. That I can't answer. Just what we would do precisely. 
I am stating our general policy. 

Senator Ferguson. You must have a philosophy on that. You say 
it is universal, international. What is the philosophy of the Com- 
munists on that? 

Mr. Foster. The Communists have no philosophy on this so far as 
I know. 

Senator Ferguson. You said you were an internationalist. Does 
that mean you are not an American ? 

Mr. Foster. I am an American. 

Senator Ferguson. You said you were a nationalist. 

Mr. Foster. Yes; and also an internationalist. That is no contra- 
diction. 

Senator Ferguson. Which comes first, your Communist Party or 
America ? 

Mr. Foster. We don't make any such contrasts. Our international 
policies dovetail with the interests of the United States. Our first 
interest is the United States, of course, but that in no way conflicts 
with international cooperation. In fact, I want to say that only by 
collaboration with other countries, especially with the Soviet Union, 
only by such collaboration can we conserve the interests of the United 
States. 

We maintain that our resolute fight over the years for a friendly 
policy with the Soviet Union was done in the best interests of America, 
in the best interests of America. That is, that the interests of America 
dovetail with the interests of the people of the Soviet Union as well. 

Senator Ferguson. Who is the head of the Communists in America ? 

Mr. Foster. I am the national president. Eugene Denis is the 
general secretary. 

The Chairman. If you do not correspond with Stalin or the head of 
the Communist group in Russia, how do you commune with him? 

Mr. Foster. We don't communicate with them at all. 

The Chairman. You have no exchange of messengers or anything 
of that kind? 

Mr. Foster. Nothing. 

Senator Donnele. Has the Communist Party of the United States 
ever been the American section of the Communist International? 

Mr. Foster. That is right. 

Senator Donnell. It has? 

Mr. Foster. That is right. 

Senator Donnell. When was that? 

Mr. Foster. Up until about 5 or 6 years ago. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 119 

Senator Donnell. In fact, you testified in 1932, and I quote as 

follows : 

Tin' Communist Party of the United Stales * * * is the American section 
of the Communis! Internationa] * * the Communist International is a dis- 

ciplined world party. 

You so testified, did you not, and do you not quote that testimony 
yourself or refer to it in the hook that Senator Wiley has read to you 
from, toward Soviet America? 

Mr. Foster. Yes. 

Senator Donnell. So up until about 6 years ago, then, the Com- 
munist Party was a section of the Russian Communist Party? 

Mr. Foster. No; not at all. 

Senator Donnell. I thought you said that just now. 

Mr. Foster. I said it was a section of the Communist International 
which is made up of parties all over the world. 

Senator Donxell. That is, the Communist Party of the United 
States was a section of a disciplined world party up until about 5 
or 6 3'ears ago, is that right? 

Mr. Foster. Yes; until the Commintern was liquidated, and why 
was the Commintern liquidated ? Let me add 

Senator Doxxell. Go ahead and tell why it was. 

Mr. Foster. The Commintern was liquidated for two principal 
reasons: First, to facilitate collaboration among the allies, against 
the Hitler alliance. But that was not the only reason. Another 
reason was it was liquidated for the reason that it was felt among 
the parties all over the world that they had to have a more inde- 
pendent line, that is the individual parties should develop more freely 
on their own. That is why it was liquidated. 

Senator Doxxell. Mr. Foster, I would like to ask you this question. 
In this statement that has been read here this morning by this gentle- 
man so forcefully. I want to ask you who wrote that statement? 

Mr. Foster. It was written by me and one or two others. 

Senator Doxxell. Who were the others who collaborated in the 
preparation of it? 

Mr. Foster. Is that material ? 

Senator Doxxell. Yes. 

Mr. Foster. Eugene Denis and I. 

Senator Doxxell. Eugene Denis and you. You said one or two. 
Do you know whether there was one or two? 

Mr. Foster. We were responsible for the statement. 

Senator Doxxell. Who else assisted in it ? 

Mr. Foster. I can't tell you the stenographers, their names. 

Senator Doxxell. I did not ask you the stenographer and you 
understand that. I am asking you who prepared the statement that 
has been read here this morning! 1 

Mr. Foster. Eugene Denis and I. 

Senator Doxxell. You and Eugene Denis? 

Mr. Foster. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. Is he here? 

Mr. Foster. Xo. 

Senator Doxxell. Did anyone else participate in the contents of 
that statement? I am not talking about the stenographer. Just 
you and Eugene Denis? 



120 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Foster. That is right. 

Senator Donnell. In that statement } T ou say several times here 
that you would refuse to register, talking about this bill. "We 
would refuse to register." Then you say that is the reason why we 
would refuse to register. Another place you say that is another rea- 
son why we would not register. Finally : 

We would not register because we will never expose our membership to persecu- 
tion, ostracism, and black listing in employment. 

Suppose a court should hold you had to register, what would you 
do then ? 

Mr. Foster. We will not register then, either. 

Senator Donnell. You would not register even though the courts 
of the United States should order youto do so? 

Mr. Foster. We will never make second-class citizens out of our- 
selves, and we will not register. That is all. 

Senator Donnell. You believe the courts are duly authorized in- 
strumentalities of our Government, do you? 

Mr. Foster. Handsome is as handsome does. 

Senator Donnell. Would you please answer the question? 

Mr. Foster. If courts make Fascist decisions, we will accept them 
as Fascist decisions. And a decision to sustain that law would be a 
Fascist decision; we Communists would refuse to register. 

Senator Donnell. You would refuse to register no matter what 
the courts hold, is that correct? 

Mr. Foster. Exactly, that is, if they call upon us to register. 

Senator Donnell. That is what I said. 

Mr. Foster. This is true of the Mundt bill or any other registra- 
tion bill. Any registration bill, whether it is a modified bill or 
whether it is the Mundt bill, that calls upon Communists to put a 
ticket on themselves so that they will be the target of every witch- 
hunter and red-baiter in the country. We will not do it. 

Senator Donnell. No matter 

Mr. Foster. There has been a lot of talk. But Air. Dewey made a 
speech in Oregon in which he said that he is against outlawing the 
party, but he is for the Mundt bill. That is a typical hypocritical jug- 
glery. Anybody who is for the Mundt bill is for the outlawing of the 
Communist Party. Stassen was correct. He said this bill would out- 
law the Communist Party and it would. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question. If a law 
in America is passed and then in the opinion of the Communist Party 
they <h> not agree with it, I understand their pholosophy is that they 
would not obey. 

MV. Foster. We live under capitalism. 

Senator Donnell. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Can the witness 
not answer that question? 

The Chairman. 1 have tried to get him to do that several times but 
he talks all around. 

Mr. Foster. This witness is answering every question. That is 
what you don't like about it. 

Senator Ferguson. Will you answer that one? 

The Chairman. You may strike that from the record. 

Senator Ferguson. If a law is passed in America by either the 
Federal Government or the State government, in your opinion 
and Eugene Denis' opinion, you are the Communist Part} 7 , as I under- 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 121 

stand it. You wrote this. This is your philosophy. Then the Com- 
munists of America will no! obey that kind of laws if they arc againsl 
the Communist Party, against their philosophy. 

Mr. Foster. We live in a capitalist country and there are thousands 
of laws that we disagree with, because we arc Socialists. But we abide 
by those laws, we accept them, and we propose to change them with 
democratic procedure. But any law that proposes to make our party 
register, that law we cannot abide by. 

Senator DonneUi. And will not? 

Mr. Foster. And will not. 

Senator Ferguson. That is the answer. 

Senator Doxxell. Though the Supreme Court of the United States 
should order you to do it. you would not do it ? 

Mr. Foster. We are not going to register. 

Senator Donnbll. No matter whether the Supreme Court orders 
you or not ? 

Mr. Foster. No matter who tells us. 

Senator Doxxell. Is that right? 

Mr. Foster. We are not going to register. Yes, that is right. 

Senator Doxxell. All right. 

How many Communists are there in the United States? 

Mr. Foster. We have something like 70,000 party members. 

Senator Dox'xele. Seventy-thousand what? 

Mr. Foster. Party members. 

Senator Fergusons Are the}^ public or private ? Is there a list of 
them so that we could see them, or anyone can see them? 

Mr. Foster. No ; we don't keep a list. 

Senator Fergusox*. It is not secret? 

Mr. Foster. It is not secret. 

Senator Ferguson 1 . Do you have a party card? 

Mr. Foster. Yes. 

Senator Fergusox t . Do you have it with you? 

Mr. Foster. No. 

Senator Doxxell. Does this gentleman have his ? 

Senator Fergi rsoN. Do you have a party card? 

Mr. Gates. I believe so. 

Senator Ferguson. Will you produce it? Is it a secret to belong 
to your party ? 

Mr. Foster. Not at all ; no. 

Senator Ferguson (reading) : 

Nineteen hundred and forty-eight, membership No. 29. Communist Party 
of the United States of America. Name, John Gates. New York City, December 
12, 1947. 

That is the date of issue. It is signed by Bob Thompson, State 
chairman. Communist Party. New York State, and a word for "seal." 
Then it has 12 months beginning January 1948. It shows dues in 1947 
They were paid for October. November, and December; initiation 
stamp and assessment stamp. Dues, income over $60 per week $2 per 
month. Income of $25 to $60 per week is $1 a month. Income under 
$25 per week is $0.85 per month. Unemployed. 10 cents a month. 

Read the Daily Worker, and the worker read your daily magazine, Political 

Affairs. 



122 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Senator Revercomb. Mr. Gates, where is j^our home '. 

Mr. Gates. New York City. 

Senator Revercomb. Were you born in New York City ? 

Mr. Gates. Yes. 

Senator Revercomb. How old are you, sir ? 

Mr. Gates. Thirty-four. 

Senator Revercomb. Is John Gates your real name or is that the 
name under which you were born % 

Mr. Gates. That is not the name under which I was born. It is my 
real name. 

Senator Revercomb. What is the name to which you were born ? 

Mr. Gates. Sol R-e-g-e-n-s-t-r-e-r. 

Senator Revercomb. Why did you change your name to Gates? 

Mr. Gates. It was easier to spell.' 

Senator Revercomb. Is that the only reason ? 

Mr. Gates. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. There are a lot of names easier to spell than 
"Gates." 

Mr. Gates. I chose "Gates." I liked it. 

Senator Revercomb. How long have you been a member of the 
Communist Party ? 

Mr. Gates. Since 19-41. 

Senator Revercomb. Do you hold an office in the Communist Party? 

Mr. Gates. Yes. 

Senator Revercomb. What is it ? 

Air. Gates. I am a member of the national board of the Communist 
Party. 

Senator Revercomb. What work do you perform ? 

Mr. Gates. I am the editor in chief of the Daily Worker. 

Senator Donxell. Do you have anything to do with the preparation 
of this statement? 

Mr. Gates. Not directly, only in so much as we always discuss in the 
national board of the party the general tenor of such things. 

Senator Donxell. Did you discuss the general tenor that was going 
into this particular statement with Mr. Denis and Mr. Foster before 
it was prepared ? 

Mr. Gates. In a very general way. 

Senator Donxell. How many other persons participated in that 
discussion besides you three gentlemen ? 

Mr. Gates. We had two other members of the board. 

Senator Doxnell. How many came together to discuss this state- 
ment before it was prepared? 

Mr. Gates. We didn't discuss the statement specifically. We have 
been discussing now ever since the Mundt bill has been in preparation 
our approach to the Mundt bill. 

Senator Doxxell. You were very familiar with this statement your- 
self, I observed, as you read it. You read it very forcefully. Did 
you prepare any portion of this statement ? 

Mr. Gates. No: I simply read it over last night. 

Senator Doxxei.l. After it had been prepared by ^Ir. Foster? 

Mr. Gates. Yes. 

Senator Doxxki.u Which one of those men really prepared the 
statement, the great bulk of it ? 

Mr. Gates. You will have to ask Mr. Foster. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 123 

Senator Donnell. Which one did it, Mr. Foster. 

Mr. Foster. I can't say. AVe both worked on it. 

Senator Donnell. You both worked on it. 

Where were you born, Mr. Gates? 

Mr. Gates. New York City. 

Senator Donnell. Mr. Foster, referring to this book Toward Soviet 
America, your attitude with respect to obeying the order of the courts, 
I want to read you this and ask you if you still adhere to this. By 
the way. is CEC the central executive committee? 

Mr. Foster. Y r es. 

Senator Donnell. Of what, the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Foster. The Communist Party. 

Senator Donnell. Central executive committee of the Communist 
Party. 

I read you from pages 272 and 273 of your book, entitled "Toward 
Soviet America," this, and I quote: 

The American Soviet government will join with the other Soviet governments 
in a world Soviet union. There will also be, very probably, some form of con- 
tinental union. The American revolution will doubtless carry with it all those 
countries of the three Americas that have not previously accomplished the 
revolution. 

The Soviet court system will be simple, speedy and direct. The judges, chosen 
by the corresponding Soviets, will be responsible to them. The Supreme Court, 
instead of being dictatorial and virtually legislative, as in the United States, 
will lie purely juridical and entirely under the control of the CEC. 

That is the central executive committee, is it? 

Mr. Foster. Y^es. 

Senator Donnell. Continuing to read : 

The civil and criminal codes will be simplified, the aim being to proceed directly 
and quickly to a correct decision. In the acute stages of the revolutionary strug- 
gle special courts to fight the counterrevolution will probably be necessary. The 
pest of the lawyers will be abolished. The courts will be the class courts, 
definitely warring against the class enemies of the toilers. They will make no 
hypocrisy like capitalist courts which, while pretending to deal out equal justice 
to all classes, in reality are instruments of the capitalist state for the repression 
and exploitation of the toiling masses. 

Does that quotation which I have read from your book still repre- 
sent your views? 

Mr. Foster. I think there is one error in it. 

Senator Donnell. What is the error? 

Mr. Foster. The error is where it says the Supreme Court would 
be under the jurisdiction of the CEC. That is not correct. 

Senator Donnell. That is what you wrote at that time; is it not? 

Mr. Foster. That may have represented the CEC of the Govern- 
ment. 

Senator Donnell. This was written while you were a candidate for 
the Presidency of the United States, was it not, this book? 

Mr. Foster. The whole book is a rather primitive and somewhat 
leftist presentation of our position. 

Senator Donnell. It was your presentation, however; was it not? 

Mr. Foster. So what? We change our opinions once in a wdiile. 
Not only do we change our opinion, but we say so. 

Senator Donnell. In your preface to it, of this book, you say : 

Its central purpose is to explain to the oppressed and exploited masses of 
workers and poor farmers how, under the leadership of the Communist Party, 

78257—48 9 



124 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

they can best protect themselves now, and in due season cut their way out of the 
capitalist jungle to socialism. 

That was the purpose of the book, wasn't it? While you were a 
candidate for the Presidency of the United States? 

Mr. Foster. It has a double aspect, to. defend the interests of the 
workers now and to eventually eclucate them for socialism. That is 
the principle of the thing, I might say. 

You asked me what that is. The government of the Communist 
movement all over the world is based, first of all, upon the fact that 
it is the best fighter for the people's interest in all countries, and that 
is one of the most insidious features of the Mundt bill, that because 
Communists are active participants in all progressive movements, 
therefore these movements will be subjected to witch hunting if there 
will be one Communist in them. And there will be a Communist in 
every progressive organization, because every progressive cause in 
America is a supported organization by the Communists. 

Senator Revercomb. May I ask a question at this point : Reference 
has been made here to the CEC which first you said was the central 
executive committee of the Communist Party. That term "CEC" was 
taken from the book, Toward Soviet America, written by William Z, 
Foster, yourself. 

Mr. Foster. Yes. 

Senator Eevercomb. You have stated that control of the Su- 
preme Court of the United States would be under the CEC. You 
made that statement in your book? 

Mr. Foster. It is correct, if I said that. 

Senator Revercomb. You stated in your testimony this morning that 
CEC might pertain to the central executive committee of the Govern- 
ment. You made that statement a few minutes ago. Is that correct I 

Mr. Foster. Yes. 

Senator Revercomb. It might pertain to that. If you establish a 
government in this country, Mr. Foster, would it be participated in 
onry by members of the Communist Party under this theory of gov 
eminent '. 

Mr. Foster, Of course not, of course not. 

Senator Revercomb. Would the Communist Party be the dominant 
operating force of the Government of the United States? 

Mr. Foster. Well, that would depend upon the circumstances. In 
eastern Europe this is the most practical experience we have before 
us — the Communist Party following the war was not the dominant 
party in some of these countries. Many of them in fact. But with 
the development of especially the pressure of the United States upon 
those countries, trying to force Fascist governments upon them, the 
Communist Party did become the dominant force in these countries 
and is the leading party in the governments, but not the only party. 
The fact of t he matter is. in the Soviet Union, as many as 4 years after 
the revolution, there was as many as 17 different parties in the Soviet 
Union. Because these others had fallen away. They had no role. 

Senator Revercomb. Getting back to the term •'CEC,'' which you 
say might be the central executive committee of the Government of the 
I 'nited States in the event you establish your form of government here. 
would that be the Communist organization \ 

Mr. Foster. All this, as I said before, depends upon the circum- 
stances. The fact is. in all these countries, including the Soviet Union, 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 125 

under a Socialist form of government, it is by no moans made up en- 
tirely of Communists, by no means. On the contrary, in the Soviet 
Union at the present time they follow the policy of a club. The Com- 
munists are the nonparty elements. 

Senator Revercomb. A person is not in the party element unless he 
is a Communist. That is correct, is it not? 

Mr. Foster. They have what they call nonparty bolshevism, sym- 
pathizers. People who are very close to the party, but not actually 
members. . 

Senator Revercomb. But they have to be m sympathy with the party 
in order to help in the performance of government. 

Mr. Foster. Xot necessarily. 

The Chairman. Right in that line, Mr. Foster, let me ask this ques- 
tion : One of your contentions against this bill is that you claim the 
interference with the inalienable rights of American citizens. How 
about what happens in countries like Czechoslovakia. Russia, Poland, 
and other countries under the domination of the Communists? Is 
there such a thing as inalienable rights? Are they protected there for 
the average citizen? 

Mr. Foster. I think so, much better than they are in any capitalist 
country. 

The Chairman. Much better than in America? 

Mr. Foster. Any capitalist country. 

Senator Ferguson. Is your card in your own name, William Z. 
Foster? 

Mr. Foster. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. Is there any code that is used in connection with 
cards? 

Mr. Foster. Not that I know of. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever hear of it? 

Mr. Foster. I don't know of any. There may have been sometime 
in the past, somebody here or there. 

Senator Ferguson. Why was it that they used codes? 

Mr. Foster. That raises the whole question of the illegality of the 
party. Any political party, whether it is the Republican Party or the 
Democratic' Party or the trade-unions, or any other organization that 
is persecuted and denied its rights. It will tend 

Senator Ferguson. To go underground. 

Mr. Foster. To go underground. The trade-unions were under- 
ground in all the basic industries of America up until Roosevelt's 
period. 

Senator Ferguson. That is why you use a code in some places? 

Mr. Foster. We don't use codes. If somebody in some circumstance 
has put himself under some other name, certainly I am not going to 
tell him not to if it means to be discharged and abused if he dares to 
proclaim his political principles ; not only that, but if the Mundt bill 
goes into effect, you can then expect this kind of situation to develop 
on a large scale. If it is anywhere, it is precisely because of the perse- 
cution of the Communists. 

Senator Ferguson. Is this right — that each State has a State chair- 
man ? 

Mr. Foster. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. Are you a member in New York? 

Mr. Foster. No. 



126 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Senator Ferguson. Where is your card issued from? 

Mr. Foster. I am a member of the party in New York. 

Senator Ferguson. Bob Thompson would sign your card, then ? 

Mr. Foster. I don't know who would sign it. 

Senator Ferguson. Have you a card ? 

Mr Foster. I have. 

Senator Ferguson. Are you a member of the New York State party ? 

Mr. Foster. That is right. 

Senator Revercomb. Are you a member of another State party ? 

Mr. Foster. No. Just New York. 

Senator Ferguson. Would you read the rights and the duties of 
a party member from that and tell us about it? I want to ask you 
some questions about it. 

Mr. Gates. Since it is my card, I will read it. 

Senator Ferguson. Would you look at it and see whether yours is 
just the same? 

Mr. Foster. It is just the same. 

Mr. Gates. "Rights and duties of party members." I hope the 
committee will excuse me if I read it forcibly : 

To at all times loyally defend the interests of the working class against the 
forces of fascism and reaction. To fight against all forms of national oppression, 
discrimination, and segregation, and all ideological influences and practices of 
racial theories ; to fight for the full social, political, and economic equality of 
the Negro people, for Negro and white unity. To attend club meetings, to read 
the party press and literature, to pay dues regularly, and to be active on behalf 
of the program and policies of the party. To participate in working out all poli- 
cies and tasks of the club and to regularly examine the execution of such policies. 
To vote for all officers, committees, and delegates, and be elected to any office 
or committee in accordance with provisions of the constitution. To appeal any 
decision with which there is disagreement to the next higher body, carrying out 
the decision while appeal is pending. To aspire to master the policies and 
program of the party — the principles of Marxism and Lenin. 

Senator Ferguson. What is the penalty for violating any of those 
rules, Mr. Foster? 

Mr. Foster. He might be suspended. 

Senator Ferguson. Suspended or expelled ? 

Mr. Foster. He might just be criticized or something. 

Senator Ferguson. Who is the authorized person to expel a member ? 

Mr. Foster. The branch — the club. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you have in New York a list of all of the 
members of the Communist Party in America? 

Mr. Foster. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Do the States give you a list ? 

Mr. Foster. No. 

Senator Ferguson. I mean the secretary. Does he have the list? 

Mr. Foster. No. 

Senator Ferguson. How do you know there are 70,000 members? 

Mr. Foster. We know from statistics. They submit statistics. They 
pay dues, and so on. 

Senator Ferguson. You have a State set-up. I want to get the 
set-up that you have. You have a State set-up and then a national 
set-up ; is that it ? 

Mr. Foster. Yes. 

Senator Ferguson. You are in the national. 

Mr. Foster. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. What part of the State dues do you get ? 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 127 

Mr. Foster. We get about half. 

Senator Fergi son. About? Is it half ? 

Mr. Foster. Approximately. I couldn't say just exactly. 

Senator FERGUSON. Who would know that? 

Air. Foster. I could find out for you and let you know. 

Senator Ferguson. You get half? 

Mr. Foster. It is a complicated system. There are different dues 
and different percentages. 

Mr. Gates. It is all in the constitution of the Communist Party. We 
can give you a copy. 

Senator Revercomb. Will you let me ask this question? What per- 
cent of your membership is in the State of New York or lives in the 
State of New York i 

Mr. Gates. Something over 30 percent, I guess. I don't know 
exactly. 

Senator Ferguson. How many Michigan members have you? 

Mr. Foster. I couldn't tell you. 

Senator Ferguson. Who is the head of the Michigan Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Foster. The names of our district organizers have been pub- 
lished, and I would like to say this : If you want this kind of informa- 
tion, I am afraid you will have to ask the FBI for it. 

Senator Ferguson. I am asking you this on this policy. 

Mr. Foster. In view of this legislation that is pending before us, I 
am not going to furnish this committee the name of any Communist 
whatever. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Foster, do you have Communist fronts in 
America '. You know what I mean by that. 

Air. Foster. No ; I don't know. I know what it is said to be, which 
is not true. 

Senator Ferguson. There are no Communist fronts in America? 

Mr. Foster. Of course not. In the common definition of it, of course 
not ; in the definition of this bill. 

Senator Ferguson. What is vour common definition of a Communist 
front ? 

Mr. Foster. I have no definition of a Communist front. I know 
what is characterized 

Senator Ferguson. What is characterized as a Communist front? 

Air. Foster. What is characterized as a Communist front is any 
organization in which Communists play a part. 

Senator Ferguson. Are there any such organizations? 

Air. Foster. Of course. Every trade-union in America can be pun- 
ished under that head, because Communists are in all of them. 

Senator Ferguson. You say "play a part." There are others, such 
as the civil-rights organization, which was classified by Tom Clark as 
a Communist front. You mean by "play a part" that it is their policy 
to go into these organizations and carry out the principles of the Com- 
munist Party. Is that what you mean ? 

Mr. Foster. A Communist is a Communist everywhere. 

Senator Ferguson. And everything he does is Communist. 

Air. Foster. He is like a Republican or a Democrat. He is a Re- 
publican every place and a Democrat every place. 

Senator Ferguson. I wouldn't agree with you on that. 



128 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Foster. Maybe Communists are a little bit more principled. 
They fight for their principles everywhere. 

Senator Ferguson. Every place, every day, they know what their 
principles are, do they not? 

Mr. Foster. But if the Communists belong to an organization, what- 
ever it is righting for, they put the welfare of that organization No. 1. 
That is why you are afraid of the Communists, because if Communists 
were the fools that you think they are and just went around peddling 
revolution and the rest of the nonsense that is in this bill here, you 
wouldn't bother your head 2 minutes about communism. But it is 
precisely because Communists are the most loyal fighters for every 
interest of the working class and for the American people. What 
serves the people of the country serves the Communist Party. We 
have no interests apart from the Aiherican people, none. 

Senator Ferguson. Isn't it the duty of your Communists, as mem- 
bers, as indicated on the back of that card which has been read into the 
record, to go out and to get into certain organizations secretly so that 
they can carry out the principles of the Communist Party under 
cover ? 

Mr. Foster. Nothing of the kind. 

Senator Ferguson. You have no orders or any idea that that is 
being done in America ? 

Mr. Foster. I know that in some organizations where Communists 
are prohibited from belonging, prohibited in one way or another fpom 
expressing their opinion, I say they would be fools if they would 
accept such prohibitions. That is what the Mundt bill would do. It 
would force that condition on Communists everywhere. 

Senator Ferguson. So they go in under cover. 

Mr. Foster. They don't go under cover. Communists fight for 
legality in every organization. 

Senator Ferguson. You keep the cards in certain places in code ? 

Mr. Foster. We don't keep them any place in code at all. 

Senator Ferguson. People do not know the names of the members, 
and so forth. 

Mr. Foster. That is nothing. I dare say the bulk of the trade- 
unions of the country, if you asked them what the names of their 
members, they couldnt tell you. 

Senator Ferguson. Where is this card registered? Is there any 
registration, any over-all registration of the cards? 

Mr. Foster. No. 

Mr. Gates. It is numbered. So many are issued, and we know there 
are so many members. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you know how many members there are in 
New York? 

Mr. Gates. Roughly, about 30,000. 

Senator Ferguson. Thirty thousand that carry cards? 

Mr. Gates. That is right. Those are the only kind of members. 

Senator Ferguson. There are no other members? 

Mr. Gates. No. 

Senator Ferguson. Every loyal Communist in America carries a 
card? 

Mr. Gates. Every member of the Communist Party carries a card. 

Senator Ferguson. Every member. Do you have any members who 
are outside of that, who for secret reasons do not carry cards? 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 129 

Mr. Gates. They are not members. They must be issued a card. 
They must pay dues. 

Senator Revercomb. Right at that point, you have heard Mr. Foster 
make the statement that there are 70.000 party members of the Com- 
munist Party in the United States. Is that correct? 

Mr. Gates. I think Mr. Foster is correct in that. 

Senator Revercomb. Thirty thousand of them are in the State of 
New York; is that correct? You made that statement. 

Mr. Foster. In the State of New York. 

Mr. Gates. That is correct. 

Senator Donnell. You referred a few minutes ago to what you 
termed "peddling revolution and nonsense about it," and so forth. I 
would like to ask you a few questions about this revolution matter. In 
your testimony that you gave before the Fish committee, which you 
stated here at page 5391 in 1030 that you had given, this is a part of 
the testimony: 

The chairman had said: 

I do not want to force you to answer if it embarrasses you, Mr. Foster. 

Mr. Foster. It does not embarrass me at all. I stated very clearly tbe red 
flag is the flag of the revolutionary class, and we are a part of the revolutionary 
class. 

The Chairman. I understand that. 

Mr. Foster. And all capitalist flags are flags of the capitalist class, and we 
owe no allegiance to them. 

I want to ask you, Is the flag of the United States of America the 
flag of the capitalist class? 

Mr. Foster. I answered that question before. 

Senator Donnell. Is it ? 

Mr. Foster. It is the flag of the American people. 

Senator Donnell. Is it one of the flags of the capitalist class to 
whieh you referred in your testimony which I have read? Can you 
not answer that "Yes" or "No"? 

Mr. Foster. I stated my position. 

Senator Donnell. Will you not answer that question "Yes" or "No," 
please ? Is the flag of the United States of America one of the flags 
of the capitalist class to which you referred in the testimony which I 
have just read to you? 

Mr. Foster. I stated a while ago — maybe you weren't here at 
the time. 

Senator Doxnell. I have been here all the time. 

Mr. Foster. I stated a while ago that I thought that was an incorrect 
statement. 

Senator Donx'ell. So you do not now think that the flag of the 
United States is one of these flags of the capitalist class ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Foster. It is the flag of the American people, which I say has 
been carried through two revolutions and a great anti-Fascist war, 
and around that flag is associated revolution and democratic traditions 
which we highly honor — which we highly honor. In that period — that 
book in general is a rather primitive statement of our policy. I don't 
consider it a good statement of our policy generally. 

Senator Doxnell. Mr. Foster, you put it out and caused it to be 
circulated when you were a candidate for President of the United 
States for the Communist Party. 

Mr. Foster. Sixteen years have gone by, and I have learned a lot. 



130 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Senator Donnell. The Bible is a good deal older than 16 years, but 
it still has certain sentiments in it that are truthful and remain 
truthful. 

Mr. Foster. Unfortunately I don't write like the Bible. 

Senator Donnell. Do you care to express yourself in regard to the 
Bible ? Does your party have any 

Mr. Foster. I think it is none of your business what I think about 
the Bible. 

Senator Donnell. Does the party have any attitude on it ? 

Mr. Foster. I don't think that is any of your business regarding 
the Bible. 

Senaor Donnell. And you are not going to express yourself. I 
want to read to you 

Mr. Foster. As far as our party's position is concerned that is 
quite simple. 

Senator Donnell. What is your party's position? 

Mr. Foster. Our party stands for religious liberty and freedom 
for religious worship. 

Senator Donnell. May I read you a little from your book here 
bearing on this matter of revolution and what you mean by being a 
member of the revolutionary class ? 

The new workers' government, as part of its task of building socialism, neces- 
sarily will have to hold firmly in check the counterrevolutionary elements who 
seek to overthrow or sabotage the new regime. To suppose that the powerful 
American capitalist class and its vast numbers of hangers-on will tamely submit 
to the loss of their power to the workers would be to ignore the whole history of 
that class. The mildness or severity of the repressive measures used by the 
workers to liquidate this class politically will depend directly upon the character 
of the latter's resistance. While the whole trend of the revolutionary workers 
is again violence, they always have an iron first for counterrevolution. 

In order to defeat the class enemies of the revolution, the counterrevolution 
intrigues within the United States and the attacks of foreign capitalist countries 
from without, the proletarian dictatorship must be supported by the organized 
armed might of the workers, soldiers, local militia, etc. In the early stages of the 
revolution, even before the seizure of power, the workers will organize the Red 
Guard. Later on this loosely constructed body becomes developed into a firmly 
knit, well-disciplined Red Army. 

The leader of the revolution in all its stages is the Communist Party. With 
its main base among the industrial workers, the party makes a bloc with the 
revolutionary farmers and impoverished city petty bourgeoisie, drawing under 
its general leadership such revolutionary groups and organizations as these 
classes may have. Under the dictatorship all the capitalist parties — Republican, 
Democratic, Progressive, Socialist, etc. — will be liquidated, the Communist Party 
functioning alone as the party of the toiling masses. Likewise, will be dissolved 
all other organizations that are political props of the bourgeois rule, including 
chambers of commerce, employers' associations, rotary clubs, American Legion, 
YMCA, and such fraternal orders as the Masons, Odd Fellows, Elks, Knights of 
Columbus, etc. 

Mr. Foster. I ansAvered that long before. 

Senator Donnell. Did you write that and cause it to be circulated? 

Mr. Foster. The Chairman asked me the same question before, and 
I answered it. 

Senator Donnell. "Would you kindly answer that? Did you write 
that and cause it to be circulated when you were the Communist can- 
didate for the presidency of the United States? 

Mr. Foster. I don't see why you ask me. 

Senator Donnell. "Will you please answer that question ? 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 131 

Mr. Foster. Yes; I did. But I would like to answer the questions, 
if I may. 

Senator Donnell. Go ahead. 

Mr. Foster. All this stuff, as I stated, this whole book I consider 
a very immature presentation of our position, but aside from that 

The Chairman. Has the Russian action lent more maturity to the 
word "liquidation"? 

Mr. Foster. Liquidation is a word that has been a great deal abused. 
1 just want to say this. If under socialism the big industries are 
nationalized, I can't understand what is going to happen to a chamber 
of commerce except it will liquidate itself. What use is there for it? 
It just disappears, that is all. Just disappears, and that is all there 
is to it. 

Senator Donnell. Have you changed your ideas in any respect con- 
cerning what I have read to you from page 274 and page 275 of this 
book? 

Mr. Foster. I propose I don't answer these questions three or four 
times over. You asked exactly these questions. 

Senator Doxxell. I wonder if he would answer that question once. 

Mr. Foster. I answered it once. 

Senator Donnell. Would you answer it this time for me ? 

Mr. Foster. I refer you to the record. 

Senator Donnell. Would you please answer whether you have 
changed your opinion from those expressed in what I have read to 
you a minute ago ? 

Mr. Foster. Of course I have, as I have stated about 20 minutes 



ago. 



Senator Donxell. In what respect have you changed them ? 

Mr. Foster. Give me a chance to answer. 

Senator Donnell. Certainly. 

Mr. Foster. My general understanding of the whole problem has 
become more mature, and I have a better understanding. As I said, 
many formulations in there I would not agree with. But I want 
to say this : All this talk about disciplinary action in the event of such 
a situation as a revolution, which is made so much of by the tone of 
your voice if nothing else, is a lot of hooey, a lot of nonsense. Every- 
thing I say there about handling the counterrevolution could have 
been written about the American Revolution, word for word. The 
way our Government treated the Tories after the Revolutionary War 
was precisely in harmony with this. 

The Chairman. Let me get that straight now. Just a moment, 
please. Let me get this. What would you do in case your Communist 
Party took over this Government? What would you do to us Re- 
publicans and Democrats and legislators? Let us get that clear now. 
What would you do to the Knights of Columbus, the Masons, and so 
forth ? What would you do ? 

Mr. Foster. I am not going to speculate on the situation. 

The Chairmax t . I am not asking you to speculate. Follow your own 
statements as to what liquidation means. 

Mr. Foster. I think we would do a little better to talk about the 
Mundt bill more. 

Senator Donnell. I think, Mr. Chairman, that the testimony is rele- 
vant on the Mundt bill, because here we are confronted by a situation 



132 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

arising from the attitude and beliefs and activities of the Communist 
Party. We are entitled to know whatever we want to know in regard 
to the views of the Communist Party and its candidate for presidency 
in 1932 and its present president. 

Mr. Foster. I tell you what we would do with most of the Members 
of Congress. We would elect a lot of workers and farmers, and you 
fellows could all go out and do some work in the factories and on the 
farms. That is what we would do. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Foster, did you make this statement ? 

No Communist, no matter how many votes he could secure in a national elec- 
tion, could ever, if he would, become President of the present government. 
When a Communist heads the Government of the United States — and that clay 
will come just as sure as the sun rises — the government will not be a capitalistic 
government, but a soviet government, and behind this government will stand the 
Red Army to enforce the dictatorship. 

Mr. Foster. I know. 

Senator Ferguson. Have you ever heard that ? 

Mr. Foster. I would like to ask you a question. 

Senator Ferguson. You answer that question. 

Mr. Foster. As my answer to that question. Did you ever hear — — 

Senator Donnell. A point of order. I request the witness be re- 
quired to answer that question. 

The Chairman. I think we would get along better, Mr. Foster, if 
when a question is asked you answered it categorically if you can, and 
if you cannot, say why you cannot and then go ahead and answer it. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever make that statement? 

Mr. Foster. Sure, I made it. 

Senator Ferguson. Is it true ? Is that your belief ? 

Mr. Foster. Please, now. You are asking me political questions 
and I am giving you political answers, and I refuse to answer "Yes" or 
"No" on all these questions. 

Senator Ferguson. What is your answer ? 

Mr. Foster. My answer is this, in the form of a question to you : 
Did you ever hear of any government that wasn't maintained by an 
army ? 

The Chairman. Let the answer stand. 

Senator Ferguson. You go ahead. 

Mr. Foster. Did you ever hear of such a government ? Of course 
not. Because of the very nature of a government, whether it is a 
Communist government, a Socialist government, or a capitalist gov- 
ernment, it must have an army behind it. That is the idea that I am 
expressing there. So what about that ? 

The Chairman. He answered it. He said he made the statement. 

Mr. Foster. You don't have to ask me that. It is in the record. Of 
course I made the statement. I explained to you that no government 
could stand without an army, not a Communist government, not a 
Socialist government, not a capitalist government; no government. 

Senator Ferguson. I want to ask you another question. Have you 
changed some of these statements in this book that was written in 1932 
because of the Smith Act, which now makes it a crime in America to 
advocate force and violence in the overthrow of the United States 
Government ? 

Mr. Foster. There is no 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 133 

Senator Ferguson. Is that the reason for your testimony this morn- 
ing that you will not stand back of what is in this book, because it is 
now a crime? 

Mr. Foster. No. That book 

Senator Ferguson. Has that anything to do with it? 

Mr. Foster. That book does not advocate force and violence, and no 
Communist advocates force and violence. 

Senator Donnell. What do you mean by the word "armed" on page 
274. which I have read to you ? It is in the bottom line or two near 
the bottom. 

In order to defeat the class enemies of the revolution, the counter revolutionary 
intrigues within the United States and the attacks of foreign capitalist countries 
from without, the proletarian dictatorship must he supported by the organized 
armed might of the workers, soldiers, local militia, etc. 

What is the meaning of the words "armed might" ? 

Mr. Foster. I just told you. How can you support any government 
without armed might ? That is ridiculous. 

Senator Ferguson. Here is another question, Mr. Foster. Are you 
familiar with these books, Political Affairs? I receive them at my 
home. 

Mr. Foster. Yes ; in a general way. 

Senator Ferguson. They are sent to me free and without solicita- 
tion. Are you familiar with those? 

Mr. Foster. In a general waj^. I don't read all the articles. 

Senator Ferguson. The activities of the Central Committee, CPSU. 
What are these Political Affairs books? Is this your method of com- 
municating from abroad here? 

Mr. Foster. That is our method of communicating from our national 
office to our membership and to whoever else will read it. 

Senator Ferguson. It is not to communicate from the other Com- 
munist Parties in other countries? 

Mr. Foster. Of course not. They read it, no doubt. 

Senator Ferguson. I would like to call these to the attention of the 
committee, not to put each one of them in the record. 

Mr. Foster. They read it the same as we read their papers. We read 
all papers. AVe read the chamber of commerce 

Senator Ferguson. Is the Daily Worker your mouthpiece, the 
mouthpiece of the Communist Party? Is it the official paper of the 
Communist Party? 

Mr. Foster. It is not the official organ. Mr. Gates can explain. 

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Gates, what is the official organ of the Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Gates. Political Affairs is a theoretical organ of the Communist 
Party. 

Senator Ferguson. Theoretical. What is the organ ? 

Mr. Gates. There is no other official organ of the Communist Party 
in this country.  

Senator Ferguson. Let me see the card again. How do you get the 
advertisement of the Daily Worker here? "Read the Daily Worker 
and the Worker. Read our monthly political 

Mr. Gates. The Daily Worker makes no bones about being a Com- 
munist newspaper. It is not the official organ of the Communist Party. 



134 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Senator Ferguson. You are an editor of the Daily Worker ? 

Mr. Gates. That is right. 

Senator Ferguson. Is it the mouthpiece of the international Com- 
munist Party? 

Mr. Gates. There is no international Communist Party, and it is 
therefore not the mouthpiece of it. 

Senator Ferguson. What is it the mouthpiece of. if it is not the 
mouthpiece of the American Communist Part} 7 ? 

Mr. Gates. It is the mouthpiece of the American Communist Party 
only in the sense that it puts forward a Communist point of view, but 
it is not the official organ of the Communist Party. 

Senator Ferguson. Isn't it true 

Mr. Gates. Let me explain this. For example, the Herald Tribune 
is a Republican newspaper. It expresses Republican Party views. It 
is not, however, the official organ of the Republican Party. 

Senator Ferguson. Does not the Daily Worker give out the so-called 
Communist line? 

Mr. Gates. The Daily Worker expresses a Communist viewpoint; 
yes, sir. Its editors are Communists; that is correct. 

Senator Ferguson. Have 3 T ou any connection with international 
organizations or with other Communist Parties? 

Mr. Gates. None whatsoever. 

Senator Ferguson. Do you try to express just the American view- 
point, or is it an international viewpoint that you are trying to express 
through the Daily Worker? 

Mr. Gates. We on the Daily Worker believe that it is in the best 
interests of America to express a viewpoint of friendship among all 
peoples of the world. 

Senator Ferguson. Have you any idea, on that question, if war 
came between America and the Soviet Union, as to where you would 
stand ? 

Mr. Gates. I certainly do have. 

Senator Ferguson. Where would you stand? 

Mr. Gates. I have been a volunteer now in two wars in the inter- 
ests of the American people. I volunteered for the Spanish War 
in favor of the Spanish Republic, and it now has been proved that 
that was in the interest of the American people. I volunteered for 
the last war. I served over 4 years in the Army. I will volunteer in 
any war against any enemy of the American people. 

Senator Ferguson. All right. Then you do not follow Mr. Foster's 
political ideas. 

Mr. Gates. That is not in contradiction of Mr. Foster's idea, be- 
cause I do not consider the Soviet Union an enemy of the American 
people. 

Senator Ferguson. I say if it ever went to war with the United 
States. 

Mr. Gates. Who went to war* ? 

Senator Ferguson. If the Soviet Union ever went to war. 

Mr. Gates. There is only one possibility of the Soviet Union ever 
going to war against the United States, and that is if the United States 
declared war against the Soviet Union. 

Senator Ferguson. Then what would you do? Suppose that took 
place, where do you stand? 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 135 

-Mr. Gates. I would consider such a war to be against the interests 
of the American people' 

Senator Ferguson. Therefore? 

Mr. Gates. Just as the war of Nazi Germany against the rest of 
the world was not in the interest of the German people, and I would 
therefore work to bring that war to a close. 

Senator Ferguson. But you would not join the forces? 

.Mr. Gates. That all depends. I certainly would not volunteer, as 
1 did in two other wars, because it would not be in the interest of 
America. 

Senator Ferguson. Would your heart be in it if you were drafted? 

Mr. Gates. Certainly my heart would not be in it, because this 
would be a war against the best interests of the American people. 

Senator Ferguson. Then we could expect you to betray the United 
States. 

Mr. Gates. You certainly would not. I would betray the United 
States if I participated in a war against the best interests of the 
American people. 

Senator Ferguson. So, if we went to war with Russia and you were 
taken into the Army, we could expect you to go to the Russian side, 
wherever it was possible to give them aid and comfort. 

Mr. Gates. You certainly could not expect me to do that. 

Senator Ferguson. What would you do? 

Mr. Gates. I would direct myself toward the American people, to 
put pressure upon our Government 

Senator Gates. But you are in the Army. 

Mr. Gates. Or to change that government to one which would bring 
about a peace. 

Senator Ferguson. You are drafted. I put the question that you 
were drafted. What would you do? What could the American peo- 
ple expect from you I 

Mr. Gates. I would use all means at my disposal to convince the 
American people that this was not a war in their interest and to bring 
that war to an end. 

•Senator Ferguson. Would you fight? 

Mr. Gates. Of course I would fight. If I didn't I would be killed. 

Senator Ferguson. That is the only reason you would fight? 

Mr. Gates. Naturally. I was in the Army in the last war, and I 
can tell you that there were plenty of Americans who w T ere drafted 
for that war that didn't fight that war willingly, but I opposed them 
on that score. I fought that war very willingly because it was in the 
best interests of the American people. Any time any enemy -attacks 
the United States of America, I will always defend the interests of 
the United States of America. 

Senator Ferguson. I was talking about a war with Russia, no mat- 
ter how it took place. 

Mr. Gates. Such a war is not in the interest of the American people. 

Senator Ferguson. I see. 

Mr. Gates. Whoever starts such a war against the Soviet Union, 
in America, is betraying the interests of the American people. 

Senator Ferguson. My question was, no matter what the cause. 

Mr. Gates. By the way, if you want my testimony in the record, I 
might say that I have not been sworn. 



136 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

The Chairman. Mr. Gates, do you solemnly swear that the testi- 
mony you give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Gates. I do. 

Senator Ferguson. I will ask you this question : Are the answers 
that you have given the truth? 

Mr. Gates. They certainly are. I always tell the truth. 

Senator Ferguson. That is all I want to know. So, this amounts 
to your testimony here being sworn through all your previous testi- 
mony. You understand that now. 

Mr. Gates. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. On this one subject let us assume something which 
you do not think is possible. Assume that Russia should attack the 
United States, how would you feel about it? What would you do 
about it ? 

Mr. Gates. My answer to that question is that there is only one 
circumstance under which Russia can ever possibly attack the United 
States, and that is if the present Socialist government of Russia was 
overthrown by a Fascist government. Then that country could at- 
tack the United States. But as long as socialism is in power in the 
Soviet Union, they have no interest in attacking any nation or any 
people, least of all the American people. 

Senator Revercomb. How do you know the attitude of the present 
officials of the Russian Government, to make such a statement as you 
have made? 

Mr. Gates. I know them for two reasons. First of all, because of 
their stated policies as have appeared in print and in public on many 
occasions. I know it secondly because I am a Communist, also, and 
as a Communist I am, most of all, interested in peace. I am opposed 
to war. All Communists all over the world are opposed to war and 
will fight for peace. That is why I have reason to believe that in 
the Soviet Union they have no interest in war. 

Senator Ferguson. Did they not attack Poland and Finland? 

Mr. Gates. They did not. 

Senator Revercomb. If the Russian Government desires to expand 
its influence in any part of the world and, in furtherance of that 
purpose, should declare war upon this country, having toward this 
country the attitude that has been expressed here by Mr. Foster this 
morning, if war should come, what position would you take on that? 

Mr. Gates. I exclude that possibility. 

Senator Revercomb. You cannot exclude it. 

Mr. Gates. I do exclude it. You can't tell me I can't, I do. 

Senator Revercomb. You mean there could not possibly be an attack 
by Russia ? 

Mr. Gates. A Socialist government has no interest in attacking 
any people, because there are no capitalists in that country. The 
only ones who can profit from war are capitalists. 

Senator Revercomb. You are not willing to answer the question I 
put to you, even if you consider it a hypothetical question. 

Mr. Gates. I deny the hypothesis. 

Senator Revercomb. You may deny the hypothesis, but you cannot 
refuse to answer the question as it was framed. 

Mr. Gates. I believe that I am being as frank as it is possible 
to be. I cannot answer a question on the basis of a hypothesis with 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 137 

which I do not agree. When your premise is false, then your answer 
is bound to be false. Therefore, I can't answer that question. 

Senator Revercomb. You are contending, then, to speak of knowl- 
edge of the attitude of those who administer the Government of 
Russia today. 

Mr. Gates. I have studied their attitude and their printed word. 

Senator Revercomb. You are not willing to make answer to a ques- 
tion in the event your studies and conclusions should be incorrect; 
is that correct? 

Mr. Gates. I think you are placing a wrong interpretation upon 
the whole matter. 

Senator Revercomb. No; I am not. 

Mr. Gates. I think you are. 

Senator Revercomb. You said you would not answer the question 
which I propounded to you because the hypothesis was wrong. If 
you were incorrect in saying the hypothesis was wrong, what would 
your answer be to the question ? 

Mr. Gates. I can't answer that. That contradicts all the laws of 
logic. When you start out with a false premise, no matter what 
kind of answer you give to a question that is based on a false premise, 
that answer would be incorrect and would be worthless. 

Senator Revercomb. In other words, there is no possibility, in your 
conclusion, of a war being made by Russia to expand her influence. 

Mr. Gates. That is correct, not as long as socialism is in power. 

Senator Revercomb. You are not willing to say, as an American 
citizen, what you would do if such a war in fact did come? 

Mr. Gates. I told you what I would do as an American citizen, 
using all my rights as an American citizen. I would try to bring 
that war to an and as a war that was not in the interests of the United 
States of America. 

Senator Revercomb. Because you would want Russian influence to 
dominate this country. 

Mr. Gates. That is not correct. Because I want the interest of the 
American people to dominate this country against Wall Street. 

Senator Revercomb. You want that done under the ideas and 
idealogies that exist in Russia today. 

Mr. Gates. I do not. I want that done under the idea and ideology 
of Marxism, which is a scientific belief which holds good for every 
country in the world. There is not one law of physics for the United 
States and another law of physics for the Soviet Union. The law of 
physics applies everywhere. 

Senator Revercomb. The laws of political science and political gov- 
ernment 

Mr. Gates. They apply everywhere, and the highest law of politi- 
cal science, in my opinion, is Marxism. 

Senator Revercomb. Is that the guiding principle of the Communist 
Party in Russia today? 

Mr. Gates. It is. 

Senator Revercomb. Therefore, we may come to the conclusion that 
you would want this Government put under the same form of govern- 
ment as exists in Russia today. 

Mr. Gates. No, I would not. We want socialism in the United 
States of America. That is, we want a system whereby the private 
ownership of a few capitalists of the basic means of production would 



138 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

be transferred to the people as a whole and operated for the use of the 
people, rather than for the exploitation of the people. As for forms 
of government, they are different in each country, depending upon the 
traditions and conditions of those countries. Take the situation you 
have in Europe today. The Governments of Yugoslavia, Czechoslo- 
vakia, and Bulgaria are not the same forms of governments as in the 
Soviet Union. That is a Soviet form of government. You do not have 
Soviets in those countries. There are many differences between the 
governments of these countries and the govevrnment of the Soviet 
Union. 

Senator Revercomb. These other countries are dominated by Com- 
munists or by adherents to the Communist idea of government as com- 
munism is known in Russia. 

Mr. Gates. Or anywhere else in the world. 

Senator Revercomb. Or anywhere else in the world. 

Mr. Gates. That is right. 

Senator Revercomb. The reason you hesitate to say what position 
you would take in the event of war between this country 

Mr. Gates. I do not hesitate. I have answered that very forth- 
rightly. 

Senator Revercomb. And Russia is that you really desire for this- 
country the kind of government that obtains in Russia today. 

Mr. Gates. I do not. I did not say I want the same kind of govern- 
ment as they have in the Soviet Union. 

Senator Revercomb. You want it based on the Marxism principles. 

Mr. Gates. The same kind of economy, based on Marxian principles, 
that is correct. 

Senator Ferguson. Have you ever been in Russia ? 

Mr. Gates. I have never been to Russia. 

Senator Ferguson. Are you familiar with the prison camps in 
Siberia ? 

Mr. Gates. I have never been an inmate of the prison camps. 

Senator Ferguson. I did not ask you whether you were an inmate. 
I want to know whether you are familiar with them. 

Mr. GxVtes. Only through books and reading about them, and so 
forth. 

Senator Ferguson. You do not know how many people may be con- 
fined there for political views? 

Mr. Gates. I do not. 

Senator Donnell. Who is Joseph Staraban? 

Mr. Gates. He is the foreign editor of the Daily Worker. 

Senator Donnell. That is the paper with which you are connected? 

Mr. Gates. I am the editor in chief. 

Senator Donnell. Where does he make his headquarters? 

Mr. Gates. In the Daily Worker office. 

Senator Donnell. In New York City? 

Mr. Gates. Yes, sir. 

Senator Donnell. Does he go to Europe from time to time? 

Mr. Gates. He is the only foreign editor of my acquaintance who 
has never been to Europe. 

Senator Donnell. He never has been there? 

Mi'. Gates. He has been in Latin America, but has never been to 
Europe. He plans to go if the State Department will give him a 
passport. 



CONTROL OF STUN KHS1VK ACTIVITIES 139 

Senator Donnell. Does the magazine Political Affairs ever carry 
articles by leaders of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? 

Mr. Gates. It does. 

Senator Donnell. How do those articles get over here to Political 
Affairs? 

Mr. Gates. They appear in publications, and very often we simply 
copy them from the publications. 

Senator Donnell. Do those articles ever come by mail or cabh? 
or other means of communication? 

Mr. Gates. The only way I know of cables is when we request one. 

Senator Donnell. Have you requested it of them from time to 
time? 

Mr. Gates. For example, there was an instance some weeks ago 
which occurred while I was in Italy, but which I am acquainted with. 
and that is, there was an article appeared in the New York Times to 
the effect that the newspaper of the nine-party information bureau 
in Belgrade had attacked the Communist Party of the United States. 
The Daily Worker, in the interest of truth, finding out the fact here, 
sent a cable to this newspaper in Belgrade asking them for the full 
text of their statement. They sent us back a cable, and we printed 
the full text. It turned out that the New York Times story was a 
distortion. 

Senator Ferguson. It was not an attack? 

Mr. Gates. It was not an attack. 

Senator Donnell. When were you in Italy last? 

Mr. Gates. One week before and 1 week after the election which 
]ust took place, the April 18 election. 

Senator Donnell. April 18 of this year. You were over there 
beforo the election? 

Mi". Gates. One week before and 1 week after. 

Senator Donxell. Were you in consultation with the Communist 
leaders while you were in Rome? 

Mr. Gates. I tried to secure interviews with leaders of the Com- 
munist Party for my newspaper. I didn't succeed in interviewing 
Mr. Togliatti, who is the head man in Italy of the Communist Party. 
I did succeed in interviewing his adjutant, Luigi Longo. I have writ- 
ten about that. I wrote about that in the dispatches I sent back to 
the paper. 

Senator Donnell. Did you go to any other capitals in Europe 
besides Rome? 

Mr. Gates. Paris. 

Senator Donnell. Did vou confer with any Communist leaders in 
Paris? 

Mr. Gates. I had a long conversation for about 2 hours with Andre 
Martin, who is one of the leaders of the French Communist Party. 
I knew him rather well in Spain. AVe fought together on behalf of 
the Spanish Republic. 

Senator Donxell. While you were in either Italy or Paris did you 
see any of the Russian Communists? 

Mr. Gates. I did not. 

Senator Donnell. Did you talk with any of them over long-distance 
telephone or have any communication of any kind with them? 

78257 — 48 10 



140 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Gates. I have never talked to Russia over long-distance tele- 
phone. 

Senator Donnell. I mean while you were in Paris or Rome. 

Mr. Gates. With Russia? No. 

Senator Donnell. Did you talk with any representatives of the 
Russian Government while you were in Paris ? 

Mr. Gates. I did not. 

Senator Donnell. Or in Rome? 

Mr. Gates. I did not. 

Senator Donnell. I notice that Mr. Staraban, the foreign editor, 
described as such here, Joseph Staraban. is foreign editor of the Daily 
Worker and political analyst of note away back in 1946. He made a 
contribution here to Political Affairs, entitled, "The Foreign Ministers 
Conference," which is the Paris Conference. Did he do that just from 
what he picked up out of newspapers, or did he have conferences or 
communications from people who attended that conference? 

Mr. Gates. He did it purely from a study of the materials at hand 
in the United States. 

Senator Donnell. He had no consultation or communication with 
anybody over there? 

Mr. Gates. No. On other occasions my newspaper has sent repre- 
sentatives to such conferences. For example, Mr. Robert Hall, our 
Washington correspondent, represented our newspaper at the last 
meeting of the Security Council in London. 

Senator Donnell. Did he come in contact with any of the Russian 
leaders of the Communist movement while he was a broad ? 

Mr. Gates. If he did, he didn't tell me about it. 

Senator Ferguson. May I inquire, were you interested in the 
election? Did you take part? 

Mr. Gates. You mean, did I vote? 

Senator Donnell. In the Italian election, you mean. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you take part in it ? Did you make any 
speeches ? 

Mr. Gates. I made no speech in the election campaign. I was one 
of those Americans who did not send a letter to anybody in Italy 
asking them to vote in a certain way. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you advocate, while you were there, voting 
in a certain way? 

Mr. Gates. I did not. 

Senator Ferguson. What was your interest in the election? 

Mr. Gates. I wanted the Popular Front of Italy to win that 
election. 

Senator Ferguson. You wanted the Communists to win. 

Mr. Gates. The Communists are part of that Popular Front, 
not all of it. The Socialists also are in it, ,and also some Republicans 
and Christian Democrats. 

Senator Ferguson. You think it would be much better for Italy 
and for the world if they had 

Mr. Gates. If they had a Popular Front government; I certainly 
do. 

Senator Ferguson. Did you take part or do anything to have tlijat 
accomplished, that they would win I 

Mr. Gates. I did not. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 141 

Senator Ferguson. Your purpose, then, as a visitor was merely as 
a newspaperman. 

Mr. Gates, That is correct. 

Senator Ferguson. Reporting the facts back to America. 

Mr. Gates. That is true. 

Senator Ferguson. You did have some prejudice. 

Mr. Gates. I certainly did. I am a Communist. I am not a 
.Republican or a Democrat. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Senator Ferguson. Are all the people who work on the Daily 
Worker Communists, carrying cards? 

Mr. Gates. I couldn't say that for sure. I haven't asked each mem- 
ber of the staff. 

Senator Ferguson. Would that not be material ? You are the editor- 
in-chief. 

Mr. Gates. In the past years I have made it my business not to 
inquire too closely into the beliefs of people, because I anticipate that 
perhaps some time in the future I may be called upon to give testimony 
that might cause a person to lose his job. 

Senator Ferguson. I see. 

Mr. Gates. I don't want to be put in that position. 

Senator Ferguson. Or of having information you would not want 
to give. 

Mr. Gates. That is correct. 

Senator Ferguson. Therefore, you avoid it by not inquiring. 

Mr. Gates. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? If there is no 
further testimony by this witness, I will call the next witness. 

The Chairman. Mr. Hines? 

Mr. Hines. I am not going to take up any of the committee's time, 
other than to make a very brief statement. 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand ? Do you solemnly 
swear that the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Hines. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF LEWIS G. HINES NATIONAL LEGISLATIVE REPRE- 
SENTATIVE, AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR, WASHINGTON, 
D. C. 

Mr. Hines. My name is Lewis G. Hines. I am the national legisla- 
tive representative of the American Federation of Labor. 

In this brief I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that we are an or- 
ganization of seven and a half million loyal American workers whose 
record in opposition to communism is well known. It needs no elabora- 
tion from me. We also point out in here that our legal and legislative 
bureau has gone over this bill, and they have arrived at certain con- 
clusions which are all incorporated in here. We also offer suggestions 
as to a remedy to combat communism. We advocate the passage of 
certain social legislation, including better social security, better legis- 
lation for health and sickness, minimum-wage legislation, and above 
all, the most important thing on the agenda as far as the American 
Federation of Labor is concerned, the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act, 



142 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

which we think is doing more to promote communism and to thwart our 
efforts in the labor movement to combat communism than any thing- 
else could do. 

It is all contained here, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly appreciate 
the privilege that you have extended me to make this brief and to get 
it in the record. 

The Chairman. Thank you very much, sir. The brief will be in- 
corporated in the record. 

(The statement follows:) 

Statement of Lewis G. Hines, National Legislative Representative of the 
American Federation of Labor, Before the Senate Judiciary Committee 
on H. R. 5852 (the Mundt-Nixon Bill), May 28, 194S 

The record of the American Federation of Labor in its opposition to com- 
munism is too well known to need recital here. The 7,500,000 loyal, patriotic 
Americans who go to make up our organization have successfully repulsed the 
attempts of communism to infiltrate within our ranks for the purpose of dis- 
seminating their propaganda to the end that the mission of communism to over- 
throw capitalistic institutions and substitute a so-called dicatorship of the pro- 
letariat may be accomplished. Because of our sincere desire to protect the Nation 
against the inroad of communism and because of our intimate knowledge of the 
aims and purposes of the Communist movement in American, gained through 
intimate, everyday contact and knowledge of their technique to spread the doc- 
trine of communism, we have given serious attention to the efforts now being put 
forth by the proponents of the Mundt-Nixon bill to have Congress deal with the 
menace of communism through legislation. 

Our legislative bureau and our legal staff have spent considerable time analyz- 
ing this measure. We have reached certain conclusions which are set forth in 
this statement. We do not believe that the best interests of the Nation can be 
served by attempting to outlaw and make illegal the Communist movement in 
America. On the other hand, we believe there are serious implications in the 
Mundt-Nixon bill that would infringe upon our civil liberties and might con- 
ceivably be detrimental to our labor unions. 

The Mundt-Nixon bill, as it was finally amended and as it finally passed the 
House, purports to be an attempt to control, if not outlaw, Communist activities 
in the United States. This is accomplished by broadly defining what constitutes 
"Communist political organizations" and "Communist-front organizations," and 
requiring organizations coming within such definition to register with the At- 
torney General and disclose its officers and members. Various penalties are 
(hen imposed upon any person who is a member of a Communist political or- 
ganizations, among them being loss of right to seek Federal office, loss of Federal 
job, loss of passport rights, and public exposure, and finally, the organizations 
themselves are denied exemption from income-tax laws and are restricted in the 
use of the mails. 

Whether an organization is or is not a Communist organization is to be deter- 
mined through administrative hearings conducted by the Attorney General. 
Appeals from his determinations can be carried to the Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia, but the Attorney General's finding is conclusive if sup- 
ported by the preponderance of the evidence. 

The foregoing constitutes a broad summary of the lengthy, 2S-page bill. It 
remains to examine the provisions of the bill in more detail as a means of ascer- 
taining (1 ) whether the bill offers any inherent threat to the functioning of labor 
organizations, and (2) whether the bill is consistent with the freedoms of speech. 
assembly, and religion as heretofore understood. 

