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

See other formats

r5~

<\m£.'**\<\o

Given By

13?

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

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

UD 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

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

IV CONTENTS

Testimony of— Continued pase
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

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.

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,

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,

(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.

(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.

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 37esterday
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 wTay. 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, }Tou 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 TTnired 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 wTords, 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 doesr
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 wTord 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?

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

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. 0 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 organization7' 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 10r

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 itr
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 wTas 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 wTere 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 Partj7, 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

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 }Tou 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 pap1 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 wTould 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, 0 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 }Tour 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 jTou 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 tin1 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 }Tou 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 Ferguson1. Do you have a party card?

Mr. Foster. Yes.

Senator Fergusoxt. 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. Yres.

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 Chairmaxt. 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 3Tou 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 wTere 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.

(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"fs 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.^ facj. tna£ t^e pUnishment 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 Follow7 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 wre 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 wTill 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 awTait 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 wTe 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,

(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."

"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 wrould 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 0 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.

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-

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
legislative1 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 wTas 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 outlawT 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 wTere 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 wTas
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, wTe 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 wre 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 wras 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 wTas 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 wrrite
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 wTe 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 wye 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 wThat 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:

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 0 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 Uxvc 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 jtou 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 (lit1 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 3Tears 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, wTould 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 wTere 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 wTas 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 3Tours, 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 jrou 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 wTant 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:

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 it ?

Mr. Bartell. Against it.

Senator Moore. All right. That is all.

The committee will be in recess, then, until Monday morning at 9
o'clock, which I think is according to the statement made by Senator
Wiley.

(Whereupon, at 12 : 15 p. m. the committee recessed, to reconvene on
Monday, May 31, 1948, at 9 a. m.)

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

MONDAY, MAY 31, 1948

United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9 a. m., in room
;i IS. Senate Office Building, Senator Alexander Wiley, chairman,
presiding.

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

The Ciiarman. The meeting will come to order.

We expect to carry on this morning and into the afternoon.

I want to say that we have had about as many generalities as we
desire to have. We have had testimony on both sides, as I say, in
the form of generalities.

What we are trying to do is to build a record here that will give
us something that we can study as a committee, with advantage; and
out of which we can get some light as to, first, whether the suggested
bill is constitutional, and, then, if it should be, whether it would be
good policy to pass it, and if it is not constitutional, and it would
not be wise to pass it, what suggestions you have to correct it to make
it constitutional, and what other suggestions you have to meet a fact
that is very apparent, as testified to so dynamically the other day
oy Xorman Thomas: That we have a situation in this country that
is serious, that may be threatening the very existence of our country.

This bill, as you know, has come to us from the House. The Judi-
ciary Committee is going to give it earnest, sincere, consideration.
And I might say that we are human, and we do not like to be lectured
before we are entitled to be.

Senator Ferguson will conduct the hearing this morning; and if
it is necessary, we will continue the hearings this afternoon, and Sen-
ator Donnell, who will have returned from Missouri, will preside.

Who is the first witness?

Senator Ferguson (presiding). Mr. Meldahl.

Mr. Meldahl. will you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly
swear that the testimony you will give in the matter pending before
the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?

Mr. Meldahl. I do.

Senator Ferguson. You may proceed.

289

290 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

TESTIMONY OF HORACE S. MELDAHL, ATTORNEY,
CHARLESTON, W. VA.

Mr. Meldahl. In my opinion the Mundt bill should be rejected
for the following reasons :

It declares a clear and present danger which does not exist. No one
feels that the United States Government is not prepared to cope with
every possible emergency.

It delegates to the Attorney General power to make findings with-
out hearings, and to such extent that he could not act personally, and
would have to delegate the responsibility to unknown assistants. It
would hamper greatly the performance of other duties of his office.

The bill is so indefinite and general that it would include taking
orders from the Pope, the United Nations, and other world organiza-
tions, including for hemispheral defense.

It would hinder the use of peaceful persuasion, and leave Com-
munists little recourse other than violence to gain ends.

It insults the intelligence of the American people by assuming that
they cannot hear all sides of any question full}7, and judge what is
right and best. It questions our ability to win in debate with Com-
munists.

It is against the Government of the United States in that it tends to
stifle public enterprise where our people do not have adequate oppor-
tunity for earning a living otherwise.

It erroneously presupposes that our Government would have to be
changed for it to extend public enterprise beyond operating the post
office, public schools, public roads, the railroads, coal mines, and other
well-known activities. Our Government was organized to promote
the general welfare.

The enforcement of the act, if it should become law, would congest
our courts and involve a tremendous waste of public money urgently
needed for other vital purposes.

It would probably result in the unlawful conviction of many per-
sons who would have to serve out their sentences before the Supreme
Court could declare it unconstitutional, inasmuch as a convicted per-
son cannot be released on bail pending an appeal without the trial
judge recognizing that he may have committed error, which few will
do. Many thousand ministers claiming exemption under selective
service served sentences which later decisions of the Supreme Court
show were tried illegally.

Senator Ferguson. Do you say that you cannot get bail unless the
trial court admits error?

Mr. Meldahl. I think that is true.

Senator Ferguson. Since when has that been the law ?

Mr. Meldahl. I don't say that he admits error, but he agrees that
there is substantial possibility of error.

Senator Ferguson. The circuit court of appeals will grant bail.

Mr. Meldahl. That is true, if they believe that the possiblity of
error is substantial.

Senator Ferguson. Well, that is true in any criminal case, is it
not?

Mr. Meldahl. Yes; the same thing applies to all criminal cases.

Senator P'erguson. All right. Go ahead.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 291

Mr. Meldahl. The punishment the bill provides does not fit the
supposed crime, but is exceedingly excessive. It would likely deny
public employment and passports to innocent and loyal citizens who
belonged to patrotic organizations for acts of others therein, and
would deny citizenship and make an outlaw of anyone convicted of
its violation, no matter how slight his participation.

The bill is likely to make a title of nobility of the term '■'Communist,"
by making those who are willing to sacrifice their lives in such effort
to promote the welfare of others, martyrs in the eyes of many people.

The bill would make it difficult, if not impossible, for main- groups
organized to promote human welfare to get sufficient financial support
to carry on, and it would force them to expend uselessly substantial
amounts.

The bill is an attempted encroachment upon the powers of the judi-
cial branch of our Government, and vests legislative, judicial and
executive powers in the Attorney General's office, in violation of the
provision in our United States Constitution adopted as a system of
checks and balances to prevent dictatorship.

The bill would deny American citizens the equal protection of the
laws by excluding members of perfectly legal organizations from
public employment and passports.

Any act that is illegal for a Communist should be illegal for
everyone.

The bill does not define what a Communist is, but leaves this to the
personal opinion of the Attorney General or his assistants. That
is true also of a Communist-front organization.

The bill is apparently aimed primarily at public enterprise, rather
than Communists. The American Indians have lived communal
lives under the protection of the United States Government for many
years, but without much encouragement to enterprise. It should en-
courage enterprise.

Senator Ferguson. Right there, now : Have you read this bill?

Mr. Meldahl. Yes, sir.

Senator Ferguson. Does not the fourth paragraph define totali-
tarian government ( Do you mean to say that the Indians live under
a totalitarian government, which owes allegiance to some foreign
nation I

Mr. Meldahl. I think all governments have to be totalitarian.
They don't allow anybody else to run

Senator Ferguson. No. Answer the question. Are they under
the fourth paragraph of this bill: That they owe allegiance to some
foreign country or government?

You see, you are a lawyer. We want to get down to the actual facts
in this bill.

Mr. Meldahl. I am trying to help you as such.

Senator Ferguson. Well, what do you say about that? What do
you say about the fourth paragraph, as to whether or not the Indians
come under that ? And is that not the very foundation of the bill ?

Mr. Meldahl. I did not say that the Indians came under that. I
said that the Indians live communal lives under the protection of the
United States Government, and have done so for many years.

Senator Ferguson. Why do you tell us that, if they are not covered
by this act ? Are the}' covered by this act ?

292 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Meldahl. I don't say this as to them.

Senator Ferguson. No, just answer the question. Are they covered
by this act, and would they be guilty ?

Mr. Meldahl. I didn't say it applied to them.

Senator Ferguson. Then why give us those facts ?

You are a lawyer, and you heard the chairman. We would like to
get some information, first, as to whether there is a necessity for the
bill, and second, whether or not this bill is constitutional and does
the job.

Mr. Meldahl. I said they were allowed to live communal lives.
That is all I said. I said they have lived communal lives under the
protection of the United States Government. It is not that, that they
are objecting to. And I think the Government should encourage
enterprise.

Senator Ferguson. Well, can you answer the question? Do you
think that Communists alone are covered by this fourth paragraph?

Mr. Meldahl. As I understand it, Communist-front organizations —
I don't know which one the fourth paragraph is.

Senator Ferguson. Well, do you not know what the fourth para-
graph is ?

Mr. Meldahl. No ; I don't recall which one is the fourth paragraph.

Senator Ferguson. Well, look at it (handing bill to witness). Will
you read the fourth paragraph and tell us whether in your opinion as
a lawyer that should be prohibited by law in America ?

Mr. Meldahl (reading) :

The direction and control of the world Communist movement is vested

Senator Ferguson. No; that is not it. It is the fourth section.
Have you the fourth section?

Mr. Meldahl. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. Will you read it, and then say, as a lawyer,
whether or not you think that should be prohibited by law in America ?

Mr. Meldahl. Did 3^011 mean for me to read it aloud?

Senator Ferguson. Yes; I think it ought to go in the record.

Mr. Meldahl (reading) :

It shall be unlawful for any person —

(1) to attempt in any manner to establish in the United States a totalitarian
dictatorship tlie direction and control of which is to he vested in. or exercised
by or under the domination or control of, any foreign government, foreign organi-
zation, or foreign individual.

Senator Ferguson. All right. The question now is whether or not,
as a lawyer, that should be prohibited in the United States by law.

Mr. Meldahl. I definitely think that no foreign government or
individual should be allowed to exercise dictatorship over the United
States or any part of it.

Senator Ferguson. Then you would say that part of it was a good
thing, and should be passed?

Mr. Meldahl. I don't know that it is necessary.

Senator Ferguson. That was not my question at all. My question
is: If those things are going on, or should go on, whether they should
not be prohibited by law?

Mr. Meldahl. There is a question there as to what effect that would
have so far as United Nations authority is concerned.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 293

It seems to me that our country would be subject, very properly, to
certain laws that the United Nations might adopt, if we are members
of that.

Senator Ferguson. Now. do you say that we ought to allow the
United Nations to set up a law that would not permit us to preserve
our Government? You are familiar with the United Nations. You
know it does not apply to domestic acts.

Mr. Meldahl. 1 don't hardly think it was the intention of those who
proposed this bill to let it apply to the United Nations, to include the
United Nations.

Senator Ferguson. Are you familiar with the Charter of the United
Nations?

Mr. Meldahl. 1 wouldn't say that I was too familiar with it.

Senator Ferguson. Then why do you say that this would not be
allowed under the United Nations? You see, as I assume, you come
here as an expert, as a lawyer, do you not ?

Mr. Meldahl. Well I am not pretending to be too much of an
expert.

Senator Ferguson. Of course, the committee does want expert advice
on this.

Where do you practice law?

Mr. Meldahl. In Charleston, W. Va.

Senator Ferguson. And are you in private practice?

Mr. Meldahl. Yes, sir.

Senator Ferguson. How long have you practiced law ?

Mr, Meldahl. Since 1917.

Senator Ferguson. You were graduated from what school?

Mr. Meldahl. I took part of my preparation at West Virginia Uni-
versity, part at Harvard, part at the University of Chicago Law
School, and part at the University of Louisville Law School.

Senator Ferguson. Why do you come here this morning, as a lawyer ?

Mr. Meldahl. Merely as a result of my interest in trying to preserve
the freedom of the American people, and to promote the welfare of
the American people. I am greatly interested in doing all in my
power to keep this the wonderful country that it has always been.

Senator Ferguson. I see. But you understood that we wanted ex-
pert advice on the constitutionality; and, of course, we expect to get
it from the lawyers.

Mr. Mei-Dahl. I am trying to give it to 3rou, to the best of my judg-
ment.

Senator Ferguson. As to that paragraph, now, 3^011 do not think
that people in this country should be permitted to attempt to set up
a totalitarian government here under the domination of any foreign
governent ?

Mi-. Meldahl. No, indeed. I certainly would fight to the death to
prevent the overcome of our present government. I think that the
Government of the United States is marvelous.

Senator Ferguson. Could you give me your definition of com-
munism in America \ What do the Communists of America have in
mind?

Mr. Meldahl. I just don't know anything about the Communist
Party or the Communist organizations.

294 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. Then how could you tell us, Mr. Meldahl, that
this bill should not be in existence, if you do not know what they in-
tend to do and what they are trying to do in America ?

Mr. Meldahl. I would think that before you would undertake to
legislate that, some provision should be made for a hearing and a
determination in a judicial way of whether or not they have violated
any law. That would be the usual procedure.

Senator Ferguson. Under the fourth paragraph, or section, there,
is not that just what that would do? A man who was accused of it,
Avould have to be taken into court, and that would have to be proven.

Mr. Meldahl. But it gives the Attorney General too much power,
to start with.

Senator Ferguson. That section?,

Mr. Meldahl. I don't know about that section, but this law as a
whole does, I think.

Senator Ferguson. "We have to take this up section by section. The
committee might say that some section should be in. and some sec-
tions should not be. We want to approach this section by section.

What is wrong with that section?

Mr. Meldahl. Are you speaking of the whole section, or just that
part of the section?

Senator Ferguson. I am speaking now of 4 (a) (1), which makes
it a crime to do that.

Mr. Meldahl. Well, I have no objection to that.

Senator Ferguson. Then, that part you would not object to. That,
you think, would be good sound law.

Mr. Meldahl. As far as overthrowing the Government of the
United States is concerned, I would be very hostile to such a thought.

Senator Ferguson. Now, as I understand it, you are not familiar
with communism in America.

Mr. Meldahl. Well, I hear a good deal about it in the newspapers.

Senator Ferguson. But you are personally not familiar with it.

Mr. Meldahl. No.

Senator Ferguson. Now, are you familiar with Communist fronts
in America?

Mr. Meldahl. I don't know very much about Communist fronts
either. I don't belong to any, and all I know about Communist
fronts is what I hear on the radio, and read in the press.

Senator Ferguson. Well, now, you were talking about employment.
The Attorney General has ruled now that under the Hatch Act no
Communist can be employed in our Federal Government. You are
familiar with his ruling?

Mr. Meldahl. Well, I can't agree with the exclusion of American
people from public employment or passports because of something
they believe in.

Senator Ferguson. Then you do not know what an American Com-
munist is, but you still think he ought to be able to be employed in
our Government. In other words, he or she should be able to be a
secretary to our Secretary of State, and have access to our State papers.

Mr. Meldahl. Unless and until he becomes a criminal in some
way, until he has done some criminal act and has been convicted of it,
I wouldn't think he should be excluded.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 295

Senator Ferguson. I see. No matter what his belief or his alle-
giance to some foreign government is, you would employ him in the
most secret places of the United States Government.

Mr. Meldahl. I doirt know that we are entitled to assume that they
have any allegiance to any foreign government.

Senator Ferguson. But I have asked you, and you do not know
what their allegiance is.

Mr. Mkldahl. As I understand it, there is a distinction between a
person who is a Communist, and one who is a member of the Com-
munist Party. I think a person may have what are commonly called
Communist ideas without necessarily being a member of the Com-
munist Party. And if you are going to include everybody who has
Communist ideas

Senator Ferguson. Let me read you Mr. Foster's idea, expressed in
answer to a question. The chairman asked Mr. Foster in this hearing :

Mr. Foster, do you owe allegiance to the American flag? Does the Communist
Party owe allegiance to the American flag?

Mr. Foster. I stated very clearly that the Red flag is the flag of the revolu-
tionary class, and we are part of the revolutionary class, and all capital's flags
are flags of the capitalist class, and we owe no allegiance to them.

Xow. do you think that that kind of a person should be in Government
employ in America, under the American Government, getting money
from the American taxpayer?

Air. Meldahl. Well, I think that first you should have a law

Senator Ferguson. No. Can you answer my question? Do you
think that kind of a person should be able to be employed under the
American flag?

Mr. Meldahl. Well, I certainly wouldn't favor employing under
the American flag anybody that was going to be obedient to any-
foreign power in the administration of affairs in this country.

Senator Ferguson. Then you agree with the bill that that kind of
a person should be outlawed. And Mr. Foster said that that is what
he was. and what an American Communist was.

Mr. Meldahl. But I think }Tou have to have some method or other
of determining whether a person is holding to those views, before
you are going to exclude him.

Senator Ferguson. Why do you think that the President last year
asked for $25,000,000 for the Loyalty Board, in order that he may
exclude that kind of people?

Mr. Meldahl. Well. I just don't feel that that is the right way to go
about it.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think they ought to be employed? And
how would 3-ou keep from employing them?

Mr. Meldahl. I would say that before I would refuse them. I
would want to investigate fully their views by some sort of a board.

Senator Ferguson. What is the difference between the Attorney
General and a board? Here it gives them the right to appeal. They
go to the courts directly from the board, like any other administra-
i i ve agency.

Mr. Meldahl. This is giving him. to start with, opportunity to
judge these people upon his own opinion.

296 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. He does it now without the law. He is doing it.
He did it last week. He found 32 organizations. And they are certi-
fied to the Loyalty Board as Communist-front organizations.

Now, this goes further and provides for it, and makes it a law, so
that it can be appealed from. It makes it a law. What is wrong
with that ? Is that not the proper step under our Constitution?

Mr. Meldahl. I think the people have already — from the informa-
tion I get through the public press and radio, a great many people
who are perfectly loyal citizens have been discharged.

Senator Ferguson. Who?

Mr. Meldahl. I don't know of anyone in particular. But I fear,
at least, that a great many people that are eager to promote the wel-
fore of our countrymen have been deprived of public employment.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think an American Communist should
be able to be employed down in the War Department in the Secret
Plans Division?

Mr. Meldahl. I wouldn't approve of employing anyone there that
would divulge any secrets to any other country, any foreign country.

Senator Ferguson. Then you believe we have to do what the bill
provides.

Now, how would you do it? How would you keep from employing
that kind of a person in there ?

Mr. Meldahl. I think that you would have to make a very full in-
vestigation, and give such a person ample opportunity to defend him-
self ? And I think that the place to do that is in a court.

Senator Ferguson. Is that not what this will do ?

Mr. Meldahl. This is an administrative officer, and you grant
more liberal powers to administrative officers in the exercise of
discretion.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that communism is a menace to

America? .

Mr. Meldahl. Well, as I say, I don't really know what the defini-
tion of communism is. I think that what a Communist and a Com-
munist-front member is ought to be defined specifically so that you

could tell.

Senator Ferguson. Is it not defined in section 4, there: That any-
one who would attempt in any manner to establish in the United
States a totalitarian dictatorship, the exercise 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 indi-
vidual, would be within the bill \

Mr. Meldahl. Is that what you are going to limit it to \

Senator Ferguson. Is that not what the act limits it to?

Mr. Meldahl. I didn't so understand.

Senator Ferguson. What did you understand the act tried to do?

Mr. Meldahl. I thought the act extended beyond that, to anybody
who favored, for instance, the Government carrying on all enter-
prise.

Senator Ferguson. Oh, no. Have you read the report of the House?

Mr. Meldahl. No; I haven't read that.

Senator Ferguson. Well, it goes to show specifically that economic
views, economic thought, are not attempted to be controlled by this

bill.

Mr. Meldahl. I think that should be said in the bill, then.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 297

Senator Ferguson. There is n<> language in it that would control
economic thought. Can yon point out any paragraph in the bill
that you think would control economic thought '.

Mr. Meldahl. 1 think the bill is too broad.

Senator Ferguson. Well, where is the paragraph that would con-
trol economic thought \

Mr. Meldahl. Of course, you could not say it was exclusively eco-
nomic thought if you were advocating that the Government carry on
these activities. Because that would be partly political thought.

Senator Ferguson. Well, where is there anything here as to just
political thought that would be controlling?

Mr. Meldahl. Well, I think that the bill doesn't prescribe limita-
tions. It is quite general. And I think that there should be some
more specific definitions as to what a Communist is and what a Com-
munist front is.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think there is any need for any law in
America on this question?

Mr. Meldahl. I think so far as our present laws are concerned,
I just don't know of any offense in this country now that we don't
already have laws to deal with. And I think that we have sufficient
laws already.

Senator Ferguson. Then you are for outlawing the activities. But
yon say that it can be done under the present laws.

Mr. Meldahl. I think so. All the wrongful and harmful activ-
ities.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that a Communist should be able
to get a passport, so that he might go to Russia and deal with the So-
viet, so that they might overthrow this Government? Do you think
passports should be so granted?

Mr. Meldahl. I can't imagine that. If they had any secrets they
were going to carry over there, I think we ought to exclude them from
carrying those secrets, but I don't know that there is any particular
reason for keeping an American citizen from going to Russia or any
place else that he wants to go to.

Senator Ferguson. You know that Russia won't admit American
citizens, don't you?

Mr. Meldahl. Well, I think we ought to permit them to go. A
passport is permitting them to go.

Senator Ferguson. How do you think they would carry secrets from
America ? You don't think they would carry them in their heads?

Mr. Meldahl. I think it is perfectly proper to see, before they go,
whether they have any secrets they are apt to divulge.

Senator Ferguson. If you think that a person was in a conspiracy
with the Soviet Government to overthrow America, would you allow
him to go from here over there?

Mr. Meldahl. I don't think you are entitled to assume that an
American citizen is in such a conspiracy.

Senator Ferguson. I ask you if you know what Communism is in
America. I asked you about Mr. Foster and the American flag. Do
you think he should be permitted to get a passport to go to Russia?
He is an admitted Communist. Do you think he ought to be granted
a passport to go to Russia ?

Mr. Meldahl. I just don't know enough about it to be able to say.

Senator Ferguson. All right.

298 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Meldahl. I have just a couple more paragraphs that I would
like to read.

The Mundt bill is a bill of attainder, and would make this Nation
into a police state.

It is working for the greatest good of all, and helping most those
who need most help, the least of our brethren, rather than for private
profits, which Christianity teaches.

Paul said, "Let us do what makes for peace, and for mutual up-
building,'' and "All things work together for good for those who
love the Lord, and those called according to His purpose."

Jesus said, "Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness,
and then all these things will be added unto you." "Your Heavenly
Father knoweth ye have need of all these things." "Unless ye bring
forth the kingdom it will be taken from you and given to others."

This kingdom is the same mentioned in the Lord's Prayer when
He said, "May Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in
heaven." God wants us to make this world a paradise for all, which
can be done only by striving for "peace on earth, good will among
men. and the more abundant life." The Mundt bill, in my opinion,
does the opposite.

The clear and present danger is that Congress will fail to do what
is necessary to overcome conditions which cause desperation and vio-
lence, such as shortage in all kinds of necessities in a land capable of
providing plenty of everything for everybody. Thank you.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. John Parker, chairman of the Denver Amer-
ican Youth for Democracy.

Apparently Mr. Parker is not here.

Mr. Kenneth Parkinson.

You may take the stand, Mr. Parkinson.

Will you raise your right hand?

You do solemnly swear that in the matter now pending before
this committee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God ?

Mr. Parkinson. I do.

Senator Ferguson. You may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF KENNETH PARKINSON AND GODFREY L. MUNTER,
WASHINGTON BAR ASSOCIATION, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. Parkinson. Mr. Chairman, some few months ago I was asked
by the House committee to organize a panel of members of the bar of
this District, and give consideration to the various legislative pro-
posals before their committee dealing with this question of commu-
nism.

Senator FeKGUSON. You are a lawyer in the District (

Mr. Parkinson. Yes, sir.

Senator Fergusox. Admitted to the District bar?

Mr. Parkinson. Yes, sir: and have been for 25 years.

Senator Ferguson. All right. You may proceed.

.Mr. Parkinson. As a result, this panel, consisting of Mr. Munter,
who is here with me this morning, foreign-born, former United States
attorney

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Munter, would you take the chair with Mr.
Parkinson?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 299

Mr, Munter. I will be very happy to, Senator.

Mr. Parkinson. I am sorry to say thai the other members of our

panel are not available, because I only received notice Saturday.

Senator Ferguson. Would you be sworn, Mr. Munter?

You do solemnly swear that in the matter now pending before this
committee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Munter. I do.

Mr. Parkinson. As a result of our efforts, on which we spent some
considerable time, we reviewed all of the then proposals before the
House committee and came up with suggestions of our own.

In the first place, we felt that communism, fascism, or any other
"inn."" which we feel is detrimental to the interests of the United
States, should be defined — in observing the bill now before this body,
I think it is defined — as totalitarianism, or some other form of "ism"
which really seeks the overthrow of the Government of the United
States.

Furthermore, we felt that, having been defined, all those who fitted
within what definition should be compelled to register that fact. And
we note that this bill likewise provides registration. Whereas, as I
observed, it requires registration through an organization, and we
ourselves more or less prefer it through an individual, as we see it the
effect is the same.

We likewise felt, Mr. Chairman, as to those who fitted within that
definition and have registered, that their remarks or their writings,
whether they are over the air, or in newspapers, or magazines. .1-
the case may be. should likewise be labeled. And the legality of
that, of course, comes under the other provisions of law.

I mean, we have it in the sense of the pure-food laws, where if they
seek to use the mail for fraudulent purposes that fact should be stated
upon anything that emanates from such a source.

We further felt that anyone who fitted within this definition should
not be permitted in Government employment in any capacity. We
still feel that way. We felt also that an adherence to this faith, com-
munism, or any other "ism" of a similar ilk, should be restrained, or
prohibited from taking office in key industry or in labor.

And finally, if there were adherents to this faith who were here from
a foreign government, and we sought their deportation, and that gov-
ernment would not take them back, then we should intern them.

That, in brief, was our view of it. We felt that the proposals were
legal, were constitutional, and from the limited time we have been able
to give to the particular provisions of this bill before the committee,
we think they are constitutional also.

Senator Ferguson, How do you feel. Mr. Munter?

Mr. Munter. My name is Godfrey L- Munter. I am a past presi-
dent of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia, and have been
a member of the bar for about 30 years, also a member of the bar of
the State of California, an active member.

Under the chairmanship of Mr. Parkinson, we made a rather com-
plete and composite study of the legal aspects of the many, many bills
which were introduced — or offered, rather — in Congress.

Asa result of that, we came to the conclusion, having in mind the
limitations which the Supreme Court has from time to time announced

78257—48 — —20

300 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

upon legislation of this nature, that Congress did have the constitu-
tional power to enact laws such as is before this committee for con-
sideration today.

Mr. Parkinson has stated what we felt Congress could authorize
and legally do. and what measures could be enacted which could be
expected to be sustained by the Supreme Court, and he has told you
what we recommended.

The only step that I think he did not refer to, which we agreed was
legal to take, is not only that American citizens who espouse com-
munism and the overthrow of the Government by subversive or force-
ful means, should be interned, deprived of employment, but there is
one other class of people that we feel should be dealt with, and that is
aliens, or unnaturalized citizens who are Communists. And we recom-
mend that they be all deported as soon as possible.

And if the country from whence they came will not accept them, as
has in the past occurred once in a while, we also recommend that they
be interned, together with our own citizens who are Communists.

Senator Ferguson. Will you state as to whether or not the commit-
tee came to the conclusion that communism, as practiced in America,
is a menace to our Government ?

Mr. Munter. We definitely came to that conclusion ; yes, sir. Com-
munism is — and there is no doubt of it in our opinion — intended to
overthrow the Government by illegal means.

Senator Ferguson. Is there anything that you can think of, now,
either one of you, that you want to add?

Mr. Parkinson. I had one thought, Mr. Chairman, in reading over
the remarks of Mr. Wallace and Mr. Foster. They seemed to fear the
power placed in the hands of the Attorney General.

As I see it, at least, that power of initial determination is going to
have to be placed somewhere. And it is logical that it should be placed
with the Attorney General. But in any event, there is provided a
judicial review, and in fact in this case, even an accelerated one ; that is,
by proceeding to the United States Court of Appeals of this District,
and thus avoiding the necessity of even going into the United States
District Court.

So as we see it, there is ample protection.

Senator Ferguson. Of course, that is the American way : to provide
for judicial review.

Mr. Parkinson. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that all the steps here are correct ;
that is, that, as you say, they go right into the circuit court of appeals,
and then, if necessary, to the Supreme Court?

Mr. Parkinson. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. You do not know of anything further that could
be done in this bill to protect the rights of these people ?

Mr. Parkinson. No, sir, I don't.

Senator Ferguson. Is that the way you feel about it, Mr. Munter?

Mr. Munter. I do, sir.

I would just like to add one thought, Mr. Chairman, and that is from
what I have read in the vernacular press, about what the critics of
this bill have said, it is that it is unconstitutional or illegal. But there
is nobody, from reading the material that I have seen, who has ever
said why.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 301

Senator Ferguson. In other words, they do not put their finger on
the unconstitutional provision.

Mr. Munter. That is what I was coming: to. It is just a statement
that it is illegal or unconstitutional, without telling us why it is. And
1 think the power of any government to protect itself is an inherent
pOwer1 that flows from the very act of the government itself. Any
government must have power to protect itself against its enemies.
And that is where the constitutionality rests in this case.

Senator Ferguson. The very sovereignty is the right of self-preser-
vation.

Mr. Mi/nter. Correct.

Senator Ferguson. And do you know of any provision in here that
is apparently beyond the scope of self-preservation ?

Mr. Mounter. I don't see it. There is none in here as far as I have
beeh able to see. I think that this legislation is constitutional and
necessary under the circumstances at this time.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Parkinson, do you feel the same?

Mr. Parkinson. I do; yes, sir.

Senator Ferguson. And the other members of your committee whom
you have named on the record feel the same ?

Mr. Parkinson. Yes, sir.

Senator Ferguson. Thank you very much gentlemen.

Mr. Parkinson. Thank you.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Imbrie.

Will you raise your right hand, please, Mr. Imbrie?

You do solemnly swear that in the matter now pending before the
committee you will tell the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the
truth, so help you God ?

Mr. Imbrie. I do.

Senator Ferguson. You may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES IMBRIE, NEW JERSEY, INDEPENDENT

CITIZENS LEAGUE

Mr. Imbrie. Mr. Chairman, if I may ask your indulgence, it was
stated to me that Mr. Paul Robeson has phoned down here. He was
not scheduled to speak this morning, and I was asked if I would be
willing to refer my time, if it was satisfactory to the committee.

It happens that Mr. Robeson, whom I know, considers New Jersey
his home, and his family lives in Princeton ; and I said that I would
be delighted to do so, if he is here to speak.

I understand he is in the building.

Senator Ferguson. Well, you may go ahead, and we may find time
for him anyway.

Mr. Imbrie. There were two things in connection with which I
thought I might be of some small service in appearing here, Mr. Chair-
man.

One was to express to the committee a very unusual united-front
feeling in New Jersey on the part of the very broad gamut of citizen-
ship against this bill.

Senator Ferguson. Have they read it ?

Mr. Imbrie. Yes.

302 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. I wonder how many of them have read the bill,,
though.

Mr. Imbrie. I wanted to explain to you why I feel that that is an
informed opinion.

Some 2 weeks ago, either 2 or 3 weeks ago, 2 weeks ago yesterday, I
believe, there was a meeting called in Princeton of a large number of
faculty members of the University there, and members from Rutgers.

At that meeting, which I attended, sir — I happen to be a Princeton
graduate; I am living in Trenton, and therefore I am close to the
situation there — there were also a number of professors from Rutgers
University. They had asked Mr. James Martin-, who was formerly
with the Justice Department, who was with the military government
in Germany, and I think is now out of Government service, to be there^
He was there.

The bill was read before the entire group. Thre were some 30 or
40 there. It was gone over paragraph by paragraph. He attempted
to explain and answer questions, and so on and so forth.

Following that, there were 55 professors who signed a statement,
not only protesting the bill, but even going further than that.

Senator Ferguson. Are you a lawyer?

Mr. Imbrie. No; I am not, sir. I am a retired Wall Street banker,
I have been in Wall Street all my life, and my father before me.

Senator Ferguson. Did this group of professors see any menace in
communism in America?

Mr. Imbrie. I am sure that many of them did. I wanted to say
that most of those men there, to my own knowledge, were people who
voted the Republican ticket, if I may express it that way, and men
whom I would consider conservative, from nry angle at least.

Senator Ferguson. Then you say they recognized the danger of
communism in America.

Mr. Imbrie. I think the}^ felt that there was no danger in com-
munism today, as far as any action to overthrow the Government was
concerned. I think that they are aware of the Communist situation,
but did not consider it an immediate menace, either today or in the
foreseeable future.

Senator Ferguson. What would you say an American Communist
was ?

Mr. Imbrie. I would say lie was a member of a party, a member of a
political party.

Senator Ferguson. Well, do you think that they are men who. as
Mr. Foster expressed it, owe allegiance to the Red Hag rather than
to the American flag?

Mr. Imbrie. I heard you read that, and I saw it in the paper. I
inferred, if I am correct, that that was from the statement in 1930. Is
that correct, sir? I think that that was being quoted from a state-
ment he made in 1930. And 1 thought he was saying the other day
on the stand that lie had changed his opinion since then.

I think it is clear that all of us, whether we are members of the
Republican Party or the Democratic Party, over a period of years
may experience a complete change in our feelings.

riator Ferguson. Yes, but the question is, If you owe allegiance
to the Communist Party, the party has not changed. The record is
clear that the Communist Party has not changed.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 303

Mr. Imbrie. I would not be sure that the Communist Party had
not changed. 1 am not a member, never have been, and never expect
to be, of the Communist Party ; so I can onty speak, I want to say, from
observation in New Jersey. The New Jersey situation I do know. I
do come in contact with people who, I believe, are Communists or
fellow travelers.

Senator Ferguson. All right.

Nov.. do von think they ought to be employed in the Government of
the United States?

Mr. Imbrie. I believe that if they believe in the overthrow of our
Government by force, of course, they should not be. Whether they
believe in that or not, I think, should be proven by evidence in a court
of law. In other words, I feel that we have on the statute books today,
in the Voorhis Act, in the Foreign Registration Act, as it seems to
me. what is necessary in order to control that situation.

Senator Ferguson. Now, I noticed the other day that Mr. Foster
has taken out "force and violence" from his definition. It may be
because of the Smith Act. But I read vou section 4 :

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
hy. or under the domination or control of, any foreign government, foreign organi-
zation, or foreign individual.

Do you think that should be unlawful in America?

Mr. Imbrie. Why, of course. That goes without saying. Of course
it should be unlawful.

Senator Ferguson. All right. Then why would the professors at
Princeton object to that? That is the real meat. That is the thing
that is made unlawful in this.

Mr. Imbrie. I do not believe that that is the real meat. That is
section 4. 1 believe, that you are reading from. I feel that the fear here
comes much more under the definitions that are set down under section
3, and the possibility here and the very clear likelihood, at least in
my opinion, that you are going to get guilt by association, guilt by the
expression of ideas, rather than action.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Imbrie, this bill has two parts. That is
only the registration part.

Mr. Imbrie. But I want to point out to you : Let's take my own
organization, of which I am chairman, the New Jersey Independent
Citizens League, with some fourteen to fifteen thousand members.

Senator Ferguson. It has never been classed as a Communist front?

Mr. Imbrie. It has not. And we, both last year and this year, unani-
mously passed a resolution saying that we would fight any attempt to
undermine the democratic processes.

Senator Ferguson. If the Attorney General has not found it to be a
Communist front, why do you think that he would under this bill find
it to be one ?

Mr. Imbrie. Because we do not say that no Communist may join our
organization. In fact, I would believe that out of fourteen or fifteen
thousand members we probably have 1 percent either of Communists
or fellow travelers. I would not know positively, but I would say
we would have 1 percent or maybe 2 percent. I do not know the
exact percentage. But let us assume that. All right. Then we have

304 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Communist members. Those people do contribute. . They contribute,
when we are asking for funds, for whatever campaign we have. And,
of course, we have political action organizations. And in addition to
the contribution of funds, let us take the question of recognition of
Palestine. All right.

Russia took the position before we did in favor of the recognition of
Palestine as a state. Our Government finally decided to do so.

Suppose we had refused? We have been for recognition of Pales-
tine.

Senator Ferguson. That would not have violated any section here.
Where is there anything in this bill that would prohibit you from tak-
ing that stand ?

Mr. Imbrie. I have something here I would like to read, if I may>
and then answer the question. May 'I get into it in that way?

Senator Ferguson. All right.

Mr. Imbrie. You understand I am not a lawyer.

Senator Ferguson. I understand. You are not trying to give ns
any legal opinion.

Mr. Imbrie. Well, naturally, I should not. In other words. I feel
that any law that does not have the support of the people generally,
who are able to understand the law — and if this is something that is
going to be so technical that only lawyers can understand it, and
does not have the support of the general run of the people, it still
would be a bad law. I think you would agree on that.

So I am talking from the point of view of the man on the street, a
reasonably informed man on the street.

I am strongly opposed to the Mundt bill because I feel it would
be a catastrophe for the civil rights guaranteed under the Constitu-
tion.

Democracy means rule by the people. If they are to rule wisely
they must have full freedom of discussion — a choice of good opinion
from bad — the opportunity to hear different points of view, and to
receive fullest information on all important questions.

Another thing we must have is freedom of association. How can
the common people make their opinions without opportunity to asso-
ciate together freely to further their views and aims? Men of wealth
or corporations can buy radio time, control newspapers, or otherwise
advance their opinions.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Imbrie. are yon a candidate for any office
now ?

Mr. Imbrie. Yes, I am, sir.

Senator Ferguson. What office <*

Mr. Imbrie. I am a candidate for the United State;- Senate, as an
independent progressive candidate, and in that sense running on the
Wallace ticket in New Jersey.

Senator Ferguson. So you are a Wallace candidate for the United
State Senate?

Mr. Imbrie. I am, sir. I want to also point out to you that our
organization and I in 1946 went all out in support of Governor Dris-
coll, the Republican Governor, and still are supporting him. So we
are a nonpartisan organization. We supported Roosevelt in 1944.

As a matter of fact, the organization of which I am chairman, rep-
resents the spearhead of the Wallace movement in New Jersey.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 305

Senator Ferguson. As a candidate on the Wallace ticket, were you
consulted about the letter from Mr. Wallace to Joe Stalin?

Mr. Imbrie. I certainly was not, sir. I was utterly unaware of it.
Senator FERGUSON. You did not know about that (
.Mr. Imbrie. I certainly did not.

Senator Ferguson. Have you conferred with Mr. Wallace?
Mr. Imhkik. 1 haven't seen him for some weeks. He came to New
Jersey, and we had a big dinner for him at Atlantic City a few weeks

Senator Ferguson. You did not confer with him about this bill?

Mr. Imbrie. I certainly did not. I have not discussed it with him
at all. at any time.

Senator Ferguson. Did you read his testimony?

Mr. Imbrie. Only the excerpts that appeared in yesterday's New
York Times.

Senator Ferguson. Is it true that the very foundation of the Wal-
lace ticket, the third party, came from the Communists of America?

Mr. Imbrie. I can only speak for New7 Jersey ; and I say that is un-
qualifiedly untrue, as far as New Jersey is concerned.

Senator Ferguson. But the Communists of America and the Com-
munists of New Jersey are back of the Wallace ticket?

Mr. Imbrie. To the best of my knowledge and belief, yes.

Senator Ferguson. So that the Communists of New Jersey — and
by the way. how many of you are there in New Jersey?

Mr. Imbrie. Oh, I wouldn't have any idea. I can only tell you that
as to the Wallace movement, I should say New Jersey will cast 700,000
votes for Wallace in November, and I would think that maybe 5 per-
cent of them would come from Communists, or maybe 2 percent. I
don't know.

Senator Ferguson. But the Wallace ticket could not expect the sup-
port of the Communists if they did not oppose this bill could they I

Mr. Imbrie. I didn't understand.

Senator Ferguson. I say the Wallace ticket could not expect the
support of the Communists if they did not oppose this bill.

Mr. Imbrie. Where else would they have to go? Naturally.

Senator Ferguson. That is quite a question. Where else would
they have to go except to the Wallace ticket.

Mr. Imbrie. Mr. Wallace is a natural one for them to follow, under
the circumstances of his entire program. But that same thing ap-
plied to Roosevelt in 1944. They were 100 percent back of Wallace.
I know that situation in New Jersey intimately because our organiza-
tion was originally the Independent Voters League for Roosevelt.

Senator Ferguson. Sure. In 19-1-i they backed the Democratic-
ticket.

Mr. Imbrie. They were back of Mr. Roosevelt 100 percent, back
of his entire program.

Senator Ferguson. And now they are going 100 percent back of
Wallace.

Mr. Imbrie. They are back of the Roosevelt program still; as we
are. And they are back of Wallace as the candidate, yes.

Senator Ferguson. It is your opinion that Mr. Wallace is going
to get all of the Communist votes?

Mr. Imbrie. I think that Mr. Roosevelt got all of them, and I
assume Mr. Wallace will get all of them.

306 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. Just so we know where you stand on your po-
litical views.

So, then, you are really speaking here today as a candidate.

Mr. Imbrie. No. I want to say to you that I tried very hard to
avoid being here. In other words, I called Dean Gauss of Princeton
University. Dean Christian Gauss is one of the outstanding men of
independent opinion, with a big following in New Jersey. He is
bitterly opposed to this bill. His name is attached among the 53
professors I spoke of from Princeton.

When he could not come, I tried to get Dr. John Mackay, who is
president of Princeton Theological Seminary. I have a telegram
here from Dr. Mackay in bitter opposition to the bill. He happened
to be out of town. This is a bad week end, I need not add. So I tried
to avoid being here. I did not wish to come.

I want to point out one other thing, if I may, sir.

In addition to those professors at Princeton, there was a group
of really leading ministers, and three outstanding educators, includ-
ing Dr. Mackay, president of Princeton Theological Seminary. I
have known him for a number of years. .He is a transcendentalist.
I don't believe he has ever come down into the political arena before
in his life, except in connection with this Mundt bill?

Senator Ferguson. What do you think he thinks is wrong with
this Mundt bill ? What section ?

Mr. Imbrie. I will tell you why I think he is fighting it. He spent
the summer before last — 3 or 4 months — in the Argentine. When
he returned, he wrote a treatise on the situation in the Argentine,
and fascism, and the growth of fascism in South America today. He
came back from that trip tremendously frightened. And he feels that
there is too much in this authority given to the Attorney General here
that smacks of it.

And while we all see that this increasing power of the FBI in this
country may be necessary, still we fear it. And this bill would tend
toward fascism, in the opinion of all these people. That is why I am
fighting it.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Imbrie, this section 4 that I read to you
prohibits fascism in America,

Mr. Imbrie. I am not talking about section 4.

Senator Ferguson. As I understand it, what you are complaining
about more than anything else is registration. Is that right? It is
the registration section that these ministers are afraid of?

Mr. Imbrie. They are afraid of the definitions, and the ambiguities
of those definitions. They are afraid you are going to fire here a
shotgun, with buckshot being sprayed all over, instead of a rifle ; so that
you are going to include, in my opinion, organizations which are in
no sense Communist.

Take our own organization.

Senator Ferguson. Now, just a moment. You know what an
American Communist is. Do you think that an American Communist
should be employed in the Government of America?

Mr. Imbrie. I say that if it is proven in a court of law with proper
legal evidence that the Communist Party in this country is for the
overthrow of the Government by force, of course not. But otherwise,
I say in my opinion there are many countries

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 307

Senator Ferguson. Suppose they owe allegiance to another coun-
try; to the Red flag, as I read to you here. Then do you think that
kind of person ought to be in our Government ?

Mr. Imbrie. Orcourse not. But I don't think it is proven. And I
think that that statement is ambiguous. I say that I know a number
of Communists in New Jersey who I am certain have no idea or
thought or belief in the overthrow of our Government by force. And
I say thai the whole basis of this is wrong, because there is in the
Voorhis Act, and this Foreign Registration Act sufficient protection.

In this testimony before the subcommittee of the Un-American
Activities Committee, our own Attorney General, when we were talk-
ing about, '"Well, why can't they be prosecuted under those laws,"
said. "Well, we have to have the rules of evidence of the law court."

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that a foreign agent should be
registered ?

Mr. Imbrie. Yes, sir. But I think you should prove whether any-
body that you are forcing to register is a foreign agent, sir.

Senator Ferguson. If they do not register, then, all you can do
is prosecute them. If you say, in a law, that a foreign agent must
register

Mr. Imbrie. But we have that law, sir.

Senator Ferguson. You heard these two lawyers here before.

Mr. Imbrie. I could not catch what they said, sir.

Senator Ferguson. They said they believed that these people should
register.

Mr. Imbrie. All I say is that I believe, of course, any foreign agent
should register. That goes without saying.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think Mr. Foster or Mr. Gates, who
testified here last Friday, should be given passports to go to Russia?

Mr. Imbrie. I did not hear their testimony. I again come back
to the basis.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that anyone who believes what
Mr. Foster said he believed in the statement I read here should be
given a passport to go to Russia?

Mr. Imbrie. If he believes as he stated in 1930 he believed, the an-
swer is "No." If he has changed his opinion, and he thinks something
else today, I say then that our Government, or the arm of our Govern-
ment, the Attorney General, should be willing to prove that the Com-
munist Party and the members of it believe in the overthrow of the
Government by force. And of course they should be made to register
then. Of course, they should not be allowed to participate in any
position in our Government. And of course, they should not be given
a passport. I agree. But the point here is that there is too much of
definition of a lot of organizations here, who are going to be possibly
declared, or the right is to be given the Attorney General to declare
that they are Communist-front organizations, when they don't believe
in communism at all.

A lot of people feel that; and they don't like it. sir. And I say
that there is terrific organization — and I mean just that — not from
the left wing, sir, but real opposition on the part of the people.

Senator Ferguson. What do you call a "left-winger"? I notice
37ou have used that expression.

308 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Imbrie. I have used that expression. I do not consider my-
self personally a left-winger, but everybody considers me so, because
I am chairman of the Wallace committee in New Jersey. They may
even call me a Communist. I am no more a Comunist than you are,
Senator.

Senator Ferguson. But they do classify you as a left-wingeT?

Air. Imbrie. Because the attempt is made here to smear everybody
who has anything to do with the Wallace movement, as "left-wing."

Senator" Ferguson. What do you think up in New Jersey when they
call a man a left-winger?

Mr. Imbrie. That he is to the left of center; which Roosevelt was
at times.

Senator Ferguson. Then they do .not have a classification of Com-
munist? What is that, in New Jersey?

Mr. Imbrie. There is no question that we have Communists. We
have Communists running on our tickets there from time to time,
Communist tickets.

Senator Ferguson. Is there a Communist ticket this year?

Mr. Imbrie. I believe that they have — I know that Emanuel Cantor,
who is, I believe, the secretary or field secretary of the Communist
Party in New Jersey, has run pretty nearly every year for pretty nearly
every office that there is in the State, of New Jersey, and he has never
gotten anywhere and never has had any votes that amount to a tinker's
dam. And the Communist Party in the State of New Jersey doesn't
amount to anything. They are no danger, absolutely none, sir. The
people recognize it. That is the point.

May I continue? I don't want to take too much time now.

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr. Imbrie. Another thing Ave must have is freedom of association.
How can the common people make their opinion effective without
opportunity freely to associate together to further their views and
aims? Men of wealth or corporations can buy radio time, control
newspapers, or otherwise advance their opinions. The average Amer-
ican cannot do this.

If any public official were allowed to dictate what ideas could be
advanced — what people con meet together — or to label as good or bad —
then democracy as we have known it in this country will have passed.

My study of the bill has convinced me that its enactment would
undermine or destroy these freedoms. It would give the Attorney
General extraordinary power such as no man should have in a de-
mocracy.

It has been said that people who make such statements have not read
the bill, or are misled by others. I would like now to point to the most
important provisions of the bill on which I have my opposition.

The bill is applicable to the mere expression of ideas.

Now, I am not talking about section 4, sir.

Senator Ferguson. No, but will you point out what applies to ideas?

Mr. Imbrie. All right. O. K.

Under section 3 (3) an organization comes under the bill as a "Com-
munist political organization" if it has some of the characteristics of
a political party and it is reasonable to conclude that "it is under the
control of such foreign government," et cetera, page 8, lines 4 and 5.
This conclusion as to foreign control is to be based upon some of the

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 309

considerations mentioned in subparagraphs (a) through (j). There-
fore, if some of these considerations involve no more than speech or
opinion it will be clear that the bill applies to ideas and expressions
01 opinion, and not exclusively to activities.
Now, here they are. Let's take 3 (3) (A):

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

Now, views ami policies haven't anything to do with action,

(B) The extent to which its policies are formulated and carried out and its
activities performed, pursuant to directives or to effectuate the policies, of the
foreign government or political organization * * *.

Senator Ferguson. Then you must have overt acts to carry it out.
Mr. Imbrie. That is part in and part out. It is ambiguous there,
in my opinion. This one is entirely on views :

Suppose our organization is bitterly opposed to Franco Spain, or
felt that Franco Spain shouldn't have any help, or felt that the
Argentine shouldn't have any of this $500,000,000 or $800,000,000
which the Government asked for provision to South American
countries.

I would not give Argentina one cent of anything. And our organ-
ization has taken that position, because we feel that there is danger
there. I don't need to say to you, naturally that I am bitterly op-
posed to any police state. I don't care whether it is Argentina,
Franco Spain, Russia, Czechoslovakia, or wherever it is.

But going to (C), then:

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

Now, that is dangerous, in my opinion.

Senator Ferguson. Well, that is only one of the steps, and some
of the evidence.

Mr. Imbrie. There is some more :

(D) The extent to which it supports or advocates the hasic principles and
tactics of communism as expounded by Marx and Lenin.

Senator Ferguson. Yes. Do you not think that would be some
evidence ?

Mr. Imbrie. That sounds absolutely innocuous, but the answer is
"no." Why? I have never read Marx, but I don't think that any
man who has heard discussion back and forth and has lived and been
around at all in the last 20 years, but recognizes that Marx was for,
for instance, a militant labor movement. All right. I happen to be
for a militant labor movement. I believe in it. You probably do,
too, sir. I say that might coincide with the viewpoint of Marx.
Marx unquestionably was absolutely for the independence of colonial
peoples. All right. You and I probably are for the independence of
India.

Well, are we therefore to be accused of thinking the same as Marx,
and is that to be used as a basis for thinking that our organization
that takes that position is controlled by a foreign government? It is
nonsense.

310 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Then, to go on with (I) :

The extent to which (I) it fails to disclose, or resists efforts to obtain infor-
mation as to, its membership * * *.

Senator Ferguson. Right there, now, you do not keep secret your
membership do you?

Mr. Imbrie. No. Of course, as far as we happen to be concerned,
we would be delighted. Our membership from top to bottom would
be delighted to be open to anybody.

But here is the point I want to make, that is not true of certain
organizations. Take labor unions. I tried my damnedest to get that
information at times from the labor unions whom I am close to,
whom perhaps I have a large following with. But they just don't
give them up. They just don't want to give them up. They feel it is
a question of blacklist. You know that situation, and there is no
use in my going into it. You are aware of it. And I say that is
dangerous.

And it isn't what I say, sir. I am talking about the sentiment of
people in New Jersey who would be voting for the Republican ticket
this year. They are fighting this. They don't like it. They just
don't like it. They don't like anything about it. And when you see
those people in the hall, and you see all these telegrams that are stack-
ing up here, if anybody has the idea that those are just from Com-
munists, if he has that idea, he is going to have a tremendous awaken-
ing at the polls.

I can tell you there are a lot of informed people and conservative
people wdio think it is the most dangerous legislation since the sedition
laws were passed.

Senator Ferguson. Would you obey the law if it were held consti-
tutional by the United States Supreme Court?

Mr. Imbrie. If it were held constitutional by the United States
Supreme Court, certainly; of course. But I don't believe that it
would be.

Senator Ferguson. But you say that you would then obey it \

Mr. Imbrie. I certainly would. The very basis of democracy is
obedience to law and order. But I also say that the basis of de-
mocracy is ruled by law, the very point you are making, and not by
men. And the trouble with this law is that there is too much of men
in it. There is too much control by one man in it.

Senator Ferguson. Now, wait. Does it not provide for appeal?
Therefore, it becomes "by law."

Mr. Imbrie. The trouble is that we all know what these administra-
tive hearings are. We have had plenty of them, all through the Roose-
velt regime. And you Republicans, who were fearful of the controls
that came into being through that regime, know what these admin-
istrative hearings are. You know that when he has those hearings,
he can have hearsaj^ evidence and he can have rumor. I do not say
he will.

Senator Ferguson. But you would not worry about the Attorney
General that Mr. Wallace appointed, would you?

Mr. Imbrie. I certainly would.

Senator Ferguson. Even the one that Mr. Wallace appointed?

Mr. Imbrie. I certainly would.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 311

Senator Ferguson. You say there is going to be an election on No-
vember 2 ?

Mr. Imbrie. I got ©ut of the Army as a major of the artillery in
191$ I remember the Palmer raids and the Red hysteria the same as
if it were yesterday.

Senator Ferguson. But I ask you, would you fear the Attorney
General that Mr. Wallace appointed?

Mr. Imbriee. I would fear any Attorney General, whether ap-
pointed by Mr. Wallace or anybody else that had that power, no mat-
ter who he is. 1 just say it is too much power.

Senator Ferguson. Where would you put that power?

Mr. Imbrie. I just simply say that we are getting altogether away
from the basis of democracy, which means that you have to prove in
a court of law. with evidence and witnesses, anything of this kind,
and not give to any one man a chance to smear masses of people through
association; large organizations who don't believe in Communists, but
people someone wants to get at during a period of hysteria. That
is the danger, sir.

1 know you sense that.

I am sure, I believe, I honestly believe

Senator Ferguson. Then it is the registration law that you are
opposed to in this.

Mr. Imbrie. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. Yes. The registration part.

Mr. Imbrie. All those definitions.

Senator Ferguson. Well, they only apply to registration.

Mr. Imbrie. They apply to registration, yes. I don't like anything
about the law. But that is what disturbs most people. That is what
disturbs most of the people. I just don't think there is any law that
is necessary.

I just want to ask this : You know what the Attorney General tes-
tified to in regard to the Voorhis Act and the Foreign Registration
Act. And w-hat did they say? They said, "Can't you convict, as to
the Communist Party with regard to what the FBI has to say on it?"

He said :

Well, you know, proof in a court of law is one thing, and what I think about
it is something else.

We don't want law by what anybody thinks about it. That is the
point. That is the point I want to make, sir.

I would like to just finish this. It will only take me a couple of min-
utes. I was talking about (A) , (B) , (C) , and (D) , on page 6.

Now, clearly these tests relate exclusively to ideas, and a finding
could be based on these tests alone. That this bill applies to ideas is
even more apparent from an examination of subsection (4) of the
same section. That is on page 8. I guess you know the bill backward,
so there is no use in my talking to it, probably. But under subsection
(4) , under that section, an organization is made subject to the bill as a
"Communist-front organization," if it is reasonable to conclude "that
its views and policies are in general adopted and advanced because
such views or politics are those of a Communist political organiza-
tion."

This conclusion is to be based upon some of the considerations men-
tioned in subparagraphs (A) to (D) , inclusive, on page 8.

312

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Again, I must say that if some of these tests do not involve action,
but rather involve ideas, it will be clear that any claim that the bill
applies only to actions is untrue.

On (A), page 8, line 13, the identity of the persons who are active
in its management, direction, or supervision, whether or not holding
office therein, is referred to. I think that is dangerous.

Now, let us take line 20 of (D) .

The position taken or advanced by it from time to time on matters of policy.

' On matters of policy." There again it is guilt by thought rather
than action. That is what I am disturbed at.

All right. Now, let us pass those for a minute, because I know you
have the idea.

The concept of control by a foreign government : It has been said
that proof of control by a foreign Communist government is essential
under this bill before any group or individual can be affected by it.

I would point out first that this is obviously not true as it relates
to a "Communist-front organization." It is only necessary under
section 3 (4) to show that it is reasonable to believe —

that its views or policies are in general adopted and advanced because such views
or policies are those of the Communist-political organization * * *.

That is page 9, lines 2 to 4.

But this is a minor point. The major point lies in the meanings
of the word "control" as it is used in the bill. "Control" means to an
average citizen actual dictation of policy and action with power to
compel the carrying out of such directives.

Now, I have been a banker. I have controlled lots of corporations.
I have controlled a business. I know what the meaning of control is.
But it doesn't have anything to do with ideas. It is control of action.
Action — that is the point.

So control means to an average citizen actual dictation of policy
and action with power to compel the carrying out of such directives.
It involves the power to discharge, to demote, to remove from office,
cut off financial resources, et cetera.

Does the term "control" have any such meaning as it is used in this
bill? Not as it is understandable by the average citizen. That is the
point I want to make.

Under section 3 (3) "control" by a foreign Communist government
may be established entirety b}^ tests in the bill which may have no
relevance whatever to actual control as that term would be commonly
understood. And I think that is dangerous.

Subsection (A), the first test, provides no clue to the meaning of
control. Subsection (B) may relate exclusively to a mere coincidence
of some of the views and policies of the domestic organizations with
some of the views and policies of the foreign organization.

Subsection (C) expressly refers only to such coincidence of views
and of policies. Subsection (D) has no necessary bearing on control
by a foreign government. I cannot see that subsection (I) has any
relevance whatsoever. Failure or refusal to disclose membership in
such an organization undoubtedly relates to fear of blacklisting and
the accompanying economic, social, or even physical consequences. In
any case, whatever the reason may be, it has no relevance to foreign
control.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 313

Under subsection (4) of section 3, relating to Communist-front or-
ganizations, none of the tests set out in subpargaraphs (A) to (D),
inclusive, have any necessary connection whatever with control, either
by a foreign Communist government, or a Communist political
organization.

I think it is clear, therefore, that any claims that proof of control
by a foreign Communist government is essential before the bill applies
are not true.

What is clear is that this bill is an attempt to avoid the necessity
of proving control by tangible, concrete evidence that would be
acceptable in a court of law. If the actual purpose were to require
registration only of organizations where proof of foreign control is
available, then I believe that existing legislation would suffice, with
possibly some small amendments.

I have been interested to find out about this point, and have read
the testimony given by the Attorney General before the legislative
subcommittee of the Un-American Activities Committee.

The reference to his testimony indicates that the Attorney General
mentioned 011I37 one defect in each of these acts. In the Voorhis Act,
which is aimed at organizations subject to foreign control, according
to the Attorney General, no specific individual is made responsible to
file a registration statement. That is on page 21 of the hearings.

Senator Ferguson. Just one question there. What would you think
about this : If the court decreed that one of these organizations was a
Communist front. In other words, instead of the Attorney General
doing it, suppose you go to the court, and the court enters a decree
that it is a Communist front.

Mr. Imbree. With the ordinary evidence?

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr. Imbrie. I think it would be a great improvement, sir. You do
provide for it in one instance.

Senator Ferguson. It provides for the appeal here. And then the
court would try it de novo.

Mi-. Imbrie. But on one of these appeals, after an administrative
hearing, they take the evidence as taken in that hearing. And that
same evidence, if it had been de novo taken originally in a court of
law, wouldn't apply at all. They would throw it out. They wouldn't
listen to it.

Senator Ferguson. You would not see anything wrong, then, if the
evidence was taken before a court and the court entered a decree.

Mr. Imbrie. You mean originally? No. I think it would be a
tremondus improvement. I don't like a lot of things about the bill,
but I say that would be a tremendous improvement. To that I agree.

The point is that I feel it is unnecessary, because I think it is due to
hysteria. I think it is trying to ameliorate a certain feeling that is
sweeping the country today, which I doubt is based on sound thinking.
However, that is a matter of opinion.

I think I should skip all this.

Senator Ferguson. I would be glad to make your statement part of
the record.

Mr. Imbrie. I would appreciate it, sir. and I do appreciate the time
you have given me.

314 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. You are entirely welcome.

Mr. Imbrte. And I do not know whether this statement has been
included in the record. I came down on Friday, with the Reverend
Van Dyke, Andrew Van Dyke, who was the chairman of the ministerial
committee. I want to say that when those ministers met, we had 300
people in the audience. And we had an analysis of the bill made for
us at that session, at that conference, by the American Civil Liberties
Union. So, you understand, we were trying to have someone who
would be at least unprejudiced make an analysis of the bill.

Senator Ferguson. What is the American Civil Liberties Union?
Many of these organizations have been declared Communist fronts.

Mr. Imbrie. The Civil Rights Congress, you are thinking of. Gar-
field Hays is with the American Civil Liberties Union.

Senator Ferguson. The congresses, some of them, have been de-
clared Communist fronts.

Mr. Imbrie. That I know to be true. At least I knew that the Civil
Rights Congress is a Communist-dominated organization. I am not
speaking about them.

Senator Ferguson. Just so that we have the record clear.

Mr. Imbrie. So I would like to leave that with you, Senator, be-
cause there is a member from New York University, and Suffragan
Bishop. It is really important. Because they are all what you and I
would call right-thinking people. And it is important because it an
informed opinion, and they feel strongly.

Thank you very much.

(The above-mentioned statements will be found at the conclusion of
hearings held Friday, May 28, 1948.)

(The unread portion of Mr. Imbrie's prepared statement is as
follows:)

Reference to his testimony indicates that the Attorney General mentioned
only one defect in each of these acts. In the Voorhis Act, which is aimed at
organizations subject to foreign control, according to the Attorney General, no
specific individual is made responsible to file a registration statement (p. 21
of hearings). The Foreign Agents Registration Act was defective, according to
the Attorney General, because it "provides no penalty for the offending organiza-
tion's continued existence or activity after conviction" (p. 22 of hearings). As-
suming this to be true, these inadequacies could easily be taken care of by
simple amendments. But this is not what is proposed in this bill. The reason
for this is, I think, revealed by the Attorney General's own testimony which
shows the essential purpose of this bill.

The Attorney General, referring to the Voorhis Act, stated : "In order to force
a registration or to prosecute any organization for failing to register under the
act, we must prove * * * that the organization is * * * subject to for-
eign control" (p. 21).

When asked whether he did not have proof of such foreign control in view of
the statements of Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, he said: "There is quite a difference
between proof in court — some of the evidence, of course, would not be legally
introduceable in court" (p. 25) .

He also said, referring to the Foreign Agents Registration Act: "The terms
of the act are sufficiently broad to require registration by the members of the
Communist Party; provided, of course, that proof is available that they are
operating in this country as agents of a foreign principal. This is a difficult
task. * * *" (p. 22).

E'sewhere he said : "You have asked me what, in my opinion, is the true char-
acter and aim of the Communist Party in the United States, Mr. Chairman. The
ultimate question, however, is not what my opinion may be, but what proof exists
to successfully prosecute an individual or organization under the above statutes"
(p. 21).

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 315

This bill would eliminate these difficulties. It would make the ultimate ques-
tion not "what proof exists," but rather what the Attorney General's "opinion
may be." And this opinion would be based not upon such proof as would be
accepted by a court and convincing to a jury, but rather on evidence which
"would not be legally introduceable in court." I am informed that by providing
for an administrative hearing the requirement of legal evidence, as distinguished
from opinion and rumor, is eliminated. And further, under this bill there is no
necessity to tind the fact of even such vague control as the bill prescribes, but
only that it is reasonable to conclude that such control exists.

For all of these reasons, and others, I have concluded that freedom of speech
and association could not survive with this bill in force. I would close these
brief remarks by quoting the statement of a great United States Senator, made
in 1798 on the last day of debate on the infamous alien bill. Senator Edward
Livingston said :

"Do not let us be told that we are to excite a fervor against a foreign aggres-
sion to establish a tyranny at home ; that like the arch traitor we cry 'Hail
Columbia' at the moment we are betraying her to destruction ; that we sing
'Happy Land,' when we are plunging it in ruin and disgrace ; and that we are
absurd enough to call ourselves free and enlightened while we advocate princi-
ples that would have disgraced the age of Gothic barbarity" (Jefferson and
Hamilton, by Claude G. Bowers, p. 37S) .

The only change I would make in this quotation is to refer to the age of Nazi
barbarity.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Janney?

Mr. Janney?

Miss Fingerman (Sondra Fingerman, American Youth for Democ-
racy of Illinois) . I am a delegate from Mr. Janney's State, Illinois.
Mr. Janney had to leave town for Illinois. Since a real leader of the
Negro people is needed to testify, Mr. Janney asked me to request the
committee that the committee delegate his time to Mr. Paul Robeson.

Senator Ferguson. Is Mr. Robeson here now ?

Mr. Robeson. Yes, I am here.

Senator Ferguson. All right. You may take the chair.

Will you raise your right hand, please ?

l'ou do solemnly swear that in the matter now pending before
this committee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God \

Mr. Robeson. I do.

Senator Ferguson. You may proceed.

TESTIMONY OF PAUL ROBESON

Mr. Robeson. I am here, Senator — I have been traveling a good deal
about the country on various missions. I am an artist, a singer. I
have also been in the South and the West and all over, helping, sing-
ing for certain charitable organizations.

And coming to the bill : I see first that it is to protect the United
States against so-called un-American and subversive activities. I
presume, since the United States doesn't exist in abstraction, that it
means the people of the United States. That would be more or less
all right, wouldn't it?

Senator Ferguson. I would think so.

Mr. Robeson. I will get back to other sections of the bill. It says
in section 2, the second paragraph, on the question of the necessity
for the legislation, that —

the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in any country results in the
ruthless suppression of all opposition to the party in power.

78257—48 21

316 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

That is what I am interested in :

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 government, 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.

I have been all over the United States, speaking, and attempting
to speak, and I have been experiencing, in our own country today,
this very thing — control over the trouble through fear, terrorism, and
brutality. This is happening in all parts of this land.

Now, it seems to me that if we are protecting the people of the
United States, these protections are necessary from quite another
point of view than I can see in their so-called necessity in this legis-
lation.

Senator Ferguson. Well, do you believe that they are entitled to
protection even as here provided?

Mr. Kobeson. I just want to finish my point. I also, again, want
to say that it says in this same paragraph :

The complete subordination of the rights of individuals to the state, the
denial of fundamental rights and liberties —

and so forth.

I think that is a complete definition, since our States are sovereign
powers, so to speak, except for the rights delegated to the Federal
Government — a complete description of, say, what happens to the
Negro people today in Mississippi, Alabama, and many other States
of the Union.

And the necessity for legislation, it seems to me — I will go into what
I consider the constitutionality, the denial of civil rights under this
bill, and, in fact, the whole question. But it seems to me that the
necessity for legislation that might, I suggest, concern the committee
today, and for some time to come, is something that hundreds and per-
haps thousands of Americans would like to speak on.

And not only today, but perhaps in the future there should be op-
portunity for that.

But I am tremendously interested, before approaching in detail this
bill, to just ask you a question as to why, in the light of the terror that
I have seen and the denial of rights, the lynching bill is not before the
Congress at this time, or why it hasn't come out of committee.

Senator Ferguson. I could not answer that. I am, personally, try-
ing to get it out of the committee.

Mr. Robeson. I think that if there is any kind of activity that strikes
at the very basis of our democratic way of life, it is this. This bill
should certainly come out. Both parties have gone on record for the
civil rights of the' Negro people, yet it looks as though you might get
through without it. So I am certainly hoping that this bill will come
out; and perhaps even this bill should be put aside for the moment,
and studied later to see that these rights are guaranteed.

Now, as for the bill : As I see it, the whole question of protecting the
rights of the people of the United States must be viewed against the
background and the whole question of communism, for example, which
is brought in everywhere.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. "Robeson

Mr. Robeson. Could I go on?

Senator Ferguson. Are you a member of the Communist Party ?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 317

Mr. Robeson. I will answer that in just a moment. Can I go on

with this?

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr. Robeson. The whole background, as I say. I would strike at
the very root of the conception of what is in these first paragraphs:
For example, the origin, the world movement with its origins, and so
forth. Docs Mr. Mundt, or whoever framed the bill understand that
the origins of this kind of thing were in, say, the English industrial
revolution, the time of Robert Owen: in the roots of the poverty of
England, which was responsible for the English poor and indentured
servants coming to build America itself?

This didn't just spring up the other day in some part of Europe.
It is part of the whole struggle of human beings to improve their lot,
one of the most important sections, to me, being my own people here,
the Negro people in America.

So I see the whole framework of the bill in reality, from my travel-
ings about this country and otherwise, and about the world. As I see
the framework of what we understand as Americans, and what we
mean by our democratic ways of life here, as expressed in this para-
graph : it means, certainly, from our oavii American history, from the
beginning of our struggle for freedom from England, down through
the Civil War, which freed my own people, through the New Deal —
certainlv if we inean anything. Ave mean an extension of the demo-
cratic rights of full citizenship to people who do not yet have them,,
to include not only the one-tenth of the population, the Negro people,
but, for example, many of the Spanish- American people that I saw
in Pueblo, Colo., a few months ago, practically living in hovels under
the ground ; many living in the fruit fields of California, in the whole
deep South, and all over America.

And so, in approaching this wdiole problem of the struggle today
in Europe and elsewhere, what happened in 1917 in Russia, what has
happened in Yugoslavia and many places, has to do with millions and
millions of people who are denied their basic rights, economic, social,
and political, building, trying to build, a decent way of life.

Against it have been many forces, the most important of which we
join hands against — the forces of fascism. Now, in going about
America today, when in Kansas City I see the police beating workers
over the head when they want a decent living, terrorizing Negro peo-
ple in West Virginia and all over, I say these are the essence of trying
to stop, actually stop, the struggle of the people to get the democratic
rights which they do not have.

In the discussion we can take it up in detail, defining what is the
Communist Party, what is a front organization, and what has hap-
pened in the South, and throughout America, where they have ter-
rorized people from going in and joining any kind of liberal structure.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Robeson —

Mr. Robeson. Just a second. This bill seems to me to have as
its basic idea not to help the people of the United States, or any
other people, but to actually stop the struggle by terrorizing peo-
ple— the struggle to get rights for Negro people, for workers, and for
other Americans who still haven't full citizenship.

Senator Ferguson. Have you read the bill, Mr. Robeson?

Mr. Robeson. I have read the bill.

318 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. Now, the acts that are prohibited are in section
4. The other is merely registration.

Mr. Robeson. You can't dismiss the rest of the bill.

Senator Ferguson. I am not dismissing it. I am talking about
that part.

Mr. Robeson. Yes. O. K.

Senator Ferguson. Do you believe that it should be unlawful for
anyone to attempt 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 gov-
ernment, foreign organization, or foreign individual?

Mr. Robeson. We have laws that take care of that. Of course not.
Sure not.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that should be the law ?

Mr. Robeson. Sure. That is all right. We have laws to protect
that. We have laws to protect that.

Senator Ferguson. What is the law now ?

Mr. Robeson. We have plenty of laws to take care of any people
who would attempt to overthrow this Government. Mr. Hoover
could take care of that anytime.

What I would

Senator Ferguson. That is, by force or violence ? It is the Smith
Act that you are talking about?

Mr. Robeson. O. K.

Senator Ferguson. Well, this is not by force or violence. You could
do it by other means.

Mr. Robeson. What other means ?

Senator Ferguson. Well, penetration. You do not think that Yugo-
slavia was not taken over by the Communists, do you?

Mr. Robeson. I certainly do not. I think the Yugoslav — as I say,
this is very basic, Senator. Let's take Czechoslovakia. You can
check this up.

I happened to be in Czechoslovakia in 1945 singing for American
troops, at the very end of the war. I, as a singer, was called in by
the American military to sing to some Czechs, at a big park. Anil
I had been in Prague before the war, and I speak the language a little
bit. And I was trying to find out who these Czechs were.

So finally a woman comes up to me and says, "I am Countess So-
and-so-and-so, and I met you in Chicago during the war."

I said, "You were in Chicago during the war. I understand." And
it occurred to me that maybe she was back in Czechoslovakia to get
some of those castles that had been taken away. Because those that
owned the castles had helped the Fascists. And I say that I saw the
American military — the only Czechs in the room turned out to be
Czech collaborationists, and Sudeten Germans. And I would say
that the Czech people probably made a decision that under no pres-
sure, probably not even American pressure, would they accept the res-
toration of American fascism ; that if they were made to choose, they
would choose the other way.

And as far as Yugoslavia ; I was in Yugoslavia, and I saw the Yugo-
slav peasants suffering exactly like the Negro peasants suffered in
the South ; only they weren't one-tenth of the population — they were
perhaps nine-tenths of the population. And so, when we helped them

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 319

to destroy fascism, including Kin<r Peter, whom we now happen to
have in this country floating around — I knew him as a boy in London.

I think what happened in Yugoslavia came from the struggles of
the Yugoslav people who, with our help, took the power. And as far
as 1 can see. Senator, they are going to keep it.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Robeson, what is an American Communist?

Mr. Robeson. For example, I know an American Communist. We
grew up together. He went to Amherst; I went to Rutgers. I was
interested in that, because Judge Stone — I took law at Columbia Uni-
versity. He was a dean at the same time. He was an Amherst man
and played football. We used to talk about this. This man grew
up with me, went through, as a Negro boy, all sorts of injustices, and
injury to his dignity every 5 minutes. He came North and went to
Harvard Law School. He was a dear friend of mine through all my
life; still is. He is today on the City Council of New York City, a
man who was fighting and has made a tremendous struggle for the
rights of the Negro people in Harlem and all through the United
States. And I know no American that I am prouder of. And he is an
American Communist. He is a good illustration.

Senator Ferguson. Now, what do they stand for?

Mr. Robeson. His name is Ben Davis.

Senator Ferguson. No. What do they stand for?

Mr. Robeson. They stand, as far as I can see, for complete equal-
ity of the Negro people in America, which I would like to see in every
respect. It might interest you to know that in going around the coun-
try I asked Negro students when they thought the Negro people would
be completely free in America — not special freedoms, economic, or some
other kind of special freedom. They said to me : "A thousand years."

So I am interested in a party and in people who, like in the Scotts-
boro case, risked their lives, who make every effort of any possible
kind, to see that the Negro people secure their rights.

So, the forces of labor

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that is what communism stands
for in America \

Mr. Robeson. That is what it stands for. I say — this is my basic
point, Senator, my basic point. Just wait a minute.

Where did communism come from ? It started from the sufferings
of the English people, in the mills, in the great industrial revolution,
which resulted in slavery.

Now. in this struggle, as I would put it, of the few against the many
in history — Why did we found the American Government? What
happened? Why did Cromwell come over from England — in ItoO —
1940 ? But lie said, ''No divine right of kings."