After entitling the act the "Subversive Control Act of 1948" in section 1, sec- 
tion 2 goes on to specify in 11 subparagraphs the necessity for the legislation. 
The Congress makes legislative findings to the effect that a Communist totali- 
tarian dictatorship is characterized by identification of party and government, 
ruthless suppression of opposition, and denial of all civil liberties. It is further 
found that a world Communist movement exists whose purpose it is to establish 
a Communist totalitarian dictatorship in all countries. Direction and control 
of this movement is vested in a "Communist dictatorship of a foreign country." 
This dictatorship uses political organizations in other countries as constituent 
elements of the world movement, such political organizations being controlled 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 143 

directly by the foreign dictatorship and having no independent existence. The 
political organizations which are a part of the movement are organized on a 

secret basis and often operate through organizations known as Communist fronts 
which, again, are operated so as to conceal the true character and purposes of 
the organization. Individuals participating in the world Communist movement, 
in effect, repudiate their allegiance to the United States and transfer it t<> a 
foreign country. The movement has already installed a Communist dictatorship 
in a number of countries, and the movement constitutes a clear and present 
danger to the security of the United States and the existence of free American 
institutions. 

Section 3 contains the various definitions. The most important of these are 
the definitions of "organization," "Communist political organization," and "Com- 
munist-front organization." 

An "organization" is defined to include any group, incorporated or unincorpo- 
rated, which is "associated together for joint action on or advancement of views 
on any suject or subjects." This definition would include, clearly, all labor or- 
ganizations. 

A "Communist political organization" is defined as one having some of the 
characteristics of a political party which it may be "reasonable to conclude" 
is under the control of a foreign government having regard to some of the fol- 
lowing considerations : 

(a) The extent and nature of its activities, including an expression of its 
views. 

(ft) The extent to which its policies are carried out pursuant to directives of a 
foreign Communist government. 

(c) The extent to which its views "are the same as" those of such foreign 
Communist government. 

(d) The extent to which it supports the basic principles of communism "as 
•expounded by Marx and Lenin." 

(e) The extent to which it receives financial aid from such foreign govern- 
ment. 

(f) The extent to which it sends members for instruction or training to such 
foreign government. 

(g) The extent to which it reports to such foreign government. 

(/() The extent to which its members or leaders are subject to the disciplinary 
power of such foreign government. 

(i) The extent to which it fails to disclose or resists efforts to obtain informa- 
tion concerning its membership or membership lists or records, and whose mem- 
bers refuse to acknowledge membership, and whose meetings are secret. 

(./) The extent to which its members owe primary allegiance to such foreign 
Communist government. 

It is to be noted that any two or more of the foregoing factors are sufficient 
to provide a basis for a finding that the organization in question is a "Commu- 
nist political organization." The following subsections offer a threat to labor 
organizations being branded "Communist political organizations" : (c), {d) and 
(«) above. It will be quite possible for a hostile Attorney General to conclude 
that at least some of the views and policies of American trade unions are 
similar to some of the views and policies of the Communists, American or Rus- 
sian, or are in line with some of the principles expounded by Marx and Lenin ; 
for instance, racial economic equality, abolition of the poll tax, enactment of an 
adequate housing program or a national health program, Government control of 
utilities, such as the telegraph and railroads, as has been proposed by labor 
organizations in those industries, are among the policies advocated by the Com- 
munists from time to time, and there are other objectives professed by the Com- 
iui' ni " f s which unions consistently support, as, for instance, an adequate living 
wage, control of living costs, etc. Among other things, Marx and Lenin preached 
the incitement to strike, the use of boycott, and the use of other of labor's economic 
weapons. 

While it might he rather farfetched to imagine that any Attorney General 
would seize upon the coincidence of objectives customarily announced by labor 
unions as an excuse for condemning the labor organization as a Communist or- 
ganization and subjecting it to the penalties of the act, still it is quite possible 
that this could be done by a hostile Attorney General, and the act clearly has that 
danger inherent within it. This, of course, is entirely apart from the new con- 
cept which has been introduced in this bill of condemnation by association ; that 
is, condemning a group because it thinks in lines similar to another group or, 
in fact, because it thinks along any orthodox lines. The constitutionality of 



144 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

such provision would be questionable in view of the United States Supreme 
Court's determination in Board of Education v. Barnette (319 U. S. 624, at 642), 
where the Court said : 

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no 
official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, national- 
ism, religion, or other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or 
act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit an ex- 
ception, they do not now occur to us." 

The Supreme Court has also specifically condemned the concept of guilt by 
association. Mr. Justice Murphy, in the case of Bridges v. Wixoth, stated : 

"The doctrine of personal guilt is one of the most fundamental principles of 
our jurisprudence. It partakes of the very essence of the concept of freedom 
and due process of law. {Schneidemwi v. V. 8. 320 U. S. 118) * * *. It 
prevents the persecution of the innocent for the beliefs and actions of others. 
(See Chafee, Free Speech in the United States (1941) pp. 472-5.) 

Subsection (i) offers an even stronger threat to labor organizations. For 
obvious reasons it is quite customary for a union to refuse to disclose to the 
public its membership or membership lists or its records, and union meetings 
are often held in secret with admission open only to union members. Yet this 
fact may be utilized to condemn and brand the union as a Communist organiza- 
tion. It must be remembered that the Attorney General need not find as a fact 
that the organization is a Communist one, but merely that "it is reasonable to 
conclude" that the organization is Communist. 

The term "Communist-front organization" is even more broadly defined. It 
includes any organization whatsoever concerning which "it is reasonable to con- 
clude" (1) that it is under the control of a Communist organization, or (2) that 
it is primarily operated to support a Communist organization, or (3) that its 
views and policies are "in general adopted and advanced because such views or 
policies are those of a Communist political organization." 

In determining whether the organization is a Communist-front organization, 
the identity of the persons active in the organization, the source and us:' of its 
revenues, and the position taken by it on matters of policy, are to be taken into 
consideration. Here again, we have the concept of guilt by association. Insofar 
as it can be shown that some of the views and policies advanced by a labor or- 
ganization might be similar to some of the views and policies advanced by a 
Communist group, it would be possible for a hostile attorney general reasonably 
to conclude (he does not have to find this as a fact) that the organization is a 
Communist-front organization. 

Section 4 makes certain specific acts unlawful and punishable by heavy fine 
and imprisonment. These are- — attempting to establish a totalitarian dictator- 
ship under the direction of a foreign government, performing any act with intent 
to bringabout the establishment of such dictatorship, actively to participate in 
any movement to bring about such dictatorship, or to conspire to do any of the 
foregoing, and an alleged violator can be prosecuted any time during his entire 
life. 

Section 5 amends the Nationality Act to cause any person convicted of violating 
section 4 to lose his citizenship. 

Section 6 makes it unlawful for any member of a Communist political organi- 
zation to seek any office or employment under the United States without reveal- 
ing that he is a Communist member, or to hold any nonelective office or employ- 
ment under the United States. It is further made unlawful for any United States 
employee to appoint or employ any individual as a United States employee know- 
ing that such individual is a member of a Communist political organization. 
This latter requirement would inflict a heavy burden upon Government officials- 
Under the extremely complex and ambiguous definition of a Communist political 
organization, it is all but impossible for any Government official to know whether 
any individual is a Communist member. 

Section 7 denies passports to members of Communist political organiaztions and 
makes it unlawful for passport officials to issue or renew passports to any person 
who the official knows is a member of a Communist political organization. Here 
again, the burden of knowledge on the passport official is a heavy one. 

Section 8 provides for registration and annual reports of both "Communist 
political organizations" and "Communist-front organizations." The registra- 
tion is to be filed with the Attorney General and must include the following 
information : The name of the organization the name of all officers of the organ- 
ization, an accounting of all finances, including sources from which received, 
and the name and address of each individual who was a member of the organ- 
ization during the preceding 12-month period. Reports must be filed annually. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 145 

The Attorney General is required to notify each individual listed as a member 
of that fact. 

Section 9 makes the register and annual reports open for public inspection 
and requires the Attorney General to maintain a formal register to be known 
as the Register of Communist Organizations. The Attorney General is required 
to submit to Congress the nature of the organizations and the names of the 
individuals listed as members. 

Section 10 makes it unlawful for any individual to become or remain a member 
of an organization which has not registered. 

Section 11 makes it unlawful for any "Communist political organization" or 
"Communist-front organization" to send any material through the mails unless 

the matter contains the following: "Disseminated by , a Communist 

organization." Similarly, radio broadcasts are banned unless it is stated that 
the program is sponsored by a Communist organization. 

Section 12 makes it unlawful to deduct for Federal income-tax purposes as 
a contribution any contributions made to an organization registered or required 
to be registered, and withdraws from the organization any right to exemption 
from Federal income taxes. 

Section 13 sets up the administrative machinery for determining whether an 
organization is a Communist organization. The hearings are to be conducted 
not in the courts but by the Attorney General. He is required to conduct such 
hearing if he has reason to believe that an organization is a Communist organ- 
ization and has not registered, or if a registered organization desires to be 
heard as to whether it is no longer a Communist organization. The Attorney 
General or his designee has all the powers of a district court, including the right 
to subpena witnesses and records. Following the hearing, the Attorney General 
makes a report in writing concerning his findings. 

Section 14 provides for judicial review, which is limited to the Circuit Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia. An appeal must be made within 60 
days from the date of the Attorney General's order. The findings and facts of 
the Attorney General are conclusive on the Circuit Court if supported by the pre- 
ponderance of the evidence. This means that the Court of Appeals cannot 
examine the evidence independently. 

Section 15 provides for penalties for failing to register. Any person failing 
to register is subject to a fine of $2,000 to $5,000, and if the individual is an 
executive officer of a Communist organization he is. in addition, subject to 2 
to 5 years' imprisonment. Each day of failing to register is a separate offense. 

The bill as a whole is objectionable for a number of reasons in addition to those 
stated. For one thing, the definitions are so broad and loosely worded that it 
would be almost impossible for any organization, such as, for instance, the 
American Civil Liberties Union, to know whether or not it might be adjudged 
a Communist oi-ganization and thus subject to the calumnies and restrictions 
of the act. It is quite possible for a person either to become a member or to make 
some financial contribution to some organization which he feels to be a worth- 
while one and at a later date finds that the Attorney General has determined 
that such organization is a Communist organization, and thus the individual, in 
turn, is publicly branded as a Communist member. The Attorney General is 
given unprecedented powers to outlaw organizations and to require production 
of records, membership lists, and documents in support of his administrative 
hearing. The principle of guilt by association is, for the first time, brought into 
existence in the American way of life — a principle which heretofore has been 
considered one advocated only by the very totalitarian dictatorships which it 
is the purported purpose of the bill to prescribe. Furthermore, the entire prin- 
ciple of requiring registration as a condition to the exercise of civil liberties 
would seem to be contrary to the principle announced by the Supreme Court in 
Thomas v. Collins (323 U. S. 516) , where it stated. 

"As a matter of principle a requirement of registration in order to make a 
public speech would seem generally incompatible with an exercise of the rights 
of free speech and free assembly." 

It was further stated by the Supreme Court that "freedom to differ is not 
limited to things that do not matter much. That would be a mere shadow of 
freedom. The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch 
the existing order." (Board of Education v. Barnette, supra.) 

As stated by Mr. Justice Black in Martin v. Struthers (319 U. S. 14, at 143) : 
"The authors of the first amendment knew that novel and unconventional ideas 
might disturb the complacent, but they chose to encourage a freedom which they 
believed essential if vigorous enlightenment was ever to triumph over slothful 
ignorance." 



146 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

The Washington Post today (May 27, 1948) made the following comments on 
the Mundt bill : 

"This legislation, proposing as it does the most sweeping program of political 
repression since the alien and sedition laws were enacted a century and a half 
ago, deserves more than 3 days of perfunctory consideration." 

* * * :'-■ * * * 

"Fortunately there are still men in the Senate who can be counted on to insist 
that there be full debate on a proposal so radically at variance with the institu- 
tions which have been the source of American freedom and vitality." 

In an earlier editorial the Post stated : 

"If Congress, at its own unchecked discretion declares it to be a fact that 
Communists or their fellow travelers are conspirators, it could do the same about 
Roman Catholics or trade-unionists or organizers of a third party." 

With this we are in hearty accord. 

In lieu of the Mundt-Nixon bill, may ,1 suggest that the Eightieth Congress 
has within its grasp the means by which it can successfully deal with com- 
munism in America. The forces of communism cannot advance their program 
merely through the xise of propaganda. Their greatest allies throughout the 
world have been hunger and the lack of clothing and shelter. People who are 
hungry and without hope are an easy prey to communism. We in America must 
guard against these things. There is now pending before Congress legislation 
to improve the conditions of the common men and women of America. Improved 
social security legislation, health insurance, better housing legislation, minimum 
wage legislation which should be enacted immediately, as we all know the strategy 
of the Communist movement is to gain control of organized labor, and as I have 
pointed out, the American Federation of Labor, together with the organized 
labor movement in America, has been the bulwai^k against communism here. 
Instead of weakening the labor movement and thus lessen its opportunities to 
meet the threats of communism, encouragement should be given to organized 
labor as the one instrumentality here in America that can successfully cope with 
the onward march of communism. A free labor is essential to this. Labor cannot 
be free and cannot achieve the maximum potentialities in its fight against com- 
munism as long as the Taft-Hartley Act remains upon the statute books. Earl 
Marx has said, "Capitalism sows within itself the seed of its own destruction." 
Just around the corner from this meeting room there are representatives of the 
capitalistic system, urging not only retention of the vicious, anti-American Taft- 
Hartley Act, but urging further restrictions. Perhaps we have here the realiza- 
tion of the Marx prophecy. Certainly nothing can encourage Soviet Russia, the 
fountainhead of communism, more than to know that the forces of reaction are 
able to continue this repressive measure against the men and women of our labor 
unions in America, and by the same token, nothing could be more discouraging to 
Joe Stalin and his communistic satellites than the removal of the Taft-Hartley 
Act from the books of the Nation. Taft-Haitley-ism and communism go hand 
in hand. 

In the name of the 7-% million loyal Americans I ask that we be permitted to 
function in a manner that will make our maximum contribution to the fight 
against communism possible through the repeal of the Taft-Hartley Act. 

The Chairman. Next is the National Lawyers Guild. Is there any- 
thing of yours that we can handle this way? 

Mr. Emerson. I don't have my remarks in writing, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn, sir? Do you solemnly swear 
that the testimony you give will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Emerson. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF THOMAS I. EMERSON, NEW HAVEN, CONN., REPRE- 
SENTING THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 

Mr. Emerson. My name is Thomas I. Emerson. My address is New 
Haven, Conn. 

Mr. Chairman, I have here a brief which was prepared by the Na- 
tional Lawyers Guild, which I would like to submit for the record. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 147 

This was not prepared by me and does not include my remarks, but it 
does cover the legal issues involved in this. 

The Chairman. I want to compliment you. You have at the front 
of this what I call a synopsis of a legal brief, which gives us more 
assistance than all the talk that wo can have around the table, because 
time is of the essence with every Senator in trying to get through his 
agenda. When we get something like this, it is very helpful. Do you 
want it incorporated in the record or filed ? AVill you give us additional 
copies to be Hied? The only problem is one of expense. 

Mr. Emerson. I would like to have it incorporated in the record, if 
possible. 

The Chairman. It is so ordered. 

(The brief follows:) 

BRIEF ON THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE MUNDT-NIXON BILL 
(H. R. 5852), SUBMITTED BY THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD 

STATEMENT 

The proposed Subversive Activities Control Act, 1948 (H. R. 5852) creates 
problems of transcendent constitutional importance. In their totality, the provi- 
sions of that measure find no counterpart in American history. 

The bill is comprehensive in its terms and scope. If enacted, its pervasive in- 
fluence will affect every inhabitant of the Nation (compare. TTwrnhill v. Alabama, 
310 U. S. 88, 97, 1940)* It is a measure which restricts freedom of speech, free- 
dom of the press, freedom of religion, and freedom of assembly. Liberty of asso- 
ciation is virtually extinguished. Folitical parties are proscribed. The consti- 
tutional principle of separation of powers is abandoned. Vast undefined and 
vague powers, legislative, judicial, and executive, are vested in one official of 
government who "may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge, and jury, whose 
suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner" 
(Kentucky resolutions of 1798 and 1799 in Elliot's Debates on the Federal Con- 
stitution (2nd ed., 1836) vol. IV, p. 543). The use of the mails and the radio are 
denied to Americans because of their beliefs and opinions. The free travel of 
persons is made dependent upon political orthodoxy. Men and women are de- 
prived of their citizenship by legislative decree. The concept of guilt by associa- 
tion is substituted for personal guilt. Individuals and groups of individuals are 
found by the legslature to constitute a danger to the security of the United States 
without judicial trial. Heavy fines and penalties are imposed without apparent 
regard to the constitutional prohibition against bills of attainder, and without 
regard to the basic requirements of due process. 

It will hardly be doubted that a measure such as this requires a reexamina- 
tion and reinstatement of fundamental principles which form the basis of our 
constitutional Government. We are a Government of laws, not of men. Our 
institutions were founded and grew in the belief that the Constitution was 
the supreme law of the land ; that, as Madison put it, "the authority of con- 
stitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over con- 
stitutions, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind" (Elliot's 
Debates, supra, p. 550) The proposed measure would create a deliberate and 
extensive breach of the Constitution by the exercise of legislative powers no- 
where granted in that fundamental law. The bill would undermine the very 
foundation of constitutional government. We deem it, therefore, essential that 
the people and officials of government alike should be candidly informed of 
the disastrous effect which the proposed omnibus measure would have upon the 
security of the country and the maintenance of democracy. We believe that 
history, both past and present, as well as fixed precepts of constitutional law, 
argue against the enactment of the Mundt-Nixon bill. 

I. The Provisions of H. R. 5852 are Contrary to the Constitution and Violate 
Basic Principles of Constitutional Law 

a. the mundt-nixon bill and the constitution 

(1). The proposal to enact into law a measure which concededly inhibits 
speech and expression of opinion, which proscribes associations, and otherwise 



148 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

burdens and punishes the communication of ideas, raises at the outset the 
question of the constitutional power of Congress. Legislators who are sworn 
to defend the Constitution should be the first to exercise the self-restraint which 
the fundamental law commands. A legislature which transgresses the limits 
fixed by the Constitution transforms a government of laws into a rule of men. 
The measure of the power of such men would be determined only by their own 
limitless discretion. 

Wherein does the Constitution provide that an organization may be made 
unlawful because of the "extent, and nature of its activities, including the 
expression of views and policies"? Where is the provision of the Constitution 
which authorizes the legislature to punish an organization for "the position 
taken or advanced by it from time to time on matters of policy"? To what 
section of the fundamental law can the most ardent supporters of the Mundt 
bill point to justify the imposition of prison terms for the advocacy of social 
change? Which of the enumerated powers of Congress justifies the proposals 
to deprive persons of their citizenship because of their beliefs, and to deny 
them public employment or egress from the country? If speech is not a crime, 
where does the Constitution authorize Congress to compel persons to register 
their speech and beliefs and subject themselves to surveillance by an adminis- 
trative official? 

"The powers of Congress itself, when acting through the concurrence of 
both branches, are dependent solely on the Constitution. Such as are not con- 
ferred by that instrument, either expressly or by fair implication from what 
is granted, are 'reserved to the States respectively or to the people.' ' Kilbourn 
v. Thompson (303 U. S. 168, 182, 1880 I I. 

The Constitution of the United States was adopted in order to establish 
a form of government in which official power would cease to be arbitrary and 
excessive by being strictly limited in scope. The Government of the United 
States is one of enumerated powers, the limitations on its authority marked 
out in the Constitution. Discussing "the essential difference between the 
British Government and the American constitutions," James Madison stated in 
his Report on the Virginia Resolutions (Elliot's Debates, Phil. 1836, 2d ed., 
vol. IV. p. 069). 

"In the United States, the case is altogether different. The people, not the 
Government, possess the absolute sovereignty. The legislature, no less than the 
executive, is under limitations of power. Encroachments are regarded as pos- 
sible from the one as well as from the other. Hence, in the United States, 
the great and essential rights of the people are secured against legislative as 
well as executive ambition. They are secured, not by laws paramount to pre- 
rogatives, but by constitutions paramount to laws." 

The power to punish belief, opinion and association, and to place diverse burdens 
upon their exercise is nowhere expressly granted in the Constitution. If it be 
not expressed, is such a power properly an incident to an express power, and 
necessary to its execution? All our history and traditions, all of our legal prece- 
dents answer in the negative. The most dangerous concept affecting consti- 
tutional government is the notion that the legislature possesses unlimited means 
to carry into execution its limited powers. Thus, the argument that belief and 
opinion may be abridged out of sheer "necessity" and in order "to preserve the 
government" has been uniformly condemned. In Ex Parte Milligan (4 Wall. (U. 
S.) 2 (1866) ) the Supreme Court stated : 

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally 
in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection, all classes of 
men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more 
pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man than that any 
of its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of govern- 
ment. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism; but the theory of 
necessity on which it is based is false ; * * *." 

The attempts to point to some particular power contained in the Constitution 
to justify the measures contained in the Mundt bill are, we submit, futile. If 
it is "necessary and proper" to prohibit speech and association in order to 
"provide for the common defence" or "to regulate commerce" or "to gurantee the 
states a Republican form of government", then it follows that the government 
established by the Founding Fathers is not one of particular and definite powers 
only, but one which is vested with general, unlimited powers authorized to legis- 
late on all subjects including the press, religion and every form of belief or 
opinion. As Madison put it: "And it must be wholly immaterial whether un- 
limited powers be exercised under the name of unlimited powers, or be exercised 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 149 

under the name of unlimited means of carrying into execution limited powers" 
(Elliot's Debates, supra, p. .">0S). 

The Supreme Court lias time and time again warned against legislative usurpa- 
tion of power. 

•The first article, treating of legislative powers, does not make a general grant 
■of legislative power. It reads : 'Article 1, section 1. All legislative powers herein 
granted shall be vested in a Congress', etc.; and then, in article 8, mentions and 
declares the legislative powers that are granted. By reason of the fact that there 
is no general grant of legislative power it has become an accepted constitutional 
rule that this is a government of enumerated powers." 

******* 

"But the proposition that there are legislative powers affecting the Nation as 
a whole which belong to, although not expressed in, the grant of powers, is in 
direct conflict with the doctrine that this is a Government of enumerated powers. 
That this is such a Government clearly appears from the Constitution, inde- 
pendently of the Amendments, for otherwise there would be an instrument 
granting certain specified things made operative to grant other and distinct 
things." Kansas v. Colorado (206 U. S. 46, 81, 89 (1907).) 

The attempt to use the ''general welfare" clause to circumvent the limitations 
tin congressional power has been rejected : "The view that the clause grants power 
to provide for the general welfare, independently of the taxing power, has never 
been authoritatively accepted * * * if it were adopted * * * the Gov- 
ernment of the United States is, in reality, a Government of general and unlimited 
powers, notwithstanding the subsequent enumeration of specific powers" (United 
States v. Butler (297 U. S. 1, 61 (1936) ).) And again, in Carter v. Carter Coal 
Co. (298 U. S. 238, 291 (1936) ) : "The proposition, often advanced and as often 
discredited, that the power of the Federal Government inherently extends to 
purposes affecting the Nation as a whole with which the States severally cannot 
deal or cannot adequately deal, and the related notion that Congress, entirely 
apart from these powers delegated by the Constitution, may enact laws to pro- 
mote the general welfare, have never been accepted but always definitely re- 
jected by this court." A similar view was taken with respect to the commerce 
clause : "If the commerce clause were construed to reach all enterprises and 
transactions which could be said to have an indirect effect upon interstate com- 
merce, the Federal authority would embrace practically all the activities of 
the people and the authority of the State over its domestic concerns would exist 
only by sufferance of the Federal Government" (Schechter v. United States 
(295 U. S. 495, 546 (1935))). "The Constitution established a national govern- 
ment with powers deemed to be adequate, as they have proved to be both in 
war and peace, but these powers of the National Government are limited by the 
constitutional grants. Those who act under these grants are not at liberty to 
transcend the imposed limits because they believe that more or different power 
is necessary" (Schechter v. United States (supra, p. 528) ). 

The power to punish speech and association cannot be justified, therefore, as 
a necessary and incidental means of accomplishing a purported express power. 
All the more are we fortified in this position when it is remembered that the 
power of Congress over speech, press, assembly and religion is positively for- 
bidden by one of the amendments to the Constitution. Upon this issue, the Su- 
preme Court has been most emphatic. "The power to regulate commerce has no 
limitation other than those prescribed in the Constitution. The power, however, 
does not carry with it the right to destroy or impair those limitations and 
guaranties which are also placed in the Constitution or in any of the amendments 
to that instrument" (United States v. Joint Traffic Association (171 U. S. 505, 
571 (1898) ) : to the same effect is Monongahela Navigation Co. v. United States 
(148 U. S. 312, 336 (1893) ) ) . "We are not here confronted with a question of the 
extent of the powers of Congress, but one of the limitations imposed by the Con- 
stitution on its action, and it seems to us clear that the same rule and spirit of 
construction must also be recognized * * *" (Fairoank v. United States (181 
U. S. 283, 288 (1901) ) ) . "Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt 
measures which are prohibited by the Constitution ; or should Congress, under the 
pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objectives 
not intrusted to the Government ; it would become the painful duty of this 
tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such 
an act was not the law of the land" (McCulloch v. Maryland 4 Wheat. (U. S.) 
316, 423 (1819))). 

(2) The myriad statutes already enacted are more than ample to cope with 
any unlawful conduct committed by persons against the welfare of the commu- 



150 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

nity. The Mundt bill is not merely another proposed measure to deal with overt 
acts of misconduct. If it were, it would be condemned as an act of supererogation. 
Its manifest purpose is entirely different. It is an attempt by government to 
attain conformity and prescribe orthodoxy by prohibiting the dissemination of 
ideas which to officials of government, are "unpalatable" and "dangerous." It 
cannot be disputed that the provisions of the bill are directed at "views" and 
"policies" — in short, at ideas, opinion and beliefs. The Bill of Rights, however, 
does not permit governmental intrusion into this sphere. "In setting forth these 
civil liberties of the citizen, the constitutions define a sphere of action which is 
entirely withdrawn from governmental control" (Becker, C, Political Freedom: 
American Style in Safeguarding Civil Liberty Today (Cornell U. Press, 1945), 
pp. 16-17). 

The Bill of Rights was adopted to guarantee the people against usurpation of 
power by government. 

"Government of limited power need not be anemic government. Assurances 
that rights are secure tends to diminish fear and jealousy of strong government, 
and by making us feel safe to live under it makes for its better support. Without 
promise of a limiting Bill of Rights it is doubtful if our Constitution could have 
mustered enough strength to enable its ratification. To enforce those rights today 
is not to choose weak government over strong government. It is only to adhere 
as a means of strength to individual freedom of mind in preference to officially 
disciplined uniformity for which history indicates a disappointing and disastrous 
end" (West Va. State Board of Education v. Bamettc (319 U. S. 624, 636 
(1943))). 

Before the adoption of the Constitution, Jefferson in his bill "for establishing 
religious freedom" which he proposed in the Virginia legislature had already 
marked the distinction between the powers of government and the powers vested 
in the people. In the preamble of the measure which became law ( 12 Hen. Stat. 
84), it was declared: "That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers 
into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of prin- 
ciples on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy which at once 
destroys all religious liberty." The recital further stated : "That it is time enough 
for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when 
principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order." Commenting 
on this language, the Supreme Court stated : 

"In these two sentences is found the true distinction between what properly 
belongs to the Church and what to the States." ( Reynolds v. United States, 98 
U. S. 145, 163 (1879)). 

The first amendment gives freedom of mind the same security as freedom of 
conscience. Our whole history shows "it is to the end of preventing action that 
repression is primarily directed and to preserving the right to urge it that the 
protections are given" (Thomas v. Collins (323 U. S. 516. 531. 537. 1945)). 

Congress, therefore, may punish acts and conduct which imminently, clearly, 
and seriously threaten substantive evils. Under the Constitution, however, it 
may not intrude into the realm of ideas, into religious and political briefs, into 
opinions of whatsoever nature and character. "History and reason unite in the 
warning that 'liberty' is impaired by statutes clogging or diverting the free 
development of personalitv, or, in other -\yonls. of mind or spirit" (Cardozo, B , 
Selected Writings (N. Y. 1947) , p. 316) . 

The line has been drawn in decision after decision by the Supreme Court. In 
DeJonrje v. Oregon (299 U. S. 353 (1937) ). the defendant was indicted for assist- 
ing in the conduct of a meeting called by the Communist Party in protest against 
certain alleged illegal raids on workers' halls and homes. In reversing the con- 
viction of the defendant, the Supreme Court stated (p. 365) : 

"It follows from these considerations that, consistently with the Federal Consti- 
tution, peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime. The 
holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be proscribed. Those 
who assist in the conduct of such meetings cannot be branded as criminals on That 
score. The question, if the rights of free speech and peaceable assembly are to 
bo preserved, is not as to the auspices under which the meeting is held but as to 
its purpose; not as to the relations of the speakers but whether their utterances 
transcent the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution protects. 
If the persons assembling have committed crimes elsewhere, if they have formed 
or are engaged in a conspircay against the public peace and order, they may be 
prosecuted for their conspiracy or other violation of valid laws. But it is a dif- 
ferent matter when the State, instead of prosecuting them for such offenses, seizes 
upon mere participation in a peaceable assembly and a lawful public discussion 
as the basis for a criminal charge." 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 151 

in Thomas v. Collins (323 U. S. 516 (1945)), the Supreme Court stated (p. 529) : 

"The case confronts US again with the duty our system places on this Court 
In say where the Individual's freedom ends and the State's power begins. Choice 
on that border, now as always delicate, is perhaps mere so where the usual pre- 
sumption supporting legislation is balanced by the preferred place given in our 
.scheme to the great, the indispensable democratic freedoms secured by the First 
Amendment. < !f. Schneidt r v. Irvingt&n 1 308 U. S. 147, 84 L. ed. 155, 60 S. Ct. 140) ; 
Ciuitir, II v. Connecticut (310 U. S. 296, 84 L. ed. 1213, 60 S. Ct. 900, 128 A. L. R. 
1352) ; Prince v. Massachusetts (321 U. S. 158, 88 L. ed. 645, 64 S. Ct. 438). That 
priority gives these liberties a sanctity and a sanction not permitting dubious in- 
trusions. And it is the character of the right, not of the limitation, which deter- 
mines what standard governs the choice." 

The great American tradition is "eternal hostility against every form of 
tyranny over the mind of man." That tradition is written into our Constitu- 
tion. The fathers of the Nation looked upon repression of thought and speech 
as evils to be avoided at all costs. They remembered Magna Carta and the 
Petition of Rights: they remembered Junius and Wilkes; they remembered the 
Royal legislatures — and they wrote into the fundamental document the basic 
thesis that the enlightened judgment of a free people shall be the law by which 
the Nation shall be governed. They knew "that the burning of books, the 
holocaust of ideas, is likely to be as ineffective as the burning of bodies, and 
almost as odious for those who light the fires. Experimentation there may be 
in many things of deep concern, but not in setting boundaries to thought, for 
thought freely communicated is the indispensable condition of intelligent ex- 
perimentation, the one test of its validity" (Cardozo, supra, p. 317) . Representa- 
tive government, freedom of the ballot, freedom of association, freedom of 
political parties — all are bottomed on the basic concept that there is no freedom 
without choice, and there is no choice without unfettered knowledge. As Charles 
Evans Hughes stated : 

"Our institutions were not devised to bring about uniformity of opinion; if 
they had been, we might well abandon hope. It is important to remember, as 
has been said, that the essential characteristic of true liberty is, that under its 
shelter many different types of life and character and opinion and belief can 
develop unmolested and unobstructed" (Report of the American Bar Associa- 
tion, 1925, pp. 186-187). 

The provisions of the Mundt-Nixon bill authorizing, as they do, a sweeping 
interdiction of opinion and belief, inflicting penalties and burdens upon persons, 
and associations, for the most peaceful advocacy of social, economic, and political 
change, violate the terms of the Constitution and run counter to our historical 
traditions. 

B. THE MUNDT-NIXON BILL AND THE VAGUE LANGUAGE OF ITS PROVISIONS DUE PROCESS 

OF LAW 

In Winters v. New York (92 L. Ed. 654 (March 29, 1948) ), the Supreme Court 
held that a statute which made it an offense to sell literature devoted "to the 
publication and principally made up of criminal news, police reports, or ac- 
counts of criminal deeds, or pictures, or stories of deeds of bloodshed, lust or 
crime" was so vague and indefinite as to violate the right of free speech and 
press, and the right of an accused under the due-process clause to be fairly 
apprised of the charge made against him. To the argument advanced by the 
State that the statute involved only vulgar magazines, the Court replied (p. 662) : 

"The present case as to a vague statute abridging speech involves the circula- 
tion of only vulgar magazines. The next may call for decision as to free expres- 
sion of political views in the light of a statute intended to punish subversive 
activities." 

More than three centuries ago, John Milton in his Areopagitica made his classic 
plea for the liberty of unlicensed printing. He recognized the coercive influence 
of the censor upon the free development of the mind. The history of our insti- 
tutions records that what is true of restrictions upuii printing is also true of 
other restrictions upon the movement of ideas. Therefore, the Constitution con- 
tains a bill of rights which provides the unlimited opportunity for free discus- 
sion, free from any burden or restriction, direct or indirect. If the power exists 
to limit speech, by the creation of a licensor, or the use of language in a statute 
so vague and indefinite as to encompass and inhibit peaceful discussion, then the 
existence of such power abridges speech under the Constitution, albeit the power 
is never exercised. 



152 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

"Proof of an abuse of power in the particular case has never been deemed a 
requisite for attack on the constitutionality of a statute purporting to license the 
dissemination of ideas. It is not merely the sporadic abuse of power by the 
censor but the pervasive threat inherent in its very existence that constitutes 
the danger to freedom of discussion." (Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 97, 
(1940).) 

The Mundt-Nixon bill proposes (sec. 4) to inflict imprisonment up to 10 years, 
and fines up to $10,000, upon any person (which under section 3 includes an 
organization or group of persons "associated together for joint action on. or 
advancement of views on, any subject or subjects") who attempts "in any manner" 
to establish "a totalitarian dictatorship" ; who attempts any act "with intent to 
facilitate or aid" in bringing about such "a totalitarian dictatorship"; who 
actively participates in "any movement" to establish such a "totalitarian dictator- 
ship"; who participates in "any movement" in order "to facilitate or aid" in 
bringing about such dictatorship : or who conspires to do any of the aforesaid. 

In Stromberg v. California (283 U. S. 359 (1931)) the Supreme Court stated 
(p. 300) : 

"The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end 
that government may be responsive to the will of the people and that changes 
may be obtained by lawful means, an opportunity essential to the security of the 
Republic, is a fundamental principle of our constitutional system. A statute 
which upon its face, and as authoritatively construed, is so vague and indefinite 
as to permit the punishment of the fair use of this opportunity is repugnant to 
the guaranty of libertv contained in the fourteenth amendment.'' 

In Hernd'on v. Loivhj (301 U. S. 242 (1937) ) the Court again reiterated : "The 
statute, as construed and applied, amounts merely to a dragnet which may 
enmesh anyone who agitates for a change of government * * *. No reason- 
ably ascertainable standard of guilt is prescribed. So vague and indefinite are 
the boundaries thus set to the freedom of speech and assembly that the law 
necessarily violates the guaranties of liberty * * *." And finally at the 
present term of the Court, the Supreme Court again stated in Winters v. New 
York, supra (p. 657) : "A failure of a statute limiting freedom of expression to 
give fair notice of what acts will be punished and such a statute's inclusion of 
prohibitions against expressions, protected by the principles of the first amend- 
ment, violates an accused's rights under procedural due process and freedom of 
speech or press." 

The bill here proposes to punish any attempt "in any manner" to establish 
the purported evil. The language encompasses the most peaceful advocacy of 
social change, even by constitutional amendment. Clearly, this does violence to 
basic concepts. In Schneiderman v. United States, the Supreme Court stated : 

"The constitutional fathers, fresh from a revolution, did not forge a political 
straitjacket for the generations to come. Instead they wrote article V and the 
first amendment, guaranteeing freedom of thought, soon followed. Article V 
contains procedural provisions for constitutional change by amendment without 
any present limitation whatsoever except that no State may be deprived of equal 
representation in the Senate without its consent. (Cf. National Prohibition cases 
(State 0/ Rhode Island v. 1'almcr (253 U. S. 350, 40 S. Ct. 486, 588, 64 L. Ed. 946) ) . ) 
This provision and the many important and far-reaching changes made in the 
Constitution since 1787 refute the idea that attachment to any particular provi- 
sion or provisions is essential, or that one who advocates radical changes is neces- 
sarily not attached to the Constitution" (p. 137). 

Nor do the terms "movement," "facilitate or aid," or "totalitarian dictator- 
ship" constitute language of a defined character which meets the constitutional 
test. These words have no commonly accepted meaning. They are capable of 
the widest construction by officials of government, court, or jury and likely to 
enmesh anyone who is hostile to the status quo. The committee which sponsors 
tins bill, for example, considers that "the essence of totalitarianism is the destruc- 
tion of the parliamentary or legislative branch of government — the issue compels- 
us to take cognizance of a widespread movement to discredit the legislative 
branch of our government" (Rept. No. 2277. 77th Cong.. 2d sess.. June 2.~>, 1942; 
Compare, Schneiderman v. United States, supra). The committee believes that 
one is do1 "attached to the principle of the form of government as guaranteed 
by our Constitution" if he is in favor of a planned economy (Rept. No. 12, Janu- 
ary 3. 1939) ; if he opposes monopolies (Kept- No. 592, June 16, 1947, p. 9) ; if 
he attacks cartels < Rept. No. 2233, June 7. 1016. p. 35) ; or if he condemns private 
ownership (Rept. No. 2277. June 25, 1912, p. 7). The committee believes that 
those who are opposed to Franco Spain follow Soviet foreign policy (Rept. No. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 15& 

271. 80th Cong., 1st sess., April 7, 1047, p. 13t ; criticism of the State Department 
has been called "pro-Russian, pro-Communist propaganda" (Kept. No. 2223, 
June 7, 194G, p. 10) ; organizations which call for friendship with the Soviet 
Union this committee believes are palpably facilitating and aiding a disloyal 
objective (Kept. No. 592, .lune lb. 1947, p. 10). It considers one of the essentials 
of communism to be "absolute social and racial equality - ' (sp. January 3, 1939, 
p. 10). 

We do not extend these views any further. Sufficient, it is submitted, has 
been shown that men and women from every walk of life under the language of 
this proposed measure face long-term imprisonment lot- no other crime than 
belief in peaceful social changes. 

The bill, however, does not stop there. It vests in the Attorney General (sec- 
tion 13) power to interdict organizations, requiring them by his determination 
to register (sec. 8). denying their members passports (sec. 1) and public 
employment (sec. 6), and virtually determining their guilt under section 4. 
upon criteria so vague and undefined as to virtually constitute the Attorney Gen- 
eral "a monarch of all he surveys." 

Under section 3 of the proposed measure a "Communist political organization" 
means any organization "having some, but not necessarily all of the ordinary and 
usual characteristics of a political party." What does this language meanV 
.Many organizations would have to speculate at their peril to answer such an. 
inquiry. It is reasonable to conclude for the Attorney General that such an 
organization is under "the control of such foreign government" from an exami- 
nation of any such considerations as "the extent and nature of its activities, 
including the expression of views and policies," or "the extent to which its views 
and policies are the same as those of such foreign government or foreign organi- 
zation," or "the extent to which it supports or advocates the basic principles and 
tactics of communism as expounded by Marx and Lenin," or "the extent to which 
it fails to disclose, or resists efforts to obtain information as to, its membership." 

What views? What policies? Since there are no limitations, presumably 
they include any and all opinions of any nature and description. The Bill of 
Rights is hardly compatible with this proposed measure. 

A "Communist front" organization, it is "reasonable to conclude," is under 
the control of a "Communist political organization" when it is marked by any 
such considerations as "the identity of the persons who are active in its man- 
agement, direction, or supervision, whether or not holding office therein" ; or, 
"the sources from which an important part of its support, financial or other- 
wise, is derived" ; or "the use made by it of its funds, resources, or personnel" ; 
or, "the position taken or advanced by it from time to time on matters of policy." 
As the Supreme Court has stated : 

"It leaves open, therefore, the widest conceivable inquiry, the scope of which 
no one can foreshadow or adequately guard against. In fact, we see no reason 
to doubt the observation of the Court below in its opinion to the effect that, to 
enforce the section would be the exact equivalent of an effort to carry out a 
statute which in terms, merely penalized and punished all acts detrimental to 
the public interest when unjust and unreasonable in the estimation of the court 
and jury." ( United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81, 89 (1021).) 

Under the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, the Mundt-Nixon bill, pointing 
as it does at the basic freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and religion, lacks 
the essentials of a lawful statute. Indeed, even if such a bill were directed only 
at conduct, it would fail to provide the ascertainable standard of guilt which the 
Constitution requires. In Connolly v. General Construction Co. (296 U. S. 301 
(103."))), the Court stated: "That the terms of a penal statute creating a new 
offense must be sufficiently explicit to inform those who are subject to it what 
conduct on their part will render them liable to its penalties, is a well-recog- 
nized requirement, consonant alike "with ordinary notions of fair play and the 
settled rules of the law. And a statute which either forbids or requires the 
doing of an act in terms so vague that men of common intelligence must neces- 
sarilv guess at its meaning and differ as to its application violates the first essen- 
tial of due process of law." In United stairs v. Reese (98 U. S. 214 (1879)), 
the Court held: "Laws which prohibit the doing of things and provide a punish- 
ment for their violation should have no double meaning * * *. Penal stat- 
utes ought not to be expressed in language so uncertain. If the Legislature un- 
dertakes to define by statute a new offense and provide for its punishment, it 
should express its will in language that need not deceive the common mind. 
Every man should be able to know with certainty when he is committing a crime." 
In Lanzetta v. -V'"' Jersey (306 U. S. 451 (1939)), the Supreme Court noted: 



154 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

"The enactment employs the expression 'known to be a member.' It is ambigu- 
ous. There immediately arises the doubt whether actual or putative association 
is required, that status must be established as a fact, and the word 'known' 
would be without significance. If reputed membership is enough, there is un- 
certainty whether that reputation must be general or extend only to some per- 
sons. And the statute fails to indicate what constitutes membership or how oue 
may join a 'gang.' " 

C. THE MUNDT-NIXON BILL AND BILLS OF ATTAINDER 

(a) In No. 44 of the Federalist (Heritage Press Ed., 1915), it is stated: 

"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of 
contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every 
principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the 
declarations fixed to some of the State constitutions, and nil of them are pro- 
hibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. Our own ex- 
perience has taught us, nevertheless that additional fences against these dangers 
ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added 
this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights ; 
and I am much deceived if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the 
genuine sentiments as to the undoubted interests of their constituents." 

Article 1, section 9, clause 3, of the Constitution provides : 

"No bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed. - ' 

Prior to discussing the decisions of the Supreme Court relative to bills of 
attainder, it is important to consider some related aspects. 

When the Attorney General of the United States appeared before the House 
Committee on Un-American Activities (hearings on proposed legislation to curb 
or control the Communist Party of the United States, February 5-20, 1948), he 
stated (p. 19) : 

"Whether or not a proposal will meet the requirements of due process under 
the fifth amendment is another extremely important consideration. A statute 
which would define the nature and purposes of an organization or group by 
legislative fiat is likely to run afoul of the due-process requirements. The 
Congress cannot by statute presume a state of facts that is arbitrary or that 
attempts to prevent proof of true facts. This we call legislative fiat. The 
Supreme Court has said, for instance, in Manley v. State of Georgia (279 U. S. 1 
(1929) at p. 6) : 

" '* * * A statute creating a presumption that is arbitrary or that operates 
to deny a fair opportunity to repeal it violates the due-process clause. * * * 
Mere legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the determination of 
issues involving life, liberty, or poverty.' 

"The fact that legislation may be subject to objection as oeing discriminatory 
cannot be overlooked. By singling out a political party or a group for pro- 
hibitive legislation, you may be charged with discriminatory action which would 
be objectionable as special legislation." 

To the same effect is Bailey v. Alabama (219 U. S. 219 (1911) ) and Tot v. 
United States (319 U. S. 463 (1942) ). 

In apparent disregard of this well-established rule of law, the Mundt-Nixon 
bill contains in section 2 (necessity for legislation) a legislative declaration of 
guilt. The "findings'' therein contained find no counterpart in auy statute 
heretofore enacted. The language of the "findings" bears a startling resemblance 
to the language which emanated from the Axis monitors during the recent war. 
Matters are "found" to he existent on the domestic scene despite the implicit 
testimony of the chief law-enforcement officer of the United States that lie 
had no such evidence which he could present in a court of law (hearings, supra, 
pp. 10-37), and despite the committee's own implicit admission that it had no 
such evidence concerning the foreign scene (Rept. No. 1920, 80th Cong., 2d sess., 
May 11, 1948, pp. 86-87). Despite the warnings of the Supreme Court, the 
sponsors of the bill, "find" by legislative fiat that an international conspiracy 
exists: that political organizations are established in each country as constituent 
elements of such conspiracy; and that individuals who are members of such 
political organiaztions "in effect repudiate their allegiance to the United States." 
Section .". of the I > 1 1 1 then presumes that an organization and its members whose 
"views and policies are the same as those of such foreign government" or which 
"supports or advocates the basic principles and tactics of communism as ex- 
pounded by Marx and Lenin" can reasonably be said to be under the control 
of such foreign government. Tims, proof that an organization has views and 
policies similar to that of a foreign government, no matter how innocuous, will 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 155 

presumptively stamp them ;is part of an International conspiracy, already "found" 
existenl by the provisions of the Mundt-Nixon bill. Mr. Justice Black stated 
in the Tot cast-, supra (p. 473) : 

"The act authorizes, and in effect constrains, juries to convict defendants 
charged with violation of tins statute even though n<> evidence whatever has 
been offered which tends to prove an essential ingredienl of the offense. The 
procedural safeguards found in the Constitution and in the hill of rights, 
Chambers v. Florida (309 l'. S. 227. 237, 84 L. ed. Tic, 722. 60 S. Ct. 472), stand 
as a constitutional harrier against thus obtaining a conviction (309 U. S. 235-238, 
84 L. ed. 721, 722, 60 S. Ct. -172). These constitutional provisions contemplate 
that a jury must determine guill or innocence in a public trial in which the 
defendant is confronted with the witnesses against him and in which he enjoys 
the assistance of counsel ; and where guilt is in issue, a verdict against a defend- 
ant must he preceded by the introduction of some evidence which tends to prove 
the elements of the crime charged. Compliance with these constitutional pro- 
visions, which of course constitute the supreme law of the land, is essential 
to due process of law, and a conviction obtained without their observance cannot 
be sustained." 

It is clear that on its face section 2 of the bill unconstitutionally embodies a 
legislative declaration of guilt of certain organizations and their members. 
When section 2 of the bill is considered in its relationship to the other sections 
of the proposed act, it becomes patent that the bill operates to proscribe certain 
organizations and inflict punishment on their members by legislative fiat. 

Examining section 3 of the bill we find that the "findings" of section 2 are 
incorporated into the definitions of a "Communist political organization" and 
of a "Communist-front organization," both of which organizations are sub- 
jected to severe penalties and sanctions by the other provisions of the bill. 
Thus subparagraph (3) (B) of section 3 in defining a "Communist political 
organization" lists as one of its identifying characteristics : "the extent to which 
its policies are formulated and carried out and its activities performed, pur- 
suant to directives or to effectuate the policies, of the foreign government or 
foreign governmental or political organization in which it vested, or under 
the domination or control of ivhich is exercised, the direction and control of 
the world Communist movement referred to in section 2 of this act." [Emphasis 
added.] 

The same incorporation of the finding of section 2 by referring in the definition 
of a "Communist political organization" to its alleged relationship to "such 
foreign government or foreign organization" is found in subdivisions (3) (C), 
(E), (F), (G), (H), (I) and (J) of section 3 of the bill. 

Similarly, the definition of a "Communist-front organization" in subdivision 
(4) of section 3 expressly incorporates the "findings" of section 2 by making the 
definition of a front organization depend upon its relationship to "a Communist 
foreign government or such world Communist movement" referred to in section 
2 (sec. 3, subdivision (4) (D) ). 

Section 2 of the act, therefore, under the guise of findings as to the necessity 
for the legislation makes a legislative declaration of guilt with respect to 
certain organizations and their members; these "findings" are then incorporated 
into section 3 which defines "Communist political organizations" and "Com- 
munist-front organizations," which are subjected to severe sanctions and pen- 
alties by the other sections of the act; sections 6 and 7 of the act impose severe 
punishment on the above-described organizations by denying Federal employ- 
ment and passports to the members of these organizations entirely apart from 
the obligation of the organizations to register ; and section 8 of the act imposes 
onerous requirements of registration upon the described organizations. The 
proposed legislation thus succeeds in imposing severe burdens and penalties by 
congressional edict. Moreover, the bill goes further, for it attempts to specifically 
outlaw a single political party, the Communist Party of the United States. 

Attorney General Tom C. Clark and others at the hearings held before the 
Un-American Activities Committee affirmed the well-settled proposition that legis- 
lation which outlaws a specific political party or organization is unconstitutional. 
These express admissions as to unconstitutionality of legislaton which attempts 
to outlaw or to impose other penalties on specific organizations and their members, 
are based on the similar conclusions voiced by legal experts with respect to 
numerous unsuccessful efforts to pass such pernicious legislation during the 
past 10 years. 

78257 — 48 11 



156 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Among such measures was a bill to outlaw the Communist Party and other 
organizations (S. 1385, 77th Cong., 1st sess., Apr. 25, 1941), to exclude their 
candidates from the ballot (H. Con. Res. 5, 77th Cong., 1st sess., Jan. 8, 1941), 
to disqualify their members from public and private employment (Public Res. 
No. 88. 76th Cong., 3d sess., June 26, 1940; S. 1970, 76th Cong., 3d sess., May 
27, 1940), and to make membership in the Communist Party and other specified 
organizations unlawful (H. R. 3455, 77th Cong. 1st sess., Feb. 18, 1941). 

On the same constitutional grounds. President Roosevelt vetoed a bill which 
declared the Communist Party and other specified groups to be foreign agents 
and which further required registration and a filing of membership lists (H. R. 
6269, 77th Cong., 1st sess., Dec. 19. 1941. Vetoed by the President Feb. 9, 1942). 

An article in the Yale Law Journal (vol. 51, p. 1358; June 1942) on "Special 
Legislation Discriminating Against Specified Individuals and Groups" expressed 
the view that adoption of a proposal by Congressman Dies that the Foreign 
Registration Act be amended to directly specify the Communist Party as a foreign 
agent required to register under the act would be an unconstitutional bill of 
attainder and went on to say (p. 1370) : 

"The amendment conclusively established that these organizations were in fact 
foreign agents and imposed criminal penalties on them unless they registered 
and furnished the information required by law. In addition the amendment 
would seem to fall within the constitutional prohibition of ex post facto laws for 
presumably it was to be enacted because of the past acts of the parties which, 
when committed were not punishable under general law. That the punishment 
was to be administered only upon the failure to do some act in the future would 
not save the measure for it is settled that bills of attainder and ex post facto 
laws may inflict punishment either absolutely or conditionally. Moreover, the 
amendment would seem to have violated the due process clause of the fifth 
amendment since it created an irrebuttable presumption of guilt. 

"On broad grounds of public policy, numerous factors militate against use at 
all by Congress of repressive special legislation. In the past such legislation 
has furnished many of the worst examples of the miscarriage of justice. Like 
these other methods special laws constitue a direct attack on personal liberties." 

That the primary intent, purpose, and effect of the bill is to directly outlaw 
the Communist Party is patent from the hearings held by the committee and 
further appears from the debate in the House of Representatives on the bill on 
May 14, 1948. Thus Representative Nixon, coauthor of the bill, stated to the 
House on that day that the effect of the bill will be to "outlaw the Communist 
Party as a secret conspiratorial organization" (New York Times, May 15, 1948, 
p. 8, col. 5). 

It is clear from the reports issued by the Un-American Activities Committee 
in connection with this proposed bill that the term "Communist political organ- 
ization" in the bill refers directly to the Communist Party. Thus examination 
of pages 1-2 of the report issued on April 10, 1948, by the Subcommittee on 
Legislation of the Committee on Un-American Activities on proposed legislation 
to control subversive activities in the United States discloses that the committee 
speaks of the Communist Party of the United States in precisely the same terms 
as does the Mundt bill and makes the same "findings" with regard to it as does 
the Mundt bill with regard to a "Communist political organization." Further, 
this report, read as a whole, makes clear that the intent, object, and effect of 
the Mundt bill is to outlaw the Communist Party. In the portion of this 
report dealing with the effect of the new legislation, now embodied in the Mundt 
bill, the report states (p. 5) : 

"It is essential that all Communists be removed from the Government pay roll 
and the committee consequently has approved that provision of the Mundt bill 
which specifically denies Government jobs to persons who are members of the 
Communist Party. The bill also provides a penalty for Government officials who 
employ persons knowing or having reasonable ground to believe that they are 
members of the Communist Party." 

(Compare sec. 5 of H. R. 5852 denying Federal employment to members of 
a "Communist political organization.") 

It is clear from the above-quoted section of the report and from the report 
as a whole that the phrase "Communist political organization" in the Mundt 
bill is intended to expressly embrace the Communist Party of the United States. 

The report further indicates that the only reason why the committee did not 
use the words "Communist Party" directly in the bill' was because they felt 
that by the use of a transparent subterfuge, they could negate the basic rights 
guaranteed to political organizations by the Constitution. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 157 

In any event, the issue is settled in the final report which accompanied the 
bill (Kept. No. 1844, April 30, 1948) where the term "Communis* political organi- 
zation" is declared by the committee to be defined "in such manner as to in- 
clude tbf Communist Party of the United States, or any other organization exist- 
ing or hereafter established, having essentially the same characteristics." 

The Supreme Court decisions set forth below directly hold that a statute em- 
bodying a legislative declaration Of guilt Of a political party, organization or 
other class of persons, is an unconstitutional bill of attainder, even though it 
does not specifically name the organization or individuals intended. Indeed, as 
Professor ( 'ha fee has pointed out, proscription of an organization in general 
terms rather than by name, is equally as bad, if not worse than direct proscrip- 
tion (Chafee, Freedom of Speech, 1941, pp. 474-475). And these views have 
been cited with approval by the United States Supreme Court (Bridges v. Wixon, 
320 U. S. 135, 163). 

(b) The proposed hill (H. R. 5852) does not represent the first attempt at 
legislation to penalize political parties. We have previously listed (p. 8) a small 
portion of the numerous bills introduced into Congress during the past few 
years with similar undemocratic and unconstitutional objectices. Prior legis- 
lation of this type has for the most. part been rejected by Congress, which recog- 
nized its unconstitutional nature. A number of these measures which succeeded 
in getting by Congress have been eliminated by Presidential veto. However, on 
several rare occasions such measures have been enacted by Congress and State 
legislatures. In each instance where such acts have come before the United 
States Supreme Court they have been struck down as violating the fundamental 
constitutional guaranty against bills of attainder. (Cummings v. Missouri 
4 Wall 277, 18 L. Ed. 356 (1867) ; Ex parte Garland, 4 Wall. 333, 18 L. Ed. 366 
(1867) ; U. S. v. Lorctt et al., 328 U. S. 303. 90 L. Ed. 1252 (1946) ; McFurland v. 
American Sugar Refining Co., 241 U. S. 79, 60 L. Ed. 899 (1916 — opinion pet 
Holmes, J.).) 

The lower Federal courts and State tribunals have similarly struck down 
such legislation directed at special groups as unconstitutional (Ex Parte Law, 
Fed. Case No. 8126; Re Shorter, Fed. Case No. 12811 ; Re Yung Sing Hee, 36 Fed. 
437 ; Green v. Sham way, 39 N. Y. 418 ; State v. Heighland, 41 Mo. 388). 

The uniform line of decisions in the United States Supreme Court on this 
question firmly establish the following legal propositions: {a) A statute which 
embodies a legislative declaration or presumption of guilt against a specified 
organization or class of persons and provides penalties against the designated 
group, is an unconstitutional bill of attainder; (b) to constitute a bill of at- 
tainder it is not necessary that specific individuals or particular organizations 
be designated by name but it is sufficient if they are described in general terms 
which serve to identify a proscribed group; (c) to violate the constitutional 
prohibition it is not necessary that the sanctions and penalties provided be im- 
posed absolutely but it suffices if such "punishment" shall be inflicted for the 
failure of the proscribed group to fulfill conditions laid down by the statute. 

The object of the constitutional prohibition against bill of attainder was 
described in the early Supreme Court opinion of Of/den v. Saunders (12 Wheat. 
213. 6 L. Ed. 6"6 (1827)), as "a general provision against arbitrary and tyran- 
nical legislation of existing rights whether of person or property.'' 

The above-stated, well-settled principles respecting bills of attainer were 
affirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the recent case of U. S. v. Lovett 
et al. (328 U. S. 303, 90 L. Ed. 1252) ). In that case Congress provided in section 
3<>4 of the Urgent Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1943 (57 Stat. 431, 450, ch. 218) 
that no part of the funds appropriated under the act should be used after Novem- 
ber 15, 1943, to pay the salaries of three employees then occupying Federal posi- 
tions, namely, Robert Morss Lovett, Goodwin Watson, and William E. Dodd, Jr. 
Significantly, the irigin of this legislation was a report by the Dies committee, 
the precursor of the committee sponsoring the present bill, that these employees 
had been guilty of engaging in "subversive activities." 

The Supreme Court ruled that section 304 was an unconstitutional bill of 
attainder. After reviewing its prior decisions on bills of attainder the Supreme 
Court stated (328 U. S., at p. 315, 90 L. Ed. 1259) : 

" * * * They stand for the proposition that legislative acts, no matter 
what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable 
members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a 
judicial trial are bills of attainer prohibited by the Constitution. Adherence to 
this principle requires invalidation of section 304. We do adhere to it." 



158 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

The Court made clear the fundamental constitutional violation in legislative 
declarations of guilt in the following language (328 U. S. 318, 90 L. Ed. 1261) : 

"When our Constitution and Bill of Rights were written, our ancestors had 
ample reason to know that legislative trials and punishments were too dangerous 
to liberty to exist in the Nation of free men they envisioned. And so they 
proscribed bills of attainder. Section 304 is one." 

The Court vigorously rejected the contention of counsel for Congress that 
denial of the "privilege" of Federal employment was not punishment, saying 
( 328 U. S.. at p. 317, 00 L. Ed. 1260) : 

* This permanent proscription from any opportunity to serve the 
Government is punishment, and of a most severe type. It is a type of punish- 
ment which Congress has only invoked for special crimes, such as treason (is 
U. S. C. A., sec. 2; 7 F. C. A., title 18, sec. 2) ; acceptance of bribes by Members 
of Congress ( 18 U. S. C. A., sees. 199. 202, 203 ; 7 F. C. A , title 18, sees. 202, 203) : 
or by other Government officials (IS U. S. C. A., sec. 207) ; and interference with 
elections by Army and Navy officers (18 U. S. C. A., sec. 59; 7 F. C. A., title 18, 
sec. 59).'' 

The Court made clear in its opinion that the precise form of legislation aimed 
at penalizing particular groups or classes of persons was immaterial. The 
Supreme Court expressly ruled that if Congress had passed a law finding the group 
of employees involved in the Lovett case guilty of "subversive activity." defined 
that conduct as criminal and then barred this group from Federal employment, 
such a law would be unconstitutional. The Court stated in this regard ( 32S 
U. S., at pp. 316-317, 90 L. Ed. 1260) : 

« * * * rj.^ f ac j. tna £ t ^ e p Un ishment is inflicted through the instrumental- 
ity of an act specifically cutting off the pay of certain named individuals found 
guilty of disloyalty, makes it no less galling or effective than if it bad been done 
by an act which designated the conduct as criminal. No one would think that 
Congress could have passed a valid law, stating that after investigation it hud 
found Lovett, Dodd, and AVatson 'guilty' of the crime of engaging in 'subversive 
activities' defined that term for the first time, and sentenced them to perpetual 
exclusion from any Government employment. Section 304, while it does not use 
that language accomplishes that result. The effect was to inflict punishment 
without the safeguards of a judicial trial and determined by no previous law or 
fixed rule.' The Constitution declares that that cannot be done either by a 
State or by the United States." 

The above-quoted language from the Supreme Court of the United States is 
expressly applicable to the present proposed bill. H. R. 5852 embodies a legis- 
lative finding that certain organizations are guilty of subversive activities, goes 
on to provide that such activities are criminal and then inflicts penalties upon 
the proscribed organizations and their members including among other disabili- 
ties the denial of Federal employment to the members of such organizations. 
The proposed bill falls within the warning sounded by Judge Madden in his 
opinion in the Court below in the Lovett case (66 Fed. Supp. 142, Ct. CI. 1945) 
in which he held that section 304 was an unconstitutional bill of attainder. Judge 
Madden stated in his opinion (66 Fed Supp. 151) : 

"If section 304 is valid, Congress can disqualify for public office or service 
racial minorities, political minorities, and, probably, religious minorities."' 

It is clear under the express holding of the Lovett case and the other Supreme 
Court decisions noted below that the proposed bill (H. R. 5S52) is an uncon- 
stitutional bill of attainder. 

In the classic decision of Cummings v. Missouri (4 Wall. 277, 18 L. Ed. 356), 
the Supreme Court hold that the "tost oath" of the Missouri constitution was un- 
constitutional by reason of its character as a bill of attainder. The provision 
in question was directed at all those who had supported the Confederacy in the 
then recently concluded Civil War. The oath required all public officers and 
employees and also all preachers, teachers, and executive officers of corporations, 
to swear, not only that they would support and defend the United States and 
State Constitutions in the future, but also that they had never engaged in any 
conduct in hostility to the United States in the past or expressed any disloyal 
sentiments or advised, aided, or abetted the enemies of the United States. The 
oath clause further provided that any person who continued to hold such office 
or position CO days after the enactment took effect without taking the oath, should 
on conviction be punished by a fine of not less than $500 or imprisonment for 
6 months or both. 