And in order to achieve that in English history, they had to chop
off Charles' head, and we had to have a revolution in 1776. We had
to have a civil war, to see that somewhere people begin to get their
rights.

So, the French Revolution.

So. I see history as a struggle of the great mass of people to in some
way get some fair return for their labor and a decent chance to live.

Now, this is what is going on in America, Senator.

Senator Ferguson. Now let us get down to what American commu-
nism is.

320 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Robeson. Well, I say they are a part of this whole struggle.
I can only define it against its background. You can't say in one
breath that American communism is an offshoot of Russian commu-
nism.

Senator Ferguson. That is what I want to know.

Mr. Robeson. That is what I say. What is Russian communism
an offshoot of? Did Marx or Lenin just spring out of the head of
Athene ? No. They came out of the social conditions of Europe, and
communism began in England, not in Russia.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Robeson, are you an American Communist ?

Mr. Robeson. Senator, just let me finish the point. I will answer
the question.

Now, in Scandanavia today, they, have decided to solve these prob-
lems of all of the resources of the nation being in the hands of a few
people, by cooperative methods. That is, the General Electric, which
controls electricity in this country — they more or less put them out
of Sweden by cooperative means.

In England today they have taken over the railroads, coal, banks,
by Socialist means ; that is, by public ownership. Now, this oughtn't
to be any mystery to the American people. We have TVA.

New Zealand is a Socialist country.

This is a part of the struggle of people to get control of some of the
wealth, instead of leaving it in the hands of a few.

I see communism as nothing but an extension of public ownership
of the main means of resources, like the railroad workers said the
other day. And the coal mines? If they are that important, Sena-
tor, to the people of the United States that every time there is a na-
tional emergency it is life or death to the American people, doesn't it
occur to you that instead of beating the workers on the head, that
maybe the Government should own the railroads and the coal mines?

Well, this is a whole struggle, of which communism is a part. This
is a part of the conceptions of the struggles of human beings for ages.

And you can't rule communism out anywhere in the world.

Senator Ferguson. The American Communist is part of the Rus-
sian struggle?

Mr. Robeson. Do you know the American revolutionary principles
stem from the French Revolution and our Revolution ?

Senator Ferguson. They are very revolutionary ideas.

Mr. Robeson. In Fascist Greece today these are very revolutionary
ideas.

Senator Ferguson. Let us get down to some of the facts of today.
Are you an American Communist?

Mr. Robeson. Today, Senator Ferguson, that question has become
the very basis of the struggle for American civil liberties. Nineteen
or more, aud many of the most, some of the most brilliant and dis-
tinguished Americans are about to go to jail for failure to answer that
question, and I am going to join them if necessary. I refuse to an-
swer the question.

This is an invasion of my right of secret ballot. If you want to
know whether I am — the Communist Party is a legal party or demo-
cratic party, I am going to vote pretty soon. If you are going to
send some Government official to take away my ballot, which is a
secret ballot, he can see what I am.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 321

Senator Ferguson. Have von a Communist card in any Communist
organization in any State, Mr. Robeson?

Mr. Robeson. That I consider a part of the other question. That I
refuse to answer.

Senator Moore. It is a party that does not disclose its membership?

Mr. Robeson. If I am a Republican, maybe I wouldn't disclose it
either.

I would say, "Come to the ballot box and see it." All I know is that
the Communist Party is a legal party of the United States and is
making a magnificent struggle.

Senator Moore. I mean Communists refuse to disclose whether they
are members.

Mr. Robeson. Today you have made — this goes to the very heart
of the bill — I sa}^ that this whole hysteria, and the bill is a part of
that hysteria, to use this, not to hurt Communists but really to break
the civil liberties of every section of the American people, the rights
of labor, the rights of liberals — this is a very basic point.

Senator Ferguson. You know something about the Communists
of America.

Mr. Robeson. I have many dear friends who are Communists. I
think the}' have done a magnificent job.

Senator Ferguson. You think they have done a magnificent job in
America ? That is your opinion.

Mr. Robeson. That is my opinion.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know that it is a fact that they, outside
of their membership, decline to disclose that they are Communists ?

Mr. Robeson. Well, I think they might be, it can be determined.
The Supreme Court is going to have to rule on that.

Senator Ferguson. Is that not a fact that except among themselves
they decline to make public that they are Communists or not
Communists ?

Mr. Robeson. I would say if it weren't a basic problem of civil
liberties which goes to the very heart of the struggle, a denial of civil
liberties I believe this bill to be a part, for which I am here, that
would not be so at all.

Senator Ferguson. Have you ever been to Russia?

Mr. Robeson. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. Have you studied in Russia?

Mr. Robeson. No; never studied there. I went there as an artist.
As far as that is concerned, you don't have to go to Russia to read
Marx or Lenin. They didn't give it to me at Rutgers, but I read it
since.

Senator Ferguson. You did not study it in any school in Russia ?

Mr. Robeson. No; I went purely as an artist. I knew nothing
about Russia in 1934. I went only to sing.

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever meet Mr. Stalin ?

Mr. Robeson. I have never met Mr. Stalin ; I have seen him.

Senator Ferguson. How much time did you spend in Russia?

Mr. Robeson. 1934 and 1937 I was there 2 weeks ; 3 weeks ; 3 months.

What is much more interesting, Senator, is that my boy went to
school 2 or 3 years. My one boy — because I found in Russia a com-
plete absence of race prejudice, the first time in my life, Senator, I

322 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

was able to walk the earth with complete dignity as a human being.
So I took my boy there. He is now at Cornell.

Senator Ferguson. What age was he ?

Mr. Robeson. Eight or nine years old, just a boy, a very important
age.

Senator Ferguson. What school did he attend ?

Mr. Robeson. He went to a public school in Moscow, a public
school. He is in Cornell. He has been back in America many
years; went to high school.

In Russia, from not experiencing this race prejudice, today in
America he is going to fight for his people and fight in a progressive
section of American life, easier than I can, for example, because if
somebody would suddenly call me a name, I don't think I would do
anything .about it, but I would have a tendency to get up and knock
the guy down. He has no feeling of any kind because he knows that
he has lived in a part of the world where there is no such thing as color
prejudice. So he is going to make an important contribution in
American life. That is the reason he went there, Senator Ferguson.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know whether or not the American
Communist owes any allegiance to the Red flag?

Mr. Robeson. As far as I know, the Supreme Court — this has been
put up only once — they refused to pass on it.

Senator Ferguson. I ask you.

Mr. Robeson. I don't know. As far as I know, the American
Communist is interested in improving as far as possible the lot of
the people here — of the people who suffer — as well as in other parts of
the world where this becomes a part of the struggle.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know whether or not the American
Communist believes in world revolution ?

Mr. Robeson. That I don't know.

Senator Ferguson. You don't know ?

Mr. Robeson. That I don't know.

Senator Ferguson. Do vou know whether they do believe in alle-
giance to the Communist 'Party or communism in Russia ?

Mr. Robeson. Do they what?

Senator Ferguson. Do they owe allegiance ?

Mr. Robeson. I would say, from anything I know about it. I don't
think they have nearly as much allegiance to Russia as certain Amer-
icans have to Fascist Greece and Transjordan.

Senator Ferguson. You have addressed Communist meetings in
America?

Mr. Robeson. I have addressed all kinds of meetings; you bet your
life.

Senator Ferguson. You are familiar with their creed ?

Mr. Robeson. I am just as familiar as any other American can be.
It is out there to be read.

Sonator Ferguson. Is not their real activity secret in America?

Mr. Robeson. Incidentally, Senator. I am more worried about the
secret activity, for example, by Dillon & Reed cartels or the secret ac-
tivity to restore German fascism.

Senator Ffkguson. Is there not a law on this question ?

Mr. Robeson. I think so. That is why we don't need this one. We
bare plenty of laws so that this bill is completely unnecessary.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 323

Senator Ferguson. Do you think anyone should attempt to establish
a totalitarian government in America under a foreign government?

Mr. Robeson. Of course not. Who is doing that ? •

Senator Ferguson. There is nothing wrong?

Mr. Robeson. Nobody has proven that anywhere so far as I can see.

Senator Ferguson. There would be nothing wrong in establishing
that?

Mr. Robeson. I am only frightened, not of a few Communists which
you can gather up evidently — Mr. Hoover said he has 75,000,000
Americans

Senator Ferguson. Million?

Mr. Robeson. Seventy-five thousand or million.

Senator Moore. It is millions.

Mr. Robeson. Millions. He has them all tabbed and I am sure there
aren't 75,000.000 Communists around. He can gather them up.

President Roosevelt gave a definition of this. The concentration of
power in a few hands in the struggle of the New Deal against so-called
economic royalists, in which he defined the constitution of power as
the essence of fascism. I would like Mr. Hoover to be sure he has Mr.
du Pont tabbed and these people. It is very different; they are our
Government today. It isn't easy to get at the basis of what might
be American fascism. I don't see anything about that in the bill.

Senator Ferguson. Does not this bill cover the dictatorship, whether
fascism or communism ?

Mr. Robeson. You can't define fascism or communism by totali-
tarian dictatorship. This again is misleading the American people.

Senator Ferguson. What is the definition of fascism?

Mr. Robeson. The essense of fascism is two things. Let us take
the more obvious one first : Racial superiority, the kind of racial
superiority that led a Hitler to wipe out 6,000,000 Jewish people, that
can result any day in the lynching of Negro people in the South or
other parts of America, the denial of their rights, the constant daily
denial to any Negro in America, no matter how important, of his
essential human dignity which no other American will accept, this
daily insult to the human being. The reason this can be is the power
of the resources of a nation in the hands of a few, and the use of the
state power as Hitler or Mussolini or the police in Kansas City to
beat down any attempts to strive toward any kind of democratic
rights or freedom.

Senator Ferguson. Even though it be law enforcement ?

Mr. Robeson. I say even though I would say, this is the very essense
of the thing we find" always, that law enforcement in this case is the
protection of the property of a few people who are the potential of
fascism.

Senator Ferguson. Now, what is the essence of communism in
America, in your opinion ?

Mr. Robeson. The essence, to my mind, of communism here or any-
where, that is every day I read in the paper what does communism
thrive on, all this kind? You tell me, Senator, where would you
expect to find your Communists? Would you expect to find Mr.
du Pont would be a Communist ?

Senator Ferguson. I think in America today we can expect to find
them anywhere. I mean it is not a question of wealth.

324 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Robeson. Very much so.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think so?

Mr. Robeson. Just — not just — not a question of wealth in this case,
a question of wealth wherein in the end — take the South, the Negro
people, you tell me who controls the wealth of the South.

Senator Ferguson. You gave me the essence of fascism. I would
like to have the essence of communism.

Mr. Robeson. This came from my experience ; I didn't make these
things up. I am in the South. My father was a slave. A few weeks
ago I was standing in North Carolina on the very soil my father was
a sl°,ve. I go to the whole history of our civilization, 100,000,000
Negroes from Africa, torn to pieces and died in the slave trade; on
our backs in America the very primary wealth that America built
on our backs, cotton, taken to the New England textile mills. What
do we get from it today? Poverty, insult, inferior station in life,
no opportunities. Who controls the wealth? A few people. Now
somewhere, to me, by whatever means, at certain times like in our
history these means have been revolutionary ; in other times evidently
not, but somewhere to me communism is interested in seeing that those
people who are oppressed, who suffered this, somewhere they represent
those people in their struggle toward freedom.

Senator Ferguson. That is the essence of communism ?

Mr. Robeson. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. The essence of communism here is the same as
essence of communism in Russia?

Mr. Robeson. I would say the same as the universe. It has to do
with the struggle of the Russian people against the Czarist oppression.
Exactly like universal in this sense. You see, again I must stop you
from what is an American today. Here is what I mean, an Ameri-
can ; you try to link every American who believes something with this
country or that country. Mr. Marshall is on record today that we
are no longer American, Senator Ferguson ; we are defending western
civilization, whether it is in Italy, Greece, even in Turkey. They have
become great defenders, strange to say, of western civilization. We
as Americans today are in some kind of world struggle in which we
are no longer Americans ; we are a part of the world, so you can't iso-
late this in this sense.

I say Mr. Marshall — I say as an American I was in Europe — if there
are Americans who want to support Franco in Spain, let them go
ahead. I was in Republic Spain singing for the troops fighting
against Franco.

Senator Ferguson. If this law is passed and the Supreme Court
rules it constitutional, do you believe it should be lived up to ?

Mr. Robeson. If this law is passed ?

Senator Ferguson. Yes ; or any law is passed.

Mr. Robeson. First, I sincerely hope the Senate won't pass it and
I sincerely hope the Supreme Court will declare it unconstitutional.

Senator Ferguson. Do you believe that people should live up to it?

Mr. Robeson. I am sure I would live up to it by trying in every
possible way to have it taken off the books.

Senator P'erguson. Would you not live under it? Would you not
say it was the law and therefore was binding?

Mr. Robeson. Nobody is arguing that point.

Senator Ferguson. That is what I mean.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 325

Mr. Robeson. Nobody is arguing that point.

Senator Ferguson. Air. Foster told us Friday he would not obey it.

Mr. Robeson. In what sense he would not obey it?

Senator Ferguson. Just that he would not obey it.

Mr. Robeson. What do you mean he would not obey it?

Senator Ferguson. I do not know what his thinking was but he
said he would not obey it.

Senator Moore. He would not register.

Mr. Robeson. Neither would I register.

Senator Ferguson. Then you would violate the law.

Mr. Robeson. I would say this, I would fight, I would really fight it
as a real piece of American fascism.

Senator Ferguson. After it is declared constitutional by the
Supreme Court then you would defy it ?

Mr. Robeson. Let me put it this way, Senator.

Let us suppose a Frenchman is now faced with the law passed by
Vichy, would you expect that Frenchman to observe it?

Senator Ferguson. Under the former Vichy government?

Mr. Robeson. That is right.

Senator Ferguson. No ; it would not be the law.

Mr. Robeson. Why not? They were France at that period. They
were the government of France.

Senator Ferguson. There is a new government there.

Mr. Robeson. I am talking at that time. Would you expect those
men who helped our American boys to destroy Hitler

Senator Ferguson. Is that the way you classify it ?

Mr. Robeson. Exactly, in that category, as a Fascist act.

Senator Ferguson. Then you would not obey it ?

Mr. Robeson. As an anti-Fascist I would not obey it.

Senator Moore. You stated that your father was a slave?

Mr. Robeson. That is right.

Senator Moore. You are now independent ?

Mr. Robeson. Am I ?

Senator Moore. Independent. Now you wait until I get through.

Senator Ferguson. He is questioning you.

Senator Moore. You are economically independent; you occupy a
high position in American society; you are proud of it; you have
been of service in many ways. That has all been achieved in one
generation.

Mr. Robeson. That is right.

Senator Ferguson. Can you think of any other country on the face
of the earth where such an opportunity has been given?

Mr. Robeson. Yes.

Senator Moore. What is it, Russia?

Mr. Robeson. Yes. I would say not one.

Senator Moore. You do not mean to say that the Russian people
have any opportunity at all of being any more than slaves?

Mr. Robeson. They have incidentally more opportunity than I have
in Mississippi, I assure you.

Senator Moore. Do you approve of communism for the deeds it
has done ?

Mr. Robeson. Yes. They have liberated a whole people in many
countries.

Senator Moore. They have liquidated many of them.

326 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Kobeson. No, not nearly liquidated as the Negroes were liqui-
dated in slavery or liquidated in many parts of the South.

Senator Moore. There are not many being liquidated today.

Mr. Robeson. Why should not the antilynching bill be on the
calendar now ?

Senator Moore. I do not know, probably for political reasons. I
say it is probably political.

Mr. Robeson. Why all this excitement about civil rights if they are
not necessary ?

No, I say that this is not a perfect world and there are many ways
toward the freedom of peoples. We do it our way. Other nations
choose Socialist means or Communist means. If our way is so much
better, let us prove that. One of the first ways to prove it is by mak-
ing my people free.

I will answer your question. Though I am independent and so
forth, I have a debt to my slave father. I have a debt to my relatives
in North Carolina who are very poor sharecroppers today, and I
won't allow my independence to be used against them. I am saying,
make those 10 million free, not me.

Senator Moore. Our Government freed the slaves.

Mr. Robeson. What is that ?

Senator Moore. Your and my Government freed the slaves.

Mr. Robeson. We fought a good deal for our freedom.

Senator Moore. We did.

Mr. Robeson. My father was in the Union Army.

Senator Moore. And the sons and daughters of slaves had an op-
portunity in this country, the like of which they had never known.

Mr. Robeson. Very few. Just look all through America and find
out, you will find a very small percent out of 12 or 15 million who have
done this. You can't judge the Negroes, their struggles, by me or a
few people. The only way it can be judged is by the mass of people.
That is the lesson to me of our time. The very way you can under-
""stand Russia, Yugoslavia, and China, what they think, not a few but
the great masses of people who have achieved independence in a genera-
tion.

Senator Moore. Do you think the Negro race in America, consisting
of 10 percent of the population, are worse off today in America than
people of Russia or Communist countries? Do you understand by
that

Mr. Robeson. I would say-

Senator Moore. Just answer yes or no.

Mr. Robeson. The question don't answer yes or no. I would say
from my point of view the question of human dignity is very para-
mount. I would say today — let us put it this way — you see, the com-
parison of Russia would have to be made like this, that millions of peo-
ple, Negroes in America, the 15,000,000 because Soviet Union is one-
sixth of the world, so all of the millions of Negroes in America, the
Negroes in Liberia, the Negroes in Cuba, in Puerto Rico

Senator Moore. Let us talk about the Negroes in America.

Mr. Robeson. You can't, because we control those Negroes in Cuba
and Puerto Rico because we own sugar. We control a lot of colored
people out of x\merica. Firestone Rubber owns Liberia.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 327

Senator Moore. Your concern is with the people all over the world
rather than first consideration to the Negroes and the people of

America ?

Mr. Robeson. No, I say. but we are a part of that struggle. We are
a part of that struggle. There is no question about it. Let me make
the comparison.

Senator Moore. You answer my question. Do not do so much talk-
ing vourself.

Who fares better now than the people of America, including the
Negroes \

Mr. Robeson. Who fares better than the Negroes?

Senator Moore. Negroes and all the people of America, who fare
better than all the people of America, including the Negroes?

Mr. Robeson. What would you do, Senator, if every time you walked
out of this building

Senator Moore. Is there anybody better off?

Mr. Robeson. I would say there are millions and millions and hun-
dreds of millions better off than me in Mississippi about to be lynched
tomorrow morning.

Are you kidding ?

Senator Ferguson. You have never feared lynching?

Mr. Robeson. I don't know ; I could.

Senator Ferguson. But you have not.

Mr. Robeson. I say I am a part of my people. I would not be here
if I wasn't. If I wasn't personally interested, I wouldn't be here.

Senator Ferguson. You personally do not fear lynching in America ?

Mr. Robeson. I have been close to it once or twice.

Senator Ferguson. Where have you been close to lynching in
America ?

Mr. Robeson. I have been threatened with death two or three times.

Senator Moore. Probably all of us have been threatened with death
by some nut.

Mr. Robeson. I don't know what might have happened. I was
prepared to see that probably it would not happen.

Senator Ferguson. But you really did not have any fear of it?

Mr. Robeson. Not lynching.

Senator Ferguson. That is what I meant.

Mr. Robeson. I say plenty of Negroes do. My cousins do every
day in the South.

Senator Moore. Lynching has not been applicable to Negroes any
more than it has been to other people.

Mr. Robeson. I wouldn't go into the facts.

Senator Moore. Is that not so ?

Mr. Robeson. The history doesn't show it.

Let me — I didn't quite answer your question as to Russia. Senator,
if I may — you see, there was so-called concentration of power. Let
us rule out the word "dictatorship" for a moment — concentration of
power from the top, but within that concentration everybody is equal,
so I could be sitting over there instead of here, you understand, I
could be anything in the United States that you could be. That
would be comparable to millions of people in Russia.

328 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Moore. Let me see if I understand you. You say that
if you have the opportunity of sitting here and I would be sitting
there or yonder. Who lacks an opportunity for that today in
America?

Mr. Kobeson. Well

Senator Moore. Is that not the very tradition of America, that
people have an opportunity to rise ?

Mr. Robeson. I think it is about to be corrected through the third
party. We are running several Negroes for the Senate.

Senator Moore. Yes, that may happen. That depends on what
the people may think about it.

Mr. Robeson. Yes.

Senator Moore. You rather expect that to happen?

Mr. Robeson. Yes.

Senator Moore. Maybe it will be better. I would not know. That
has to be entirely upon what people think about it and the people
do have the opportunity to render that verdict.

Mr. Robeson. I say this will take away a lot of our ability to render
any verdict.

Senator Moore. Do the people have that opportunity in Russia ?

Mr. Robeson. Yes.

Senator Moore. Now you know better than that.

Mr. Robeson. I know that they do.

Senator Moore. You get an opportunity to be liquidated there if
you do not toe the mark.

Mr. Robeson. This is in the background of the struggle today.

But the other important point — I won't take too much time — is
the definition of the power that rests in the Attorney General, to define
what is a political Communist, and so forth.

Senator Ferguson. Of course he is doing that today.

Mr. Robeson. What is that?

Senator Ferguson. He is doing that today without a law.

Mr. Robeson. Who is that ?

Senator Ferguson. The Attorney General.

Mr. Robeson. Unfortunately he is.

Senator Ferguson. And there is no right of appeal. This would
provide that he do it under law with the right of appeal to a court
and it would not be enforcible until the court had an opportunity,
120 days after the court had made the final order.

Mr. Robeson. I say the whole question of registration, fines, and
so forth, makes quite a different background.

Senator Ferguson. This is not a prepared statement you have?

Mr. Robeson. I have no prepared statement.

Senator Ferguson. I would be glad to make it a part of the record
if you have a prepared statement.

Mr. Robeson. No. That is all right. Thank you.

Senator Ferguson. You are welcome.

Senator Langer. I would like to ask a few questions, if I might.

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Senator Langer. Mr. Robeson, I was interested in your answer to
Senator Ferguson's question as to what the essence of communism is.
First, if you had your way about it, you would have public housing
for veterans and for poor people ?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 329

Mr. Robeson. Yes.

Senator Langer. Second, you would have social security that took
care, really took care, of all those who needed help ; is that right?

Mr. Robeson. Yes.

Senator Langer. Third, you would enforce the Sherman Antitrust
Act and Clayton Act and wipe out these cartels and these monopolies?

• Mr. Robeson. Exactly.

Senator Langer. That has gone along here 50 or 60 years without
anything being done about it.

Mr. Robeson. That is completely true.

Senator Langer. Fourth, you would be in favor of laws enacting
the FEPC?

Mr. Robeson. I certainly would. I think they are very basic to
American democracy.

Senator Langer. You would wipe out the poll tax?

Mr. Robeson. At once.

Senator Langer. You would pass an antilynching law that is really
an antilynching law that would be enforceable against anyone, whether
a white man or a colored man?

Mr. Robeson. That is right.

Senator Langer. You said also that you were in favor of the na-
tionalization of certain industries. Will you just enumerate those?

Mr. Robeson. I say where these questions arise and where the Amer-
ican people — it is clear to them — like coal and railroads, I mean these,
merchant shipping at certain times, maybe even airplanes, certain
things, certain atomic power, where it is clear that these are public
necessities and of national life or death then it seems to me they should
be nationalized.

Senator Langer. In other words, if I understand you correctly, you
would take those industries out of the hands of the few and put them
in the hands of the people themselves?

Mr. Robeson. That is right, hoping that in the guidance of state
where people who understand the problems

Senator Langer. Next, I understand you believe that under the Con-
stitution, the Bill of Rights of this country, that every man, regard-
less of race, color, or creed, or language, and that includes women, is
entitled to equal protection?

Mr. Robeson. No question about it.

Senator Langer. And equal opportunity?

Mr. Robeson. Equal opportunity.

Senator Langer. And similar treatment?

Mr. Robeson. That is right.

Senator Langer. Is that right?

Mr. Robeson. That is right. That is the kind of necessary legisla-
tion I would seek.

Senator Ferguson. May I interrupt just a moment?

Senator Langer. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. You would want this legislation under the re-
publican form of government?

Mr. Robeson. Surely.

Senator Ferguson. Not, as Mr. Foster testified Friday, when I read
him a question, if he would still believe in it if he were elected Pres-
ident, it would have to be a Communist government and not a re-
publican government.

330 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Robeson. As I say, to answer your question, that would be
exactly — if the American people elected him President, it is because
the}7 expect him to put in those kinds of ideas, I presume.

Exactly like Republicans and Democrats.

Senator Ferguson. You would want that under this present form
of government?

Mr. Robeson. I would want it done as the American people would
want it done.

Senator Ferguson. Under the American form of government?

Mr. Robeson. Certainly, if they elect Mr. Foster President he would
be an American President. Whatever is done would be all right
with me.

Senator Ferguson. How do you want this done ? Under our pres-
ent system or do you want a communistic nation to do these things?

Mr. Robeson. If it can be done tomorrow, if you want to do it,
Senator, I would be tickled to death. If you can get these things
through, please do.

Senator Langer. If you had the legislation that I enumerated,
you would not have any Communist Party at all, would you?

Mr. Robeson. Well, I don't know. There would be

Senator Langer. You would not need it, would you ?

Mr. Robeson. Well, I don't know. It depends, again it depends
on other conditions. There might still be some kind of struggle for
human rights. I see no reason to not particularly have a Communist
Party than a Republican or Democratic Party. What has been the
struggle in America ? At one time the Republican Party represents
the people, so to speak; at another time the Democrats do. Today,
neither one does, so we have a third party that does.

Senator Ferguson. Then I understand you are backing the third
party as representing the people?

Mr. Robeson. Yes.

Senator Langer. You are backing the third party ?

Mr. Robeson. I feel

Senator Langer. Wait a minute. You are backing the third party
because you believe they stand for these, call them reforms, if you
want, or these changes, they do not have in the Republican or Demo-
cratic Party ?

Mr. Robeson. I think they stand for the basic rights and opportuni-
ties of the people.

I do not know whether they would stand for all those things you
list there. There I don't know. Myself, I would say that the na-
tionalization of many of these things would be very important, but
since we feel that political, that expressions, and political parties after
all, are not abstractions, they represent interests of people, there
might be many interests in America that still — the perfect world is
pretty hard to see, you understand. No matter how you do it, the
Communist Party still might be able to do a very fine job even under
these conditions, especially if the American people elect them to
power.

Senator Ferguson. You do not think that passing the poll tax or
antilynching would do away with the Communist Party in America?

Mr. Robeson. I see no reason why it should.

Senator Moore. Neither that socialization of industry would?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 331

Mr. Robesox. I see no reason why. The socialization of these things
in England has not done away with the Labor Party since they
proposed them all through history, maybe they want to put them in
action.

Senator Moore:. You are familiar enough with the Communist Party
that you probably have an understanding or opinion as to whether,
in case America went to war with Russia, the American Communists
would be loyal to the American Government or to the Russian Gov-
ernment ?

Mr. Robesox. I would hope — say today, Senator, this thing comes
up, I don't know why it is thrown in abstract. I don't know what
they would say. I would say myself, or who would say what, but I
would say it is a struggle for peace.

Why do we keep worrying about war with Russia?

Senator Fergusox. Would you fight for America if we were at war
with Russia ?

Mr. Robesox. That would depend on the conditions of the war with
Russia, how the war came up. That is

Senator Fergusox. I understand.

Mr. Robesox. And who was in power at the time, and so forth.

Senator Fergusox. If our Congress declared war on Russia, would
you fight for the United States ?

Mr. Robesox. I would say that is just too hypothetical.

Senator Fergusox. Can you answer?

Mr. Robesox. I would like to say, why can't we tomorrow decide to
have peace with every person in the world.

Senator Fergusox. Then you would not fight ?

Mr. Robesox. I would struggle for peace.

Senator Fergusox. You would not fight for America ?

Mr. Robesox. That would depend on many things.

Senator Fergusox. Then you do not answer that.

You decide it rather than your Government.

Mr. Robesox. I will say — always I come back to the whole basic
struggle, as I see it, in the world today.

Senator Moore. You would be the judge whether you fight?

Mr. Robesox. I wouldn't be the judge. I think a lot of people
would be judges.

Senator Fergusox. Would the Communist Party be the judges as to
whether Communists, members, Communist members, would fight?

Mr. Robesox. I don't know.

Senator Fergusox. If we were at war with Russia, do you know
whether or not the Communist Party would wholeheartedly support
and fight for America ?

Mr. Robesox. I don't know.

Senator Fergusox. What is your stand on that ?

Mr. Robesox. I would put it in this category from my experience.
Like today, say, we as Americans support one section of Greece against
the other section of Greece. We intervened in Italian politics on the
one side. It always seems to be the fascist side.

Senator Fergusox. Do you think we were on the wrong side in
Italy?

Mr. Robesox. Unquestionably.

7S257— 48 22

332 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. You were for the Communists in Italy?

Mr. Robeson. And certainly practically everywhere we are, and we
are about to restore German fascism, you know.

Senator Ferguson. You thought we were on the wrong side in
Italy and you personally felt that the other side should have won, the
Russian side?

Mr. Robeson. That is right. So that I would decide this thing in
the light of these circumstances.

I am an anti-Fascist. At a certain point I would act like the French
anti-Fascists have to act in not supporting Vichy. What I say is at
that time if it is an American Fascist Government, then I would not
support it.

Senator Ferguson. Then you would not support it?

Mr. Robeson. That is right.

Senator Ferguson. Now do you mean by that that you owe alle-
giance to any other government?

Mr. Robeson. No. I owe allegiance to the American people. I owe
allegiance to the Negro people. I owe allegiance to the democratic
tradition that stems from Jefferson and others.

Senator Ferguson. Do you owe allegiance

Mr. Robeson. But that is not a Fascist expression.

Senator Ferguson. Do you owe allegiance to the present American
Government? You distinguish there between the Government and
the people. You asked me, I think one of the first things, about
whether or not it was not the people and I did not get the significance
of your statement until after you talked a while.

Mr. Robeson. I have an allegiance to my Government.

Senator Ferguson. You owe allegiance?

Mr. Robeson. Sure, I owe allegiance, sure.

Senator Ferguson. Does not allegiance to your Government mean
that if it declares war, right or wrong, you will owe allegiance to it?

Mr. Robeson. If in declaring war this becomes for me a Fascist
action, I will determine that at the time these acts are done. To my
mind, if these are Fascist acts, these I will not support.

This can be very dangerous today because I do say there are many
powerful forces in Government who, I say, are the potential of
American fascism.

Senator Ferguson. You are going to determine, and you think every
man should determine in his own mind, as to whether or not the acts
of his government is one that he can live up to ?

Mr. Robeson. To me today we realize in supporting sections of
Europe we have to support one side or the other. I say, from my
experience in Europe, that we are supporting either the Fascist side
or anti-Fascist side.

Senator Ferguson. You think there are only two sides to life, one
Fascist and the other anti-Fascist?

Mr. Robeson. I do not say that. In certain sections of the world
this is completely true. In Spain this is true. You are either for
Franco or against him.

In Greece this is true, you either support Fascist Greece or anti-
Fascist Greece. It is so in China. It is true in other parts of the
world. We are making our decisions today. We still have a choice
but we are doing dangerous things by choosing the Fascist side.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 333

Senator Ferguson. So you would support the Communist side in
these issues?

Mr. Robeson. It happens to be a pretty broad side in these questions,
communism plus socialists plus liberals. I don't know of any one
country that is just divided, I would say, anti-Fascist. They include
Communists and

Senator Ferguson. If there are only two sides?

Mr. Robeson. I was in Spain singing to the troops in the civil war.
I was on the side against Franco. I helped the resistance movements
in many lands in Europe against Hitler. I am anti-Fascist. I would
fight fascism, whether it happens to be German, French, or American.

Senator Moore. Would you do it under the banner of communistic,
communism?

Mr. Robeson. Do it under the banner of

Senator Moore. You say the American people are not represented
by either the Republican or Democratic Parties?

Mr. Robeson. I would say that. I would say that their interests
are not being served. I would say their interests are not being served
by it because the interests of both those parties today are the interest
of the few monopolists at the top.

Senator Moore. What percent of the registered voters of America
belong to the Republican and Democratic Parties?

Mr. Robeson. I don't know. I imagine a great percentage of them
do.

Senator Moore. Eighty-eight percent.

Mr. Robeson. Sure.

Senator Moore. Yet they do not represent the American people and
they vote for these parties?

Mr. Robeson. I say today any American, Democratic or Republican,
who thinks that if we suddenly go to war to get some oil in Arabia,
that he is protecting his interests rather than Standard Oil, that he
had better look again. I say that the American people are extremely
confused and this bill adds to the confusion by leaps and bounds.
That is true. The two major parties today have long ago sort of gone
away from the interests of the people whom they propose to represent
and that is the reason I say I feel there must be a new force in America.

Senator Moore. And yet they do today stand for about 90 percent
of the registered voters.

Mr. Robeson. For example, in many cases if they want to vote —
I don't know what they are going to do in the booth — but they say
they can't have the job tomorrow, or they make up a bill making a
Communist this and they call everybody a Communist, it is a very
vicious circle.

You can't explain about the facts. I doubt today if you can take
an honest poll in America, because thousands of people who are going
to vote for Wallace today can't tell you because they have been fright-
ened, afraid they will lose their jobs. In the State of Delaware
nobody dares say anything against du Pont, in Dearborn against Mr.
Ford, in other places; if they say anything, they don't have a job.

This is a very vicious dictatorship.

Senator Moore. You would take du Pont and Ford and things of
that kind and split those among the masses?

Mr. Robeson. I would take

334 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Moore. You would nationalize?

Mr. Robeson. No, there would be plenty— I would say for your so-
called incentive there are plenty of ways for that in our democratic
way of life without having these things, the whole world controlled
by the few. This is the whole essence of the New Deal struggle, the
whole essence of the struggle.

Senator Feiiguson. Do I understand you classify New Dealism and
the Communist movement as one?

Mr. Robeson. No. I say that the whole struggle — he is asking me
about pressures on people like du Pont.

As I say, certainly the New Deal in fighting for the extension of
democracy to all Americans was at times very close to what I see
Communists believe.

Senator Ferguson. Is Wallace carrying on the New Deal principle,
in your opinion ?

Mr. Robeson. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. Are the Communists backing him?

Mr. Robeson. They backed Roosevelt. I would say that the Com-
munists would feel that the continuation of the New Deal

Senator Ferguson. Would be a great help to them ?

Mr. Robeson. Not a great help to them but have a very fine expres-
sion of our time of the way the system should work. You can't stand
still. There are too many Negro people who suffer today. We haven't
a perfect democracy, you see. How are we going to achieve it ? Other
people are trying to achieve it too. They are achieving it by Com-
munist and Socialist means. Why should we try to rule everything
off the face of the earth? I think we should be pretty reasonable
about this fact. Think of the millions of Communists in the world
and we can't get along with them. They are trying in their own way to
get freedom for different peoples.

Senator Ferguson. You do not see in the Communist movement a
world revolution to absorb all ?

Mr. Robeson. No ; I don't see any world revolution. I say for the
Yugoslavs they don't have to go to Russia to ask to make a revolution
when they are starving to death in the fields; when they have a chance
to take their plantations and divide them. You know, we just missed
that after the Civil War. We were supposed to get 40 acres and a
mule. Our history would have been different today. That is what
they have done in Yugoslavia. Suppose in the days of the West there
were no homestead laws, suppose, like in Hawaii today, nobody could
buy a piece of land owned by different corporations, what would we
have done in America? We don't know. This is a general picture to
which this bill, to me, makes very little contribution to the world as it
stands today, to world peace and to an understanding of what goes on
in the rest of the world. This creates hysteria where we should be
trying to understand people.

Senator Moore. What is the status of the Russian people with refer-
ence to owning lands?

Mr. Robeson. They have collective farms. As far as the Russian
people are concerned, they feel the land is theirs; they own it.

Senator Moore. They do not own it.

Mr. Robeson. They think so.

Senator Ferguson. They do not.

Mr. Robeson. Who owns the TVA ? Do I own it ?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 335

My Government operates it in my interest ; O. K., but a few private
guys don't own it. That is just the way they look at it.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that communism is a better system
of government than our own system ?

Mr. Robeson. No ; I don't say that.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think so?

Mr. Robeson. There is no particular reason to answer it. I would
say there are many ways of life in the world, Socialist systems, co-
operative systems, Communist systems, our so-called private-enter-
prise system ; let us see which can work the best.

Senator Moore. Do you think the Independent Party or Wallace
Party would represent the interests of America better than either of
the other parties?

Mr. Robeson. I think the New Deal policies of Roosevelt should be
continued.

Senator Moore. That is in accord with the Communists ?

Mr. Robeson. The Communists fight for the equality of Negroes.

Senator Moore. The Communist Party is supporting Wallace ?

Mr. Robeson. I think they are ; they should, because he represents
the struggle of the peoples of this country as they do. That doesn't
make Mr. Wallace a Communist, however.

Senator Ferguson. You do say that Mr. Wallace is carrying on the
New Deal ?

Mr. Robeson. That is right. I think he is the real inheritor of what
Roosevelt did. I think it is the real struggle in America today. Who
were the people Roosevelt fought? The same people today who con-
trol a good deal of the United States Government, That is what makes
it a little ominous so far as I am concerned.

Senator Ferguson. How do you account for this, that during the
New Deal when there were only 16 Senators and 88 Congressmen in
the minority party, that you did not get the abolition of the poll tax,
the passing of the FEPC, and the antilynching bill ? Have you an
explanation for that?