Plaintiff in error had been convicted of the crime of prosecuting bis duties as 
a priest without having taken the oath after the expiration of the grace period. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 159 

The opinion of the Supreme Court reviewed the history of bills of attainder 
against which the constitutional guaranty was Inserted. The Court pointed out 
that such legislation had in the past been directed at minorities in order to sup- 
press political oppression. The Court made clear that it was unnecessary to 
constitute a bill Of attainder that particular individuals he named but that fre 
quently such unconstitutional acts were directed against an entire class. The 
Court stated in these regards (18 L. Ed. 363) : 

"A bill of attainder is a legislative act, which inflicts punishment without a 
judicial trial. 

" 'Bills of this soil', says Mr. .Justice Story, 'have been most usually passed in 
England in times of rebellion, or gross subserviency to the Crown, or of violent 
political excitements; periods in which all nations are most liable (as well 
the free as the enslaved) to for.net their duties, and to trample upon the rights 
and liberties of others' (Story. Com., sec. 1344). 

"These bills are generally directed against individuals by name; but they may 
be directed against a whole class." 

The Court vigorously rejected the contention of counsel for the State of Mis- 
souri that the act did not inflict any punishment or compel any action since it 
merely required the taking of an oath and therefore merely called for the furnish- 
ing of evidence. The Court in rejecting these arguments stated (18 L. Ed. 363) : 

"These bills may inflict punishment absolutely, or may inflict it conditionally. 

"* * * 'might declare, that if certain individuals, or a class of individuals, 
failed to do a given act by a named day. they should be deemed to be, and treated 
as convicted felons or traitors. Such an act comes precisely within the definition 
of a bill of attainder, and the English courts would enforce it without indictment 
or trial by jury.' ( Gaines v. Buford ( 1 Dana, 510) . ) " 

The Supreme Court held that the Missouri test oath enactment was unconsti- 
tutional because it embodied a legislative presumption of guilt and that it was 
immaterial what precise form legislation having such an unconstitutional objection 
was cast in. The Court stated in this regard (18 L. Ed. 363) : 

"The existing clauses presume the guilt of the priests and clergymen, and 
adjudge the deprivation of their right to preach or teach unless the presumption 
be first removed by their expurgatory oath — in other words, they assume the guilt 
and adjudge the punishment conditionally. The clauses supposed differ only in 
that they declare the guilt instead of assuming it. The deprivation is effected 
with equal certainty in the one case as it would be in the other, but not with 
equal directness. The purpose of the lawmaker in the case supposed would be 
openly avowed ; in the case existing it is only disguised. The legal result must be 
the same, for what cannot be done directly cannot be done indirectly. The Con- 
stitution deals with substance, not shadows, its inhibition was leveled at the 
thing, not the name. It intended that the rights of the citizen should be secure 
against deprivation for past conduct by legislative enactment, under any form, 
however disguised. If the inhibition can be evaded by the form of the enactment, 
its insertion in the fundamental law was a vain and futile proceeding." 

And again (18 L. Ed. 365) : 

"The provision of the Federal Constitution intended to secure the liberty of 
the citizen,, cannot be evaded by the form in which the power of the State is 
exerted. If this were not so ; if that which cannot be accomplished by means 
looking directly to the end, can he accomplished by indirect means, the inhibition 
may be evaded at pleasure. No kind of oppression can be named, against which 
the framers of the Constitution intended to guard, which may not be effected." 

Tiie Court went on to rule that the "test oath" provision further violated the 
constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws since it created new penal- 
ties and sanctions for the acts and conduct of the proscribed group which were 
not provided under the previous existing law. In this connection the Court 
pointed out that the provisions in question invaded the presumption of innocence 
to which every accused is entitled, saying (18 L. Ed. 364) : 

"And this is not all. The clauses in question subvert the presumptions of 
innocence, and alter the rules of evidence, which heretofore, under the univer- 
sally recognized principles of the common law, have been supposed to be funda- 
mental and unchangeable. They assume that the parties are guilty; they call 
upon the parties to establish their innocence; and they declare that such inno- 
cence can be shown only in one way — by an inquisition, in the form of an expur- 
gatory oath, into the consciences of the parties." 

And in the companion case of E.r Parte Garland <4 Wall. 333, IS L. Ed. 366), 
the Court similarly ruled that the requirement by Congress that practitioners 
before the Supreme Court bar take a similar expurgatory test oath was uncon- 
stitutional on the same grounds. 



160 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

In both the Cummings and Garland oases, supra, the Supreme Court rejected 
the contention that Government employment or practice before the Supreme 
Court bar was a mere "privilege," the deprivation of which did not constitute 
"punishment." In the Cummings case, the Court stated that "punishment" 
included the deprivation of political and civil rights, saying (18 L. Ed. 362) : 

"The theory upon which our political institutions rest is that all men have 
certain inalienable rights — that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness; and that in the pursuit of happiness all avocations, all honors, 
all positions, are alike open to everyone, and that in the protection of these 
rights all are equal before the law. Any deprivation or suspension of any of 
these rights for past conduct is punishment, and can be in no otherwise defined. 

"Punishment not being, therefore, restricted, as contended by counsel, to the 
deprivation of life, liberty, or property, but also embracing deprivation or sus- 
pension of political or civil rights, and the disabilities prescribed by the pro- 
visions of the Missouri Constitution b;>ing, in effect, punishment, we proceed to 
consider whether there is any inhibition in the Constitution of the United States 
against their endorsement." 

An interesting parallel to the objects which the proposed bill (H R. 5852) 
attempts to accomplish is furnished by the case of McFarland v. American Su(/ar 
Refining Co. (241 U. S. 79, 60 L. Ed. 899 (1916)). There the Supreme Court 
held that a statute of the State of Louisiana was an unconstitutional bill of 
attainder and further created an unlawful legislative presumption of guilt. 
The State statute in question declared that the sugar refining business was 
impressed with the public interest and required extensive reports by refiners 
to State ins] lectors. Section 7 of the act provided that any refiner who sys- 
tematically purchased sugar in Louisiana at a lesser price than he paid in an- 
other State shall prima facie be presumed to be a party to a monopoly or 
combination in restraint of trade. Upon conviction of such offense a fine of 
$500 a day was provided, together with a revocation of a license to do business 
in the State. The act further provided that upon a showing that any refinery 
has been closed down or kept idle for the period of more than 1 year, it shall 
be presumed to have been done for the purpose of violating the laws against 
monopolies. The act further attempted to embody the findings of prior com- 
mittee reports of Congress by providing that the facts contained in such reports 
should be prima facie evidence of the matters which they covered. 

Suit was brought by the American Sugar Refining Co. to enjoin the statute 
on the ground that it was an unconstitutional attempt to penalize the activities 
of that company in the State of Louisiana. Justice Holmes writing for a unan- 
imous court, granted the injunction on the ground that the State statute em- 
bodied an unlawful presumption of guilt which rendered it unconstitutional, 
stating (241 U. S. 86-87, 60 L. Ed. 901) : 

"But it is not within the province of a legislature to declare an individual 
guilty or presumptively guilty of a crime. If the statute had said what it was 
argued that it means, that the plaintiff's business was affected with a public in- 
terest by reason of the plaintiff's monopolizing it, and that therefore the plain- 
tiff should be prima facie presumed guilty upon proof that it was carrying on 
business as it does, we suppose that no one would contend that the plaintiff 
was given the equal protection of the laws." • 

Justice Holmes further made clear that the fact that the act did not refer 
to the American Sugar Refining Co. by name but employed general terms, did 
not render it any less unconstitutional, saying (241 U. S. 85. 60 L. Ed. 9<>4) : 

"The answer is signed by the attorney general of the State; and if he were 
authorized to interpret the meaning of the other voice of the State heard in Act 
No. 10, would seem to import that the latter was a bill of pains and penalties 
disguised in general words." 

D. THE MUNDT-NIXON BILL AND REGISTRATION 

Tn his Areopagitica, Milton declared : 

"Truth and understanding are not such wares as to be monopolized and traded 
in by tickets and statutes and standards. We must not think to make a staple 
commodity of all the knowledge in the land, to mark and license it like our broad- 
cloth and our wool packs." 

The testing of ideas in the free market place of thought and expression is the 
essence of our constitutional system. But it must not be supposed that the notion 
of a market place includes the concept that ideas are like commodities, to be 
labeled and tagged. To stigmatize those who hold contrary opinions as bad and 
immoral persons, and then to require them to label each opinion and idea which 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 161 

they express by their nomenclature, gives an unfair advantage to those who 
espouse the ideas of status quo. 

Compulsory disclosure of one's opinions and beliefs is unknown to our Con- 
stitution. "There is no mysticism In the American concept of t lie state or of the 
nature or origin of its authority. We set up government by consent of the 
governed, and the 1 > i 1 1 of Rights denies those in power any legal opportunity to 
coerce that consent. Authority here is to be controlled hy public opinion, not 
public opinion by authority — and no official, high or petty, can prescribe what 
shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion 
or force citizens to confess hv word or act their faith therein" {West Virginia 
State Board of Education v. Unmet tc, 319 D. S. (124, 641, <542, 1043). 

The Supreme Court has admonished that in determining where a person's free- 
dom ends "it is the character of the right, not of the limitation, which determines 
what standard governs the choice" (Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 530, 1045). 
Therefore, in examining the registration provisions of the Mundt-Nixon hill, it is 
inappropriate to point to unrelated instances, narrow in scope, where persons 
have been required to furnish information to governmental authorities. The 
Mundt-Nixon bill deals with opinions, ideas, and beliefs. It does not deal with 
the inquiries of a census taker, or the reports of corporate officers. It is not 
directed at an oath-bound organization avowedly dedicated to murder and racism 
(compare, New York ex reh Bryant v. Zimmerman, 27S U. S. 63, 1028). It is 
not a "mere identification" requirement affecting all those who collect funds 
or secure subscriptions (compare, Gantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 206, 1940; 
and see, Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 540, 1947). Nor, indeed, 
is it a proposed statute which requires the registration of one who is in fact, 
as found by court and jury, an agent of a foreign principal (compare, Yicreck V. 
United States, 318 U. S. 236, 1043). 

The Mundt-Nixon bill vests complete discretion in the Attorney General to 
determine whether or not a particular organization is required to register. His 
criteria, as we have previouly discussed, are vague and undefined "views" and 
"policies" of those organizations, which in his sole judgment make it "reasonable 
to conclude" that they are subject to the control of a foreign power. His finding 
that an organization is covered by the terms of the act sets in motion all the 
penalties, disabilities, and burdens contained in the law. Organizations must 
file financial statements, and reports, as well as lists of officers and members. 
And "the findings of the Attorney General as to the facts, if supported by a pre- 
ponderance of the evidence shall be conclusive" (sec. 14 (a) ) . It is this proposed 
law which we construe, and none other. As to its merits, the Supreme Court lias 
furnished a definitive answer. In Thomas v. Collins (323 U. S. 516 (1045)), a 
Texas statute required labor organizers who "solicited" persons to become mem- 
bers of the union to register with the secretary of state and identify themselves 
by carrying an organizer's card. Thomas refused to comply. In upholding his 
refusal, the Court stated (pp. 539-540) : 

"As a matter of principle a requirement of registration in order to make a 
public speech would seem generally incompatible with an exercise of the rights 
of free speech and free assemhly. Lawful public assemblies, involving no element 
of grave and immediate danger to an interest the State is entitled to protect, 
are not instruments of harm which require previous identification of the speakers. 
And the right either of workmen or of union under these conditions to assemble 
and discuss their own affairs is as fully protected by the Constitution as the 
right of businessmen, farmers, educators, political party members or others to 
assemble and discuss their affairs and to enlist the support of others." 

******* 

"If the exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly cannot be made 
a crime, we do not think this can be accomplished by the device of requiring 
previous registration as a condition for exercising them and making such a con- 
dition the foundation for restraining in advance their exercise and for imposing 
a penalty for violating such a restraining order. So long as no more is involved 
than exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly, it is immune to such 
a restriction. If one who solicits support for the cause of labor may be required 
to register as a condition to the exercise of his right to make a public speech, 
so may he who seeks to rally support for any social, business, religious, or po- 
litical cause. We think a requirement that one must register before he under- 
takes to make a public speech to enlist support for a lawful movement is quite 
incompatible with the requirements of the first amendment." 

The Supreme Court has time and again held invalid registration statutes where 
the registration requirements vested discretion in the designated governmental 



162 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

authority to censor the activity involved. Lord} v. Griwn (303 U. S. 444 (1938) ), 
dealt with an ordinance which forbade the distribution of literature without 
first obtaining the permission of a city manager. The Court stated (p. 451) : 
"We think that the ordinance is invalid on its face. Whatever the motive which 
induced its adoption, its character is such that it strikes at the very foundation 
of the freedom of the press by subjecting it to license and censorship." In 
Schneider v. Irvington (308 U. S. 147 (1939) ), the Court again stated (p. 164) : 
"To require a censorship through license which makes impossible the free and 
unhampered distribution of pamphlets strikes at the very heart of the constitu- 
tional guarantees." In Largent v. Texas (318 U. S. 418 (1943) ), the Court stated 
(p. 422) : "The mayor issues a permit only if after thorough investigation he 
'deems it proper or advisable.' Disseminaton of ideas depends upon the approval 
of the distributor by the official. This is administrative censorship in an extreme 
form. It abridges the freedom of religion, of the press, and of speech guaranteed 
by the fourteenth amendment." And in Hague v. C. I. O. (307 U. S'. 496 (1939) ), 
the Court cogently stated (p. 516) : 

"We think the court below was right in holding the ordinance quoted in 
note 1 void upon its face. It does not make comfort or convenience in the use 
of streets or parks the standard of official action. It enables the director of 
safety to refuse a permit on his mere opinion that such refusal will prevent 
'riots, disturbances, or disorderly assemblage.' It can thus, as the record dis- 
closes, be made the instrument of arbitrary suppression of free expression of 
views on national aifiairs for the prohibition of all speaking will undoubtedly 
'prevent' such eventualities. But uncontrolled official suppression of the privi- 
lege cannot be made a substitute for the duty to maintain order in connection 
with the exercise of the right." 

Freedom of belief is absolute (Cantwell v. Connecticut (310 U. S. 296, 303, 
1940)). Government is without power under the Constitution to abridge the 
freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, or the right to petition for redress 
of grievances. It may not enact direct prohibitions ; it may not, indeed, indirectly 
in any form, place burdens or restrictions upon the rights of persons, or groups 
of persons, to formulate their thoughts or beliefs {Murdoch v. Pennsylvania) (319 
U. S. 105, 1943) ; Near v. Minnesota, (283 U. S. 697, 1931) ; Grosjean v. American 
Press Go. (297 U. S. 233, 1936) ). All political parties, including the Communist 
Party, have the unrestricted right to present their ideas in the market place of 
thought so that a free people can exercise a free choice. To require certain 
groups of Americans to register with Government as a condition to their right 
to speak, is to create manifest inequality in the market place of ideas. Under 
such circumstances the people are not free because they are not free to examine 
and choose. Representative government cannot long endure when the founda- 
tions of the government are thus impaired. 

E. THE MUNDT-NIXON BILL, GUILT BY ASSOCIATION AND SELF-INCKIMINATION 

(a) We have already pointed out that by the provisions of section 2 of the 
bill, it is proposed to attribute unlawful doctrines to certain political organiza- 
tions in the United States, and to attribute disloyalty and expatriation to those 
Mho are members thereof. By section 10 of the proposed measure it is made 
unlawful for any individual to become or remain a member of any organization 
if there is in effect a final order of the Attorney General requiring such organi- 
zation to register as a Communist political organization, and more than 120 
days have elapsed since such order became final, and such organization is not 
registered as a Communist political organization. The penalty is 2 years im- 
prisonment, and fine of $5,000. 

The personal views of the individual and bis personal conduct, therefore, 
bear no relevance or weight under this section. However guiltless he may be 
of any crime; however honest his conduct: however convinced he may be that 
the persons with whom he has associated himself are decent and law-abiding 
citizens — if he remains a member of an organization after it has failed to register, 
he is guilty of a crime. 

More than two decades ago, the leaders of the New York bar, Charles Evanji 
Hughes, Morgan J. O'Brien, Louis Marshall, Joseph M. Proskauer. and Ogden L. 
Mills, joined in a memorial to the assembly of the State of New York (1920) 
wherein it was affirmed: 

"* * * Tenth. That it is of the essence of the institutions of liberty that 
it be recognized that guilt is personal and cannot be attributed to the holding 
of opinion or to mere interest in the absence of overt acts; that a member elected 
to the Assembly is entitled to the benefit of the presumption of innocence : and 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 163 

that a member of the Assembly duly elected, being of sound mind and possessing 
the qualifications prescribed by the Constitution, cannot properly be expelled 
or denied tbc privileges of his seat except upon charges duly laid and upon proof 
duly taken of personal misconduct as a member of the Assembly or of the com- 
mission by him of some act constituting a violation of law. 

"Eleventh. We deem it important that this vital issue, the proper decision 
of which is essential to the security of the Republic, Should not be obscured 
by the reception of testimony, statements or declarations as to matters here 
or abroad, in the attempt to indict a political party or organization, without 
first laying proper charges with proper specifications directly connecting members 
accused with personal and guilty participation in illegal acts." 

We do no more here than quote from the decided cases. In Schneiderman v. 
United States, (320 U. S. US (1943)) the Supreme Court stated (p. 136) : 

"At this point it is appropriate to mention what will be more fully developed 
later — that under our traditions beliefs are personal and not a matter of mere 
association, and that men in adhering to a political party or other organization 
notoriously do not subscribe unqualifiedly to all of its platforms or asserted 
principles." 

In Bridges v. Wixon (326 U. S. 135 (1945) ) the Supreme Court stated (p. 163) : 

"The deportation statute completely ignores the traditional American doc- 
trine requiring personal guilt rather than guilt by association or imputation 
before a penalty or punishment is inflicted. 

"The statute does not require that an alien, to be deportable, must personally 
advocate or believe in the forceful overthrow of the Government. It is enough 
if he is a member or an affiliate of an organization which advocates such a 
doctrine. And in this case the Government admits that it has neither claimed 
nor attempted to prove that Harry Bridges personally advocated or believed 
in the proscribed doctrine. There is no evidence, moreover, that he under- 
stood the Communist Party to advocate violent revolution or that he ever com- 
mitted or tried to commit an overt act directed to the realization of such an 
aim. 

•'The doctrine of personal guilt is one of the most fundamental principles of 
our jurisprudence. It partakes of the very essence of the concept of freedom 
and due process of law {Schneiderman v. United States (320 U. S. 118, 154, S7 L 
ed. 1796, 1817, 63 S. Ct. 1333) ). It prevents the persecution of the innocent for 
the beliefs and actions of others. (See Chafee, Free Speech in the United 
States (1941) pp. 472-475.) 

"Yet the deportation statute on its face and in its present application flatly 
disregards this rule. It condemns an alien to exile for beliefs and teachings 
to which he may not personally subscribe and of which he may not even be 
aware. This fact alone is enough to invalidate the legislation. (Cf. De Jonge v. 
Oreoon (299 U. S. 353, 81 L. ed. 27S, 57 S. Ct. 2555 ; Hemdon v. Lowry 301 U. S. 
242, 81 L. ed. 1066, 57 S. Ct. 732) ; Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 71 L. ed. 
1095, 47 S. Ct. 641.") 

Self-incrimination 

(b) It will be observed that the Attorney General may order an organiza- 
tion to register as a "Communist-political organization" if it is "reasonable 
to conclude" from any of the criteria set forth in section 3 that it is under the 
control of "such foreign government or foreign organization." An organization 
will be required to register as a "Communist-front organization" if it is "rea- 
sonable to conclude" under the criteria of section 3 that it "is primarily operated 
for the purpose of giving aid and support to * * * the world Communist 
movement referred to in section 2." It will be also again noted that these ad- 
ministrative findings are conclusive upon the courts if supported by a preponder- 
ance of the evidence. 

Suppose an organization should comply with an order of the Attorney General 
and register as a "Communist-political organization" or a "Communist-front 
organization"? It is in essence conceding that it is an organization subject 
to the control of a foreign government and a world Communist movement as 
defined in section 2. But this promptly subjects the organization and its mem- 
bers to the penalties proscribed by section 4 of the bill where attempts in any 
manner to establish a totalitarian dictatorship tinder the control of a foreign 
government, or conspiracy to commit such an offense, is made punishable by 
10 years imprisonment and 10,000 fine. 

The fifth amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no 
person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against him- 



1(34 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

self." In Counselman v. Hitchcock (142 U. S. 547 (1892)) the Supreme Court 
stated (pp. 562, 586) : 

"It is imposible that the meaning of the constitutional provision can only 
be, that a person shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself in a 
criminal prosecution against himself. It would doubtless cover such cases; but 
it is not limited to them. The object was to insure that a person should not 
be compelled, when acting as a witness in any investigation, to give testimony 
which might tend to show that he himself had committed a crime. The priv- 
ilege is limited to criminal matters, but it is as broad as the mischief against 
which it seeks to guard." 

******* 

"We are clearly of opinion that no statute which leaves the party or witness 
subject to prosecution after he answers the criminating questions put to him, 
can have the effect of supplanting the privilege conferred by the Constitution 
of the United States Section 8G0 of the Revised Statutes does not supply a 
complete protection from all the perils against which the constitutional prohi- 
bition was designed to guard, and is not a full substitute for that prohibition. 
In view of the constitutional provision, a statutory enactment, to be valid, 
must afford absolute immunity against future prosecution for the offense to 
which the question relates. In this respect, we give our assent rather to the 
doctrine of Emery's case, in Massachusetts, than to that of People v. Kelly, 
in New York; and we consider that the ruling of this court in Boyd v. United 
States (116 U. S. 616 (29; 746) ) supports the view we take. Section 860, more- 
over, affords no protection against that use of compelled testimony which con- 
sists in gaining therefrom a knowledge of the details of a crime, and of sources 
of information which may supply other means of convicting the witness or 
party." 

F. THE MUNDT-NIXON BILL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S POWERS 

It will be readily observable from all that has gone before that the keystone 
of this legislative proposal is the power vested in the Attorney General to inter- 
dict organizations, and the administrative machinery created to exercise those 
powers. We point to only a few of the more obvious infirmities of the bill in 
this connection. 

In the first place, the bill purports to delegate legislative powers to an admin- 
istrative official without any standards to guide him. We have, of course, con- 
tended that the Congress is without power under the Constitution to itself pro- 
scribe thought or expression of thought. Here, however, it is proposed to go 
one step further and to permit an administrative official to do the same illegal 
act. For section 3 does not state what "activities" or "views" or "policies" or 
"principles" are characteristic of an organization subject to a foreign power — 
if such legislation was ever intellectually possible. It leaves it solely to the 
Attorney General to make this determination in his own discretion. The Con- 
stitution forbids such delegation of vast, unfettered power. 

In Panama Refining Co. v. Ryan (293 U. S. 388 (1938)), the Supreme Court 
stated (pp. 420-421) : 

"The question whether such a delegation of legislative power is permitted by 
the Constitution is not answered by the argument that it should be assumed 
that the President has acted, and will act, for what he believes to be the public 
good. The point is not one of motives but of constitutional authority, for which 
the best motives is not a substitute." 

******* 

"The Constitution provides that 'All legislative powers herein granted shall 
be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and 
House of Representatives.' Article 1, section 1. And the Congress is empow- 
ered 'To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into 
execution' its general powers. Article 1, section 8, clause 18. The Congress 
manifestly is not permitted to abdicate, or to transfer to others, the essential 
legislative functions with which it is thus vested." 

And in Schecter v. United States (295 U. S. 495 (1935)), Mr. Justice Cardozo 
stated (pp. 551, 553) : 

"Here, in the case before us, is an attempted delegation not confined to any 
single act nor to any class or group of acts identified or described by reference 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 165 

to :i Standard. Here in effect is a roving commission to inquire into evils ;uul 
uimn discovery correct them." 

******* 

"This is delegation running riot. No such plenitude of power is susceptible 
Of transfer. The statute, however, aims at nothing less, as one can learn 
both from its terms and from the administrative practice under it. Nothing 
less is aimed at by the code now submitted to our scrutiny." 

Moreover, it should he noted that by the provisions of section 13 (2) (B), the 
Attorney General or any of his subordinates is authorized to "suhpena the 
attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of hooks, papers, 
correspondence, memoranda, and other records deemed relevant to the matter 
under inquiry." 

But the "matter under inquiry" is so vague and undefined as to encompass every 
normal activity of every inhabitant in the United States, no matter where located. 
Dnder the language of section 3. the Attorney General, or any and all district at- 
torneys in any community of the United States, could with impunity suhpena 
every hook and paper contained in a person's home, and inquire into every opinion, 
belief, or association of an individual, without fear that his process could be 
quashed. Relevance to the matter under inquiry" has little value to the citizen 
when the matter under inquiry is limitless. The fourth amendment forbids un- 
reasonable searches and seizures. In Jones v. Securities Exchange Commission 
(298 U. S. 1 ( 1935 ) ) . the Supreme Court declared (p. 27 * : 

"A general, roving, offensive, inquisitorial, compulsory investigation, conducted 
by a commission without any allegations, upon no fixed principles, and governed 
by no rules of law, or of evidence, and no restrictions except its own will, or 
caprice, is unknown to our constitution and laws: and such an inquisition would 
be destructive of the rights of the citizen, and an intolerable tyranny. Let the 
power once be established, and there is no knowing where the practice under it 
would end." 

G. THE MUNDT-NIXOX BIIX, C'lTIZEXSHIP, PASSPORTS. AND EMPLOYMENT 

( '/) Section 5 of the proposed bill deprives native born and naturalized citizens 
of their citizenship in the event that a conviction under section 4 occurs. Citizens 
who violate the provisions of the section and thereafter take up residence abroad 
are deemed to have expatriated themselves. 

The dangerous consequences of these provisions are manifest. If the Congress 
can deprive a man of his citizenship because of an alleged violation of the pro- 
posed Mundt-Xixon bill, it follows that it can deprive a citizen of that status upon 
conviction of any other offense, no matter how minor, or for any reason deemed 
sufficient to officials of Government. The Constitution of the United States is 
to the contrary. 

The first sentence of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution provides : 

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the 
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein 
they reside." 

To deprive a man of his citizenship, the Supreme Court has asserted (Schneider- 
man v. United States (320 U. S. 118, 1943) ) "is more serious than a taking of one's 
property, or the imposition of a fine or penalty. For it is safe to assert that no- 
where in the world today is the right of citizenship of greater worth to an indi- 
vidual than it is in this country. It would be difficult to exaggerate its value and 
importance. By many it is regarded as the highest hope of civilized man." 

There is no constitutional power in Congress to deprive a person of his citizen- 
ship, whether native born or naturalized. The idea that such power exists in 
officials of Government is odious to a civilized society and unknown to our Con- 
stitution. Happily, the Supreme Court has spoken in unmistakable terms (United 
Slates, v. Wong Kim Ark (169 U. S. 649, 703, 1898) ) : 

"The power of naturalization, vested in Congress by the Constitution, is a 
power to confer citizenship, not a power to take it away. 'A naturalized citizen,' 
said Chief Justice Marshall, 'becomes a member of the society, possessing all 
the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the Constitution, 
on the footing of a native. The Constitution does not authorize Congress to 
enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national legislature 
is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power 
exhausts it, so far as respects the individual. The Constitution then takes 
him up. and among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the 
courts of the United States precisely under the same circumstances under which 



166 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

a native might sue' (Osborn v. Unitm States Bank (22 U. S. 9 Wheat. 73s, 827 
(6: 204, 225) ). Congress having no power to abridge the rights conferred by the 
Constitution upon those who have become naturalized citizens by virtue of acts 
of Congress, a fortiori no act or omission of Congress, as to providing for the 
naturalization of parents or children of a particular race, can affect citizenship 
acquired as a birthright, by virtue of the Constitution itself, without any aid of 
legislation. The fourteenth amendment, while it leaves the power where it was 
before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon 
Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute 
a sufficient and complete right to citizenship." 

(b) Basically the provisions of the proposed law making it unlawful for a 
member of a Communist political organization to make application for a pass- 
port "knowing that the organization is a Communist political organization," 
and making it unlawful for any officer of the United States to issue a passport 
to any individual "knowing that such individual is a member of a Communist 
political organization'' are subject to the infirmities which have preceded this 
discussion. To deny citizens egress from their country because of their opinions 
and beliefs is contrary to the fundamental law. The decision of the Attorney 
General, under the undefined powers vested in him, will enable this administra- 
tive official not only to destroy many lawful associations, but to prevent members 
of such associations from enjoying privileges which other citizens obtain with- 
out limitation. Here, too, the doctrine of guilt by association becomes the preva- 
lent theme. 

Administrative officials do not possess unfettered discretion. This is true even 
in the case of those who issue passports (compare, Perkins v. Elg (807 U. S. 
825, 349. 1939)). For government in its entirety, and all officials of govern- 
ment, are subject to the provisions of the supreme law of the land, the Consti- 
tution. "No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer 
of the law may set that law at defiance with impunity. All the officers of the 
Government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are 
bound to obey it" ( United States v. Lee (106 U. S. 196. 220 [1882] ) ) . 

No official of government may violate the Constitution on the pretext that 
he is vested with a "discretion" to do so — nor may Congress authorize an official 
of government to so violate the basic law. "But this court has never held, nor 
must we now be understood as holding, that administrative officers, when execut- 
ing the provisions of a statute involving the liberty of persons, may disregard 
the fundamental principles that inhere in 'due process of law" as understood 
at the time of the adoption of the Constitution" {Yavnataya v. Fisher (189 U. S. 
86, 100 [1903]) ; to the same effect. Bridge* v. Wi.ron (326 U. S. 135, 161 [194r>] ) ). 

(c) Nor is the denial of public employment solely because of a person's views 
or associations justified under the Constitution. However much governmental 
officials may maintain that they are in no different position from that of a private 
employer, the fact remains that their powers here, too, are limited by the con- 
stitutional provisions. "Appellants urge that Federal employees are protected 
by the Bill of Rights and that Congress may not 'enact a regulation providing 
that no Republican. Jew, or Negro shall be appointed to Federal office, or that 
no Federal employee shall attend mass or take any active part in missionary 
work.' None would deny such limitations on congressional power * * *" 
(United Public Workers v. Mitchell (330 U. S. 75, 100 [1947] ) ). 

II. The Provisions of H. R. 5S52 Follow 7 the Historical Pattern ok Regressive 
Laws and Are Contrary to the Human-Rtuhts Tkovisions of InternattonaiI 
Law Enunciated by the American Government 

a. the alien and sedition laws of 1798 

In Abrams v. United States (250 U. S. 616 (1919) ), Mr. Justice Holmes stated 
(p. 630) : 

"I wholly disagree with the argument of the Government that the first amend- 
ment left the common law as to seditions libel in force. History seems to me 
against the notion. I had conceived that the United States through many years 
had shown its repentance for the Sedition Act of 1798, by repaying lines that it 
imposed." 

The alien and sedition laws were the first test of strength of the newly formed 
American Government. The Federalist Party, the party of Hamilton, was in 
control. Its members sought alliances with England, clamored for war with 
France, accused the French Government of spreading propaganda in America 
through paid agents (Cushman, R. E., Alien and Sedition Acts in Encyclopedia of 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 167 

the Social Sciences, vol. 1, pp. 635 <i.' , .'.'.t. asserted t^ial revolutionary doctrines 
were being spread by foreigners in the country (Chafee, Jr., 2, Freedom of Speech 
(192d), p. 29), and clamored for action to avoid "the spectacle of the disastrous 
operations of those doctrines abroad" (Chafee, supra, note 11. p. 29). 

The Jeffersonian Republicans were vigorous in their denunciation of the gov- 
ernment and its officials. .Many Americans of foreign birth were in their ranks, 
a state of affairs which only served to embitter still further the leaders of the 
Federalist Tarty. 

The alien and sedition laws grew out of the determination of the Federalists 
"to right matters by law" (Bassett, .!. S., the Federalist System in the American 
.Nation, vol. XI, p. 253). "Of all the Federalist leaders, only Marshall opposed 
these bills openly. His legal mind could not approve this violation of natural 
rights, an attitude for which he was soundly denounced by the New England 
Federalists'' (Bassett, I. S., supra, p. 260). 

The laws were four in number. The first (1' S'tat. 566) increased the period 
of residence necessary for naturalization from 5 to 14 years. The second (1 Stat. 
o77t vested complete power over enemy aliens in the President of the United 
States. He was authorized at his pleasure to detain or remove them. The third 
(1 Stat. 570) authorized the President to deport all aliens "as he shall judge 
dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable 
grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against 
the Government thereof.*' The fourth (1 Stat. 596) punished all unlawful com- 
binations which "oppose any measure or measures of the Government," or "im- 
pede the operation of any law of the United States" ; and "any false, scandalous, 
and malicious writing or writings against the Government of the United, 
State * * * with intent to defame the said government * * *; or to 
excite against them * * * the hatred of the good people of the United 
States, or to stir up sedition * * * ; or to aid, encourage or abet any 
hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, * * *." 

Before their enactment the measures were heatedly debated in Congress. 
The Federalists pointed to France where allegedly unfettered liberty "lias 
there made slaves of 30,000,000 of men" (Annals of Congress, vol. 2, p. 2098). 
"The people, I venerate," said John Allen, a sponsor of the sedition bill, 
"they are truly sovereign ; but a section, a part of the citizens, a town, a city, or 
a mob, I know them not ; if they oppose the laws, they are insurgents and rebels ; 
they are not the people" ( Annals of ( 'ongress, vol. 2, p. 2096) . 

Edward Livingston, a leader of the Jefferson forces in Congress, replied : 

"The laws now in force are competent to punish every treasonable or seditious 
attempt. But grant, sir — w*hat, however, has not been supported by fact — grant 
that these fears are not visionary, that the dangers are imminent, and that no 
existing law is sufficient to avert them, let us examine whether the provisions 
of the bill are conformable to the principles of the Constitution; if it should be 
round to contravene them, I trust it will lose many of its present supporters ; 
hut if not only contrary to the general spirit and the principles of the Constitu- 
tion, it should also be found diametrically opposed to the most express prohibi- 
tions. I cannot doubt that it would be rejected with that indignant decision which 

our duty to our country and our sacred oath demands." 

******* 

"If we exceed our powers; we become tyrants, and our acts have no effect." 
(Annals of Congress, vol. 2, pp. 2007, 2014.) 

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison led the struggle against the Alien and 
Sedition Acts. The Kentucky Resolutions drawn by Jefferson warned that 
enforcement of the measures "would be to surrender the form of government 
we have chosen, and live under one deriving its powers from its own will, and 
not from our authority" (Elliot's Debates, supra, p. 544). The Virginia Resol- 
lutions drawn by Madison declared that the acts exercise "a power not delegated 
by the Constitution, but. on the contrary, expressly and positively forbidden by 
one of the amendments thereto — a power wdiich, more than any other, ought to 
produce universal alarm because it is leveled against the right of freely examining 
public characters and measures, and of free communication among the people 
thereon, which has ever been justly deemed the only effectual guardian of every 
other right" (Elliot's Debates, supra, p. 554). 

The reign of terror which followed the enactment of the alien and sedition 
laws (see, Bowers, C. G.. Jefferson and Hamilton (New York 1945), ch. XVII, 
pp. 386-411) was one of the most shameful periods in American history. It was. 
however, short-lived. The first prosecution under the Sedition Act was against 
Matthew Lyon, a Republican Member of Congress running for reelection. He 



168 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

was convicted for writing a letter (written before the acts were passed) con- 
demning Adams' continual grasp for power (Bowers, supra, p. 380). He was 
sentenced to 4 months in jail and to pay a fine of a thousand dollars. Popular 
resentment was intense. Lyons was elected overwhelmingly to Congress while 
in jail. His fine was paid by the people, who subscribed "with a thousand and 
more in gold" and "more than a thousand in silver" (Bowers, supra, p. 388). 

Similar prosecutions were conducted against the proprietors, editors and chief 
writers of the Republican press, and individuals who espoused the cause of 
republicanism (Anderson, F. M., Tbe Enforcement of the Alien and Sedition 
Laws: American Historical Association, Annual Report (1912) ). 

Some time after Jefferson retired from public life (Sepfe 6, 1819) he wrote 
to Judge Spencer Roane : 

"A legislature had passed the sedition law. The Federal courts had subjected 
certain individuals to its penalties of fine and imprisonment. In coming into 
office I released these individuals by the power of pardon committed to executive 
discretion, which could never be more properly exercised than where citizens 
were suffering without the authority of law, or, which was equivalent, under a 
law unauthorized by the Constitution, and therefore null." 

"So much did they (the Federalists) bring into contempt the idea of Govern- 
ment by the superior classes, that no capable politician since 1800 has dared to 
place his cause on any other ground than the will of the people" (Bassett, J. S., 
supra, p. 290). "The whole episode of the Alien and Sedition Acts burned itself 
indelibly into the American mind and tradition" (Cushman, R. E., supra, p. 035). 

It is difficult to believe in the light of history that any attempt would ever 
again be made in America to stifle free communication of ideas by repressive 
legislation. The Mundt-Nixon bill is a regressive measure, a proposal to usurp 
power in disregard of the Constitution and to bring to America the terrorism of 
the Federalists— 1948 style. 

B. THE MUNDT-NIXON BILL AND THE NAZI DECREES OF 193.3-41 

On August 8, 1945, the Governments of Great Britain, the United States, France, 
and the Soviet Union entered into an agreement establishing the Tribunal for 
the Trial of War Criminals (The Nurnberg Trial, 1945, 6 Fed. Rules Decisions 
73-202, 76). By the charter annexed to the agreement, the constitution, juris- 
diction, and functions of the Tribunal were defined. Among the acts held to 
be punishable as crimes against humanity were "persecutions on political, racial, 
or religious grounds * * *" (The Nurnberg Trial, supra, p. 78). The judg- 
ment of the War Crimes Tribunal recites the methods whereby the Nazis con- 
solidated their power after Hitler's accession to office (pp. 80-83). By "a series 
of laws and decrees" (supra, p. 81), hostile criticism, "indeed criticism of any 
kind, was forbidden, and the severest penalties were imposed on those who 
indulged in it. Independent judgment, based on freedom of thought, was ren- 
dered quite impossible" (supra, p. 83). As early as 1934, two American instruc- 
tors at the University of Michigan had warned : 

"Since January 30, 1933, the Government of Germany has been in the hands of 
Adolph Hitler and his advisers. Under their direction, the whole fabric of gov- 
ernment has been fundamentally changed. The democratic— parliamentary, 
regime with which Germany was governed under the Weimar Constitution has 
been supplanted, and the new government, when strongly entrenched in power, 
bas gone about to alter every phase of German life, cultural, religious, social, eco- 
nomic, as well as political." (Pollock & Heneman, The Hitler Decrees (Ann 
Arbor, Mich., 1934), pp. 1-82, preface.) 

The following are some of the "laws and decrees" enacted by the National 
Socialist Government of Adolph Hitler : 

"Law regarding the revocation of naturalization and the deprivation of Ger- 
man citizenship ( Reichsgesetzblatt, 1, 480, July 14, 1933) : 

"Section I. Naturalization made in the period from November 9, 1918, to Jan- 
uary 30. 1933, may be revoked if the naturalization is deemed undesirable. 

"Sec. II. Citizens of the Reich sojourning abroad, may be declared to have 
forfeited the German citiz 'iiship if they have injured the German interests by 
conduct violating their duty to loyalty against the Reich and the people." 

An ordinance to effectuate this measure was passed 2 weeks later ( Reichs- 
gesetzblatt, 1. 538, July 20, 1983). It provided: 

"Conduct violating the duty to loyalty against the Reich and people will be 
found particularly if a German assists in the hostile propaganda against Ger- 
many or if he has tried to insult the prestige of the measures of the National 
Government." 









CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 169 

Compare section 5 Of the proposed Subversive Activities Control Act, 1948. 

On May 12(5. 1933 (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1, 293), the following law was passed: 

"SECTION 1:1. The supreme authorities of the state or the authorities desig- 
nated by them may confiscate in favor of the state, the property and lights of 
the Communist Party of Germany and its auxiliary and substitute organizations, 
as well as the property and rights used or destined for the advancement of 
Communist endeavors." 

And ti weeks later the Nazis passed another law (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1, 479, 
July 14, 1933) : 

"The provisions of the law regarding the confiscation of Communist property 
of May 26. 1933 (RGBL, 1, 293) are applicable to property and the rights of the 
Social Democratic Party and its auxiliary and substitute organizations, as well 
as to property and rights used or destined for the advancement of Marxist or 
other endeavors found by the Reich Minister of the Interior to be hostile to the 
people and state." 

Compare section 3 of the Mundt-Nixon bill defining the terms "Communist 
political organization" and "Communist-front organizations." Compare also 
the powers vested in the Reich Minister of the Interior and the powers vested in 
the Attorney General of the United States in section 13 of the Mundt-Nixon 
bill. 

On April 7, 1933, the following law was passed (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1, 175, 
April 7, 1933) : 

"Section 1. Civil servants who have been members of the Communist Party or 
Communist auxiliary and substitute organizations or who have otherwise been 
active along Communist lines, are to be discharged from civil service. 

"Sec. 2. Civil servants who will hereafter be active along Marxist (Communist 
or Social Democratic) lines are likewise to be discharged. 

******* 

"Sec. 4. (1) Civil servants who by their previous political conduct do not 
afford assurance that they will at all times identify themselves without reserve 
with the national state, may be discharged from the service. 

******* 

"Sec 15. The provisions regarding civil servants are equally applicable to 
employees and workei-s." 

Compare section 6 of the proposed Subversive Activities Control Act, 1948. 

Two years after this accession to power Hitler enacted the following law 
(Reichsgesetzblatt, 1, 1146) : 

"Sec. II. A person is punishable who commits an act which the law declares 
to be punishable, or which deserves punishment in accordance with the funda- 
mental purpose of a penal law and sound popular feeling." 

******* 

"Sec 267a. If it appears at the trial that the accused has committed an act 
which deserves punishment according to sound popular feeling, but which is not 
declared punishable by law, then the judge must examine whether the funda- 
mental purpose of a penal law covers the act, and whether the analogous applica- 
tion of such penal law is required in the interest of justice." 

Compare section 14 of the Mundt-Nixon bill and other prohibitions contained 
in the proposed measure affected by the administrative determination of the 
Attorney General. 

And here is the final "legal" step when fascism replaces democracy. On Decem- 
ber 4, 1941, the following law was passed (Reichsgesetzblatt, 1, 759) : 

"The (Poles or Jews) are punished with death, or in less serious cases with 
imprisonment, if by invidious conduct or agitation they manifest a state of mind 
hostile to Germany * * * or if by their conduct they impair or injure the 
prestige or the welfare of the German people or the German Reich." 

Compare section 3 of the Mundt-Nixon bill defining the criteria by which it is 
reasonable to conclude that an organization is under the control of a foreign 
government. 

There is a startling parallel between the provisions of the Nazi laws which 
wiped out the Weimar Constitution and the provisions of the proposed Subversive 
Activities Control Act, 1948. It is significant to note that the allied military 
tribunal found that by the German people's acceptance of these laws and decree 
"Germany had accepted the dictatorship with all its methods of terror, ar.d its 
cynical and open denial of the rule of law" (The Nurnberg Trial, supra, p. 82). 



170 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

C. THE MUNDT-NIXON BILL AND THE INTERNATIONAL BILL OF EIGHTS 

There is a painful incongruity between the provisions of the Mundt-Nixon bill 
and the humanitarian principles for which our representatives at the United 
Nations and in many foreign countries purportedly stand. 

As early as 1941, the country had been inspired by tbe promulgation of the 
four freedoms, among which were "freedom of speech and expression — every- 
where in the world." The Charter of the United Nations to which our Govern- 
ment was a signatory, provides in part (article 55) : 

"With a view to the creation of conditions of stability and well-being which 
are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations based on respect 
for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, the United 
Nations shall promote : 

******* 

(c) universal respect for, and observances of, human rights and fundamental 
freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion." 

(Art. 55c was drafted under the guidance of the United States delegation, 
Stettinius, Charter of the United Nations, Department of State, Publications 
2349, Conference Series 71, p. 21-27.) 

Article 56 of the Charter further provides : 

"All members pledge themselves to take joint and separate action in cooperation 
with the Organization for the achievement of the purposes set forth in article 55." 

It is clear that the undertaking contained in article 56 has become the supreme 
law of the land (Constitution, art. VI). The moral obligation assumed by the 
United States in the field of human rights seems equally clear. The Mundt- 
Nixon bill points in the opposite direction, punishing speech and opinion, pro- 
scribing associations of citizens for their beliefs, denying them public employ- 
ment, forbidding egress from the country, and depriving them of their citizenship 
without the rudimentary requirements of due process of law. 

This disturbing anomaly is further accentuated by the proposals of the Amer- 
ican delegation in the Commission on Human Rights of the United Nations 
(United Nations, Economic and Social Council, Official Records, 3d year, 6th sess., 
supp. No. 1, Report of the Commission on Human Rights). 

Among the proposals for a declaration on human rights, the American rep- 
resentative suggested : 

"Article 1 : Everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and equal protection under 
Jaw. 

"Article 2: Everyone has the right to freedom of information, speech and 
expression, to freedom of religion, conscience, and belief; to freedom of assembly 
and of association; and to freedom to petition his government and the United 
Nations. 

"Article 3: No one shall be subjected to unreasonable interference with his 
privacy, family, home, correspondence, or reputation. No one shall be arbitrarily 
deprived of his property. 

"Article 4: There shall be liberty to move freely from place to place within 
the State, to emigrate, and to seek asylum from persecution. 

******* 

"Article 7: Everyone, in the determination of his rights and obligations, is 

entitled to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal and 
to the aid of counsel. No one shall be convicted or punished for crime except 
after public trial pursuant to law in effect at the time of the commission of 
the act charged. Everyone, regardless of office or status, is subject to the rule 
of law. 

"Article S: Everyone has the right to a nationality. Everyone has a right to 
take an effective part in his government directly or through his representa- 
tives; and to participate in elections, which shall be periodic, free, and by 
scent ballot'' * * * (supra, pp. 21-27). 

To the draft covenant on bun. an rights, the representative of the United States 
proposed : 

"Everyone shall have the right to freedom of information, speech, and ex- 
pression: Everyone shall lie free to hold his opinion without molestation, to 
receive and seek information and the opinion of others from sources wherever 
situated, and to disseminate opinions and information, either by word, in writing, 
in the press, in books, or by visual, auditive, o" other means." 

Tn the ligbl of these declarations to the peoples of the world, the Mundt-Nixon 
bill, if enact* d into law, can only subject the Government of the United States 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 171 

to humiliation and embarrassment everywhere, and cast dishonor upon a nation 
solemnly pledged to safeguard human rights. 

Conclusion 

The enactment of the Mundt Nixon bill would mean the end of constitutional 
governm* n.1 in America. It would make possible the introduction of a despotism 
abhorrent to American traditions. A measure so destructive of constitutional 
government, so contrary to our historical traditions and democratic principles, 
deserves no other fate than ohlivion. 
Respectfully submitted. 

National Lawyers Guild, 
Robert W. Kenny, 

President. 
Robert J. Silberstein, 

Secretary. 

Mr. Emersox. To qualify myself, Mr. Chairman, I am professor of 
law at Yale University. New Haven, Conn. I want to take just a few 
minutes to outline what seems to me to be the two basic constitutional 
issues which are involved in this bill: First, whether the bill violates 
the constitutional guaranty of freedom of political expression em- 
bodied in the first amendment; and second, whether it violates the 
due process clause in that it is too indefinite and vague. 

With respect to the first proposition, it is important first to under- 
stand what the proposed bill adds to existing legislation on the sub- 
ject. "We already have legislation that deals with espionage, sabotage, 
treason, advocacy of overthrow of the Government by force and vio- 
lence, and other forms of sedition, conspiracy, and so forth. The 
Mundt bill proposes to add to this legislation provisions which would 
make it a crime to attempt to establish a totalitarian dictatorship under 
the control of a foreign government, regardless of the methods that 
are used — that is to say, regardless of the force or violence aspect — 
and even if the methods were peaceful, democratic methods, it is a 
crime to attempt to establish a totalitarian dictatorship. Furthermore, 
it is a crime to do any act with intent to facilitate or aid the establish- 
ment of such a dictatorship. 

I am not going into detail on the registration provisions, but note 
what you have here. You have a bill which goes far beyond the 
standards of force or violence, which have been the customary stand- 
ards applicable to this type of legislation in the past. You have an 
organization which may be entirely peaceful in its objectives and 
methods, that wants to change the form of government in the United 
States, and the activities of that organization thereupon become 
criminal. You also have any organization or individual that is con- 
nected with this first type of organization through interlocking mem- 
bership or cooperation or working toward some of the same objectives, 
who are brought also under the provisions. So, you have a number 
or organizations upon the periphery of any organization that might 
be trying to establish a dictatorship, which are brought within the 
framework of the act with respect to their activities. 

Let me take just a minute to explain why I feel that that is in 
violation of the freedom of political expression as guaranteed by the 
first amendment. The major limitation which has been placed upon 
freedom of political expression in the past has been a prohibition 
against activity involving the use of force and violence. It was on 

78257—48 12 



172 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

this basis that the various sedition acts have been upheld. Even here, 
however, the courts have consistently held that an act or a speech 
advocating force and violence cannot be prohibited unless there is 
showing of clear and present danger. So, actually, even as to the 
advocacy of force and violence, there is the limitation of clear and 
present danger. 

The Chairman. Do you think there is any evidence in the world 
that communism presents a clear and present danger in those countries 
in which it infiltrates? 

Mr. Emerson. A clear and present danger of what ? Of force and 
violence ?  

The Chairman. No; of the destruction of the principles of free 
government. 

Mr. Emerson. Insofar as there is' a clear and present danger from 
activity with respect to force and violence, it could be prohibited, and 
existing laws already prohibit that. The question is whether you can 
go further and prohibit the advocacy of a dictatorship in the United 
States by peaceful methods. That is what this bill adds. 

The Chairman. Under the control of a foreign government or or- 
ganization. 

Mr. Emerson. Yes; under the control of a foreign government; two 
things there. 

The Chairman. There is no thought that if the people of this 
country want a dictatorship, they cannot have it. That can be deter- 
mined by election, if they want to, very well. The point is, in this age 
of transition and this age of change, whether or not our laws are effec- 
tive to cope with the present challenges. You, as a professor, certainly 
more than anyone else realize that we are in danger if we simply live 
in our past. We cannot live with the past. We have to try to find 
the adequate tools to meet the dangers of the present. We are doing 
that in the atomic age. I would like to get your suggestion. The last 
gentleman who was up here said that in his brief he had given us some 
suggestions. That is what we need. I do not think there is any ques- 
tion when that great liberal, Douglas, of the Supreme Court, makes a 
speech and tells us about the means and weapons that are being used 
by the Communist party — and he never has been accused of being an 
ultraconservative — that there must be something to this general theory 
that is set forth in the preliminary part of this bill. There is a danger 
to the American way of life by folks who are connected with Russia. 
When you see what some of these people advocate, you have to put 
yourself in our shoes and appreciate what we are trying to do. We are 
trying to find the answer. I am not saying this bill is the answer. We 
have not had time to go into it and study it. We are trying to get light 
from you people. 

Mr. Emerson. Mr. Chairman, my point is simply that there are con- 
stitutional limitations upon how far the Congress can go in prohibiting 
freedom of political expression. Those limitations go to the extent of 
force and violence, but they have been rather strictly held to that point. 
For instance, peaceful activity, even when carried on by an organiza- 
tion whose objectives have been declared illegal, it has been held by the 
Supreme Court, cannot be prohibited under the Constitution. That is 
the case of DeJonge v. Oregon, where the court assumed that the 
Communist Party was illegal but held that it was not constitutional to 
prohibit people from attending Communist Party meetings which 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 173 

were conducted on a peaceful basis. No matter how radical the changes 
are which have been proposed in government, freedom of speech pro- 
tects those outside of the force ami violence concept. So, under these 
principles a good deal of the legislation seems to me to be clearly void. 

The only additional factor you have here is the one you mentioned — 
that to some extent the prohibitions here are tied up with control by a 
foreign government. That is not true of the entire bill, by any means. 
There are many things which are prohibited which have nothing to do 
with control by a foreign government. As to those, except as they are 
already covered by present legislation dealing with force and violence, 
it seems to me they are clearly beyond the constitutional limitations. 

If I may touch on this question of control b}' a foreign government 
for just a moment — is that a valid reason for imposing limitations on 
freedom of political expression? In the first place, you have to ana- 
lyze : What does control by a foreign government or a foreign move- 
ment mean? If the reference is only to influence of ideas, a common 
source of ideology, as parts of the act indicate, then it seems to me that 
there is also clearly no constitutional power to prohibit activity which 
has some ideological connection with activity in other countries. I 
think the same is true if it means that a political party in the United 
States adopts the policies of a general movement or another party 
because they think it is in the best interests of the United States. It 
seems to me that that sort of activity is clearly protected by the Con- 
stitution. 

Let us assume that it means, and is restricted to mean, that you can- 
not participate in an organization which accepts instructions from a 
foreign government or from a foreign political organization. Re- 
member that here we are dealing with activities which do not involve 
force and violence. If under those instructions there is sabotage, 
espionage, force, and violence, then they are prohibited under present 
legislation. If, however, a political party in the United States de- 
cides to accept instructions from a foreign government, I think there 
is a very serious doubt that there is any clear and present danger there 
to this Government. The real dangers are taken care of by the other 
legislation. After all, the organization is an organization in the 
United States. It is not subject to the police power of a foreign coun : 
try. It accepts those instructions on a voluntary basis, if it accepts 
them. There is no power to discharge or discipline or anything of 
that sort. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that there is an 
absence of any clear and present danger which would warrant making 
that type of political activity illegal. 

On the other hand, there is a real danger in making that activity 
illegal, because to outlaw that kind of activity would give Congress 
the right to outlaw almost any organization with foreign connections. 
It would give it the right to outlaw the Catholic Church insofar as 
it dealt with political matters, or the Zionist movement, or the Socialist 
parties, or labor organizations which have connections abroad, or an 
organization such as the World Federals, whost function it is to at- 
tempt to obtain international world government. Political parties 
have always obtained ideas from abroad. They have always had con- 
nections with abroad, with persons and governments abroad. Un- 
less there is some element of force, violence, or conspiracy involved, it 
seems to me that the mere fact that it is under this so-called foreign 



174 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

control is not sufficient to warrant restriction of the important right 
of freedom of expression. 

Just one other point, and that is on due process and the vagueness 
point. 

The rule of the Supreme Court, as stated in the Connolly case, is 
that a statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in 
terms that are so vague that men of common intelligence must neces- 
sarily guess as to its meaning and differ as to its application violates 
the first essential of due process of law. The rule is that men of com- 
mon intelligence differ as to its application. If you apply tins rule 
to the facts, Mr. Chairman, we find that Governor Dewey and Gov- 
ernor Stassen used a Nation-wide hook-up to differ as to whether or 
not this bill outlawed the Communist Party. The only remaining 
question, therefore, is whether they are men of common intelligence. 
On that, I am ready to concede that they are. The fact is that there 
are very serious uncertainties 

The Chairman. You would not admit they had as much as Henry? 

Mr. Emerson. No; I wouldn't. 

The Chairman. Your association with Henry has made a superman 
out of him. 

Mr. Emerson. I give them the standing of men of common intelli- 
gence. 

The Chairman. You mean Henry has it? 

Mr. Emerson. He has it, too; yes. 

The Chairman. What yardstick do you use? 

Mr. Emerson. The yardstick is whether they agree with my ideas. 

The Chairman. I guess you are right. 

Mr. Emerson. Let me just mention within a minute some of the 
uncertainties that appear which seem to me to render the bill too 
vague. 

On page 8, line 4, comes the phrase, "under the control of a foreign 
government." I have already indicated that I don't know quite what 
that means. It certainly can't mean control in the usual legal sense 
because control in that sense implies a power to use some kind of force 
to secure compliance. Obviously, no foreign government can exercise 
that kind of force with respect to an American political party. 

The Chairman. Let me jump right in. I do not want to sabotage 
you. You heard the testimony of these two Communist friends who 
testified here, I presume you are not a Communist. 

Mr. Emerson. No; it isn't respectable to be a Communist at Yale. 

The Chairman. I presume you are not. 

Mr. Emerson. No. 

The Chairman. That means you are not ? 

Mr. Emerson. I am not. 

The Chairman. You are a professor at Yale University. You seem 
to be equipped with average intelligence. I want to ask you a ques- 
tion, Whether you think that the Communist influence in the world is 
a constructive or destructive influence? 

Mr. Emerson. There are many aspects of Communist activities in 
other countries that I certainly agree with. I certainly feel that there 
has been a need for economic and social change, particularly in the 
countries of Europe, to which the Communist Party has afforded better 
answers than certain other parties. I certainly do not agree with 
methods of political violence, of a single-party system, or with the 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 175 

Communist activities in respect to political freedom. So far as this 
country is concerned, 1 don't think there is any shadow of danger of 
the Communist Party coming to power <>v of Communist ideas, either 
in the sphere of economics or in the sphere of political science, being 

accepted. 

The Ciiairmax. Do you think that those great qualities of the Com- 
munist Party that yon speak of are best exemplified in Russia? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes. The economic system which the Communists 
have set up in Russia seems to me to have made a very substantial 
cont ribution to world thinking in terms of handling the difficult prob- 
lems of a modern industrial state on economic lines. 

The Chairman. In other words, you would substitute that for our 
system I 

Mr. Emerson. No ; I didn't say that. I said that was — 

The Chairman. I did not say you did say it. I asked the question. 
Don't clip back at me, or I will clip at you, even if you are a professor 
at Yale. 

Mr. Emerson. I thought you had a slight implication there. 

The Chairman. There might have been, but I want to know if you 
are one of those who feel that we ought to exchange what we have in 
this country for what they have in Russia. 

Mr. Emerson. I know. I wouldn't accept that proposition. I do 
feel there are very important problems in this country which we are 
not solving, and that unless w r e do bend our efforts to the solution of 
those problems rather than being sidetracked on issues of this sort 
involved in the Mundt bill, we w T ill face a very serious crisis. 

Senator Revercomb. Let me ask you a question there. You reached 
the point of sidetracking. You are a believer in political freedom, in 
a man's freedom of choice in this country in his political views, are you 
not? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes. 

Senator Revercomb. I agree with you there basically. You have a 
limitation on that, however, that if a group in the exercise of that 
political freedom has as an objective the overthrow of this Government 
by force. Do you not think that that is a limitation upon political 
freedom that must be taken care of and met? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes. I agree with you entirely. 

Senator Revercomb. The Communist Party has long ago been held 
to be, in the opinion of the Attorney General 

Mr. Emerson. In the opinion of the Attorney General, but not of 
the Supreme Court, Senator. 

Senator Revercomb. And in the opinion of others to be an organiza- 
tion directed to the overthrow of this Government by force, however 
much members of that party may deny it. If that be true and be estab- 
lished, should not measures be taken to curb the activity of any such 
organization, by whatever name? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes, certainly, and that can be done under existing 
law. Let me read the alien registration law. It is a crime to — 

knowingly or wilfully advocate, abet, advise, or teach the duty, necessity, desir- 
ability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United 
States by force or violence. 

It goes on to say : 

organize, join, or affiliate with any society having these objectives or purposes. 



176 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

I agree with you that freedom of political expression must be limited 
by prohibiting force or violence, because then it isn't democratic gov- 
ernment, but I think that is already covered, Senator. That is my 
major point. 

Senator Reyercomb. Let us go to another step in the consideration. 
Suppose it is established as a fact that the Communist Party or any 
group in this country is so allied with a foreign government whose 
ideas and thinking are contrary to the established government of this 
country, is there not a time also to put a reasonable and a direct 
restraint on the activities of that even under our belief of political 
freedom ? 

Mr. Emerson. We don't want to put any restriction on beliefs of 
people in this country beyond the .force-and-violence category. 

Senator Reyercomb. You did not get my question. I said, as a 
matter of fact, if it were established to be so, has not the time come 
to meet the activities of those people with restraining legislation? 

Mr. Emerson. You already have legislation to do that. 

Senator Reyercomb. Can legislation be too severe or can it be too 
requiring where th#t is established as a fact ? 

Mr. Emerson. You mean the connection with the other govern- 
ment ? 

Senator Reyercomb. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Emerson. My position on that is that if the organization here 
in this country is an organization that advocates the overthrow of 
the Government by force and violence and is tied up or uses those 
methods, clearly it should be outlawed. If it uses legitimate methods 
but has a connection, an ideological connection or a connection of 
influence with another government, I don't see where anybody is 
harmed. I just don't see that there is any danger. 

Senator Reyercomb. Are you not getting on dangerous ground when 
a citizen of this country has such a connection with ideologies of a 
foreign government as to become an advocate and to the extent of 
being a member of an organization that would overthrow this Gov- 
ernment ? Must or must not the most restraining legal barriers be 
placed before it ? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes; if you are talking about overthrow, quite true, 
and that is covered. Xo matter how much we dislike the idea? that 
they stand for, and no matter how much we think they are wrong, 
the tradition of civil liberties in this country — and it is one of the 
great traditions of the country — is that you let them talk and you 
let them act on that basis as long as they stay within the framework 
of a government, which means that they don't use force and violence. 

Senator Reyercomb. Suppose that they teach and have their repre- 
sentatives teach the destruction of property and injury to life. They 
are at legist teaching things that tend toward the destruction of the 
basic rights of the people of this country: are they not? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes; and if there is a clear and present danger that 
those teachings will result in such destruction of life, then they clearly 
are prohibited by the Alien Registration Act from carrying on. 

Senator Reyercomb. Would you make the same answer to the de- 
struction of property, which is an offense under our l,aws? 

Mr. Emerson. The same answer. 

Senator Reyercomb. So, if an organization or a person within any 
organization in this country declares as its purpose to obtain an end 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 177 

and do in fact teach the destruction of property, then legislation of the 
purpose of the Mundt bill is justified; is it not? 

Mr. Emerson. No; I don't think that follows. Senator. I say 
that the furthest you can go constitutionally or by way of policy is 
already stated in the Antisedition Act. To go beyond that, you will 
violate constitutional prohibitions. It is unnecessary, it is dangerous, 
and it is a problem that should be handled by other methods. If it 
can be proved by our traditional methods in court that Communist 
Party advocates the overthrow of the Government by force and 
violence and advocates the destruction of property, then let them be 
prosecuted and let it be handled in our courts the way those things 
should be handled. 

Senator Revebcomb. Do you think your legislators of this country, 
declaring the policies of government, must aw T ait a judicial decision 
upon such a subject ? 

Mr. Emersox. Xo. 

Senator Revercomb. If the legislature becomes convinced, as a 
matter of fact, that these conditions exist which would warrant re- 
straining laws, it would not have to wait for a decision of the courts 
before it could declare the policy of the government. 

Mr. Emersox. Xo. I think you have to make your own judgment 
as to what the Constitution provides. I think, also, you have to make 
your own judgment as to what the fact is. However, the courts will 
have the final word under our present system both as to whether 
those facts do stand up in court and as to whether the Constitution 
authorizes it. But your judgment, 1 agree, should be based not on what 
your view of the Constitution is. 

Senator Revercomb. In other words, legislative processes must take 
place before the court action. 

Mr. Emersox. Yes, that is true, but it doesn't follow from that, 
Senator, that you should enact unconstitutional legislation. 

Senator Revercomb. Xever should w T e enact unconstitutional legis- 
lation. At the same time, do you think it would be unconstitutional 
if it is established to the satisfaction of the legislators, as a matter of 
fact, that a group is acting to overthrow this Government; that a 
law to restrain, giving them fair hearing, would violate the Constitu- 
tion of the United States ? 

Mr. Emersox. Yes. It has to be established not only to the satis- 
faction of the legislators, but also to the satisfaction of the courts. 

Senator Revercomb. When we act, we use the same yardstick of 
constitutionality, I take it, that a member of the court would use. 

Mr. Emersox. That is true. 

Senator Revercomb. We have to act first in our judgment upon 
the facts, as we can best draw our conclusions from them within the 
framework of the Constitution. 

Mr. Emersox. Yes, but. Senator, if it is your finding of fact that 
the Communist Party does advocate the overthrow of the Government 
by force and violence, you don't have to enact any more legislation. 
You have that on the books. You should ask Tom Clark why he 
doesn't enforce it. 

Senator Revercomb. Is there any wrong in enacting more legisla- 
tion, if that be a fact ? 

Mr. Emersox. There is no point to it. As I say. I think to try to 
go beyond this and to try to get at the Communist Party outside of the 



178 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

force-and-violence level, particularly this bill which goes far beyond 
that and far into all sorts of progressive organizations, is unconstitu- 
tional and therefore it should not be done. 

Senator Revercomb. It makes no difference whether the person 
bears the name of Communist Party or whether he is outside the Com- 
munist Party, if he falls within the rule of violation of the rights 
of American citizenship, a law should be enacted to block it and stop 
it. Is that not correct? We are not talking about the Communist 
Party entirely. 

Mr. Emerson. Any party, surely. You should not legislate in the 
name of the Communist Party or any other party. You can legislate 
generally. 

Senator Revercomb. You may touch the Communist Party and in- 
clude it within its scope, but it would apply with equal force to a 
party by any other name or a group by any other name or an individ- 
ual by whatever name he may be carrying. Is that not right? 

Mr. Emerson. Certainly. 

Senator Revercomb. That is sound law, is it not ? 

Mr. Emerson. Oh, yes, certainly. I wasn't questioning that. 

Senator Revercomb. All right, sir. 

The Chairman. We have present the Reverend Erwin A. Gaede, 
representing the Ministerial Association of Madison, Wis., who desires 
to file a statement. I will ask you what is your full name? 

Mr. Gaede. I am the Reverend* Erwin A. Gaede. I am representing 
the Madison Ministerial Association and the Social Action Commit- 
tee of the Madison Council of Churches, in Madison. Wis. Both or- 
ganizations have gone on record as opposed to this bill. 

The Chairman. Both statements submitted by the Reverend Erwin 
A. Gaede will be placed in the record. 

(The statements follow :) 

Statement on Mundt-Nixon Bill Presented by the Reverend Erwin A. Gaede 

IN BEHALF OF THE MADISON MINISTERIAL ASSOCIATION OF MADISON, WIS. 

Protestantism upholds the idea of the inherent dignity and value of man as a 
son of God. It believes that inasmuch as all men are endowed by their Creator 
with dignity and value as sons of God, that dignity and value must be upheld 
and defended by those who subscribe to the Protestant faith. 

We further believe the Protestant heritage has played a significant role in 
the development of the democratic tradition in America, particularly the Bill 
of Rights. 

We believe that if the Bill of Rights is in any way threatened or abridged, that 
Protestantism too is threatened or abridged. As Protestant clergymen, there- 
fore, we feel called upon to defend the democratic way of life as embodied in the 
Bill of Rights. 

We are firmly convinced that the Mundt-Nixon bill (H. R. 5852) is an in- 
fringement on the basic liberties guaranteed to American citizens in the Bill 
of Rights. The basic American right of freedom of thought, freedom of speech, 
freedom of assembly, and freedom of association are seriously jeopardized by the 
drastic provisions of the Mundt-Nixon bill. 

Protestantism recognizes the right and the freedom to criticize the policies 
or activities of the state as basic to free religion. That right and freedom 
is threatened by the provisions of the Mundt-Nixon bill. 

At a regular meeting of the Madison Ministerial Association on May 3, 1048, the 
following resolution was adopted: 

"Inasmuch as the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1048 (H. R. 5852) repre- 
sents a drastic infringement on the civil rights of individuals and organizations 
identified with what the Attorney General considers to be Communist-front or- 
ganizations; inasmuch as the above act would place anyone who conspires to 
disrupt trade subject to the provisions of the Alien Registration Act ; inasmuch as 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 179 

the above act would force law-abiding decent foreign-born noncitizens to register 
once ;i year and imprison deportable noncitizens nnt il they could be deported : and 
inasmuch as the above act would severely penalize any minority political organiza- 
tions or parties and deprive them of equal rights with the two major political 

parties, the Madison Ministerial Associ.it ion hereby goes on record as firmly op- 
posed to the passage of this act as a violation of the Bill of Rights, as distinctly 
Un-American, and urges all other citizens to take similar action." 

Mr. Chairman and members of this judiciary committee, as a representative 
of the Madison Ministerial Associatoin of Madison, Wis., I submit this testimony 
be inserted into your records anil that the opposition of the clergymen to the 
Mundt-Nixon hill he carefully considered by this committee. 



Statement on the Subversive Activities Control Act, 1948 (Mundt Bill, 
H. K. 5852), by Wimiam I'.. Waltmikk, Chairman, Social Action Committee, 
Madison Council ok Churches 

The Social Action Committee of the Madison Council of Churches at its meet- 
ing on Monday. May 17. 1948, went on record in opposition to the Subversive 
Activities Control Act. 1948, for the following reasons : 

(1) It violates the basic spirit of the Bill of Rights (see sec. 8). 

In section 8 of this act Communist and Communist-front groups are required 
to register with the Attorney General of the United States. Holders of certain 
political ideas and the organizations they form are thus set off in a class by them- 
selves and forced to meet certain conditions not required of all political groups. 

The Bill of Rights applies to all citizens with equal force. In requiring distaste- 
ful political minority opinion action not required of the majority we turn our 
backs on the Bill of Rights. 

If this bill becomes law, we shall have opened the door, however slightly, to the 
totalitarian method of conducting government. In seeking to escape from the 
frying pan of Communist totalitarianism we shall have jumped into the fire of 
legalized fascism. 

(2) It opens the door to political despotism (see sec. 13). 

The definitions of a "Communist political organization" and a "Communist- 
front organization" are vague and ill-defined (see sec. 3). A careful reading of 
sections 3 and 13 together disclose that for all practical purposes the Attorney 
General will have to decide what groups fail in the categories mentioned above. 

This places in the hands of one administrative official almost unlimited au- 
thority. For most groups the right of judicial appeal will only be theoretical 
as no funds will be available. Though the courts in the end may clear them, 
the mere mention by the Attorney General's office will do great harm. We are 
opposed to such a great grant of power. 

Moreover, such power might lead to political persecution. An Attorney Gen- 
eral so minded might list the Socialist Party, or any other minority political 
group, as a "Communist political organization." A group working to establish 
a river valley authority similar to the Tennessee Valley Authority might be 
included. 

As "Communist-front organization" even churches would not be immune. 
Suppose the Roman Catholic or the Methodist Church passed a peace resolution 
at the time Mr. Stalin declared for peace. Would they not be suspect under 
the loose interpretation of the provisions of the bill? 

Therefore, we strongly oppose the bill as conferring too much power on one 
single appointive officer. 

(3) It embodies the false principle of guilt by association (see sec. 3 (4 ) ) . 

In attempting to curtail the activities of "Communist-front organizations" 
this bill falls back on the principle of guilt by association. The presence of 
even one member of the "Communist political group" would render a liberal, 
labor, or pacifist group suspect. This would fall especially hard on labor unions. 

We have adequate laws on our statute books to care for the evils mentioned 
in this bill when acts are committed. That is the point at which the law should 
step in. 

Only in Hitler Germany and other totalitarian countries has this principle 
of guilt by association been employed. Certainly we do not wish to follow their 
example in this matter. 

(4) It threatens the sacred right of freedom of conscience. 

This bill rests on the theory that you can separate good ideas from bad ones 
in the political field and label the bad ones in such a manner as to make them 
distasteful to the man on the street. 



180 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

The difficulty is: who is to judge the good? This bill makes an appointive 
officer of the Government, the Attorney General, that judge. 

But in so doing we take leave of our traditional position in the matter of 
government. We elect men to make and administer our laws, to choose our po- 
litical forms of action, not because they have been endowed by their Creator with 
a greater degree of moral insight into right and wrong political ideas. But 
we do so only because we believe these men are endowed with special skills to 
carry out the will of the people. 

As sovereign citizens, we reserve for ourselves the right to judge what is 
politically right and wrong. It is just at this point that we part company with 
all forms of totalitarianism. The individual citizen in a democracy such as ours 
is supreme. His conscience is the last bar of judgment. He is not the creature 
of government, the government is his servant. 

But this bill asks us to hand over our political conscience to the Attorney 
General today. If we open the door tomorrow some one will come foreward with 
a bill asking us to do the same in the religious field. Whether or not a religious 
idea or a group is good or bad will be a- matter for the Government to decide. 

As citizens of a democracy such as ours we can never consent to these things. 
As spiritual heirs of Jefferson and Lincoln we take our stand firmly against such 
misuse of the power of government. 

(5) It creates a second-class citizenship. 

This bill sets certain citizens off by themselves because of the political ideas 
they hold. Those who are required to register as members of "a Communist 
political organization" may be denied passports, certain types of employment, the 
equal use of radio and the mails, etc. Very severe penalties are provided for 
those going contrary to such provisions. 

We must not be swept away by our distaste for the political opinions of certain 
of our citizens. Anything that tends to set citizens off in a class by themselves 
because of external characteristics or opinions they hold is certainly foreign 
to the best genus of our democratic traditions. 

While Hitler, Mussolini and the late Japanese war lords went much further in 
this direction than this bill provides, it sends us down their road to political 
persecution and suppression. 

We have laws which provides for the punishment of those who commit the 
evils mentioned in this bill. They provide for punishment of acts, not ideas. Let 
us stand by this position and refuse to be moved. 

(6) It will certainly fail to halt the spread of communism. 

We have no doubt the authors of this bill honestly seek to halt the spread 
of communism. With that end we have no quarrel. We are opposed to this 
legislation because we are convinced that it will have the opposite effect. 

The bill is based on a false assumption, namely, that communism is a disease 
or poison that only needs to be labeled for men to avoid it. This is far from 
the truth. 

Whether we like it or not, communism in its various forms is a political phil- 
osophy which appeals to men, especially those who have never tasted the good- 
ness of democracy. It grows in the backward political swamps of the world where 
political corruption and oppression reign. It feeds on the poisons of hunger and 
economic distress. It grows apace when the cancer of unemployment threatens 
thf body of our common citizens. 

The only way to deal effectively with it is to remove the root conditions which 
give it birth. Full employment, fair wages, decent prices, homes in which to 
dwell .and a chance to determine under which the common man lives will do more 
to stop communism than all the laws of all the governments of the world. 

Attack our economic, political, and social evils in the light of the principles of 
Jesus and the dream of democracy in the heart of the common man and we have 
notihng to fear. Thus we can achieve the result desired by this bill. 

CONCLUSION 

Therefore, because of the reasons set forth above, we are opposed to the Sub- 
versive Activities Control Act, 1948, known as the Mundt bill, H. R. r.852. Now 
that it has passed the House, we urge our Senators from this State, Alexander 
Wiley and Joseph R. McCarthy, to do all in their power to prevent it from becom- 
ing law and to vote against it should it come to the floor of the Senate. 

Let us have faith once more that right makes might, that the common man 
given the facts will choose the democratic way, and that we can meet the crisis 
of this hour in the light of freedom. Only thus can we save our Nation. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 181 

The Chairman. This is Mr. David Scribner, general counsel of the 
United Electrical. Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO, who 
requests that his brief be made a part of the record. At this time he 
says that he does not desire to be heard tomorrow in accordance with 
our previous agreement. Is that correct, Mr. Scribner ( 

Mr. Schibner. Yes : in view of the shortness of the time. 

The Chairman. The brief will be placed in the record. 

(The brief follows:) 

Statement by David Scribner, General Counsel, United Electrical, Radio, and 
Machine Workers of America, Before the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
May 28, 1948 

I am privileged to represent as its general counsel the United Electrical, Radio, 
and Machine Workers of America, affiliated with the Congress of Industrial Or- 
ganizations. The UE, as the organization is known, represents over 600,000 
men and women throughout the counti-y in the electrical and machine manu- 
facturing industries, under more than 1,300 collective-bargaining agreements 
with employers. 

UE has collective-bargaining agreements with such employers as General Elec- 
tric Co.. Westinghouse Electric Corp., electrical division of the General Motors 
Corp.. Sylvania Electric Products, General Cable, Radio Corp. of America, and 
the Phelps-Dodge Copper Production Corp. 

DE workers are in plants located in more than 20 States and in Canada. 

We appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee to oppose the Mundt bill, 
H. R. 5852. 

We sincerely believe that this proposed legislation is unconstitutional. The 
proposed provisions of this bill violate the first, fifth, sixth, eighth, thirteenth, 
and fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution, and thereby con- 
stitute a threat to the cherished civil rights of the American people. 

More particularly, it is our firm belief that the bill is particularly directed at 
the working men and women of the country and their unions. We see sinister 
design in the bill to create an atmosphere in this country charged with fear, 
under cover of which the people will be made politically helpless and economically 
completely dependent upon the whim and greed of the corporate monopolies of the 
country. 

President Roosevelt warned of this very danger when he said : 

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people 
tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than 
their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of 
government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private 
power" ( message from the President of the United States to the 75th Cong., 
3d sess. ) . 

Rarely have the American people had the misfortune to be confronted with a 
piece of proposed legislation which is so patently unconstitutional. 

And they also have a right to be suspicious and resentful of the unseemly haste 
with which this bill is being rushed through Congress. 

Why the haste? Are our constitutional rights and liberties so meaningless 
that with a quick stroke of the pen they are to be obliterated? Those who 
think so understand neither democracy nor the will and determination of the 
American people to retain that democracy under which their constitutional rights 
are guaranteed. 

The Supreme Court of the United States has stated : 

"The Constitution of the United States is a law for rulers and people, equally 
in war and in peace, and covers with the shield of its protection, all classes 
of men, at all times, and under all circumstances. No doctrine, involving more 
pernicious consequences, was ever invented by the wit of man that that any of 
its provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of govern- 
ment. Such a doctrine leads directly to anarchy or despotism; but the theory 
of necessity on which it is based is false; * * * (Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall 
(U. S.) 2 (1866)). 

The sponsors of the Mundt bill hysterically shout about a world conspiracy 
designed to supress democracy. Their familiarity with the techniques of suppres- 
sion qualifies them to write the Mundt bill, the most suppressive piece of legisla- 
tion since the alien and sedition laws during Jefferson's days. 



182 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Having established by words rather than by proof the existence of a world- 
wide threat to our democratic institutions, the bill then goes on, coldly and 
ruthlessly, to destroy those very institutions. 

The cry of "communism" is the smoke barrage under which the bill attempts 
to illegalize any aggressive effort on the part of the people to advance their best 
interests through their unions and through their social, religious, and political 
organizations. 

REGISTRATION REQUIREMENT 

The bill requires that "Communist political organizations" and "Communist 
front organizations" must register as "Communist organizations" with the 
Attorney General, and must file annually full financial reports of receipts and 
expenditures. Failure to register and report subjects the organization and 
its officers to fines of from $2,000 to $5,000, and imprisonment of from 2 to 5 
years. And if the Attorney General has designated an organization as a "Com- 
munist political organization" or "Communist front organization," and such 
organization does not file thereafter, then each day of such failure to file is a 
separate crime. The full fine and .iail sentences can be imposed separately 
for each day of such failure to file. This can mean imprisonment for life. 

THE BLACKLIST 

A "Communist political organization" must file its full membership list with 
the Attorney General. A "Communist front organization" must keep its mem- 
bership records available at any time to the Attorney General. But there is 
no solace for a "Communist front organization" in retaining its membership 
lists. For the bill provides that a "Communist front organization" as well as 
a "Communist political organization" must file with the Attorney General a 
complete record of all its receipts, including dues or other payments made to it 
by its membership. This, of course, puts into the hands of the Attorney General 
substantially the entire membership list of the "Communist front organization." 
The effect of it all is to establish the blackest kind of blacklist ever set up in 
this country. 

OUTLAWING THE COMMUNIST PARTY 

The definition in the bill of a "Communist political organization" is admittedly 
intended to cover the Communist Party of the United States. This, of course, 
in and on itself, is an unconscionable and unconstitutional attempt to outlaw 
a specific political organization. This constitutes a bill of attainder. 

"communist front organizations" 

The evil in this manifests itself even more clearly in the subsequent sections 
of the bill defining "Communist front organizations." Analysis of that definition 
completely exposes the sinister design in the bill not only to outlaw the Com- 
munist Party of the United States, but to outlaw as well organizations deemed 
to be "Communist front organizations" according to the standards of the 
Un-American Activities Committee, in whose mind this bill was conceived 
and by whose hands it was written. 

Fortunately, we do not have to depend on guess or speculation as to tli<' nature 
of an organization which may be deemed to be a "Communist front organiaztion" 
under this bill. 

"Corn in unix t-fron t orc/a n iza t ion " — Definition 

First let us consider the definition itself : 

"(4) The term 'Communist front organization' means any organization in 
the United States (other than a Communist political organization and other than 
an organization having substantially all the ordinary and usual characteristics 
of a political party) with respect to which, having regard to some or all of the 
following considerations : 

"(a) The identity of the persons who are active in its management, direc- 
tion, or supervision, whether or not holding office therein, 

"(6) The sources from which an important part of its support, financial, or 
otherwise, is derived, 

"(c) The use made by it of its funds, resources, or personnel, and 

"(d) The position taken or advanced by it from time to time on matters of 
policy, 

"It is reasonable fo conclude (i) that it is under the control of a Communist 
political organization, or (ii) that it is primarily operated for the purpose of 



COXTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 183 

giving aid and support to a Communist-political organization, a Communist- 
foreign government, or the world-Communist movement referred to in section 
2, or (iii) that its views and policies are in general adopted and advanced 
because such views or policies are those of a Communisl political organization, 
a Communist-foreign government, or such world Communist movement." 

Note that ii is not necessary thai all of the four considerations be present. It 
is enough if the Attorney General finds thai some of the considerations are 
present. 

The authority which the bill attempts to vest in the Attorney General is a 
clear violation of the Federal Constitution. The Supreme Court has held: 

"If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no 
official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, na- 
tionalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess 
by word or act their faith therein. If there are any circumstances which permit 
an exception, they do not occur to us" (West Virginia State Board of Education 
v. Barnette, 63 Supreme Court (319 U. S., p. 1178). 

Methods used 

Moreover, the hill originally listed the methods which it says are commonly 
used to carry out the objective of the world Communist movement. These were 

(sec. 2 (I!) :' 

I ii i The disruption of trade and commerce. 

I // ) The inciting: of economic, social, and racial strife and conflict, 

(c) The dissemination of propaganda calculated to undermine established 
government and institutions, and 

(d) Corrupting officials of the Government and securing the appointment of 
their agents and sympathizers to offices and positions in the Government. 

During the debate in the House, the bill was amended to strike the listing 
of these •■methods." 

One might think this action was intended to safeguard legitimate activities 
from the all-embracing criteria stated above. A careful reading of the Congres- 
sional Record reveals exactly the contrary. The amendment was made because 
it was felt that the original listing of methods used to carry out the objectives 
of the world Communist movement was too narrow. And, as Representative 
Case of New Jersey said, "The trouble is, first, that by specifying certain 
methods you create an implication that there are no others, and these are only 
a few of the methods which the Communist movement uses." 

When the Attorney General of the United States appeared before the House 
Committee on Un-American Activities (hearings on proposed legislation to curb 
or control the Communist Party of the United States, February 5-20, 194S), he 
stated (p. 1!M : 

"Whether or not a proposal will meet the requirements of due process under 
the fifth amendment is another extremely important consideration. A statute 
which would define the nature and purposes of an organization or group by 
legislative fiat is likely to run afoul of the due-process requirements. The 
Congress cannot by statute presume a state of facts that is arbitrary or that 
attempts to prevent proof of true facts. This we call legislative fiat. The 
Supreme Court has said, for instance, in Nanley v. State of Georgia (279 U. S. 
1. 1929, at p. 6) : 

"* * * A statute creating a presumption that is arbitrary or that operated 
to deny a fair opportunity to repeal it violates the due-process clause. * * * 
Mere legislative fiat may not take the place of fact in the determination of issues 
involving life, liberty, or property." 

"The fact that legislation may be subject to objection as being discriminatory 
cannot be overlooked. By singling out a political party or a group for pro- 
hibitive legislation, you may he charged with discriminatory action which would 
be objectionable as special legislation." 

Kinds of Communist-front organizations covered by bill 

A mere listing of the organizations aid activities which are deemed by certain 
Members of Congress to be specifically covered by this bill, or which have 
generally been considered by them to he communistic, subversive, or un-American 
would be the most eloquent demonstration of the scope and breadth of the 
hill's intended coverage. 

During the course of the debate on the Mundt bill one Representative casually 
stated in the first sentence of his remarks that "the bill further provides that 
literature sent out by the Communist Party must bear the name of the party." 



184 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 



Without drawing another breadth, he then goes on to say in the second sentence, 
"This is to prevent Communists from propagandizing through the mail under 
organization names like Youth for Democracy, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, 
and various other misleading names of organizations which appear to be thor- 
oughly American, yet are used only as a front for the propagation of commu- 
nistic ideas in the hope of influencing people in that direction" (Representative 
Vursell, Congressional Record 6181). 

Another Representative with somewhat less aplomb but with similar deadly 
effect again exposes the intent of the Un-American Activities Committee and 
its supporters to stifle activities of organizations which do not conform to the 
thinking of the Un-American Activities Committee. This Representative stated 
during the debate on the bill : 

"Now, I esteem the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Heselton) most highly. 
He seems to be laboring under the fear that if somebody sucks eggs in con- 
junction with a Communist front, they will no the able to hide the shells ; that 
if they are caught in the sheepfold it shall be unlawful to examine them to see 
if they have wool in their teeth ; that if some of the cohorts and associates of these 
Communist organizations lie down with dogs they might get up with fleas. I 
have no such solicitude. Let us take the false whiskers off of all of them. Reds, 
pinks, pinkos, and all parlor pinks, and expose all of them. It will hurt this 
country just as much if some deluded saphead who moves in good society and 
masquerades as a good citizen should dump hundreds of thousands of dollars into 
a fund to maintain and support one of these subversive organizations as it would 
if that money should come straight from Moscow" (Representative Jenkins, 
Congressional Record, 6280). 

Another Representative, a ranking member of the Un-American Activities 
Committee, minces no words as to the intentions of the Un-American Committee 
in the application of the bill. He said : 

"Oh, they talk about these crackpot professors. Yes, we got those letters. 
Practically every college in America has one of these Communist fronts, and 
some of these fronts are being financed by foundations. I wonder how many 
of these professors who wrote that letter are on the pay roll of some of these 
communistic-front foundations" (Representative Rankin, Congressional Record, 
G261). 

The same Representative during hearings before the Un-American Activities 
Committee referred to the Zionists and then said, "Isn't that a Communist 
front?" (Rankin, hearings before committee, SOth Cong., 1st sess., March 24, 
1947.) 

Independent politieal aetion 

Probably the best illustration of the manner in which this bill can be applied 
relates to CIO-PAC. On the left-hand side of the list below are the various sec- 
tions of the Mundt bill. On the right-hand side are determinations made by 
the Un-American Activities Committee with respect to the activities and func- 
tions of CIO-PAC. The statements from the Un-American Committee are taken 
from its report of March 29, 1944 : 



HOW THE MUNDT BILL COULD BE USED AGAINST CIO-PAC 



Mundt bill 

Section 3. Definitions. — Lists charac- 
teristics of "Communist" organizations, 
among them : 

"The extent to which its views and 
policies are the same as those of such 
foreign organization or foreign govern- 
ment." 



"The identity of the persons who are 
active in its management, direction, or 
supervision, whether or not holding 
office." 



Un-American Committee report 

"In other words, the political views 
and philosophy of the Communist Party 
and of the CIO Political Action Com- 
mittee coincide in every detail" (p. 5 ) . 
"We find that immediately prior to 
the setting up of the CIO Political 
the leaders of the 
were agitating for 
of just such an 



Action Committee 
Communist Party 
the establishment 
agency" (p. 3). 
"A majority (21) 



of the international 



unions affiliated with the CIO have an 
entrenched Communist leadership" 
(p. 4). 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 



185 



HOW THE MUNDT IUIX COULD BE DSED AGAINST CIO-PAC — CONTINUED 

Mundt bill Un-American Committee report 



"The extent to which it fails to dis- 
close its membership * * * or re- 
cords other than membership lists." 



* * an- 
he would re- 
or records of 
Committee to 

investigation" 



Section 1. 
"To carry 



* * 
used 



"Sidney Hillinan * 
nounced * * * that 
fuse to submit tlie books 
the CIO Political Action 
Mr. Martin Dies for 
(p. 1). 

"The Communists * * * win at- 
tempt by stealth and subterfuge to do 
through the PAC what they have failed 
to do when functioning as a political 
party under their own name — i. e., to 
gain political leadership over millions 
of voters" (p. 5). 



"We believe that the CIO Political 
Action Committee represents in its 
main outlines a subversive Communist 
campaign to subvert the Congress to 
its totalitarian program" (p. 7). 



Necessity for legislation. —  
out the objectives of the 
world Communist movement * 
among the methods commonly 
;ire * * * corrupting officials of 
the Government and securing the ap- 
pointment of their agents and sympa- 
thizers to offices and positions in the 
(government." 

Section '{. Certain prohibited acts. — 
"It shall be unlawful for any person 
(1) to attempt in any manner to estab- 
lish in the United States a totalitarian 
dictatorship * * * (4) to facili- 
tate or aid in bringing about the estab- 
lishment * * * of such a totali- 
tarian dictatorship." 

It would appear, then, that any kind of independent political action, including 
the third-party Wallace movement, may come within the restrictions and penal- 
ties of the Mundt bill. 

Unions attacked as Communist front 

And CIO unions have also incurred the wrath of the Un-American Activities 
Committee and have been promptly designated as Communist-front or un- 
American conspiracies. CIO unions were charged by the chief counsel of the 
Un-American Committee as being "dominated by the U. S. S. R." 

Strikes, disruption of trade or commeree 

One of the members of the Un-American Committee stated in effect that a 
political strike would be a kind of activity which would stamp an organization as 
coming within the penalties and registration provisions of the act. One of the 
deleted provisions of the bill stated that a method used by a Communist organi- 
zation is the "disrupting of trade and commerce." The strike of the coal miners 
has already been called a political strike. In fact, every important aggressive 
strike in this country has at one time or another been called either a political 
strike or a plot of Communists within or outside the union. 

Organizations inciting economic, social, and racial conflict 

Another criterion for determining activities of an organization to classify it 
as part of the world Communist movement under the Mundt bill is "inciting of 
economic, social, and racial strife and conflict." While, as has already been 
indicated this was deleted from the bill, it was made clear that it w r ould still 
continue to be a factor. 

The Un-American Committee has already characterized as "communistic" any 
union that has fought to protect the economic interests of its members. 

Workers and their unions have been demanding for years that all workers, 
regardless of race, color, creed or national origin are entitled under the Con- 
stitution to equal job opportunities without discrimination. Also, that all people 
are entitled to social and civil rights and liberties without discrimination on 
account of race, color, creed, or national origin. United Electrical, Radio, and 
Machine Workers of America, in accordance with its constitutional provision 
guaranteeing the civil and economic rights of all its members without discrimina- 
tion, has heen in the forefront of the fight against discrimination. 

But the Un-American Committee through Rankin has already characterized 
the Fair Employment Practices Committee as the "beginning of a communistic 
dictatorship the like of which America never dreamed." 



186 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

It is clear that the bill contemplates the i legalizing of any such activities by 
declaring them to he communistic objectives. 

Organisations disseminating certain propaganda 

Still another criterion for determining the existence of a Communist organiza- 
tion is the "dissemination of propaganda calculated to undermine established 
government and institutions." This was also deleted from the bill, but is indeed 
very much alive in the minds of the bill's sponsors. 

Unions and other progressive organizations, through the dissemination of 
papers, pamphlets, leaflets, have criticized activities of the Government which 
they consider harmful to the interests of the people. They have been critical 
of the fact that the administration is combed with representatives of the military 
and big business, all clamoring for war. Criticism has also been directed to the 
present attitudes of the major parties on such issues as Palestine, Spain, China, 
Greece, and other aspects of foreign affairs. The Un-American Committee has 
already called such activities '"communistic.'' 

Can there be any doubt but that the -Un-American Committee intended by 
this bill to gag the American people from expressing their differences of opinion 
and criticism of Government policy which the people may believe is detrimental 
to their interests? 

Corrupting Officials of the Government and securing appointment of their agents 
and sympathizers to offices and position in the Government 

The bill supports the activities of the Attorney General in enforcing the dis- 
charge of Government employees who dare to have opinions of their own or who 
are members of organiaztions — political, social or economic — considered by the 
Attorney General and the Un-American Committee to be Communist fronts. 

The attack by the Un-American Committee on Dr. Edward U. Condon, Director 
of the National Bureau of Standards, exposes the extent to which the Un-American 
Committee may go. 

Under this bill no Government worker will have any security on his job 
unless he actively supports every reactionary scheme of the big business interests 
in Government. And the measure of his loyalty will not be confined to what he 
does on his Government job. He will be followed into his home, his social 
relationships, his political organizations, his attendance at meetings of any kind, 
his associations with other people, and his reading material. In short, in order to 
maintain his job he will have to be in complete agreement with the Un-American 
Activities Committee. 

INVESTIGATION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL 

The Attorney General is authorized under this bill to investigate organiza- 
tions in order to decide whether they are Communist political organizations or 
Communist-front organizations. He has the full power to subpena witnesses 
and records of the organizations. 

The Attorney General is also given the power to hold hearings in order to 
decide whether an organization is Communist or a Communist front. The At- 
torney General is not restricted by court rules or evidence and may be able 
to use gossip, rumor, conjecture, guess and the usual notorious smear tactics iu 
older to reach a determination that an organization is Communist or a Com- 
munist front." 

UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES OF INDIVIDUALS 

There has been much talk that it is the intention of the bill to merely expose 
Communist activities in the country by requiring Communist organizations to 
register with the Attorney General under penalty of fine and imprisonment. How- 
ever, there is much less talk by the sponsors of the bill of that provision of the 
bill which makes it a crime punishable by $10,000 tine or imprisonment up to 
10 years, or both, for any person to engage in the following activities. In addi- 
tion, the violation of this section means the loss of citizenship, regardless of 
whether the person accused is a native- or a foreign-born American citizen. This 
section provides : 

Sic. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person —  

"(1) To attempt in any manner to establish in the United States a totalitarian 
dictatorship the direction and control of which is to be vested in. or exercised by 
oi- under the domination or control of, any foreign government, foreign organiza- 
tion, or foreign individual. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 187 

"(2) To perform or attempt to perform any act with intent to facilitate or 
aid in bringing about the establishmenl of such a totalitarian dictatorship in 
the United States. 

"t.'i) Actively to participate in the management, direct inn, or supervision of 
any movement to facilitate or aid in bringing about the establishment in the 
United states of such a totalitarian dictatorship." 

The full implication of this penal provision can he understood only when it is 
read together with the recital in the earlier sections of the bill relating to the 
activities considered part of the world communistic movement. Also, this pro- 
vision must be read together with the deleted list Of methods used by organiza- 
tions supporting the world Communist movement. 

These vaguely defined unlawful acts clearly jeopardize persons engaging in 
lawful acts protected by the Constitution. The persons who could be members 
of organizations which the Attorney General may hold to be Communist political 
organizations or Communist-front organizations may very well be subject to the 
penalties under this provision. 

Pleading guilty 

In other words, an organization that registers with the Attorney General as a 
Communist organization in effect admits that its officers and active members 
are guilty of a crime, in the debate on the floor of the House, this astounding 
situation' was brought to the attention of the House by a number of Representa- 
tives. Moreover, what possible effective defense to an indictment for violation 
of section 4 could be urged by an officer or member of an organization that has 
voluntarily registered or has been found to be a Communist organization by the 
Attorney General? 

Existing laics adequate 

Why is any part of this proposed legislation necessary? As Mayor O'Dwyer, 
of New York, stated : 

"We already have laws that punish treason and other criminal acts against 
the security or safety of the Government : laws against individual acts or con- 
spiracies to overthrow the Government; and laws that require the registration 
of agents of foreign governments and of foreign principals. But this bill pro- 
vides a dangerous short cut to thought control and police state regulation." 

HISTORICAL PARALLELS 

The alien and sedition laws 

This frenzied drive to gag the mouths and tie the hands of the American people 
has its parallels in American history. 

During Jefferson's day, the Federalists in Congress were whooping it up for 
war against France, with the Jeffersonians desperately fighting for peace. The 
French Revolution, serving as an inspiration for the common people of the world 
to achieve real democracy, incensed the Federalists in this country, who were 
then the big-money Interests. 

A Nation-wide wave of hysteria engineered by the Federalist swept the country. 
Soldiers roamed around breaking up meetings of the Jeffersonians. Mobs who 
called themselves patriots smashed windows and broke into the homes of those 
who were against war with France and who believed in democracy for all the 
people. 

As Claude O. Bowers, the noted historian, says in his book, Jefferson and Ham- 
ilton, "The country was rushing toward the terror, with the war party rattling 
sabers and threatening their opponents with violence. * * * It was an open 
season for physical assaults on Jeffersonian editors. * * *" 

Even Jefferson's steps were dogged by spies and stool pigeons. 

The stage was set for legislation to wipe out the opposition to the war schemes 
of the Federalists. 

First the alien bill was introduced. This bill was aimed at "foreign agents," 
that is, the Irish immigrants and others who supported Jeffersonian democracy 
against the reactionary war plans of the Federalists. 

But that was not all. The Sedition Act then followed. Bowers said : "Albeit 
America and France were not at war, the bill declared that anyone giving the 
latter aid and comfort should be punishable with death. A strict enforcement 



78257—48 13 



188 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

of such an act would have sent Jefferson to the gallows. Under the fourth article 
anyone questioning the constitutionality or justice of an administration measure 
could be sent to herd with felons. It would have sealed the lips of Members of 
Congress." 

Even Hamilton, who was the leader of the reactionary Federalists, was shocked 
at this measure and called it tyrannical. In the debate on these bills, Senator 
Edward Livingston, a Jeffersonian, lashed out against the alien and sedition bills. 
He said: "The country will swarm with informers, spies, delators, and all the 
odious reptile tribe that breed in the sunshine of despotic power. * * * The 
hours of the most unsuspected confidence, the intimacies of friendship, or the 
recesses of domestic retirement, afford no security." 

Those who tried to maintain their democratic rights in the face of the sedition 
laws were beaten, fined, and jailed. 

But the people prevailed. Jefferson was elected President of the United States. 
Congress then recognized the evils of the alien and sedition laws. Those who 
were arrested were released and their -fines were remitted by special acts of 
Congress. 

Nazi Germany 

The principles on which the Mundt bill is based and the techniques which it 
employs in every hideous detail parallel the ideology and methods of German 
and Italian fascism. 

Hitler, in address on occasion of second German Labor Congress, described 
the basis on which the Nazi state must exist by stating that the mainstay of 
fa seism must be the "German laborer * * * because he is susceptible to that 
feeling of faith and confidence which does not always think that it should use 
the probe of personal opinion, but which consecrates itself to an idea in blind 
faith and obedience." 

Therefore criticism on the part of the people against any aspect of government 
or any government official could not be and was not tolerated. 

Obviously, since the people could not be trusted to act for themselves, all 
organizations were placed under the supervision of the police. 

The following laws of Hitler show an alarming similarity to the provisions of 
the "Mundt bill : 

Law regarding confiscation of Communist property, of May 26. 1933 (Reichs</c*c1~- 

glatt 1,298 

Section 1. I : The supreme authorities of the siate or the authorities designated 
by them may confiscate in favor of the state, the property and rights of the 
Communist Party of Germany and its auxiliary and substitute organization, 
as well as the property and rights used or destined for the advancement of 
< lommunist endeavors. 

Sec. 7. No compensation will be allowed for the measures taken according to 
sections 1, 3, and 5. 

Lair reaarding the confiscation of property inimical to the people and state, of 
July 1.',. 1933 (Rcichsgeset:blatt I. .',79) : 
The provisions of the law regarding the confiscation of Communist property of 
May 20, 1933 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, 293) are applicable to property and rights of 
the Social Democrat ie Party and its auxiliary and substitute organizations, as well 
as to property and rights used or destined for the advancement of Marxist or other 
endeavors found by the Reich Minister of the Interior to be hostile to the people 
and state. 

Law regarding the revocation of naturalization mid the deprivation of German 
citizenship, of July 1!,, 1933 (Reichsgesetzblatt I. .',80: 
Section 1. Naturalization made in the period from November 9, 1918, to Janu- 
ary 30, 1933. may be revoked if the naturalization is deemed undesirable. 

Ordinance for the effectuation of the lair regarding the revocation of naturaliza- 
tion and the deprivation of the German citizenship, of July 26, 1933 (Reichs- 
gesetzblatt J. 5$8) : 
Section 1. V. The grounds for the revocation will not be announced. 
Sec. 2. I. Conduct violating the duty to loyalty against the Reich and people 
will he found particularly if a German assists in the hostile propaganda against 
Germany or if he has tried to insult the prestige or the measures of the national 
government. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 189 

J. an- for the reinstatement of the oivil service, of April 7, 1933 (Reiehsgeseteblatt 

I. 177): 

Seo. 2a. I. Civil servants who have been members of the Communist Party 
or Communist auxiliary and substitute organizations or who have otherwise 
been active along Communist lines, are to be discharged from the civil service. 

II. Civil servants who will hereafter hi' active along Marxist (Communist or 
Social Democratic) lines are likewise to he discharged. 

Sec. t. I. Civil servants who by their previous political conduct do not afford 
assurance that they will at all times identify themselves without reserve with 
the national state, may be discharged from the service. 

Sec. 15. The provisions regarding civil servants are equally applicable to 
employees and workers. 

Pi nal code, as a molded bu the law for the amendment of the penal code of June 
28, 19S5 (Reichsgesetzblatt I, 889) : 

Sec. 2. A person is punishable who commits an act which the law declares to 
be punishable, or which deserves punishment in accordance with the fundamental 
purpose of a penal law and sound popular feeling. 

Code of criminal procedure as amended June 28, 1935 (Reiehsgesetzblatt I, 844) ■' 
Sec. 267a. If it appears at the trial that the accused has committed an act 
which deserves punishment according to sound popular feeling, but which is not 
declared punishable by law, then the judge must examine whether the fundamental 
purpose of a penal law covers the act, and whether the analogous application of 
such penal law is required iu the interest of justice. 

Ordinance regarding the administration of criminal justice against Poles and 
Jens in the annext <l eastern territories of December 4, 1941 {Reiehsgesetzblatt 
I. 759): 

I, 3. They (Poles or Jews) are punished with death, or in less serious cases; 
with imprisonment, if by invidious conduct or agitation they manifest a state of 
mind hostile to Germany * * * or if by other conduct they impair or injure 
the prestige or the welfare of the German people or the German Reich. 

Italian fascism 

In Italy the King signed a decree on January 24, 1924, by which "all associa- 
tions of whatever nature maintained by the contributions of workers" were 
placed under surveillance of prefects. "Should there arise any suspicions of 
abuse of the public confidence, of illegitimate expenditure, of misuse of funds to 
the detriment of the members or for ends other than economic and moral welfare 
of the workers, the prefect of the province may institute inspection, or make 
inquiries into affairs of such an association, revoke or annul their decisions, dis- 
solve their executive and entrust to a state commissioner the administration 
of their estate" ( Salvemini, Under the Axe of Fascism, p. LT> ) . 

This was further extended, in November 1925, to oblige all associations "to 
communicate to the police whenever required, the names of their responsible 
officers and of their members, and any other information concerning their ac- 
tivities." So effective was this police surveillance that by October 1926 in 33 
out of the 73 Italian provinces nothing remained of any anti-Fascist organiza- 
tions (Salvemini, p. 26). 

On November 6, 1926, a new "public security" law was passed which defined 
associations as "parties, groups, and in general all political organizations, even 
of a temporary nature" (art. 218). The prefects were empowered to dissolve 
all associations whose activities were "contrary to theMiational order of the 
state." 

This legislation was quickly followed up by a law providing (November 25, 
1946) that "Anyone reconstituting under new names the associations dissolved 
by the police shall be liable to from 3 to 5 years' imprisonment; anyone belong- 
ing to these illegal associations or carrying on propaganda for the doctrines, pro- 
grammes, or methods of organization of such associations shall receive from 2 to 
5 years* imprisonment." 

Thus, in a short period of time the so-called police regulation of trade unions, 
political parties, and other organizations became outright illegalization with the 
wiping out of all traces of non-Fascist associations. Workers' factory commit- 
tees were abolished by decree, the right to strike was abolished, and the Fascist 
unions were set up as the sole representative of Italian labor. 



190 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

LABOB HISTOEY 

The dangers to organized labor from the Mundt bill call to mind early attempts 
in this country to jail and fine workers who went out on strike for a wage 
increase. In 1806 when the Philadelphia shoemakers decided as a last resort 
that they would have to strike for a wage increase, they were arrested and 
convicted. Their crime was, believe it or not, "a combination and conspiracy 
to raise wages." 

The employers and their associations, commenting on such convictions, said 
the "verdict * * * puts an end to these associations which have been so 
prejudicial to the successful enterprises of the capitalists of the western country." 
They concluded by stating that the manufacturers are bound to prosecute to 
conviction and to subject to the penalties of the laws, conspiracies so subversive 
to the best interests of the country. Even at that time employers were quick 
to recognze the value of stamping aggressive labor organizations as "subversive" 
and inimical to the interests of the country. 

Early in the twentieth century, the 'National Association of Manufacturers 
opposed "a shorter workday and an antiin junction bill as dangerous varieties 
of collectivism." On December 1, 1904, this publication declared that those 
who favored a shorter workday through legislation were chasing "the horizon of 
communism [sic]" and those who supported an antiinjunction bill were doing 
so to perpetuate "more strikes, more violence, and more boycotts, more 8-hour 
bills, more confiscation of property and of individual effort, and more and more 
communism [sic], clear to the end of the chapter." 

The pages of American Industries were devoted month after month to an 
expose of the AFL, whose leaders "were considered most dangerous radicals, 
whose activities were held inimical to the preservation of American capitalism 
and to the reestablishment of industrial peace." 

And again in the 1920's employers used all their means of propaganda to stop 
trade-union organizations by stamping them as un-American and subversive. 
Those were the days of the so-called American plan, which meant nothing more 
nor less than the open shop. The conclusion that flowed from their propaganda 
was that the open shop was the American plan, whereas an organized union 
shop was alien, subversive, and antagonistic to the interests of democracy and 
the American people. 

The same smear technique was extended into the Taft-Hartley law. This time. 
however, the intent was to make company unions out of existing aggressive 
unions or to make them so torn with dissension and helpless on the "Communist 
issue" that they would necessarily have to become subservient to the wishes 
and dictates of the employer or go out of existence completely. Under the cry 
of "communism" in the Taft-Hartley law, a number of employers are attempting 
to dicate to their workers the kind of union leaders they should elect or maintain 
in office. 

The Mundt bill is the final culmination of all of this thinking brought up to date 
and streamlined. 

CONCLUSION 

The Un-American Committee has for years struck at the people's rights under 
the Constitution. With the drafting of the Mundt control bill and its intro- 
duction in Congress, the Un-American Committee is attempting to legalize its 
illegal activities. A number of Congressmen who realize the true meaning of 
this proposed legislation have called it an attempt to legalize fascism. 

It is alarming that the Un-American Committee could even assume that the 
time is ripe to introduce this type of legislation. This is the very committee 
which was characterized by United States Circuit Judge Edgarton in an official 
opinion, as a congressional committee that "has embarked upon a systematic 
campaign to suppress political and economic opinion." 

In the past, the American people have struck down every attempt to deprive 
them of their democratic liberties. 

The UE membership together with the entire community will insist on the pres- 
ervation of their right to organize into unions, on their right to strike for higher 
wages and better working conditions, on their right to speak their minds through 
their unions and their social and political organizations, on their right to criti- 
cize the policy of government when they believe it is not workng in their interests. 

UE urges the Senate Judiciary Committee to strike down this Mundt bill to 
preserve the democratic rights of the people. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 191 

Appendix 

i. t11k mundt is1i.t. violates the first amendment to the federal constitution 
in that it abridges freedom of speech 

Section 4 making illeg.il certain prohibited acts which are defined in sections 
L' and 3 violates the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech. 

"Congress shall make no law * * * abridging the freedom of speech :; * *" 
Section 8 providing for registration of Communist political organizations and 
Communist-front organizations violates the constitutional guaranty of freedom 
of speech. 

A. Section 4 depending for its definition of sections 2 and 3 provides for the 
penalizing of expressions of views, a clear violation of the first amendment. 
Section 3 states that the expression of certain views is one indication of a 
Communist political organization. Section 2 (9) states as a "finding" that such 
a Communist political organization is part of a world Communist movement 
designed to bring about a totalitarian dictatorship. Section 4 of the act 
then proceeds to make illegal and a felony any acts attempting to bring about a 
world Communist movement. By this interrelation of sections 2, 3, and 4, the 
act therefore attempts to make criminal the expression of views and political 
opinions. 

The first amendment provides that "Congress shall make no laws * * * 
abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." Under the Constitution of the 
United States, government is denied power to abridge the freedom of speech, 
religion, or assembly. Freedom to harbor any belief is complete. Cantwell v. 
Connecticut (310 U. S. 296, 1940). 

Limitations of this freedom may not even be indirect (Near v. Minnesota, 2S3 
V. S. 697, 1931 ; Murdoch v. Pennsylvania, 319 U. S. 105, 1943). All political par- 
ties have a right to present their ideas in the "open market place" and this right 
may not be limited. 

The Mundt bill abridges free speech in that it imposes criminal penalties for 
the harboring and expression of particular beliefs. The first amendment gives 
freedom of mind the same security as freedom of conscience. It is well settled 
that " * * * it is to the end of preventing action that repression is primarily 
directed and to preserving the right to urge it that the protections are given" 
(Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 539-540, 1945). 

Thus, Congress is empowered to punish acts and conduct representing immi- 
nent, serious, and clear threats of substantive evil. The Constitution prohibits 
it, however, from entering into the region of ideas, religious and political beliefs, 
or opinions of any nature and character. "History and reason unite in warning 
that liberty is impaired by statutes clogging or diverting the free development of 
personality or, in other words, of mind or spirit." (Benjamin Cardozo, Selected 
Writings, p. 316, N. Y. 1947. ) 

B. Section 8 requiring registration of Communist organization is likewise a 
violation of the constitutional guaranty of freedom of speech. This section vio- 
lates the first amendment in that it places serious restraints upon the exercise 
of freedom of speech. The Supreme Court has held that requirement of registra- 
tion prior to the making of a speech represents a violation of the constitutional 
guaranty. The Supreme Court stated in Thomas v. Collins (323 U. S. 516, 539-540 
(1945)) : 

"As a matter of principle, a requirement of registration in order to make a 
public speech would seem generally incompatible with an exercise of the rights 
of free speech and free assembly. Lawful public assembly involving no element 
of a grave and immediate danger to an interest the State is entitled to protect 
are not instruments of harm which require previous identification of the speak- 
ers * * * If the exercise of the rights of free speech and free assembly can- 
not be made a crime, we do not think this can be accomplished by the device 
of requiring previous registration as a condition for exercising them and making 
such a condition the foundation for restraining in advance their exercise and for 
imposing a penalty for violating such a restraining order. If one who solicits 
support for the cause of labor may be required to register as a condition to the 
exercise of his right to make a public speech, so may he who seeks to rally sup- 
port for any social, business, religious, or political cause. Setting a require- 
ment that one must register before he undertakes to make a public speech to 
enlist support for a lawful movement is quite incompatible with the requirements 
of the first amendment." 



192 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

II. THE MUNDT BILL VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THAT IT ABRIDGES THE 

FREEDOM OF THE PRESS 

Section 11 violates freedom of the press. 

The provisions of section 11 requiring Communist-front organizations to stamp 

their printed material as "disseminated by a Communist organization" 

is a violation of guaranty of freedom of the press. The Supreme Court has 
held that such a prior restraint upon the exercise of the right of freedom of press 
is a violation of the first amendment to the Constitution (Near v. Minnesota, 
283 U. S. 697. 1931). 

"Congress shall make no law * * * abridging * * * the freedom of 
* * * the press * * *" 

III. THE MUNDT BILL VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN THAT IT ABRIDGES THE RIGHT 

TO PEACEABLY ASSEMBLE 

Sections 10 and 8 violate the right of people to assemble. 

Sections 10 and 8 providing for the illegalization of certain organizations and 
for the registration of other organizations represent a prior restraint upon the 
right of the people to assemble in meetings and organizations as guaranteed by 
the Constitution (DeJongo v. Oregon, 299 U. S'. 353 (1937)). In this case the 
Supreme Court stated : 

"It follows from those considerations that, consistently with the Federal Con- 
stitution, peaceable assembly for lawful discussion cannot be made a crime. 
The holding of meetings for peaceable political action cannot be prescribed. 

Those who assist in the conduct of such meetings cannot be branded as crim- 
inals on that score. The question, if the rights of free speech and peaceable 
assembly are to be preserved, is not as to the auspices under which the meeting is 
held but as to its purpose : not as to the relations of the speakers but whether 
their utterances transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Consti- 
tution protects. If the persons assembling have committed crimes elsewhere, 
if they have formed or are engaged in a conspiracy against the public peace and 
order, they may be prosecuted for their conspiracy or other violation of valid 
laws. But it is a different matter when the State, instead of prosecuting them 
for such offenses, seizes upon mere participation in a peaceable assembly and 
a lawful public discussion as the basis for a criminal charge." 

"Congress shall make no laws * * * abridging * * * the right of 
the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for redress of 
grievances." 

Insofar as the act might be applied to restrict the activities of labor organiza- 
tions through section 8 requiring registration or section 4 making illegal "politi- 
cal" strikes, these sections likewise violate the right to assembly guaranteed in 
the first amendment. The right of American workers to organize into labor or- 
ganizations and bargain collectively with their employer has been held to be a 
fundamental right by the Supreme Court. (Jones & McLaughlin v. N. L. R. B., 
301 U. S. 1.) 

The Constitution of the United States is designed to protect the fundamental 
rights of the people of the United States. Therefore, it is clear that the funda- 
mental right of labor to organize and bargain collectively is protected by the 
Constitution and may not be infringed upon by any source. This right to organize 
and bargain collectively is protected by the sweep of the first amendment. The 
Supreme Court itself has held that the right to organize is a concomitant part 
of the constitutional right to assembly (Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 539-540 
(1945)). 

Therefore, it is clear that the attempts in the Mundt bill to control and infringe 
upon the rights of labor organizations, through the provisions of sections 4 and 
S, among others, represents a potential violation of the first amendment to the 
Constitution. 

IV. THE MUNDT BILL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AS VIOLATING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF 

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES 

Fifth amendment: "No person shall be * * * compelled in any criminal 
case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
without due process of law ; * * * 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 193 

i </ 1 The Mundi bill violates the "due process" clause of the fifth amendment in 
that it is a vaguely and indefinitely drawn criminal statute 

The Mundt-Nixon bill proposes to inflict imprisonment up to 10 years and fine 
up to $10.(KK> upon any person (which under section 3 includes an organization, 
a group of persons "associated together for joint action on, or advancement of 
views on any subject or subjects") who attempts "in any manner" to establish 
"a totalitarian dictatorship" (sec. 4 (a) 1) ; who attempts any act "with intent 
to facilitate or aid" in bringing about such a "totalitarian dictatorship"; who 
actively participates in "any movement" to establish such a "totalitarian dicta- 
torship" (4 (a i 2) ; who participates in "any movement in order to facilitate or 
aid" in bringing about such dictatorship (4 (a) 4) ; or who "conspires" to do 
any of the aforesaid (4 (a) 5). 

The terms "movement," "facilitate or aid", or "totalitarian dictatorship," used 
in section 4 do not constitute language of a definite character which meets the 
constitutional test. These words have no commonly accepted meaning. They 
are capable of the widest construction by officials of government, court, or jury 
and likely to enmesh anyone who is hostile to the status quo. The committee 
which sponsors this bill, for example, considers that "the essence of totalitarian- 
ism is the destruction of the parliamentary or legislative branch of government — 
the issue compels us to take cognizance of a widespread movement of the legis- 
lative branch of our Government" (Kept. No. 2777, 77th Cong., 2d sess., June 25, 
1942). The committee believes that one is not "attached to the principle of the 
form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution" if he is in favor of a 
planned economy (Kept. No. 12, January 3, 1939) ; if he opposes monopolies 
(Kept. No. 592, June 10, 1947, p. 9) ; if he attacks cartels (Kept. No. 2233, June 
7, 1940, p. 35) ; or if he condemns private ownership (Rept. No. 2277, June 25, 
1942, p. 7). The committee believes that those who are opposed to Franco Spain 
follow the Soviet foreign policy (Rept. No. 271, 80th Cong., 1st sess., April 7, 
1947, p. 13) ; criticism of the State Department has been called "pro-Russian, 
pro-Communist propaganda" (Rept. No. 2223, June 7, 1940, p. 10) ; organizations 
which call for friendship with the Soviet Union, this committee believes are 
palpably facilitating and aiding a disloyal objective (Rept. No. 592, June 10, 
1947, p. 10). 

It considers one of the essentials of communism to be "absolute social and 
racial equality" (Rept. January 3, 1939, p. 10) . 

It is not necessary to extend these views any further. It is apparent from the 
foregoing that men and women from every walk of life under the language of 
this proposed measure face long-term imprisonment for no other crime than 
belief in peaceful social changes. It is further apparent that the sweeping and 
indefinite language of the prescriptive sections of this measure violates the 
due-process clause of the fifth amendment. 

A bill which like the Mundt-Nixon bill prescribes criminal sanctions for ill- 
defined offenses is in violation of that section of the Constitution which provides 
that no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process 
of law." 

A criminal statute which is vague in its terms cannot be enforced in conformity 
with due process of law. That the bill under discussion is a criminal bill cannot 
seriously be doubted in the light of the provisions of sections 4 and 15 which 
establish penalties of fine and imprisonment, and sections and 7 which respec- 
tively deny Federal employment and passports to members of Communist political 
organizations. 

The Supreme Court of the United States has said, in Connally v. General Con- 
struction Go. (209 U. S. 389) : 

"That the terms of a penal statute creating a new offense must be sufficiently 
explicit to inform those who are subject under it what conduct on their part will 
render them liable to these penalties is a well recognized requirement consonant 
alike with ordinary notions of fair play and the settled rules of law. And a 
statute which either forbids or requires the doing of an act in terms so vague 
that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and 
differ as to its application, violates the first essential of due process of law." 

Also — 

"A failure of a statute limiting freedom of expression to give fair notice of 
what acts will be punished, and such a statute's inclusion of prohibitions against 
expressions protected by the principles of the first amendment, violates an 



194 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

accused's rights under the procedural dtie process and freedom of speech and 
press. Winter v. Wew York (68 Sup. Ct. 665, 1948). 

(b) The Mundt bill violates the "due process clause" of the fifth amendment of 

the Constitution by its application of the "guilt by association" doctrine. 

''Guilt by association" is clearly an unconstitutional doctrine. 

"At this point it is appropriate to mention what will be more fully developed 
later — that under our traditions beliefs are personal and not a matter of mere 
association, and that men in adhering to a political party or other organization 
notoriously do not subscribe unqualifiedly to all of its platforms or asserted 
principles" (Schneidennann v. V. 8., 320 U. S. 118, p. 136, 1936). 

In Bridges v. Nixon (326 U. S. 135 (1945) ), Justice Murphy stated (p. 163) : 

"The deportation statute completely ignores the traditional American doc- 
trine requiring personal guilt rather than guilt by association or imputation 
before a penalty or punishment is inflicted. 

"The statute does not require that an alien, to be deportable, must personally 
advocate or believe in the forceful overthrow of the Government. It is enough 
if he is a member or an affiliate of an organization which advocates such a doc- 
trine. And in this case the Government admits that it has neither claimed nor 
attempted to prove that Harry Bridges personally advocated or believed in the 
proscribed doctrine. There is no evidence, moreover, that he understood the 
Communist Party to advocate violent revolution or that he ever committed or 
tried to commit an overt act directed to the realization of such an aim. 

"The doctrine of personal guilt is one of the most fundamental principles of 
our jurisprudence. It partakes of the very essence of the concept of freedom 
and due process of law (Schneidermann v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 154, 87 
L. ed. 1796, 63 S. Ct. 1333). It prevents the persecution of the innocent for the 
beliefs and actions of others." 

The Mundt bill incorporates this unconstitutional doctrine. Section 2 of the 
bill attributes unlawful doctrines to particular organizations in the United States 
and attributes disloyalty to members of those organizations. Section 10 of 
the Mundt bill "makes it unlawful for any person to join or to remain a member 
of any organization against which the Attorney General has directed a final 
order requiring registration as a "Communist political organization." The Mundt 
bill imposes penalties for such retention of membership (sec. 15). 

It is quite clear, therefore, that this legal process may be directed against an 
individual wholly apart from any consideration of his personal conduct. How- 

(c) The Mundt bill violates the fifth amendment of the Constitution in that it- 

compels self-incrimination 

The bill presently under discussion does further violence to the fifth amend- 
ment to the Constitution in that it compels self-incrimination. The language 
of the fifth amendment in this respect is that no person "shall be compelled in 
any criminal case to be a witness against himself." 

It will be observed that the Attorney General may order an organization to 
register as a Communist political organization if it is "reasonable to conclude" 
ever blameless his activities, his retention of membership in an organization 
not complying with an order to register makes him a criminal, 
from any of the criteria set forth in section 3 that it is under the control of "such 
foreign government or foreign organization" (sec. 8). 

Suppose an organization should comply with an order of the Attorney General 
and register as a Communist political organization, or a Communist-front organ- 
ization? It is in essence conceding that it is an organization subject to the con- 
trol of a foreign organization and a world Communist movement as defined in 
section 2. This promptly subjects the organization and its members to the penal- 
ties proscribed by section 4 of the bill, where attempts in any manner to establish 
a totalitarian dictatorship under the control of a foreign government, or con- 
spiracy to commit such an offense, is made punishable by 10 years' imprison- 
ment and $10,000 fine. In Consehnan v. Hitchcock (142 U. S. 547 (1892)), the 
Supreme Court had this to say on the subject of self-incrimination : 

"It is impossible that the meaning of the constitutional provision can only 
be that a person shall not be compelled to be a witness against himself in a 
criminal prosecution against himself. It would doubtless cover such cases ; but it 
is not limited to them. The object was to insure that a person should not be 
compelled, when acting as a witness in any investigation to give testimony 
which might tend to show that he himself had committed a crime. The privilege 
is limited to criminal matters, but it is as broad as the mischief against which 
it seeks to guard." 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 195 

V. Till: Ml'NDT HILL VIOLATES THE SIXTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 
UNITED STATES IN THAT IT DENIES ACCUSED INDIVIDUALS "THE BIGHT TO * * * 
A TRIAL" 

Sixth amendment: "In all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the 
right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district 
wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been pre- 
viously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the ac- 
cusation : to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory 
process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel 
for his defense." 

Under the Mundt bill, the Attorney General is empowered to order particular 
groups to register (sec. 8). Failure to comply with this order leads to arraign- 
ment before a court and to possible conviction (sec. 15). At this trial, the 
question as to whether the defendant did or did not conform to the order of the 
Attorney General is the sole issue to be decided. The defendant has no oppor- 
tunity to defend himself on the ground that the order improperly issued. Hence 
he is denied the opportunity of a jury trial on the basic grounds for which he will 
be convicted. This violates the sixth amendment. 

VI. THE MUNDT BILL VIOLATES ARTICLE I, SECTION 1, AND ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 
l-~. OF THE CONSTITUTION IN THAT IT REPRESENTS A DELEOA1TON OF LEGISLATIVE 
POWER 

Article I, section 1, of the Constitution of the United States, declares that "All 
legislative 1 powers herein granted shall be vested in the Congress of the United 
States * * *" 

Article I, section 8, clause 18, empowers Congress "'to make all laws which 
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution" its general powers. 
Congress manifestly is not permitted to abdicate or to transfer to others the 
essential legislative functions with which it is thus vested (Panama Refining Co. 
v. Ryan, 293 U. S. 388, 1938). 

A "roving commission" created by Congress to investigate and correct evils 
exemplifies an unconstitutional delegation of power. 

"Here * * * is an attempted delegation not confined to any single act 
nor to any class or group of acts identified or described by reference to a 
standard. Here, in effect, is a roving commission to inquire into evils and, 
upon discovery, correct them. * * * This is delegation running riot. No 
such plenitude of power is susceptible of transfer. The statute, however, aims 
at nothing else, as one can learn both from its terms and from the administra- 
tive practice under it. Nothing less is aimed at by the code submitted to our 
scrutiny" (Schcehtcr v. U. S., 295 U. S. 495, 551-553 (Cardozo, J.) ). 