Mr. Robeson. For one reason it might have been, one important rea-
son, we went into a major war.

Senator Ferguson. No; this took place in 1932 to 1942.

Mr. Robeson. That is right.

Senator Ferguson. How do you account for not getting laws ?

Mr. Robeson. I account for it by a great oversight.

Senator Ferguson. Oversight?

Mr. Robeson. Yes. There were many problems to solve and it is
very regrettable that they weren't. That is no excuse for not having
done them today. That is a very great oversight.

I believe Roosevelt, had he lived, would have had to pursue it very
fast to have maintained in any way his moral position.

Senator Ferguson. They had 14 years.

Mr. Robeson. The Negro people, Senator Ferguson

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Wallace was the Vice President in 1944.

Mr. Robeson. He wasn't running the country. I say there were
many problems but, Senator, the Negro people since their emancipation
in 1863, have been waiting for either party to do this. That is the rea-
son I hope the new party will try to do it for them. I quite agree this is
not simple, but that is the reason that we should understand what is
going on in other parts of the world, understand things like commu-

336 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

nism, because these things haven't been done. That is one reason we
should understand them.

People can't stand the denial of liberties forever and there may be
many ways to do it. In our own way, as I say, in America, it looks as
though it will have to be done in our own way. There is no way to
tell the Chinese how they should .do it against their historical back-
ground.

What I am trying to say is that we should be able not to think we
have to wipe something oil the face of the earth but that we have to
understand it because its basic starting point is the suffering and the
needs of millions of people who certainly need a higher standard of
living in many parts of the world. We happen to be a favored nation.
There have been two wars. I was in Europe. We haven't been
bombed out, we are a tremendous industrial machine. China isn't.

Compare our position to the time of the great industrial revolution
when England was the great industrial power and we were a struggling
young nation. These things take time. So there is no real valid com-
parison that could be made in many of the nations today. They
haven't had the opportunity. They have had to fight to be alive.
Churchill had to and other people tried to stifle them from their birth.

Maybe the few people who control our cartels want to keep the
Negro people in continual servitude. Stettinius, for example, I just
see is going to Liberia to exploit the rubber in the interest of Liberians.

Senator Ferguson. Thank you very much.

Senator Langer. Mr. Robeson, as I understand, you are interested
in all humanity, not only the Negro ?

Mr. Robeson. That has been my experience. I have been around
the world and I have deep interest in many peoples. I find it is a
human problem.

Senator Laxger. 400,000 Mexicans in California should not be seg-
regated from the public schools, barred from them?

Mr. Robesox. It is as close to me as other problems, certainly.

Senator Laxger. Or the Indians of this country which owned this
country should not be put on reservations and kept on there for 150
years ?

Mr. Robeson. Or there shouldn't be the many subtle things in many
parts of America, of a tremendous anti-Semitism against the Jewish
people, the people who have given us the basis of our religious culture
and ethics.

Senator Langer. I take it you are familiar with the treatment of
the Japanese over in some of the Western States when war broke out?

Mr. Robeson. I happened to be there when they took the land away
from them.

Senator Langer. You are opposed to the kind of treatment they get ?

Mr. Robeson. I feel the Negro problem, to my experience — the
reason, to answer the question, is not an individual one. It has to
do with all other peoples in our lands, especially laboring people. You
talk about my people independent. Ninety-five percent of the Negro
people are working people, so when any action is aimed at labor, this
is aimed at Negro people or tenant people, and so forth.

Senator Langer. I take it you are acquainted with Harlem?

Mr. Robeson. Yes.

Senator Lancer. And you are also acquainted with the treatment
the Puerto Ricans get right next door to Harlem?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 337

Mr. Robeson. Yes.

Senator Langer. You would say that is worse than the treatment
the Negroes get?
Mr. Robeson. Yes.

Senator Langer. They are going in there by the thousands?

Mr. Robeson. That is true.

Senator Langer. Coming in by airlane, ships?

Mr. Robeson. That is right.

Senator Langer. As I gather from your views, you are simply a
friend of humanity ?

Mr. Robeson. I would like to call myself that.

Senator Langer. And you believe you can best carry out your ideals
by backing the third party ?

Air. Robeson. I do.

Senator Langer. That does not mean you are disloyal to the United
States?

Mr. Robeson. I feel in my mind it makes me infinitely more loyal
to the United States.

Senator Langer. You believe a citizen who stands for things that
you stand for, in helping the different people I mentioned here, the
Mexicans, Indians, Japanese, and Puerto Ricans, people who have
had that kind of treatment, is a more patriotic citizen than one who
opposes it ?

Mr. Robeson. I certainly do.

Senator Langer. That is all.

Senator Ferguson. That is all. Thank you.

Mr. Robeson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Lewittes?

Do you solemnly swear in the matter now pending before this com-
mittee you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God ?

Mr. Lewittes. I do.

Senator Ferguson. What is your full name and address?

TESTIMONY OF AAEON LEWITTES, REPRESENTING THE AMERI-
CAN JEWISH CONGRESS, ACCOMPANIED BY STANFORD H. BOLZ,
WASHINGTON REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AMERICAN JEWISH
CONGRESS

. Mr. Lewittes. Aaron Lewittes, Malverne, Long Island.

Senator Ferguson. Are you connected with any organization?

Mr. Lewittes. Yes, Senator.

Senator Ferguson. What is the name ?

Mr. Lewittes. The American Jewish Congress.

Senator Ferguson. The American Jewish Congress. Has it any
connection with any other organization?

Mr. Lewittes. It is affiliated with the World Jewish Congress.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know what the Jewish Peoples Fraternal
Order of the International Workers Order is ?

Mr. Lewittes. Senator, I do not.

Senator Ferguson. You are not familiar with it?

Air. Lewittes. I am not.

Senator Ferguson. Yours is the American Jewish Congress?

Mr. Lewittes. American Jewish Congress.

338 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. Do you know who the American Jewish Labor
Council is?

Mr. Lewittes. I do not.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know a man by the name of Ben Gold,
who is a member of the national board of the Communist Party ?

Mr. Lewittes. I do not.

Senator Ferguson. Are you in any way connected with the Com-
munist Party ?

Mr. Lewittes. In no way whatever.

Senator Ferguson. Proceed.

Mr. Lewittes. In behalf of the American Jewish Congress, which
1 represent, I wish to express sincere appreciation to the Senate Judi-
ciary Committee for the opportunity .to testify on the Mundt bill.

The American Jewish Congress, democratically organized and
speaking for thousands of American Jews, is vigorously opposed to
communism, fascism, nazism, or any other totalitarian form of gov-
ernment, whether under foreign or native control.

Senator Ferguson. Are you a lawyer ?

Mr. Lewittes. Yes, I am.

Senator Ferguson. Then we can feel free to ask you questions on
the constitutionality ?

Mr. Lewittes. I will do my best.

Senator Ferguson. Thank you.

Mr. Lewittes. The American Jewish Congress is devoted generally
to the promotion of American ideals of liberty and democracy and
specifically to the protection of Jewish and other minority groups
against discrimination, based on race, creed, color, or national origin.

Our organization is seriously concerned about the Mundt bill be-
cause it is our firm conviction that the Mundt bill is a dangerous
departure from American tradition, deeply imbedded in the Bill of
Rights and in American constitutional practice.

Our Government is clearly entitled to and should protect itself
against the subversive activities through legislation which punishes
those whom a fair trial finds guilty. Such legislation already exists.
It is a crime to overthrow the Government by force or violence.
Agents of foreign governments and principals are required to register.
These laws represent the democratic and constitutional method of deal-
ings with threats to our system of government.

The Mundt bill would circumvent traditional principle by eliminat-
ing fair trial and by punishing not only subversive activity but many
forms of political expression.

Senator Ferguson. I have to ask a question there. When you say
it prevents fair trials, how would section 4, on page 10, "Certain pro-
hibited acts" prevent a person from having a fair trial ?

Mr. Lewittes. In that section 4 does not precisely define the crime
that is purportedly covered. However, the remark is more specifically
directed against other sections of the bill, those namely

Senator Ferguson. Wait a minute. You are a lawyer.

Mr. Lewittes. May I complete my answer?

Senator Ferguson. Negligent homicide is not defined, is it? Mur-
der is the taking of a life with malice aforethought. Malice afore-
thought is not defined?

Mr. Lewittes. Those crimes are defined in terms of centuries of
accepted practice.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 339

Senator Ferguson. Any law passed does not absolutely contain all
ingredients. It may use the word "willfully." It uses the words "with
malice" and many things. Here it says "totalitarian dictatorship."
You know what that is because the findings carry that out. What
is wrong with this law ?

Mr. Lewittes. Well, I think

Senator Ferguson. Why would not a man get a fair trial?

Mr. Lewittes. I think there is a great difference because the crime
of murder and peaceful expression of one's political views

Senator Ferguson. This is not peaceful at all. You have read the
bill?

Mr. Lewittes. Very definitely, several times.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that it ought to be unlawful to
attempt in any manner to establish in the United States a totalitarian
dictatorship, the direction and control of which is to be vested or ex-
ercised by or under the control of any foreign government, foreign
organization, or foreign individual?

Mr. Lewittes. It should not be unlawful to do those things if they
are in the form of peaceful expression. I believe myself that section
4 would even prohibit the advocacy of a constitutional amendment.

Senator Ferguson. No. Now do you say that people ought to be
allowed to attempt to set up under a foreign government a dictatorship
in America ?

As a lawyer, what do you say ?

Mr. Lewittes. If by peaceful expression it should be not unlawful,
although I wish to make it perfectly clear I am opposed to totalitarian
dictatorship

Senator Ferguson. To what law school did you go?

Mr. Lewittes. Columbia Law School, 1935.

Senator Ferguson. You still say you do not think it should be made
unlawful to establish or attempt to establish in America a dictatorship
under a foreign government ?

Mr. Lewittes. If by peaceful method, no. I believe there is now
adequate legislation on that point. There is now a law on the statute
books which makes it unlawful to advocate the overthrow of our
form of government by force or violence.

Senator Ferguson. What is a Communist in America? For what
do they stand?

Mr. Lewittes. I am afraid I am not up on communism.

Senator Ferguson. You do not know. Then why do you say we
do not need a law?

Mr. Lewittes. If you will permit me to complete my statement

Senator Ferguson. Wait a minute. You say you do not know
what communism is. Then why do you say we do not need a law
to cope with it in America ?

Mr. Lewittes. I see no clear and present danger from any groups
which have been labeled Communists.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that before a law should be
passed each citizen should see a clear clanger?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe that the Congress and the courts must con-
sider that problem.

Senator Ferguson. The Congress must.

Mr. Lewittes. And of course it is a privilege which you have
granted me to come down today and consult on that problem.

340 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. Where we have people who are saying that they
would not fight for America if we were at war with Russia, and that
they would be against America, do you think that there is no need
for a law ?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe that that kind of problem is best handled
when we are confronted with it.

Senator Ferguson. You do not believe in those things?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe in supporting our Government.

Senator Ferguson. Yes; right or wrong. If they declare war
under the constituted powers, you would support it ?

Mr. Lewittes. I would.

Senator Ferguson. Yes. But when you have people that will not,
people who say on this witness stand under oath that if this law is
passed, or one like it, and declared constitutional, they will not abide

fay it-
Mr. Lewittes. We survived World War II without this kind of

legislation.

Senator Ferguson. Do you believe that an American Communist
should be working or should not be working for the Government of
the United States ?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe that Communists should not be permitted
to hold sensitive positions in the Government.

Senator Ferguson. Who is going to declare what a sensitive posi-
tion is?

Do you think they ought to be in the State Department?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe that they should not be in certain posi-
tions in the State Department. However, I do not see what difference
it makes what the views are of the man who sweeps the floors in the
State Department.

Senator Ferguson. Have you ever heard of the waste basket being
a valuable thing for espionage purposes ?

As a lawyer, you have heard of that, have you not?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe under some circumstances it might be.

Senator Ferguson. Yes, and the man who sweeps the floor, cleans
the top of the desk and the valuable secret papers are on the top of the
desk. Do you think Communists should be permitted to be in that
room ?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe the dangers involved in excluding people
from all positions in the Government outweigh the advantages in-
volved with respect to positions lower down in the scale.

Senator Ferguson. Do you realize what the evidence shows in
Canada, what it shows in America, that the Communist Party is so
tied up with world communism, with the Soviet Union, that deceit and
fraud and all that goes with it, espionage, are used and you still think
that in these positions where they have access, illegal access, to Amer-
ican documents and information that they should be allowed to re-
main in those jobs?

Mr. Lewittes. Where it could be established that a person would
have access to information which is of a security nature then I believe
that person should not be a Communist. I don't believe in permitting
Communists to be employed by the Federal Government in what I call
sensitive positions. What is a sensitive position would doubtless de-
pend on a great deal of serious consideration and I don't purport to be

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 341

prepared at this moment to define all the sensitive positions in the
American Government.

Senator Ferguson. All right; go ahead.

Mr. Lewtttes. Although the alleged target of the Mundt bill is the
world Communist conspiracy, the real victim is American democracy.
That is why the American Jewish Congress has joined with many
other liberal non-Communist organizations such as Americans for
Democratic Action, in going on record against it.

The provisions of the bill, and what I intend to do here is to go
over quickly the provisions of the bill as a background for the ulti-
mate conclusions which I would like to state

Senator Ferguson. Do you have a list of those organizations that
are connected with your organization?

Mr. Lewtttes. I don't have any.

Senator Ferguson. Yours is an independent organization?

Mr. Lewittes. Yes ; it is.

Senator Ferguson. And it has no associates or interests or other
organizations associated with you?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe that the American Jewish Congress sup-
ports the Zionist position in matters like that.

Senator Ferguson. Who is the gentleman with you?

Mr. Bolz. I am Mr. Bolz, Washington representative of the Amer-
ican Jewish Congress.

Senator Ferguson. Are you a registered lobbyist?

Mr. Bolz. I am not, and I am not a lobbyist.

Senator Ferguson. Are you a lawyer?

Mr. Bolz. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. When you say Washington representative, just
what do you mean ?

Mr. Bolz. I simply handle legal matters for them down here.

Senator Ferguson. Are they interested in legislation \

Mr. Bolz. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. Do they carry on lobbying?

Mr. Bolz. No, sir.

Senator Ferguson. They have no lobbying?

Mr. Bolz. We testify before congressional committees, but that is
the extent of lobbying.

Senator Ferguson. That is not covered by the Lobbying Act ? That
is quite right.

You know of no organization connected with yours ?

Mr. Bolz. I am not certain what you mean, Senator. The American
Jewish Congress is constituted of individuals and there are also certain
organizations that are affiliated with the American Jewish Congress.

Senator Ferguson. I want to know whether the American Jewish
Labor Council is affiliated with them.

Mr. Bolz. No, sir; it is not.

Senator Ferguson. Is the Jewish Peoples Fraternal Order of the
International Workers Order?

Mr. Bolz. Yes, sir ; it is affiliated.

Mr. Lewittes. I said not to my knowledge.

Senator Ferguson. Tell me something about the activity or the con-
nection of the Jewish Peoples Fraternal Order of the International
Workers Order.

342 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Bolz. Their connection is that they, many years ago, affiliated
with the American Jewish Congress. They are not in any sense a
member of the congress. The term "affiliation" simply implies that
that organization sometime in the past indicated its agreement with
the purposes of the American Jewish Congress.

Senator Ferguson. How is it tied together now ?

Mr. Bolz. They simply are an affiliate, called an affiliated organiza-
tion. They have no representation, nor control, nor voice in the policies
of the American Jewish Congress.

Senator Ferguson. Does yours have any voice in theirs?

Mr. Bolz. No, sir.

Senator Ferguson. You knew that they were on the list of Mr.
Clark's Communist-front organizations ?

Mr. Bolz. Yes, sir ; I did, and it is" a source of considerable embar-
rassment to us.

Senator Ferguson. Why can you not cut the tie ?

Mr. Bolz. We are doing everything possible to do so.

Senator Ferguson. Why can you not cut it immediately so far as
it is only an affiliate ? Why can you not cut it ?

Mr. Bolz. That is a rather complex question and all I can tell you
is that it does not simply imply volition on our part. It would also
imply consent on their part.

Senator Ferguson. Then it is tied in very closely if you have to have
their consent to be disaffiliated.

Mr. Bolz. No ; that is not quite true, Senator.

Senator Ferguson. What is true %

Mr. Bolz. They have simply said that — this took place many years
ago, I want to point out, this took place 10 or 15 years ago — that in
general they approved the plans and purposes of the American Jewish
Congress jiist as, for example, let us say, the Congress of the Industrial
Organizations might have a group simply saying, "We desire to be
affiliated, we approve the general plans and purposes of the Congress
of Industrial Organizations."

Senator Ferguson. Would your organization obey this law if it were
passed and declared constitutional ?

Mr. Bolz. Of course. There is no question about that, Senator.

Mr. Lewittes. Is is perfectly clear that no conscientious Attorney
General would hold that we are covered by this law.

Senator Ferguson. You do not feel that you are covered by this law ?

Mr. Lewittes. I am sure we are not.

Mr. Bolz. We are aware of their position on the Attorney General's
list and we are doing everything in our power to break any and all
ties with any group such as that. They have no voice whatever and
no direction whatever in the affairs of the American Jewish Congress.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know Ben Gold ?

Mr. Bolz. No, sir.

Senator Ferguson. He is a member of the national board of the
Communist Party.

Mr. Lewittes. I would like to make it entirely clear, since Senator
Wiley was not in the room when I stated this, that the American Jew-
ish Congress is firmly opposed to communism and does not wish to
be put in a position of defending communism because we are flatly op-
posed to communism, or opposed to all totalitarian forms of govern-
ment.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 343

May I continue?

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr. Lewittes. The provisions of the bill may be grouped into two
main divisions, those dealing with advocacy of totalitarian dictator-
ship and those dealing with Communist organizations.

Section 4 of the bill makes it a crime to sponsor by word or deed the
establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship under
foreign control. No distinction is drawn in our opinion between
peaceful and violent means. Even advocacy of constitutional amend-
ment might be a felony under this provision. Moreover, the outlawed
area is only vaguely defined for the bill does not give any precise defi-
nition of what is meant by totalitarian dictatorship.

Senator Ferguson. Right there, do you not think that if you were
going to have a constitutional amendment to make this Government
of ours part of the Soviet Union, that this Government could pass a
law to defend itself?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe that under our form of Government it
would be unconstitutional to prevent advocacy of any constitutional
amendment so long as the advocacy was by peaceful means.

Senator Ferguson. That is your contention, that the right of self-
preservation would not allow such a law to be passed ?

Mr. Lewittes. As I understand our constitutional provision, the
peaceful advocacy of a constitutional amendment cannot be made
unlawful.

Senator Ferguson. Does not the Constitution itself guarantee a re-
publican form of government?

Mr. Lewittes. To the States, yes.

Senator Ferguson. How could it if it wanted to become part of
Russia ?

Mr. Lewittes. I do not want to be in a position to defend Com-
munists, but I suppose what a Communist would say, in response to a
question, is that they are advocating a republic, but I do not wish to
be drawn into any defense of communism and I am not an authority
on communism, so your question on communism really shouldn't really
be directed to me.

I will be glad to answer questions on constitutional law to the best
of my ability.

Senator Ferguson. I am wondering why you oppose so strenuously
the registration, let us say, of an actual Communist who believes in
one world that must be a Communist world?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe the rest of my statement will answer your
question, Senator. I would appreciate it if I could proceed with my
statement and I will be happy to answer any questions which are not
answered in my statement. Is that satisfactory ?

Senator Ferguson. I would like to have an answer to that question.

Mr. Lewittes. I believe the bill goes much farther than just to re-
quire the registration of Communists.

Senator Ferguson. Here under certain prohibited acts, it makes it
a crime.

Mr. Lewittes. In addition, I believe that in Thomas against Collins
it is unconstitutional to require the registration of a group based on
political vieAvs.

The Chairman. On what ?

344 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Lewittes. Based on political views. I believe it is perfectly
constitutional to have a man register to disclose the fact that he is an
agent or a foreign principal for a foreign government, but I believe
it is unconstitutional to require a man to register because of his certain
political views.

Senator Ferguson. But if his political views are as an agent of the
foreign government, is that not what this does ?

Mr. Lewittes. We already have legislation to cover that. There
is a law on the statute books at the present time which makes it a
crime not to disclose by registration the fact that one is an agent of
a foreign government or foreign principal.

Senator Ferguson. Is this not another step ?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe this goes much beyond that. It is the fact
that it goes beyond that that we are objecting to.

Senator Ferguson. Then you do not think that actual Communists
should be registered in America ?

Mr. Lewittes. As Communists ?

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr. Lewittes. No. I believe there are many more effective ways
of combating communism than that.

Senator Ferguson. You tell me how there is a more effective way
legally to combat them.

Mr. Lewittes. I do not believe there is any legal way to combat
the peaceful expression of views. Insofar as Communists advocate
the use of force, I believe there are already laws on the statute books
which adequately cover that. Insofar as Communists would make
use of sabotage, I believe there are adequate laws to cover that.
Insofar as Communists represent foreign governments or are agents
of a foreign government or a foreign principal and do not disclose
that, there is adequate legislation covering th,at.

However, insofar as Communists advocating communism by peace-
ful expression of views, I think it is unconstitutional to prevent
that.

Senator Ferguson. Even though it is to overthrow the present
Government and establish a totalitarian government under a foreign
country ?

Mr. Lewittes. Much as I hate totalitarian dictatorship, whether
under foreign control or native control, I do not believe it is either
constitutional or effective to prevent peaceful advocacy.

Senator Ferguson. And the actual attempt to carry it out?

Mr. Lewittes. An attempt to carry it out by force or violence?

Senator Ferguson. You do not need force or violence.

Mr. Lewittes. To carry it out by constitutional amendment? I
do not believe there is anything in our Constitution that prohibits
or should prohibit the advocacy of an amendment.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know of anyone today advocating the
establishment of communism in America under a constitutional
amendment? Have you ever heard of it ?

Mr. Lewittes. No; but as I read the newspapers

Senator Ferguson. Why do you keep putting it in your address?

Mr. Lewittes. That is what section 4 does. In my respectful
opinion it does, Senator.

The Chairman. I would like to ask a few questions and then I
would like to get the rest of }rour statement.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 345

I think everyone recognizes thai we arc living in a changed world due
(o possibly man's ingenuity and man's inventions. A law is a growing
thing. What was not the clear and present danger under (he ride of
law 100 years ago might present circumstances of clear and present
danger today. Just over the radio last night the statement was made
that America has instituted in the Canal Zone now the rule of shoot
at sight because the evidence is clearly established that Russian sabo-
teur- and agents are being infiltrated into the Panama Canal Zone.
You would certainly feel that clear and present danger would justify
shooting at sight, would you not. under those circumstances? Pro-
te t ing our life lines of the Pacific ?

Mr. Lewittes. Given your facts, yes.

The Chairman. Now then, you have seen the bill, you have read
the bill, you were here yesterday. The other day Norman Thomas
testified that in his opinion the recitations in the bill on pages 1 to 5
were a pretty correct description of the Communist challenge. Those
were not his exact words. Were you here then?

Mr. Lewittes. No, I was not.

The Chairman. I might then ask you if you have the bill in front
of you, what you think about the recitations under section 2 from (1)
to (11) inclusive, whether or not they are a statement of the factual
situation, a true statement of the factual situation.

Mr. Lewittes. I regret to say I am not sufficiently familiar with all
the facts to be able to say whether the findings, whether most of the
findings are accurate or inaccurate. However, I do take issue with
one of the findings.

The Chairman. Which one is that ?

Mr. Lewittes. I take issue with the finding that the threat spoken
of is such a clear and present danger as to require this legislation.

The Chairman. What number is that?

Mr. Lewittes. That is finding (11) . I see no evidence in this coun-
try of clear and present danger requiring the serious restrictions on
free speech that I see in this bill.

The Chairman. Let us assume for the sake of argument that you
took the other position that the facts present a clear and present
danger. What would be your remedy ?

I understand that you feel the remedy here is worse than the
disease.

Mr. Lewittes. Correct.

The Chairman. And that it jeopardizes political and civil rights of
American citizens.

Mr. Lewittes. Non-Communists as well as Communists.

The Chairman. What?

Mr. Lewittes. Non-Communists as well as Communists.

The Chairman. I said American citizens.

Mr. Lewittes. Yes.

The Chairman. Wherefore, you contend that we should sit down
and do nothing ?

Mr. Lewittes. No.

The Chairman. What do you think we should do ?

Senator Ferguson. There is only one way to do it and that is by
law.

346 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Lewittes. I have some suggestions as to laws, Senator. We
urge the Congress of the United States to turn its attention to those
bills which would defeat communism by extending the democracy.
The only really effective way to combat communism is to provide for
urgent needs, the frustration of which induces the despairing as a last
resort to turn to communism. Legislation to protect and extend the
right to vote, to combat racial and religious discrimination in em-
ployment and Government activities, to end lynch terror and to pro-
vide decent housing and education for all Americans, would preserve
and further the American idea.

The Mundt bill in our opinion would destroy that idea.

There is plenty of legislation that the Congress can concern itself
with that in my opinion would be an effective way to combat com-
munism.

Senator Ferguson. You do not mean by housing that the Govern-
ment should own all housing?

Mr. Lewittes. All housing?

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr. Lewittes. By no means all housing any more than I think the
Government should own all property. That doesn't mean to say that
I think the Government shouldn't engage in a public-housing program,
if that is the only way to deal with an emergency.

The Chairman. That appeal you have made is the appeal that
has been made by every gentleman here who represents the Commu-
nists and it is based on the general theory that by so-called material
equality or distribution of materials in an equal way, it will result
in people having a dynamic democratic approach to life. Is that
what they have in Russia? Have they those things in Russia about
which you have just spoken?

Senator Ferguson. You do not think the people are entitled to vote
in Russia, do you ?

Mr. Lewittes. No. That is one of the main reasons I violently
object to communism.

Senator Ferguson. You do not believe they have an antilynching
law in Russia when they take and put them up in Siberia ?

Mr. Lewittes. I accept any stricture you make on Soviet Russia.
I do not believe they have any of the basic freedoms in Russia.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Robeson said that the passing of this anti-
lynching law and the right to vote would not stop the Communist
Party in America. That is not what they want.

Mr. Lewittes. I don't know what the leaders of communism in
this country want but I know what makes plain people turn to com-
munism. They don't turn to communism because they believe in any
dictatorship. They turn in desperation to a protest party.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think that all Communists in America
do it from desperation ?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe the ordinary man in the street goes Com-
munist

Senator Ferguson. We are not talking about him, but about the so-
called intellectuals.

The Chairman. Some of our rich men.

Senator Ferguson. Why do they become Communists?

Mr. Lewittes. I assume different individuals might have different
motivations. This I am sure of, communism would have no real follow-

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 347

in<>- in this country it" the things that they need were taken care of by
the Government.

People don't go communistic who have adequate housing, who have
free speech, who aren't afraid of being lynched.

Senator FERGUSON. Yon do not think so?

Mr. Lewtttes. No. sir; no following could be gotten by any Russian
people.

Senator Ferguson. Why do the Russian people remain Commu-
nists?

Mr. Lewtttes. I assume whether or not they want to remain Com-
munists, they have to because of the Russian Army.

Senator Ferguson. That is right. That is just why they remain
Communists.

All right; go ahead.

Mr. Lewittes. In view of the legislative findings contained in an
earlier section, the Communists advocate totalitarian dictatorship
under foreign control, it would appear officers or active participants,
or even mere members in Communist organizations would, without
war, be guilty of the crime defined in section 4.

Persons convicted under this section may be fined $10,000 and
jailed for 10 years. In addition, they lose their citizenship. Unlike
most criminal provisions, this one states that a prosecution is not
barred, no matter how much time has elapsed since the commission of
the alleged crime.

Senator Ferguson. You are a lawyer and you do not say that sec-
tion 4

Mr. Lewittes. Section 5.

Senator Ferguson. Section 4 would punish a mere member?

Mr. Lewittes. In view of the legislative findings, I am afraid that
may be true.

Senator Ferguson. You are not afraid of that?

Mr. Lewittes. Yes: I am.

Senator Ferguson. That that would be an attempt by that person
to Eet it up; to set up that totalitarian government?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe it might be construed as an act to perform
or attempt to perform.

Senator Ferguson. You might get any imaginary thing.

Mr. Lewtttes. That is the danger when one undertakes to restrict
freedom of speech, Senator.

Senator Ferguson. Where is there anything in here to restrict free-
dom of speecli '.

Mr. Lewittes. Well. I think section 4 applies to words as well as
deeds.

Senator Ferguson. You do not think that freedom of speech means
that you can say anything in America?

Mr. Lewittes. So long as it is peaceful.

Senator Ferguson. That is just a point; it might cause rioting.

Mr. Lewittes. I know of laws which already provide for that.
Anybody who wishes to incite a riot is guilt y of a crime if he attempts
to incite a riot.

Senator Ferguson. Federal law?

78257—48 23

348 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Lewtttes. I don't know of any failure on the part of local
authorities to enforce those laws.

Senator Ferguson. If you are going to incite taking over the Fed-
eral Government. Where is freedom of speech controlled in here?
Where is freedom of thought controlled '.

Mr. Lewittes. I think section 4 applies.

Senator Ferguson. Point out specifically.

Mr. Lewittes. Section 4 says:

It .shall he unlawful for any person —
(1) To attempt in any manner — -

that includes words or deeds, especially in view of the legislative
findings with respect to totalitarian dictatorship.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know what an attempt is in law?

Mr. Lewittes. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. What is it?

Mr. Lewtttes. I take it you don't want me to give a Horn Book
definition ?

Senator Ferguson. I want you yourself as a lawyer.

Mr. Lewittes. An attempt is an effort, and what is an effort de-
pends ; that is, how far you have to go before it is an effort depends
on the particular crime attempted. I don't believe that one can
stick.

Senator Ferguson. Did you ever hear of speech alone or thought
alone being an attempt?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe that it is the purpose of this law to catch
that.

Senator Ferguson. I ask you the question, Did you ever know in
law or can you cite any case where only speech or thought was an
attempt ?

Mr. Lewittes. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. What?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe that early in American history

Senator Ferguson. What is your case?

Mr. Lewittes. I don't remember the name of the case.

Senator Ferguson. Will you get it and send it in as part of the
record ?

Mr. Lewittes. I will be glad to.

The Chairman. Since the Constitution or prior?

Mr. Lewtttes. Since. In an earlier American case strikers were
held to have engaged in a criminal conspiracy because they told their
fellow workers to combine against wage reduction.

(The citation referred to had not been received when the transcripts
were sent to the printer.)

Senator Ferguson. Certainly, you can have a conspiracy.

Mr. Lewittes. It was a crime committed by words.

Senator Ferguson. Because they entered into a conspiracy. There
was more than words.

Mr. Lewittes. All a conspiracy means is a combination of two or
more people to do something.

Senator Ferguson. Not to do something, to do an unlawful act.

Mr. Lewtttes. But what was unlawful was the words.

Senator Ferguson. We have had on the statute books for years and
years that law which makes it a crime in America for two or more

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 349

persons to enter into a combination to do an unlawful ad or to do
a lawful act unlawfully, and you have not heard all this propaganda
against that law. What is more indefinite than that ? That has been

good law and the only way wo can survive against conspiracies. They
talk about this homo- indefinite? What about that? That has been
the lav,- of the land for centuries.

Mr. Lewtttes. Well, the other day the Supreme Court of the United
States held quite an ancient law important on the constitution and the
ground of indefiniteness.

Senator Ferguson. Did they ever hold conspiracy unlawful or
illegal?

Mr. Lkwi ties. Under circumstances they might on the ground that
it is too vague. You will recall in one of the Jehovah Witness cases
originating in Connecticut the Supreme Court of the United States
in an opinion by Justice Roberts held a common-law crime to be un-
constitutional on the ground that it invaded free speech.

Senator Ferguson. What common-law crime?

Mr. Lewtttes. The crime of breach of the peace.

Senator Ferguson. The United States has never recognized com-
mon-law crimes.

Mr. Lewittes. This was a State crime, a breach of the peace. A
person, a Jehovah Witness, was convicted and took his case to the
Supreme Court of the United States. We wnll be glad to give you
the name.

He took it to the Supreme Court of the United States and Justice
Roberts held although it was a common-law crime, nevertheless it
was unconstitutional. So there can be common-law crime that violates
the Constitution.

Not too long ago the Supreme Court held that a law passed in Re-
construction days would have to be construed much more narrowly
than the words indicated in order to save it from being unconstitu-
tional or too vague.

Senator Ferguson. The conspiracy law has never been held

Mr. Lewittes. Are we going to engage in a general discussion of
conspiracy ?

Senator Ferguson. But we want to know what is wrong with this
bill.

Mr. Lewittes. I am attempting to state what is wrong with it and
I will be glad to do it.

Senator Ferguson. Do you have a written memorandum?

Mr. Lewittes. We will be glad to submit it. I am reading this
from notes. I have notes here.

Senator Ferguson. I thought, if you would file it. that we would
like to hear another witness before the recess.

Mr. Lewittes. As I say. it is not a typed script. We hope to have
it typed and submit it in that form but we would like to continue.

Senator Ferguson. Can you not put it in typed form?

Mi\ Lewtttes. I would like to continue with my statement. I would
like to complete my testimony.

Senator Ferguson. How long will it take?

Mr. Lkwittes. Another 5 or iO minutes.

The Chairman. I just want to say there that this discussion in
relation to '"attempt" is totally irrelevant, if you read the statute
itself, contemplated statute, because the attempt must be vested in or

350 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

exercised by or under the domination or control of any foreign gov-
ernment, foreign organization, or foreign individual.

Mr. Lewittes. I believe the section dealing with registration and
the definitions of Communist organizations make it perfectly plain
that what is attacked here is the expression of views. May I read some
of the criteria in determining what is a Communist organization I

Senator Ferguson. You have a right to trial there. You have so
many days to appeal and the court will determine whether or not it
is a subversive organization.

Mr. Lewittes. That is true under section 4; it isn't true under
some of the other sections.

Under some of the other sections the Attorney General is given the
real authority.

Senator Ferguson. Then you have the appeal.

Mr. Lewittes. Yes; but the appeal is necessarily restricted.

Senator Ferguson. Why?

Mr. Lewittes. Why give it to the Attorney General at all in the
first place if the appeal is not intended to be restricted 1 Why not give
it to a court in the first instance ?

Senator Ferguson. You could give it to a court to determine by
decree ?

Mr. Lewittes. I don't think that would cure all objections. One of
the serious objections to this bill is that it will give power to the At-
torney General. This is not intended as a reflection on the present
Attorney General. I was special assistant under the Attorney General
and I believe Mr. Clark has been discreet, and I believe that he is a
sincere believer in civil rights. Nevertheless, I think this bill gives too
much power to any Attorney General.

The Chairman. That is, if there is a fire, you should hold a session
to determine whether or not there is a fire ? Under clear and present
danger rules you have to act with some celerity. You cannot simply
sit around and debate such as we are debating now when the Govern-
ment is in danger. You will find right now that in Panama, sir, they
have orders to shoot. You cannot call a jury to determine the question
of whether they are going to blow up the Panama Canal locks. You
can, if the Attorney General finds certain things, then you can give
him a jury trial to determine his constitutional rights.

Mr. LEwrrTES. Senator, this bill doesn't deal with any fire. So far
as I can see, it deals with some people who have some matches which
may or may not be wet. I do not see any threat of the Communists
taking control of this Government today, tomorrow or anywhere in
the near future. Certainly I don't see any clear or present danger
arising from peaceful advocacy.

The Chairman. How do you interpret the action in Canada?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe you are referring to an act of sabotage.
They are criminal in Canada and they are criminal in this country.

The Chairman. I am talking about Communists.

Mr. Lewittes. Peaceful advocacy is not a crime in Canada, so far
as I know, and should not be a crime in this country.

If you will, I will complete my statement.

The Chairman. Go ahead.

Mr. Lewittes. The bill contains elaborate regulations and severe
penalties to Communist organizations and their adherents as defined
in the proposed law. Some of the restraints applied to all Communist

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 351

organizations which include so-called Communist-front organizations
and so-called Communist-political organizations. Other restrictions
apply only to the latter kind.

The most comprehensive provision is that which requires all Com-
munist organizations to register and file periodic reports with the
Attorney General. These reports must show among other things the
name, the sources of their financial support, and in the case of Com-
munist-political organizations, they must identify every member.

In addition, all Communist organizations must keep records of
the names of their members. ( )rganizations must decide at their peril
whether they are included in the broad sweep of Communist-front
organizations or Communist-political organizations. A wrong guess
subjects the officers to criminal prosecution.

Besides, the refusal of the organization found by an Attorney Gen-
eral to be a Communist organization means the ordinary members
may be convicted of a crime.

On the other hand, does not registration constitute an admission
of the crime defined in section 4 with respect to totalitarian dictator-
ship and whether or not an admission, it would appear an organization
required to register must immediately cease activity on pain of being
subject to prosecution under section 4? In addition, the Attorney
General has authority to investigate any organization for the purpose
of determining whether it is Communist-front or Communist-political
organization.

In the course of the investigation the Attorney General may compel
testimony and the production of records. He may issue a final order
that the organization is Communist or Communist front or political.
The order is subject to judicial review.

Senator Ferguson. You do that now under the labor review board.
T mean for certain purposes, not to determine whether they are Com-
munists. But that is not unusual to designate a person or committee
to take testimony.