It would almost appear that this decision was written in respect to the 
Mundt bill. 

Inasmuch as section 3 of the Mundt bill does not state what activities or 
views or policies or principles are characteristic of an organization subject 
to a foreign power, it is clear that an administrative official, the Attorney 
General, is being asked to make a legislative determination. It is clear that 
here is precisely the abdication by Congress of an essential legislative function, 
found to be so objectionable by the Supreme Court i supra). In this respect 
the Mundt bill is fatally defective. 

VII. THE MUNDT LTLL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN THAT IT VIOLATES ARTICLE I, SECTION 

9 (3 ), AND IS A BILL OF ATTAINDER 

H. R. 5852 is a violation of the mandate of the United States Constitution 
that "no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed" (art. I, sec. 
9 (3)). 

A bill of attainder has been described as "a legislative act which inflicts pun- 
ishment without judicial trial * * * |dhe] legislative body, in addition to 
its legislative functions, exercises the powers and offices of a judge * * * it 
pronounces upon the guilt of a party without any of the form or safeguards of 
a trial ; it determines the sufficiency of the proof produced, whether conform- 
able to the rules of evidence or otherwise ; and it fixes the degree of punishment 
in accordance with its own notions of the enormity of the offense" (Vummings 
v. Missouri, 4 Wall. 227 (1867)). 

More recently, the Supreme Court of the United States, in striking down an 
act of Congress as a bill of attainder, had this to say : 



1Q6 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

"Legislative acts, no matter what their form, tbat apply to either named 
individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to 
inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial are bills of attainder pro- 
hibited by the Constitution" (United state* v. Lovett, 328 U. S. ?,03. 315 (1946)). 

The Court made clear the fundamental constitutional violation in legislative 
declarations of guilt in the following language: 

"When our Constitution and Rill of Rights were written, our ancestors had 
ample reason to know that legislative trials and punishments were too dangerous 
to liberty to exist in the nation of free men they envisioned. And so they 
prescribed bills of attainder" (United States v. Lovett, supra). 

The provisions of this bill clearly mark it as a bill of attainder. Under the 
guise of findings as to the necessity for legislation (sec. 2, subsecs. 3, 5, 6, 7, 9) 
makes a legislative declaration of guilt with respect to certain unnamed organ- 
izations and their members. The findings of section 2 are then incorporated 
into section 3, which defines Communist political organizations and Communist- 
front organizations. Membership and activity in these latter are made subject 
to severe penalties in sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the act. 

The proposed legislation thus succeeds in imposing severe burdens and 
penalties by congressional edict. Moreover, the bill goes further, for it attempts 
to specifically outlaw a single political party — the Communist Party of the 
United States. This latter fact is made clear in the final report which accom- 
panied H. R. 5852 (Rept. No. 1844, April 30, 1948) where the term "Communist 
political organization" is declared by the committee to be defined "in such a 
manner as to include the Communist Party of the United States or any other 
organization existing or hereafter established having essentially the same 
characteristics." 

The Chairman. Mr. Walsh? Will you be sworn, please? Do you 
solemnly swear that the testimony you give will be the truth, the wdiole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Walsh. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH F. WALSH, TENNYSON, WIS. 

The Chairman. I said I would give you 5 minutes. 

Mr. Walsh. To an Irishman 5 minutes goes a long way. sir. I 
should put in a hyphen and say Irish-American. 

My name is Joseph F. Walsh. 

The Chairman. And what is your residence? 

Mr. Walsh. I am a resident of Wisconsin, the village of Tennyson, 
township of Potosi. Grant County. 

Senator, I want to thank you very much for this opportunity to 
appear. I spoke to you over the telephone yesterday. Previous to 
that, I wrote you a letter of protest. 

This happens to be my secretary with me, who does my work for 
me, and I just talk it. 

It was after hours, about 9 o'clock, and the letter got to the mailbox 
about 9 o'clock. Then I became very much excited about the bill 
after reading further on it. so I called you and asked for an interview. 
You were very much surprised, too, when I mentioned that I would 
appear against the bill. It seemed that your tone of voice was sur- 
prised. I realized that, being an outstanding Democrat as you are 
and liberal in your views as you are, you would be shocked that a 
man who has always been conservative would wish to take what you 
would consider to be a radical position. 

Senator Revercomb. Do you not want to change your statement 
earlier in which you referred to the chairman as an outstanding 
Democrat ? 

Mr. Walsh. Oh, my God. I have been accused of everything, but, 
thank God, I have never been accused of that. I am one of the first 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 197 

Irishmen who came across — but on a Later boat. They were giving 
us better wages in this country, and I did believe in protective tariffs, 
and so on. 

1 am speaking, gentlemen, as a private citizen. I do happen to 
be the president of a large Catholic organization in Wisconsin, and 
I am vice president of practically all the fraternals of Wisconsin, 
whether they are Czechs or Poles' or Lutherans or Catholics, but I 
am not representing any of those because they have not met and 
discussed this question. * So, I am representing only my own views 
on thi>. 

I was very much surprised when the Senator in all seriousness 
-aid to me that there were many priests who appeared in favor of 
the bill. 1 said. I am sorry, but if I were the only Catholic in America, 
I would have to stand pat and, oppose that bill— if I were the only 
one. I have been in similar conditions many times. In fact, one 
time, gentlemen. I was standing pat on the killing of a man by a 
sheriff. The people wanted to lynch me, I said I would rather be 
lynched. I would rather stand for the law than change the stand 
I had taken. 

Gentlemen, I have come a long way, and I didn't get any pay from 
Russia for my expenses. I got it from my bank. It cost me $250 
to bring this young lady and myself here. At least, I assume it took 
that much. I didn't get the money from Russia. The record is clear 
there. 

Also I want to say to you that I am very bitterly opposed to com- 
munism. In fact, I have talked against communism when people 
just didn't take any notice of communism. 

I was a leader in a very radical movement at one time in Wisconsin, 
called the Holiday Association of Farmers, who were losing their 
farms and homes. I w T as one of the leaders because I was chosen by 
the farmers of Grant County to represent them in that strike move- 
ment. I was very radical in that, you remember. That was before, 
thank God, we got a President who did give us a little lift along the 
line. I will give that much credit to the Democrats. They did give 
us a hand in seeing that we were brought out of that. 

I can tell you, gentlemen, that I know the Communist Party. I met 
with them. I have stood with them on questions when they were right, 
and I have opposed them very bitterly when they were wrong. I have 
stood with them on the FEPC bill before the City Council of Mil- 
waukee when they were right, but when they are wrong, I am against 
communism. 

In fact, in the city of Marshfield, attending a Farm Holiday meet- 
ing, we ran into a problem at that time with Communists. Gentlemen, 
farmers were becoming Communists, believe it or not, for the simple 
reason that they were losing their farms. At that meeting, after we 
adjourned our holiday meeting, they called a meeting and at that 
meeting one of the members advocated the overthrow of our Govern- 
ment by bloodshed. He might have been a freak or a crank. I don't 
know whether that is the platform of the Communist Party. I saw 
other fine men in that critical time advocate the overthroAv of our 
Government by bloodshed, and they were not Communists. They were 
losing their farms and homes and were willing to do anything. They 
went out on the highways and byways. They were dumping trucks 



198 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

and burning up buildings, cheese factories, and things like that. They 
were good Americans. Conditions arose, and things were changing. 
At that meeting when the man made that statement, I took my 
glasses off and walked up to that man. By the way, he was repre- 
senting the Farm-Labor movement of Minnesota at that time. I 
said, "Start the bloodshed on me." But those Communists, I found, 
didn't boo or do anything. They just debated the subject. I have 
been in political meetings where you were booed if they disagreed 
with you. Not these men. 

They said to me, "Mr. Walsh, what would you have done at the 
time of the Russian Revolution? Would you have sided with those 
who were in favor of bloodshed ? What would you have done at the 
time of the American Revolution, and at the Boston Tea Party? 
Would you have been with the boys who went out there and destroyed 
that ship? Would you have been along with Paul Revere and the 
rest of them ? What would you have done in the Irish Revolution, Mr. 
Irish- American? What would you have done on these occasions that 
came up?" 

I said, "Gentlemen, I can answer that question very clearly. Had 
I been alive in those days, I would have been glad to sacrifice nry life 
because those people had no civil rights; they had no government, only 
a government from a foreign land. They were fighting and sacrificing 
their lives for their principles." 

Those men who did that are the ones who gave us the Constitution 
that made me a citizen and gave me all the rights as though I were 
born here. Accidentally, I was born in Ireland. My father was one 
of the political refugees who came across. At that time America 
didn't give up political refugees to England, so my father and some 
of my relatives were able to stay in this country, but my mother, who 
was one of the little girls who used to pack the guns (they were pack- 
ing guns illegally against England, and she was one of them), went 
back to Ireland and gave me birth. Afterward, I was brought up in 
an orphanage in Ireland. Thank God, I was able later to come here 
when I was a young man. 

At that meeting I told them I would be with them in those countries. 
Those people had no rights. They had to assert their right to the use 
of force. But in America what can we do? Just go back to 1931. In 
the 1931 election we went to the ballot box, and we took a little pencil, 
every one of us, free Americans, and we changed the American form 
of democracy into a bureaucracy. In one stroke or two strokes, we, 
the people of America, changed our form of government and put a 
different cast on it. 

If the Communists could have convinced us their philosophy was 
right, they could have done the same thing. There is no need for 
bloodshed in American Avhen through education you can convince the 
American people that your philosophy is right. I go along with you 
if you are the majority. I can live with what you have if you are the 
majority of the people. 
Tli at Avas my answer. 

Gentlemen, if the Mundt bill were passed, what rights would they 
have? They couldn't have it. I think I agree with Thomas Jefferson. 
I think Thomas Jefferson did advocate revolution if the rights were 
taken away from the people. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 199 

Gentlemen, 1 am not a friend of Russia, but 1 asked to go to Russia 
about 10 months ago, and they refused me a visa. In fact, Wednes- 
day morning I got another refusal from the Yugoslav Government. 
They don't want me over in Russia. They know my stand on com- 
munism. So, I am not advocating that, but I am standing here as an 
American. 

We have lavs on our books today, plenty of laws. My goodness, 
you know they have been deporting people for being tools of foreign 
government. That should be enough in America. You can pile up 
all the laws you want in America, gentlemen. Let me give you an 
illustration, Mr. Chairman and Senator. 

The Chairman. Cut it down, now, and talk about the bill. 

Mr. Walsh. I want to give you my stand, too, because I may lose 
my citizenship in this issue. That is of vital importance to me. I 
would like a few moments extra, if you can give it to me. I will take 
an open, fearless stand, and God knows I dread to do it. I am saying 
this, gentlemen, on the Mundt bill. If that passes, it can outlaw the 
religion that I belong to. It is not many years ago, Senator, and 
you know it, that they were trying to outlaw T the Knights of Columbus 
because of a bogus oath that we had. I happen to be a grand knight 
of the Knights of Columbus and belong to other organizations. They 
were fine people, just like yourself, and as you said to a man a short 
time ago, intelligent people, good people, Americans, and they would 
have been outlawed. In fact, there are great bishops today in America 
who would try to stop the Catholic Church from going into politics. 
What would happen ? It happens everywhere. 

I want to tell you about what happened over in Spain. They had 
a law over there. Yet in Spain a Catholic gentleman went out all 
over Spain pleading with the people about socialism. They never 
would have to worry that he would be the head of the government. As 
Catholics, they shouldn't worry. Gentlemen, that man was not in- 
augurated yet. He was a daily communicant at mass and President of 
the Spanish Government, and they were burning churches one after 
the other and killing priests even before he was inaugurated because 
of the militant Socialist or Marxist hatred of Christianity and any 
other religion. 

Gentlemen, there are a lot of things I would like to say to you here, 
but I want to say this much. Suppose we went just Socialist/ To me, 
socialism, I don't care how pink it is, is Marxism, and I have always 
opposed it. It is the same philosophy of Marx. When the militant 
Socialist gets in, he is going to carry out Marxism, which also hated 
religion. 

I was over in England just before the war started, and should we 
now have men like Laski come over with a Socialist government and 
begin to advocate socialism in America — he was over here some time 
ago, one of these freaks, advocating curbing the Catholic Church 
when he was over here talking to the Communists. Should he come 
over, then every laboring man who believes in a Socialist government 
would be a tool of England and not of Russia in that ca>e. 

I am opposed to a draft bill, and I will oppose a draft bill any time 
and all the time, drafting my sons. Five of my sons, Senator, went 
over. They drove bombers, some of them were gunners in the Bulge, 
some were down in Japan. They were scattered all over. For them, 



200 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

gentlemen, that is the kind of democracy I represent, and I am repre- 
senting them. I am going to make the statement now, gentlemen, 
that I am going to be against the draft bill, and if labor organizations 
oppose it, I am with them, but if it is only the Communist Party that 
opposes the draft bill, I am going to be with the Communists on that 
bill. If that makes me a fellow traveler of the Communists, well, 
then, I lose my citizenship, and I am willing to lose it. 

I am against the overthrow of our Government by force, and all 
we need is a treason bill that says this to any man that advocates it : "It 
is treasonable and punishable by death." That is all you need in 
this country. 

Gentlemen, I could go on and tell you what happened that made 
farmers lose our homes in Wisconsin, but I respect the Senator. I 
was leader in the farm movement in Wisconsin, director of the Fed- 
eral Land Bank Association in my community, but I want to re- 
spect you gentlemen. I do not want to say this. 

I do want to oppose the draft, even if I have to stand shoulder 
to shoulder on that issue with Communists. If that would declare 
me a Communist, or a fellow traveler, I would lose my citizenship, 
and, God knows, folks, I would not want to do that. 

Senator Revercomb. Is there anything in this bill that would make 
you a fellow traveler or make you lose your citizenship if you op- 
pose the draft? 

Mr. Walsh. Well, Senator, I assume you are an attorney? 

Senator Revercomb. Yes. 

Mr. Walsh. And so is our Senator here: You know, after all, the 
bill is written in the English language. It is not in Latin. I have 
a case, I go to an attorney, he tells me this, it looks like I am safe. 
I go to another man and I say "Give me friendly advice." He reads 
it altogether differently. "Joe, don't go to law, remember, when 
you go into law the attorney is only 50 percent right, because one 
of the two is going to lose. They read the same document. I read 
that as a layman and to me I would, if I stood out against the draft 
and went with Communists to do that, went with the fellow travelers, 
I could be classed with them, and then again I would have to use 
on the mail personally, myself, saying that I am associated with 
Communists. I would have to do that. 

Senator Revercomb. Mr. Walsh, do you have any question in mind 
that leads you to believe that if you oppose the draft bill it would 
make you lose your citizenship? 

Mr. Walsh. This is on page 4: 

Another test will depend ou the position taken or advanced by it from lime 
to time on matters of policy. 

Thus, if any person in the organization is at all active, and the 
committee or the Attorney General or the Federal Bureau of Inves- 
tigation calls him a Communist, the organization will be called a 
Communist-front organization, and if the organization's position 
on war or peace, or security or depression, on Negro rights — and I 
tight for Negro rights — labor rights, Palestine, consumer rights, in 
any way coincides with the position of the Communists' political 
oranization as defined by this bill, then it will become a Communist- 
front organization, or the person would be a Communist himself. 

Senator Rkyercomb. You are reading from your own brief? 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 201 

Mr. Walsh. Yes. 

(Senator Revercomb. Not from the Jaw itself. Lei us have that 

clear. 

Mr. Walsh. Yes. It is an analysis of the law itself. Senator. 
May I say this. Of course we have confidence in our comas. We 
have eonlulenee. We heard about Judge Douglas and so on. We 
have a human element. 1 have seen a judge taken out in Iowa — a 
judge, remember — and a rope tied around his neck: in Iowa, gentle- 
men. And all the laws of the State are that you cannot hang a judge 
or any man without a court trial, yet those farmers took him out and 
put a rope around his neck and the only tiling was there were enough 
who were able to -top it in the excitement of those people losing every- 
thing they had in those farms. 

President Roosevelt was a great man, but he was a human man. He 
passed a lot of new ideas. He wanted them on the statutes quickly 
because he thought he was right, and that great man wanted to pack 
the Supreme Court to approve those laws that he wanted. Now then, 
how can we trust the courts, if the human element comes into the pic- 
ture? So, gentlemen, we have to be afraid of any bills passed. 

If this organization is controlled by foreign governments, they must 
register, and if they are, then they are punished, they are deported 
from the country if they are not citizens, or they lose their citizenship 
if they are citizens of our country. 

Why any more laws? I cannot help but agree with these men that 
it looks to me like propaganda for a purpose, crushing communism 
through war, and we have to build a war scare against Russia to do it. 

I am tempted to feel that way because there are 250,000 Commu- 
nists in the United States. 

I was before the Ways and Means Committee here some time ago, 
opposing inequality in taxation for cooperatives, and I have organ- 
ized fights for cooperatives, worked for $24 a year as president and 
general manager. 

Gentlemen, I have answered your question, or maybe I have not. 

The Chairman. We are very grateful to you, Mr. Walsh, and glad 
that you could come down. 

He is one of our best citizens from Wisconsin, and when he did call 
me the other day I felt that I could assign him time because, as you 
can see, he is a man with strong convictions. 

We are glad to have your views, sir. 

Mr. Walsh. I wish to present a letter from Bishop Haas. When I 
told you that Bishop Haas had protested against this bill, you were 
surprised. Naturally, a busy man, you cannot catch all these things. 

Bishop Haas is an outstanding man in the United States, and I 
leave this with you because it is very much to the point. He certainly 
is not in favor of communism. 

I quote Disraeli in closing. Disraeli said : 

No government can long be secure without a formidable opposition. 

Folks, I think that Ave ought to listen to the words of a man like 
that. I think, as Disraeli said too, and it doesn't allude to the Senators 
of the United States : 

The world is weary of statesmen whom democracy lias degraded into politicians. 



202 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

And I know you are going to look at this in a statesmanlike manner. 
You are going to act not as politicians, not in fear of an insignificant 
party that raised $250,000 last year. 

This party that I was mentioning, this group to equalize taxation, 
raised over $600,000, but we were businessmen — $600,000 to make co- 
operatives, of which I am a member, pay their just share of taxes. So 
there is no danger. 

The Chairman. This letter of Bishop Haas' will be incorporated 
in the record at the conclusion of your testimony. 

(The letter referred to is as follows:) 

Mis. Mary T. Norton, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C: 

In my judgment, H. R. 5852 is potentially destructive of the moral and civil 
rights of all Americans. As one who believes in the widest measure of the in- 
dividual freedom consistent with the public interest, I beg to register my emphatic 
opposition to this bill. 

Moreover, the bill contradicts iself. While it professes to combat totalitarian 
dictatorship, it gives the Federal Government such arbitrary powers over per- 
sonal freedom as to make the Government, in effect, a totalitarian dictatorship. 
It is hard to see how anyone who really believes in private enterprise — unless 
perhaps he is talking with his tongue in his cheek — can risk giving government 
such wide discrimination over individual conduct as does this bill. 

Communism is an evil to be removed, but it would be folly to destroy ourselves 
in removing it. The slower but surer methods of reason and Christian regard 
for others, rather than a bill such as H. R'. 5852, are the instruments best suited 
to the task of stamping out communism. 

Most Rev. Francis J. Haas, 

Bishop of Grand Rapids. 

The Chairman. Is there someone here from the National Council 
of Arts, Science, and Professions? 

I trust we can be as brief as possible. You can make your point. 
We have a vote coming up over in the Senate. I have three more 
witnesses. 

What is your full name? 

Mr. Kahn. Albert Kahn. 

The Chairman. What is your address? 

Mr. Kahn. I come from Croton-on-the-Hudson, N. Y. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you are about to give in 
this matter will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Kahn. I do, Senator. 

TESTIMONY OF ALBERT KAHN ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL 
COUNCIL OF ARTS, SCIENCES, AND PROFESSIONS, AND REPRE- 
SENTING THE JEWISH PEOPLES' FRATERNAL ORDER 

Mr. Kahn. I would like the privilege which was extended to Mr. 
Scribner, if possible, since I have no prepared written statement to 
incorporate into your recordings of the proceedings, and that is to 
discuss the question with the committee. 

The Chairman. How long will it take.? 

Mr. Kahn. I would say 8 minutes, Senator. 

The Chairman. Go ahead. 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 203 

Mr. Kahn. I do not mean now. I would like to have the oppor- 
tunity to discuss it with your whole committe in private session. 

The Chairman. You will never be able to accomplish that, Brother. 

Mr. Kahn. In 8 minutes? 

The Chairman. In getting the whole committee together. You 
have two of us here and we will make the record. This will go before 
the whole committee. 

Mr. Kaiin. You sec. I speak in a dual capacity. I also happen 
to be the president of the Jewish peoples' fraternal order, which 
has 55.000 Jewish members. 

We feel that this question involves the Jewish people to a very great 
extent because we feel that our existence is dependent to a major 
extent upon the maintenance of democratic institutions, just as Mr. 
Walsh expressed himself. 

Senator Revercomb. Let me ask you this at this point. Why do you 
think that in particular the Jewish people are interested any more than 
any other people of this country ? 

Mr. Kahn. I will be glad to answer that. Before I answer that 
I just want to say this : I would have liked to have had the opportunity 
to discuss this with the general committee, but you feel that is not 
possible. 

The Chairman. The commitee only had 4 of them here this morn- 
ning, and there are 13 on the committee. 

Mr. Kahn. I just felt that it was unfortunate, let us say, that the 
Communist leaders would have an opportunity for such a full hear- 
ing, and the other groups which represent a very large number of 
Americans might not have an opportunity for an equally full hearing 
on this matter. 

Senator Revercomb. This afternoon the Senate is in session, and I 
think the Membsrs are on the floor, and in attendance at other meetings. 
I excused myself from the floor to attend this meeting. 

The Chairman. We are wasting good time now. 

Mr. Kahn. These 3 minutes are a plea. 

Let me ansAver the question you asked me, why I think the question 
of democracy is of special concern to the Jewish people. 

Senator Revercomb. More so than any other persons in this country. 

Mr. Kahn. Yes. I will tell you why. Because other peoples, dur- 
ing the last war which was fought to protect democracy in the world 
against the Axis Powers, other peoples who were fighting against the 
Axis Powers, if the Axis had won, other peoples could have survived, 
if only as slaves, they could have survived under the Fascists. 

Senator Revercomb. Yes. 

Mr. Kahn. We were just selected to be exterminated, and 6,000,000 
of us were exterminated, one-third of all of the Jews in the world. In 
other words, for us this fight was literally a fight for existence or 
extermination, of life and death. 

When we think of democracy we think of the lives of our children. 
That is why it has a special meaning for us, because we w T ere selected 
to be exterminated. 

Senator Revercomb. That force that you felt selected you to be ex- 
terminated, that Government that came under that force itself, has 
been exterminated. 

78257—48 14 



204 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. K.'jix. Yes. 

Senator Revercomb. I am talking about today: Why is that not of 
equal importance to all people, rather than of special importance to the 
Jewish people? 

Mr. Kaiix. I happen to think that democracy is of equal importance 
to all people. 

Senator Revercomb. That is the reason I raised the question. 

Mr. Kahx. Yes; but the point I raise is this : We feel it especially, 
since "\ve have lost one-third of all our people through the loss of democ- 
racy and we know that if further democracy is lost, there is a good 
chance of our losing the rest of our people, and I have three sons, and 
when I think of righting against anything that menaces democracy. I 
am thinking of the lives of my sons. 

On this particular question I do not speak only as a Jew. Xaturally. 
I want to speak also as an American citizen, and the two are by no 
means contrary, because to be a good Jew is to be a good American 
citizen, too. 

I speak as a writer, an author. For the hist 10 years the only books 
I have written have dealt with the question of what I considered to be 
subversive fifth-column activities developing in this country. 

I started as the editor of the Hour, which was a news letter, engaged 
in exposing the activities of Axis agents here, and we broke a number 
of major cases of Axis spies and saboteurs here from 1939 on. 

I was editor of the Hour. I wrote the book Sabotage, which dealt 
entirely with this question of Axis intrigue, and so on, and the plot 
against the peace. 

During all this time I think I have acquired something of the knowl- 
edge of the activities of subversive elements in this particular country. 

It happens to be my opinion that democracy in this country has been 
menaced right along, not from the left — I am talking in theoretical 
terms. I happen to have documented everything I said, and every time 
I wrote a story I had to produce the proof and prove a man was con- 
spiring, prove a man was an agent, with documentary evidence, other- 
wise I could have been sued for libel and would not have been able to 
write. 

During this entire period I have uncovered many Axis agents, but 
I must be perfectly honest with you, I have uncovered no concrete evi- 
dence or proof of treasonable activities of the sort discussed in this bill 
on the part of the left. 

Senator Revercomb. Do I gather from your statement, that you 
think there is no danger, or rather, that the activities of the Commu- 
nists are not dangerous to the institutions of this Government, those 
institutions that maintain this freedom that we want to retain? 

Mr. Kahx. I would say in my opinion here the activities of the 
Communists about which I know or which I have seen since I have 
been in this country — I would say that those activities are not danger- 
ous to the Government, the ones that I have seen or know anything 
about. 

Senator Revercomb. Have you given study to those activities to any 
extent I 

Mr. Kahx. Yes. The last book I wrote dealt to some extent with 
this particular question. It was not considered a radical document. 
Barron's Financial Weekly recommended it. Weekly Digest reprinted 
the first book I wrote, and in this particular book I made this point • 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 205 

The Chairman. May I interrupt there? Do you not realize that 
communism in Russia has exterminated Zionism there, murdered 
rabbis, banished the teaching of the Jewish religion, and so forth? 

Mr. Kahn. Well, Senator, when the Soviet Union was invaded in 
1941 — and I am not trying to be circuitous in my answer — we were 
told in June 1941 — and von probably remember, and most of us be- 
lieved it — that the German Army was going to go through Russia 
in 3 weeks to 3 months. 

That is what we were told in our newspapers, that is what 90 percent 
of the American people believed. It turned out to be an untruth, a 
great untruth — fortunately for us, because we lost less lives as a result. 

I happen to believe that there have been many such colossal lies told 
about the Soviet Union. 

In the preparation of my last book I took the New York Times from 
November 1917 up to date and read them through, together with 800 
other books and documents, and do you know about 80 percent of the 
stories in the Times, as Walter Lippmann pointed out, turned out 
within a short time to be false? 

You raised the question of what has happened to the Jews in 
Russia. 

Our organization has had a very close relationship with the Jews 
in Russia. It happens that as far as we are concerned, the Russian 
Government has done many things that not only our organization, but 
men like Rabbi "Wise and other great Jewish leaders in this country 
praise. They have made anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union a crime 
punishable by law. They built on land, Azerbaijan, where they have 
their own autonomous region. 

When the Czar was in Russia there was a pale of settlement, and 
in order for any Jewish woman to go out of that pale of settlement, 
-he had to wear a yellow badge which described her as a prostitute. 
That is where the word "pogrom" originated. 

Senator Revercomb. How long have you been in this country '. 

Mr. Kahn. Since I was 14 years old. 

Senator Revercomb. Where were you born? 

Mr. Kahn. I was born in London, England. My parents were 
American citizens. 

Senator Revercomb. Were your parents born in America? 

Mr. Kahn. My mother was born in America and my father was 
born in Luxemburg, Germany. 

I would say this: My father came to the United States as a very 
poor boy, and my father became very successful in the United States 
and together with my uncle became a great engineer here, and they 
found that what they could get out of American democracy w T as 
splendid. 

Senator Revercomb. I asked you the question because you made the 
statement a few minutes ago : "As long as I have been in the country." 

Mr. Kahn. I haven't fully answered that, I believe. I am now 36 
years old. 

The Chairman. Do you feel that the way of life as practiced in 
Russia, political and economic, is :it the same level as our own? 

Mr. Kahn. No; the economic life of the people in Russia obviously 
is below our own. It is as clear as the fact that we sit here, but they 
have to learn from us, how much the Russians have to learn from the 
American people. 



206 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

The Chairman. You speak of the economic life. 

Mr. Kaiix. They have a lot to learn from us in many ways, but I 
happen also to believe that we are not so superior to all other peoples 
in the world that we have nothing to learn from them. 

I really believe that we could learn a great deal from the legislation 
that they have regarding the treatment of national minorities in the 
Soviet Union. I believe their treatment of women is very enlightened. 
I also believe the wa} T in which they handle their scientists is very 
enlightened. 

I know that Pavlov, for example, who is outspoken in his hostility 
toward the Soviet Union, was handled in a very enlightened manner 
for many years and was permitted to carry on experiments that ulti- 
mately were of immense value to the world as a whole. 

Some of these things we could learn. I do not believe that we have 
a monopoly on wisdom in this land, nor any people. 

The Chairman. Departing from the idea of wisdom, and narrow- 
ing it to one field, rather, how do you compare the political freedoms 
of the peoples of Russia with the freedom of the people of this country 
and our form of government? 

Mr. Kaiin. I would say that we clearly in this country have many 
freedoms that do not exist in the same way in the Soviet Union. 

Xow, I think there is a reason for the lack of freedom. I would not 
want to give up the freedoms that I have here, but I believe that the 
Soviet Union — and this is the thesis that I advanced in the last book 
I wrote — has been under the impression for the last 30 years that it 
has been menaced, you see, from the outer world. 

First of all, there was the revolution — and that takes a very forceful 
instrument for the maintenance, as we had in our own land after our 
revolution — that does not pass overnight. There are conspirators left 
and there are elements that want to return to the old regime. 

But this is the thesis I advanced in the book I wrote, together with 
Michael Sayres, in the last book. 

We have been told, you see, for a long time here, that the Soviet 
Government is conspiring to overthrow other governments through- 
out the rest of the world, and has been so doing since November 1917. 

It happens to be my belief 

Senator Revercomb. Right at that point, you are talking about, 
speaking of your knowledge of the Soviet Government, and you say 
that many people have been led to believe that they are conspiring to 
overthrow other governments. Is it your belief that they are not try- 
ing to expand communism throughout the world? 

Mr. Kaiin. May I finish this point? 

Senator Revercomb. Remember this point, or I will come back to 
that again. 

Mr. Kaiix. I understand the point. 

The words of the statement that the Soviet Government has been 
conspiring against other governments throughout the world, the words 
of the statement are true. It happens the order of those words is 
wrong; the truth is that other governments throughout the rest of the 
world since 1917 have conspired to overthrow the Government of the 
Soviet Union. 

Senator Revercomb. I am going to interrupt you there. Can you 
cite any government in the world that has attempted to change the- 
form of Government in Russia ? 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 207 



Mr. Kaiix. T was going to give the overt act. From 1918 to 1921, 
for 3 years, the armies of 14 nations, different nations, invaded Soviet 
soil in an effort to overthrow the Soviet Government, in an undeclared 
war of aggression, and Winston Churchill can be the authority to be 
( ited on that, and this is during this war, the lives of 7,000,000 Hus- 
sions were lost. 

You remember General Graves, who wrote a book about the war, 
who was in Siberia. Our policy was different from the policy of the 
British and the French. Our policy was quite enlightened, but the 
British and French under the leadership of Churchill, who was Secre- 
tary of War, fought a war of intervention. Why were their troops 
at Archangel? There were pitched battles. 

Senator Revercomb. Those occupation forces, including troops of 
this country at Archangel, were matters of occupation in the last war, 
when Russia was the enemy. 

Mr. Kaiix. Russia, on the contrary, had been our ally. 

Senator Revercomb. In the First World War? 

Mr. Kahx. Russia was our ally, and as a matter of fact, extraor- 
dinarily enough, Japanese troops and German troops went in together 
with the British and French troops to overthrow the Government. 

Senator Revercomb. Was there not a fear — I do not know just how 
justified — that she Avas in no sense an ally after the fall of Russia, in 
the earlier part of the war ? 

Mr. Kaiix. Senator, I wasn't talking about psychological reasons. 
You asked me to give you an overt act. If we want to go into the 
motivation, w T e can discuss the motivation. 

The point I was trying to make was that I think we have been so 
misled, so frequently, as we were by Hitler, as w r e were at the time of 
the anti-Commintern pact, into believing that this was the great men- 
ace — that there was this conspiracy, and I think the reason that we 
fought the Second World War w r as because we were so fearful of that 
conspiracy. That is the reason Munich took place. That is the reason 
we allowed Hitler to grow. We could have stopped Hitler a thousand 
times if the British and French had been willing to cooperate with us, 
but we were so afraid of Russia we allowed Hitler to grow and he was 
financed by British industrial financiers, as well as German financiers, 
and that made the Second World War inevitable, and at Munich the 
world w T as turned over to him. 

I believe that now this present fear is what is menacing us here 
in this countiT. 

Senator Revercomb. I am glad to have your views. They are inter- 
esting indeed, but getting back to this, you said something about 
permitting Hitler to grow because of a fear of Russia. That is a 
rather reasonable deduction. But what brought about that fear of 
Russia ; Was not that fear based upon what was known as the Com- 
munist International, the spread of communism \ Was not that fear 
brought about by that ? 

Mr. Kahn. I would say unquestionably that fear had a great deal 
to do with that. 

Senator Revercomb. There was cause for fear then even prior to that 
last World War? 

Mr. Kahn. Of course. 

Senator Revercomb. If it existed then under their philosophies of 
government, which have not changed to this time, is there not the 



208 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

same cause of apprehension, and is it not bolstered or inspired by 
Russia's inclination, let us say, to follow that idea of international 
spread of her doctrine of living and her doctrine of government to the 
rest of the world ? 

Mr. Kahn. Yes. 

Senator Revercomb. Is that not right? 

Mr. Kahn. Yes. But you see, Senator, this comment of yours pre- 
supposes that the Soviet Union from 1917 on was responsible for the 
spread of communism in the world, and I think that is a completely 
untenable position. Who was responsible for the spread of com- 
munism in Russia? To begin with, what foreign power brought 
communism there? 

In 1918 in German}^ you had communism in much of the country. 
What brought it about? Suffering, poverty, impoverishment, and 
war. Hitler feasted upon that. Communism spread in China in 
1920 in many areas and not because of the Soviet Union. 

Senator Revercomb. You use the word "communism," but was not 
Lenin the first one who really congealed it into a philosophy of living, 
following the Marxian ideas? 

Mr. Kahn. That is true. 

Senator Revercomb. So Russia became the real fountainhead, and 
she declared it not only for Russia. I think most of the peoples said 
to Russia, "If you want it, it is yours," but did not Russia go really 
upon a kind of expansion that grew in strength in Russia after 1916 ? 

Mr. Kahn. Yes; I would say particularly in the early 1920's. 

I have not finished my point. The point I was going to make is that 
there was a very adventurous ultrarevolutionary element led by Trot- 
sky in Russia which held to this particular objective of world revolu- 
tion immediately. That was one of the reasons why there was such 
intense conflict between Trotsky and Stalin. Lenin never stood in the 
same way Trotsky did. 

I have seen no evidence, no evidence to satisfy me. no concrete proof. 
Senator; I mean it is obvious we are living in a period of great emo- 
tion, tension, and to some extent hysteria, but that shouldn't sway 
us. If we talk in terms of concrete evidence I have yet to see the 
concrete proof and, my Lord, we certainly have an apparatus which 
should be able to establish it. We haven't had enough proof to con- 
vince the Supreme Court on this question. 

Senator Revercomb. You say there is no concrete proof. Let us 
take a very recent incident. 

In the elections of France of last j^ear Russian agents were expelled. 
The government took the severe step of expelling Russian agents 
from France who were leading the Communist drive in there at 
that time. 

Would you not say that those Russian agents, sent in there were 
working out of Russia to spread communism in France? Is it not 
reasonable to conclude that? 

Mr. Kahn. It is not unreasonable. 

The Chairman. What did they do in Spain? What did they do 
in Italy? What are they doing' now in Finland? What are they 
doing in Czechoslovakia ? 

Senator Rfaercomb. Why were they in there? Is it not reason- 
able to conclude that they were spreading communism? 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 209 

Mr. Kahx. For the last 30 years they have been expelled, but if 
you think' that activity, in order to influence or shape an election or 
change the policies of a government, is sufficient reason for people 
being expelled, what would you say about our agents in Italy-' 

Senator Revercomb. I am not saying the right or wrong of it. I 
am coming down to this fact: Is not Russia trying fco spread her 
philosophies of government into other countries and is it not deducible 
from the fact that only last year France took the severe step of 
expelling Russian Communist agents from France because they were 
in there heading the Communist activities of the Communist Party 
of France; not to the right or wrong of it, but does it not bring you 
to a conclusion — or, certainly, cause you to think — that Russia is 
spreading her ideas into other countries^ Do not forget the main 
thought of our talks. 

Mr. Kahx. I think unquestionably that Russia, just as every other 
country, seeks to spread its ideas into other countries, but as far as 
the explusion of agents is concerned, because I am rather callous on 
this particular question, because I have seen agents expelled from 
so many countries at certain periods, to create an impression, and 
so on. that it doesn't impress me until I find out all the facts. 

I know that we have had 25 or 30 years of documents of the British 
intelligence. They expelled the Russian agents there, and later the 
intelligence chief admitted it was all a put up plot and the docu- 
ments were forged. Perhaps I am cynical about the expulsion. 

Senator Revercomb. I do not want to discuss the rights or wrongs 
of that, but I think from the statement you just made, in your answer, 
you do agree with me that Russia is trying to spread her doctrines 
of communism into other countries, and it was revealed in the expulsion 
of Russian agents from France ? 

Mr. Kahn. I do not accept that example. I have much more con- 
crete proof of their attempt to spread their ideas. I would say that 
Russia attempts to spread its ideas in all of the printed literature that 
it distributes around the world. I would say it attempts to spread 
its ideas every time one of its public statesmen makes an utterance for 
world consumption. 

I would say it attempts to spread its ideas every time one of its 
writers, a man like Ehrenberg or Seminov or any other writers w r rite 
something, and it is distributed abroad. 

I believe they try to spread their ideas. 

We try to spread our ideas. In fact, we formulated a Truman 
doctrine, for the purpose of not only spreading our ideas, but defending 
them abroad with money and arms. 

Senator Revercomb. Is there not a little difference between the 
statesman making his statement to the world and the writer waiting 
his book, who believes in Russian authority and Russian ideas, and, 
on the other hand, sending agents into other countries, to become 
overtly active ? There is a difference, is there not? 

Mr. Kahx*. Of course there is, Senator, and I believe that all coun- 
tries have agents in other countries, but the problem we are faced with 
here is this : 

This is the basic premise on which this bill is made, that there is a 
world Communist movement, a movement of aggression, directed 
against all other countries, stemming from Russia. This is the first 
premise. This is the cause for the present danger. 



210 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

If I knew absolutely nothing about Russia and about the Russian 
situation, I would say that any country in the world that had lost 
25,000,000 or 20,000,000 people in the last war, and had 25,000,000 
homeless after the war, and one-fifth of its industrial capacity and 
resources destroyed — I would say that any such counrty would want 
nothing less than another Avar, and would do everything possible to 
avoid it. How could the people fight another war in that condition? 
I believe that premise is completely fallacious. 

Secondly, as I say, going from what I consider a fallacious premise 
to the point that all of these left-wing progressive or Communists, 
whatever they are called, organizations in this country are Commu- 
nist fronts, taking their instructions from Russia, these two tilings 
are pure assumptions, and a bill has to be based on both of them. 

I believe you asked me how it concerns the Jewish people. 

Mr. Walsh pointed out how it concerned the Catholics, those of us 
who work in connection with the Zionist movement, those of us who 
hope to continue to work 

Senator Revercomb. My question was how it concerns you differ- 
ently from anyone else. 

Mr. Kahn. I understood that. I want to make another point, 
how the Mundt bill concerns us. 

Let us take the question of the state of Israel. 

At the present moment the Soviet Union happens to be advancing 
a very strong, forthright stand regarding the state of Israel. It hap- 
pens to be the strongest stand being taken. 

Supposing we take the same stand and our Government takes a dif- 
ferent stand? Well, in the bill here we can be associated with the 
policies of a foreign government, and pursuing a policy which only a 
short time ago was opposed to the policy of the country when we were 
against partitioning. 

Senator Revercomb. Should a Jewish-American citizen take a stand 
that would be injurious to the United States of America because of 
your sympathetic feeling toward another country ? 

Mr. Kahn. The United States of America to me is the American 
people, and we are a part of the American people just like you. 

I feel there is a complete misconception growing up throughout the 
land, expressed in this bill, which is contrary to everything we believe 
in this country. That construction is that the American people owe 
unquestioning loyalty and obedience to the Government. 

I believe that the American tradition is that the Government owes 
loyalty to the people and that the people have the right to criticize 
and to seek to change the policies of the Government if they believe 
they are wrong. 

That has been the tradition since the time of Jefferson. That has 
made us the great democracy that we are. That is why democracies 
throughout the world have looked to us for leadership, because we 
have always said that when the Government fails the people, then is the 
time to change the composition of the Government. 

The Chairman. Tell us some more about this bill to which you 
object. In view of your great knowledge, particularly in relation to 
the present-day influences radiating from Russia, evidenced by pretty 
near every land in the world, in South America and this country, 
Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia ; as stated, influence in France, in- 
fluence in Italy, tell us if this bill is not needed, what in your judgment 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 211 

is needed, whether it is legislation or not legislation? Tell us what 
is needed in order to make this a better land. 1 presume you are 
primarily interested in America and secondarily interested in the 
welfare of the globe? 
Mr. Kaiin. les, sir. I have three sons. 

The Chairman. But the world grows small compared with the 
known units in the heavens. It is, after all, too big a proposition 
for one nation to try to take care of all the time. I would like to 
get your ideas. We have enjoyed your discussion. I seem to feel that 
it is all a question of the human mind. 

As Senator O'Mahoney said one day, coming out of the Senate 
after two men were trying to describe what certain English language 
meant in a certain sentence, he said: "Isn't the human mind a hell 
of a contraption?" 

Mr. Kahn. I agree with you. 

The Chairman. You have the perspective, and it is to the effect 
that in your opinion you do not feel that this influence coming out 
of Russia has any deteriorating or any serious effect on our own 
system, upon our own liberties, and so forth. 

Now, this committee has to first determine that issue and secondly, 
they have to determine whether or not any bill that is to be written 
is constitutional. 
Mr. Kahn. Yes. 

The Chairman. But even before they do that, they have to determine 
the other issue, whether or not it is a feasible, practical approach to 
a present-day problem. If you do not think there is any problem 
here, you probably haven't given any thought to whether or not there 
is any answer, the antidote. I think there is a problem. I personally 
do. 

Mr. Kahn. I do, too. 

The Chairman. I should like to get your idea as to what the answer 
is. 

Mr. Kahn. I think there is a great problem, Senator, as you put it. 

First of all, let me say that I am in complete agreement with the 

views that you expressed about my position. What happens in this 

country is of first concern to me. and I have three sons, and this is 

where the}' have to grow up. 

Secondly, I agree with you that there is a problem, not only in this 
country, but apparently this problem of international proportions. 

This problem was expressed, for example, in Colombia recently, in 
the uprisings there, and this problem has been expressed in Italy. 

It has been expressed less in our land than anywhere else, because 
our land is better off than any other land ; because w T e have more of the 
goods for ourselves. We have the liberties; we have a democracy. 
But what is the problem? 

The Chairman. May I interject right here. You have asked the 
question; what is the problem? I know what you are going to say 
about it, and I am going to agree that it is a problem. 

Our problem, sir, is to let the nations themselves work out their 
own destiny without the influence of these nefarious folks from Russia 
who think it is their problem to come in and straighten out every other 
nation and utilize the economic uncertainty and the economic debility 
and engender hatreds and class divisions and get folks in a state so that 
the Communist "big boys" can take over. 



212 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

You and I definitely do not want a police state, but personally, if a 
police state has to come in America because of some grave national 
emergency, I want it run by Americans and not by Communists. 
There is where we want the benefit of your good judgment. What is 
the answer to that situation? We want freedom and not police-rule; 
yet we want to preserve our way of life. 

Every time there is an economic depression in some country that is 
not just according to Hoyle, and some class has a little more than 
somebod}' else, here comes the Russian agents, he comes in stirring it 
up. That is their function, apparently, to engender these internecine 
hatreds so they can come in and take over the swag. That is what has 
happened to 110,000,000 people since the war. 

Mr. Kahn. I do not want to see a police state here run either by the 
right or the left. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Mr. Kahn. I like to see us teach and keep the democracy we have 
built in this country, but I believe the only way to keep democracy is 
not by limiting it but by extending it, and I believe the Communists 
in this country would have no more chance of taking over the Govern- 
ment of this country than I would fly, if we keep what we have in this 
country, if we continue to expand. 

Understand, I do not see this menace that is being talked about. 
I do not see it here in our country. Why has it happened elsewhere 
in the world? I don't think the Communists are to blame for what 
has happened in the northern sections of China or Europe. It seems 
to me that what we are all overlooking is the fact that a war was 
fought in which 50,000,000 people died and that 8 out of 10 children 
in many sections of Europe are tubercular, and that the poor peasant 
people in Europe have been told, "Look, vote for the Communists, and 
they will divide the land up among you." So they got the land 
divided ; they got the land. They were starving ; they wanted to feed 
their kids. That is what happened in Europe. 

I do not think it took any suave or ingenious agents of any party 
to come to the peasants in Europe and say, "You can have the land 
divided up if you vote for communism." They did get the land. 
They did that. That is the effect of war. 

At the end of the last war you had a revolution in Germany, you 
had it in Austria, you had a revolution in Finland. The war produced 
these revolutions, not Russia, and this war has produced more 
revolutions. 

One thing we shouldn't fool ourselves about, whether we like it or 
not, this tide — and I don't call it a Russian tide — has struck through 
great sections of the world. 

The Chairman. Let us agree, for the sake of the argument, that the 
war produced this economic disarrangement. Can we agree that it is 
the policy of the Russian Government and the Communist Interna- 
tional, whatever they are called, to take advantage of that every place : 
get their agents in, get their gold in? They are mining their gold. 
They have more people in their embassies in South America than 
any of the other big nations the size of Russia. 

Wherever they go it seems to be their business to stir up the people, 
to pour oil, not water, on the international fire of that nation, to 
engender this class hatred. That is their basis for existing, virtually, 
to stir the status quo, as they claim, and it is built entirely on a 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 213 

materialistic concept that there apparently is nothing else in life except 
the material things of life. 

As indicated here in the book that we had before us this morning, 
religion lias no place in communism, and you as a Jew, certainly 
cannot agree with that concept, can you ? 

Mr. Kahn. With the absence of religion '? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Kahn. I don't happen to be an orthodox Jew. Senator Wiley. 
I have a religion of my own, of course, that I would like to hang onto. 
It is not an orthodox religion, in the terms of the orthodox 

The Chairman. I am not asking whether that is the case: I am 
asking whether or not you think that. 

Mr. Kahn. I think every man should be allowed to believe what he 
wants to believe. 

The Chairman. But any nation, sir, that takes out from its very 
inception, and takes away from the children that are growing up, the 
benefit of a faith that is so well phrased by your great writers, David 
and others, ft degenerates into a place, just like Russia is today, in the 
sense that her agents can go out and, as a Judge of the Supreme Court 
has said, who is no ultraconservative, his name being Justice Douglas : 
"The purpose of the Communists is to seduce the liberals, mislead the 
conservatives, and confuse everyone." "A truly great government," 
he savs, and he is one of the great liberals in America — "is an anathema 
to them. They do not want reform for others, they want power for 
themselves. Communist techniques have been the political tools of 
tyrants from time immemorial." 

Pie names the Communist techniques, murder, terror, fraud, deceit. 
Apparently you do not agree with that statement of this great liberal? 

Mr. Kahn. There are a lot of statements of great liberals that I do 
not agree with and I am sure there are a lot of statements of great 
liberals that you do not agree with. 

The Chairman. I am asking you if you agree with this one. 

Mr. Kahn. I think that he has read some of the wrong books. 

The Chairman. That is another question. 

Mr. Kahn. I understand why he says what he says. 

The Chairman. Do you think he is running for office, too? 

Mr. Kahn. No. 

The Chairman. Are you an exponent of Henry's ? 

Mr. Kahn. Henry Wallace ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Kahn. I don't know him that intimately. Would I like to see 
Wallace elected President? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Kahn. Yes, I would. 

The Chairman. I thought so. 

Mr. Kahn. You would be the last man to deny me the privilege of 
wanting that because vou are a man who believes in American democ- 
racy, and you believe it is my privilege to want that. 

The Chairman. Of course, and I Want to protect that, sir, and I 
do not want to destroy that. 

A few years ago I was down in Florida and was shown a beautiful 
house. At that time I could have bought that house for $10,000. I 
thought afterward, why did I not buy it, because today it would be 



214 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

worth $50,000 ? But I heard the other day the reason for the sale was 
that the underpinning had been eaten up by the termites which got in 
there, all its fine underpinnings, and the house went over on its side. 
Those are the things I want to get out of this country. I do not want 
to do anything, as I said before, to destroy the house. We are seeking 
for a way to find the answer, so that we do not permit these values to 
be destroyed for your children and mine and my grandchildren. 

Mr. Kahn. I had an experience like yours in my house in West- 
chester. 

The termites did eat the underpinning, and we had to move to a 
better house, actually. 

But under this Mundt bill, Senator, when we were involved in a 
war, when this country was run through with agents, when our coun- 
try was run through with espionage agents and sabotage, and the 
FBI was working night and day to combat their activities here, Ger- 
man and Japanese agents, and the country was fighting for its life, 
never at that time, at the height of the war was it considered neces- 
sary to enact such legislation as this, because we had the legislation to 
handle these people, and we still have legislation to handle such 
enemies of this country. 

I am deeply, I am profoundly afraid that the passage of this bill 
would do just the thing that you are fearful of, and that is, under- 
mine the democratic underpinnings of democracy in this land. 

The Chairman. What can we do to get those termites that are 
doing it ? 

Mr. Walsh. Senator, may I ask you a question? 

The Chairman. No; we cannot get into any general discussion. 

Mr. Walsh. That is all. I am from your State and I would like 
to know how you feel on this question ? 

The Chairman. Go ahead. What is your question? 

Mr. Walsh. In asking the question, I will just say this, sir, that 
it appears to me that you have a fear of communism, which is con- 
trary to capitalism, a form of government entirely contrary. 

The Chairman. You are not asking your question. 

Mr. Walsh. I am asking a question, please. I have come many 
hundreds of miles at my own expense, Senator, to talk to one that I 
am paying to be here, and I think I should have the respect to ask 
you the question, but I am not a lawyer like you are, so I have to get 
a roundabout way of asking it. 

The question is this, Senator: Supposing that communism in this 
country — or as we call it. Marxism, I think it is — should openly an- 
nounce they are not in favor of overthrowing the Government by 
force of arms, but they are in favor of changing this Government 
by an intellectual method, on the open platform and through the press, 
would you then outlaw that party? 

The Chairman. My answer, of course, is that I am not trying to 
outlaw any party, and answering, your question directly, mv answer 
is "No." 

Is there anything further you have to say, Mr. Kahn? 

Mr. Kahn. No, sir; thank you. Senator. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Mr. Kahn. 

The Chairman. The American Slav Congress. 

Will you state your name? 

Mr. Wuchinicii. My name is George S. Wuchinich. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVIT1 21") 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you are about t<> give in 

this matter is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I do. 

STATEMENT OF GEOKGE F. WUCHINICH, ON BEHALF OF THE 
AMERICAN SLAV CONGRESS 

The Chairman. Have you you a statement ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. We got the telegram too late. We hurried here, 
but I do have a statement given to me by the national secretary out 
in the corridor, but I want to make a supplementary addition to it. 

I do not want to read the statement. I merely hand it in. 

The Chairman. Whose statement is this ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. That is from the national office of the American 
Slav Congress of New York City protesting the Mundt bill. 

The Chairman. All right. It will be incorporated in the record. 

(The statement referred to is as follows :) 

Testimony of George Pirinsky, Executive Secretary of American Slav 
Congress, Before Senate Judiciary Committee on Mundt-Nixon Bill 

This bill, as the Washington Post stated editorially yesterday, proposes "the 
most sweeping program of political repression since the alien and sedition laws 
were enacted a century and a half ago. 

Because of this grave nature of the bill, the 3-day hearings are in themselves 
"a travesty on the legislative process." Such a far-reaching and dangerous 
measure should receive the most careful and exhaustive analysis by the people 
of our country before any proposal to enact it into a law is even considered. 
The 3-day hearings do not offer such opportunity. They are utterly inadequate. 

It is for this reason that I want to state at the outset that the American Slav 
Congress protests against the unseemly and intemperate haste with which this 
bill is being rushed through Congress and to ask that the time for the hearings 
be extended. I am positive that there are many organizations and many out- 
standing Americans throughout the country who are eager to appear before this 
committe and submit testimony against the bill. 

We, the members of the American Slav Congress, are strongly opposed to 
this bill. The more we study it, the more it reminds us of the old alien and 
sedition acts of the time of the Federalists, and especially of the Japanese 
thought control and the Nazi laws to stop communism. 

The notorious alien and sedition acts, as you know, were enacted in the midst 
of an artificially created prowar hysteria against a foreign power — the Republic 
of France. The Federalists of 1798-99 contended that revolutionary France was 
a threat to the peace and security of our newly founded United States. Congress 
passed the alien and sedition acts, a series of harsh measures against noncitizen 
residents (mostly Irish, French, and British) and, above all, against native 
American liberals. This legislation was designed to crush any opposition to the 
prowar policy of the Federalists. Its aim was to set up, in effect, a police state 
ready for war. The Sedition Act provided for severe punishment ($5,000 fine 
and up to 5 years in jail) of anyone who wrote, published, printed, or uttered — or 
caused others to do so — anything critical of the Government or the politicians in 
office. 

A reign of terror began, and its first victims were the liberal-democratic news- 
paper editors. Men were fined and imprisoned precisely because they were 
democratic — in those days a term of deadly approbrium. Trials were brief and 
harsh under the s?dition law which Jefferson called '"an enormity'' and Madison 
"a monster."' Editors were punished and jailed in Vermont (Gazette), New 
York (Register), Connecticut (Bee), Massachusetts (Independent Chronicle), 
Pennsylvania (Aurora). Some of the judges in those cases sounded like Con- 
gressmen Mundt and Nixon. 

It was in the hysterical atmosphere of the sedition laws that Jefferson followers 
were called all kinds of names. Jefferson himself was denounced in the vilest 



216 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

terms. Rev. Timothy Dwight. president of Yale University, spoke from his 
pulpit : "Universal ruin would be the immediate result of the election of Jeffer- 
son, an atheist." The reverend predicted that the Bible would be thrown on a 
bonfire and the Marseillaise sung in the churches should Jefferson become Presi- 
dent. "We may see our wives and daughters victims of legal prostitution, soberly 
dishonored, speciously polluted," cried the horrified president of Yale University. 
As to the newspapers, well here is what Columbia Sentinel told its readers : 
'Tremble then in case of Jefferson election, all you holders of public funds, 
for your ruin is at hand." 

Thanks to the common sense and the liberty-loving spirit of the American 
people in those days, the prowar hysteria and witch hunts were defeated. When 
things looked blackest, there came forth a leader who organized a powerful 
protest movement and crystallized the Nation-wide democratic opposition to the 
witch hunters. This leader was the Vice President of the United States, and his 
name was Thomas Jefferson, With the help of able assistants like James Madi- 
son, Jefferson united the progressive forces and, in the election of 1800, he so 
soundly beat the reactionary Federalists that they never recovered. The Jeffer- 
son administration nullified the alien and sedition acts and saved the United 
States for democracy. That was the "second American Revolution." 

It seems that the authors and the supporters of Mundt-Nixon bill do not want 
to learn from our own American history. They give every indication of beiua. 
bent on repeating the disgraceful performance of the Federalists, only in a more 
dangerous form and in a much more crucial period in the history of America and 
the world. 

More than that. The bipartisan proponents of Mundt-Nixon bill are repeat- 
ing the folly of those lawmakers in prewar Europe who, under the guise of 
controlling subversive activities, enacted laws that destroyed the democratic 
rights of the people and paved the way to fascism. The experience in recent 
years in Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy and Japan was too gruesome and too 
costly to be repeated in any shape and form in these United States. Yet, that is 
where the Mundt-Nixon Subversive Activities Control Act would lead to, it* 
enacted into a law. 

It is safe to say that there is nothing more un-American and more subversive 
to the basic principles of American democracy, than the bill itself. 

As New York's Mayor O'Dwyer put it : "The more I analyze this bill, the clearer 
it becomes that, far from protecting, it will go a long way toward destroying the 
American way of life." 

"This bill," continues the mayor, "provides a dangerous short cut to thought 
control and public state regulation. Its terms are so broad and yet so vague as to 
subject innocent citizens to possible loss of citizenship and other penalties, not 
for the reason of any act on their part, but for being members of an organization 
suspected of entertaining dangerous thoughts." 

The proponents of this bill try to sell it to the American people under the guise 
that the measure is directed only against the Communists and what it calls 
Communist-front organizations. 

Even if the bill were directed only against the Communist Party, it still would 
be a severe blow to the Bill of Rights. For it was at the Communists that Hitler, 
Mussolini, and the Japanese struck first in preparing the Second World War. 
After the Communist Party of Germany was outlawed, there was no end. until 
every German organization, every German democrat who refused to "heil Hitler" 
was declared a traitor to the Third Reich. The same took place in Italy and in 
Japan. The bitter experience of the peoples of Europe in the prewar days 
showed that the outlawing of the Communist Parties was the first big step to 
the establishment of the regime of the police state and fascism. 

But the Mundt bill is much more than a measure against the Communists. It 
is a bill against every progressive organization, against every democratic Ameri- 
can who dares criticize the bipartisan foreign and domestic policy of war 
hysteria and destruction of American democracy. It is, in fact, the most out- 
rageous Fascist-type legislation that the reactionaries have so tar had the audacity 
to propose in Congress. This bill goes much further than Truman's loyalty 
order and the Taft-Hartley slave-labor law. 

Mr. Wallace correctly characterized the Mundt bill as "a legislative device by 
which we are being plunged on the road to fascism," behind the smoke screen of 
the Red menace, and "which would, in effect, make any advocate of peaceful 
understanding in the world an international conspirator." 

In this sense, the Mundt bill holds a special danger for all Slavic Americans 
who rejoice at the rapid industrial, political and cultural advancement of the 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 217 

1 pies of their unlive lands in eastern Europe and who stand Cor friendship and 

cooperation between our country and the Slavic nations. 

The New York Post was absolutely righl when it wrote editorially that "no 
decent citizen could come near it [the bill] without protecting his nose with a 
clothespin." 

It is for this and other similar reasons that we declare that the fighl for the 
defeat of the Mundt bill is a fight for the preservation of the basic constitutional 
rights and liberties of the American people. It is a tight for peace and against 
war. a fight for democracy and against fascism. 

There is no doubt in our mind that if all democratic Americans realized the 
true character and aims of the Mundt bill, introduced in Congress as the sub- 
versive Activities Control Act of 194S, there is no doubt that they would rise in 
wrathful indignation and block its passage. 

Mr. Wuchinich. The people I represent are from Pittsburgh, Pa. 
"We represent approximately L23,000 people, and they are Americans 
of Slavic origin, the people about whom I heard this morning, Slavs. 

I am an engineer. I am a graduate of Carnegie Tech. I was born 
and reared in Pittsburgh. 

I volunteered to serve in the OSS in 1941 under Major General Don- 
ovan. I went to Yugoslavia and I went to North China as a guerrilla 
officer. 

I was decorated with the Distinguished Service Cross and I also have 
three battle stars. I have an arrowhead for invasion. 

I am the father of two daughters and a son. 

Of course I am very much excited, because I think this is a great 
opportunity to be of service to the people in Pittsburgh, Pa., and, above 
all. to the American people, because, what you gentlemen are consider- 
ing here is a very, very dangerous procedure for our Nation. 

My people came here from Yugoslavia to avoid oppression, and this 
law here will institute the kind of oppression from which they escaped. 

Senator Revercomb. Your statement is very interesting to me be- 
cause your country has been taken over 

Mr. Wuchinich. My country? This is my country. Yugoslavia 
is not my country. 

The Chairman. I am glad to hear you speak that way. 

Senator Revercomb. I am, too — but I say Yugoslavia has been taken 
over by Communist influences. Is that not correct? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I can tell 3'ou — what is your name? 

Senator Revercomb. Senator Revercomb, of West Virginia. 

Mr. Wuchinich. Senator Revercomb, I volunteered into OSS in 
1911 before Pearl Harbor. General Donovan was then a colonel. 
Capt. Jimmie Roosevelt was there and I volunteered to find out what 
was happening in Yugoslavia, and I went there under orders from 
General Donovan. I parachuted in November 1918. I served 8 
months behind enemy lines and penetrated the Third Reich, and I 
was able to see at first hand what the Communists were doing and 
able to see at first hand what the Chetnicks were doing, and so on. 

1 can tell you truthfully that the people of Yugoslavia today have 
a democratic government that they achieved out of great suffering. 
I can tell you that this bill here that we are considering now is pre- 
paring for America the kind of fascism against which I fought, and 
something which I actually saw in Yugoslavia, and something which 
I actually saw in North China. 

You gentlemen have not seen it. You do not know, you haven't 
smelled fascism. You haven't seen what that control can do. 



218 COXTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

When this law says that an American who engages in anything that 
will disrupt trade and commerce, it means that Slav coal miners and 
steel workers in Pittsburgh can't strike for better conditions or a 
pension. 

You say we can't do anything to undermine our institutions or 
establish Government policies. It means we can't go against the 
Truman doctrine or the Marshall plan. It means we can't protest 
the Marshall plan that gives $2,000,000,000 to Germany, our enemy, 
and the Slav people feel this very much. Three times they have 
suffered from that enemy; not only they, but we American people. 
We lost 300,000 lives, and over 1,000,000 if you count the wounded, 
dead, and missing. What are we going to do? Can't we criticize 
Mr. Truman or the bipartisan policies of America? Can't we stand 
up and say as an American, we have a right to our opinion? This 
law gags — this law tells you "If you don't agree with me, the Attorney 
General will decide what to do with you." 

This law labels you for what? A Communist. And that word is 
ver}', very familiar. 

"When I went to war for our country, and volunteered, I didn't ask 
the question of communism. I asked mainly, who was attacking 
America, and who was attacking America but the Fascists? 

What did they use in their country? They used this same fish, this 
red herring - . They built this whole business up on anticominunism, 
and that is the whole purpose of your bill, a world conspiracy of com- 
munism. How similar those Avorcls are to what they used from 1923 
on. 

If you would only read the story of the Reich Government at that 
time and follow the laws and decrees ; every phrase, anti-Communist, 
anti-Communist, and the people of Germany, what happened to them ? 
Six million of them are dead. 

Where are the people of Germany today ? But, what is worse, where 
are the rest of the people in the world ? Suffering. 

Mr. Kahn spoke in terms of 50,000,000 people. Actually today there 
is civil war. There is killing on a mass scale in China, in rhe east, 
Indonesia. The net result is close to 100,000,000 people. 

If we go through with this, don't think for a moment you are not 
going to kill free thought in America. 

When I went to war, I wanted to come back to a country that had 
more democracy. I wish that you gentlemen were considering hous- 
ing, that you were considering lower prices, that you were consider- 
ing a broader social security instead of something to hem my mind in. 
Now, our organization has been for 1 year under attack in the local 
press, the Scripps-Howard, with this same fish, this same red herring. 
I returned a hero with the second highest decoration my Govern- 
ment could give me. I was 35 years old when I first volunteered. I 
couldn't pass an Army examination, but General Donovan said, "If 
you are brave enough to fight behind enemy lines even with false teeth 
and poor eyes, you go," and I trained to become a paratrooper, and I 
jumped. 

I am also very proud to wear this emblem, and the Wallace button, 
because I am for Wallace, too. 

I think, Senators, this is a very serious thing. I drove all night to 
be here, and, as I say, I consider it a great privilege because if this law 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 219 

passes, freedom in America is still going to continue, and furthermore, 
you will be amazed how many Communists you are going to make. 

The Chairman. Is your organization a Communist organization? 

Mr. Wuchinich. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Is it affiliated in any way ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. No, sir. 

The Chairman. A man who has had the experience that you have 
had certainly would not want to trade the way of life in Russia for 
what we have here, would you? 

Mr. Wttchnich. You mean my way of life for Russia's? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Wuchinich. No; I think America here, so far as I know of 
Russia, I prefer America because this is my country. I am only con- 
cerned with America. I think in your questioning here you are 
always bringing the witness somewhere into another land. Let us talk 
about what is happening here. Let us not talk about Russia. Russia 
was our ally. 

I can tell you this much, Mr. Senator. I was very happy in Yugo- 
slavia when the Second Ukrainian Army Corps came up through Aus- 
tria, and I saw them cleaning up the Nazis. I was very happy to see 
that armed might to save American lives. That was a terrific thing. 
For that, as an American, I feel a deep gratitude to the Soviet Union, 
a very deep gratitude, as I do to the Slav peoples from whom my 
people came. I am very grateful that their heritage which has brought 
them here, has become a part of America. 

I feel myself a better American now because America is a summation 
of all nationalities. But strangely enough, in the last 2 years since 
I have been discharged from the Army hospital, what has happened ? 
We have in Pittsburgh today people taken off the streets by the Bureau 
of Immigration, to a Federal building and questioned, people who are 
naturalized citizens. 

Even at my own home the Bureau of Immigration Inspector came 
because a newspaper said I was going to run for Congress. I had no 
such idea, and this Bureau of Immigration Inspector come to my resi- 
dence and asked my mother, "Is it true that your son is going to run 
for Congress?" She said, "I don't think so." Then they began to 
question her. Where was I born ? Where was my registration for my 
birth: was I baptized in a church? Where did I go to school? It is 
a simple matter of record. I am a product of the South Side of Pitts- 
burgh. But the fact that a Bureau of Immigration inspector came to 
my home made me wonder for what did I fight. That was the sad 
thing. 

Now, if that is happening without a Mundt bill, what is going to 
happen witli a Mundt bill ? I will have to take to the hills, and so will 
a lot of other Americans, because we are determined, myself as one of 
the Americans who believe in the Jeffersonian principles of democ- 
racy, of Tom Paine, and the origin of our great country — and I learned 
that history well in my life in many ways, because I fought for it, 
we are determined to keep it alive, and that is why I want to tell you 
gentlemen here that the Slavic Americans of western Pennsylvania, 
who are in the main steel workers and coal miners, 61 percent of 
them — there are 15,000,000 in America — they are for you a reservoir 



78257 — 48^—15 



220 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

of good will. I can speak Yugoslav, I can read and write it. I can 
also understand Russian. Why isn't there a friendly feeling between 
t!icse two great nations? We. as Americans, can help interpret our 
way of life to them and they to us. In fact, by having a first-hand 
knowledge of the language we build cooperation. 

Senator Revercomb. What is your reason, if you have one to give, 
for the lack of friendly feeling between Russia and the United States? 

Mr. Wuchinich. Well, there again we go into the whole morass 
which the committee has gone into over and over again. 

I say plainly this : The reason is that for some people it is prefer- 
able to have Avar, and to have war you must prepare a people psj^cho- 
logically with some kind of fear, you must build this fear on a mass 
basis, Mr. Chairman. When  

The Chairman. Who are those people who want war ? 
Mr. Wuchinich. Who are they ? I believe it is the people who con- 
trol our industries. 

Senator Revercomb. Do you really belive that anyone in this coun- 
try wants war and the sacrifice of life it brings? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I think Mr. Ben Fairless of the United States 
Steel wants it, yes. I think he wants it because today his corporation 
s making three times the profit that it made in 1039 and it had a very 
profitable war period. His corporation stands to benefit the most 
.i\ m the metals and the munitions that are to be made. 
Senator Revercomb. I do not know the man of whom you speak. 
Mr. Wuchinich. He is the president of United States Steel. 
Senator Revercomb. I understand, but that is a terrible charge to 
make against any American, that he wants w,ar in order to profit. 
The Chairman. Who could profit? I thought we were told here 
hat if another war came, there would be total destruction and there 
would be nothing left. 

Mr. Wuchinich. That is a moot question. I have so much faith in 

'e people that if the next war comes, the world will not be destroyed, 

the world will go on. But the thing is this : I don't believe you gen- 

I lomen have seen — or the people who control our economic life, because 

hey, in the real analysis are the enemies of the people — you have not 

een war. Maybe you have, I don't know. 

If yon have seen the past war, which has been a terrible thing, you 

II realize that we cannot afford to have another, in that sense, if 
n think of destruction. 

Senator Revercomb. How can any man want war? You say we can- 
't afford to have war. Of course w y e cannot. How can any man 

desire it? 

Mr. Wuchinich. For the same reason that, for example, the former 

Pr< mier of Poland comes over here and helps to incite feeling against 

he new Polish Government. He has lost his privileges, he has lost his 

tercets, for the benefiit of the people who had the land divided. 

For example, J know something of North China, where I spent a 

' of time, and I was captured the day my daughter was born. 

I traveled close to 1,800 miles in over 5 months in the North China 

area. 

When I tell you that the People's Democratic Government at that 
ime only controlled 1)0,000,000 people and today it controls close to 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 221 

180,000,000 people, you will shout "Communist infiltration," yet my 
job for (he OSS was to find out in North China if Russia was supply- 
ing the Communists of China with munitions. 

I went through that period up to the time when the Russians fought 
the Kwantung Army of Manchuria at the time the atomic bomb fell, 
and I failed to find any evidence of Russia's supplying them. 

If you have ever seen people live right next to turf, eat dirt, sleep on 
dirt, people living in feudalism, you will understand why they want 
something better than what they have had for centuries. You will 
also understand why those landlords shout "communism," because they 
see their huge land holdings divided into peasant shares, and these 
people are following what we call Communist leadership. It is true 
they are Communists up there, but they are all the decent-thinking 
people who have banded together to give their people something that 
will at least assure them of a future. 

I agree with Mr. Kahn when he says about his three sons, and I say 
myself as the father of two daughters and a boy, this is my country, 
this is where I am going to live, and where I am going to fight, and 
where I am going to die for the principles of American democracy. 
What I will resist to the utmost is any restriction of those principles. 
I may make that statement fully as an American. 

Senator Revercomb. You have made a statement here in which I 
am interested. 

I let you proceed because I did not care to interrupt you at that point. 

With respect to the Government and the conditions in Yugoslavia 
today, as I recall your statement, you said that Yugoslavia had a good 
democratic government under which the people live. 

Mr. Wuchinich. That is right. 

Senator Revercomb. Can any Yugoslav national, that is, a Yugoslav 
national, live in that country without fear of having his rights taken 
away from him, without fear of prosecution? 

Mr. Wuchinich. Do you mean at the present time ? 

Senator Revercomb. Yes. 

Mr. Wuchinich. I am sure he can live that way. 

Senator Revercomb. In other words, anyone who claims he is a 
refugee from Yugoslavia cannot truthfully say he cannot return to 
that land because of fear to his person, fear of personal injury? 

Mr. Wuchinich. If he has committed a crime against the people. 
If he has committed a crime against the people during the occupation, 
he will be tried at the scene of his crime, and by the people of that 
village or that town. 

You must understand this, Senator Revercomb. When I was in 
Yugoslavia, I fought with the partisans, a voluntary army. A volun- 
tary army is a most difficult army to figrht with. There are no bases, 
there are no canteens, there are no PX's, no movies. Every guv is 
a volunteer. The fighting is done at night, and you sleep in the day- 
time. You have enemies garrisoned in all towns along the rail lines. 
You have your own collaborators, who have gone over to the enemy. 
When people joined up to fight in that army, they did not join up 
under anv compulsion. They went through almost 5 years of suf- 
fering. Through their suffering they got political understanding, 
which is different from ours, because America, thank God, has not 



222 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

been invaded, not a bomb has dropped here. We do not comprehend 
the suffering of these eastern European people. We do not com- 
prehend the suffering of the Chinese people, and we would be very 
foolish to assume that their ideas would be similar to ours, because 
their experiences are different. 

Look at us in 1776, the Committees of Correspondence, Adams, Han- 
cock and the rest of them ; what did they do ? They had Acts of Pro- 
scription from King George III, Lord Pitt, Lord Chatham, but we 
fought for 8 years and we established something new in the world, 
a democracy, did we not ? And at a time when the rest of the world 
was a monarchy, monarchical all over, and we had a new idea. 

What are you going to do here, gentlemen? Are you going to 
reduce us to Committees of Correspondence ? Are you going to reduce 
us to Minute Men, or in the end are you going to make an Attorney 
General the arbiter over everything we say, think or hear, just by 
tagging a label of communism on us ? 

Senator Revercomb. You have made a statement of great interest 
to me awhile ago. If, you say, this bill were passed — and I am asking 
you this in earnest — that, for example, you could not criticize the 
Marshall plan. 

Mr. Wuchinich. That is right. 

Senator Revercomb. You know, that is of interest to me because 
I have been one of the critics of the Marshall plan in the United States 
Senate. 

Will you point out in this bill just where there is anything, in your 
opinion, that would prevent any citizen from criticizing the Marshall 
plan ? 

The Chairman. He means so he cannot keep on criticizing. 

Mr. Wuchinich. You know, Senator Wiley, it is nothing to laugh 
about. 

Senator Revercomb. Point it out in here. 

Mr. Wuchinich. Because what is of interest to me is that you two 
gentlemen don't realize the danger you are under. The Mundt bill 
is going to hit you guys too. It is going to hit you. too, and do not 
think for a moment it isn't ; you are going to jail with me. 

Today we are criticizing the Marshall plan, but the Marshall plan 
was passed by both Houses and it was signed by the President and 
according to this it is an established institution, the Marshall plan. 
It is an established institution by law, and the Supreme Court will 
decide, too, and if we criticize that 

Senator Revercomb. You point out in this law where any criticism 
of the Marshall plan will endanger your liberties. 

Have you studied the bill ? 

Mr. Wuchinich. I have some of the excerpts from the bill. 

Senator Revercomb. Point out anywhere in the bill, because I am 
interested with you as a citizen of this country, where any criticism 
of the Marshall plan or any other law will endanger your liberties? 

The Chairman. Just a minute. 

First, according to Mr. Foster, the president of the Communist 
Party, if the Communists get in power they are not only going to 
liquidate Republicans and the lawyers, you understand that, but it* we 
pass this bill we are going to liquidate ourselves. We certainly find 
ourselves in a terrible fix. We need some help. Give us some help. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 223 

Mr. Wrcmxicii. You make a very good statement, because that is 
what the Reichstag did in VXV.\ in Germany, it liquidated itself and 
gave itself over to Hitler. That is what you gentlemen are doing. 
There is nothing in this law that will stop the Attorney General from 
putting you in jail, or any Congressman in jail, because it specifically 
mentions the FBI and the Attorney General. You are asking where 
does it mention the Marshall plan? It does mention the Marshall 
plan. 

Senator Revercomb. I am asking j^ou to point out some part of 
tli is bill that will prevent you or me or any other citizen from criti- 
cizing any law of the country. 

Mr. Wuchixich (reading) : 

The dissemination of propaganda calculated to undermine established gov- 
ernment and institutions. 

Senator Revercomb. From what are you reading? . 

Mr. AVttchixich. From the little pamphlet. 

Senator Revercomb. You are not reading from the law ? 

Mr. Wuchintch. I am reading quotes from the law. 

Senator Revercomb. You did not read any quotes from the law. 

Mr. Wuchixich. You win the point, but I am telling you it is in 
there, and you know it as well as I do. 

Senator Revercomb. No, I do not know that as well as you do. That 
is what I want you to find out. 

Mr. Wuchixich. I want to thank you for letting me appear here 
and I do want to tell you that you are risking the safety of all Amer- 
icans, but do not think that the American people, if this bill goes 
through, are going to take it lying down because Americans have a 
right to their opinions and Americans have always stood on their 
feet for the best principles of our country and of the people as a whole. 

The Chairman. We thank you very much for your statement, and 
you can go back home with the assurance that the Judiciary Com- 
mittee and the Senate itself, whatever action it takes, is not going to 
take any action that is going to deprive any American citizen of his 
constitutional rights. This is a group of hard-working men, working 
80 hours a week, you can understand, and we are grateful to you for the 
contribution you made. 

Senator Revercomb. Just one moment. I want to ask the witness 
this question. 

Will you give me the name of the pamphlet from which you read a 
few moments ago ? 

Mr. Wuchixich. Sure. I picked this up — this is from the Civil 
Rights Congress. It was at a Negro church meeting. 

Senator Revercomb. By whom was it issued? 

Mr. Caddex. It happens it is my organization that issued it. 

Senator Revercomb. I want to ask the witness who has been testi- 
fying. 

" You have handed me a pamphlet here which is entitled "Your 
Freedom in Danger" and on the front of it is H. R. 5852 with other 
data, and on the back is "Civil Rights Congress, 205 East Forty-second 
Street. New York 17, N. Y." with other printing on the back. 

Now I ask the witness if this is the pamphlet from which you read 
a few moments ago? 



224 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Wuchinich. That is right. 

Senator Revercomb. Where did you obtain the pamphlet? 

Mr. Wuchinich. Last night I attended a meeting at the Wesley 
Baptist A. M. E. Zion Church at 2710 Center Avenue, Pittsburgh, a 
Negro church, to which Negroes and whites were invited to hear Mrs. 
Amy Hunt, whose daughter and son are in danger in Georgia. They 
passed this thing out at this meeting. My secretary was there and 
gave me a telegram from your committee to come here, so I had no 
time to go down to the office to pick up our briefs. I said, '"Let us get 
as many notes as we can," and for that reason I brought this to refresh 
my memory on some of the more or less vital points in the bill, and 
for no other reason. 

Senator Revercomb. I ask that this be made a part of the record 
at this point. 

The Chairman. It is so ordered. 

(The pamphlet referred to is as follows :) 

Your Freedom in Danger 

read this — judge for yourself 

The Mundt bill, H. R. 5852, sponsored by the Un-American Committee, is an 
attempt to rob you of your freedom. 

This bill is a fraud. It is called Subversive Activities Control Act. It pre- 
tends to be aimed at enemies of the American people. 

It is, in fact, an attempt to undermine the Bill of Rights and rob you of your 
right to disagree with Government policies, your right to advocate social welfare 
legislation or any other reforms — economic or political. 

It is, in fact, an attempt to silence everyone who advocates peace, fights for 
civil rights, works for a new party, strikes for higher wages, opposes lynching 
and the poll tax. 

It is, in fact, an attempt to silence you — an attempt to control your ideas — an 
attempt to force you to conform. 

This is the Hitler technique. 

It is Un-American. 

It is unconstitutional. 

The Mundt bill would outlaw "the disruption of trade and commerce." This 
means it would prevent strikes for higher wages and better conditions. 

The Mundt bill would outlaw "the inciting of economic, social, and racial strife 
and conflict." This means it would prevent action to lower prices, to control 
rents, to wipe out Jim Crow and anti-Semitism. 

The Mundt bill would outlaw "the dissemination of propaganda calculated to 
undermine established government and institutions." This means it would 
prevent writing or speaking against such "institutions" as the poll tax, discrimi- 
nation and segregation. 

The Mundt bill would outlaw any "Communist political organization." It 
provides for registration of members, prohibits Government employment and 
passports to these members, and threatens them with loss of citizenship. This 
means it would destroy any organization engaging in political action which the 
Attorney General disapproves. 

The Mundt bill would give the Attorney General power to determine which 
"Communist-front organizations" should register, keep their membership lists 
open for inspection, mark their literature "published by a Communist-front 
organization." This means it would destroy your freedom to associate with 
others and work with them for any reform the Attorney General doesn't approve. 

This will not happen here. 

Fight for your freedom. 

Write your Congressman, demanding that he speak, vote and fight against the 
Mundt bill. Warn your friends— have them write too! Warn your organiza- 
tion — offer resolutions to be forwarded to your Congressmen. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 



225 



These distinguished Americans have addressed an "Open letter to Congress", 
demanding defeat of the Mundt bill: 



Louis Adamic 

Rabbi Michael Alper 

Charlotta A. Bass 

Elmer A. Benson 

Leonard Bernstein 

Marc Blitzstein 

Peter Blume 

Prof. I \ ni.'ui R. Bradley 

Prof. Sophinisba Breckinridge 

Rev. Charles T. Brewster 

Pint. Dorothy Brewster 

Hugh Bryson 

Rev. Arthur B. Carlson 

Rev. Elbert 31. Conover 

Dr. Jerome E. Cook 

Dean John Warren Day 

Frank Marshall Davis 

Olin Downes 

Dr. W. E. B. DuBois 

Arnaud LVUsseau 

Prof. Henry Pratt Fairchild 

Howard Fast 

E. Franklin Frazier 

Dashiell llaininett 

Minna Harkavy 

William Harrison 

Dr. Alice Hamilton 

Rev. Charles A. Hill 

Donald Henderson 

Charles H. Houston 



< !arol Janeway 

.John Howard Lawson 

Kay Lev 

I >r. \\ ilfred II. Manwaring 

George Marshall 

Samuel 1 >. Menib 

Arthur Miller 

Judge Stanley Moffatt 

Grant Oakes 

Max Perlow 

Dr. Charles A. Petioni 

Lee Pressman 

Ad Bernhardt 

Paul Robeson 

Earl Robinson 

Harold J. Rome 

Dr. Annette T. Rubinstein 

Rev. Paul M. Schroeder 

Joseph P. Selly 

Dean Lailo Skinner 

Agnes Smedley 

Judge Edward P. Totten 

Dr. Harry F. Ward 

Theodore Ward 

Prof. Colston E. Warne 

Margaret Webster 

Prof. Gene Weltfish 

Prof. Rolland E. Wolfe 

Archie Wright 

(Partial list) 



Defend the Bill of Rights — join Civil Rights Congress. 

The Chairman. The Civil Rights Congress. 

What is your name ? 

Mr. Cadden. Joseph Cadden, executive director, Civil Rights Con- 
gress. 

The Chairman. What is your address ? 

Air. Cadden. 59 East Seventy-third Street, New York City. 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Cadden. I do. 



STATEMENT OF JOSEPH CADDEN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, CIVIL 

RIGHTS CONGRESS 

Mr. Cadden. In order to clear up this question that was brought up, 
the leaflet which was referred to by Senator Revercomb was a leaflet 
printed at the time of the bills introduction in the House of 
Representatives. 

Certain parts of the bill were deleted by the House of Representa- 
tives, and it was to those sections that the last witness referred. 

I just want to make that clear, because there was some question of the 
quotation of the last witness from the bill. 

The Chairman. Something has been just handed me here, a report 
on the Civil Rights Congress. Are you a Communist organization ? 

Mr. Cadden. We are not a Communist organization. 

The Chairman. Are you a Communist-front organization? 



226 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Cadden. We are not. 

The Chairman. There is a conclusion contained in this report. 

From the facts cited above, it should be clear that the Civil Rights Congress is 
an organization dedicated not to the broad issues of civil liberties, but specifically 
to the defense of individual Communists and the Communist Party, that the 
organization is controlled by individuals who are either members of the Com- 
munist Party or openly loyal to it. In carrying out its defense aims, the organiza- 
tion has at the same time engaged in a campaign of vilification against the 
American Party. 

Is that conclusion correct? 

Mr. Cadden. That is an entirely incorrect conclusion. 

The Chairman. In what particular? I will let you look at the 
conclusion. 

Mr. Cadden. Well, the Civil Eights Congress is an organization 
dedicated to the defense of civil rights. It is specifically designed 
and dedicated to the defense of all Americans whose civil rights are 
abrogated, including Communists, because we believe, and that is the 
reason I am here today to talk about this and to present you with a 
statement of policy 

The Chairman. Do you want to deny the rest of the statement? 

Mr. Cadden. Yes ; I will come to that. 

The statement of policy which we have drawn up on this bill, and 
the analysis which our legal committee has made, indicates that we 
believe that Communists have their rights, too, and it is for that 
reason that as a civil-rights organization, we do defend the rights of 
Communists, just as we defended the rights of Republicans and Demo- 
crats and anyone else. 

These are statements which I would like to give you for the record. 
1 do not think that we need burden you for the moment with reading 
the full statements. 

Senator Revercomb. Before you proceed, Mr. Chairman, along the 
lines that you have indicated and interrogated the witness — you have 
Communist members in your organization ? 

Mr. Cadden. We have Communist members in our organization. 
We have members of all descriptions and types of political beliefs. 

We do not ask anybody what their party is, and when they join the 
organization we do not ask them w T hat their religion is or what their 
color is. Everybody is free to 

Senator Revercomb. Are you a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Cadden. I am not a member. This question, by the way, is not 
a question which has anything to do with the bill or the subject at 
hand, and I think that Members of the Senate should respect the right 
of people to have political opinions without asking their political 
opinions. 

Senator Revercomb. I did not think that anyone should be ashamed 
of his political opinions. 

Mr. Cadden. I do not think so either, but I think in an organization 
of our kind 

Senator Revercomb. If he is ashamed, he will not want to tell it. 
I think it is very pertinent to ask anybody their political affiliation, 
when testifying on a question such as is involved in this bill. 

Mr. Cadden. I would like to make it clear, however, that we are 
an entirely nonpartisan organization, and we do not discriminate 
against Republicans or Democrats of Communists or anyone else, and 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 227 

therefore we do not ask in defense of civil rights, what a man's 
political belief is. We think i hat everyone has a right to his political 

belief. We think that the hill before you would deny that right, and 
therefore we are opposed to the hill. 

We think, for example, that it would deny a man the right to be a 
Communist or to he a Socialist or to advocate, as it says, any form of 
Marxism, and that is an abrogation of rights that American citizens 
have under the Bill of Eights. 

Senator Revercomb. Do you think that anyone belonging to a party 
which advocates the overthrow of the Government of this country by 
force ha.- a right to be protected in his efforts to do so '. 

Mr. Gadden. I think that anyone has the right to advocate any- 
thing, that the question of force is a question of action, and that any- 
one who acts by force is subject to 27 laws of our country that can be 
used to keep people from doing things by force which are illegal. 

However, I think that the advocacy of anything, under our Bill of 
Eights, is proper, and that any man should be allowed to say and 
to believe what he thinks, no matter whether that happens to me— 
whether 3'ou agree with it or whether I agree with it. 

Senator Eevercomb. In other words, what you yourself condone is 
the right of any person in this country to advocate the overthrow of 
this Government by force ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Caddex. Well. I have no such case before me. I think 

Senator Eevercomb. You can answer the question. Do you con- 
done that person's position ? 

Mr. Caddex. It is very difficult to answer a theoretical question. 
I would say that I would advocate — I would defend in my organiza- 
tion, and my organization would defend the right of anyone to say, 
to speak freely on any subject, to advocate anything he wanted to 
advocate. 

The Chairmax. Under any circumstances? 

Senator Eevercomb. Even to the extent of the overthrow of the 
Government by force? Do you defend that right? 

Mr. Caddex. We have not defended that, no ; because that has never 
been in issue. I don't know of anybody who advocates such a thing 
or that has come to us for assistance as having had their civil rights 
abrogated because of that situation, but I think it is very clear. 

Senator Eevercomb. You know that it has been held by the Attorney 
General, long before the present Attorney General who now occupies 
that office, that the Communist Party advocates the overthrow of 
the Government of the United States by force. 

That has been brought to vour attention, has it not ? 

Mr. Caddex. On the contrary, reading the testimony of the Attorney 
General, before the Un-American Activities Committee on this bill, 
the Attorney General said specifically that he was not able to prove 
that the Communist Party advocated such a thing. 

Senator Eevercomb. I am not talking about the testimony of the 
Attorney General, Mr. Tom Clark. I am talking about the opinion 
rendered by Mr. Biddle, when he was Attorney General of the United 
States, that the Communist Party was an organization that advocated 
the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force. Do 
you know of that opinion ? 

Mr. Caddex. I am not familiar with that opinion. 

Senator Eevercomb. You never heard of that opinion? 



228 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Cadden. No, sir. 

Senator Revercomb. Let me ask you this : If the Commimisty Party 
in fact, not assuming, but in fact, it was shown, did advocate the 
overthrow of the Government of the United States by force, would 
you defend their rights to advocate that? 

Mr. Cadden. I don't know, until such a thing happens. 

Senator Revercomb. You do not know ? 

Mr. Cadden. No. 

Senator Revecomb. That does not disturb you at all, sir? 

Mr. Cadden. It is not a practical problem at the present time. 

I do know that the present Attorney General, Mr. Tom Clark, went 
before the Un-American Activities Committee and at that time, testify- 
ing on this bill, said that it was impossible to prove any such state- 
ment in connection with the Communisty Party of the United States. 

The Chairman. You say the Communist Party of the United States. 
Do you differentiate between the two? 

Mr. Cadden. No ; that is what he said. 

The Chairman. Apropos of what was said by my associate here, 
Justice Stone, in the so-called Schneiderman case, that has been quoted 
time and time again said : 

As I have said, it is not questioned that the ultimate aim of the Communist 
Party in 1927 and the years preceding was the triumph of a dictatorship of the 
proletariat and consequent overthrow of capitalistic or bourgeois government 
and society. Attachment to such dictatorship can hardly be thought to indicate 
attachment to the principles of an instrument of Government which forbids 
dictatorship and precludes the rule of the minority of the suppression of minority 
rights by dictatorial government, but the Government points especially to the 
methods by which that end was to be achieved, to show that those who pursue 
or advocate such method exhibit their want of attachment to the principles of 
the Constitution. 

That is right from Justice Stone on that very subject. I am very 
much interested — and I presume you draw the same com lusion as 
others have drawn here, that there is no menace coming from this 
source? 

Mr. Cadden. Well, I am concerned with this bill because I think 
there is a menace in these terms. Senator, and that is the reason I am 
here. 

The* Chairman. Do you want to answer my question? 

Mr. Cadden. I think 

Senator Revercomb. Answer the question. 

Mr. Cadden. I came here because of the concern I have, and I am 
sure you are aware of it, that a good many people are called Com- 
munists and that the President of the United States, Franklin Roose- 
velt, was called a Communist, and that many people in your own party 
have been called Communists, as well as in the Democratic Party, by 
their political opponents. 

Now it would seem that this bill is an attempt to give the Attorney 
General power to curtail the activities and the rights of those people 
and organizations with whom he disagrees, and therefore calls Com- 
munists, and it is this that concerns me most — the bill particularly, I 
think in section 4, which talks about the performance, or attempt to 
perforin any act with intent to facilitate or aid in bringing about the 
establishment in the United Slates of such a totalitarian dictatorship. 
No one could question that if we could take that at face value, but 
who is going to interpret what is "perform*' or "attempt to perform 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 229 

any act with intent to facilitate or aid?" Why, the publication of a 
pamphlet, the making of a speech, the writing of a radio script could 
be interpreted by an Attorney General as an "attempt to perform an 
act" and certainly the Attorney General has the power, in this act, if 
it were passed, to clamp down, not only on Communists, but to clamp 
down on Republicans, if he happens to be a Democratic Attorney 
General, or if he is a Republican Attorney General, to clamp down on 
Democrats, with whom he disagrees, and whom he happens to call 
Communists. 

That is as simple as it is, and that is our main concern with this piece 
of legislation, that it does not mean what it says and it gives powers 
to the Attorney General which are very far reaching and which are 
the same kind of powers that the last witness said were used in other 
countries by Nazis and Fascists to take power and to gain power. 

The Chairman. That is the main objection, is it? 

Mr. Cadden. That is the main objection. 

The Chairman. Is that all you have to say on the subject? 

Mr. Cadden. Yes ; in addition to the statements which I hope you will 
include in the record. 

The Chairman. Following your testimony, these will be included 
in the printed record. 

(The statements referred to are as follows :) 

Statement on the Mundt Bill, by Joseph Cadden, Executive Director, Civil 

Rights Congress 

During World War II some of us served in the armed forces, some in civilian 
capacities. All of us fought fascism because we recognized it as a barbaric way 
of life. It represented slavery — both physical and mental slavery. 

The Civil Rights Congress is a national organization dedicated to the con- 
tinuance of the fight against this slavery and for the freedom described in our 
Bill of Rights. We therefore come before you to oppose the passage of H. R. 
5852 which would destroy our Bill of Rights. 

The Mundt bill is identical to the laws perpetrated by Hitler, Mussolini, and 
Hirohito which enslaved their peoples and led to World War II. If it were 
to be passed, the Senate of the United States would soon become a rubber-stamp, 
Hitler Reichstag, for this infamous proposal would virtually wipe out the possi- 
bility of opposition to any administration policy. 

The Mundt bill pretends to be aimed at Communists. But, inn fact, the general 
and vague language of this measure encompasses any organization causing the 
displeasure of an Attorney General. It is entirely possible, if this bill were law, 
for a Republican Attorney General to identify the Democratic Party — or for a 
Democratic Attorney General to identify the Republican Party — as a "Communist- 
political organization" and force that party to submit to the provisions of H. R. 
5852. For it is the Attorney General who shall determine which organizations 
are "Communist-political organizations" and which are "Communist-front organ- 
izations." The Attorney General will "have reason to believe that such organiza- 
tion is a Communist-political organization of a Communist-front organization" 
and will "conduct a full and complete investigation" with powers to subpena 
witnesses, etc. The Attorney General will have power to "establish facts" he 
desires to establish and overlook facts which are distasteful. Then "the findings 
of the Attorney General as to the facts, if supported by substantial evidence, shall 
be conclusive" in the courts. Whether or not the evidence is "substantial" will 
also be determined by that same man, the Attorney General. 

The Mundt bill would give one man power to determine the policies of the 
labor movement. If a union advocated changes in working conditions disagree- 
able to the Attorney General he could cry "Communist," as employers often do, 
and the union would be subject to the provisions of this bill. If an organization 
campaigned for the rights of the Negro people, for elimination of segregation in 
the armed forces, for abolition of the poll tax, the Attorney General could cry 
"Communist" on the ground that the organization sought to eliminate such "estab- 
lished institutions" as the poll tax and segregation. If an organization advocated 



230 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

peace through cooperation with the Soviet Union, the Attorney General could 
cry "Communist." 

Gentlemen, this is dictatorship over the organizations of the American people. 
This is one-man rule of our trade-unions, church bodies, fraternal groups, social 
clubs, and all other organizations which take a position on social, economic, or 
political issues. This is thought control — in a word, it is fascisim. 

The American people will not submit to fascism. It is the American tradition 
that a man has as much right to be a Communist as to be a Democrat or a Re- 
publican ; that a man has a right to work for any social or administrative reform 
he believes in without regard to the opinion of the Attorney General. It is the 
American tradition that a man can organize or join a group of his own choosing 
wbatever its name ; that this group can advocate any philosophy it desires by 
speech, publication, or any other method of disseminating ideas. 

Because of this America is known as the land of the free. This freedom is 
indivisible. You cannot take it from one group of Americans without robbing all 
Americans. You cannot discriminate against a Communist or a man called "Com- 
munist" by an Attorney General without imperiling the rights of all. 

Civil Rights Congress, with members and affiliates throughout our land in all 
walks of life and of all political persuaders, calls on you to bury this infamous 
proposal, the Mundt bill, in a deep grave marked clearly "disgrace to the United 
States Constitution." 



Description and Analysis of the Mundt Police State Bill (H. R. 5S52) 

For 10 years the House Committee on Un-American Activities has been maraud- 
ing upon the liberties of the American people. In its early years it was the 
most open and active enemy of the progressive policies of Franklin D. Roosevelt 
and the New Deal. During the last war it was the American body most often 
quoted by the Axis monitors. It has called itself the grand jury of America, ruth- 
lessly vilifying and stigmatizing every idea of social, economic, and political 
change as subversive and disloyal, and intimidating and threatening every per- 
son who espoused such ideas. 

This is the committee responsible for the bill known as the Subversive Activi- 
ties Control Act of 1948. 

What is the significance of this proposed measure? Every American, of what- 
ever race, creed, or political persuasion, should ask himself this question — the 
most serious question to confront the Nation since the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion in 17S9. 

The Mundt bill sweeps away the Bill of Rights and substitutes the police state. 
It is not sufficient to call this proposed law unconstitutional. It is more than 
that. The bill, if passed, will replace our democratic institutions with a state 
where freedom to think or to speak or even to worship freely will be forever 
lost. 

If this measure becomes law, constitutional democracy will disappear. In- 
stead, a horde of FBI men will be prying into your homes, your meeting places, 
your organizations, in order to determine whether you are a member of a Com- 
munist political organization or a Communist front organization. And the lan- 
guage of the bill is so broad, so vast in purpose, that it encompasses everybody 
who has any desire to better himself or his family in any manner and make this 
world a better place to live in. 

No organization will be safe. Today you may belong to an organization which 
supports partition in Palestine. Tomorrow, one official of Government may, 
under this bill, charge you and your organization with disloyalty and you are 
headed for jail. Today it may be those who favor socialism ; tomorrow it may 
be those who favor public ownership. Today it may be a Negro who belongs to 
an organization which fights for equal treatment for the Negro people. Tomor- 
row it may be the worker on the picket line. This bill, if it becomes law, can 
make every idea of progress disloyal. And, make no mistake about it, if the bill 
doesn't hit you today, it will be used against you tomorrow. This bill will bring 
the law of Buchenwald to America. 

Here is an example : The bill provides that if any provision of the act is vio- 
lated, both naturalized citizens and native-born citizens can lose their citizen- 
ship. Now look at this law passed by the Nazis in 1933: 

Law regarding the revocation of naturalization and the deprivation of Ger- 
man citizenship (Reichsgesetzblatt, I, 4S0, July 14, 1933) : 

"Section I. Naturalization made in the period from November 9, 191S, to 
January 30, 1933, may be revoked if the naturalization is deemed undesirable. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 231 

"Sec. II. Citizens of the Reich sojourning abroad may be declared to have for- 
feited the German citizenship if they have injured the German interests by con- 
duet violating their duty to Loyalty against the Reich and the people." 

An ordinance to effectuate this measure was passed 2 weeks later (Reichs- 
gesetzblatt, I. 538, July 20, 1933). It provided: 

"Conduct violating the duty to loyalty against the Reich and people will be 
found particularly if a German assists in the hostile propaganda against Ger- 
many or if he has tried to insult the prestige or the measures of the National 
Government." 

Compare these Nazi laws with the provisions of the Mundt bill. You won't 
find a single essential difference. Fascists think alike the whole world over. 

Of course, this bill is intended to outlaw the Communist Party. It gives that 
power to one man, the Attorney General, without any limits on the exercise of 
that power. All he has to do is "find" that the organization is a "Communist 
political organization" under the vague standards of the bill, and at a subsequent 
criminal trial that "finding" will bind the jury and the court, according to this 
law. Americans will be imprisoned because one official of Government says so. 

But this isn't a bill for one group of persons only. It covers all decent, pro- 
gressive Americans. Because the Attorney General will be empowered to do the 
same thing with respect to "Communist-front organizations." 

Now look at the Nazi pattern. On May 26, 1933 (Reichsgesetzblatt, I, 293), the 
following law was passed : 

"Section 1 : 1. The supreme authorities of the State or the authorities desig- 
nated by them may confiscate in favor of the State, the property and rights of 
the Communist Party of Germany and its auxiliary and substitute organizations, 
as well as the property and rights used or destined for the advancement of Com- 
munist endeavors.'' 

And weeks later, the Nazis passed another law (Reichsgesetzblatt, I, 479, 
July 14, 1933) : 

"The provisions of the law regarding the confiscation of Communist property 
of May 26, 1933 (RGBL, I, 293) are applicable to property and rights of the 
Social Democratic Party and its auxiliary and substitute organizations, as well 
as to property and rights used or destined for the advancement of Marxist or 
other endeavors found by the Reich Minister of the Interior to be hostile to the 
people and State." 

Look at the Mundt bill. It's all in there. The Nazis made no distinction 
between the Communists, Social Democrats, or any other progressive. The 
Reich Minister of the Interior treated them all alike — because they were all 
common enemies of the Fascists, no matter how much they differed on issues of 
the day. 

Take the employment of progressives in government. This bill would make 
it impossible for anybody but a reactionary civil-service employee to enforce 
such laws as social security, rent control, housing, labor acts, etc. Is this an 
different from the Hitler technique? It is not. 

On April 7, 1933, the following law was passed (Reichsgesetzblatt, I, 175, April 
7, 1933) : 

"Section I. Civil servants who have been members of the Communist Party 
or Communist auxiliary and substitute organizations, or who have otherwise 
been active along Communist lines, are to be discharged from civil service. 

"2. Civil servants who will hereafter be active along Marxist (Communist or 
Social Democratic) lines are likewise to be discharged. 

"Sec. 4-1. Civil servants who by their previous political conduct do not afford 
assurance that they will at all times identify themselves without reserve with 
the national state, may be discharged from the service. 

"Sec 15. The provisions regarding civil servants are equally applicable to 
employees and workers." 

And here is another important thing to rememher. If once we consent to the 
end of constitutional government — if once we establish the law of the Nazis — 
then it inevitably follows that repression becomes greater and greater, because 
in reality it is no longer limited by law, and the inevitable end is the concentration 
camp and the grave. 

These are not mere words. They are realitv. Two years after his acces- 
sion to power Hitler enacted the following law (Reichsgesetzblatt, I, 1146, Sep- 
tember 1."), 1935 ) : 

'Sec. II. A citizen of the Reich is only a citizen of German or kindred blood 
who proves by his conduct that he is willing and able to serve loyally the Ger- 
man people and the Reich." 



232 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

"3. A citizen of the Reich is exclusively vested with full political rights iu 
accordance with the laws." 

The Mundt bill takes away the citizenship of naturalized citizens and native- 
born citizens whenever the Attorney General deems them disloyal, but if such 
power is vested in this law, if such a precedent is set, then the next law will 
soon determine, as they did in Germany, that only persons of a certain race or a 
cartain creed can remain citizens. 

The Mundt bill virtually makes the courts the rubber stamp for every decree 
of the Attorney General. Is this any different from the practices of the Nazis? 
It is not. On June 28, 1935, the penal code of Germany was amended (Reichs- 
gesetzblatt, I, 839, June 28, 1935) to read as follows : 

"Sec. II. A person is punishable who commits an act which the law declares 
to be junishable, or which deserves punishment in accordance with the funda- 
mental purpose of a penal law and sound popular feeling." 

"Sec. 267a. If it appears at the trial that the accused has committed an act 
which deserves punishment according to sound popular feeling, but which is 
not declared punishable by law, then the judge must examine whether the funda- 
mental purpose of a penal law covers the act, and whether the analogous appli- 
cation of such penal law is required in the interest of justice." 

And here is the final "legal" step when fascism replaces democracy. On De- 
cember 4, 1941, the following law was passed (Reichsgesetzblatt, I, 759) : 

"They (Poles or Jews) are punished with death, or in less serious cases 
with imprisonment if by invidious conduct or agitation they manifest a state 
of mind hostile to Germany * * * or if by their conduct they impair or 
injure the prestige or the welfare of the German people of the German Reich." 

No one who compares the contents of the Nazi measures of 1933 to 1941 and 
the Mundt bill can escape the conclusion that the similiarity of these measures 
are no accident. The Mundt bill is a cold, calculated attempt to legally install 
fascism into the United States. 

The bill starts off by reciting the alleged "necessity for legislation." Such 
findings as these have never appeared in any proposed law of the United States. 
It does not even appear in the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. It merely sets 
forth all the prejudices and lies which this committee has been spreading since 
its existence ; and, on the basis of these prejudices and lies, proposes to enact 
a law which would legalize the very suppression which it claims to oppose. 
This is the old Hitler method. The method of the big lie. 

What is a Communist political organization under this bill? The bill an- 
swers that it is "reasonable to conclude" that an organization is a Communist 
political organization under the control of a foreign government or of a world 
Communist movement if "its views and policies are the same as those of such for- 
eign government or foreign organization" or "the extent to which it supports or 
advocates the basic principles and tactics of communism as expounded by Marx or 
Lenin" or the "extent and nature of its activities, including the expression of 
views and policies" or the "extent to which it fails to desist or resist efforts to 
obtain information as to its membership. * * *" 

These are some of the ways in which it will be "reasonable to conclude" that 
the organization is a Communist political organization. Iu essence, this means 
that any organization which advocates and fights for racial equality, for partition 
in Palestine, for public housing, for public ownership of utilities, for social 
security, for all progressive things, will be stamped as Communist political or- 
ganizations, because this committee has time and time again stated and "found" 
that these ideas are socialistic and communistic and Marxist. An organization 
such as the Wallace third-party movement, or any organization which opposes 
the Marshall plan, compulsory military training, or the draft, faces the accusa- 
tion that its views and policies are the same as a foreign government. Labor 
unions which refuse to buckle under the Taft-Hartley law or which go on strike 
for better wages will be accused of advocating the basic principles and tactics of 
communism. The committee has done that in the past. It is obvious that it 
will do it in the future. 

The bill defines a Communist-front organization as any organization in 
America and the Canal Zone which it is "reasonable to conclude" is under the 
control of a Communist political organization as defined by the bill, or whose 
views and policies are in general adopted and advanced because such views or 
policies are those of a Communist political organization. How does one deter- 
mine whether an organization is under the control of a Communist political 
organization? The bill states that if persons are active in the management, 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 233 

direction or supervision of the organization, whether or not they hold offices 
therein, and happen to be Communists, that will be one evidence of control. 

Another test will depend on "tlio position taken or advanced by it from time 
to time on matters of policy." Thus, if any person in the organization is at all 
active and the committee or the Attorney General or the FBI calls him a 
Communist, the organization will be called a Communist-front organization; and 
if the organization's position on war or peace, on security or depression, on 
Negro rights, labor rights, Palestine, consumers' rights, in any way coincides 
with the position of a Commuuist political organization, as defined by this bill, 
then it will become a Communist-front organization. 

It is clear that every organization is covered by this bill. 

The next section of the proposed law provides that if any person or organization 
attempts "in any manner to establish in the United States a totalitarian dictator- 
ship,'' then such person or organization shall be subject to imprisonment for 10 
years ami a line of $10,000. For this alleged crime there is no statute of limita- 
tions. Since the proposed law provides that one is guilty of the crime if he 
attempts "in any manner" to commit the alleged offense, it follows that, whether 
you speak at a street comer, at a meeting hall, or write a leaflet, or a pamphlet, 
or a book, or make a speech on the radio — in short, no matter what form the 
expression of opinion takes — you face a 10-year sentence. 

And what does the creation of a "totalitarian distatorship" mean. It means, of 
course, what this committee or the Attorney General or a court or a jury may 
decide is encompassed by this vague language. This committee has not hesitated 
to call the proponents of public housing advocates of totalitarian dictatorship. 
It considers the millions of American men and women who are presently in the 
Wallace third-party movement as engaged in an attempt to establish a totalitarian 
dictatorship. 

The ideas of absolute racial equality it considers a philosophy which prevails in 
only certain foreign governments, and to advocate it here means, to the committee, 
to seek to establish a new form of society in America. This, too, to the com- 
mittee, is a totalitarian dictatorship. 

The bill further provides that if a naturalized citizen or a native-born citizen 
violates the provision of the law, as above stated, then they can be deprived of 
their citizenship. That naturalized citizens cannot be deprived of their citizen- 
ship without the clearest convincing proof that they are not attached to the 
principles of the Constitution was decided by the Supreme Court in the Schneider- 
man case. This bill sweeps the Schneiderman decision aside. But, more than 
that, it sweeps the Constitution aside, because it also provides by law that a 
native-born citizen can be deprived of his citizenship. The only way that a 
native-born citizen can lose his citizenship, under the Constitution, is by his own 
act of expatriation. There is no power in government under the Constitution to 
take a man's citizenship away. 

The bill makes it unlawful for any member of a Communist political organi- 
zation, as defined above, to seek any office or employment in the United States 
Government and makes it unlawuful for any officer or employee of the United 
States to appoint or employ such individual. 

It must be remembered that not only will this affect every progressive person 
who desires employment in the Government service, or who is presently em- 
ployed in Government service, but it means that every employee in private 
industry which is engaged on Government contracts will find himself con- 
fronted by the law. 

The activities of the Government under the loyalty order indicate already the 
broad scope of a measure such as this. 

The bill makes it unlawuful for any member of a Communist political organi- 
zation, as defined in the bill, to make application for a passport or for an officer 
of the Government to issue such a passport. Thus, the American people find 
themselves pinned into a concentration camp which encompasses the entire 
country. No progressive may visit any part of the world to learn the truth 
of what is going on there and report back to the people of America. We shall 
have to take the lies of the committee and its prejudices as the truthful version 
of the facts. 

The next section of the bill deals with registration of Communist political 
organization and Communist front organizations. In the case of the Communist 
political organizations, they will be required to submit a list of all members 
of the organization to. the Attorney General, and such list will be made public. 
All who have had experience with the Gestapo and the Black Shirts will know 
what a blacklist means. 



234 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Even in the case of Communist-front organizations, they will be required 
to keep available for inspection all names of members of their organization. 
Both types of organizations will have to account for all money they receive 
and for all money that they expend ; and those who contribute money to or- 
ganizations, no matter how charitable, educational, or social such organiza- 
tions may be, will receive no tax deductions. 

What does all this mean in reality? It means the end of all organizational 
life in America. The end of all associations of any kind for the purpose of 
advocating changes or for petitioning the Government for redress of grievances. 
It means the compilation of the largest blacklist in the history of the world. 
It means thought control and thought surveillance. It means that every idea 
of progress is going to be tagged subversive or disloyal so that people will be 
afraid to embrace that idea. 

Of course, the Supreme Court has said this cannot be done. Of course, the 
Constitution forbids it. Of course, our forefathers fought a revolution against 
a tyrannical government in order to get rid of measures such as these. But 
this proposed bill is not concerned with the Constitution or our historical tra- 
ditions. It is concerned with the institution of a new form of government 
into the United States, a police state government, and this law is merely the 
device for establishing such government. 

Another section of the proposed law provides that it is unlawful for an 
individual to become or remain a member of a Communist-political organization, 
knowing or having reasonable grounds for believing it to be such, it such 
organization is not registered. Thus, you have this situation : If a person 
is a member of an organization which he believes to be a lawful American 
organization, if the Attorney General decides that it is an unlawful organiza- 
tion and it does not register, then such person is guilty of a crime ; but if, as 
a matter of fact, such organization registers as a proscribed organization, then 
the same person may be accused of the crime of belonging to an organization 
which attempts "in any manner" to establish in the United States a "totalitarian 
dictatorship." This is virtually compelling a person to incriminate himself. 
Moreover, it punishes a man merely because of Ids association, and the Supreme 
Court has time and time again stated that guilt by association is unknown to 
our law. A man is responsible only for criminal acts committed by himself. 
Belonging to an organization is not a crime under the Constitution. It is under 
the Mundt bill. 

The bill further provides that all the above organizations can only use the 
mails if they place on every circular and every envelope the words "disseminated 

by , A Communist organization"; and they cannot use a radio unless 

they state, "the following program is sponsored by , a Communist organ- 
ization." Thus, every medium of communication is to be denied to progressive 
people. It is not too much to say that if this measure becomes law all that the 
American people can expect to hear or read is the Fascist filth of a Gerald K. 
Smith or a John E. Rankin. 

The next section of the proposed law is really the key of the statute. All 
this power to determine what is a Communist political organization and a 
Communist front organization is vested in one person, the Attorney General of 
the United States. 

It is not necessary to elucidate here about Tom Clark, the present incumbent 
in office. All progressive persons of every description know how he thinks. 
This man, or any successor in office, under the broad language of the statute, 
will have the power to subpena any person or organization, books, and records, 
and behind closed doors, without any rules of evidence, without any require- 
ment of cross-examination or confrontation of witnesses, without any presump- 
tions of innocence — this one man will be able to determine whether any organiza- 
tion or groups of persons is or is not a "loyal American." The function is the same 
as that which was given to the Reich Minister of the Interior by Hitler in 1933. 

The proposed law also provides that if an organization is not satisfied with 
the Attorney General's determination, it may obtain review in the courts. 
But the Attorney General's administrative findings will generally not be dis- 
turbed by any court, since the usual rule of law is that courts will not interfere 
with administrative findings nor give anyone a trial de novo. More than that, 
in any criminal trial, the Attorney General's finding that an organization is 
unlawful will generally bind the court and jury, and there will probably be no 
opportunity to even try any of the facts. A trial under such circumstances will 
not be a trial in the American sense of the word. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVIT1KS 235 

Organizations which fail to register are subject to fines up to $r>,000, and 
officers of such organizations arc subject to imprisonment of 5 years, as well 
as to lines up to $5,000. 

The Mundl bill represents a menace (<> all the people of the United Stales. 
It is not directed against any one group. It is directed against all groups who 
value freedom and who hate tyranny. If the bill becomes law we can be 
certain that it will be copied by many States and local legislatures. This will 
not only set loose lawlessness by government, but it will activizc all the 
vigilantes, storm troopers, and native Fascists who are already beginning to 
rear their heads. 

The Chairman. Is there anyone here from the Socialist Party \ 
(No response. ) 

The Chairman. I have here a statement of Rev. A. M. Van Dyke, 
of Hawthorne, N. J., which I shall place in the record at this point. 
( The statement referred to is as follows :) 

STATEMENT OF REV. A. M. VAN DYKE, OF HAWTHORNE, N. J., BEFORE THE HEARINGS OF 
THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ON THE MUNDT-NIXON BILL 

I, Rev. A. M. Van Dyke, of Hawthorne, N. J., am spokesman for a group of 
New Jersey citizens who have come to Washington to testify against the Mundt- 
Nixon bill. 

Citizens from every walk of life throughout the State, including clergymen, 
educators, and labor leaders have expressed their opposition to this legislation. 

This ground swell reflects the deep concern of the people of our State to legis- 
lative attempts to curb the democratic rights which all of us hold dear. The 
proposed legislation, while pretending to save America from totalitarianism, 
will in that very process impose a police state here. Among the statements made 
by various New Jersey citizens are the following : 

A TELEGRAM CALLING A PROTEST CONFERENCE AGAINST THE MUNDT-NIXON BILL 

"Threat to fundamental civil liberties of all Americans contained in Un- 
American Activities Committee's Mundt-Nixon bill makes imperative immediate 
protest action. State-wide conference called at Terrace Room, Stacy-Trent 
Hotel, Thursday night, S : 30 p. m., May 20. Please come." 

Dr. John A. Mackay, Princeton, N. J. ; Canon Robert D. Smith, Shrews- 
bury, N. J. ; Rev. A. M. Van Dyke, Hawthorne, N. J. ; Rev. Harry 
R. Pine, Trenton, N. J. ; Rev. Paul A. Friedrich, New Brunswick, 
N. J.; Prof. F. G. Fender, Highland Park, N. J.; Prof. Frank 
Graham. Princeton, N. J. ; Joseph Maniero, Trenton, N. J. ; Rabbi 
Ario S. Hyams, Asbury Park, N. J. ; Rev. Charles S. Lee, Camden, 
N. J. ; Prof. Walter Rautenstrauch, Palisades, N. J. ; Rev. Aleton 
H. Robinson, Princeton, N. J. ; Rev. William T. Hanzche, Tren- 
ton, N. J. 



PROTEST FROM MEMBERS OF FACULTY OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY AGAINST MUNDT- 

NIXON BILL 

Hon. Joseph W. Martin, Jr., 

Speaker of the House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Mr. Martin : In the past 10 years, the House Committee on Un-American 
Activities has given ample evidence of a disregard of the rights and liberties of 
American citizens. Individuals who are accused by the committee of engaging 
in subversive activities frequently have not been given opportunity to know the 
evidence against them and to offer testimony in support of their loyalty. The 
activities of individuals who have been seeking reforms in labor relations, race 
relations, and control of monopolistic business practices have been ruthlessly 
smeared as "un-American" by the committee. 

The most dangerous aspect of the committee's work has been its attempt to 
expand the concept of "un-Americanism" to include all persons and groups 
with which it does not agree. In the Condon case, the most recent instance in- 

78257—48 16 



236 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

volving the committee, the record indicated that the committee withheld informa- 
tion ahout Dr. Condon which contradicted the committee's charge that Dr. Condon 
was one of the weakest links in our atomic security. 

We object to the Mundt bill reported favorably to the House of Representa- 
tives by the committee. In outlawing attempts to set up a totalitarian dictator- 
ship in the United States under the control of a foreign power, the committee has 
made the definition of illegalized acts so broad as to endanger freedom of speech, 
press, and assembly. 

In promoting the Mundt bill "to protect the United States against un-American 
and subversive activities," the committee is continuing its campaign to stimulate 
a state of hysteria which threatens to inhibit the freedom of genuine democrats. 
The record of the committee in the past 10 years raises extremely serious doubts 
about the stated purpose of the Mundt bill to safeguard the American way of 
life. The American way of life owes much of its democratic character to its 
attachment to the basic freedoms enunciated in the Bill of Rights. Unfortu- 
nately the committee's record and the Mundt bill betray a lack of attachment to 
the basic democratic values embodied in the Bill of Rights. 

The undersigned members of the faculty of Princeton University urge the 
rejection of the Mundt bill by the Congress and the abolition of the House Com- 
mittee on Un-American Activities. 

J. E. Beard, Jr. ; M. H. Bernstein ; Jerome Blum ; H. C. Bredemeier ; 

W. B. Bristol; A. J. Coale ; G. A. Craig; R. B. Colman, Jr.; L. T. 

Crespi; P. A. Crowl ; C. C. Cumberland; C. H. Danhof; A. F. 

Downer; G. T. Dunklin; S. K Esty ; E. S. Furnace, Jr.; C. G. 

Gillespie ; F. D. Graham ; W. P. Hall ; P. K. Hatt ; B. F. Huppe ; 

J. A. Iselv; R. A. Letter; M. J. Levy, Jr.; W. W. Lockwood ; 

F. A. Lutz; T. E. Marburg; J. E. McLean; W. E. Morre; F. W. 

Notestein ; M. R. Palmer ; Mark Perlman ; S. S. Personn ; T. J. 

Pressley; B. J. Rosenthal; A. W. Sanetz: C. C. Smith; J. R. 

Strayer; J. T. Strayer; L. R. Thomson; Willard Thorp; M. M. 

Tumin ; Jacob Viner ; A. H. Warren, Jr. ; C. A. Weiglan ; J. T. 

Weidell ; J. S. Weld ; J. B. Whippon ; H. H. Wilson ; Dean Christian 

Gauss ; Dean Godolphin. 



LETTER OF PROT1 ST FROM RT. REV. THEODORE R. LUDLOW, n. D., SUFFRAGAN BISHOP 

Hon. Alexander J. Wiley, 

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee, 

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Senator : My attention has been called to the fact that your com- 
mittee is about to hold hearings on the Mundt-Nixon bill. I regret that my en- 
gagements are such that it is not possible for me to appear in person, but I would 
like to take this means of registering my objection to the bill. My objections to 
the bill in general are two : First, it is contrary to the best judgment of the bishops 
of our church as indicated in their resolution passed at the last meeting of the 
House of Bishops at Winston-Salem, N. C, last November to the following effect: 

"As bishops in the Church of God, we call upon the people of our churches to 
be on their guard lest a hysterical fear of communism shall lead us to fight that 
danger with weapons destructive of the treasures we seek to guard. The surest 
way to light communism is to work unceasingly at home and abroad for a society 
in which justice and the dignity of freemen are in truth guaranteed to men of 
every race and condition." 

After a study of the bill, the Board of Christian Social Relations of the Diocese 
of Newark went on record as follows : 

"Whereas before the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United 
Slates there is now a bill being considered, which was authored by Congressmen 
Mundt and Nixon, which seeks to deny certain rights of citizenship to members 
of tlie Communist Party, and other persons whom the Attorney General of the 
United Stales shall declare to be followers of the Communist Party: Therefore 

he it 

'•Resolved, That the Board of Christian Social Relations of the Diocese of 
Newark is of the opinion that the Mundt-Nixon bill is attempting to use weapons 
which are destructive of the treasures we seek to guard, and that we oppose this 
hill in t he spirit of the statement of our bishops ; and ba it further 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 237 

"Resolved, That a copy of this resolution be sent to the Honorable Albert W. 
Hawkes and the Honorable II. Alexander Smith, Senators from New Jersey, and 
that the committee on public relations make known this resolution to all of the 
clergy of the diocese and various newspaper and church magazines." 

My second objection to the bill is that it is so indefinitely worded that honest 
people can differ as to what it really means. An illustration of this is the dif- 
ferent interpretations put upon it by Mr. Stassen and Mr. Dewey. A bill which 
is so worded that a variety of interpretations can be placed upon its wording is 
a fruitful source of tyranny and should have the opposition of all citizens who are 
concerned for the civil liberties of all citizens. 

For the above reasons, I wish to register my personal protest against the bill. 
Very truly yours. 

Theodore R. Ludlow, 
Suffragan Bishop of Newark. 



PROTEST WIRE FROM JOHN A. MACKAY, PRESIDENT OF PRINCETON THEOLOGICAL 

SEMINARY 

It is my conviction that Mundt bill presents free Americans with one of the 
most crucial issues of contemporary history. Our heritage of freedom demands 
its rejection. 

John A. MacKay, 
President, Princeton Theological Seminary. 



DEAN LK HTENBERGER S PROTEST AGAINST THE MUNDT-NIXON BILL 

I am very much opposed to the legislation. I would like to register my opposi- 
tion to the bill. 

Arthur Lichtenberger, 
Dean, Trinity Cathedral, Diocese of Newark. 



PROTEST FROM LOUIS P. MARCIANTE, STATE PRESIDENT OF AFL, TO SENATOR WILEY 

I began fighting communism 20 years ago. I believe that I can qualify as an 
expert in combating it. The Mundt bill will make more Communists than it will 
suppress. It places in the hands of labor-hating judges the means to suppress 
legitimate trade-union activity. If our Constitution means anything, the Mundt 
bill should be defeated. 

Louis P. Marciante, 
State President, American Federation of Labor. 



PROTEST STATEMENT FROM KATHERINE HOFFMAN, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE 

GREATER NEWARK CIO COUNCIL 

Congress does -not have the right to arrogate the power to label organizations 
subversive or delegate such powers to any Government official. The Attorney 
General has already released lists of organizations which he declared subver- 
sive. None of these organizations had their "day in court" — none of them were 
given an opportunity to present evidence. Without a Mundt-Nixon bill, the 
United States Attorney General has assumed vast powers which he has used to 
label organizations and their members, without proof or hearings, to their 
detriment. 

Passage of the Mundt bill would mean that this un-American procedure by 
the Attorney General could result in jail sentences and the requirement that 
organizations label themselves in all their publicity as the Attorney General sees 
lit. The viciousness of such a provision may be measured only by the zeal and 
political leanings of whomsoever may be the Attorney General. 

From this widespread labeling, using the past actions of the Attorney General 
as a yardstick, employment would be deified members of such organizations, their 
good characters besmirched, and jails and camps would have to be built to hold 
them all. 



238 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Representative Clifford Case of the Sixth District of New Jersey in discussi g 
the Mundt-Nixon bill at a meeting held in Trenton, N. J., on why he voted for 
the bill, stated that it was necessary to stop Wallace from receiving any apprecia- 
ble number of votes and that this bill was the means to do it. He was emphatic 
on this score. 

So we see that the backers of this bill know that it is not a bill against the 
deliberately created •'Communist menace" but a vehicle by which political enemies 
would be frightened or jailed. If all the backers of the bill were as frank, we 
would find that they recognize that they might not be returned to office, and in 
the current deliberately created crisis atmosphere, they see through this bill the 
opportunity to jail and fine leaders and members of organizations who would 
persist in their continued figlit for social betterment. 

The New Jersey Governor's committee on civil liberties stated, "The right of 
free speech will not long endure if exceptions to its enjoyment may be raised on 
the current unpopularity of a minority group." 

The < rreater Newark CIO Council has been active in the fight to secure jobs for 
Negroes where they traditionally were never before employed ; for its antidiscrim- 
ination campaign it has been given a certificate of merit for outstanding work 
by the New Jersey Urban League ; it has been active in the figlit to secure low-cost 
housing ; it supported enforcement of civil liberties wherever these liberties were 
threatened. It has spearheaded political action drives and has been significantly 
effective and successful. 

Passage of this bill would be the opportunity for those we opposed to invoke 
this bill through any of the sections of*the bill since in all these activities we 
were Red-baited mercilessly when our opponents had exhausted all other means 
to stop us. 