Mr. Lewittes. I believe it is unusual with respect to free speech.

Senator Ferguson. Of course, that is where you differ with some
people that this does not affect free speech.

Mr. Lewittes. Senator. I don't see how you can say this doesn't
a fleet free speech in view of the definkion of Communist organi-
zations.

Senator Ferguson. Do you not think it ought to affect Communists
in their speech ? Theirs is not free speech.

Mr. Lewittes. I believe it affects Communist organizations and
other organizations which express political views that may be ex-
tremely unpopular in the eyes of the Attorney General who happens
to be acting at the time. I don't believe free speech should be subject
to these restraints.

Senator Ferguson. They have a right to go to the courts.

Mr. Lewittes. I believe that popular hysteria sometimes may affect
a lower court. The order is subject to judicial review, but under
the proposed statute failure to register after the Attorney General
issues his order subjects the defendant to more severe criminal pen-
alties. The court reviewing the Attorney General's order must sus-
tain it if supported by the preponderance of the evidence. But
curiously the Attorney General need not even find that the organi-
zation is communistic in order to issue a final order labeling it as

352 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

such. All the bill requires of the Attorney General is a finding that
"It is reasonable to conclude" that the organization is Communist.
How can an Attorney General and the courts tell the difference between
Communist and non-Communist organizations \

The bill has separate definitions for Communist political organiza-
tions and Communist-front organizations. These definitions in our
view are woefully not precise. A Communist political organization
is an organization, under the bill, having some, but not necessarily
all, of their ordinary and unusual characteristics of a political party
which is under foreign Communist control. A Communist-front
organization is any organization not a political party under Com-
munist political control or primarily operated to aid a Communist
organization, a Communist foreign government, or the world Com-
munist movement, or generally adopting views or policies because
they are the views or policies of the Communist political organiza-
tion, Communist foreign government, or the world Communist move-
ment.

It will be all too easy under the flexible definition, especially under
the third subdivision, to falsify, accuse, and convict liberal organi-
zations of being Communist fronts.

The bill, in addition to defining what is meant by Communist
political or front organization, lays clown the kind of evidence which
shows whether an organization is Communist. Listed permanently
among these indicia was the nature of the political theories, views, and
policies of the organization according to one of the criteria coincidence
of policies between Soviet Russia and the organization on some mat-
ters, for example, on Franco and Palestine, maybe enough to taint
the organization as an organization of the Communists. Under an-
other criteria the fact that an officer of that trade-union or cultural
group happens to be a Communist may suffice to condemn the whole
organization as a Communist front. Practices wholly irrelevant to
the question are also listed as indicia of communism.

For example, where an organization fails to disclose membership lists
or records. It must be recognized that any registration is a severe
disability, if not a sentence of death for an organization, for a label
of communism is clearly defamatory and few persons in this country
can afford to be listed publicly as financial supporters of an organiza-
tion labeled Communist regardless of whether pr not they are Com-
munists.

That is why registration requirements based on political views must
be scrutinized with great care.

Apart from regulations and related restrictions, the bill penalizes
Communist organizations in other ways too.

The objections to the Mundt bill are too numerous to permit detailed
discussion in this statement. A quick review of the major defects
should be enough, however to show it is merely undesirable legislation.
In its attempt to protect American democracy the proposed bill vio-
lates most of the fundamental principles on which our democracy
lvsts.

The basic vice of the bill is that it regulates, restricts, and penalizes
peaceful expression of opinion and advocacy of political changes by
peaceful methods. This, without war, should condemn the bill as an
unconstitutional attack on the foundat ion of democracy.

The Chatemax. What portion of the bill substantiates that position ?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 353

Mr. Lewittes. The definition of Communist organizations is mostly
in terms of the political views of those organizations, an organization
having certain views found by the Attorney General to have views of
Communists has to register and is subject to serious disabilities and
may, by virtue of the obligation to register, immediately become sub-
ject, if it does not cease its activities, to the penalties imposed by section
4.

It seems to me that the whole keystone of this bill is the political
views of these organizations which will pass under the review of the
Attorney General.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know why the Communist organizations
do not want to register?

Why is it? Why do not the Communists of America want to reg-
ister^ Why do they not want to be known in America?

Mr. Lewittes. I can see many organizations do not want to register
as Communist organizations because they are not Communists.

Senator Ferguson. If they are not Communist organizations, how
do you account for not wanting to register or just be known? Take
that part of the question.

Mr. Lewittes. I assume an acknowledged Communist organization
wouldn't want to be subject to the disabilities of the law, but a non-
Communist organization would also object to registration because they
don't consider themselves Communists.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think Communists ought to get passports
to go to other countries?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe under our Constitution no citizen can be
deprived of a passport.

Senator Ferguson. No matter whether he is a Communist or not?

Mr. Lewittes. No matter under what grounds.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think Mr. Foster under his belief ought
to be able to get a passport to Russia tomorrow ?

Mr. Lewittes. I am talking as a lawyer.

Senator Ferguson. Yes, as a lawyer.

Mr. Lewittes. As a lawyer I believe that no citizen of the United
States can be denied a passport unless he is to use the passport to aid an
enemy, or some such thing.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think there is a constitutional right to a
passport ?

Mr. Lewittes. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. For a citizen? Where is it?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe it is contained in the fifth amendment,
which says that the Federal Government cannot deny any person
liberty without due process of law.

Senator Ferguson. What liberty?

Mr. Lewittes. To move around freely.

Senator Ferguson. Therefore, we should not pass a law saying that
men who are in a conspiracy to overthrow this Government should
not be prohibited from going to other countries to help carry out
that conspiracy?

Mr. Lewittes. This country shouldn't pass that law. I don't think
you should deny a man a passport to talk to others.

Senator Ferguson. Even though he is going to enter into a con-
spiracy ?

354 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Lewittes. If he enters into a conspiracy to overthrow the Gov-
ernment by force or violence, he is guilty of a crime now on the books.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think this Government should not pro-
tect itself by prohibiting; passports when they have reasonable grounds
to believe that when he leaves the country he is going to enter into a
conspiracy or to carry out one to overthrow this Government '.

Mr. Lewittes. By force or violence?

Senator Ferguson. Forget force and violence.

Mr. Lewittes. I can't forget that because it is the distinction
in my mind that is so critical.

Senator Ferguson. Yon say, then, they should not be prohibited
from receiving a passport ?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe under the Constitution, under the fifth
amendment, it would be unconstitutional to deny a man a passport to
talk to others.

Senator Ferguson. The Attorney General has said that is not the
law, granting a passport is not obligatory in any case, and is only
permitted where not prohibited by law.

Mr. Lewittes. I wish respectfully to disagree, if that is the At-
torney General's view. When I worked for Tom Clark he permitted
me to disagree with him then. I don't suppose he will object to my
disagreeing with him now.

The Chairman. You do not think that is an alienable right (

Mr. Lewittes. I believe it is a denial of due process.

The Chairman. There is not due process in that, that is not due
process of law.

Mr. Lewittes. I believe a citizen has a right to move freely from
place to place except for the purpose of aiding an enemy, yes.

Senator Ferguson. Or enter into a conspiracy to overthrow this
Government or do anything unlawful against the Government.

Mr. Lewtittes. I do not consider that speaking to other people
about political programs which do not involve the use of force or
violence is an illegal conspiracy. The term "totalitarian dictatorship"
in the definition of Communist political organizations is so broad and
vague that citizens can have no way of tellng what political activ-
ities, what opinions, what objections fall within the ban.

The vagueness and definition is confounded by the arbitrary direc-
tion in the bill to use irrelevant criteria in determining whether an
organization is Communist and by the capricious extension of the pro-
vision to cover not only Communist organizations as defined but those
which it is reasonable to conclude are Communists.

The bill also lodges in the Attorney General the authority to investi-
gate any organization in the country on the pretext that he is inquir-
ing whether it is a Communist-front organization, and also gives
the same individual the power to decide whether an organization and
its members should be subject to the onerous provisions of the statute.

In short, although the bill is allegedly directed against communism,
it places all political dissent and progressive political activity in
jeopardy. Under the Mundt bill the poitical freedom of every Amer-
ican will be at the mercy of a single administrator. This is in the
name of safeguard ing American institutions.

The bill is frankly aimed at curbing — and this is the heart of our
objection — the bill is frankly aimed at curbing the activities of or-
ganizations loosely described as Communist-front organizations. The

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 355

experience of recent years shows clearly that powerful elements in
our country are only too ready to apply that term to all organizations
which believe in and work for the extension of democracy in this
country by eliminating discrimination, protecting civil rights, and
promoting equality of opportunity.

The Mundt bill is drafted in such a way as to facilitate its applica-
tion to such nonconformist groups.

A single official, the Attorney General, would be, given broad powers
to bring any organization within the terms of the bill by finding that
it is reasonable to conclude that it advocates causes which parallel those
of Communist political organizations or Communist foreign govern-
ments.

Thus the mere fact that the Communist Party of America advocates
price control and the extension of antitrust laws, social security, mini-
mum-wage legislation, as well as legislation curbing the evils of racial
and religious discrimination, would make it highly dangerous for any
group to support such causes legally because to any substantial extent
the advocacy of progressive causes is not only unconstitutional but
politically unwise.

The bill incorporates the unconstitutional principle of guilt by asso-
ciation, since under it a person may be subject to criminal prosecution
or other penalties not because of any criminal act of his, but because
he happens to be associated with Communists or persons guilty of pro-
hibited acts.

Senator Ferguson. Where is that section? Is that the registration
section?

Mr. Lewtittes. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. He can withdraw, can he not, after it is declared
a Communist front ? Up until it is declared a Communist front and so
many days after there is no crime to belong to it.

Mr. Leavittes. The very fact his name will get registered, even if
he withdraws that does not safeguard blacklisting activity.

Senator Ferguson. That does not make him guilty of any crime.

Mr. Lewittes. In addition, under section 4 association with other
persons may subject a person

Senator Ferguson. That does not mean he is guilty of a crime.

Mr. Lewittes. Yes; an officer of an organization, a so-called inno-
cent, if I understand the terminology, may be guilty under section 4.

Senator Ferguson. Show me, under section 4, where an innocent
person might be guilty.

Mr. Lewittes. Section 4 (a) (3):

It shall he unlawful for any person actively to participate in the management,
direction, or supervision of any movement to establish in the United States such
a totalitarian dictatorship.

Senator Ferguson. Do you not think that ought to be a crime?

The Chairman. Under the control of a foreign government.

Mr. Lewtittes. He may have no intention whatever, himself. He
may have no intention whatever, himself, of working with foreign
Communists.

He may be an innocent but he is guilty of a felony.

Senator Ferguson. You are a lawyer and have been in the Attorney
General's office?

Mr. Lewhtes. Eight.

356 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. You know what happens if you and I go down
and 37ou rob the gas station or I do and you drive me away or I drive you
away ? Under that we can both be in it.

Mr. Leavittes. I submit, Senator, that is not an analogy. Suppose
he is a vice president, third vice president of the organization. He can
be made guilty under section 4 even though he had no intention what-
ever to work as part of the world Communist movement.

Senator Ferguson. If you and I drive to the gas station and you
kill a man and I only drove there with the idea of robbing and un-
derstood you were not to kill him, I would still be guilty of murder.

Mr. Lewittes. Of course the person who drove there drove there
with the intention of committing a felony. There is no felony in-
volved in being vice president of an organization.

Senator Ferguson. Is this your trouble? The trouble is that your
organization is now affiliated with the Communist front. Is that
3?our trouble here this morning?

Mr. Lewittes. No.

Senator Ferguson. Well, you are affiliated with a Communist-front
organization.

Mr. Lewittes. I don't know whether it is or not. I don't have the
knowledge on that. My trouble is — you ask me what my trouble is ?

Senator Ferguson. You come here as a speaker

Mr. Lewittes. May I complete my answer?

Senator Ferguson. Not until I get through.

You come here as a speaker, a lawyer speaking for an organiza-
tion which is affiliated with a Communist-front organization as de-
clared by the Attorney General.

Mr. Lewittes. I come here speaking for an anti-Communist or-
ganization which is concerned with American traditions of democracy,
and it is my contention that the Mundt bill is a serious violation of
those traditions.

Senator Ferguson. When was the organization classified as a Com-
munist front that is affiliated with this organization ?

Mr. Bolz. Let us be clear on the question of affiliation. You say
we are affiliated with them. They are affiliated with us, they are
affiliates of our organization just as much as they might be an affiliate
of the Democratic Party or, for all I know, the Republican Party.

Senator Ferguson. When were they declared by Mr. Clark to be
a Communist front?

Mr. Bolz. I am not certain. I think within the last few months,
probably.

Senator Ferguson. It was not just the last few days?

Mr. Bolz. Actually I don't knoAv. I think it was the first list that
he published.

Senator Ferguson. Since then nothing has been legally done?

Mr. Boez. That is quite untrue. Much has actively been done to
get rid of that affiliate completely.

Mr. Lewittes. The import of your question, Senator, is a perfectly
good indication of what we are afraid of, namely, that persons who
are anti-Communist but believe in liberal activity may be stamped
by irresponsible persons as Communists or Communist fronts.

Senator Ferguson. But you have the right to appeal to a court.

Mr. Lewittes. I believe that the tests laid down is so arbitrary that
they do not give the court a chance to give a fair trial and it is my

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 357

confident prediction that the Supreme Court will declare many pro-
visions of (his unconstitutional if the Senate passes it and the Pres-
ident should sign it.

Senator Ferguson. You were in the Attorney General's office. Do
you think if this were made law tomorrow, the present Attorney Gen-
eral would not take evidence and determine whether or not an or-
ganization was a Communist front organization ?

Mr. Lewittes. 1 believe the present Attorney General would make
a bona fide effort to comply with the law.

Senator Ferguson. You feel that? Then what is wrong with the
law?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe that no Attorney General should be given
the power given in this bill, and furthermore I believe no court should
he a i veil the power set forth in this bill.

Senator Ferguson. Notwithstanding the findings of facts would
be true?

Mr. Lewtttes. There is one finding with which I take issue.

Senator Ferguson. But the others, if all the rest were true?

Mr. Lewtttes. I don't have knowledge on the rest of the others.
The one finding I take issue on is the presence of clear and present
danger for this legislation.

Senator Ferguson. Suppose your Congress finds that, then is there
not suilicient justification for the law?

Mr. Lewittes. I hope and trust that if Congress does find it, the
Supreme Court of the United States will not sustain the finding.

Senator Ferguson. Suppose they find it, what is your opinion about
justification for a law '.

Mr. Lewittes. I believe the findings would not be justified.

Senator Ferguson. That was not my question at all. If the facts
are found by Congress to be true, then would they justify a law to cope
with the situation \

Mr. Lewittes. I do not believe that these provisions would be
justified.

Senator Ferguson. Any provision ?

Mr. Lewittes. These provisions.

Senator Ferguson. Any provision?

Mr. Lewittes. Yes. For example, advocacy of overthrow of the
Government by force and violence should be and is a crime.

Disclosure that one is acting for a foreign principal or foreign
government should be and is obligatory.

Sabotage should be and is a crime.

Incitements to violence are a crime.

I do not believe that these provisions are confined to those things
which should be criminal.

The Chairman. Have you any suggestions to better this suggested
legislation?

Mr. Lewittes. I believe the theory of the bill is erroneous. I be-
lieve the theory of the bill is that one has to not only make criminal
violence, not only sabotage, not only fraud : I believe the theory of
the act is that one must exercise thought control. I believe that the
underlying theory is wrong and that is why I do not have any sugges-
tions, specific suggestions, that would cure all our objections.

358 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

However, I do have a suggested amendment which would cure some
of my objections and I would be glad to read that into the record
if you wish.

The Chairman. But here all laws in America are not just aimed at
violence. That is not the theory of criminal law.

Mr. Lewittes. I have no law — I believe no law heretofore sustained
has attempted to control free speech. This will be the first one that
does that.

The Chairman. My question was that criminal law does not only
aim at violence. You and I can enter into a conspiracy.

Mr. Lewittes. To do what?

The Chairman. To do an unlawful act.

Mr. Lewittes. Here I contend the act made unlawful is speech, is
political expression.

The Chairman. What is your suggestion ?

Mr. Lewittes. I would like to make clear that this cures some of
our objections, not all of our objections. I don't think all of our objec-
tions can be cured.

Sec. 18. Nothing in this Act shall be deemed as prohibiting the advocacy of
equal treatment by Federal or State Governments or governmental agencies,
or by private persons or organizations of all residents of the United States
without regard to race, color, religion, or industry ; nor shall such advocacy
by any person or organization be considered in any proceeding as evidence tend-
ing to indicate a violation of this Act or to indicate that any organization is a
Communist political organization or a Communist-front organization.

The Chairman. In plain language, what is that?

Mr. Lewittes. The long and short of it is that the advocacy of
equal treatment without regard to race, color, creed, or national origin
should not be deemed to be one of the things that this bill is aimed
against.

The Chairman. Do you think this bill aims at that ?

Mr. Lewittes. Yes — I don't believe that those who are supporting
the bill, like yourselves, Senator Wiley or Senator Ferguson, intend
to get at that. I know that

Senator Ferguson. We have never indicated we support this bill.

The Chairman. Where do you get the idea that we are supporting
it ? Just because we catechize j^ou ?

Senator Ferguson. Just because we ask you questions?

Mr. Lewittes. If I did indicate you supported the bill, I withdraw
that.

Senator Ferguson. I have never agreed to all of the provisions in
the bill.

Mr. Lewittes. I am sure that neither of you would be willing to
say that advocacy of equal treatment regardless of race, color, creed,
or ancestry is something that should be condemned.

Senator Ferguson. I find no word of that in this bill.

Mr. Lewittes. However, I would like to point to some provisions
that do.

Senator Ferguson. You show us anything about race or creed.

Mr. Lewittes. The term "Communist political organization" is de-
fined with reference to certain criteria — I would like to withdraw that.
A Communist-front organization is defined in part —

Any organization * * * with respect to which * * * it is reasonable
t«> conclude * * * that its views and policies are in general adopted and

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 359

advanced because such views <>r policies are those of a Communist political or-
ganization, a Communist foreign government, or such world Communist move-
ment.

and whether a Communist-front organization is such is determined
with respect to certain criteria, one of which is —
the position taken or advanced by it from time to time on matters of policy.

The Communist Party, for reasons best known to itself, always op-
poses discrimination based on race, creed, color, or national origin.
If an organization like the Americans for Democratic Action or the
American Jewish Congress or the American Civil Liberties Union
happens to advocate these views and they happen to correspond with
the views advocated by the Communist Party, some attorney general
might conclude that tlie Americans for Democratic Action, the Amer-
ican Jewish Congress, or the American Civil Liberties Union are Com-
munist-front organizations.

Mind you, Senators, I don't say that any of those organizations
is a Communist-front organization. I know7 that the American
Jewish Congress is not a Communist-front organization. I know that
Americans for Democratic Action, of which I am a member, is not a
Communist-front organization. I know that the American Civil Lib-
erties Union, of which I am a member, is not a Communist-front
organization.

Nevertheless, because of the tests set up in this bill, some attorney
general might well hold that those organizations are adopting these
views because they are the views of or the policies of a Communist
political organization.

Senator Ferguson. Here is a thing about which I am a little puz-
zled, how your organization which is bitterly opposed to communism
could be an affiliate or the other organization be an affiliate of your
organization and having been classified as such by the Attorney Gen-
eral and you did not know7 about it.

Mr. Lewittes. Senator, I might find that I was a member of some
organization of which the vice president happens to be a Communist.
I don't pretend to know7 the other activities of everybody with whom
I am directly or indirectly associated.

Senator Ferguson. Are you an attorney for this organization you
are speaking for today?

Mr. Lewittes. I am one of the attorneys.

Senator Ferguson. You are spokesman for them '(

Mi-. Lew7ittes. I am spokesman for the congress today. I don't
pretend to know all the associations direct or indirect of the people I
happen to come in contact with.

Senator Ferguson. Do you not think as a lawyer, if you had known
this other organization was affiliated with yours and classified as Com-
munist front, you could have gotten rid of that ?

Mr. Lewittes. My colleague says we are trying to get rid of them.

Senator Ferguson. But you never heard of it before.

Mr. Lewittes. Never.

Senator Ferguson. Do you not think you ought to get rid of it ?

Mr. Lewittes. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. Do you not think you ought to get rid of that
a>sociation '.

360 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Lewittes. Emphatically. That is not because we think there
ought to be laws on it. It is just that we are anti-Communists and
therefore do not wish to be associated with a Communist organization.

The Chairman. Do you not think this suggestion you just made is
awfully far-fetched, the idea of this amendment here? You do not
suppose that in drawing this bill anyone had in mind that if one
organization has some constitutional provisions in it, I mean Ameri-
can constitutional rights or provisions in it, and another organization
has some American constitutional rights and provisions, that thai is
what this has in mind ?

Mr. Lewittes. I am very much afraid that is one of the possible
effects of this bill if enacted into law.

The Chairman. I have heard a lot about fears, sir, but it looks to
me as though some folks are building up a lot of bogies.

Mr. Lewittes. Senator, I think we have a right to be afraid about
thought control. You will remember that Mr. Hitler used the lied
scare to achieve power in Germany. This will not be the first time
that an anti-Communist organization has been labeled a Communist
organization for ulterior motives.

The Chairman. I have heard that argument and I agree with you.

1 also want to say to you that the American system of checks and
balances never operated in Hitlerland and that is why that went down
because he had straw men for legislators. You have no straw men
for legislators in America.

Mr. Lewittes. Thank God for that.

The Chairman. Your suggestion will be given full consideration.
Have you any others ?

Mi-.'Lewittes. I do not have any further suggestions. I would like
to point out some more defects in the bill.

By singling out communism for penal treatment the bill probably
violates the constitutional provision against bills of attainder. That
is legislative declaration of guilt and punishment by legislative fiat.
The legislative provision when taken together with section 4 violates
the constitutional provision against self-incrimination in requiring
publishing of membership lists. The bill could blacklist thousands of
individuals who may or may not be culpable.

The denial of passports constitutes an arbitrary interference of the
basic rights of the citizens to move around freely and to talk with
whom he wishes.

Senator Ferguson. We will recess until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:55 p. m., a recess was taken to reconvene at

2 p. m., of the same day. )

afternoon session

(The hearing was reconvened at 2 p. m., upon the expiration of
the. noon recess.)

The Chairman. The meeting will come to order.

The next witness is Eabbi Benjamin Schultz.

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

Rabbi Schultz. I do.

The Chairman. You may proceed, sir.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 361

TESTIMONY OF RABBI BENJAMIN SCHULTZ, YONKEES, N. Y.

Rabbi Sciiultz. May I say, Senator, thai while I happen to be
executive director of the American Jewish League Against Commu-
nism, Inc., I am appearing here as an individual. My organization
is purely educational, and makes no attempt to influence legislation.

I have come to Washington at my own expense to give my views.
My board of directors understands that I am speaking for myself.

I am a rabbi, horn in the United States, and proud of its blessings.
I was ordained at the Jewish Institute of Religion in L931, and am a
member of the Central Conference of American Rabbis.

I was rabbi of Temple Emanuel, Yonkers, N. Y., from 1935 to 1947,
and resigned to assume my present post. I am a member of the
Zionist Organization of America, and was president of Westchester
County Zionist Organization, chairman of Yonkers Zionist Emerg-
ency Council, and on the Administrative Council of the Zionist Organ-
ization of America.

I do not appear officially for any of these groups.

I have read the so-called Mundt bill. Too many of its opponents
have not.

I am concerned with that propaganda of the Communist Party
which states that there is something dangerous to Jews in the Mundt
bill. There is not a particle of truth in this. It is an anticommunist
bill. The vast majority of Jews are against communism, and the
bill has nothing to do with them.

The untruth referred to is characteristic of the communist move-
ment which tries to use the fears of minorities for its own ends.

I charge that a Communist campaign of distortion began on May
14 in the New York Morning Freiheit, Yiddish Communist organ.

Like all Communist propaganda, this line filtered down into con-
fused liberal groups, and misled innocent persons who have never
read the bill.

On May 14, a display article on the Mundt bill appeared in the
Ereiheit, containing these statements:

This bill endangers the rights and security of the Jews in America.

Senator Langer. What is the Freiheit ?

Rabbi Schultz. The Freiheit is the Yiddish language official organ
of the Communist Party.

(2) A demonstration against anti-Semitism could, according to the Mundt
hill, he punished.

The Chairman. These are all quotations?
Rabbi Schultz. Quotations.

(3) If the Attorney General issues a decree that the Zionist organization, for
example, is subversive * * * then the Zionist organization is tied hand and
foot. Its members are put on a blacklist.

I continue quoting.

(4) The battle has heen carried into the Senate * * *. A stream of let-
ters and telegrams to the Senators of your State can have the desired effect.

i ." i The hill can become a fortress of anti-Semitism, and a means of terror
against those who support the Jewish state in Palestine.

(6) If you want the embargo on arms to Palestine lifted you could get 10 years
in jail by this bill, according to another Freiheit display article on May 30.

(7) And if you help the Jews in Poland or Rumania, you can be punished as
a foreign agent.

(8) Finally, a Freiheit cartoon of May 30 shows Hitler smiling up, at Congress.

362 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Now, a careful reading of the Mimdt bill belies all of these state-
ments. The bill specifically lays down carefully formulated stand-
ards which serve as instructions to the Attorney General. I challenge
those who make these distorted charges to cite specific sections of the
bill that in any way substantiate their claims. They cannot do that.
There is a conspiracy to raise a false Jewish issue.

The average American, according to my observation, is for the
Mundt bill. The American Jew is an average American. Jews have
found in America freedom and well-being unmatched in Jewish his-
tory, and Communists who try to destroy this democracy are the
enemies of American Jews and Christians.

In Soviet Russia, religious and Zionist leaders languish in jail for
their principles. Religious schools for minors, as well as Zionism,
are illegal there. The attempt to smear the bill as anti-Jewish is
nefarious.

The Chairman. Have you a copy of the New York Morning Frei-
heit, the Yiddish Communist organ? Have you those papers that
establish this fact?

Rabbi Schultz. Yes: I have them right here, with the numbers
indicated.

The Chairman. Will you first, before we have them put into the
record, identify the dates that substantiate these eight headings that
you speak of I

Rabbi Schultz. Yes. Right through numeral 5, that is May 14;
ami 0. 7. and 8 are May 30. The translations of the paragraphs that
I have indicated numerically are found under those numerals.

The Chairman. You say this is a Yiddish Communist organ?

Rabbi Schultz. Yiddish language ; yes.

Senator Ferguson. But it is a Communist organ?

Rabbi Schultz. It is a Communist organ. I do not consider it
Jewish, because I consider nothing Communist Jewish. I can only say
it is the Yiddish language.

Senator Ferguson. But it is a Communist propaganda sheet?

Rabbi Schultz. The official Communist organ in that area.

The Chairman. How do you arrive at that conclusion?

Rabbi Schultz. It is unanimously known to be, both by Communists
and non-Communists, the official Communist organ. It carries all
of the official notices of the Communist Party and editorializes as a
speaker for the Communist Party.

The Chairman. Who is the editor?

Rabbi Schultz. The editor is a man named Novick, P. Novick.

The Chairman. How do you spell it?

Rabbi Schultz. Well, in English I suppose it would be N-o-v-i-c-k.

The Chairman. What is his nationality? Do you know?

Robbi Schultz. I do not know.

The Chairman. Now, in order to get the record clear — though I
must say you have made it very clear — I have one or two more
questions.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know whether the editor is a known
Communist?

Rabbi Schultz. The editor is a known Comunist.

Senator Ferguson. Of this particular paper that has this editorial \

Rabbi Schultz. Yes.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 363

The Chairman. Do you know what (lie circulation of the paper is
among the Jews?
Rabbi Schultz. Very small. But like all Communist papers, it

seems to have a way of insinuating its ideas into some liberal circles,
both Christian and Jewish.

Senator Ferguson. Of course, that is the kind of a paper, under the
Mundt bill, that would have to label itself, and this information, as
communistic.

Rabbi Schultz. Yes; I believe so.

The Chairman. How old are you?

Rabbi Schultz. Forty-two.

The Chairman. What is your background in education, outside of
your theology?

Rabbi Schultz. I am a graduate of the public schools of New Jersey
and Rochester, N. Y. ; a graduate of East High School, Rochester,
X. Y. ; a graduate with bachelor of arts degree of the University of
Rochester, 1929. and a graduate of the Jewish Institute of Religion,
with the degree of rabbi, and the other degree of master of Hebrew lit-
erature in 1931.

The Chairman. Have you studied any law ?

Rabbi Schultz. I have not studied law.

The Chairman. How long have you listened to this testimony in the
room here ?

Rabbi Schultz. I was here this morning.

The Chairman. You have examined the bill and read it thoroughly,
have you ?

Rabbi Schultz. I have.

The Chairman. Is it jour conclusion that the forepart of the bill,
under the title uXecessity for Legislation," states correctly the facts
in the situation?

Rabbi Schultz. I am in favor of the Mundt bill. My particular
area of knowledge, which I want to make available to this committee,
is the artificial controversy which has arisen as stated in my state-
ment, about it being against the Jews. I am qualified to state that
that is false.

I am not a lawyer and do not pose as an expert on any of the legal
niceties connected with this bill. I do consider myself somewhat of an
expert in the field of Judaism, religion, and Jewish affairs.

The Chairman. Well, have you read the bill over?

Rabbi Schultz. I have; very carefully.

The Chairman. From your educational background and knowledge
of the English language, can you see in it a lot of these attacks upon the
civil rights and liberties of Americans that have been stated here this
morning.

Rabbi Schultz. It is my opinion, as a so-called educated average
American, that there is no intrusion upon the rights or civil liberties
of Americans in this bill.

The Chairman. What is your judgment, based upon your experi-
ence in the past, as to whether or not communism is a menace to our
way of life?

Rabbi Schultz. Communism is a menace to our way of life, and
it is a menace to the way of life that western civilization has known
for 2,000 years.

7N25T — 48 li4

364 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

I consider this thing called Americanism to be born of what we call
the Judeo-Christian tradition, a philosophy of the sanctity of the
soul and the sanctity of the individual, which started with the ancient
Hebrew prophets, was continued by Jesus in His way, and by the
Christian Church, according to its own belief, and is, generally speak-
ing, the one thing which we call individual freedom, which has been
menaced by Hitlerite and Fascist action and is now being menaced by
Communist aggression throughout the world.

Senator Ferguson. You believe that this Communist aggression
is universal ; that is, that all the Communist Parties are part of it I

Rabbi Sciiultz. It is my judgment, from my study and observation,
that there is an international Communist movement. And I have no
evidence to show, myself, that no branch of this international Com-
munist movement exists in this country that we call the United States.

On the other hand, it is clear to me, from the evidence at my com-
mand, that the Communists, the Communist Party and the Commu-
nist movement of America, are part of the international Communist
movement.

The Chairman. Then you agree with Norman Thomas in that
respect.

Rabbi Schultz. I am in agreement with Norman Thomas in that
portion of his statement which says and proves that communism is
a danger.

The Chairman. Have you any contact — direct contact — in foreign
lands ?

Rabbi Sciiultz. I have the contact of an average American of my
class. I hear from individuals. I read publications. And I read
three or four foreign languages.

I listen and I speak and I investigate. I try to learn.

The Chairman. From your contacts with friends abroad, or from
your general experience with literature from abroad, or your contact
with men of affairs in this country who have been abroad, are you in
a position to give us an opinion as to whether or not communism
is an aggressive, expanding, almost dynamic force I

Rabbi Schultz. You put it very well. I subscribe to that phrase-
ology. From my knowledge, I know that it is. And may I say at
this time. Senator, that in the last 2 years 150.000 Jews have come out
of Soviet Russia because they were Polish citizens. And because they
were Polish citizens, they were allowed to leave Russia if they wanted
to. All of them left Russia and fled from it as from the plague, even
going into such countries which are hard hit as Poland and Germany;
aiming, of course, for Palestine. And the unanimous conclusion of
their spokesmen, those who have actually come out, is that conditions
in Russia are so unspeakable under the Communist form of govern-
ment that they would rather be almost anywhere else.

Their evidence is available in many languages. They have testified
to the fact that while people may worship in churches and synagogues,
religious instruction to the next generation is forbidden; and Zionism
is illegal in Russia, because all movements are illegal except commu-
nism in Russia: and that the parading of pro-Zion sentiment by
Communists in the rest of the world is laughable in relation to that
fact and is being done for some motive of which we know not.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 365

The Chairman. Is there, in your opinion, suppression of all free-
doms such as we know them in America— in all Communist -dominated
countries \

Rabbi Schultz. There is suppression of these freedoms, as far as I
can gather: freedom of speech, freedom of expression, which includes
the printed word, freedom of religious education, freedom of assembly.
the right of the people peaceably to petition for redress of grievances;
freedom, in other words, of anything that makes a man feel that he is
a man and not a clod.

Senator FERGUSON. You expressed it as being the case that the only
freedom is communism.

Rabbi Schultz. One is free to be a Communist.

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Rabbi Schultz. As one, let us say, before the Civil War in this
country, to be an owner of slaves, or as one is free to be that which is
evil under many systems.

Senator Ferguson. But any other movement in Soviet Russia would
be illegal.

Rabbi Schultz. Any movement, as we knoAv the word "movement'' —
that is, as a movement independent of Communist domination — is
illegal in Russia.

Senator Ferguson. That is why you indicate here, in relation to
the schools, "Religious schools for minors, as well as Zionism, are
illegal" in Russia. Is that correct?

Rabbi Schultz. That is true.

The Chairman. From your contacts, such as you have testified to,
with those that have come out of Russia, those that have lived in Com-
munist-dominated countries, and from your literature contact, your
contact with men in positions who have been there, what are the tools
of communism \

Rabbi Schultz. What do you mean by "tools," Senator?

The Chairman. How do they effectuate their purposes?

Rabbi Schultz. Well, that is a very broad question. I might be
called by some as an expert on certain things. I do not claim to be
an all-knowing expert on everything connected with communism; al-
though I have my opinions, the same as any American does.

Have you any specific things, any specific wording, that I might
know about?

The Chairmax. Well, do they hesitate to murder?

Rabbi Schultz. Xo. And that is down in black and white, Senator,
in Lenin's writings. And the exact citation is easily available. I
can furnish it to you myself, after I get back home.

Lenin says that any ruse, any subterfuge, any lie, is justifiable to
use to pursue the larger end of communism.

Senator Ferguson. Of course, deceit, then, is one of their weapons.

Rabbi Schultz. Deceit is one of their weapons. And from my ob-
servation, it is one of their chief weapons. It is the key weapon at
the present time in this country : deceit, the masking of real purposes
and real motives behind false fronts.

The Chairman. Do you want these returned to you?

Rabbi Schultz. I would prefer it, after awhile.

The Chairman. We have your address, have we?

366 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Rabbi Schultz. Yes.

The Chairman. The clerk will file them and return them at a later
date.

Senator Langek. Kabbi Schultz, you say in your statement here :

1 was rabbi of Temple Emanuel, Yonkers, N. Y., from lit.'..", to 11)47. and resigned
to assume my present post.

What is your present post?

Kabbi Schultz. I happen to be executive director of the American-
Jewish League Against Communism, Inc. As I state. I am appear-
ing- here as an individual.

Senator Laxger. But what is your post I What is your job \ Where
do you get your money from?

Rabbi Schultz. I am professionally the executive director of the
American Jewish League Against Communism, Inc., a work which
only a rabbi can do.

Senator Langek. I see. Now, you say :

I am a member of the Zionist Organization of America, and was president
of Westchester County Zionist Organization, chairman of Yonkers Zionist Emer-
gency Council, and on the administrative council of the Zionist Organization of
America.

When you mention being president of the Westchester County Zion-
ist Organization, I assume that is Westchester County. X. Y.

Rabbi Schultz. Yes.

Senator Langer. You say that you were president of that organiza-
tion. When did you sever your connection Avith them as president?

Rabbi Schultz. I retired as president in 1940.

Senator Laxger. 1040 ?

Rabbi Schultz. Yes.

Senator Langer. That is all.

The Chairman. Is there any further question?

I want to thank you, sir.

Rabbi Schultz. Thank you.

The Chairman. Mr. O. John Rogge?

Will you be sworn, sir?

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

Mr. Rogge. I do.

The Chairman. Will you proceed, sir?

TESTIMONY OF 0. JOHN KOGGE, LAWYER, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. Rogge. My name is O. John Rogge. I live at 400 East Fifty-
second Street, in Xew York City. I am a lawyer. My main office is in
New York City. I also have a branch here and one in Paris. France.

I am admitted to the bars of the District of Columbia, the State of
Xew York, the State of Illinois.

Senator Langer. You sa\* you have an office in Washington, in XTew
York, and where else?

Mr. Rogge. Paris. France.

I am a member of this bar of the District of Columbia, of the States
of Xew York and Illinois, of various circuit courts of appeals, and of
the Supreme Court of the United States.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 367

I appear in opposition to thisMundt bill in itsenl irety. I think this
Mundt hill would make men like Jefferson, and Holmes, and Brandeis,
turn over in their graves, if it became law.

I don't think it is aimed at the Communists. I think it is aimed at
liberals.

Senator Ferguson. At what?

Mr. Rogge. At liberals, at everyone who would want to put human
rights above property rights. I think it is a confession of insecurity
and weakness. I think it is unbecoming a free people.

I had always regarded this country, as a country where people could
think what the}^ liked, and could say whatever was in their hearts
without having to wear any kind of a badge. That is the kind of a
country I would like to see this stay.