In our unions, there are Communists. We have found them among our most 
active workers. Their personal political convictions are their own business. 
This bill would see the rest of us jailed or intimidated and prevented from con- 
tinuing our work for an ever-increasing standard of living, for securing racial 
equality, actual civil rights in securing the right to vote for all and continue to 
support or oppose legislation and legislators. 

The Mundt-Nixon bill must not be reported out of committee. It must be killed. 
Legislation to reenforce the rights of all citizens to life, liberty, and the pursuit 
of happiness must be enacted. 

The following prominent citizens have issued statements against the Mundt- 
Nixon bill : 

Carl Holderman, State president of the CIO ; 

Vincent J. Murphy, mayor of the city of Newark ; 

Assemblyman Lew Herrmann, of the New Jersey State Legislature. 

The Chairman. The meeting will stand adjourned until 9 o'clock 
tomorrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 3 : 30 p. m., an adjournment was taken, to reconvene 
at 9 o'clock a. m., Saturday, May 29, 1948.) 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 



SATURDAY, MAY 29, 1948 

United States Senate, 
Committee on the Judiciary, 

Washington, D. C. 

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9 a. m., in room 
424, Senate Office Building, Senator Alexander Wiley, chairman, pre- 
siding. 

Present : Senators Wiley, Langer, Moore, Cooper, Eastland. 

Also present : Senator O'Daniel. 

The Chairman. The meeting will come to order. 

We are glad to see here this morning Mr. Norman Thomas ; if we 
do not agree with you on something we are always stimulated and get 
a lot of good out of what you have to say. 

Will you be sworn? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony 
you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Thomas. I do. 

The Chairman. I might say that I heard your performance last 
night. I thought it was very good. That gives me an inkling of what 
you are going to say about this bill today. 

Before we get into a general statement by you, I would like to ask 
you a few general questions. 

TESTIMONY OF NORMAN THOMAS, REPRESENTING THE 

SOCIALIST PARTY 

Mr. Thomas. Yes. 

The Chairman. Apparently what has brought forth this bill as it 
came out of the House and precipitated on to the Senate is pretty well 
outlined in what has been called the necessity for legislation. 

That takes up five pages. I do not know whether you have a copy 
of the bill. 

Mr. Thomas. I have a copy of the bill and I have read that statement 
more than once. By and large I should say it was true or approxi- 
mately a true statement. 

If I were writing it, I would make some modification but I do not 
think very serious exception can be taken to the factual slatements 
concerning the methods of the Communist Party. I am sorry I 
believe that. It took me years to come to that conclusion. I regret 
it intensely because in the past whatever may have been in your judg- 
ment, Mr. Chairman, or the judgment of others of the shortcomings or 
sins of radical or revolutionary movements, they were clairvoyantly 
honest, they were proud to be what they were, and I think it is some- 

239 



240 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

thing- of a tragedy in human history that every shrewd, powerful or- 
ganization making a great, though I think mistaken, appeal to masses 
of people, flaunts it faith in bad faith, exults in ability to practice de- 
ception, calls good faith a bourgeoise virtue. That is a big loss in 
human affairs which I tremendously regret because I do want changes 
in things and changes for the better. I regret that attitude. It puts 
others of us under a great strain to have a movement coming along 
which demands for itself a liberty which it never gives when it has 
power, a movement that exalts deception as a virtue, a movement 
that is so conspicuously controlled by severe discipline from outside 
the country. 

I regret that very deeply and I still think this bill is a dangerously 
mistaken way of dealing with the matter. 

The Chairman. We will get to that. As I say. we are very happy 
to have you here because through the years you have accumulated, 
not only a vast experience, though people may differ with you politi- 
cally, they know you are inherently honest and that you are 100-percent 
American. 

Mr. Thomas. I would like to say that I am a 100-percent American 
in the sense that I prize more deeply than I can tell and more deeply 
every year the noblest part of our heritage, which is the tradition of 
free speech and of honest human relationships even when we differ. 

The Chairman. Now then, in view of the fact that you have agreed 
substantially with the statement in the bill called Necessity for Legis- 
lation, I want to get your judgment on this question. I might say, 
parenthetically, that yesterday I quoted into the record a statement 
from Justice Douglas of the Supreme Court, who is no ultracon- 
servative. 

Mr. Thomas. So I am told. 

The Chairman. Who substantially agrees with you as to the charac- 
teristics of the Communist activities, using means going back into 
the activities of the Middle Ages, like murder and everything else, to 
accomplish their end. Now then, here is the question : If we are facing 
a situation such as outlined in the opening pages of this bill, and 
conversant as you are with history of the last 20 years and particularly 
the history since the ending of the war, Russian expansion activities 
and the methods she is using in South America and every country 
in the world, does that not present a problem that should merit the 
earnest consideration of every thinking American? 

Mr. Thomas. Most emphatically it does, and, if I may say so, I 
think there are, broadly speaking, three lines of action that can legiti- 
mately be taken. 

First, I think we ought to be loyal to the principle laid down by 
Thomas Jefferson, which has worked on the whole extraordinarily 
well in our history, namely, that the time for Government to interfere 
is in the face of overt action or clear and present danger of the overt 
action. 

As I see it, civil liberties are not only a great boon to the individual, 
but the practice of civil liberties by the Government is an actual means 
of defense of the Government. There are risks in life ; there are calcu- 
late* I risks we have to take, but on the whole it is the lesser risk to 
believe in Justice Holmes' words that — 

In the competition of the market truth will carry away the victory. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 241 

The only thing that I believe at presenl we nee I to add to that Jeffer- 
sonian doctrine is certain care to turn oji the light. The deceitful prac- 
tices of the Communis! movement to justify very serious attempts in 
my judgment to put into action what has been called a sort of Pure 
Food and Drug Act in respect to political organization. There are 
dangers in doing that : it has to be very carefully considered. 

This bill does not meet the proper test in ray judgment, but I am, 
and have been for a long time and have said so. in favor of turning on 
the light. It is much better than suppression. How to do it is a thing 
I and others, some of us in our own parly, are trying to study. 

The third thing that is perhaps the most important of all is this: 1 
have seen a great deal of communism one way or another, but by 
and large I have never known communism to grow fast except where 
there was a soil prepared for it by conditions that otherwise might 
be removed. 

You referred to South America. I have been talking lately to a 
friend of mine, de la Torre, leader of the Apristi movement, and I 
know how concerned he, a very anti-Communist, is, because there has 
been given the impression in South America, and with some reason, 
that our friendship has been with dictators, that our aid has been 
given to the repressive forces. 

We. ourselves, by things done and left undone, are helping to create 
the situation in South America which the Communist is exploiting. 

To come nearer home, I would say quite soberly, without any desire 
to asperse anybody's motives, that the House of Representatives, and 
it goes also for the Senate, the House of Representatives would have 
done more in its last 2 years of its fight against communism if it had 
spent less time and excitement on this bill here and more time and 
thought on problems of the public well being in fields of price control, 
labor legislation, housing, health, and other matters. I am not say- 
ing that just in the ordinary political sense — I will make plenty of 
campaign speeches along that line — but I am saying to you very earn- 
estly that it is to a certain extent the fault of the rest of us when we 
leave the conditions which can be exploited by Communists. I do not 
believe that the mass of the people would be very much taken with 
pure and simple Communist propaganda today except as we give it a 
hole, and it is to removing the conditions that breed either communism 
or fascisim that our major attention ought to be directed. 

The Chairman. Now, willl you take the bill and specifically give 
your criticisms ? 

Mr. Thomas. I can do that easily, Mr. Chairman, and briefly, for I 
know how many witnesses you want here. 

My first objection to the bill is this, that it does what its authors say 
it wasn't meant to do. That is, it is really a bill for outlawing. 

Now I speak from long years of experience with political work and 
with minor parties and I say to you soberly that no party could live 
openly and above ground and observe strictly all the provisions in 
here. It isn't a matter of technical legalism; it is a matter of prac- 
tical everyday politics, the disabilities imposed on members of the 
Communist Party, the amount of work, the amount of reporting would 
practically make it impossible to carry on. 

I read in the paper that Mr. William Z. Foster said that the Com- 
munists would defy the act and not register. In a sense he was making, 



242 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

a political virtue out of necessity. That would be the logical, prac- 
tical thing to do, since the process of conformity would be so 
extraordinarily difficult. 

Perhaps this is as good a time as any to say what I was going to 
say, what is pretty well said in an editorial in the Washington Post — 
not a Socialist paper by the way — this morning. I consider that this 
bill is really a kind of blessing to the Communists at the present. It is 
a blessing in two or three respects. First, it is going to make thou- 
sands of people too sympathetic with them on the basis of this; second, 
it is going to give them a mighty big excuse to do what they are going 
to do and that is, go under ground, dig themselves deeper in a move- 
ment like the confused "Wallace movement, most of the followers of 
Mr. Wallace being seekers of a messiah. I don't agree with their 
judgment but that is what they are*. 

But the Communists are organized and they can dig in. 

The third thing that I think thev can do is to raise a tremendous hue 
and cry all through the world. You see, these Americans, they are 
like the rest, they are Fascists, to use Mr. Foster's term : considering 
the nature of political action in Russia, I thought it was a little hard on 
the Fascists to single them out. but that is what will be done. The bill 
will accomplish practically nothing for the cause, as I say, in dealing 
with communism. 

My next point is this : The powers given to the Attorney General 
are very much too great and are in themselves dangerous. I know 
there are controls by appeals to court action, but you know how slow 
and often ineffective that is. The wrong Attorney General might in 
time of high emotional excitement use the provisions of this bill against 
labor unions, farm organizations, or political parties, which by any 
possibility fell under the Communist indictment, and that would be 
extraordinarily dangerous. 

I am not talking about imaginary things. There is a gentleman 
who is one of the prominent candidates for the "Republican nomination 
for the President of the United States who has shown constitutional 
inability or unwillingness to distinguish between socialism and com- 
munism. This gentleman is one of the more vociferous, though less 
well informed, advocates of the bill. Imagine what could happen 
should he become President and appoint a like minded Attorney Gen- 
eral. A lot of us have reason to be afraid of what might happen. 

The gentleman in question has been known to have rather immature 
judgments on many things. I don't want any President given that 
power, not even if I were President would I want it. Don't tell me 
there is no danger; I still say I wouldn't want it. 

The Chairman. There are quite a number of Republican candidates. 
Perhaps the record had better show whom you mean. 

Mr. Thomas. If you want to be distinct, I refer to the former Gov- 
ernor of "Minnesota, Harold Stassen, who recently had a debate which 
I thought might have been more informative on both sides, but on 
which he had the worse side in Oregon. The people seem to have 
responded on the whole in the better way. I make no judgment on the 
political merits of your candidates otherwise. I am only talking 
about this one issue. 

The Chairman. This is sort of an opportunity for candidates to 
present themselves. You are the first one this morning. We will have 
another one at 10 o'clock- 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 243 

Mr. Thomas. And a greal deal more excitement. 

The Chairman. You did not bring your audience with you. 

Mr. Thomas. I am much more concerned that this bill should not be 

passed and that tin honor and the glory and the happiness of America 
should remain in our belief in civil liberties as a goal and as a method, 
thai our main hope in struggling againsl the wrongs of communism 
is the virtue of the democracy that we are able to make work economi- 
cally and socially as well as politically, and that we stick to the 
Jellersonian principles with the single addition that we try soberly 
and intelligently to find means of turning on the light, trusting the 
people then to act wisely. 

Thank you. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Are there any questions? 

Senator Eastland. Xo ; no questions. 

The Chairman. I did want to go into this one subject on which you 
are an authority so that the people might know the difference between 
communism and socialism. I think you can give us a very brief state- 
ment. 

Mr. Thomas. As matters stand today after the event of the years 
since 1017, the great outstanding difference between democratic social- 
ism in the world and communism is this : The democratic Socialists 
abhor and detest the totalitarian state. We disbelieve in one-party 
government. We believe in the necessity of preserving an increasing 
civil liberty. 

We deny that even economically communism is today radical in any 
other sense than state capitalism might be radical. We believe that 
communism in action in Russia today has the worst faults of state 
capitalism. That is to say, all the old powers and privileges of a 
private capitalist class have now been taken over by the ruthless police 
state. The extremes of pay between high and low are as high or higher 
than they are in the United States. Labor unions are completely 
harnessed to the state. 

I am also very annoyed when people refer to communism as the ex- 
treme left, meaning the extreme radical devotion to the popular in- 
terest. Whatever Lenin meant it to be, communism in action is the 
most complete tyranny the world has seen and it is not left at all. As 
Arthur Koestler put it, it is not farther left ; it is farther east. It has 
a certain Asiatic quality in its controls, a system that started out al- 
legedly Marxist with no regard for the individual as the savior, ends 
by cannonizing Lenin and worshiping Stalin as the Emperor of Japan 
was not worshiped before the war. It is an amazing thing that has 
happened historically. 

The Chairman. In }-our judgment is communism more than an 
intellectual penetration ? 

Mr. Thomas. Of course it is. Communism is magnificently organ- 
ized. It is the most completely organized on a world scale than any 
movement probably that has ever existed on the face of the earth. 
When I say magnificently I mean to give no ethical value to the word 
"magnificent"; I mean in respect to perfection of organization. In- 
cidentally, it claims for its devotees far more than just political ad- 
herents in the narrow sense in which we speak of political adherents in 
America. 

The Chairman. What are its tools? 



244 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Thomas. Its tools are many; propaganda, often very skillful 
propaganda, the exploitation of all crimes and blunders the rest of us 
make, discipline, and there are a lot of people that like discipline in 
this world. Unfortunately, it isn't true that all of us love freedom. 
Some of us fear it and try to escape from it and it affords a disciplined 
home. You don't have to think, you merely have to obey and act, and 
yet you feel elevated because you are part of such a movement. 

Its tools also are the most extreme forms of coercion. 

Senator Eastland. Murder? 

Mr. Thomas. Including, of course, murder. Trotsky is the only 
most conspicuous of the victims by murder of departure from the 
Stalinist orthodox line. 

I was reading the Iron Curtain on the train coming down and I think 
that substantially it is a sober record of the kind of things that has 
to be expected. 

The Chairman. What is the difference between the two systems 
of philosophies in relation to the holding of property? 

Mr. Thomas. The Communist philosophy in action has become a 
doctrine of the expropriation by the organizations' political state of all 
productive property. 

The Chairman. It is statism, isn't it? 

Mr. Thomas. Of the most extreme sort. Communists believe that 
the commanding heights should be taken over by the people, the system 
of money, banking and credit, monopolies and semimonopolies ; indus- 
tries in which the skills, the real skills that count, are managerial and 
the initiative is the initiative of the engineer and manager rather than 
the owner. 

We believe they should be socialized and we believe they should be 
managed under public corporations and not like the Post Office Depart- 
ment, and on these public operations there should be representation 
of the managerial work, the corps of workers of different categories 
and of the consuming public. 

The Chairman. Right on that subject I take it that democratic 
socialism, wherever it is practiced, maintains what you claim is the 
great virtue of the American system, civil liberties ? 

Mr. Thomas. Yes; it does. 

I think you will find that the civil liberties, as Europeans — their 
standards go, have been exceedingly well preserved in the years before 
the war and since in which socialistic cabinets have had power in the 
Scandanavian countries, in New Zealand, in Australia and in England 
itself today. 

The Chairman. Does the Communist system maintain civil liberties ? 

Mr. Thomas. Of course not. Not only does it not maintain civil 
liberties, it sets the example of Hitler of the way to deny them. It 
was Stalin rather than Hitler who first experimented in the modern 
system of government by cruelty, but also a thing that Marx said was 
impossible has happened. His followers have revived the equivalent 
of chattel slavery in these infamous concentration and work camps of 
Russia. The Marxist doctrine was that the evolution of human affairs 
had come to a point where chattel slavery was forever overcome, was 
no longer economic, and now by one of life's bitterest ironies it has 
been reinstated in a way that would make Simon Legree blush in the 
camps of an allegedly Marxist country and it has been done for a 
variety of reasons, including economic. 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 245 

It has been estimated, for instance, that (lie slave worker, the politi- 
cal victims crowded into the Russian camps, produce only aboul half 
as much as the comparatively U x vc workers in Russia. 1 don't think 
any of the workers in Russia are really free, but they cost only a 
third as much to feed and life is cheap. There are always some more 
victims of the secret police and that is a horrible thing that the 
Socialists feel is the most terrible betrayal of all that we had ever 
hoped and believed. 

That thing that Mr. Foster yesterday called Fascist is also Com- 
munist. The difference under Stalin, whatever were Lenin's original 
intentions, the difference under Stalin between communism and fas- 
cism is about this, as the famous Italian writer said himself, once 
himself a Communist, Ignazio Silone: '"Communism has become a 
red fascism.'" 

One fascism is black and the other is red ; that in the only difference. 

I will make one other point. Officially, communism is antiracist 
and profits thereby greatly in the world opinion. 

The Chairman. Has it practiced that way? Have we not had tre- 
mendous liquidation at times under the Communists? 

Mr. Thomas. You have had awful liquidation, but not on the 
grounds of color of men's skins, rather the color of their alleged 
opinions. You are having now what is popular to call the crime of 
genocide practiced systematically in the little Baltic States that were 
annexed in defiance of all the treaties that had been signed for peace- 
ful relationship. The five autonomous republics or groups that were 
dissolved by the high command in Russia during and just after this 
war, in every one of them, all people, especially all men capable of 
any leadership, even in peasant villages, seem to have been deported 
into these horrible camps, or in some kind of exile. That is a terrible 
crime, but the crime is not along racial lines. They say much about 
and try to praise racial quality and have made a success with the 
Asiatic people for this reason. 

The Chairman. Yes, Mr. Foster rather made the point, and so did 
others, that there was no evidence whatever in history since the Com- 
munists had come into possession of the Russian Government, that 
they had any thought of aggression or expansion and that they never 
attacked and never fought unless they were attacked. 

Mr. Thomas. I know, very interesting. 

The rabbit has been very rough on the bulldog in this case. It used 
to be said that Great Britain acquired her empire in a fit of absent- 
mindedness. Mr. Foster is more than absent-minded in describing 
the obvious process. Mr. Foster, I remember, in a debate here in 
Washington, I think over the radio, gave his qualifications by explain- 
ing that he had never criticized Stalin because Stalin had never done 
anything to be criticized for. That may explain why he takes that 
stand on aggression. 

By the way, it might be more appropriate to debate this to his face, 
but I would like to make it perfectly plain that I was ready on a 
recent occasion and it was the Communists who declined. I have even 
been ready to debate this publicly with Mr. Henry Wallace — his very 
bland view of things in Russia. 

I am not trying to say anything behind people's backs that I 
wouldn't be glad to say soberly on a platform to their faces. That 
goes for Mr. Foster. 



246 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

The Chairman. Is it your concept that the Communists who are 
in charge of Russia at present are engaged in what you might call an 
attempt to conquer the world and engage in world conquest i 

Mr. Thomas. Yes; I think they are; but I want to make this dis- 
tinction very sharp. I do not think that Stalin as a realist is likely to 
think that he needs wholesale total war. I am very doubtful about the 
imminence of war. War can arise out of accidents under the kinds of 
tension and strains that are arising ? but with this very important 
qualification, with the further qualification that Stalin is like an 
expert sailor who can take long tacks against adverse winds. I should 
say yes; I say, in other words, that communism was originally a secu- 
lar religion directed toward the salvation of the world by its own 
method and that while some of the bloom is taken off the dream of 
Lenin, of the world, it still remains among Communists the kind of 
secular religion which drives them on toward universal power. 

In other words, the Russian policy isn't primarily in my judgment 
directed toward the usual exaltation of the nation — that goes along 
with it — but primarily is this secular religion, this drive for power. 

I fear that all this may be psychologically interpreted as support of 
the Mundt bill. On the contrary, I think the Mundt bill in the hands 
of an expert like Stalin, as his association will help them, because so 
large a part of the drive is based on propaganda and because I am 
convinced the bill would be so very ineffective for its alleged ends and 
might work so much harm in America. 

Senator Eastland. Do you think the Communist Party in the 
United States is controlled by a foreign power? 

Mr. Thomas. Why, of course. You can make a technical distinction. 

Senator Eastland. What is the evidence that makes j t ou think that 
the Communist Party in the United States is an agent of the foreign 
power ? 

Mr. Thomas. Let me explain. The technical distinction is this : 
Stalin has sort of a twofold capacity. He is the head of the govern- 
ment of the world's most extensive empire. He is also the head of the 
Communist Party in international organization. It is in the latter 
capacity that he has his power over American Communists. 

Nominally, the American Communist Party publicly withdrew from 
the Comintern before the Comintern was dissolved in order to escape 
a registration law that was passed by Congress which imposed rather 
onerous conditions which are more easily evaded. 

You ask me the proof. The only proof that we really have is in 
deeds. We know, don't we, all of us, that the Communist Party was 
passionately in favor of a united front against fascism until August 
1939, that it then became a passionate supporter of Stalin's quasi 
alliance with Hitler, and a passionate opponent of war until June 1941, 
and that then the same people who had been picketing the White House 
against war demand a second front in about 2 months flat. 

Senator Eastland. Let me ask you this question. The evidence is 
admitted, is it not, that the French Communist Party is an agent of 
Russia? 

Mr. Thomas. Yes. 

Senator Eastland. Is it not true right there that a leader in the 
French Communist Party forced the resignation of the head of the 
Communist Party in the United States? 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 247 

Mr. Thomas. I was coming to that. Mr. Foster owes his present 
position not to any initiative taken in America but to initiative taken 
by Duclos, one of the top Communists in France, after his visit to 
Moscow. 

It was then Duclos attacked the record made during the war by 
Mr. Earl Browder, whereupon the same people, the same American 
Communists who dutifully followed Browder and sung his praises and 
all but expelled Mr. Foster, reduced him to complete silence. They 
then turned around and reviled Mr. Browder unmercifully and he 
was expelled from the party and Mr. Foster was elected. 

Stalin, however, that great manipulator, apparently thinks he still 
lias use for Mr. Browder and so Mr. Browder enjoys the great dis- 
tinction of being the only prominent Communist ever expelled from 
the party who then got something of a job out of the Russian high 
command. 

Senator Eastland. Does Duclos as the agent of Stalin control the 
Communist Party in this country? 

Mr. Thomas. Probably. I don't know that there is a permanent 
relationship. I couldn't prove that. I think that is one of the 
strengths of communism now, that it can work rather subtly and 
elastically. I think Stalin might have used Duclos for one effect and 
somebody else for another. 

Senator Eastland. Do you think that the third party movement in 
this country is controlled by the Communist Part}"? 

Mr. Thomas. It is very strongly influenced by them. 

Xow I want to be very careful in what I say. I am perfectly well 
aware that the overwhelming majority of the enthsiastic supporters 
of Mr. Wallace are not Communists. They are good people concerned 
for peace and plenty. I know that Mr. Wallace isn't a Communist. 
He says he is a progressive Tory, whatever that is. 

Senator Eastland. The average supporter of the political party 
does not control policy. 

Mr. Thomas. Senator, I was coming to that. A very high percent 
of the gentlemen who are doing the manipulating or work by their 
records, have shown themselves to be Communists or fellow travelers. 
The distinction between Communist and fellow travelers is not very 
great. They have the experience, they know how to organize the meet- 
ings, to put on the expert showmanship, and all the rest of it : and I 
think that far more than Mr. Wallace himself probably and his sup- 
porters realize, they are influenced by very well trained and disci- 
plined Communists. 

Senator Eastland. Do you think that well-trained and disciplined 
Communists are manipulating the third-party movement and direct- 
ing it ? 

Mr. Thomas. Yes; to a very high extent. 

Senator Eastland. Then you think the third-party movement is 
largely in the control of Communists? 

Mr. Thomas. It is, but not in control to the extent that it would 
fall under a fair interpretation of this particular bill. 

Senator Eastland. That is the question I want to ask. if this bill 
will apply to the third-party movement. 

Mr. Thomas. I don't think even this bill would apply to the third 
party. It ought not to, but the bill is dangerous partly because there 



248 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

is this border line, this twilight era. After all, if you are going to 
say, as these Americans have said, this is a country where we want 
all the decisions to be reached by ballot and not bullets, we have to 
lean over backward to protect the peoples' rights, even what the Sen- 
ate of the United States thinks is wrong. 

The time to act is the overt act. I think the effect of this bill we 
are discussing would be simply to intensify the movement of Com- 
munists and fellow travelers into a third party and increase their con- 
trol without doing it in a way to be obvious. Incidentally, they will 
get much greater sympathy among plain people as martyrs than 
they get today. I mean the Communists will. 

Senator Eastland. What are the differences between the program 
of the third party and the program of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Thomas. That is very hard, Senator, to saj, because in recent 
years the Communist Party no longer has the very, very rigid economic 
program it once had. The program is elastic. Communists in this 
country and Europe have shown an amazing ability and willingness 
to adapt programs to the capture of power. It is after they get power 
that they do their real stuff. They are for peace and proprietor- 
ship when they will help them get power, but in Russia they abso- 
lutely liquidated peace and proprietorship. 

Senator Eastland. That does not mean they are for one thing 
when the object is to acquire something else; that does not mean it is 
the policy of the government? 

Mr. Thomas. The policy of the party, one has to believe in all 
logic, is the policy action carried out in Russia and you will judge 
therefore not by what they say in their platforms but by what they 
have done when thej^ have complete power. There would be adapta- 
tion because of different conditions in different countries, but funda- 
mentally I think we have to understand that the Communist Party in 
power will do just what was done in Russia. 

Senator Eastland. Do you know where the idea of the third party 
was conceived? 

Mr. Thomas. On that I know nothing except what I read in the 
papers and since I read various things, as you do, I don't know. I 
remember that many weeks before the formal launching of the party, 
Mr. Foster officially said the Communists would support Wallace for 
President. At least he was so quoted in the paper. 

Please, because I got too many letters and I don't want any more of 
them, don't let me give anybody the impression that I am saying 
Henry Wallace is a Communist. I think that the Communists have 
secret meetings where they rather deplore Mr. Wallace from their 
point of view. He is not a Communist but he happens to be in a 
position to be very useful to them now. 

The Chairman. Do you have any questions, Senator Cooper ? 

Senator Cooper. No. 

The Chairman. I want to get back again — we have arrived at this 
conclusion somewhat different from what Mr. Foster arrived at 
yesterday. We arrived at the conclusion, first, that the Russian Gov- 
ernment dominated by the Communists is after all, engaged in ex- 
tending its geographic and ideological borders. 

Mr. Thomas. Correct. 

The Chairman. We have arrived at the fact that they use all kinds 
of outlaw means to accomplish that end. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 249 

Mr. Thomas. I am sorry to say I am compelled to agree. 

The Chairman. And, thirdly, we have arrived at the fact thai we 
know 'm this country there is a Communist Party and that it lias 
distinct affiliations and connections with the head of the Communist 
Party in Russia and that apparently if we were to accept the version 
given by Mr. Foster and others, t here is no evil in their activities. 

Mr. Thomas. So I understand. 

The Chairman. And no evil intention in the activities of (lit 1 Rus- 
sian Communists, that they have never been aggressors, that they have 
not extended their borders, that the absorpl ion into their domain since 
the end of the war of approximately 125,000,000 people was apparently 
the wishes of the people of those countries, that the Russians had 
nothing to do with it, the Communists had nothing to do with it, in 
bringing about that result. In view of all these basic conditions and 
in view of your statement that we must maintain our concept, Ameri- 
can concept of the sacredness of civil liberties, but in view of the 
further fact that this world has been contracted, that what was not 
a danger in the days of Jefferson is in many instances a danger now. 

You can sense of course that the Congress of the United States is 
very much concerned about these very civil liberities and protecting 
these civil liberties in this country of ours against the termites that 
have gone into Czechoslovakia and now are operating in Finland and 
have gone into France and into other countries. 

So in view of the changed conditions of the world where we fly 
across the continent in a matter of a few hours and across the ocean 
in a matter of a few hours, we have a tremendous number of new 
inventions, and, God help us, I hope we never have to use them in 
war, and no other countries have them, is there not this element of 
danger in the picture and the Congress of the United States has to 
give consideration to the danger referred to in your previous remarks 
outlined in the decision of our court, and is there not some solution 
except that of simply sitting by and Jetting them go on, as they have 
gone on, in every country of the world ? 

Mr. Thomas. May I say. Senator, and in these things I am casting 
aspersions at no man's motive, I think the situation is very serious, 
but may I point out two or three things that I think I overlooked. I 
began to find out in the case of Germany of the Weimar Republic, 
that Germany of the Weimar Republic did not fall to Hitler because 
it tried to support civil liberties. It fell for several reasons. One of 
them was that the government was very weak in the face of overt 
action, of mob violence. If the Weimar Republic had put clown politi- 
cal assassination, had prevented brown-shirted bullies from roaming 
the streets, I don't think you would have had much trouble. It wasn't 
free speech ; it was free rioting. 

Again, the thing that brought Hitler to power unquestionably was a 
vast unemployment in the face of which the government seemed power- 
less. It was the unemployed that cast the die in favor of Hitler in an 
election very largely. 

There is a moral there for us. It is in conditions after all that our 
main hope lies, making conditions good. I want to emphasize that 
first, last, and all the time. 

Then, Mr. Chairman, may I say this? I say it somewhat hesitantly 
because of your position. This is a crude simile, but if I have read 
medical history correctly, bleeding patients used to be a standard cure 



250 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

for almost everything. Now I recognize the disease of communism 
but I deny that bleeding our civil liberties is a cure. I think it will 
weaken us constitutionally and do no good. I say, and I mean it in- 
tensely, that I think that secretly the sober Communist experts rather 
hope this bill will pass — it will be useful to them — whereas I fear its 
passage tremendously. I fear among other things very grave abuses 
in its extension. I fear the propaganda that will be directed against 
us. I fear the sympathy and honest people that will be aroused for 
Communists by it. I fear the precedent of impairing those liberties 
that have been so priceless a heritage to the individual American. 
That is my position. 

The Chairman. You have made your position very clear. I am 
sure that we are grateful to you for your testimony which you have 
given here today. I am also calling to your attention that the reason 
the Weimar Republic and the Republic of Germany and the people 
gave up the ghost of democratic ideas at the inception was that there 
was not in evidence this system of checks and balances. They did not 
have a legislature that had any guts. The legislature gave up its 
power to the dictator. 

The legislature, it is true, did not protect the rights of the people. 
They were weak. They did not provide the adequate fire department 
against the flame of a Hitler that sort of mesmerized the people. 

Now we in this country I trust, have in operation a system of checks 
and balances that is effective and that is what Ave see in evidence here 
today, a system of minds of different approaches and perspectives tes- 
tifying. We will have to weigh that testimony and try to arrive at 
some conclusion. 

But I am back to this question : Have you no other suggestion except 
this one of publicity ? 

Mr. Thomas. None whatever. I think everything else would be 
dangerous and unnecessary at present. If conditions change, I may 
change my opinion. 

May I point this out? Take Czechoslovakia as a more recent exam- 
ple. It was not civil liberties in Czechoslovakia that brought about 
communism. I said at the time that I learned that at Yalta Poland 
was finally betrayed and that the people would not be consulted on 
boundaries, that the fate of eastern Europe was then decided. We — 
] mean our Government — were partly responsible. The exact time 
was the only thing that was uncertain. 

What was die technique? It was a technique under which geo- 
graphically Czechoslovakia was isolated. It was a technique under 
which people, good people like Jan Masaryk and Benes, felt compelled 
to include Communists in the coalition government and give them the 
strategic positions. We are not contemplating that. Nobody for a 
minute is worried about a coalition cabinet with Communists con- 
trolling the posts. All we need to worry about is to use a little brains 
in the public broadcasts, for instance. You don't need the Mundt bill 
in order to prevent the fiasco that is being discussed elsewhere con- 
cerning the Voice of America. 

The Chairman. That is, you are not concerned then with Henry 
Wallace being elected President? 

Mr. Thomas. Well, I am not concerned; no. I think the people 
have a right to elect Henry Wallace. They have a right to elect me. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 251 

I quest ion whether they will do it, bul short of that, lots of things can 
happen. 

The Chairman. I> it not a fact that the very thing you have just 
mentioned is the way the Communists took over Czechoslovakia? 

They are now attempting to take over Finland. They got one of 
the officials of the cabinet appointed to put his team in throughout the 
country. 

Mr. Thomas. That is a very dangerous technique and the reason 
why the Socialist Party, which has long wanted a strong electoral 
third party, the reason why it couldn't go along in support () f Mr. 
Wallace is precisely because ; without in any way impugning his sub- 
jective good faith, we do believe that he can't succeed where Jan 
Masaryk failed in a somewhat similar situation, not wholly similar, 
but somewhat similar. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions? 

Senator Coor-ER. I believe I would like to ask one question. 

The Chairman. Senator Cooper. 

Senator Cooper. Mr. Thomas, I would like to ask you if you have 
seen developing in this country in recent 3 T ears a theory that if a group. 
small or large, or if the Government itself assumes that some objective 
is very valuable, that there arises some right to achieve that objective 
even by evasion or indirection under our constitutional system \ 

Air. Thomas. Well, yes, there is that tendency. It is not confined to 
any one group. Unfortunately, there are a great many very powerful 
groups that in my judgment seek by evasion and indirection to have 
their aims achieved. Some of them are oil companies which over- 
charged us over $30,000,000. 1 believe, in connection with Arabian oil. 

Senator Cooper. I am speaking more of the evasion of constitutional 
processes. 

Mr. Thomas. There is a very old saying, and it wasn't ever said by 
a Communist ; it was, "What is a constitution between friends ? v There 
are lots of people that say that. 

Incidentally, I don't think any constitution is inspired forever. 
Every country is dynamic and there are changes in order in every 
constitution. 

For instance, I think the United States faces potential peril under 
its system of electing a President. Our President should be elected 
by popular vote if we are a democracy, to avoid various dangerous 
complications. 

I do not worship the Constitution but I regard it an inestimable 
blessing that we had so good an instrument so many years and that 
the Bill of Rights is part of it. 

Senator Cooper. But assuming that our objective in this bill, or 
the objective that is sought, w T ould be a desirable objective, you are 
simply saying that we cannot achieve that objective by the loss of 
greater rights? 

Mr. Thomas. I am saying that we will weaken liberty and democ- 
racy in the American tradition by even this approximation, this very 
remote approximation, to a Fascist or Communist method. It is the 
rankest hypocrisy for any Communist or Fascist to criticize this bill, 
but I believe so much in democracy and civil liberties that I believe 
it is an instrumentality for liberty among decent people providing 

78257 — 48 17 



252 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

we turn on the light. That is my objection to this bill, that it denies 
that principle in action. 

Senator Cooper. I should like to say that I have great respect for 
Mr. Thomas' views. 

Mr. Thomas. May I thank you gentlemen for so patient a hearing. 

The Chairman. Mr. Thomas, one of the camera men has requested 
that you repeat your final statement. 

Mr. Thomas. You see, I haven't had enough experience with Holly- 
wood and I haven't been a major party candidate, so I am not used 
to all of this. 

The Chairman. You have a smile in spite of your tender years. 

Air. Thomas. That smile is born out of adversity. Anybody who 
has been around this long has to do something to live. 

The Chairman. Some people thrive on adversity. 

Mr. Thomas. What I was saying was that I believe passionately 
in the capacity of people endowed with civil liberties to protect them- 
selves from dangerous falsehoods and from lies and deceits if they 
know the truth, if they get the light. I believe in civil liberties as a 
tactic for democracy as well as a priceless possession of the individual, 
and whatever the intent of the framers of this bill, it would very seri- 
ously deny civil liberty in itself and in the way it might be enforced. 

Is that what you want me to say '. 

The Chairman. Thank you, sir. 

Is Mr. Rockwell Kent here '. 

Mr. Kent. Yes. 

The Chairman. With the understanding, sir. that we have given 
Mr. Henry Wallace a place at 10 o'clock, we will have him replace you 
if he comes in. We will show him that courtesy. Any man who is the 
nominee of a party for President we give the right-of-way. You have 
no objection, sir? 

I see you carry his button. 

Mr. Kent. I am for Henry. 

The Chairman. Will you be sworn? Do you solemnly swear that 
the evidence you will give in this matter is the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. Kent. I do. 

The Chairman. Tell us who you are. 

STATEMENT OF ROCKWELL KENT, PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL 
WORKERS ORDER AND PRESIDENT OF ARTISTS LEAGUE OF 
AMERICA 

Mr. Kent. I am a painter and writer and I am here representing the 
International Workers Order, of which I am the president, and the 
Artists League of America, of which I am the president, and I hope 
to be allowed to speak for countless thousands of liberals, of which I 
am just one. 

Senator Eastland. What is a liberal. Mr. Kent? 

Mr. Kent. A liberal has been rather devastatinglv defined as a man 
who walks halfway between all issues. 

Senator Eastland. I see a dispute between Mr. Taft and Mr. Stas- 
sen as to what a liberal is. I would like to have your testimony. 

Mr. Kent. I think, generally speaking, a liberal is one who is a 
moderate. Without any connotation of particular significance in the 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 253 

terms "right" and "left" as representing the extremes in politics in- 
herent everywhere, a liberal is one who is inclined to see some good per- 
haps in the righl and some good perhaps in the left. It assumes that 
there will be other parties or at least two parties, between which he can 

choose, three parties. In these days a liberal is pretty much of a tight- 
rope walker. 

So I am a Wallaceite and if that title no longer entitles me to be 
termed a "liberal," good; there 1 stand. I want to stand somewhere 
and as against the coalition which has been termed by Senator Mc- 
Grath, "a honeymoon of the two parties," I am for free enterprise in 
American compel it ion. We are going to give them plenty. 

It is in the interest of free enterprise, and of competition, and of 
politics, and ideas in general, that Ave liberals are desperately afraid 
of this bill. 

I am not going, as an artist and writer, to make any pretense of pre- 
senting a legal argument. You will have received those without limit 
and Mr. Pressman, who will appear here later for the International 
"Workers Order, will present our legal argument, 

We can speak with deep feeling, we of the International Workers 
Order, and I, as a liberal, can speak with deep feeling of — based on 
experience of what this bill will do to organizations and to people be- 
cause the International Workers Order has already been listed on the 
Attorney General's list of subversive organizations. 

I want to put in the record a statement by Mr. Marcantonio made 
on the floor of the House as to the character and the achievements, per- 
sonnel, purposes of the International Workers Order. I think there 
is no need of reading this. It is much better to put it in the record. 

The Chairman. It will be accepted and placed on file. Congress- 
man Marcantonio testified the other day. 

Mr. Kent. Did he testify to the character of the International 
Workers Order ? 

The Chairman. You can say something about that if you want and 
we will take that and put it with the clerk. 

Mr. Kent. I will read a few excerpts from it. 

This aspect of the composition of the International Workers Order is also 
reflected in its unique relief contributions. I will step back a little bit in this. 

The 18S,000 members of the International Workers Order. Negro and white, 
of 15 different nationalities, groups, are outraged by this attack upon a legally 
constituted fraternal insurance organization to winch they and their families 
have entrusted their insurance protection and their fraternal and cultural welfare. 

The International Workers Order is proud of its record of loyalty and patriot- 
ism, its war effort, and service to the people. 

And there is a long list here of citations from the administration 
during the war for its distinguished service. 

The Chairman. We will place it on file, sir. 

(The statement referred to is on file with the committee.) 

Carry on and tell us why you do not like this bill and if you can be 
specific, we will appreciate it because it gives us something to work on. 

Mr. Kent. I am specific as far as the International Workers Order 
is concerned. It has been seriously damaged and its whole existence, 
threatened, the investments of its 188,000 members. 

Senator Eastland. What are your views on this bill? We have no 
quarrel with you about the International Workers Order. 

Mr. Kent. My views on the bill are that an order of this nature has 
already been listed by the Attorney General without hearing — just 



254 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

on his word — as subversive and this bill would permit an extension of 
such listings without hearing and without recourse to the courts. 

As a liberal all my life, without fear I have associated myself with 
any organization that I found doing work in a field that I thought 
work ought to be done in. If a house is on fire and I want to help put 
it out and I do want to help put it out, I will run over there. I won't 
turn to these that are associated with me in that work and ask whether 
they are Republicans or Democrats or Catholics or Protestants. This 
bill denies us the right of free association. It makes us turn with dis- 
trust from all those who are in a movement that on its virtue we may 
have wanted to associate ourselves with. 

Senator Eastland. Does not the Fair Employment Practices Act 
do that ? 

Mr. Kent. Does the FEPC do that? 

Senator Eastland. Yes. 

Mr. Kent. The Fair Employment Practice Act ? In what respect do 
you mean ? 

Senator Eastland. Does it not deprive the man of associating in 
business with whom he desires? 

Mr. Kent. Yes, that is fine. 

Senator Eastland. That is fine, is it not ? 

Mr. Kent. Yes. 

Senator Eastland. You are for that ? 

Mr. Kent. I am for fair employment practices certainly, entirely, 
but I do not want to be judged by an association that ma}* be found 
damaging. 

The Chairman. You had better hurry because Mr. Wallace will be 
coming here in just a moment. 

Mr. Kent. Very well. 

In another respect I have suffered. There is no freedom of speech, 
freedom of opinion in America toda} r . If this bill is to be drafted, I 
should say it should be a bill that will guarantee greater freedom of 
expression, greater expression of controversy in this country. 

Up to a few weeks ago I was a dairyman. 

Senator Eastland. What is this bill you think should be drafted? 
What should it contain ? 

Mr. Kent. It should contain assurances that every arm of the law 
will be used promptly and efficiently to guarantee a man his rights that 
I believe already exist under the bill of rights. 

Senator Eastland. How would you do it ? 

Mr. Kent. I don't know. 

Senator Eastland. There would have to be force. 

Mr. Kent. We have to use force. We use force against burglars, 
we use force against any disturbance of the peace. 

Senator Eastland. Is that not the very argument you are using 
against the Mundt bill ? Understand, I do not know that I am going to 
vote for the Mundt bill. I have an open mind. I am asking you. 

Mr. Kent. 1 would be the last man to say Ave should not have force 
at our disposal in government and we should not use it in protection, 
in the enforcement of our laws when necessary. 

Senator Eastland, You complain that the American people are 
not entitled to use a force to protect themselves from saboteurs and 
Communist traitors, agents of foreign powers ? 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 255 

Mr. Kent. I do complain that the American people in their own 
interests and in the interests of democracy are not entitled to use force 
for the suppression of free discussion and free opinion. 

I take exception to what 1 heard one of the witnesses say yesterday 
when he was asked if he would defend one who urged the overthrow 
of our Government by force and violence. Certainly I would not 
defend one who urged anything of that sort and if there are any people 
in American today who urge the overthrow of our Government by force 
and violence, then I think the police are negligent in not doing some- 
thing about it. I am tired of hearing about these people and nothing 
done. 

Senator Eastland. Do the Communists advocate the overthrow of 
the Government by force and violence % 

Mr. Kent. I heard a minority opinion of the Supreme Court cited 
here yesterday. The majority of the Supreme Court of the United 
States says there is no record whatever, no evidence whatever. 

Senator Eastland. I am not asking you what the majority of the 
Supreme Court said 10 years ago. My question is : Do the Communists 
advocate the overthrow of the American Government by force and 
violence ? 

Mr. Kent. Excuse me, Senator. I was citing an authority. I am 
not an authority because I am not a Communist. 

Senator Eastland. Is your answer then that you do not know ? 

Mr. Kent. Unless I would accept the Supreme Court as giving me 
the information. 

Senator Eastland. That was years ago. 

Mr. Kent. Yes ; a few years ago. 

Senator Eastland. Today does the Communist Party advocate the 
overthrow of the American Government by force and violence? 

Mr. Kent. Not so far as I know. 

Senator Eastland. Not so far as you know ? 

Mr. Kent. Definitely not. 

Senator Eastland. Is the Communist Party in the United States an 
agent of a foreign power ? 

Mr. Kent. Not so far as I know. 

Senator Eastland. You know of no facts that would lead you to 
believe that ? 

Mr. Kent. Not one. I have heard statements that is so but I have 
never seen it proven. 

Senator Eatsland. Did not the Red leaders of a foreign party cause 
the dismissal of the head of the Communist Party in the United 
States ? 

Mr. Kent. I heard that asserted by Mr. Thomas. 

I had never heard that asserted before. 

Senator Eastland. You did not read it in the newspaper at the 
time? 

Mr. Kent. No ; I didn't happen to. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kent. 

I want to say to the audience that you kindly keep as quiet as pos- 
sible. This, after all, is a quasi-judicial proceeding. We are glad 
you could welcome Mr. Wallace as you did. I am sure he is glad to 
see that welcome. 



256 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

We are engaged in an inquiry here. In fact, I am sure you are all 
interested in the merits of it and on no other basis. Will you be 
sworn, sir ? 

Do you solemnly swear that any evidence you are about to give you 
will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God ? 

Mr. Wallace. I do. 

The Chairman. I see that you have a statement. Do you desire to 
proceed with your statement and then be interrogated? 

TESTIMONY OF HENRY A. WALLACE 

Mr. Wallace. That would be my desire, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. Carry on. 

Mr. Wallace. I might say that in the first instance, I am supremely 
concerned with the dignity of the human soul and the creative powers 
which flow from the free expression of the individual human soul. 

Our America, founded on the Declaration of Independence, the Bill 
of Rights, and the everlasting principles of justice and the brotherhood 
of man as enunciated by the prophets and Jesus, is threatened by the 
most subversive legislation ever to be seriously sponsored in the United 
States Congress. In the name of fighting foreign totalitarianism, do- 
mestic totalitarianism is imposed. In the name of saving the Con- 
stitution, the Constitution is destroyed. In less than 7 years we have 
forgotten Roosevelt's commitment made shortly after we entered in 
World War II: 

We will not under any threat, or in the face of danger, surrender the guar- 
anties of liberty our forefathers framed for us in our Bill of Rights. We hold 
with all the passion of our hearts and minds to these commitments of the human 
spirit. 

Today these sacred commitments which are vital to all that is clear 
to us in the political and religions faith bequeathed to iis by our fathers 
are threatened with destruction. Anyone who acts as Jefferson acted 
in 1798 becomes an enemy of the Republic. Anyone who preaches 
peace and the brotherhood of man becomes a second class citizen and 
must live in fear of jail and fine. 

The Mundt bill is a frank declaration of war on the rights of free 
speech and free assembly in the United States. It destroys basic con- 
stitutional guaranties which are the foundation of our American 
system. 

The Mundt bill declares that the Communist movement presents a — 

clear and present danger to the security of the United States and to the existence 
of free American institutions. 

The clear and present danger to our free institutions is contained in 
the Mundt bill and the philosophy of repression and denial of in- 
dividual liberties which it represents. 

The bill is aimed squarely at the rights of free speech, free press, and 
free assembly, the very foundation stones of our democracy. 

Mr. Nixon in his testimony before this committee insisted that the 
bill was not directed at free speech at all. He argued that it was aimed 
rather at unlawful activities, and that even in the field of action, it 
affected only those organizations which are under the domination of a 
foreign power. But the history of the bill and its provisions belie 
these assertions. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 257 

We already have plenty of laws on the books to protect the Nation, 
its citizens, and institutions, from the dangers that Mr. Nixon asserts 
are the subject of the Mundt bill. The Attorney General himself 
listed the following statutes: 

The Smith Act, which makes it a crime to participate in activities 
which have for their purpose the overthrow or destruction of "any 
government in the United States by force and violence." 

The Voorhis Act, requiring the registration as alien agents of or- 
ganizations subject to foreign control. 

The Foreign Agents Registration Act, requiring agents of foreign 
principals to register and to label their political propaganda. 

Espionage statutes, treason statutes, and conspiracy and sabotage 
laws in effect for many years. 

The Mundt bill has been proposed precisely because there is no 
proof that the organizations against which it is aimed have engaged 
in any of the activities denounced by these laws. The Attorney Gen- 
eral himself advised the Un-American Activities Committee that le- 
gal proof was lacking. The fact is that no organization has ever 
been prosecuted — much less convicted — under this more than adequate 
existing legislation. 

These organizations cannot be convicted on the basis of their acts. 
Tt is for this reason — Congressman Nixon to the contrary — that the 
Mundt bill was compelled to invade the area of speech, thought, and 
opinion to stop democratic political activities by individuals and 
groups against the growing power of monopoly at home and the 
threat of war abroad. 

That invasion is complete. What standard determines wdiether or 
not an organization is to be proscribed? One standard is the "extent 
and nature of its * * * expressions of views and policies." A 
second is the "extent to which its views and politics" are the same 
as those of a certain unnamed foreign government. Expression, 
speech, publication. This is an attempt to destroy the fundamental 
freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment. 

However the authors may now deny it, they designed the bill to 
suppress free speech. This is the sole reason for the findings of a 
"clear and present danger" contained in section 2. The "clear and 
present danger" doctrine has application only to the right of free 
speech. Therefore, if the bill as its proponents contend w T ere confined 
solely to activities, then there would be no need to assert "clear and 
present danger" as a legislative finding. 

Only men of little faith in the strength of our democracy or those 
who are determined to subvert it can assert that the advocacy of 
communism or Communist doctrine of speech and press is a "clear 
and present danger" to our institutions. I know of no authority which 
grants to Congress the power to make true that which is false, to 
substitute a legislative assertion for legal proof. 

It was the author of the "clear and present danger" restriction on 
the right of free speech who himself provided the clearest demon- 
stration of the unconstitutionality of this bill. Justice Holmes set 
forth our basic trust in the freedom of ideas : 

But when men have realized that time has upset many lighting faiths, they come 
to believe even more than they believe the very foundations of their own conduct 
that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the 
best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competi- 
tion of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which their wishes safely 



258 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

can be carried out. That, at any rate, is the theory of our Constitution. It is an 
experiment, as all life is an experiment. Every year, if not every clay, we have to 
wager our salvation upon some prophecy based upon imperfect knowledge. While 
that experiment is part of our system I think that we should be eternally vigilant 
against attempts to check the expression of opinions that we loathe and believe 
to be fraught with death, unless they so imminently threaten immediate inter- 
ference with the lawful and pressing purposes of the law that an immediate 
check is required to save the country * * *. 

The Mundt bill does violence to this historic statement of the under- 
lying faith of such champions of freedom as Milton, Jefferson, Madi- 
son, Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. Nowhere is the deception of 
this legislation more ominous than in the use of Justice Holmes' phrase 
'"clear and present danger" to defeat the faith in free speech which he 
cherished. 

The registration provisions further reveal the intention to suppress 
free speech. 

The device of registration should confuse no one. The bill makes 
it the exact equivalent of outright proscription. For registration 
would brand organizations engaged in the peaceful advocacy of social 
change as members of a world-wide conspiracy to destroy American 
democracy. 

To wdiat organizations will these registration requirements be ap- 
plied ? The authors of the Mundt bill — the Dies-Thomas-Rankin 
committee — have provided the answer. 

Everywhere that men and women have militantly asserted their 
right to organize and better their conditions, the Un-American Activ- 
ities Committee has denounced their effort as a Communist danger 
to established institutions. 

The CIO Political Action Committee w T as charged with repre- 
senting — 

in its main outlines a subversive Communist campaign to subvert the Congress 
of the United States to its totalitarian program. 

The Un-American Activities Committee has said that those who be- 
lieve in planning, oppose monopolies, attack cartels, are not "attached 
to the principles of the form of government as guaranteed by our 
Constitution." According to it, those who oppose Franco are not fight- 
ing fascism but following Soviet foreign policy. If you criticize the 
State Department, you are following pro-Russian, pro-Communist 
propaganda. If yon believe in friendship with the Soviet Union, you 
are being disloyal. If you believe in racial and social equality, that is 
one of the essentials of communism. These are the tests by which the 
Mundt bill would judge free Americans and their organizations. 

It is obvious that no such organization could register and continue 
to live. Yet if it fails to register, it is subject to criminal prosecution. 

Thus, the bill presents no choice. The alternatives are either si- 
lence and dissolution, or a penitentiary sentence. This is not the 
Americanism I learned in the public schools of Iowa 50 years ago. 
This bill would destroy my America and your America. Gentle- 
men, this must not be. 

We are told that this measure represents nothing more than an 
application of the principles of the Food and Drug Act to political 
activity. The distinction is obvious. The authors of our Constitu- 
tion carefully distinguished between articles of commerce and ideas. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 259 

In this they followed in the great tradition of Milton, who said: 

Truth and understanding arc not such wares as to 1)«' monopolized and traded 
in by tickets anil statutes and standards. We must not think to make a staple 
commodity of all the knowledge in the land, to mark ami license it like our broad- 
Cloth and our wool packs. 

Perhaps the greatest deception is the assertion of tin" hill's pro- 
ponents that it is aimed only at Communists. 

And as the bill is framed, its penalties can be visited upon every 
organization which espouses the cause of world peace and progress; 
every organization which opposes the basic tests of the bipartisan 
program. For as we have seen, two of the standards for determining 
whether an organization shall be proscribed are "the extent and nature 
of * the expression of views and policies," and the extent 

to which the views and policies thus expressed are the same as those 
of an unnamed but readily identifiable foreign government. 

Let me give but one illustration. The Russian Government has 
proposed a conference with ours for the purpose of arriving at a gen- 
eral settlement of outstanding differences. I wrote an open letter 
to Premier Stalin suggesting the concrete basis for such a discussion. 
Premier Stalin has announced that my proposals could serve as the 
basis for a conference. President Truman and Secretary of State 
-Marshall have flatly rejected the Russian offer to confer. I, the 
new party which I represent, and millions of American citizens, 
including newspaper editors and columnists, vigorously oppose this 
refusal and support acceptance of the Russian offer. Because we in- 
sist on seizing this opportunity for peace and stopping the drive to 
war, the Mundt bill would empower the Attorney General to pro- 
scribe our party and visit criminal penalties upon its members, in the 
event that it refused — as it most certainly would — to register with 
him. 

The victim of this bill would not be communism, but democracy; 
not the ideals of Karl Marx but the ideas of Jefferson and Madison; 
not the advocacy of violent revolution, but the advocacy of the prin- 
ciples on which our Government was established and in defense of 
which our people have engaged in three bloody wars. 

The entire measure reeks with hypocrisy. Here is a bill which pur- 
ports to guard against dictatorship. Yet it makes the Attorney Gen- 
eral of the United States a dictator over every organization in the 
land. He is given virtually unlimited power to brand and outlaw the 
association of our people for the peaceful advocacy of common objec- 
tives. He need merely find that it is "reasonable to conclude" on the 
basis of any or all the criteria stated in the bill that the organization 
should be outlawed, and his declaration seals its fate and that of its 
members. 

Never in the history of the United States has any public official been 
vested with such authority. Even the alien and sedition laws, vicious 
as they were too, do not supply a precedent. The only model for this 
authority lies in the power given to the Nazi minister of the interior by 
the first laws passed after Hitler's accession to power. 

Under the stress of a national hysteria, those in power sometimes 
for get the limitations upon their authority. I can only hope that 
the members of this body will not make that fatal error. 



260 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

As I have shown, the reach of this bill extends far beyond com- 
munism and the Communist Party. Even if it were limited exclu- 
sively to them, it would still violate the Bill of Rights and require 
the outright condemnation of every American who is attached to the 
principles of our Constitution. 

Freedom of thought is meaningless if it does not extend to freedom 
for the thought that we hate. Onlv men who fear democracv are 
ever afraid of the free flow of ideas. Only men who would destroy 
democracy can advocate the suppression of free speech. 

One lesson the Nazis should have burned into our minds — the les- 
son that the suppression of the constitutional rights of Communists is 
but the prelude to an assault upon the liberties of all the people. In 
Germany, communism was the ostensible target, but the real victims 
were the citizens of every state in Europe and our own. Hitler's first 
edicts were directed against Communists. He confiscated the posses- 
sions of the Communist Party and Communist trade-unions. But this 
was but a first step. The next victims were the memberships of the 
Social Democratic Party, the Socialists. Then followed the members 
of the Catholic Center Parties. Finally, within 3 months of taking 
office. Hitler required an oath of loyalty from the citizens of the Fourth 
Reich and punished all who — and I quote — 

tried to insult the prestige or the measures of the National Government. 

We have not in the past been immune from the dangerous infection 
which resists unwelcome ideas by illegality and violence. 

Roger "Williams was hounded from Massachusetts for the heresy of 
advocating freedom of religion. At a much later date the Palmer 
raids were directed against political heretics — the anarchists, Social- 
ists, and newly organized Communists. 

The FBI started to hunt alien radicals. But when the smoke was 
cleared away, the victims included college professors, editors, and 
writers, leaders of trade-unions, and of Negro organizations — and even 
members of the New York Assembly. And I might add that the 
FBI, in its hunt for radicals, even went so far as to rifle the offices of 
a United States Senator. 

You start with Communists — but you end up by trying to exter- 
minate the ideas and influence of all those with whom you disagree. 

To anyone who has known the history of our struggle for personal 
liberty, the Mundt bill is the 1948 equivalent of the Alien and Sedition 
Acts of 150 years earlier. I earnestly suggest that before the com- 
mittee acts on this bill, it study that period in our history. In 1798, 
the French Revolution, which had its origin in our own Revolution 
only 20 years earlier, created a deep ferment in this country. The 
Federalists, representing the money powers, the rich landowners and 
merchant classes, sought to perpetuate their one-party control of the 
Government. They feared the rising political power of the people 
being organized by Thomas Jefferson. 

They seized on a fancied insult by France to create a Avar fever 
and manufacture a "Jacobin"' menace. Under cover of these alarms, 
they rush through the Congress the Alien Act and quickly followed 
it with the Sedition Act to silence all, citizen and alien alike, who dared 
criticize the Federalist leadership of the Government. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 261 

The Sedition Act was designed to muzzle the growing democratic 

press and to suppress all criticism of the Government and its policies. 
It made it unlawful to print or publish anything "false or scandalous" 
against the Government, the President, or Congress with intent "to 
cite the people's hatred against them" or "to stir up sedition" or to 
"excite a combination to resist any law." Violations of the law were 
punishable by fine and imprisonment for 2 years. 

As in the cast of the Mundt bill, the advocates of the sedition law 
urged that the officials charged with their execution would not abuse 
the broad powers confided to them. Thomas Jeiferson answered that 
argument in the Virginia resolution, which is as pertinent for 1948 
as on the day it was written : 

* * * that it would be a dangerous delusion were a confidence in the men 
of our choice to silence our fears of the safety of our rights ; that confidence is 
everywhere the fount of despotism ; free government is founded in jealousy and 
not in confidence; it is jealousy and not confidence that prescribes limited con- 
stitutions to bind down those we are obliged to trust witli power * * *. In 
questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him 
down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution. 

Jefferson's fears were well founded. 

The passage of the sedition law was the signal for the outbreak of a 
reign of terror against Jefferson's Republicans. Vigilantes were en- 
couraged by men in high places. Editors were arrested for printing 
even mild criticisms of the Government. The letters of private citi- 
zens were opened to ferret out suspected criticism of Government 
officials. Mathew Lyon, Member of Congress from Vermont was sent 
to jail for criticizing the policies of the President. 

Writing to Mathew Lyon in jail, Senator Mason of Virginia ex- 
pressed the hope that the people would not — 

suffer themselves to be deluded about a false and groundless clamor about French 
influence and a French party in this country, until the foundation of their 
liberty were sapped, all the barriers of the Constitution broken down, and them- 
selves reduced to a state of vassalage. 

Senator Mason's hope was realized when it was found that a settle- 
ment with France was possible. The war fever abated, the hysteria 
subsided, and the new party of Thomas Jefferson swept the elections 
of 1800. 

We in America today must be as vigilant as the followers of Jeffer- 
son in repudiating this new and wores version of the Alien and Sedition 
Acts. We must not suffer ourselves to be deluded about a false ami 
groundless clamor about Russian influence and a Russian party in 
this country, until the foundations of our liberty are sapped, all the 
barriers of the Constitution broken down, and we are reduced to a state 
of vassalage. 

We have already moved down the road to serfdom — away, far away, 
from the goals of the irtlantic Charter and the One World we saw as 
the rewards of victory. The first victims of the cold war are the 
American people themselves. 

The Mundt bill represents another offensive in that cold war, an 
offensive which would destroy the traditions of 150 years of democracy 
and take us far down the road to the new feudalism, called fascism. 
Even as this sinister measure is given precedence before your com- 



262 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

mittee, legislation required to meet the real needs of the American 
people is allowed to languish and die as the Congress moves toward 
adjournment. 

Why, we ask, has legislation to curb the real perpetrators of force 
and violence — the lynchers — been shunted aside by this committee, and, 
according to press reports, buried for this session. Why has there 
been no action by Congress on bills for improved social security, higher 
minimum wages, protection against inflation, and a health program 
for the American people? What has happened to fair employment 
and anti-poll-tax legislation? 

Why do the bipartisans declare that an understanding with Russia 
is impossible, while all Americans pay the price of the cold war in 
billions for armaments and only pennies for real security ? 

We cannot have peace with Russia if we approach Russia with the 
atomic bomb in one hand and the Mundt bill in the other. 

Now. the Mundt bill would exact a further price — not in money — 
but in the liberties of a free people. 

Gentlemen, for 4 years I had the honor of presiding over the 
Senate. The United States Senate by reason of its careful delibera- 
tions has long been a major guardian of American freedom. Today, 
by the course you are pursuing in respect to the Mundt bill, you are 
bowing and contributing to the dangerous hysteria which can under- 
mine our priceless heritage of freedom. 

Gentlemen, I warn you against hasty actions. All of this is con- 
ducted in the name of a cold war against Russia. But leaving Russia 
aside, let us dedicate ourselves to the fundamental job of good Ameri- 
cans — that of preserving the Constitution of the United States and 
extending to all our people the rights it embodies. 

Congress is on trial, not the Communists. America is threatened, 
not Russia, by this legislation which is designed to set up the Attorney 
General as a Himmler. For every Communist who might be regis- 
tered there would be a thousand liberals silenced whose voices arc 
vital to the preservation of democracy. The warmongers, fear- 
mongers, and hatemongers who sponsor such legislation as the Mundt - 
Nixon bill would stand before the bar of history as American counter- 
parts of Mussolini and Hitler. Our children and our children's 
children will point the finger of shame and scorn at these men who 
succumbed to the war hysteria manufactured by evil men for selfish 
purposes. 

The Chairman. Have you had occasion to go over the act, Mr. 
Wallace? 

Mr. Wallace. Yes, I have read the act. 

The Chairman. Have you read that part of it that describes the 
necessity for legislation ? 

Mr. Wall\ce. You mean section 2 or section 1 ? Section -2 ? 

The Chairman. It is section 2. 

Mr. Wallace. Section 2, yes. 

The Chairman. It runs down to ''definitions" on page 5. 

You have read that, I assume. 

Mr. Wallace. Yes. 

The Chairman. Have you reached any conclusion as to whether or 
not the statements there made are correct statements of fact? 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 263 

Mr. Wallace. I do not claim to be any expert in this field. I am 
directing my observation primarily to the preservation of old- 
fashioned Americanism. 

I would say from reading Justice Douglas' speech, for example, 
that the number of Communists in this country is less than 100,000, 
that they are a very small segment of our population. 

The Chairman. I do not think that exactly answers my question. 
We have just had testifying before us Norman Thomas, another can- 
didate for the Presidency, and he gave us his conception as to this 
statement. I was wondering whether we could have 3 T ours, whether 
you felt that the statement starting with (1) through to (11) on 
page "». set forth the statement of facts in relation to the necessity 
for legislation. 

Mr. Wallace. Senator, if you granted that every statement there 
were true, which I would not care to certify to myself, but granting 
that every statement there were true, I would say that it would not 
warrant abridging the Constitution of the United States. 

I would say that it would not warrant infringing on the right of 
free speech. 

The Chairman. I do not think you understand my point. 

What I was trying to find out from you is whether or not there 
could be any agreement between j r ou and Mr. Thomas as to the basic 
facts. Then we are seeking to find whether there is available such a 
remedy which will not trespass upon the civil rights of our citizens, 
or endanger any constitutional provision. 

Mr. Wallace. Senator, let me put it this way: That insofar as 
Communists or others may be engaged in subversive activities, we 
already have vigorous and adequate legislation to deal with the acts 
insofar as Communists and others may be dealing with ideas. Then 
it seems to me that we can follow Justice Holmes' approach and 
allow those ideas to find their true level in the market place of free 
expression. 

The Chairman. Now, if you will refer to the bill, and look at (1) 
to (11), inclusive, and point out any one of those paragraphs that 
you think does not state a basic fact or a basic analysis of the facts, 
I would appreciate getting that. 

Mr. Wallace. You said pages 1 to 11, or sections 1 to 11 ? 

The Chairman. It is section 2, subsections (1) to (11), running 
over to page 5. It is what has been called The necessity for legisla- 
tion. 

Mr. Wallace. Senator, I Avill just return to my former statement : 
That insofar as any of these attitudes or facts may have to do with 
action, we have adequate legislation. If they have to do with ideas, 
we can handle them in a manner that Justice Holmes suggested. 

'The Chairman. Then you do not want to pick out any of these and 
say they are not true, and you do not w T ant to say they are? 

Mr. Wallace. No; I have not addressed myself particularly to this, 
section of the bill. 

The Chairman. Did you personally prepare this speech? 

Mr. Wallace. I spent all day yesterday working on it, sir. 

The Chairman. Meaning that you personally prepared it \ 



264 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Wallace. I am standing behind it, Senator. I wouldn't think 
you would want to engage in this kind of questioning because I am 
familiar with how Senator's speeches are prepared as well. I suspect 
I came closer to preparing this speech myself than the average Sena- 
tor has come to preparing his speeches which he delivers. 

The Chairman. Not ever having been a Senator, you assume that 
same omniscient attitude that you have assumed on everything. 

Mr. Wallace. I have helped write speeches for Senators myself. 

The Chairman. Are any of them present? 

Mr. Wallace. No, none of them are present. 

This is a solemn and dignified judicial occasion, and I see nothing 
to be gained by ad hominem remarks on either side. 

The Chairman. I am glad you have reached that conclusion. You 
and I met in this room on another occasion when it was not so 
dignified. 

Mr. Wallace. That wasn't, if I remember correctly, a meeting of 
the Judiciary Committee. 

The Chairman. It was in this room. 

When you speak about this committee, you can have this assurance 
sir. When you go out and make your speeches, that this committee 
will give consideration to every word you have said as well as the 
words of those other distinguished citizens who will testify. 

You have given us as your conclusion, I assume, that the situation 
is one which does not require any attention, and that we just should 
let matters stand or keep the status quo, and let those go on who would 
want to do to our country what has been done in other countries. 

Am I right in that? 

Mr. Wallace. Senator, I reach the conclusion that if any group 
is threatening by action the Government of the United States or the 
government of any of the States, or subdivisions thereof, that we have 
adequate laws on the statute books to take care of those individuals, or 
those groups, I should say. 

But if it is a matter of the controlling of thought, then I just must 
be forced to state that I hold the views of Justice Holmes. 

The Chairman. I do not think you will find any disagreement on 
that, sir. The question is what the bill does. We are having lawyers 
who have had the time, we trust, to go into this matter, and we expect 
opinions from different sources. And we expect to give this bill all 
the consideration that we think it merits. 

Of course, as you know, the bill just came to the Senate, and in view 
of the condition of our calendar, we have been working now, starting 
in the early morning at 9 o'clock with these sessions, but if you go forth 
in your program of educating the public, I suggest that you have a 
little faith in the Senate, too. 

Mr. Wallace. I have always expressed that faith. Senator, and I 
hope that my faith in the Senate will continue to be justified. 

The Chairman. Well, on page 9 you have referred rather slightingly 
to several things about which you do not know anything. 

Are there any questions? 

Senator Eastland Yes. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 265 

Mr. Wallace, at the request of Senator Magnuson, who is not pres- 
ent, I ask you this question. 1 read you Senator Magnuson's question : 

Mr. Wallace, you said at a press conference on March 7, 1!>47, thai "communism 
and fascism are very different tilings with very different aims indeed.'' Is that 
how you feel today? 

Mr. Wallace. Yes, and my authority is the War Department. 
Senator Eastland (reading) : 

Now. you said. Mr. Wallace, in a speech in Seattle, Wash., on July IS. 1935, 
that ••communism and fascism have a very striking similarity. They build up a 
-ease of national unity very much like the unity engendered hy war. like war 
they begin and end with physical force, and the final outcome is likely to he as 
futile and devastating." 

Mr. Wallace, what caused you to change your mind ( 

Mr. Wallace. I haven't changed my mind, and as a matter of fact 
those statements are in accord with the statement of the War Depart- 
ment. I still recognize that both communism and fascism tire totali- 
tarian, but the objectives are different. 

I would like to insert here — I don't have it with me, but I would like 
to insert at this point in the record, the statement of the War Depart- 
ment with regard to the difference between communism and fascism. 

The Chairman. It is so ordered. 

(The above-mentioned statement had not been received when the 
transcripts were sent to the printer.) 

Senator Eastland. Now, I will ask you this question on my own 
behalf: 

Would this Mundt bill apply to your party? 

Mr. Wallace. I have been informed that different Congressmen 
and different Senators have given different opinions with regard to 
that. 

Senator Eastland. What is your judgment? 

Mr. Wallace. I would like to have the judgment of the Senators 
with regard to that. I would really like to know. 

Senator Eastland. I understood you, from your statement, at least 
I understood your statement said, that it would apply to the third 
party. 

Let me make myself clear, that at this stage I am not for this bill, 
and I ask you for information on what do you base that statement. 

Air. AVallace. Well, the particular statement there had to do with — 
I think it was section (3), subsection (c), I think — no. that is not the 
one. It is under section (3) C. I was citing my letter to Stalin, and 
Stalin's reply, which might conceivably, under the phraseology on page 
6— 

The term "Communist political organization" means any organization in the 
United States having some, but not necessarily all, of the ordinary and usual 
characteristics of a political party with respect to which, having regard to some 
or all of the following considerations: 

(C) is listed, and under that (C) : 

the extent to which its views and policies are the same as those of such foreign 
government or foreign organization. 

Now. it does happen that I am for peace. I am for peace with 
Russia. I am for ending the cold war with Russia, and expressed 



266 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

in an open letter to Stalin certain points which I thought should be 
considered in ending the cold war. 

Later on Stalin made the reply in which he indicated a certain 
amount of agreement with the need for the consideration of those 
points. 

"Well now, I would like. I really would like to know from the Sena- 
tors and the Congressman that have drawn this bill, whether or not 
that fact in and of itself alone would bring the new party, would out- 
law the new party and subject it to every member being put in jail, 
subject to a fine and imprisonment. 

I really would like to know. 

Senator Eastland. This is a House bill. But is it your judgment 
that the bill would apply to your party? 

Mr. Wallace. I don't know. This is so loosely phrased that I 
can't figure it out with any certainty. 

Senator Eastland. If it applied to the third party, it would be on 
the theory that your party would be a communistic party; is that 
right ( 

Mr. "Wallace. You can't tell from this kind of phraseology. I 
mean it doesn't define a Communist as a card-holding member. It 
doesn't do it that way at all. .It just says "any of the following views,'' 
and it seems to me so loosely drawn that anyone with a liberal thought 
belonging to an organization which might be denominated by the 
Attorney General at his good pleasure on so-called reasonable grounds, 
that those individuals could thereby become subject to fine and im- 
prisonment without any appeal to jury trial whatsoever. 

Senator Eastland. Would you think that the Communist Party 
in the United States is foreign-controlled if the head of the French 
Communist Party, Mr. Duclos, forced the resignation of the head of 
the Communist Party in the United States? 

Mr. Wallace. It sounds like it was French-controlled in that case, 
if it was true. 

Senator Eastland. Well, it was foreign-controlled. That is what 
it would mean. 

Mr. Wallace. You mean it is French-controlled. 

Senator Eastland. France is a foreign government? 

Mr. Wallace. Certainly. 

Senator Eastland. Then, it would meet the test of this bill, that 
the Communist Party in this country is foreign-controlled. 

Mr. Wallace. The question is, of course, it would be necessary to 
establish the fact, and I don't know of anybody who really knows the 
facts in that case. 

Senator Eastland. Of course, that is a matter of proof in any 
case. 

Xow. Mr. Wallace, when were you last in Europe? 

Mr. Wallace. I think I left Italy on or about November 1 or No- 
vember 2 of last year. 

Senator Eastland. When did you last see Mr. Duclos? 

Mr. Wallace. Mr. Duclos came and called — I saw, I might say, 
every branch of French thought except the De Gaullists, who didn't 
call on me. I saw all of them. They came in seriatim in my office. It 
Avas around last April. 

Senator Eastland. You saw Mr. Duclos in April ? 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 267 

Mr. Wallace. You will find my encounter with him written up in 
the New Republic. 

Senator Eastland. How long did you spend with him? 

Mr. Wallace. I don't know. I think we must have talked three- 
quarters of an hour. You will find the whole conversation in the New 
Republic. 

Senator Eastland. Did you mention anything about the third party 
movement in this country? 

Mr. Wallace. Not so far as I remember it. 

Senator Eastland. It is very strange that the Daily Worker and 
the Communist Party in this country set up their howl for a third 
party immediately after your conference with Mr. Duclos. I wanted 
to know if he had mentioned the third party to you. 

Mr. Wallace. I have no recollection of it, sir, whatsoever. 

Senator Eastland. That is all. 

The Chairman. Are there any other questions? 

Mr. Wallace. I might say if you want to look into that further, you 
might call Mr. Michael Straight before the committee. 

The Chairman. Who is Mr. Michael Straight? 

Mr. Wallace. He is the publisher of the New Republic. 

Senator Langer. Mr. Wallace, as I understand your testimony, you 
fear that any party would be at the mercy of the Attorney General of 
the United States? 

Mr. Wallace. Any party holding liberal ideas. 

Senator Langer. That is what I mean. If we had an Attorney 
General, for example, who is a reactionary, he could by his actions 
proscribe any liberal party? 

Mr. Wallace. Even at a stretch, if you consider the different parts 
of this bill separable, and the declaration is made at the finish that 
they are separable. Under section (4) — I am not altogether sure — but 
what you could prosecute extreme right-wingers if you had an extreme 
radical as an Attorney General. All you need to do would be to dem- 
onstrate that they had a certain amount of foreign inspiration. I 
think you could get very-right-wingers under section (4) . 

Senator Langer. I was coming to that. 

For example, if a party was created which said, "Now, we are going 
to endorse the Sherman Antitrust Act by enforcing the criminal pro- 
visions of it,''' something which never has been done until within the 
last few months, the Attorney General could proscribe that party. Is 
that not right ? 

Mr. Wallace. I don't quite get the reasoning there, Senator. 

Senator Langer. The Sherman Antitrust Act was passed, you know, 
in 1890, and it contained a criminal provision which has never been 
enforced, either by a Republican Attorney General or a Democratic 
Attorney General. 

Take your party ; it suddenly insists that these men who create these 
trusts and raise the price of bread and the price of milk should be 
arrested. 

Mr. Wallace. It seems to me under this law you would have to 
determine that it came from some foreign source. I think you could 
demonstrate it was moving in the direction of totalitarian dictatorship. 

Senator Langer. In the last analysis, is not this determination of 
the foreign country in the head of the Attorney General ? 

78257—48 IS 



268 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Wallace. Yes ; I presume so. 

Senator Langer. In other words, you are giving him more power 
than you have ever given to any other public official in this country. 

Mr. Wallace. It is a frightening power. 

Senator Laxger. Yes. So if you had a reactionary Attorney Gen- 
eral, and you create, for example, a committee to wipe out lynching, 
or a committee to put over the FEPC, the Attorney General could 
determine that was inspired Iry a foreign power and stop it. 

Mr. Wallace. Undoubtedly in that field the Attorney General could, 
and no doubt would. 

Senator Langer. I want you to clearly understand me, that I am 
one man over whom you presided for 4 years, and for whom I have the 
greatest regard and the highest respect for your honor and integrity, 
and I want the world to know that as far as I am concerned, I agree 
fully with you on the top paragraph on page 9. 

Frankly, I cannot see why legislation to wipe out lynching, why 
legislation for social security, higher minimum wages, for protection 
against inflation, and for health and for the enactment of FEPC, 
should not be passed before Congress adjourned even though we stay 
here July, August, September, October, and November, and December. 

I think you are dead right on that. 

What have you to say about this practice of calling everyone whom 
some people do not like, who have progressive ideas, a Communist '. 
You run across quite a bit of that. 

Mr. Wallace. When I campaigned for the Democrats in northern 
United States, in 19-AG, I found every Democratic Congressman, to the 
best of my recollection, called a Communist. It was part of a stock 
in trade of the Republican Party at that time to call every Democratic 
Congressman a Communist. I was called a Bolshevik after World 
War I because I advocated the McNary housing bill which was a Re- 
publican measure, and in Iowa in those days, so far as I know, there 
was not a single Communist in Iowa at that time, but everyone who 
stood for progressive ideas in Iowa during the twenties was called 
a Bolshevik. Anybody you didn't like was a Bolshevik. Today it is 
standard practice : anybody you don't like is a Communist. 

It is true in the smaller towns of the United States they don't know 
what "Communist" means. The word has become almost meaningless 
on that account. 

Senator Langer. You may be interested to know that you are not 
the only one who suffered. I think I have something like a hundred 
letters in my office where Senator Robert A. Taft is called a Com- 
munist because he advocated this public housing bill, the Ellender- 
Wagner-Taft bill, which shows to what extreme prejudiced people 
can go. 

Mr. Wallace. I was rather interested in noting when I was at Coeui 
d'Alene, Idaho, a few days ago, that in the Coeur d'Alene paper 
there was a report concerning the statement by the House Appropria- 
tions Committee referring to the cutting of the Bonneville power rate 
to a public utility dist? ict. 

The House Appropriations Committee said: "Such a Soviet power 
policy must stop." 

So that even this rather loose use of words gets into legislative halls 
at the present time. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 269 

Of course, it is much more prevalent in the open country than in 
the legislative halls, but it is nit her astounding t<> find thai the cutting 
oi a power rate is designated as a Soviet power policy. 

Senator Langer. That is all. 

The Chairman. Senator Moore, do yon have any questions? 

Senator Moose. No. 

The Chairman. Senator O'Daniel? 

Senator ODaniel. No. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further. Mr. Wallace, yon want 
to tell the committee? 

Mr. Wallace. 1 think nor. sir. 

The Chairman. We thank you for appearing, and we hope your 
appearing here has not disarranged your campaign schedule. 

Air. Wallace. I appreciate your courtesy in complying with my 
time schedule as thoughtfully as you have, Senator. 

The Chairman. Well now. there was one gentleman who preceded 
you when you came in. He was giving us what I would call a Kiwanis 
talk for politicians. It was in substance this : 

There is so much good in the worst of us, 
And so much bad in the best of us 
That it hardly becomes any of us 
To talk about the rest of us. 

So with that blessing, sir, I let you go. 
Is Mr. Kenne}^ in the room ? 
Will yon raise your right hand and be sworn \ 

Do you solemnly swear that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 
Mr. Kenney. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. KENNEY, FORMER ATTORNEY 
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. Kenney. Mr. Chairman, I am here with Judge Pacht, chairman 
of the California Prison Board. Judge Pacht was also recently ap- 
pointed by our government of California the chairman of the crime 
commission. 

One of his duties, as chairman of the crime commission is the investi- 
gation of civil liberties within the State. 

Judge Pacht is also the President of the California Council of Civic 
Unity. 

I would like to yield most of my time to Judge Pacht, and then 
merely discuss certain administrative features of the bill at the con- 
clusion of Judge Pacht's testimony. 

The Chairman. What is the Judge's full name? 

Mr. Pacitt. Isaac Pacht is the full name. 

The Chairmax. Will you be sworn? 

Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you are about to give in 
this matter is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God? 

Mr. Pacht. I do. 

The Chairman. Make it as brief as you can and please talk to the 
point. Both of you gentlemen are lawyers, and we want light. We 



270 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

do not care to have a lot of generalities, such as : This is bad or that is 
good. 

Tell us why it is good or why it is bad and quote your authorities. 

TESTIMONY OF ISAAC PACHT. CHAIRMAN. PRISON BOARD, CHAIR- 
MAN, CRIME COMMISSION. PRESIDENT. CALIFORNIA COUNCIL 
OF CIVIC UNITY 

Mr. Paciit. The point made by you, Mr. Chairman, I think is very 
timely and well taken. My remarks will be very brief. 

I am, in common with a great many other citizens, extremely dis- 
turbed about the power which this bill vests in the Attorney General 
to designate any group or organization as a communistic front organi- 
zation. 

I have seen what such power given even to a legislative committee 
may result in. 

For instance, a committee calling itself the un-American activities 
committee of our State legislature has undertaken to terms such a 
patriotic organization as the American Jewish Congress as a subversive 
organization. One of the members of that committee has undertaken 
to designate so fine an organization as the California Federation for 
Civil Unity, composed of some of the finest men and women in the 
State of California and some of its most patriotic citizens, as a Com- 
munist-front organization. 

I think it is truly extremely dangerous to vest in one man the power 
to determine whether or not an organization is a Communist-front 
organization, and to enable him to visit upon that organization and its 
members directly and indirectly the penalties prescribed by this pro- 
posed act. 

History is not silent upon similar activities by persons enjoying 
that kind of power. I will cite one example. 

Lord Macaulay. in his history of England, dwells upon this at con- 
siderable length. When King James II made his attempt to recapture 
the throne of England, he convoked a parliament in Ireland which, 
as one of his first acts, proceeded to pass what is called the Great Act 
of Attainder. This bill, in many of its features, is an act of attainder,, 
and in many of its implications is an act of attainder. 

By that bill, some 3,000 of the finest men and women, and in many 
instances, children were proscribed and convicted without trial or 
adequate hearing, and all that was necessary to bring anyone within 
the act of attainder was to hand in the name of a suspected individual 
to the clerk of the parliament. 

Thus, any creditor, or any political enemy of a person could be 
brought under suspicion. 

This bill makes it possible for political enemies, people with religious 
differences, different social and psychological ideas, people with dif- 
ferent economic ideas, to bring under suspicion the activities of any 
person or group of persons. 

That bill was brought into parliament by Attorney General Nagle 
who, upon being asked upon what evidence this bill of attainder 
was made to apply to this vast number of people stated that it was 
upon such evidence as satisfied him, and, as to the remainder, it was 
based upon common rumor. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 271 

Now, this bill would place in the hands of the Attorney General 
without adequate standards the power to determine that any group or 
organization, no matter how worthy or patriotic its motives might be, 
the stamp of being a Communist-front organization. 

All of ns know that we all contribute money and answer letters 
from various organizations asking for contributions to various worthy 
causes from members of such organizations on the basis of their de- 
clared principles, and none of us, or very few of ns, I should say, have 
the opportunity or the time to investigate each and every such organi- 
zation to determine who its real backers are and where its funds are 
coming from. 

This bill is opposed, not only by so-called progressive people or 
liberals, but it is also opposed by many well-recognized men and 
women. 

Senator Eastland. May I ask you a question ( 

Mr. Paciit. Yes. 

Senator Eastland. What is the meaning of "clear and present 
danger" doctrine? How far does it go? 

Mr. Pacht. Well, I would say that it means such a situation as rea- 
sonably minded men 

Senator Eastland. Have you studied the cases? 

Mr. Paciit. Well, I have read a good many cases on the subject. 

Senator Eastland. All right, sir. Now go ahead. 

Mr. Paciit. I should say that it means such a clear and present 
danger as would satisfy reasonable men that the danger does exist. 

Senator Eastland. Danger from what source? Without, or 
within ? 

Mr. Pacht. I would say from either place. 

Senator Eastland. In other words, is it your contention that if 
there is a clear and present danger to change this system of Govern- 
ment by force from within, that Congress would have the authority 
under the Constitution \ 

Mr. Pacht. I say that a clear and present danger situation is one 
of evidence and proof and not merely by legislative fiat. 

Senator Eastland. I was trying to get the legal principles involved. 

Mr. Pacht. Yes, Senator. 

Senator Eastland. Do you think that under those "clear and present 
danger" decisions, if an organization in the country desired, by force 
if necessary, to change the predominant rule or thought to control 
the country, that Congress would have the right to enact a bill of this 
nature to cause them to register? 

Mr. Pacht. Well, I think that the matter of registration is a dan- 
gerous procedure in the first place, but I believe, Senator, that there 
is adequate law on the books todaj' to prosecute and convict. 

Senator Eastland. I understand that, and I am not taking issue. 
I simply want to have information. 

Mr. Pacht. Yes. 

Senator Eastland. I say that I am a racist. Say that I am an 
extreme racist, which I am. If there is an organization in this coun- 
try that is set up to bring about by force or violence the separation 
of the races, to enforce Jim Crow statutes all over the country, could 
the Congress pass an act of this kind to suppress that organization '. 

Mr. Pacht. I do not believe that Congress has the power to pass 



272 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

any law which would prohibit anyone from freely expressing his 
opinion concerning any legislative matter. 

{Senator Eastland. Do you think that if this bill were sustained 
by the courts, that that power would exist? 

' Mr. Pacht. I say that any bill, any law that is sustained by the 
courts, it is the duty of all law-abiding citizens to conform with. 

Senator Eastland. I am not taking issue with you there. I ask 
you, if this bill were sustained by the court, then would Congress have 
the power to enact a bill of the kind I just described ? 

Mr. Pacht. If the Supreme Court sustained the bill as being a 
constitutional exercise 

Senator Eastland. Sustained this bill. 

Mr. Pacht. I am talking about this bill. If the Supreme Court sus- 
tains this bill as the proper exercise of constitutional legislative au- 
thority, that would settle the matter. 

Senator Eastland. Of course this bill would not apply to an organ- 
ization that I just described. I asked you if the precedent would be 
established, and if the power would be placed to suppress an organ- 
ization like the one that I described. 

Mr. Pacht. I am sorry. I do not understand that question. Senator. 

Senator Eastland. That is all right. 

The Chairman. Have you read the forepart of this bill ? 

Mr. Pacht. Yes, I have. 

The Chairman. Are you satisfied one way or the other as to whether 
or not this is a correct delineation of a situation that exists down from 
(1) to 11, on page 5? 

Mr. Pacht. Yes. I am not prepared to say of my own knowledge 
that many of these so-called findings of fact are fell founded. 

The Chairman. Which ones would you dispute? We had a good 
liberal in here this morning. I do not know whether you were here 
or not. 

Mr. Pacht. Mr. Thomas? 

The Chairman. Mr. Norman Thomas. 

Mr. Pacht. Yes, I heard his testimony. 

I think there are different views on that, and he may be correct for all 
I know, but I have no knowledge concerning many of these matters. 

The Chairman. Dr. Thomas gave us a pretty clear conclusion as to 
the menace of communism. There was no mincing of his words as to 
what communism was doing abroad in the world, and that it was an 
international organization; and I guess there is enough evidence here 
to indicate that the organization, at least the heart of the organization 
in America is tied pretty closely to the heart of the parent organization 
in Russia. 

I am not talking about sympathizers and liberals. In view of the 
fact that we viewed history in the last few years, does it present in 
your mind a situation that at least needs the consideration of Con- 
gress, and Congress should not be damned for considering it? 

Mr. Pacht. Oh, I think that Congress certainly should not be 
damned for considering it, and I think Congress is well warranted in 
considering any situation of this kind. But I wish to state emphat- 
ically that I do not believe that communism constitutes any threat to 
the American people, because so long as we have freedom of speech 
and freedom of expression, and freedom of the press in this country, 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 273 

the sound common sense of the American people will be immune 
ugainsl Communist doctrine. 

The Chairman. Well, 1 have thai hope, sir. But I remember it 
was less than a week before Czechoslovakia was taken over, our own 
Slate Department got reports from our own agents over there that 
there was not a possibility of Czecheoslovakia being taken over. 

Mr. Pacht. Mr. Chairman, may I venture an opinion as to that 
situation and others which have existed in Europe I 

That is. we must bear in mind that the whole European Continent 
has become devastated jas a result of this war that we have just gone 
through. The people were starving; they were ready victims of 
Communist propaganda. That is not the situation in the United 
States. 

The Chairman. That is not the report you had from Czecho- 
slovakia up to a week before they were taken over. The point is 
that they were the most democratic country in Europe, and Thomas 
says today that communism is not democratic; if anything, it is way 
over on the other side. 

Air. Pacht. Well, let me indicate to you what a Republican citizen 
of our community, a very distinguished lawyer, former president 
of our Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce, of which I take it 3*011 
have heard 

The Chairman. Brother, is there anyone living on God's green 
footstools that has not heard about California? 

Mr. Pacht. I just did not want to let this opportunity pass, Mr. 
Chairman, without advising 

The Chairman. Have you had any sunshine out there in the last 
G months ( 

Mr. Pacht. Let me read you what he has to say. 

The Chairman. Whom are you quoting? 

Mr. Pacht. Mr. Frank Doherty, former president of the Los Angeles 
Chamber of Commerce, and a very distinguished lawer at our bar: 

I have read hurriedly a copy of H. R. 5852, which I believe is known as the 
Mundt bill. This measure is apparently receiving some serious consideration 
in Congress. 

You know, of course, how I feel toward Communists and all subversive 
organizations and individuals. We now have a lot of law on the books. I 
believe it is adequate, with probably some minor amendments, to catch any 
person who would attempt to destroy or undermine our Government. 

Speaking facetiously, we Republicans for nearly 16 years 

The Chairman. Wait a minute. I have to look into that. The 
Republicans speak facetiously? 

Mr. Pacht. That is what Mr. Doherty says. 

Speaking facetiously, we Republicans for nearly 16 years have been doing 
our darndest to undermine the Government we had at Washington, and we 
hope by November 2 the majority of the people of this country will agree 
with us. 

I am against the type of bill that Mr. Mundt is seeking to have enacted. 
We already have too many policemen. It would give the Attorney General 
vast powers, and an unscrupulous and politically minded Attorney General 
could use these powers to smear and otherwise harm good people. I sincerely 
trust you will not get tied up with this measure. 

There is something in the Bible about the farmer who planted a crop and 
found that a large amount of cockle was coming up with the grain. He stated 
that an enemy must have done this. He did not, however, pull up the cockle 
for fear of destroying the grain. He directed his assistants to let the crop 



274 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

grow until harvest time and then separate the cockle from the wheat and put 
the wheat in the barn and burn the cockle. 

The Chairman. Just a minute. I want the press to note that the 
Republicans quote the Bible just the same as Henry Wallace. 
Mr. Pacht. Th,at is not an uncommon thing, Mr. Chairman. 

An alert citizenry will always be able to detect the cockle whether they are 
Communists or other subversive groups. When we detect them we can burn 
them as we have done, and pretty successfully, today. There is no better cure 
than an aroused public sentiment that is sane and constructive. Do not enact 
a law that is designed to weed out the cockle and in doing so destroy the 
wheat. 

Now, those are my sentiments concerning this bill, gentlemen. 1 
think we are going through a period of hysteria at the present time. 

The trouble with our situation is not a dearth or lack of law. J + ' 
there is any difficulty, it is a matter of lack of enforcement of the law. 

We have adequate statutes on our books, treason statutes, espionage 
statutes, registration acts to deal with any kind of situation, even 
beyond the clear and present danger doctrine enunciated by Justice 
Holmes in his famous opinion. 

We have adequate laws to deal with any real activities designed 
to overthrow the Government of the United States, either in the in- 
terest of people in this country, or in the interest of a foreign power. 
And we do not need a dragnet statute which will bring within its 
penalties many fine and innocent people who haven't the remotest idea 
of undermining or destroying the Government of the United States. 

The Chairman. Will you submit to the committee a brief sustaining 
the position you have just made? That is, a general statement. You 
say we have enough statutes. Those are the things that do not help 
us a bit. 

Mr. Pacht. I shall be very glad to do that. 

(The brief referred to had not been received when the transcripts 
were sent to the printer.) 

The Chairman. That is No. 1. 

No. 2 is: Take the bill and assume that the forepart of it states 
the situation, states the facts, and then tell us what about the rest 
of the bill, whether it is in violation of the Constitution and the civil 
rights of American citizens. 

No. 3. If after you find that that is the case, and you have any 
suggestion as to what the remedy should be, make a synopsis of that. 

That would be the finest kind of help that we could have. 

I need not say to you that we are very busy people. This commit- 
tee has handled one-third of all of the bills in the Senate, ranging over 
1,200. The committee members are members of other committees, and 
the result is that what we do need is not political speeches or gen- 
eralities ; we need the goods ; we need to be shown. 

While most of us are good Republicans, we are really in a sense 
from Missouri, and no one, as far as I know, has really made up his 
mind as to this bill, and mere generalities will not help us. Because 
I have in my office at least 5,000 telegrams, most of them against it, 
simply saying "kill the bill." 

Well, if we are going to listen to that kind of bunk we might just as 
well stop legislating and just count telegrams. 






CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 275 

"What avc want is the benefit of the best legal minds, and in con- 
junction with this, an analysis of the impact upon the American 
system of such a bill. 

Even if it were constitutional, there is a question whether it is a 
good policy. 

Mr. Pacht. Exactly. 

The Chairman. Now, those are the things that we want information 
on. And we do not want simply someone coming up and giving ns 
a lecture, and we have been having a lot of that, you know. 

I am not referring to you ; I am simply bringing up what is an ap- 
parent fact to anyone who has attended these hearings, "I am against 
it" or "I am for it.'' 

That is not the point. 

If "I am against it," then why? And the authority. And one 
thing is. as I suggest, the question of policy, assuming it is constitu- 
tional, why would this be poor policy. And assuming it is consti- 
tutional, and good policy, in a sense would it be the remedy. 

Those are the issues that should be emphasized until we get the 
answer. 

Mr. Pacht. Mr. Chairman, I agree with every word you say; and 
I am grateful to the committee for the fair manner in which they 
are conducting this hearing and giving everybody, opponents and 
proponents of the bill, a full opportunity to be heard. 

The manner in which these hearings are being conducted by this 
committee is a perfect and fine example of the way congressional 
hearings and legislative hearings should be held. 

Now, I will endeavor to comply with your request, Mr. Chairman — 
I think that is the way to handle it. There is no use in making vac- 
uous political speeches to a committee that is considering a bill of 
such vast importance as this. We will be very glad to submit a mem- 
orandum to you, analyzing the bill and going into the reasons why 
it should not be enacted, both upon constitutional bases and upon 
bases of public policy. 

The Chairman. And do not write a book. Write a synopsis to 
a brief. 

Mr. Pacht. Mr. Chairman, having, in my judicial career, read many 
burdensome briefs, and long ones, I will bear that in mind in sub- 
mitting a memorandum to the committee. 

The Chairman. All right, sir. 

Mr. Pacht. I thank you very much for giving me the opportunity 
to appear before you and for hearing me. 

The Chairman. Well, I want to say this : No matter what I have 
had occasion to say, so to speak, ad lib, we are very grateful to every 
witness that has appeared. We feel that this matter raises some 
very vital issues. We feel that those who are utterly opposed to it 
are exercising their constitutional rights in coming before us. But 
I do say that the average citizen does not comprehend the terrific 
amount of work that is imposed upon a legislator. And if there could 
be some way whereby we could get some meat of the argument be- 
fore us, instead of, as I say, giving opportunity for a political circus, 
or something of that kind, it would assist the legislative process tre- 
mendously. It would help these men, these legislators, who are as 
unselfish as any class of men I have run across in my life, to seek 
and to find the wav. 



276 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Pacht. Yes. 

The Chairman. We are all living in a world of change, and we 
are trying to do that which is right. But when you run across two 
such opposite, tremendously opposite, judgments, as to what the facts 
are, and when you find a man like Thomas, and a man like the head 
of the Communist Party, totally disagreeing as to what the facts are 
in this world, it just means that ''We see what we want to see."' 

We sit here to determine what the facts are, and then we have to 
see whether there is any remedy. And then we have to see whether 
the remedy, the cure, is worse than the disease. All those things are 
pertinent to our inquiry. 

Mr. Pacht. Senator, in line with what you have said: I am just an 
humble citizen who came here all the way from California at my own 
expense to testify in this proceeding; 

I did that because I am sincere and genuinely alarmed at the impli- 
cations in and the consequences that will arise from the passage of 
this bill, as to the liberties of the people of this country. 

I am not a politician, and I have no political ambitions. I am a 
registered Democrat 

The Chairman. Let me say to you that those are the same fears that 
the Republicans have been accused of having all our lives, when any 
liberal movement came into being. And now, when a movement comes 
in that may be classified one way or another, people have these fears. 

Now, it is for us to determine whether the fears are justified, and 
whether the language can be appropriately changed to meet the fears, 
if there is some reality to them. At least, it is for us, as humble 
servants of this great country, to try to see that too many ants do not 
"termite" the structure. 

And that has nothing to do with freedom of speech and freedom of 
the press. That is what has built our country : These freedoms. At 
the same time, as I said earlier this morning, we are living in a changed 
world. And there are times when changes in conditions call for 
changes in human conduct. 

Mr. Pacht. But let us bear this in mind. Today the Republican 
Party is in control of Congress. Tomorrow, a Democratic Congress 
may be in power. If the party in power can proscribe any group of 
people or party for its opinions, any opposing party, it is merely a 
matter of the turn of the cycle 

The Chairman. But you will have to take the language and demon- 
strate that. You have not done it today. Suppose you do that in 
your brief. 

Mr. Pacht. I will undertake to do that in the brief. 

The Chairman. There again, we differ; and when I say "we," 1 
mean the people who testified. 

You have great men like Donald Richberg, who cannot see that at 
all ; who say this is constitutional, who say it is a partial — not a whole — 
solution to this problem. 

Mr. Pacht. I have a very high regard for Donald Richberg as a 
lawyer. 

The Chairman. Why limit it to "as a lawyer?" 

Mr. Pacht. I do not so limit it. We have had occasion to have some 
professional relationships with Donald Richberg. 

The Chairman. Did he take you, or did you take him? Let us get 
that clear. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 277 

Mr. Pacht. We associated. We regarded him as a fine citizen and 
as an exceptionally capable lawyer. But I beg respectfully to differ 
with Donald Ricnberg on the constitutionality of this proposed law. 
And I will undertake to say something about that in niv memorandum. 

The Chairman. All right. Get it to us as quickly as you can. 

Now. in view of the fact that there has been criticism of this com- 
mittee, which this morning is represented by only a small group, 4 
out of 13, 1 have this to say : 

This is a committee composed of individuals. I happen to be 
chairman. Confidentially, with seven Republicans on one side and 
six Democrats on the other, I find it pretty hard to get them to see 
alike. 

Mr. Paoht. That is one of the fine things in a democracy. 

The Chairman. It is. yes — and that is one thing that has not been 
discussed in connection with this bill : The American system of checks 
and balances. We have plenty of delegated officers in the administra- 
tive field that make determinations about your business and mine, and 
something has been said as to Attorneys General, and their powers, and 
so on. The question is whether this will do more harm or more good, 
whether it will do the job. 

But what I started to say is that because of this criticism, this 
committee will sit Monday, and while we do not want a lot of chaff 
thrown in here, if there are some distinguished witnesses who want 
to be heard, they should get their names and copies of their speeches 
or whatever they want to say to the clerk. Then the committee will, 
in the next few days after that, determine whether or not they will 
hold other hearings. 

There is one thing which to me is very, very significant in this 
matter. Before the matter even came to the Senate, or before it came 
to the Judiciary Committee, from all over this country wires and com- 
munications of all kinds commenced to come : They were a clear indi- 
cation that a good machine was at work, thinking that they could 
''pressure'' this committee. Well, this committee does not "pressure." 
We want reason and judgment and law and facts. And I wish that be 
told to all, in no uncertain words. 

There is still pouring in so much that for the first mail in my office, 
to say nothing about the Judiciary Committee, it takes three people an 
hour to just open up the letters and wires: not to read them, but just 
to open them up. 

Xow. that is no reflection upon the right of petition, but the average 
wire and the average letter gives no help or assistance, because it gives 
no light on the subject. It is just from this John Jones or from that 
Sam Smith or from someone who has been shot full of fear or is simply 
acting as an agent on the subject. However, we welcome fully any 
assistance, legal or otherwise, that can be given to the committee. 

Xow. Senator Moore has agreed to carry on with the rest of the wit- 
nesses, until the list is cleared. 

Mr. Kexxet. I think that since the committee is going to adopt, as 
Judge Pacht and I both appreciate, a careful and lawyerlike ap- 
proach to this, my work can best be confined to assisting Judge Pacht 
in preparing that brief. I only want to know : What is the outside 
time we can have to get that in? 

The Chairman. I cannot give that to you. You should get it in as 
soon as possible. We are told that the New York lawyers, from whom 



278 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

we have asked opinions, will probably have theirs in by the first of the 
week. I shall be gone until Thursday. I have to leave Monday night. 

Mr. Kenney. Within the coming week, then ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Pacht. We will make every effort to get it in as soon as pos- 
sible. 

(The brief referred to above had not been received at the time the 
transcripts were sent to the printer.) 

Senator Moore (presiding). Mr. Julian Cornell will be the next 
witness. 

Will you be sworn, Mr. Cornell ? 

Mr. Cornell. I prefer to affirm, sir. 

Senator Moore. Do you solemnly affirm that the statements you are 
about to make will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Cornell. I do. 

Senator Moore. Will you identify yourself for the record? 

TESTIMONY OF JULIAN CORNELL, LAWYER AND WRITER, NEW 
YORK CITY, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON 
INTERNATIONAL LEGISLATION 

Mr. Cornell. I am a lawyer and a writer, from New York City. I 
appear in behalf of the Friends Committee on International Legisla- 
tion, which is an agency of the Eeligious Society of Friends, perhaps 
better known as the Quakers. 

We have a very keen interest in this bill, because it seems to be the 
general opinion that the bill is intended in some way to outlaw or 
proscribe or circumscribe the Communist Party and make it unlawful 
to be a Communist in the sense defined in the bill. 

It wasn't so many years ago that it was similarly unlawful to be 
a Quaker, and some of our ancestors were hung, in this country, for 
the crime of being a Quaker and having an unpopular religious belief. 

So we feel keenly about any bill which makes it unlawful to enter- 
tain or discuss or promote any particular political as well as religious 
activities. We have believed keenly in the importance of the indi- 
vidual. Our belief is not purely a historical and democratic one, but 
also a religious and philosophical one. 

Senator Moore. You belong to a political party ? 

Mr. Cornell. I belong to no political party. I have voted for 
several political parties in my life, but I have never joined any. 

My appearance here is solely because of my democratic and legal 
and religious interest in this measure, and not for any political pur- 
pose. 

I think I should say, however, that I am deeply opposed to com- 
munism and to any other form of dictatorship. 

I think probably the statement of facts in the beginning of the 
bill is, on the whole, accurate, although, like most Americans, I have 
no personal knowledge of the inner conspiracies of the Communist 
Party, I think that the statement in the bill reflects what is commonly 
believed to be true, and probably is true. 

Senator Moore. Do you think communism offers any menace? 

Mr. Cornell. Yes; I think it is obvious that communism, by its 
own words, is bent upon establishing the Third Internationale, to 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 279 

control the world, and establish the sort of society they would like 
(o have throughout the world. 

Senator Moore. Do you think the Communist Party in this country 
is dominated by foreign powers? 

Mr. Cornell. All that 1 can say is that it is commonly believed to 
be so, and I have seen no indication that that belief is incorrect. 

But there is one statement, at the beginning of the bill, which I think 
is seriously in question, and should be clarified, and that is the state- 
ment in subdivision (11), section II, that the Communist movement 
presents "clear and present danger to the security of the United States." 

Now, if those words were used in a lay sense, I would not quarrel 
with the statement, but those words are words of art, which come from 
decisions of the Supreme Court, defining the limitations of freedom of 
speech. And I would take that statement to mean — and I think this 
is the crux of the whole bill— that because the Communist movement 
is a danger to our present form of government and institutions, that 
fact is a sufficient justification for limiting the freedom of speech and 
expression of Communists, and for outlawing that political doctrine. 

It seems obvious, from reading the rest of the bill, that this particu- 
lar doctrine of our constitutional law is involved. As I understand 
it. the Supreme Court has held, in a number of cases, that freedom of 
speech is not absolute, that it is limited in such cases as where the ex- 
pression of ideas would constitute a danger which the state, in the 
exercise of its police powers, may prevent. 

In this particular application, the question would be whether the 
expression of Communist principles and the advocacy of Communist 
doctrines constitute such a threat to the American Government that 
those ideas may not be freely expressed, and that the state, exercising 
its police power, may prevent them. 

Now, that may be true, but it is important to note this : That the 
"clear and present danger" doctrine arises in criminal cases. There 
must be the determination as to whether free speech may be limited 
in prosecution of various laws preventing sedition and treason and 
other criminal acts. So that I would take this statement in the bill 
as a finding that the provision in the first amendment safeguarding 
freedom of speech may not be invoked to make this bill unconstitu- 
tional, because Congress finds here that Communist doctrine and the 
expression of Communist opinion are a clear and present danger of 
the sort which the Supreme Court has held to justify limitations of 
speech. And that finding constitutes a finding of fact necessary to 
support conviction of crime. 

The effect of the bill, if my understanding of it is correct, is that of a 
bill of attainder. It even goes further than that, because, instead of 
leaving to the courts the determination of the question of whether, in 
any particular case, an expression of Communist opinion represents 
a danger to our institutions and therefore may be made a crime, 
Congress finds that those facts exist. 

In other words, all that the court has to do is to find that a man 
is a Communist, and then Congress says, "To be a Communist is a 
crime"; and your freedom of speech is no longer protected. 

I think that this represents a clear violation of the Constitution. 
Senator Moore. Are you a lawyer? 



280 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Mr. Cornell. Yes. I am. sir. And I might say also that I have 
long been very much concerned about questions of civil liberties and 
constitutional law in connection therewith. 

It seems to me that it violates two sections of the Constitution. 

First, it violates the first amendment, with respect to freedom of 
speech, this circuitous means: That there exists the opportunity to 
justify a limitation of freedom of speech by a finding of the necessarv 
facts.' 

Well, if those facts do exist, and if speech may be limited by reason 
of their existence, and if violation of these provisions may be made a 
crime, that must be determined by the courts, and not by Congress. 
And I do not think Congress can pass a law which limits freedom of 
speech in certain cases, by finding that in all such cases there is a 
danger to the security of the state. 

Secondly, I believe that this section violates the sixth amendment, 
because if it can be made a crime to advocate Communist doctrines 
under these circumstances, the Constitution guarantees that the facts 
must be found by a jury and tried before a court. They may not be 
tried in Congress. This is not a judicial body, and it has no power 
to declare certain facts as constituting crimes, without committing 
the contrary to be proven in a court of law. 

There is another section of the bill which has not been remarked 
upon this morning, and I haven't seen in the newspaper reports any 
discussion of it, but I think it is more far reaching than some which 
have been debated here. That is section IV. 

Senator Moore. That has been discussed quite extensively hereto- 
fore in the committee since we have begun these hearings, but you 
may go ahead. 

Mr. Cornell. I just want to say this about section IV: Section IV 
says nothing about clear and present danger. It merely says that the 
advocacy of, or an attempt to bring about, a totalitarian dictatorship 
under foreign control in this country is unlawful. 

Now, as I read that section it would be a criminal offense for a 
Member of Congress to introduce a bill that the United States should 
annex itself to Russia. 

I don't believe for a moment that any such outlandish bill would 
ever be introduced, but if the people of tlie United States should desire 
to annex themselves to a foreign government, to abolish their Consti- 
tution, or to change it in any respect, they have under our system the 
right to advocate such measures. The Constitution protects people in 
trying to change the Constitution itself, and trying to change our form 
of government. 

Senator Moore. You do not think the Congress could constitution- 
ally pass such legislation as that? 

Mr. Cornell. Congress could certainly propose an amendment to 
abolish the Constitution, or to make any changes, so long as constitu- 
tional means are employed. This section would prohibit anybody from 
advocating peaceful and lawful amendment to the Constitution di- 
rected toward the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship. 

Now, I don't want to see a totalitarian dictatorship established any 
more than you do. But I think it is very important that people who 
want to change our Government shall have the right to say so, and 
that the only point at which Congress should tell a person who wants 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 281 

to change our form of government that he has no right to do so is when 
hi' attempts to use forceful and violent means. 

All legislation which has previously been passed, or, to my knowl- 
edge, seriously considered in Congress on this subject, has always ad- 
hered strictly to the test of whether the person subverting our institu- 
tions was attempting to use force and violence. This legislation goes 
far beyond that. It departs altogether from the question of whether 
lawful means are being used, and it prohibits the expression of political 
opinion designed to change our institutions, by perfectly lawful and 
proper methods. 

Senator Moore. That is, under the supervision of a foreign power. 

Mr. Cornell. That is correct. 

Senator Moore. There is no effort made here in this bill, is there, to 
apply that to someone who is speaking on his own? It is if he is the 
agent of a foreign power. 

Mr. Cornell. That is true, but even if there is a foreign influence at 
work, we have never entertained in this country the thought that the 
mere expression of adherence to foreign doctrines is unlawful. 

Senator Moore. You did not say whether you believed that the Com- 
munist Party in this country is under the control of a foreign power 
and is a part of a world program. You do not know, you say, about 
that '. 

Mr. Cornell. I have no first-hand knowledge of it. It is com- 
monly supposed to be, and I think it probably is. But I think also 
that it is important that the Communist Party should, if it wants to 
try to change our Constitution, and to make us a coloi^ of Russia, be 
able to do so, so long as it sticks to legal methods. 

Now. my reason for thinking that is not only that I think the Con- 
stitution requires it, but also that it is the only safe method in which a 
democracy may operate. The minute a democracy prohibits expres- 
sion of free opinion, no matter how much we may disagree with it, it 
ceases, to that extent, to be a democracy. 

Senator Moore. Of course, we could not disagree with that. But 
the proposition is, here, whether we do not have the right, if it were 
proven that communism or any other '■'ism" in this country is directed 
by a foreign power, to protect and preserve our own Constitution, 
our own constitutional processes, by legislation. 

Mr. Cornell. I think so; but I think that the courts should de- 
termine the facts. Here, Congress is determining the fact that any 
Communist, because he is part of a world-wide conspiracy, which is 
dominated from Moscow, is, ipso facto 

Senator Moore. The courts are employed in the determination of 
these facts after the finding is made by the Attorney General, under 
the bill. 

Mr. Cornell. But under this legislation there is no requirement 
that it be shown that any Communist, or that the Communist Party 
as a whole, is engaging in overt acts. A mere expression of Com- 
munist opinions is declared by the bill to be unlawful. Because 
the bill finds that the Communist Party is necessarily engaged in an 
unlawful conspiracy against the Government. 

-Now, I say that Congress constitutionally cannot make such a find- 
ing. It must be made by a court, I would have no quarrel with 
legislation which gave to the courts the authority. 



282 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Senator Moore. But the findings of fact, so to speak, under this 
bill, are not final and binding on the courts. They may be persua- 
sive, but they are not binding. They only state the facts that bring 
the case within the constitutional prerogative. 

Mr, Cornell. The bill makes speech unlawful — not action. If those 
words ''clear and present danger" which the courts have held brings 
speech over into the field of action — because there is danger that un- 
lawful action may result from the expression — if those words were 
inserted throughout the bill, then I think the bill might be constitu- 
tional. In other words, if the bill provided not merely that it is un- 
lawful to advocate Communist opinions, without registering and sub- 
mitting to all these burdensome provisions, but that it is unlawful 
for a Communist to attempt in his doctrines to subvert the Govern- 
ment in such a way that it amounts to clear and present danger to the 
state, then the bill would be lawful, or constitutional. 

Senator Moore. Do you have any provisions that you want to sug- 
gest that might bring this within the Constitution? 

Mr. Cornell. That is what I am trying to suggest at this moment. 
I haven't any doubt that there is not a Justice on the Supreme Court 
who would uphold this bill as it is now drawn. 

Senator Moore. What was that statement? 

Mr. Cornell. I do not believe there is a single Judge on the Su- 
preme Court who would uphold the constitutionality of this bill as it 
is now drawn. I may, of course, be mistaken. 

Senator Moore. You are going pretty far afield when you prophesy 
what the Supreme Court will do. 

Mr. Cornell. That is a lawyer's business; to prophesy what judges 
will do. 

Senator Moore. You have not been too successful in that, have you ? 

Mr. Cornell. We have not been too successful. 

But I think the bill could be made constitutional and could be 
brought within safe limits of the democratic instrument if, instead 
of outlawing Communists as such, merely because the} 7 are labeled 
"Communists," it outlaws any Communist activity, when found by 
the courts to be a clear and present danger to the safety of the state. 

That finding must be made by the courts. Here it is made by Con- 
gress, and all you have to show in court is that the man is a Communist. 
That means he is outlawed. You should have to show in court not 
only that he is a Communist, but that his activities, as a Communist, 
constitute a clear and present danger to our institutions. And if that 
safeguard were put in the bill, so that the courts would make these 
criminal findings instead of Congress, then I think most of the objec- 
tions to the constitutionality of the measure would disappear. 

Now, apart from the constitutional questions, which are, of course, 
open to different opinions, there is something else. And Mr. Rich- 
berg may be quite right ; although I remember Mr. Richberg argued 
strenuously for the constitutionality of the National Recovery xVct, 
and I think it was universally condemned as being an outrageous 
breach of the constitutional guaranties. 

But, regardless of the constitutional questions, I hope the com- 
mittee will take very seriously the warning which Norman Thomas 
gave, that a democracy should not attempt to protect itself by mak- 
ing inroads on freedom of speech. I think the best way to treat Com- 
munists is to bring them out in the open, let them talk, let everybody 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 283 

see them for what they are, and let everybody know what their doc- 
trines are intended t<> accomplish. This bill, I think, will have just 
the opposite effect. It will drive Communists underground. And 
they won't call themselves Communists any more. We won't have 
Communist organizations. We will have secret Communist- front or- 
ganizations, which are dominated by Communist agents, who do not 
disclose their identities, and I think any attempt to outlaw the Com- 
munist Party renders the Communist Party very much more dan- 
gerous than it is now. 

What I would much prefer to see would be an effort by Congress to 
compel the Communist Party, if it is engaged in deception and trick- 
cry, as I believe it is. to disclose its actual intentions and operations. 

I think the statutes on the books now could be better enforced toward 
that end, and I think new legislation might be desirable, which can 
compel political parties and political organizations which could in 
any sense be thought to be under Communist control, to disclose their 
membership, their officers, and the sources of their funds, so that 
people would be able to decide whether Communist infiltration was 
at work or not. And that, I think, would be beneficial. 

But when you say that these organizations are unlawful and that 
they must be subjected to all these onerous provisions which will prac- 
tically force them out of of existence, then you drive them under- 
ground, and you enable them to work secretly, which is just what we 
do not want to have, in my opinion. 

Senator Moore. Is there anything else, Mr. Cornell? 

Mr. Cornell. That is all, sir. 

Senator Moore. Mr. Irwin ? Is Mr. Irwin here ? 

Is Mr. O'Brien here ? 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. O'BRIEN, PASSAIC, N. J., REPRESENTING 
AMERICANISM COMMITTEE, MARINE CORPS LEAGUE, INC. 

Mr. O'Brien. Mr. Chairman, I had expected to have a statement to 
present to this committee, outlining the views of the Marine Corps 
League, which I represent on this occasion. 

However, I was notified within the last few hours that I was to 
appear in this particular part of your hearings, and I do not now 
have such a statement. 

We will, as suggested by the chairman, prepare a brief outlining in 
detail the specific provisions of the bill which we support. 

(The brief referred to had not been received at the time the tran- 
scripts were sent to the printer.) 

The Marine Corps League is an organization comprising men who 
have served in the United States Marine Corps and is chartered by an 
act of Congress. 

This organization, in its conventions over the last several years, has 
debated measures which they feel should be employed for the preser- 
vation of the democratic right of the citizens to use the ballot box as a 
means of social change. Having in mind that dictatorships arose in 
countries of the world by mob violence, as, for example, the march on 
Rome, when there wasn't sufficient protection on the part of the Govern- 
ment in power to preserve the civil liberties of all people, it is clear that 

78257 — 18 19 



284 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

the danger is not alone from the direction of the Communist Inter- 
nationale. In our opinion there is a definite threat from the other 
extreme. Mob violence in our country, in which, the press asserts, 
war veterans have participated, is spurred on in many instances by 
the fact that these men find there is no law which protects orderly pro- 
cedure in the matter of social change, and in their hysteria, they com- 
mit acts of violence, which are not in conformity with constitutional 
principles. 

Therefore as a means of fighting both totalitarian extremes, of either 
fascism or communism, it is the belief of this organization, after much 
debate, that the provisions of the Mundt-Nixon bill clearly set up a 
protection of the citizen who desires to make social change. It does 
not outlaw Communist thought or Communist advocacy. If, for in- 
stance, it is the desire of a number of citizens of the United States to 
organize in the United States a political party which seeks for its ulti- 
mate aim the socialization of the means of production, distribution, and 
exchange, which is the economic philosophy of communism, this bill 
would not prevent such a party from advocating that program and 
urging its followers to register their opinion at the ballot box in sud- 
port of that philosophy. 

The bill distinguishes between the advocacy of communism as a po- 
litical philosophy and the conspiracy in which a foreign power seeks 
to superimpose upon this soil a form of government under the domina- 
tion of the foreign power. 

That is the clear line, we believe. 

In the creation of this form of democracy, theoretically, at least, 
the theory of force and violence in social change was outlawed by the 
creation of a democratic system of registering our opinions. There- 
fore, that right should be protected. 

The citizen who seeks to resort to the orderly procedure of social 
change is entitled to know that it is possible to be attained through, that 
means, and that he is free to take part in that program. 

Senator Moore. There would not be any prohibition against the Com- 
munist Party, as such, advocating any philosophy they pleased, if 
they complied with this bill ? 

Mr. O'Brien. Exactly. 

Senator Moore. Do you have any objection to that ? Do you see 
any danger in requiring them to register? 

Mr. O'Brien. There is no danger in requiring them to register. 
You already have the registering of foreign agents as a doctrine now- 
set up in the Government. 

Senator Moore. So that dispenses with the need for this provision, 
you mean? 

Mr. O'Brien. No, sir; it definitely establishes the desirability of 
extending that principle, that when a conspiracy exists upon American 
soil, in which a political party is ruled by a foreign power, the people 
who are asked to vote for such a party should have a clear understand- 
ing that that is the case. And the provisions of the bill clearly put 
that issue before the American people, by requiring the registration 
of those individuals, so that there is knowledge of their aims, ami pur- 
poses, the nature of the conspiracy, and the membership of the organ- 
ization. 

Senator Moore. All right. Mr. O'Brien. Will you want to file a 
statement? 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 285 

Mr. O'Brien. We will file a statement — yes, Senator. 
Senator Moore. Is Mr. Imbrie here? 

That seems to be the end of the list of witnesses on this agenda. 
Senator Wiley gave me the names of two witnesses. 
Mr. Haber? Will you be sworn? 

Do yon solemnly swear that the testimony that you shall give in this 
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? 
Mr. Haber. 1 do. 
Senator Moore. Will you proceed, please, Mr. Haber? 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HABER, REPRESENTING CIVIL RIGHTS 

CONGRESS OF OHIO 

Mr. Haber. I am William Haber, representing the Civil Rights 
Congress of Ohio, and I am privileged to speak for an Ohio delegation 
that has come here to protest the Mundt bill. 

I shall give you an oral statement. 

Our group is composite of attorneys from the lawyers' guild, trade- 
unionists, people from language organizations, and is quite a repre- 
sentative group. 

Our feeling is that the Mundt bill is clearly a legislative menace to 
the civil rights of the American people. 

We feel so for the following reasons, although we are not able at 
this time to give you a brief on the constitutionality of that law. 

Speaking for the people, and the people that Senator Wiley spoke 
of, in terms of the many letters that came to him, we feel that this bill 
abridges the civil rights of all of the American people. It tosses a 
dragnet out which will pull in all people whose thoughts on any pro- 
gressive measures might conflict with the ideas of the sponsors of this 
piece of legislation. 

I have in mind very specific things. 

Senator Moore. You do not mean that, do you i You do not have 
the thought that the sponsors of this legislation have in mind the cur- 
tailment of civil liberties? 

Mr. Haber. I speak specifically of the sponsors of the measure,, 
referring to Mr. Mundt. to Mr. Nixon, and the bill which they propose 
before this Congress. I say — and I speak in the name of my delega- 
tion — that this bill has been aimed at civil rights. 

Senator Moore. Do you think that communism today, in this coun- 
try, under the direction of a foreign power, if it is under the direction 
of a foreign power, menaces our form of government in this country? 

Mr. Haber. Let me invert the question, sir, and say it this way: 
That the duty of our Congress is not to question the loyalty of Ameri- 
can people, but rather to prove the loyalty of the Government to the 
American people by defending their civil rights, and their right to 
free ideas. 

Senator Moore. You did not answer my question at all. 

I say: If the Communist Party today in America is dominated by a 
foreign power, and it is internationally connected, for the purpose of 
establishing communism throughout the world, do you consider that 
that is a menace to our form of government today or not '. 

Mr. Haber. Sir, you ask me that question, and I would like to again 
invert 



286 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 

Senator Moore. You can answer that question, Mr. Haber. Now, 
do you consider it a menace ? 

Mr. Haber. Well, sir, you infer such a condition, and I have no 
knowledge that such a condition exists, except by your inference. 

Senator Mcore. All right. Then you deny that the Communist 
Party of Mr. Foster is directed by a foreign power? 

Mr. Haber. I am not empowered to speak for the Communist Party, 
nor do I choose to do so. I speak for my friends of the Civil Rights 
Congress of Ohio. 

Senator Moore. Will you answer the question ? 

Mr. Haber. I say that the principles of Marxism, as I understand 
them, as the Communist Party espouses them — that theory is a theory 
of economic and social change, and I feel that it is a right of all people 
to expound any theory, because this country was built up, was predi- 
cated on all of these theories that have combined to make our social 
philosophy today. 

Senator Moore. Well, if a philosophy of government, such as com- 
munism is supposed to be, is directed from Russia, or any other foreign 
power, and there is a small party, so to speak, such as the Communist 
Party in America is today, taking its directions from Moscow, or from 
Paris, or from anywhere else, would you believe that there would be 
:any justification for requiring or permitting the people to know what 
they are preaching and where it comes from? 

Mr. Haber. Bit, sir, we do not make legislation by inference. 

Senator Moore. You just want to make a speech. I asked you a 
question. 

Mr. Haber. No, sir ; I want to testify. 

Senator Moore. Testify about what ? That is one of the reasons, as I 
understand it, for the introduction of this bill. 

Mr. Haber. Well, sir, my reason for wanting to testify is to state, 
very clearly and very concisely, that the people whom I represent 
and the many friends of the people whom I represent, and who will 
be in Washington subsequently to testify, or to protest against this 
bill, feel very strongly that the intent of this legislation is to create a 
condition wherein any progressive idea can be construed as the prop- 
erty of what you indicate as a Communist front. And that is not the 
case. And I feel that by so legislating you would seriously infringe 
upon the civil rights of all types of people, and that therefore this bill 
is legislation by inference, as to the situation. 

Senator Moore. What party do you belong to? 

Mr. Haber. I am a registered Democrat. 

Senator Moc re. All right. That is all the time we have for you. 

Mr. Haber. Thank you. 

Senator Mocre. Is Mr. Bartell here? 

Will you hold up your right hand and be sworn? 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give in this 
hearing will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God % 
Mr. Bartell. I do. 



CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 287 

TESTIMONY OF PHILIP BARTELL, ATTORNEY, CLEVELAND, OHIO 

Mr. Bartell. I came here with the local president of the chapter 
of the National Lawyers Guild of Cleveland. 

Senator Moore. Senator Wherry told me that you were to have 3 
minutes. 

Mr. Bartell. The president of the chapter unfortunately had to 
be called back to Cleveland last night. Now, he was authorized to 
speak for the National Lawyers Guild of Cleveland. I was not author- 
ized to speak for the National Lawj^ers Guild of Cleveland. 

Senator Moor?:. Maybe j^our views would not represent theirs, then, 
is that it ? 

Mr. Bartell. Well, to say that what I say represents their views 
would be to assume that I know their views. He was authorized to be 
here, and represent their views. I do not feel that I am authorized to 
speak for the National Lawyers Guild. Therefore, if I speak, it will 
be only as a private citizen. 

Senator Moore. Well, are you for the bill or against i