Now, what does this bill do? This bill lets the Attorney General —
and you can say it provides for a hearing, but I don't care — lets the
Attorney General designate various organizations as Communist-front
organizations. He has already designated 90 such last December, and
the other day he came out with another list of 32 more.

Senator Ferguson. And there is no appeal from that decision.
There is no appeal from his former decision, but there would be if he
was doing it under this law.

Mr. Rogge. Yes, but I am wondering. Is he going to retract those
lists now?

Senator Ferguson. But wait a minute. Under this law, all the evi-
dence would have to be set forth, upon which he is acting. As he has
done it now, of course, there is no evidence set out. That is right, is it
not?

Mr. Rogge. I had thought that we had gotten through with star-
chamber proceedings, but you are right, Senator. It is an ex parte
thing without notice, without a hearing, and apparently without an
appeal. We have attacked the validity of it, but we apparently have
not been successful.

Senator Ferguson. How did you try to do that?

Mr. Rogge. We filed a bill here in the District for a declaratory
judgment and for an injunction.

Senator Ferguson. What happened?

Mr. Rogge. I don't know what the basis was, but the court ruled
against it. We are now appealing, of course.

Senator Ferguson. Whom were you representing in that case?

Mr. Rogge. I was representing the Joint Anti-Fascist Committee,
one of which is on this in my opinion outrageous list of the Attorney
General.

Senator Ferguson. It was one that was classified as a Communist
front?

Mr. Rogge. That is right.

Senator Ferguson. And you are counsel for them in that pro-
ceeding?

Mr. Rogge. That is correct.

Senator Ferguson. Where is the case now ?

Mr. Rogge. Just a few days ago I sent on the proposed order that I
had seen, and I assume that the Government has presented that. If
they have, the decision has come down only within the last day or so.
It may not have yet been entered.

368 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

The Chairman. Then, in this connection, this bill liberalizes the
present law in that respect, does it ?

Mr. Rogge. I am glad you put that question, Senator, and I will
tell you what I think the answer to that is. And in the same answer
I will also include the question of Senator Ferguson as to whether it
was really a burden on freedom of speech. And I say to you gentle-
men that even as drawn, and with all of the provisions which you have
given for a hearing and for appeal — and incidentally the appeal is not
a hearing de novo under this bill.

Senator Ferguson: No; it is a hearing on the preponderance of the
evidence.

Mr. Rooge. "Well, if there is substantial evidence. It is not a de
novo hearing. But even with all those provisions, if you ask me what
is a burden on freedom of speech, I say to you gentlemen that that is
more a burden on freedom of speech than many other burdens which
the Supreme Court has already struck down.

Take for instance Thomas v. Collin*. The only thing that was in-
volved there — that is 323 United States — the onlv thing that was in-
volved in Thomas v. Collins was a provision of the State of Texas,
which said that if a labor organizer comes into the State he has to get
a card. There wasn't anything more than that. He had to register.
And what did the Supreme Court do? The Supreme Court struck that
down, and in one of the opinions, this one by Justice Jackson, he went
on to say that the fathers who founded this country didn't repose in
any governmental official the duty to try to tell us what we should be-
lieve and what we should not believe.

Furthermore, I want to point out to you that political anonymity
in this country is neither unknown nor unrespectable, so far as Amer-
ican political history is concerned. Indeed, the Federalist papers,
which were so instrumental in the ratification of our Constitution,
were published under pseudonyms, so that to this day we are not cer-
tain of the identity of the authors of several of the Federalist papers.

The only basis that I can find for this type of legislation, is the
rising pathological fear of new or unorthodox ideas. And I think
that if we had the stature of men like Jefferson and Holmes and Bran-
deis, we wouldn't waste any time on a bill like this.

Senator Ferguson. There has been a lot of fear expressed in this
room, has there not, about this bill? You do not think that some of
that is imaginary ?

Mr. Rogge. I don't follow you, Senator.

Senator Ferguson. "Well, has there not been a lot of fear as to what
this bill will actually do ?

Mr. Rogge. Senator, my opinion is that we have become a Nation
afraid in this country. I have seen it creep upon us in the last 3 years.
I have followed it year by year and step by step. "We have become a
Nation, if you please, no longer free to express our own opinions. We
are afraid to do it. I have seen that happen.

And yet I say to you that it is the new. vigorous ideas which are
necessary to meet the complex problems which confront us today.

Ideas and not fear is our salvation.

I would like to point out what would happen if you applied this
technique, this registration technique, which in effect says that organi-
zations which the Attorney General labels as Communist-front or-
ganizations cannot get out a piece of literature unless they stamp on

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 369

it. Just the way the Jews in Germany had to wear a badge, so these
people have to stamp on their literature. The Government apparently
feels that the American people are no longer free and independent.
They have to he spoon fed.

The Chairman". Well, listen: We have to do that in every election.

Mr. Rogoe. "What do you mean. Senator? I don't follow you now?

The Chairman. If I get out any political material, I have to identify
it right on that sheet of paper that I get out. And any political or-
ganization connected with me has to show who publishes it, and on
whose behalf; and if you publish it in the paper, you have to show
how much you pay for it. That has not interfered with the rights of
the people.

Mr. Rogge. I am saying to you that the burden created by this regis-
tration provision of this bill, even with what you gentlemen labeled the
safeguards in the rights of appeal, are greater burdens on freedom of
speech than many which the Supreme Court has already declared un-
constitutional. And in addition to Thomas v. Collins, there are a
whole group of cases involving the Jehovah's Witnesses. There are
cases on taxes, on literature, all of which have been struck down.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Rogge, how many of these fronts that have
been declared Communist fronts by the Attorney General, do you
represent?

Mr. Rogge. Well, I represent the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Com-
mittee, Senator. But I will say this to you : That if more of them
came to me and said, "Will you represent us," I would do it. That is
the only one I can think of at the moment.

Senator Ferguson. Do you represent the Civil Rights Congress?

Mr. Rogge. No.

Senator Ferguson. Have you ever?

Mr. Rogge. No.

Senator Ferguson. The Committee of One Thousand?

Mr. Rogge. The Committee of One Thousand I am unfamiliar with.

Senator Ferguson. And the Communist Party of the United States ?

Mr. Rogge. No.

Senator Ferguson. The American Committee for the Protection of
the Foreign Born ?

Mr. Rogge. I am not connected with them in any way. I won't say
that they haven't sponsored a meeting at which I have spoken. ' I am
not sure about that. That is possible.

Senator Ferguson. Is there one known as "In Fact" ?

Mr. Rogge. Yes, indeed. That is a client of mine.

Senator Ferguson. Well, are they a Communist front? Have they
been so declared by Clark?

Mr. Rogge. I am satisfied they haven't been declared a Communist
front, and I will tell you why. If they had been I think they would
have brought suit, just as the Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee
did, to have that order held unconstitutional. So that I am fairly
sure that they are not on the Attorney General's list.

Senator Ferouson. You have represented Communist defendants?

Mr. Rogge. I have. And here you can get into this crazy business. I
have represented people who are accused of being Communists, but
who in my opinion are not Communists.

Senator Ferguson. Would you defend a man who was accused of
being a Fascist?

370 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Rogge. I would probably ask him to seek other counsel. Yes,
and I will tell you why.

Senator Ferguson. So you make a great distinction there.

Mr. Rogge. I will tell you why : I think that fascism is basically a
dishonest thing.

Senator Ferguson. It is much different from communism, in your
mind ?

Mr. Rogge. There are fundamental differences between the two; yes.

Senator Ferguson. Now, will you tell us what they are ? You give
us what the Communist is, and what the Fascist is, so that we can see
the difference.

Mr. Rogge. Well, now, let me begin that by this preface :

My knowledge of communism is about the same as that of the aver-
age American. I do, however, feel that there are these fundamental
differences between fascism and communism.

I think Fascism was out on a program of world domination.

Senator Ferguson. And you do not think communism is ?

Mr. Rogge. I doubt it.

Senator Ferguson. You really doubt that?

Mr. Rogge. Yes, I do. Senator.

Senator Ferguson. Why ? What makes you doubt that communism
is out for world domination ?

Mr. Rogge. Well, where is the evidence of it? I have not seen it.

Senator Fergusox. Is that not one of the real principles of the
Communist Party ?

Mr. Rogge. No, I don't think so.

Now, maybe my understanding is inadequate. I can only give you
what my own understanding is.

Now, let me get to another, as I regard it, fundamental difference.

To me the essence of fascism is government for the benefit of the
few, and at the expense of the many. And it uses for its ends, the
political persecution of minority groups.

Now, it has been my understanding of communism that it does not
draw distinctions on the basis for race, creed, or color. I think that
is a very important difference.

The Chairman. But you heard the testimony of Rabbi Schultz.

Senator Ferguson. Yes, you heard the testimony from Rabbi
Schultz just a few moments ago.

Air. Rogge. I have stated to you gentlemen that my knowledge is
that of an average American. And in my opinion there is that fun-
damental difference between the two.

Senator Ferguson. You heard these men testify that if this became
a law and was declared constitutional, they would not obey it?

Mr. Rogge. I heard Paul Robeson testify. I heard the testimony
only today. And I may sav to you that maybe I wouldn't have the
courage of my friend Paul Robeson.

Senator Fergusox. You would obey it ?

Mr. Rogge. I would answer that in this way: I am a fairly law
abiding citizen. It is inconceivable to me that the Supreme Court
would hold this monstrosity to be constitutional.

Senator Ferguson. But if they did?

Mr. Rogge. Let's get down to the specific facts. The thing, I think,
that means most to me— and I lay my cards on the table. I hope that

CONTROL OF si BVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 371

my desire to remain respectable would not be so strong that I would
fail to put my desire to retain my freedom firsl .

Now. this' is not conceivable, but suppose the Attorney General
should label the National Lawyers Guild, of which I am a member,
or the new party.

Senator Ferguson. You mean the third party?

Mr. Rogge. Yes. 1 am a Wallace supporter.

Senator Ferguson. You are a Wallace supporter?

Mr. Rogge. I am. And suppose the Attorney General were to des-
ignate either one of those a> Communist -front organizations. I hope
I would have the courage to say, "I refuse to be made a second- or
third-class American. I am going to act the way the forefathers of
this country laid it down." And I hope that I would have the courage
of men like* Jefferson and Holmes and Brandeis, and 1 will add, Paul
Robeson, to refuse to be classified like that.

Now, if a situation like that should transpire, that the Supreme
Court should hold this constitutional, which is inconceivable to me,
and if the Attorney General should then come along and label a couple
of the organizations to which I belong as Communist-front organiza-
tions, which I would think would be nonsense, I am inclined to think
I would do nothing about resigning or about registering, because I
would regard the Attorney General as having gone completely
haywire.

Senator Ferguson. Now, what do you think about the proposition of
a man, an American citizen, confronted with a war between this
country and the Soviet Union, as to whether or not he would fight
for America '.

Mr. Rogge. I have been asked that. It is my opinion — and maybe,
again, I am wrong about this, because as I have stated to you, the
people I represent who are alleged to be Communist — I don't think
are. So maybe I don't know what their real thinking is. But in my
opinion, if war broke out between the United States and Russia —
and I will even make another concession. I will say : Just supposing
the whole world is Communist. I don't think there are any political
or economic s}?stems which are complete panaceas.

Suppose the whole world were Communist. It is still conceivable
to me that you would have the same power struggles between the
United States and Russia that you do today.

And I would say to you that if war broke out between them, in my
opinion the American Communists by and large would light for this
country, to which they belong.

Now, maybe that is wrong. That is my opinion on it.

Senator Ferguson. Well, you would '.

Mr. Rogge. I would. That is right. I would again say: I tried
to take the mote out of this country's eye. Senator. But this is my
group. And if this group takes a certain course, I am a part of it.

Senator Ferguson. Wait. You say, "This is my group."

Mr. Rogge. I mean the people of the United States are my people.

Now, I would like to follow out this registration business.

If you really agreed with the registration idea in this bill, here
are some of the things you would have to do.

Now, I don't think I have to know the background, for instance, of
the people who sponsored that piece of legislation to decide that it is

372 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

a bad bill. But let's just apply to the sponsors of this bill the same
technique that they want to apply to these alleged Communist-front
organizations.

Now, if you were to do that, then this committee should ask Con-
gressman Mundt, for instance, who is one of the sponsors of this bill,
whether it wasn't a fact that in one of the elections in which he was
sent to Congress, a few out-of-State millionaires, who were members
of the National Association of Manufacturers, including some of the
du Ponts, the Pews, the Mellons, Alfred P. Sloan, Jr., and Col. Rob-
ert R. McCormick, didn't contribute a total of $53,700 to that cam-
paign.

The thinking would require you to ask that. Or the thinking would
require you to ask, for instance, if Congressman Mundt

Senator Ferguson. Do you mean by that that they are Fascists?
Is that what I understand?

Mr. Rogge. Not quite. But just a minute. They would take this
country — let me give you an idea of what I regard as the essence of
the kind of reaction we have just now, and which is only a step from
fascism.

Senator Ferguson. You would not say that they, under section 4,
had any ties with foreign nations?

Mr. Rogge. Let's just take up section 4, for a minute.

Senator Ferguson. I don't quite get your meaning.

Mr. Rogge. Well, let me try and put it this way, and then I will get
down to section 4.

The idea behind this Mundt bill is that there are certain people
whom you can't let express ideas unless you label them. Because, I
mean, people aren't able to judge of ideas by themselves, if they come
from those groups ; that is the theory behind this bill.

Now, I say that if you applied the same theory to the sponsors of
the bill, you again should see what their connections are. You should
ask Mundt, for instance, whether it is not a fact that he himself
pridefully stated that the blueprint which the House committee fol-
lowed was laid down by John W. Davis, the Wall Street lawyer for
J. P. Morgan & Co.

The theory behind the Mundt bill is that people cannot judge ideas
for themselves ; that they have to have the backgrounds of the people
who sponsor them.

Senator Ferguson. Where did you get this information about
Mundt and Davis ?

Mr. Rogge. That is from the Congressional Record.

Senator Ferguson. That Mundt said that Davis laid this down?

Mr. Rogge. That is right. He did it at great length.

Senator Ferguson. And he used Davis' name?

Mr. Rogge. Right; John W. Davis.

Furthermore, if you followed the same line of reasoning, you should
ask Congressman

Senator Ferguson. Have you the page there ?

Mr. Rogge. No, but I can get it for you. I have it in my suitcase,
which is down in the automobile. I can furnish it to you later in the
afternoon.

Or this committee, for instance, should ask Congressman J. Parnell
Thomas, the chairman of the committee sponsoring the bill, if you
followed the same line of thinking, whether it isn't a fact that' he,

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 373

Thomas, joined the Ku Klux Klan. You should ask. for instance,
Thomas, whether ii isn't a fact that he, Thomas, with his brother-in-
law, Ralph Tyner, Jr., and a third man. joined the Ku Klux Klan in
Paterson.N. J., in L925.

The same thinking behind this hill would compel that kind of
inquiry.

Now, I say that is contrary to our whole history.

I say that the idea in this country, right down from the anonymous
Federalist papers, to the present time, is that people were to be free
to express whatever came to their hearts, and I think that that is part
of the strength of this country, and that is what I want to keep.

My primary interest, I think, is in freedom. I think it was well put
by Jefferson, when he said that he had vowed on the altar of God —
I don't know just how he put it — that he was going to oppose any form
of tyranny over the mind of man.

Xow, this Mundt bill is tyranny over the mind of man.

Senator Ferguson. Were you familiar with the fact that on page
5 of the House report this statement exists :

The Attorney General, together with a great majority of the expert witnesses
who appeared before the committee during its legislative hearings, agreed that
existing laws were inadequate to deal with the Communist threat, and that new
legislation was essential.

Mr. Rogge. I disagree with that.

Senator Ferguson. You disagree with it ?

Mr. Rogge. I certainly do.

Senator Ferguson. Have you read the record? Do you disagree
on fact from the record ?. That that is not true?

Mr. Rogge. Well, the statement that I understood you to read was
that existing legislation is inadequate.

Senator Ferguson. That the Attorney General, and a great majority
of the expert witnesses testifying there said it was. Do you disagree
with that?

Mr. Rogge. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. That they said that?

Air. Rogge. Xo. I am disagreeing with the opinion that our present
laws are inadequate.

Senator Ferguson. Oh. All right.

Air. Rogge. And I will tell you why.

You have a law on the statute books which makes it a crime to
attempt to overthrow the Government by force and violence. You
have another law which requires the registration of foreign agents.

Now, if it is true, as alleged, which I doubt, that the Communists
are out to overthrow this Government by force and violence, there
are statutes under which they could have been prosecuted; and in my
opinion the FBI, which is the best detective agency in the world,
would long ago have found those facts, and they would long ago have
been prosecuted.

Also, if it is true that the Communists are agents of Moscow, which
again I doubt, they are violating the Foreign Agent Registration
Act. and again, in my opinion, the FBI would long ago have gotten
the evidence and they would long ago have been prosecuted and sent
to prison.

I. accordingly, feel that your existing statutes are entirely adequate
to handle the situation.

374 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

But I want to make a more important point than that.

I do not think that the handful of Communists in this country,
some 80,000, are any threat to this country. I think the real threat
to this country comes from fascism.

Senator Ferguson. How many Fascists would you say are in this
country ?

Mr. Rogge. Well, now, let us just describe fascism and communism,
Senator. I have done it briefly. I will elaborate it a little.

To my mind we already have a reaction in this country, which is of
such proportions that it is but a short step from fascism. Now. the
essence of both the kind of a reaction we have now, and fascism, is
that they are both government for the few. and at the expense of the
many. I think we have that kind of a Government in this country,
as never before.

I think that, to use the words of Henry Wallace :

Never before have so few owned so much as the expense of so many.

The report of the economic advisers of the President which they
got out in January of this year, showed that the rich were still getting
richer and the poor poorer.

Now, the difference between the kind of a reaction we have and
fascism, is this: We still have a constitutional form of government.
Under fascism, you dispense with that.

Xow, in my opinion, this Mundt bill gives such sweeping powers to
the Attorney General, that most of that short step remaining between
the reaction we have and fascism would be taken.

Now, I regard people who believe in some form of racial su-
periority— and there are many in this country; as a matter of fact I
think it has become insurance for a Government job today to be just a
little bit anti-Semitic. I have seen that rise. T have been in the^e
loyalty hearings, and I have seen what has happened.

We have our color discrimination against Negroes. We practice
all kinds of discrimination in this country. In other words, we have a
culture pattern. We have a system of thinking which is already
on the Fascist side of the ledger.

If the big businessmen and the generals, who are in control of the
Government and are dictating our foreign policy, were to be honest,
they would say this :

"Look, we are in favor of a system of high profits, of low taxes,
of low wages, of the destruction of the American labor movement.
And we don't care how the mass of the people live, as long as we keep
our exorbitant profits and special privileges."

Now, that is thinking which is but a short step from fascism. And
our culture pattern is such that the danger here is from fascism and
not from communism.

I have seen this thing creep up on us. And fascism, believe me. Sen-
ator, is an insidious thing.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Rogge, when did you first learn that Wal-
lace was writing his letter to Stalin?

Mr. Rogge. I think the first I knew about that was when he made
the Madison Square Garden speech.

Senator Ferouson. And read it?

Mr. Rogge. And read it ; which I believe was May 11.

Senator Ferguson. Are you high in the third party movement?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 375

Mr. Rogge. I am chairman of the New York State Wallace-for-
Presidenl Committee.

Senator Ferguson. You did not help to write the address he gave
here <>n Saturday \

Mr. Rogge. No. You see, primarily, I am a practicing lawyer. If
I had a greal deal of money, I mighl even devote more time to the
third parly. But first I have to practice law.

Senator Ferguson. What do you say about the proposition that has
been brought up, that the third party is really being founded and
pushed by the Communist Party?

Mr. Rogge. Well, I say to you, from my experience in New York,
Senator, that that is nonsense.

Senator Ferguson. It is just not a fact?

Mr. Rogge. That is right. I am part of it in New York. I think
I have gotten fairly well acquainted with men like Wallace, and
Beanie Baldwin, and Paul Trilling, and a number of others. And
to tell me that the third party is dominated by Communists, which is
the charge I have heard, is just nonsense.

Senator Ferguson. But are all the Communists, or most of them, in
the movement?

Mr. Rogge. Whether the handful of Communists in this country
are going to vote for Wallace — I understand they voted for Roose-
velt—1 personally don't know. But if they do, that fact doesn't
trouble me in the slightest.

Senator Ferguson. Foster said that New York had about 30,000.

Mr. Rogge. My understanding is that the total number of Com-
munists in this country is 80,000. And I think it is unbecoming a
free, strong people that we should get ourselves into a hysterical
state on account of that handful of people.

I don't think there is any threat from them.

As a matter of fact, I think that what has happened is that we
have built up an anti-Communist smoke screen, just as the Nazis did
in Germany, in order to hide the reaction that is taking place, in
order to hide the fact that they are out once again to knife the labor
movement.

Senator Ferguson. Are you familiar with the case in New York
ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman (278 U. S. 63) ? That was a registration
law that involved requiring, for every membership corporation of
20 or more members, an oath as requisite of membership other than
labor unions or benevolent orders, to file with the Secretary of State
a sworn copy of its constitution and bylaws, regulations, oath of mem-
bership, and a roster of such membership, and the officers, for the cur-
rent year.

The statute also provided that anyone who became or remained a
member who attended a meeting knowing that the statute had not
been complied with, was guilty of a misdemeanor. The order involved
in the instant case was the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan.

Now. do you know what the Supreme Court held in that case ? That
was a registration statute very much like the present statute.

Mr. Rcgge. I should doubt very much — offhand I don't recall that
case, but I know dozens of Supreme Court cases, beginning with the
300's on down, even before, where they have invariably struck it down.

Senator Fekgusox. But that was sustained in that case.

376 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Now, what is the difference between that kind of a case of registra-
tion, against what you call the Fascist group, and that as to the Com-
munist group?

Mr. Rogge. This isn't the opinion. Is that right ?

Senator Ferguson. No.

Mr. Rogge. That is an excerpt.

Senator Ferguson. We will send up and get a copy of the opinion.

You were not familiar with that case? Yes, it is a Fascist organ-
ization, as you class it.

Mr. Rogge. I do notice that it goes back to 278 U. S. My Supreme
Court decisions where they struck down registration provisions are
much more recent than that. So if the case holds what you say it
does, then I say it has been overruled by a case like Thomas \. Collins.
I can't tell you about this without looking at the opinion.

Senator Ferguson. I have this notation with respect to Thomas v.
Collins (1944) 323 U. S. 516:

But this was based on the premise that "unlawful 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." The court referred to New York ex rel. Bryant v. Zimmerman,
supra, and did not overrule it, but distinguished 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 II .R. 5852 is designed properly to forestall.

And that is the preamble and the finding of facts.

Mr. Rogge. You know, if we have access to 323 U. S. there is some
beautiful language in there that I would like to refer to, if that is
available.

Senator Ferguson. But do you not think that there is danger from
(he Communist Party, as there was from the Klan, and therefore there
was a reason for the statute?

Mr. Rogge. Not the slightest.

Senator Ferguson. Not the slightest?

Mr. Rogge. That is right.

Senator Ferguson. Do you not think there is any danger from the
Klan? Do you not think a registration is justified on the Klan?

Mr. Rogge. Even if there were danger, Senator, this is not the way
to handle it.

Senator Ferguson. Well, but wait.

Do you not think that there is danger, and therefore registration
of the Ku Klux Klan should be had ?

Mr. Rogge. I am not in favor of any registration statute, Senator.

Senator Ferguson. I see. Xo matter if it registers what you call
the most dangerous element, the Fascists.

Mr. Rogge. Right. And 1 will tell you why: because 1 think it is
ineffective. You can't fight ideas with registration statutes. You
fight ideas with better ideas, with good ones.

If you were to ask me, "Are you in favor of a registration statute
which would require the registration of the Ku Klux Klan," I would
say no. That is not the way to meet the danger.

Senator Ferguson. Then you do not think that we should register
foreign agents in America?

Mr. Rogge. That wasn't your question.

Senator Ferguson. No. But do you ?

Mr. Rogge. I will make two exceptions, and there are already
statutes on the book covering it.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 377

I think that where you have people advocating the overthrow of the
Government by force and violence, there again lias to be reached a
clear and present danger. But you have a statute.

And the second exception is this. And I am not sure that this is
the best way of handling it. I am inclined to think that it isn't.
But there is' a statute on the books requiring the registration of for-
eign agents. And I have directed a prosecution under it.

Senator Ferguson. When did you leave the Attorney General's
office i

Mr. Rouge. I left the Attorney General's office in October of 14)46'.

Senator Ferguson. Do you know why they never prosecuted the
Communists under the Smith Act, under the section as to force and
violence, after Mr. Biddle in 1942 found, in the Bridges case, that the
Communist Party was founded upon the principles of force and
violence ?

Mr. Rogge. I will tell you why I think they haven't. I think the
reason the}' haven't been prosecuted is because probably it isn't a
fact that that is part of their program.

Senator Ferguson. But it was assigned as a fact in the Bridges
case, and the Attorney General just made a finding last week, that rlie
Communists should not have jobs in America under the Hatch Act,
because they did advocate the overthrow of the Government by force
and violence.

Mr. Rogge. Well, I don't want to in my tone of voice indicate that
I don't think too much of an Attorney General's decisions. But I
think such findings as '"'clear and present danger" have to be made
by courts and cannot be made either by Congress, or by an executive
official.

And the fact that an Attorney General has made a finding to that
effect, even if it were Biddle, wouldn't sway me one way or the other.

Senator Ferguson. You do not think that would indicate that
there were sufficient facts?

Mr. Rogge. If the Attorney General were to get out a statement
from the press reports, namely, that it was part of the program of the
Communist Party to overthrow the Government by force and violence,
I would have the same doubts I had before.

Senator Ferguson. Do you think an American Communist should
be capable of being employed in the Federal Government?

Mr. Rogge. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. You think he should?

Mr. Rogge. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. You would say that today there would not be
any reason why an avowed Communist in America should not have
a job in the State Department or down in the War Department in the
Secret Plans Division?

Mr. Rogge. Well, now, there again — and I can only act in ac-
cordance with my own feelings — as I say, I don't have the perspective.
maybe of a man like Paul Robeson, who, I think is a little more
courageous than I am. But if you put to me the question whether
if I were Secretary of State, or Secretary of War, I would put an
avowed Communist into a key position, my answer is that I probably
wouldn't. But I think outside of key positions, in those sensitive
agencies. Communists should have employment the same as every-
body else.

378 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Senator Ferguson. But are there not many positions in America
that yon personally would not trust an avowed Communist in ?

Mr. Rogge. No, there aren't many.

Senator Ferguson. There are not many?

Mr. Rogge. No. I think by and large, we are going to be a stronger
country, and a sounder country if we do not label people.

I have seen what you have done, what the country has done. They
label everything they don't like. Everything liberal either becomes
a pro-Communist or a Communist front organization. That is a
bunch of nonsense.

Senator Ferguson. This is true, is it not?

If America elects Henry Wallace President next November, we can
expert that the rule would go into effect that Communists would be
hired generally in the Government?

Mr. Rogge. That doesn't trouble me in the slightest.

Senator Ferguson. I see. It does not trouble you.

Mr. Rogge. I think by and large if we act in the strength of men
like Jefferson

Senator Ferguson. I mean, you feel that that is what would hap-
pen : That they would be employed ?

Mr. Rogge. Well, there again you get into this nonsense.

Senator Ferguson. You are head of the New York State third
party.

Mr. Rogge. Yes. And I don't know of a single person with whom
I have dealings, who is a Communist. I don't know of a single person
whom Henry Wallace would appoint to any key position who is a
Communist.

Senator Ferguson. Now, in this Zimmerman case, Holmes and
Brandeis concurred in the opinion. You were talking about them
turning over in their graves if this ever became a law.

Mr. Rocge. Let me read to you a statement of Justice Holmes :

But when men have realized that time has upset many fighting faiths, they
may come to believe even more thnn they believe the very foundations of their
own conduct that the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade
in ideas.

That is what I am asking for. and that is what this Mundt bill
blocks

That the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted
in the competition of the market, and that truth is the only ground upon which
their wishes safely '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 day, we have to wager our salvation upon some prophesy based upon
imperfect knowledge. While that experiment is part of our system, T think that
we should he eternally vigilant against attempts to check the expression of
opinions that we loathe and believe to be fraught with death.

Now. thai was Justice Holmes. And I think if we followed in the
tradition of men like Justice Holmes, and Jefferson and Brandeis. we
wouldn't spend another minute seriously considering this Mundt bill.

The Chairman. Well, you have made the point that the registra-
tion you would not approve. Now. what is your second point?

Mr. Rogge. If you take the registration stuff out of this bill, there
is very little left. Senator.

The Chairman. You do not think section 4 standing alone has any
merit ?

.Mr. Rogge. It does not add anything to

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 379

But in the first place, we were coming back to section 4. Section
4 says :

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 or under the domination and control of any foreign government, foreign
organization, or foreign individual.

Now, let's not kid ourselves. That doesn't have any reference to
fascism. Because there isn't any Fascist power of which we are afraid.
There are only two powers in the world, Russia and the United States.
So that very obviously has reference to Russia.

I do not believe that Moscow controls the American Congress, bnt
I further say to you that if they do, there are already statutes on the
books for handling it. And you don't need this section 4.

The Chairman. Then you think it is mere surplusage and has no
merit. That is your argument. We already have adequate statutes?

Mr. Rogge. I think it is a sort of propaganda effort, Senator.

The Chairman. What is your third point?

Mr. Rogge. Well, if you take out the registration provisions, and
you take out section 4, there isn't anything left to this Dili.

The Chairman. Is there anything further you desire to say on the
bill?

Mr. Rogge. I had a statement here, but I think I have covered the
substance of it in what I have already said.

The Chairman. Are there any questions, Senator Langer?

Senator Langer. How long were you with the Department of Jus-
tice?

Mr. Rogge. Senator, I was there at two different times. I went
there under Frank Murphy, as Assistant Attorney General in charge
of the Criminal Division in May of 1939, and I stayed there in that
capacity until January of 1941. Then, Attorney General Biddle asked
me to come back to handle the Sedition case, in February of 1943, and
I remained until October of 1946, at that time in the capacity of
Special Assistant to the Attorney General.

Senator Langer. And what college did you graduate from, in law?

Mr. Rogge. In law, I took my LLB degree at Harvard Law School
in 1925. I was one of the editors of the Harvard Law Review. And
then, in 1930, I went back on a Research Fellowship, writing a thesis
on the social sciences, and taking the degree of doctor of the science
of jurisprudence.

The Chairman. Are there any further questions ?

You have plenty of time now. Will you please get that congres-
sional record ?

Mr. Rogge. I will be delighted.

The Chairman. Are there any questions, Senator Ferguson?

Senator Ferguson. No ; I have no more questions.

The Chairman. Reverend Thorn? Is Reverend Thorn in the
room ?

Joseph Kehoe?

Will you be sworn, sir?

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

78257 — 48 25

380 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Kehoe. I do.

The Chairman. Identify yourself, please.

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH KEHOE, INTERNATIONAL SECRETARY-
TREASURER OF THE AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIA-
TION, CIO

Mr. Kehoe. I am Joseph Kehoe, international secretary-treasurer
of the American Communications Association, CIO.

The Chairman. Identify your association, please, so that we know
just what it is.

Mr. Kehoe. The American Communications Association, CIO, is the
collective-bargaining representative for communications workers in
the various sections of the communications industry of this country.

The Chairman. Where is it located ?

Mr. Kehoe. The main offices are located in New York, sir. It is a
national organization.

Senator Langer. How many members ?

Mr. Kehoe. Twenty thousand members.

The Chairman. And your position ?

Mr. Kehoe. International Secretary-treasurer.

The Chairman. All right. Carry on.

Do you have a statement?

Mr. Kehoe. I have some notes, and part of a statement, sir.

Our organization has consistently, over the years, fought for the
protection and extension of our civil liberties, because of the keen ap-
preciation that a free labor movement can only nourish and grow in a
context of the growth of democratic rights, and that the restriction
and destruction of democratic rights of any group in the society in-
evitably results in the destruction of the civil rights of trade unions
and their consequent decline.

We have been very concerned, since the conclusion of the war, with
the growth of attacks against the labor movement. These* attacks
have taken a form of direct attacks on the economic front against
trade unions, taken the form of injunction proceedings, police bru-
tality, the passage in many States of restrictive antilabor legislation,
and culminated in the political sense in the enactment of the Taft-
Hartley law by the Congress of the United States.

Typical of the attacks against the labor movement were the re-
cent actions taken against the railroad unions, the persecution of the
United Mine Workers of America, in their efforts to obtain a pen-
sion, the physical attacks against the packinghouse workers who were
striking for wage increases recently throughout the country. There
a re other evidences of these.

This pattern that we are in, which we are concerned about, is a
pattern which roughly parallels the pattern of attacks against the
labor movement that took place at the conclusion of World War I;
wherein labor unions were confronted with an open shop drive on
the part of industry, unions in many national industries were smashed
and broken, the membership of the trade union movement declined
disastrously, and the living standards of the people were consequently
adversely affected.

At that time we had likewise a certain hysteria in the country, with
charges of radicalism against the labor movement, which were ex-

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 381

pressed in the Palmer raids, deportations, mass arrests, the Sacco and
Vanzetti ease, and many other things of that type.

At that time, just as now. in our opinion, these types of attacks
were a smoke screen to cover an attack against the organized labor
movement.

We believe that the Taft-Hartley law, and this is the unanimous
opinion of the labor movement — is an in famous enactment, the ulti-
mate result of which will be to so seriously weaken the collective
bargaining position of labor as to in fact destroy its effectiveness
as the guardian of the living standards of the people.

Obviously, the Taft-Hartley law is a political act, and the only
effective resistance to the attacks on the labor movement that are
being launched today would require political activity.

We believe that the Mundt bill is the other barrel of the gun leveled
at organized labor to paralyze and prevent the political activity on the
part of the labor movement, so necessary to cope with this developing
pattern of attacks against the labor movement.

There is another thing that concerns labor movement in this conn-
try. We hope that we shall be able to learn the bitter lessons that
came from the experiences of the labor movement in other countries.
And we find that where the Red scare has become a national hysteria,
enactments of the type of the Mundt bill have been legislated, and the
attack ultimately resulted in complete destruction of the trade-union
movement.

Senator Ferguson. Is there a labor trade union movement in Com-
munist Russia '.

Mr. Kehoe. There is, sir, yes.

Senator Ferguson. Do they have the capacity to strike ?

Mr. Keiioe. According to the reports of the officials of the CIO, of
which our organization is a member, who have visited Soviet Russia
and have visited the trade unions there, and have reported to our or-
ganizations, they are a free and powerful labor movement.

Senator Ferguson. Well, but can they strike? Can they do that,
in their collective bargaining with the Government? Have they ever
struck, or can they strike ?

The Chairman. And do they collectively bargain?

Mr. Keiioe. They do have collective bargaining. That is my under-
standing.

Senator Ferguson. With the Soviet Union?

Mr. Kehoe. Yes. They have collective bargaining agreements.
According to the information I have, they have collective bargaining
agreements.

Senator Ferguson. Have they ever struck to get a point?

Mr. Kehoe. I am not familiar with that. I have never been there.
Those who have been there, many of whom have not been sympathetic
with the Soviet Union, tell us they are a free labor union.

Senator Ferguson. How can you tell us much about communism,
if you cannot tell us what they can do?

Have you read the preamble, the findings of fact and policy, in the
bill?

Mr. Kehoe. Yes, I have.

Senator Ferguson. And do you agree that communism is a menace
in America (

382 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Kehoe. No, I don't, sir. I will tell you what the real menace
is in this country. It is the huge corporate profits, which mounted
in 1947 to $17,500,000,000, three and a half times greater than any
single peacetime year in our history ; and it is the growth of monopoly,
and the consequent growth in political power, to amount, in this coun-
try, to a complete domination in many walks of life.

Senator Ferguson. You are an officer in your union?

Mr. Kehoe. That is right, sir.

Senator Ferguson. Have you signed one of these non-Communist
affidavits ?

Mr. Kehoe. No, sir. The policy of our organization, as demo-
cratically determined by our membership, was not to file those affi-
davits.

Senator Ferguson. Are you a member of the party?

Mr. Kehoe. I would feel honored, sir, to associate my reaction to
that question with that of Paul Robeson.

Senator Ferguson. You refuse to answer ?

Mr. Kehoe. That is right, sir.

Senator Ferguson. I am sorry we do not have a quorum here, as we
did not have this morning.

The Chairman. Well, now, in relation to that statement of $17,-
000,000,000 of profits, I have seen that, sir. But do you know that
industry, in order to get its house in order, not only spent the seven-
teen, but had to borrow four or five billion dollars more in order to
put it back into plants, so that jobs and industry could be gotten
going?

I do not care to get into the economic argument. I want you to con-
sider this bill, and I want you to tell us where definitely it is wrong,
if, in your judgment, it is wrong, and whether or not in your judg-
ment your man, Mr. Murray, the head of the CIO, is not himself
fighting communism in your own ranks.

Mr. Kehoe. You see, sir, in this country prior to an enactment such
as this

The Chairman. Well, is Mr. Murray doing that ?

Mr. Kehoe. That is correct. A man has a right in this country to
his political views. He has a right to be a bitter anti-Communist. He
has a right to be a Communist, a pro-Communist, a 1-percent Com-
munist, a 6-percent Socialist, or anything he wishes.

The Chairman. There is nothing in that bill to prohibit him from
being a Communist.

Mr. Kehoe. Yes, there is, sir.

The Chairman. What is it?

Mr. Kehoe. This bill definitely is designed to control the thought
and the views of the American people.

Senator Ferguson. What difference do you have with the views of
the Communists? Do you have different views than they have?

Mr. Kehoe. I just would like to finish my thought on that.

In the definitions of the term "Communist political organization,"
one of the aims is that regard be given to —

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

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 383

And in (C), it says:

The extent to which its views and policies are the same as those of such foreign
government, or foreign organization;

and then, under ( D) ,

the extent to which it supports or advocates * * * ;

and in the definition of —

Conimunist-front organization,

it says :

the position taken or advanced hy it from time to time on matters of policy.

Senator Ferguson. What would you say about living up to this law,
if it was passed and declared constitutional by the Supreme Court?
Would }'ou or would you not line up to it?

Mr. Kehoe. In what sense, sir?

Senator Ferguson. In any way ? Would you obey it, or would you
refuse to obey it ?

Mr. Kehoe. I don't understand whether this would be a personal
choice under this act.

Senator Ferguson. Every man has a personal choice, does he not,
as to whether or not he wants to violate a law ?

Mr. Kehoe. I believe that every man is confronted continually in
life with a moral choice every day of the week, on all kinds of ques-
tions. A moral man makes these decisions on principle, whether it is
easy or hard.

Senator Ferguson. That is on the principle. What is your prin-
ciple as to whether or not you would obey it ?

Mr. Kehoe. In my opinion this bill violates the verv fundamental
thing upon which this country was founded, which made it great.

Senator Ferguson. Can you answer that question ?

Mr. Kehoe. I would personally — and I am not speaking, of course,
in a representative capacity when I say this, because you are asking me
a personal question — I would personally feel it correct and honorable
to personally oppose to the full extent of my ability anything which
I felt was violative of my fundamental principles.

Senator Ferguson. That does not answer the question. Would
you or would you not feel that you would violate this?

Mr. Kehoe. It depends on the circumstances, which I am confronted
with. Whatever enactment is passed, I will make my choice based
upon my principles.

And my principles on the basis of this draft legislation which is
before us here are that I would not be a party to supporting it by
complying with it: just as certain Americans did not support or com-
ply with the alien-sedition laws, and just as certain Germans did not
comply with the enactments of the Third Reich.

Senator Ferguson. Do you agree with the principles of the Com-
munist Party in America?

Mr. Kehoe. Well, what principles are you speaking of, sir ?

Senator Ferguson. You lmow what an American Communist is, do
you not ? What do you say he is ? Let us have your opinion as to what
an American Communist is.

384 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Keiioe. "Well, I think Robeson gave a pretty thorough descrip-
tion of what his concept was, and I think mine would roughly parallel
that, from what I have noticed.

Senator Ferguson. Now, do you think, then, that the American
Communist, if we went to war with Russia, would fight on America's
side?

Mr. Kehoe. I don't know, sir, the answer to that question.

Senator Ferguson. If you do not know, then you do not think we
ought to have a law like this.

Mr. Kehoe. No. When you ask a question of that type you are
asking a question that has no relation to reality, because you are not
speaking of the identity of the type of government that exists at the
time.

Now, for instance, it was an honor in my opinion, and a sign of
great bravery, for Germans to revolt against the war of the Hitler war
machine in Germany, and likewise for the French people under the
Vichy government to become rebellious and join an opposing faction.

So under circumstances, certain circumstances, I think a man in the
South during the Civil War should have fought against his own State,
so to speak, and fought on the side of the North. These are moral
questions.

A government is composed of people. A government can make
mistakes. But we bear individually and collectively the moral respon-
sibility for our Government. And we have to influence it to the
extent we can, out of moral responsibility.

Senator Ferguson. Now, does not your statement on what you think
the Communists would do indicate that they should not be employed
by the Government?

Mr. Kehoe. What did I say ? I didn't indicate that I knew what
they would do.

Senator Ferguson. I was trying to find out from you what you
thought their principles were.

Mr. Kehoe. I said that how people, or any given set of people will
act under the impact of a specific war is subject to many considerations.

Senator Ferguson. But do you not have doubt that they would
fight on America's side, the way you answer ?

Mr. Kehoe. Look, I have a doubt that the American Government
could declare a war which would be opposed by a majority of the
American people. That is conceivable under certain circumstances.

Senator Ferguson. In other words, if they declared war today, you
think a majority of the people would not fight on America's side?

Mr. Kehoe. I am not a psychoanalyst who can say what the Am-
erican people would do if you declared war today. I know war is very
unpopular today with the American people, and that the American
people want peace. And I think you know that too, Senator.

Senator Ferguson. And that is the best that you can answer the
question ?

Mr. Kehoe. That is right, sir.

In addition to these facts, one of the most flagrant violations of our
traditions involved in this bill, is the granting of power to the Attorney
General, which has been touched upon by many witnesses here.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 385

I think it was Justice Jackson who made this statement, but to me
it is a very eloquent expression of the fundamental American approach
to ideas. He said :

If there is* any fixed star in onr constitutional constellation, it is that no official,
high or petty, can prescribe what shall he orthodox in politics, religion, or other
matters of opinion * * * If there are any circumstances which permit an
exception, they do not occur to us.

And this was. I believe, a relatively recent statement. The Supreme
Court, on another occasion, said:

But it cannot be the duty because it is not the right, of the state to protect
the public against false doctrines. The very purpose of the first amendment is
to preclude public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind
through regulating the press, speech .and religion. In this field every person
must he his own watchman for truth, because the forefathers did not trust any
government to separate the true from the false for us.

Senator Ferguson. Mr, Kehoe, you do not believe, then, that anyone
in America should undertake to overthrow the present government and
set up a dictatorship under a foreign government, do you?

Mr. Kehoe. Of course, I do not, sir, and I don't think there is any
question of that being on the agenda with any group of Americans
today.

Senator Ferguson. That is one of the things prohibited.

Mr. Kehoe. That is right.

Senator Ferguson. Why should not Congress pass that ?

Mr. Kehoe. Well, you have today so much legislation. You have
espionage laws. You have all the laws that were spoken about by
former witnesses, such as the Registration Act, the prohibition against
overthrow of the Government by force and violence. You have all
these laws, and I am sure, with the mood of the present adminis-
tration, they will very arduously prosecute anybody against whom
they can find evidence on any of these counts.

And it seems to me that we can't, in the name of saving the United
States or saving our American and democratic way of life, destroy it.

The Chairman. May I ask some questions about your union?

Mr. Kehoe. Yes. sir.

The Chairman. What does your union control ? Do vou have con-
trol over the major trans-Atlantic cable lines?

Mr. Kehoe. Yes, sir.

Well. I wouldn't say we have control. We represent people em-
ployed in operating that kind of communication.

The Chairman. Does your union control radio operators on ships?

Mr. Kehoe. Xo. not at the present time. There are at the present
time negotiations going on for a merger of that group, which was
formerly represented by our union, with the National Marine En-
gineers Beneficial Association.

The Chairman. Are they affiliated with you?

Mr. Kehoe. They have been for some 17 years. But, as I say,
there is a reorganization under way.

The Chairman. In the event of war. it is very apparent that these
lines of communication will play a vital part. Is that not right?

386 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Keiioe. Yes, Senator, and during; the last war, the president
of our organization was appointed to the Board of War Communica-
tions. Our union did not lose one single day anywhere in its juris-
diction on account of strikes, and it had a perfect record, and was
cited by the Government on many occasions for that record.

Our entire convention was invited to Government camps. We
were given the highest praise for our endeavor in the last war.

The Chairman. If I understand your position, you feel that the
bill itself would interfere with your constitutional right of free
speech. You cited some very dynamic language, that we all can
agree with. But you would not say that those principles enunciated
in that language would be interpreted to give a basis for someone to
undermine or termite the very institutions that you are contending
for, would you?

Mr. Keiioe. Well, I would say that I don't think, sir, it could
be said any better than it is said here, that —

in this field every person must be his own watchman for truth, because the
forefathers did not trust any government to separate the true from the false
for us.

Now, obviously, if a man advocates violence publicly in our country,
he is subject to being imprisoned for incitement to riot. If a man
advocates an act violative of our safety, there are laws to cover that.

The Chairman. So you feel that there is no possibility of under-
mining or termiting this Government, unless you can do it openly,
with the overt act.

Mr. Keiioe. I don't think so, sir, no.

The Chairman. All right.

Mr. Keiioe. Is that all, sir ?

The Chairman. Are there any questions?

Senator Langer. No questions.

The Chairman. All right, sir. Thank you.

Mr. Keiioe. Thank you.

(Subsequent to the hearings, the following supplemental statement
was received from Mr. Kehoe.)

The American labor movement is presently under severe attack by the mon-
opolists in this country and by their legislative henchmen who are enacting
into State and Federal law, statutes designed to cripple the freedom and con-
sequently the bargaining power of the representatives of the wage earners of
this country.

The attacks upon the labor movement of the country strike at the very heart
of its vitality as a democracy. The labor movement represents the over-
whelming majority of the people. Attacks against the labor movement are
carried on under a smoke screen, to hide their real aims. The smoke screen
used to hide the attacks against the working people is the smoke screen of the
"red menace." This is a time-honored device and was used after the last war
in the Palmer raids, mass deportations of aliens, mass arrests, criminal syndical-
ism prosecutions, the hanging of Sacco and Vanzetti, etc.. all these activities
purportedly against radicalism were in truth adjuncts of strikebreaking and
union busting offensives which resulted in the smashing of many unions and
the reduction of the organized labor movement to impotence. The outgrowth
was the depression of 1929, a depression which became world-wide and led ulti-
mately to a world war.

Hitler brought this technique to its most horrible development. Under cover
of the "red menace" he smashed every vestige of freedom in Germany. These
events similarly transpired in Italy and Spain.

We believe that the Mundt-Nixon bill is part of an attempt to achieve the
same objectives, namely, the smashing of the labor movement under the guise

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 387

of curbing radicalism. This can only lead, as it always has in the past, to
disaster to our people and our country.

The Mundt-Xixon bill violates every fundamental American tradition of
justice and freedom. It tears the constitutional fibre of our Nation to shreds.
It creates a police state atmosphere in which the thoughts and views of organ-
izations and individuals would be subject to constant governmental scrutiny
and possible criminal prosecution. It arrogates to a single man, the Attorney
General, the power to decide the fate of organizations and hundreds of thou-
sands of citizens and to proscribe what views and policies may he held by the
people. It would legislate the reprehensible concept of guilt by association,
thoroughly foreign to our concept of justice. It would bar from Government
employment or from travel, persons whose views and policies may not be
approved by the Attorney General, even though such a person might be a
native-born American.

The Attorney General under this statute would become a virtual dictator
over the thoughts and expression of people, a position paralleled by that held
by Heinrich Ilimmler in Germany.

The bill would place in jeopardy all those who might disagree with Govern-
ment policy or foreign affairs, bousing, Government ownership of public utilities,
the Taft-Hartley law, the draft, or racial equality.

In spite of the first amendment to the Constitution and in direct contradic-
tion of it, the bill seeks to abridge the rights of speech and assembly. Peace-
ful advocacy of ideas is denied American citizens under this legislation. It
would, if enacted, be a bill of attainder.

The clear and present danger to our American way of life is in the inordinate
profits of the great monopolies in this country, which has resulted in a terrible
decline of living standards and dangerous inflation, and which presages the
onset if not corrected, of a greater depression than any ever experienced in
the past.

The danger arises out of those who advocate a path of foreign conquest and
war, in our country. The danger emanates from those who advocate racial
supremacy and promote great chauvinistic movements of anti-Semitic, anti-Negro,
and anti-Catholic character. The danger arises from those arrogant monopolists
who deny American wage earners a fair share of the fruits of their labor and
bring to bear against the workers a whole arsenal of antilabor attacks such as
police brutality, labor espionage, strikebreaking injunctions, mass firings and
other forms of terror and intimidation.

If the Congress is concerned about the clear and present danger to our Ameri-
can way of life they should immediately enact legislation designed to curb the
power of American monopoly, legislation to promote racial equality in the
country, and in particular the antilynching bill. They should become a force for
peace, and a bridle upon those who advocate war of conquest foreign to our
philosophy. They should enact legislation designed to curb rising prices and
to provide health insurance and adequate housing. These the American people
need; the American people do not need and will never accept supervision of their
speech and thought or abridgment of their right to peaceably assemble or petition
the Government for redress of their grievances. They will never submit to any-
thing which would prohibit them from the peaceful advocacy of views and
policies designed to promote the welfare of the Nation, regardless of how a
party in power, or an Attorney General, might disagree with such ideas.

TESTIMONY OF 0. JOHN ROGGE— Resumed

Mr. Rogge. I do not have the Congressional Record for the date
referred to, but the incident took place on May 17, 1946, and I think
my reference was to the temporary pages, pages 5316 and 5317 of the
Congressional Record.

Congressman Mundt said as follows :

If any one man in America has set the standards for this committee it is Mr.
John W. Davis of New York, a former Democratic candidate for President.

Then lie reads the letter of Mr. Davis, and says they propose to
follow that blueprint.

The Chairman*. Do you have it there?

388 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Rogge. I can read it in if you wish me to.

The Chairman. Have you the identical language ?

Mr. Rogge. Yes.

The Chairman. Go right ahead.

Mr. Rogge. This is Congressman Mundt speaking :

If any one man in America has set the standards for this committee it is Mr,
John W. Davis of New York, a former Democratic candidate for President. As
part of my remarks I shall insert the significant portions of an advisory letter
which Mr. Davis sent me at my request and in which he counseled our committee
suggesting the procedures which we follow ; and we have tried to carry them out
faithfully, duly, and well. I think that even those who will vote against con-
tinuing the Un-American Activities Committee today and who will try to kill the
committee by choking off its funds will hardly go so far as to deny that Mr.
Davis is a great and a patriotic American.

Here are the words of Mr. Davis precisely as he wrote them to me in recom-
mending how our committee should approach the prodigious problems which
we face :

"You are dealing primarily with matters of government, where it seems to me
that the standards are perfectly clear and the function of the committee is
obvious. There are three documentary sources by which un-American activities
can be tested : the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution
itself, and, if it can be treated as a separate document, the Bill of Rights.
Those things which conform to these yardsticks, speaking in the political field,
may properly be called American. Those which do not are un-American — or
worse. I should think the activities of your committee might properly be
directed to ventilating any activities of whatever sort which challenge these
standards, and to exposing the motives and the support of those who pursue
them."

Mr. Speaker, let me quote further from the letter by Attorney John W. Davis.
He said :

"The fact that men have the right to speak or write as they please does not
exempt their speech or writing from the field of your inquiry. It is not criminal,
for instance, for any man or group of men to advocate the granting of patents
of nobility, or the creation of state-established church, or the disfranchisement
of citizens because of creed, or the abolition of the right of private property ;
but it would be deeply un-American for them to do so."

Please note, my colleagues, that Mr. Davis clearly and carefully distinguishes
between acts which are illegal or criminal and acts which are un-American.
* * * Our task — to which you Members of the House assigned us — is to seek
out and to expose those activities which although legal are nonetheless un-
American, subversive, and contrary to the American concept. Mr. Davis points
the issue clearly. We have operated in complete consistency with his suggestions.

Senator Ferguson. What have you there ? Could I"see it ?

Mr. Rogge. Yes, indeed.

Senator Ferguson. This is the article. In Fact.

Mr. Rogge. Quoting the Congressional Record. I can bring the
original Congressional Record if you wish it, Senator.

The Chairman. That is what we really asked for. I thought that
was a page out of the Record.

Mr. Rogge. If you gentlemen are going to be here long enough this
afternoon, I can obtain it.

Senator Ferguson. Give us the reference.

Mr. Rogge. May 17, 194G, and I already have given the temporary
page.

Senator Langer. Pages 5316 and 5317?

Mr. RofiGE. Yes. But it is May 17, 1946.

Senator Ferguson. I believe the publication gives the page.

Senator Langer. It is a part of the record.

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

Mr. Henderson.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 389

Mrs. Elizabeth Sasult. Mr. Henderson was unable to be here.

Senator FERGUSON. Will you see that he files his memorandum,
please \

Mrs. Sasuly. Mr. Henderson was unable to be here and he desired
that Mr. Lawrence speak for him.

Senator Ferguson. I do not want to change the list of witnesses
but Mr. Henderson may tile his statement .

Mrs. Sasult. But we understood that this time had been reserved
for Mr. Henderson.

Senator Ferguson. We have many other people who wish to appear
and we cannot let witnesses select substitutes.

Mrs. Sasult. Mr. Lawrence is here all the way from California, and
he was to make this statement on behalf of the International Long-
shoremen's and Warehousemen's Union, and on behalf of the CIO
council.

Senator Ferguson. Does Mr. Lawrence have a statement?

Mr. Lawrence. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. I will swear you in and let you file a statement.

Mr. Lawrence. I have only one copy and I would like to read it into
the record.

Senator Ferguson. I cannot do that. We would like to have it as
part of the record, however.

Senator Ferguson. Raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear in the matter now pending before the com-
mittee to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so
help you God ?

Mr. Lawtrence. I do.

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM S. LAWRENCE, ON BEHALF OF THE
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S
UNION, AND PRESIDENT OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNCIL, CIO,
LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Senator Ferguson. State your full name and address.

Mr. Lawrence. William S. Lawrence, 5851 Avalon Boulevard, Los
Angeles, Calif.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I had requested time by telegram
from Los Angeles and I contacted Mr. Wiley's secretary this morning
who said probably they could give me time this afternoon.

Senator Ferguson. Well, we will let this be made available to the
press and then it will be made a part of the record so that they may
get any statement out of it that they desire.

Mr. Lawrence. I would certainly like to read it into the record.

Senator Ferguson. We just do not have the time now ; we have other
witnesses that we agreed to put on.

Mr. Lawrence. If you have an opportunity, may I testify later on ?

Senator Ferguson. If we do, we wTill hear from you.

Mr. Washington?

Mr. Washington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have two other of
my friends come up and join me.

Senator Ferguson. Yes.

If you three gentlemen will raise your right hand, I will swear you
all in at this time.

390 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and noth-
ing but the truth in the matters now pending before the committee,
so help you God?

Mr. Washington. Yes.

Mr. Connor. Yes.

Mr. Guardado. Yes.

TESTIMONY OF ALEXANDER WASHINGTON, LOCAL 600, 105-50
DEARBORN, MICH. ; JOSEPH CONNOR, CHAIRMAN OE THE POLITI-
CAL ACTION COMMITTEE, LOCAL 600, CIO, DEARBORN, MICH. ; AND
MANUEL GUARDADO, LOCAL 600, CIO, DETROIT, MICH.

Senator Ferguson. Will you give your names to the reporter?

Mr. Washington. I am Alexander Washington of local 600, 105-50
Dearborn, Michigan, Detroit, which is a suburb of Detroit.

Senator Ferguson. What is your name, sir?

Mr. Connor. Joseph Connor. I live in 3250 Monroe Boulevard,
Dearborn, Mich., and I am chairman of the Political Action Com-
mittee of the largest union in the world.

Senator Ferguson. How many members has it?

Mr. Connor. 65,000.

Senator Ferguson. What is your name, sir ?

Mr. Guardado. My name is Manuel Guardado, G-u-a-r-d-a-d-o, and
I live at 605 West Grand Boulevard in Detroit, Mich. I am an officer
of local 600, the largest local in the world.

Senator Ferguson. I have accepted from Mr. Connor a statement
which is being made a part of the record.

(The statement is as follows :)

Statement of Joseph D. Connou

Emil Mazey, secretary-treasurer and acting president of the UAW-CIO, today
sent the following wire to Senator Alexander Wiley, chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, which is holding hearings on the Mundt-Nixon subversive
activities control bill :

"UAW-CIO supports CIO statement in opposition to Mundt-Nixon subversive
activities control bill as presented to your committee by CIO Legislative Director
Nathan E. Cowan and requests that this wire be made part of the record of your
hearings thereon.

"It is unnecessary, unwise, and destructive of our democratic strength to
imitate police-state methods such as this bill proposes in order to combat Com-
munist, Fascist, or other subversive activities.

"To put men's civil rights in the power of some Attorney General who might
prejudice or destroy their reputations and fair opportunity to earn a living
without affording them, and each and every one of them, an opportunity to
hearing and fair trial is to undermine our principal strength in the global contest
between the idea of freedom and the idea of totalitarianism.

"The Congress would be serving the American people far better if it were
fighting communism and fascism by enacting long overdue anti-inflation legis-
lation, priorities and allocations to break materials bottlenecks, Federal aid to
education, programs for adequate housing, health and disability insurance, and
extending the TVA idea to other river valleys, and extending rather than con-
tracting our civil rights by enactment of FEPC, anti-poll-tax and anti-lynch legis-
lation.

"In our view the Mundt-Nixon bill would strengthen antidemocratic forces
and trends here and abroad. We urge you to speak and vote against it."

Senator Ferguson. Will 3'ou give your statement, sir?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 391

Mr. Washington. AVe do not have a prepared record, but we want
to bring the position of the local union in regard to this bill and to say
that >ve are against it.

Our legislative body has read the bill and has had a legal opinion
on it from our attorneys, and while we do not propose here today to go
into the. legal aspects, we do want to discuss it from a moral point of
view, and in the light of American citizens.

For example, what effect it will have on labor unions and particu-
larly ours.

I would like to call your attention to page 6 of the bill, the subsec-
tion which deals with the term of Communist political organizations
which goes on to say:

* * * any organization in the United States having —

and here is something that we are seriously objecting to —

having some, but not necessarily all, of the ordinary and usual characteristics of
a political party.

Well, Senator Ferguson, I know that you, I think, have appeared
at our local union, and we do have some of the characteristics of a
political party but not necessarily all.

Senator Ferguson. But the local does not claim to be a political
party?

Mr. AA^ashington. No; it does not claim to, but we do engage
actively in politics.

Senator Ferguson. How do you think that this definition would

affect your local 600?

Mr. Washington. Now, for example, it says

Senator Ferguson. You certainly do not believe, do you, in the
establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in America as the gov-
ernment under the domination or control of a foreign agency or gov-
ernment \

Mr. Washington. No; we do not. No; we do not, and if you had
been at our legislative meeting, that was brought out quite clearly,
but the surprising thing is that even in our local union, people who
are opposed to Communists, however, state that they will always
defend the right of Communists to express their views and to have
their organization.

You see what I mean? AA7hat you are doing here by these defini-
tions is that other groups who likewise engage in activities that are
similar to activities of the Communists, or who express similar views,
not necessarily all but on some items, could be classified by an Attor-
nev General as a Communist organization or a Communist-front
organization. See what I mean \

Senator Ferguson. AVhat do you think should be done; that a labor
union that has collective-bargaining rights should not be classified as
one of these Communist fronts?

Mr. AArASHiNGTON. Yes, that is for sure, sir, that is for sure, sir.
But, here is the thing : you must understand, I do not know how much
you know about communism, but as you know, in the UAAV, we are
familiar with them. In the first place, what this bill is saying is that
the Communists are the only threat to democracy in the United States.

392 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

I do not know whether you have heard of other radical groups. Have
you ever heard of the Trotskyites ?

Senator Ferguson. This bill does not just bar Communists, it is
anyone who would overthrow.

Mr. Washington. Not according to the language as we understand
it and as you understand it. You see, we do not claim this, Senator.

Senator Ferguson. Look on page 10.

Mr. Washington. On page 10 ?

Senator Ferguson. Section 4.

Mr. Washington. Section 4.

Senator Ferguson. That is the certain prohibited act. I do not
think that mentions the word "communism" in it.

Mr. Washington. Well, you see what you did ?

Senator Ferguson. It does not, I am sure.

Mr. Washington. I agree with you on that, but what you have
done is this. I was talking about the definition first as to what would
be termed a "political-front organization" or a "Communist political-
front organization" or "Communist organization."

Senator Ferguson. All that is required, Mr. Washington, on those
is registration.

Mr. Washington. That is the point. You see, here, you do not
know about communism.

Senator Ferguson. You tell us what you know about it, up in your
local.

Mr. Washington. I know this: I know, for example, that com-
munism is an idea and that it is a philosophy and you just do not
legislate against ideas.

I want to give you an example. Not so long ago the Supreme Court
issued a ruling against restricted covenants, for example, and the act ;
that is, that they cannot go to the courts to have them enforced.
Nevertheless, out in Chicago people are not convinced that that is
the American way of life, and according to the newspapers, people in
the Kenwood area in Chicago are trying to find other means of keeping
this un-American idea alive. That is the point that we are trying to
say about the entire bill. You just do not legislate an idea out.

Individual acts, and I can agree that this section 4, which you
have questioned everybody else on, is something that all Americans
would go by. What this bill claims it is trying to do is to legislate out
of existence an idea and you just do not do it.

Now, here are two of you Senators which I think, in the last month
or so, we have watched and regarded very favorably in our area.
One of you has come out in favor of the Senate acting on the anti-
lynch bill, and Senator Langer has been fighting the discrimination
clause in the pending draft legislation. You see what I mean ?

What I am trying to point out to you is this : the way to defeat the
Communist idea is not by such negative legislation as this but by doing
and following through the positive things that you have advocated,
and you, Senator Langer, have advocated.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Washington?

Mr. Washington. Yes?

Senator Ferguson. I want to ask you this question : If communism
is only an idea, why has your local been fighting it?

Mr. Washington. What way have they been fighting?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 393

Senator Ferguson. Has not your local been fighting communism?
Has not Mr. Reuther been fighting communism in the UAW?
Mr. Washington. That is right.
Senator Ferguson. Well, now, if it is only an idea, why do you

fight it?

Mr. Washington. He fights it for this particular reason: the par-
ticular things that the Communists advocate in our labor union from
time to time, Mr. Reuther and others disagree with.

Senator Ferguson. You believe that it would destroy you, com-
munism as practiced in America will destroy your union in America,
would it not?

Mr. Connor. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Connor is shaking his head and saying
"yes." I do not think there is any doubt.

* Now, do you not think it would destroy America if it were able to
go along, or could destroy America?

Mr. Washington. Well, here is the thing, for example; we have
Communists in our membership and I think everybody knows that,
but the way we do, we do not repress them or cause them to go under-
ground, they can go up and advance any idea that they want to and
have open and full discussion of it.

Senator Ferguson. But you do not want them to be officers?

Mr. Washington. No; I would not say that. We did have some
Communists as officers of our local union.

When the Taft-Hartley law was signed, as much as all of us
were against the law, we had to accept it as such and we accepted it
as such until we can take it to the courts or by having people legislate
it out. So we followed the law and told those good brothers to either
sign up or get out, and they did not sign up and they got out as officers ;
that is the way we believe in fighting it. You do not drive them
underground, give them a chance to speak and we believe this, that
in a democracy, if you give the right people the right ideas and if
you promote the right ideas, that that is the best way to defeat the
Communists in whatever they are doing.

Senator Ferguson. Well, do you find in your local that those mem-
bers that are members of the Communist Party lie about it in saying
they are not ?

Mr. Washington. No.

Senator Ferguson. Do they admit it?

Mr. Washington. No. We had one of our trustees who admitted
he was a Communist. He said, so far as choosing between the labor
movement and the Communist Party, the Communist Party came first.
We had to follow the law and he had to step down.

Mr. Connor. Mr. Senator, it is my belief as an American-born
citizen and educated in this country, it is my belief as an American-
born citizen of this country, that we are absolutely going into a Com-
munist technique in reverse here in this type of law.

We are giving the authority of totalitarianism, of dictatorship, into
the hands of an Attorney General; one man.

I cannot for the life of me figure this country or this distinguished
body of Senators and Congressmen ever allowing one individual to
have such power to put the finger on me even though T may have

Senator Ferguson. He can put it on you today by the Executive or-
der without even any right for you to appeal or to give any evidence.

394 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

This law provides that if he does, he has to take testimony from you ;
you could appeal ; your organization can appeal ; you can then ask
the court to put in further facts and your rights are protected.

Now you do not even have that authority.

Mr. Connor. Mr. Senator, I understand that, but do not forget that
the damage has been done if I have to go to trial 6 months from now
and clear my name, the damage has been done and that is something
that you will never correct.

I can recall very distinctly when one State senator, Stanley Nowak,
was picked up by the FBI and he was smeared by the FBI as Com-
munist and the FBI let him go. I do not know whether he is a
Communist or whether he is not.

Mr. Washington. I would just like to state that not so long ago
in Detroit, as you know, our international president was shot and
they grabbed up some of our own local union leaders and branded
them in the headlines, "Police pick up local union Reds."

Well, one of the good brothers took a very definite exception to it
and got an apology from the police commissioner for saying that he
was a Communist, but that apology appeared on page 4 and not on
the headlines, because something else of headline value came up and
even to this day that man is suffering of that type of incrimination
that comes in.

Senator Ferguson. Senator Langer, do you have any questions?

Senator Langer. You find that the best way to fight communism is
to have them open and above board and discuss anything you want to
with them and you find that they do that ?

Mr. Connor. The facts prove that in our international union by
Walter Reuther.

Senator Langer. The passage of this bill would drive them under-
ground ?

Mr. Connor. That is right.

Senator Ferguson. Thank you.

Mr. Washington. We wish to express our thanks to all of you. We
wish to say that we disagree with the passage in the Washington Post
which said that everybody coining down here were laborites and
rabble-rousers.

I wish to assure you that we have tried to conduct ourselves as
gentlemen.

Thank you very much.

Senator Ferguson. Mr. Scribner?

Will you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear in the
matters now before this committee, to tell the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?

Mr. Scribner. I do.

TESTIMONY OF DAVID SCRIBNER, GENERAL COUNSEL, UNITED,
ELECTRICAL, RADIO, AND MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA,
CIO

Mr. Scribner. I am the general counsel of the United, Electrical,
Radio and Machine Workers of America, CIO.

I have a rather unusual question to put to the committee. It seems
to be what I consider probably one of the most fundamental questions
that arises in connection with the Mundt bill.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 395

I would like to read a petition that I have prepared that is only two
pages long and which will very clearly indicate the nature of the
problem.

Senator FERGUSON. Is thai your petition here that you have?

Mr. Screbner. That is right.

Senator Ferguson. All right.

Mr. Scrihxek. The first amendment to the Constitution of the
United States protects the right of the people "to petition the Gov-
ernment for a redress of grievances."

Sinse Congress cannot under the first amendment make a law
abridging the right of the people to petition, no agency or committee
of Congress may under the Constitution abridge that right by ruling,
decree, or by any other action. The Supreme Court has stated :

The right of the people peaceably to assemble for the purpose of petitioning
Congress for a redress of grievances or for anything else connected with the
powers or the duties of the National Government, is an attribute of national
citizenship and, as such, under the protection of and guaranteed by the United
States ( United states v. CruicksJtanJc (92 U. S. 542 (1870) ).

The single most important right of the people under the first amend-
ment to petition their Government is their right to voice their oppo-
sition to legislation pending before the Congress of the United States.

If the right of the people to oppose proposed legislation is in any
way abridged by threats or otherwise, the very fabric of our de-
mocracy is in the process of being torn to shreds, constitutional democ-
racy dies when the voice of the people is stifled.

Pending before the Congress, and particularly before the Senate,
is the Mundt bill. H. R. 5852. Hearings on the bill are being conducted
by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Many thousands of protests against the bill as an unconstitutional
and undemocratic measure from the people of the country have been
sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee. This is being done under
the first amendment and under the most fundamental concept of a
free people expressing the voice of the people.

On Saturday, May 29, 1948, and while the hearings on the Mundt
bill were in progress before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the Asso-
ciated Press reported the following:

A 2-day deluge of 1.800 telegrams against the Mundt-Nixon anti-Communist
bill set off a congressional inquiry today.

Senator Wiley. Republican, of Wisconsin, said he is sure "a lot of these pro-
tests are Communist-inspired."

Senator Fergusox. How do you know that is not true?

Mr, Scribxer. May I complete the statement?

Senator Fergusox*. Just a minute. How do you know it is not true?

Mr. Scribxter. By Senator Wiley's statement alone it would appear
that he made a statement without any

Senator Ferguson. That was not my question. Answer my ques-
tion. How do you know that is not a fact ?

Mr. Scribxer. I say whether or not it is true, it would not make any
difference whatsoever. I do not know whether it is true or it is not
true.

Senator Fergusox*. Now you have answered the question.

78257—48 26

396 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Mr. Scribner (reading) :

He told a reporter he has asked Robert E. Stripling, chief investigator of
the House Un-American Activities Committee, to check into the flood of telegrams.

Senator Wiley is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee conducting
public hearings on the House-approved measure designed to shackle Communists
in this country.

"There is a dynamic, well-organized propaganda against this Mundt-Nixon
bill," he said. '"The House committee staff has had enough experience with
these front groups to be able to help us."

If this report is accurate, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary
Committee has attempted to abridge the constitutional right of the
American people to petition their Government; has trampled on the
fundamental right of all people to express their opinion of pending
legislation; has demeaned the sanctity, the authority, and inde-
pendence of the Senate of the United States and especially the Senate
Judiciary Committee, and has displayed a prejudice and bias with
respect to the rights of the people, all of which warrant investigation
and action by the Senate and its esteemed and honorable Judiciary
Committee.

The sanctity and independence of the Senate and its committee is
demeaned and threatened by such activity. This is demonstrated by
the reported abdication of the power and authority of the Senate
during the pendency of legislation before the Senate to a committee
of the House, namely, the Un-American Activities Committee.

The Mundt bill was originally written by the House Committee of
Un-American Activities. United States Circuit Judge Edgerton has
characterized that committee as having "embarked upon a systematic
campaign to suppress political and economic opinion.'' This House
committee has also been denounced by outstanding democratic citi-
zens and organizations. On the other hand the House committee has
been hailed by convicted Nazi agents and seditionists in this country
and by the anti-Catholic, anti-Negro, anti-Semitic, and antidemo-
cratic organization known as the Ku Klux Klan.

Moreover, the reported statement of the chairman of the Senate
Judiciary Committee, if true, constitutes an attempted intimidation
of the American people from utilizing their constitutional right to
petition their Government.

If the reported statement of the chairman of the Judiciary Com-
mittee is inaccurate, we respectfully urge a declaration by him dis-
avowing such statement.

In the absence of any such retraction we respectfully petition the
Senate, through its Senate Judiciary Committee, to disqualify the
present chairman of the committee from acting as such during the
consideration by the committee of the Mundt bill, H. R. 5852, be-
cause of his prejudice and reported actions detrimental to the Senate
and the people of the United States.

We also respectfully petition the Senate Judiciary Committee to
issue a public statement that the people of the country, under the
first amendment, may freely voice their opinions of the Mundt bill
without previous restraint, intimidation, or coercion.

Continuation of the activities attributed by the press to the chair-
man of the Senate Judiciary Committee would effectuate some of the
antidemocratic provisions of the Mundt bill while the bill itself is
under congressional consideration.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 397

Senator Ferguson. Did you come here to criticize the committee or
the bill?

Mr. Scribner. No ; I came here, as a matter of fact, to discuss the hill
and to bring to the attention of the committee what I consider to be
activity which will destroy the opportunity given to the American peo-
ple under the Constitution to protest any kind of legislation and par-
ticularly the Mundt bill.

Senator Ferguson. Where are you admitted to the bar?

Mr. Scribner. I was admitted in New York and I have been prac-
ticing in many States in the country.

Senator Ferguson. Where do you practice now?

Mr. Scribner. All over the country. I am general counsel for the
union, and I practice throughout the country.

Senator Ferguson. Do you believe that your members will live up
to this law if it is passed and it is declared constitutional ?

Mr. Scribner. I cannot talk for the members, what they will do in
the event it is declared constitutional.

I would like to give you my opinion.

Senator Ferguson. All right.

Mr. Scribner. It is my opinion that if this law is passed it will be
one major step toward the destruction of constitutional democracy.
When and if that happens, I will want to reserve to myself the oppor-
tunity to decide at that time whether or not our democracy has been
destroyed by this kind of legislation, and what shall be done about it.

Senator Ferguson. All right. Now, do you feel the same way if we
went to war with Russia?

Mr. Scribner. If we went to war with Russia ?

Senator Ferguson. Today.

Mr. Scribner. I would fight just like anybody else would fight, but
I will tell you this, and I have heard the testimony given before.

Someone, Senators, asked somebody: "Would you fight willingly?"
I tell you I would not fight willingly, because that kind of a war would
be in line now — in the absence of being attacked by any power — would
be in line now with the very statement made by Senator Wiley that
what he would like was push-button plans for a push-button war, using
bacteriological and atomic warfare.

I think the entire philosophy behind the Mundt bill is to hog-tie the
American people to stop us from going to Washington.

Senator Ferguson. I will make the rest of your statement a part of
our record.

Mr. Scribner. May I just complete it? It it will take 2 minutes.

Senator Ferguson. I am going to make it a part of the record.

You came here not to testify but to criticize the committee, and it
will be part of the record.

Mr. Scribner. Not at all. I did not come here for the sole purpose of
criticizing the committee.

Senator Ferguson. That is what the document does, does it not ?

Mr. Scribner. It does not. This document attempts to place before
the committee some facts in consideration of the Mundt bill which are
very important to the question as to whether the Mundt bill should be
enacted.

I would like to make one other comment. I was at the hearings on
Friday, and I think this also goes to the question of being allowed to

398 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

voice opinions concerning which relate to the constitutional rights of
the people.

People were clown here from all parts of the country- A photog-
rapher took two pictures at 1 o'clock while the hearings were going on.
One picture shows a whole slew of empty chairs in a room where the
committee was holding its hearings. The other picture shows at least
100 people standing out in the corridors waiting to go in.

The only reason I raise this is that it appears to me that it is part
of an effort — part of a deliberate effort — to subvert this constitutional
democracy and to deprive the people of the opportunity to protest
against the kind of legislation which is destroying their civil rights.

Senator Ferguson. All right. Do you want to file those pictures?

Mr. Scribner. Yes, indeed.

Senator Ferguson. They will be made a part of the file.

Senator Ferguson. If there is anybody else that has a statement,
we will accept it for filing.

All those who have statements may bring them up and identify
them for the reporter.

You gentlemen will have to get in touch with the committee as to
when the next hearing will be held or if there will be any other
hearings.

I will accept all of the petitions that you have tonight and make
them part of the record.

STATEMENT OF JOSEPH W. STRALEY, DEPARTMENT OF PHYSICS,
UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA, CHAPEL HILL, N. C.

Will you give your full name and your statement?

Mr. Straley. Joseph W. Straley, of the department of physics of
the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, N. C.

I came here to testify as a scientist and as a citizen. I am opposed
to this bill. The motivation of my opposition is closely allied to the
nature of my profession.

We, in science, have the benefit of the use of a method of approach
to a scientific problem which has proven itself in many years of appli-
cation and which is showing itself to be applicable in political science
as well as in physical science.

Senator Ferguson. Is that a part of your statement ?

Mr. Straley. Yes.

Senator Ferguson. I did not want you to read it. If you have any
preliminary statement, you may file that.

Mr. Straley. I would like to comment, in submitting this statement
for the record, that I believe that we will find that the progress of po-
litical science has shown itself to be exactly proportional to the extent
to which the methods of physical science have been applied to politi-
cal science.

I feel that this bill represents a step in the backward direction in
that regard, and my contention is brought out more thoroughly in this
statement.

Senator Ferguson. The statement will be incorporated in the record.

(The statement is as follows:)

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 399

Statement ok Joseph W. Str.w.ky

r a m Joseph W. Straley, of the department of physics at the University of
North Carolina. I wish to testify in regard to this bill as a scientist and as a

citizen. I am opposed to this hill. The motivation of my opposition is closely
allied to the nature of my profession. ,

We in science have the benefit of the use of a method of approach to a
scientific problem which has proven itself in many years of application and
which is showing itself to be applicable in political science as well as in physical
science. Indeed the progress of society from prejudice, bias, and superstition to-
ward an efficient and peaceful society is in large measure in direct proportion
to the extent to which the methods of science have been applied to matters out-
side the presently defined realm of science.

There are two features of the scientific method which are pertinent to this
discussion :

(1) Freedom of inquiry. — A person engaged in research requires freedom to
investigate whatever problems interest him and freedom from fear when pub-
lishing the conclusions to which he is led.

(2) Precise definition of terms. — The words used in the statement of scientific
facts are subject to a single, precise interpretation. Two scientists will never
disagree as to the meaning of a statement of scientific fact.

My experience in science thus makes me especially sensitive to any move which
may limit, or have the effect of limiting, freedom of inquiry by either scientists
or by nonscientists. In addition, an act capable of a multiplicity of interpre-
tations is apt to further limit free inquiry because of the uncertainty introduced
by this defect.

Opening passages of the bill state that the Communist Tarty wishes to estab-
lish a totalitarian dictatorship. An application of the methodology of science
to such facts as have appeared in the press fails to establish, this claim as a
scientific fact. It does seem a fact, however, that this party is too weak to
overthrow the Government by force and too small to do it by legislative processes.

No loyal citizen could object to a bill which would deter a group which in fact
hopes to destroy our democratic institutions and establish a dictatorship. This
bill, however, is the legislative equivalent of chasing bank robbers in one of
our congested cities with atomic bombs.

In view of the small size of the party, the very real question of its intentions,
and of the questionable effect this legislation may have on enemies of the state,
we must turn our attention to a more important question. This question is,
What effect will this legislation have on non-Communists?

The answer to this question is that the effect is fear, and the effect of fear is to
limit debate, curtail freedom of inquiry, and to stop the free exchange of facts
and ideas. It accomplishes these things unintentionally perhaps, but the im-
portant thing is that it does it, and it does it by he very vague way in which it
is stated.

One important thing that this bill completely overlooks is the loyalty of the
great body of our citizens. The voluntary censorship of our newspapers by
editors during the war and the very small number of people who have refused
to bear arms in our wars are but two ways our people have expressed their
patriotism.

By blacklisting certain areas of discussion we hinder the growth of a real
concept of problems facing the country. I think that the people need and will
get accurate information on the nature and objectives of all political parties
in our midst only if they are clear in their understanding that they are free to
discuss all forms of social, political, and economical philosophy. The vagueness
of this bill will render it subject to misinterpretation by our loyal citizenry.

The important thing for us to remember is the fact that in democracy we
possess the strongest tool against totalitarianisms. We must reaffirm our faith
that in the free market of ideas democracy will win. There is no better way
to sharpen this tool and to reaffirm this faith than by rejecting this bill.

Senator Ferguson. May we have your name and address ?

Mr. Guinier. My name is Ewart G. — E-w-a-r-t G. Guinier —
G-u-i-n-i-e-r — and I am international secretary of the United Public
Workers of America, CIO, representing that organization. I was

400 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

here Friday, and I came here on Saturday again; and Saturday,
Senator Wiley himself personally assured me that I would be heard
today. This morning Senator Wiley again personally assured me
that I would be heard today.

Senator Ferguson. I will hear you after this other gentleman.

Mr. Guinier. Thank you.

Senator Ferguson. Do you have a statement?

Mr. Guinier. Well, I have a lot of material that I would like to
be heard on.

Senator Ferguson. I will hear you.

Senator Ferguson. All right, Mr. Lawrence ; you may go ahead.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM S. LAWRENCE, ON BEHALF OF INTERNA-
TIONAL LONGSHOREMEN'S AND WAREHOUSEMEN'S UNION, AND
PRESIDENT OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNCIL, CIO, LOS ANGELES,
CALIF.— Resumed

Mr. Lawrence. As I stated before, Senator, I represent the Inter-
national Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union and the State
CIO Council of California, and I am the president of the Los Angeles
CIO Council.

I appear here today in opposition to the Mundt bill as a representa-
tive and spokesman for tens of thousands of organized workers in the
United States.

I wish to urge upon you that this bill not be reported out of com-
mittee, because it is a direct threat to the existence of our free trade-
union movement.

I have read the records of the House Un-American Activities Com-
mittee that produced this bill and the record of the debate that took
place in the House, as well as the bill itself. I am convinced that
were this bill enacted into law, every attempt by the workers to im-
prove their standard of living would be treated as some kind of
Communist plot, or organizations would be characterized as "subver-
sive" by the Attorney General, and the officers and members of our
unions would be dealt the severe punishment called for in this bill.

Mr. Chairman, we are opposed to this measure despite any claims
by the authors and supporters that it is not directed against the trade-
union movement. This bill and the climate of hysteria that has
spawned it forth, are at this very moment threatening the collective-
bargaining negotiations of the maritime industry. The collective-
bargaining contracts in the maritime industry expire on June 15 next.

For some weeks now the unions have been meeting with the em-
ployers and futilely attempting to negotiate a new contract. Under
the pretense of attempting to make the contracts conform with the
Taft-Hartley law, the employers are proposing contract changes which
would return the maritime industry to the conditions of speed-up,
crimp houses, and exploitation that characterized it before the mari-
time unions were established.

Wo have learned from our past experiences with the employers in
the maritime industry that we are never able to obtain any improve-
ments for our members without threatening to strike or actually going
out on strike.

At the present time all of the maritime unions have either taken
strike referendums or are in the course of doing so and unless there

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 401

is some change in the character of the present negotiations the men
will be on strike on June 15.

The demands which are raised by the unions in these negotiations
are the usual economic demands with which every one is familiar.

Certain improvements in hours of work, changes in the rate of
pay, for the longshoremen certain demands in respect to safety regu-
lations, and the like.

Despite the fact that at no time in these negotiations has there been
any mention of any issues except the characteristic economic issues
involved, the maritime unions are being attacked in the press today
and the demands and the negotiations are being criticized from ex-
actly the same point of view that has produced the Mundt-Xixon bill.

I would like to call your attention to a piece that appeared in the
Journal of Commerce on Thursday, May 27, 1948.

In an article by Stanley Ferguson entitled, "A Strike Against the
Marshall Plan," the entire set of demands, the whole objective of
these maritime unions has been distorted and confused and the normal
issues have been forgotten and replaced by the contention that all
that is at issue here is an attempt by the maritime unions to sabotage
the Marshall plan.

This is utterly ridiculous and completely false. Yet it is the result
of this disease of guilt by association, of labeling an organization sub-
versive without giving a hearing and of an entire approach to trade-
union activities which breathes the foul air of the Un-American Ac-
tivities Committee.

We know that as the bill was originally drafted and presented to
the. House, it contained language which would have made it a crime
to "disrupt trade and commerce'' — in simpler wTords, to strike. That
language was stricken from the bill during the House debate. This
was the one concession made to respectability. Yet the spirit of the
language remains in the bill.

The constitutional experts have dwelt at length on the repressive
aspects of the registration provisions in section 8 and following sec-
tions of the bill. To trade-unionists, the crucial point is the clear
realization that their organizations, the unions which protect their
jobs and save them from straight wage slavery, can well be included
among the. groups which are destroyed by application of the regis-
tration measures.

The power to require registration is to be placed in the office of the
Attorney General. The kind of organizations he would force to reg-
ister is indicated by the lists of so-called subversive organizations he
has published for purposes of the Hatch Act.

Before Clark's last list appeared it was reported in the New York
Herald Tribune that several unions would be included. During a
press conference just before the list was published, Clark said he
"couldn't remember'' whether or not unions would be on it. In other
words, inclusion of unions was already receiving serious attention.

In another press conference, one of the authors of the bill, Repre-
sentative Nixon, said that a particular union which had passed a
resolution concerned with the elections in Italy might well be banned
by his bill.

' We who have fought for years to build and protect our unions know
that a free labor movement can live only so long as civil rights are
protected. We know also that destruction of our organizations is

402 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

the primary goal of the corporations which support measures like the
Mundtbill.

For water-front workers, passage of the Mundt bill would legalize
the terror, the fraud, and the violence which we have fought against
for j^ears.

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to supplement this statement by
saying that in my opinion and after being especially convinced after
hearing some of the so-called expert legal testimony, we feel that this
bill is clearly in violation of the Constitution of the United States,
and before you ask me whether I am a Communist or not, I am going
to give you my affiliations.

I am a member of the county central committee of the Democratic
Party of the county of Los Angeles: I am a member of the Roman
Catholic Church ; I am a member of the Elks Club ; and I am a mem-
ber of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People as well as being a member of the International Longshoremen's
and Warehousemen's Union.

Before you ask me whether I think that Communists are a threat
to the United States, I will answer you in a simple way by saying
"No." 1 happened to take part in a debate as a member of the Ameri-
can Legion on the air, and I took the negative side to that question.

I think that the hysteria being raised by the commercial press today
is being raised to keep the eyes of American people off the ball. What
I mean by that is the scream of communism throughout the United
States today by the public press, keeping their minds off the things
that the country really needs and some of the shortcomings of Con-
gress, namely, the inadequacy of housing in these United States, fair
employment practices, the betterment of social-security provisions in
the Social Security Act, and so forth.

I think that if and when Congress takes care of those matters, I do
not think that you would have to worry too much about this so-called
Red scare.

Senator Ferguson. Did your union file the affidavits under the
Taft-Hartley law?

Mr. Lawrence. The officers of my union directed them not to file
by vote.

Senator Ferguson. They have not \

Mr. Lawrence. They have not.

Senator Ferguson. Thank you.

Mr. Guinier, will you raise your right hand, please \

Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and noth-
ing but the truth in the matters now before the committee, so help
you God?

Mr. Guinier. I do.

TESTIMONY OF EWART G. GUINIER, INTERNATIONAL SECRETARY,
UNITED PUBLIC WORKERS, CIO, NEW YORK, N. Y.

Mr. Guinier. The first observation I would like to make

Senator Ferguson. Will you identify yourself for the record, please.

Mr. Guinier. Ewart G Guinier, international secretary of the
United Public Workers, CIO, 2 Lafayette Street. New York City.

The first observation I Mould like to make is the contrast in what
is seemingly an attempt to return this bill with the deliberate stalling

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 403

on the antilynch bill that lias been in this very committee since Feb-
ruary; that has been pondered and repondered and double pondered
by this committee as to its constitutionality while the members of
this committee are willing to forget and to waive constitutional ques-
tions about the Mundt bill.

Senator Ferguson. I think you are wrong on that, they are still
arguing.

Mr. Guinier. From the questions I heard asked today, Mr. Senator,
witnesses were asked whether they should not leave it up to the Su-
preme Court to decide these constitutional questions.

Yet, on the antilynch bill, it is bottled up in committee while Ne-
groes are being lynched in the South and Members of this very Senate
and House of Representatives incite white people to violence against
Negroes.

I do not hear anyone condemning John Rankin when he gets up
and raves his filthy anti-Negro insults in the House of Representatives.

Senator Ferguson. Do you want to testify before this committee?

Mr. Guinier. Yes; I want to testify on this bill.

Senator Ferguson. Then lower your voice and talk into the micro-
phone.

Mr. Guinier. I think that when a Negro sees that there are Repre-
sentatives that are

Senator Ferguson. If you know anything about the action of the
committee, you would know that the present chairman was trying to
get that very bill that you are talking about, out of the committee.

Mr. Guinier. You know, I have been in the South, Mr. Senator. I
was in the United States Army

Senator Ferguson. The Senator from North Dakota has been try-
ing to do the same, so just lower your voice.

Mr. Guinier. I volunteered for the Infantry in the last war and
I went to Alabama and I would like you to know that the first day
that I went to Fort McClellan, I had to go to the United States Gov-
ernment post office to buy stamps to write home and I was fearful
because I did not know the kind of reception I wTould get because I
was Jim Crowed on my way there.

I had volunteered and I was ready to give my life for my country
and yet I do not feel that I had the protection when I was in Alabama.

So, if I may seem a bit moved about this, it is because of the hell
I have been through because I am a Negro, and I think that this com-
mittee ought to show a little more consideration for the democracy
that Negroes are denied, and should bring out some of this legislation
that is an attempt to make this a fuller democracy and do the job
against the people that are threatening us with clear and present
dangers.

Senator Ferguson. Do I understand, then, that you see no menace
in the Communist Party ?

Mr. Guinier. Well, all I know about the Communist Party is what
I read in the papers. I have some friends that are Communists and
one of them is Ben Davis, who went to the same college that I did.

I know what it stands for and I have discussed things with him,
and to me, what it stands for is something I stand for. I stand against
lynching, I am against the poll tax, and for the FEPC legislation, I
stand against covenants, and full equality for Negroes in every stand

404 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

of life, and I want that, and I do not want to wait a thousand years
for it.

I think Negroes are full-fledged American citizens and should have
all the rights of American citizens and should have it today.

In Washington, I could not sleep in the hotel because of the filthy
Jim Crow system here. I came here Friday and could not find a
place to sleep.

Senator Ferguson. Do you see any menace in communism to
America ?

Mr. Guinier. The menace that I see, Mr. Senator, is where our
Congress

Senator Ferguson. We are trying to get light on that.

Mr. Guinier. Yes; I am giving you the menace that ought to be
paid attention and that is the menace where 14 or 15 million Negroes
have no place to turn to feel that they are protected.

They turn to President Truman and what does he say? He says
that he has given an order to the Secretary of Defense to abolish dis-
crimination in the armed services. Two weeks later, the Secretary of
the Army, Kenneth Royall, states that he is not going to do it. Last
week, Kenneth Royall states that he is going to maintain discrimina-
tion in the armed services.

What sort of thing is this where the President of the United States
say that the Secretar}7 of Defense must abolish discrimination and the
Secretary of the Army tells the President of the United States to
go to Hades ?

I do not think that that is something that this committee can be
quiet about. I agree with the point that Senator Langer made that this
Congress should abolish discrimination and Jim Crow in the armed
services and that it is something of immediate moment; that is the
clear and present danger.

I am ready to go back into the Army if it is necessary. I am not
afraid of dying to preserve my country, but I say I am being incited
not to want to go into the Army by alloAving Jim Crow to remain
there in the Army.

Congress is neglecting its duty. There is a clear and present danger
of 15,000,000 Negroes being turned against their country because of the
absence of action on the part of the Senate Judiciary Committee, the
lack of action on the part of the Congress of the United States,

My union has brought cases of discrimination against Negroes in the
Federal service. Is anything done about it ? No.

I can read you and I can give you photostatic copies of interoffice
correspondence among the offices, when the application is from a
Negro, the color is marked on it including the State Department of
General Marshall.

What are we supposed to do; take it?

Why is discrimination not instigated in the Federal departments?
We are citizens, we have a right to have a job in the Federal depart-
ments without Jim Crow.

The New York Tunes, in January of 11)47. carried a story showing
that there were 11 different Federal departments today that dis-
criminate against Negroes in one form or another.

Has anything been done about it?

The Negroes cannot vote. Talk about democracy, Rankin comes
from Mississippi. There are 300,000 in his district and how many

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 405

elected him? Six thousand. Does he represent those 300,000? He
certainly does not.

The Senate of the United States, 96 men, all whites. How about
the 15,000,000 Negroes in this country. Are they not entitled to repre-
sentation? Why is something not done about those clear and present
dangers to democracy?

Senator Ferguson. Are you talking about the bill? Can we get
your opinion on the bill?

Mr. Guinier. The bill, I say, is part and parcel of a conspiracy to
deny Negroes and other people their rights in this country.

You asked a question today about whether or not this bill had any-
thing to do with racial discrimination. Let me read you one part of
this bill where it says that one of the things that are forbidden is the
incitement of racial or religious

Senator Ferguson. Where is that?

Mr. Guinier. If you will give me your copy of the bill, I will point
it out to you.

Senator Ferguson. Will you read it ?

Mr. Guinier. Inciting racial and religious

Senator Langer. Page 2 in the second paragraph is what you have
reference to, I think.

Mr. Guinier. It is the part where it says that there are four ways
or four methods that the world Communist movement uses to carry out
its activities.

Senator Ferguson. Is that a fact ?

Mr. Guinier. Well, that is the very point — you know you are not
going to get me to be against something because Communists are for it
because in that case I would be going back to slavery.

Senator Ferguson. That was not my question, that was not the
meaning of it. I said, was that a fact, did Communists do what it
said in the bill. I want to know that, that is material to this issue.

Mr. Guinier. I will find the place for you. You ought to know
where it is, you have studied this bill and been conducting the hearings
very much. It is the point where it speaks of the four ways of identi-
fying, or four tactics, that are supposed to be used by the Communist
movement.

Senator Langer. It is on page 2 : "* * * freedom of speech,
of the press, of assembly, and of religious worship, * * *" and you
have it right there.

Mr. Guinier. The point I want to make is there is absolutely no way
to fight against discrimination without being accused of inciting to
racial violence. It is impossible, for example, if you believe in
democracy, to go down to Georgia, or to go to Alabama, as Senator
Taylor went to Alabama, and to believe in democracy in Alabama and
to want to be able to want to go into a Negro church in Alabama as
Senator Taylor wanted to do and was arrested and convicted.

Senator Taylor, a member of the United States Senate, arrested in
Alabama for what, For going into a Negro church, because he is a
white man.

Now, Senator Taylor could be accused under this bill of inciting
racial upheaval, of wanting to overturn the traditions of the South.
Well, my God, I want to overturn those Jim Crow practices. I will
never agree to the Jim Crow practices of the South even if Rankin

406 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

should be President of the United States or Attorney General of the
United States. I will never accept it.

My forefathers did not accept the Dred Scott decision and they
were right in not accepting it because the Dred Scott decision, if
accepted, would have meant that we would have had perpetual slavery
in this country. So I say, do not try to intimidate people, do not try
to intimidate people. If we are right, we can let things go to the ballot
and make a decision there.

I think that this business that the preceding lawyer made about
trying to intimidate people is important.

In the South, they tried to intimidate one by putting up Jim Crow
signs, and if one was fool enough to believe it, then they have you, if
one is fool enough to believe.

I think it is something that the Judiciary Committee ought to take
notice of, and they ought to stop intimidating American citizens
because in 1776, we were not intimidated. There were Negroes in the
Civil War, right in the Confederacy, that were not intimidated, they
fought back because they were fighting for freedom and they are
going to fight today. They went into the Army, a million Negro
veterans, and 700,000 of them in the South cannot even get their termi-
nal leave. Why? Because when they go to the post office and ask
for blanks of terminal leave, they are told, "We do not have any."

When they try to go some place to get them notarized, they are told
they cannot notarize it. Why is not someone looking to those present
dangers of the democracy ? Why does not the Congress stop raising
this Red bogey the way Hitler did? Hitler raised the bogey that the
Communists set fire to the Reichstag. In Nuremberg, what did the
prosecutor bring out ? They brought out the fact that Goering set
lire to the Reichstag.

The Communist bogey is being set up so that the people can be
denied their rights, and if they accept the bogey, then we will have
communism in this country. Stop doing that. Do not be servants
of those who deny people their rights.

I believe you gentlemen are lawyers, I believe you gentlemen are
attached to the Constitution. I hope you will not be intimidated by
anybody. I can imagine just as I know in my organization we get a
lot of intimidation, that there are people trying to intimidate you.

I read in the paper that J. Edgar Hoover has members of Congress
on his list. Do not let Hoover intimidate you. Why should he in-
timidate you? He is trying to set himself up as the chief Gestapo
agent in this country.

J. Edgar Hoover did not intimidate me ever and he should not
intimidate you, either. The rights of the American people should be
defended instead of trying to put over a bill like this.

Why not investigate the profits that the big industries have been
making? Do you not know that in 1935-39 corporate business after
taxes made $5,000,000,000? In 1917. these same corporate businesses,
after taxes, are making $17,000,000,000, over three times as much as
they did before the war. Why not do something about that?

Why did the Congress take olf the excess-profits tax in 1945, so
that these companies can make four times or three times their profits?
Has there been any worker that makes three times the wage he made
before the war?

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 407

So, the Congress passed the Ta ft -Hart ley Act ; why? To divide the
people. I heard advice given today for them to go into their organ-
izations and hunt down Communists and disaffiliate the groups that
are supposed to be Communists. I am not going to do it, I will not
look for Communists. I am going to judge people on the basis of
the program for which they stand, and I will defend their rights to
my death, so long as their program is just, and I think that is what
the Congress ought to be doing instead of trying to intimidate wit-
nesses thai they ought to go hunt Communists.

Senator Ferguson. Just a minute. Do you want to testify on this

bill?

Mr. Guineeh. I think I am testifying on the very heart of the
Mundt bill, that is what I am testifying on and that is what you do
not want to hear. You do not want to hear the heart of the Mundt
bill, you want me to go over on a lot of extraneous matters.

Senator Ferguson. I want to hear you on the Mundt bill.

Mr. Guinier. Senator Wiley said something about the Canal Zone.
I was born in the Canal Zone. Do you know how much they get?
Thirty cents an hour. Bottled up in the Congress is a bill to give them
the minimum wage of 40 cents an hour. Because they are Negroes they
get one-fifth of what white workers get working on the Canal Zone
today so we are going to have a big Red scare that we are going down
to the Canal Zone and shoot down everybody to intimidate workers, .
to try to drive them out of our union, so that they will accept the 30
cents an hour. They will not be intimidated. The president of our
local started to work on the Canal Zone when he was 9 years old, and
he built it- with the sweat of his brow. He is not going to be intimi-
dated.

The district attorney down there is trying to sue our union. Why?
Because we criticized some of his practices down there. He has a pri-
vate practice down there and that will not intimidate us.

I think the Judiciary Committee is on the wrong track wdien it is
trying to say to people: Go out and hunt for Communists. We say to
you there is a Communist menace, forget about lynching, forget about
FEPC. forget about housing, forget about skyrocketing prices.

The Federal Reserve Board issued a record in this morning's paper.
You know what it says ? One quarter of the American people last year
were unable to meet the cost of living out of their current income.
One-quarter of the American people. They either had to dig into
savings if they had any. sell their war bonds, or go into debt and that
rate of starvation is increasing. Is the Congress doing anything about
that ? That is the clear and present danger.

Federal workers, they have not gotten a wage increase since 1946.
Why not increase the Federal workers' salaries?

No, the Congress gives them loyalty orders and wants to make this
law. We are not going to accept that, we are not going to be intimi-
dated. We are loyal American citizens and we insist that this commit-
tee look into the things before it that are clear and present dangers to
the American people.

Washington, D. C. it is right under Congress' nose. The Jim Crow
in Washington has a foul odor. Congress ought to look into that.

How come? The Congress legislates for the District of Columbia.

408 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

In New York State we passed a law saying that hotels cannot discrimi-
nate against Negroes. Why not pass such a law ?

I am a citizen of this country, I fought for it, and I went over to the
Pacific in the infantry, volunteered. At the time, the rate of casual-
ties, I mean deaths, was 10 months. In 10 months you are wiped out.
I went gladly because I recognized the danger. I came back and come
to Washington and cannot get a hotel room, and I have to go up some
place to eat. I cannot even eat in this building in your cafeteria. Why
not look into that ?

Talk about clear and present danger, Congress is looking all over
the world for clear and present danger, and the danger is right under
Congress' nose. Is Congress going to want me to help go look all
over the world when dangers that I suffer burn the guts out of me
every day?

Things like these are trying to make me disloyal to the Government;
that is what they are trying to do, but I will not be, because I love
this country, it is the only country I know and I am ready to do any-
thing for it, and they are not going to make me disloyal about it.
They are not going to make the 15 million Negroes disloyal about it.
They are going to stand up and light for their rights.

We say Congress should help them fight, should help pass this
anti-lynch bill and help pass the poll-tax bill.

In 1914, what did Congress do, Republicans and Democrats? They
had a big platform and went to the people and said they are against
lynching, are going to pass laws against lynching, are against the
poll tax, are going to pass laws against the poll tax; and are for
fair employment practices.

Three years and four years have gone by and Congress is ready to
adjourn in order to go to conventions and has not passed a single
one of these laws. Congress is getting ready to consider a monstrous
bill, as Mr. Rogge has said, that would take us right into fascism.

I do not believe that Congress can convince people that that is a
real statesmanlike approach to the job.

So, I say gentlemen, that the people that have been opposed to this
bill and that have asked that they be heard should be given an oppor-
tunity to be heard.

The hearing should not adjourn today.

The American people want to be heard, let them be heard. Let
their organizations be heard. Open up those telegrams and find out
who wants to be heard, schedule hearings so that they can be heard.
They have their rights.

You know, because one is a Senator does not give him superior
rights to dictate to all of the American people that they cannot
be heard.

I respect the Senate of the United States or I would not be here,
I would stay home. I respect the Congress of the United States, and
I tell you sometimes it is a bit straining on my dignity to do it after
I hear sonic of the things that are said in the halls of Congress against
my people. Sometimes, it gives me a real feeling what is coming
to this country. I say let the people be heard, because there is a
responsibility, a grave responsibility and no matter what one may
think about one or another group of people, the protests of the Amer-
ican people cannot be dismissed by raising a Red bogey. It cannot
be said everybody is Communist, period.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 409

After World War I, J. Edgar Hoover was in charge of the eastern
district under Mitchell Palmer. You know who was a Communist

in Boston? Anyone who went bareheaded. That is the sort of
fantastic thing that is trying to be brought back.

Under this so-called "loyalty oath" of President Truman, white
workers that have been working with Negro workers, suddenly do
not recognize them in the various corridors of the Department.
Why? Because of Jim Crow. Because of the white supremacy of
Mr. Hoover, if a white person is seen with a Negro, he is suspect.

I say that we are not going to tolerate that sort of filthy Jim Crow
ideas; that is the clear and present danger.

Why not get J. Edgar Hoover here and ask him whether he sent
agents to ask questions of neighbors, people who live in the same
apartments, whether white people come to visit them. What sort of
incitement to racial intolerance is that? Why not do something
about that; why not do some of those things? Why not call the
Secretary of the Army, Mr. Kenneth Eoyall, and ask him to defend
his segregation policies? Why not call him and ask him whether he
is £oin<r to carry out the order President Truman says he issued back
in February?

Those are the things that we Americans want to see done but are
not being done. Hypothetical questions are asked on so on and so
forth, and war with Russia. We are trying to be diverted from the
clear and present dangers that exist today, and we will not be diverted.

We just had a convention in Atlantic City and delegates from all
parts of the country were there and those delegates took up these
issues and they did not back up from it, and I am sure that there must
have been FBI men under every bed, but we did not let that intimidate
us and we stood up and said our program is for higher wages for
Federal workers, raise the minimum in Panama, stop the Jim Crow
down there, give us social security, give us housing, give us the anti-
poll-tax and anti-lynch and FEPC. We are going to stand up and
continue to say that no matter what anybody says that it is illegal.

I do not believe that those statutes'down South that say Negroes
have to use separate entrances are law. There are some governors
down there that believe it is law, but I do not believe them and I am
not going to obey them. I think I ought to be defended because I
was willing to defend. I think that is the sort of thing that we ought
to be making public statements about.

I think those are the kind of things that will give the people of this
country a feeling that we are trying to be a beacon of democracy for
the world. I think that the people throughout the world are looking
upon us as being hypocrites.

I read in the Times-Herald this afternoon, on page 2, that the
people of Latin America are looking at the things that we are doing,
and they are being vitally disappointed about this question of democ-
racy. Many of you may not know it because the representatives that
come from Latin America, many of them, are white or look like white
but probably half the people in Latin America are not white and they
have a grave distrust of the kind of Jim Crow that is in this country.
They feel that what is being tried is to give them Jim Crow on a hemi-
spheric basis.

The people in Asia feel that what is being tried is to give them
Jim Crow on a Pacific basis.

410 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Those are the things that Congress has to put their minds to, gentle-
men, because unless it is. done, aid and comfort is being given to those
that would destroy our democracy.

I want to urge, with all of the vigor that I can command on behalf
of my members, turn your attention to the positive things that are
gnawing at our democracy. If they are not done, how can one go to
the Negro people and really save them and begin to try to give them
the balderdash about how much progress they have made.

Why should anyone have any right to limit the progress that they
have made or be so smug about the progress they have made since
slavery ?

They have a right to have made 100 percent progress and be com-
plete equals. God did not give the right to be superior to the Negro
people and they do not believe that there are superiors, and they want
to have full, complete, and unconditional and every kind of equality
and they look to Congress to furnish that kind of equality and noth-
ing else is going to satisfy them and they growing, millions of white
Americans, that the being militant about this fight for equality.

I want to tell something. The most stirring thing that I have read
in the past 2 years was a statement adopted in Chicago about 2
months ago by Henry Wallace's party and it says that the very core
of the new party movement is the Negro people in America, and that
one of the fundamental programs of that new party is full, uncondi-
tional equality for the Negro. I say just as in 1854 and 1856, when
the Whig Party and the Democratic Party of that day pussyfooted
on slavery, a new party came into being dedicated to the complete
abolition of slavery, hesitantly at first but finally irrevocably, and old
parties are going to be washed away with the Jim Crow that will be
washed away unless the tune is changed.

The Negro people feel that they have a choice today, they have a
choice to light for democracy and they are going to make that fight.
You should join them, because a lot of white Americans are going to
join them and you can take my word for it that all the threats, all the
FBI, Tom Clark and his unconstitutional lists — as Mr. Rogge puts
it — are not going to intimidate them and will not frighten them.

The committee owes it to the dignity of the Senate of the United
States to justify that dignity by killing the Mundt bill and getting
down to work on the antilynch bill.

Senator Ferguson. We have received several statements which will
be received for the record.

(The statements are as follows:)

Statement of Donald Henderson, President, Food, Tobacco, Agricultural, and
Allied Workers Union of America, CIO, in Opposition to the Mundt Bill

My name is Donald Henderson and I am president of the Food. Tobacco, Agri-
cultural, and Allied Workers Union of America, CIO. I wish to express opposition
to the Mundt hill (H. R. 5S52).

I am not a lawyer and therefore I do not usually regard myself as competent
to speak about legal or constitutional issues. However, one does not have to be a
lawyer in order io come to the conclusion at once that this bill is unconstitutional.
It interferes with every basic right which Americans hold dear as constitutional
rights — the right to speak freely, the right to a free press, the right to assemble,
the right to associate with one's fellows lor the advancement of common objec-
tives, the right to engage in political activities. Even as a layman, I know that
a criminal law has to be precise so that people will know what they are supposed
to do or what they are supposed not to do. However, the language of this bill is

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 411

so loose and so sweeping that no person will know just where lit' stands under it.
The only way to be safe if tins bill is enacted into law will bo to shut one's
month completely, to join no organization of any description, to go to no meeting
of anv character, to join no political organizatin of any description. Any such
hill, any bill purporting to inhibit political freedom, is Inherently bound to suffer
from these defects.

However, I am here not as a lawyer; I understand that persons more competent
than 1 have already presented and will present sufficient legal arguments to you
against this bill. I am here as an American deeply devoted to our democratic
traditions, and as a labor leader deeply devoted to the interests of my member-
ship and to the interests of American workers in general. As an American and
as a labor leader, I believe that this bill violates all of our basic democratic
traditions and represents a deadly threat to the legitimate aspirations of working
men and women.

Let me remind you about two outstanding episodes in American history. Dur-
ing a similar period of reaction and manufactured hysteria about "foreign
agents," John Adams and the Federalists passed the alien and sedition laws.
Not only did these laws fail to accomplish their objective of terrorizing liberty-
loving Americans, but as a result of them, John Adams was swept out of office and
Thomas Jefferson was elected to usher in one of the shining periods in the history
of American democracy. All historians are now agreed that the alien and
sedition laws represent a shameful episode in American history and that such
efforts to decree conformity in political thinking by legislation are doomed to
failure.

So with the period of the Palmer raids in 1919-21. That period also saw
attacks on aliens, liberals, radicals, labor unions, and other leaders, speakers
and writers. That too, was a period of repressive political legislation, of inquisi-
tions by legislative committees, of teachers' oaths, of an all-out effort to require
all Americans to conform to the thinking of reactionaries who held temporary
political power. However, the Palmers and the Lusks were also swept out of
political life, their laws were repealed, and Americans once again regained their
sanity. This chapter in American history is also regarded with shame by all
our historians and all those who value our great traditions.

May I take the liberty of asking you not to repeat the mistakes made by John
Adams and by A. Mitchell Palmer?

As a labor leader, I am peculiarly conscious of the fact that in this legislation
you are dealing w'th a phoney problem and not with the real problems which
confront the American people. Despite all the efforts of the Thomas Un-Amer-
ican Committee and others with similar premises, no real evidence has been
produced to the effect that there is a Communist menace in this country. If
there were 2uch a menace, if the overthrow of the Government by force or vio-
ence were being advocated, if foreign agents were loose in our land, there are
more than sufficient State and Federal statutes to deal with these menaces. If
certain people are a menace and are violating our laws, why is not proof adduced
against them in courts of law? Why is this effort being made to substitute legis-
lative fiat for the time-tested methods used by our judicial system?

No, gentlemen, this is not the menace I see in this country. The menace that
I see is the gigantic conspiracy and attack on the living standards and the civil
liberties of the American people by the monopolists and their coconspirators.
The menace I see is the menace which derives from the Taft-Hartley law and
the efforts being made to do a similar wrecking job on the wage-hour law. The
menace I see is the menace involved in the rising cost of living and the refusal
of the steel monopolists and the food and tobacco trusts and other employers
to grant wage increases to their workers which would enable them to live like
decent Americans. The menace I see is that directed against aliens by the At-
torney General and others, and the attempt being made to terrorize them into
submission to the beliefs entertained only by reactionaries. The menace I see
is the failure to grant Negro Americans their full rights as citizens and the
failure of this Congress to take effective action against segregation, against the
poll tax, against lynching, and against Jim Crow and discrimination. The
menace I see is the in the increasing Fascist violence spreading all over the
country against Negries, against peaceful strikers, against peaceful political
meetings.

These are the menaces I see, and I therefore suggest that instead of this
unseemly haste in attempting to enact an unconstitutional bill, we should have
some legitimate haste from this Congress in enacting a legislative program which

78257 — 48 27

412 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Will serve the needs of all of the American people and not merely the needs of a
handful of monopolists. Negroes are crying out for their rights. Millions of vet-
erans are still demanding decent housing. Underpaid workers are demanding
that the minimum wage be raised from 40 cents to $1. The people generally
demand protection against the only force and violence we have in this country,
the force and violence of the Fascists and their henchmen. I therefore suggest
that you drop the Mundt bill and proceed to enact into legislation measures which
will serve these legitimate and crying demands of the mass of our people.

Memorandum on the Mundt-Njxox Bill Submitted by Progressive Youth For

Wallace Party of Michigan

The Mundt-Nixon bill submitted for consideration to the Senate Judiciary Com-
mittee on May 27, 1948, because it outlaws or restricts the political activities
of any or several political parties, groups, or individuals, is unconstitutional.

A citizen of the United States may have his freedoms of speech, press, and
assembly restricted because he advocates the theories of Marx and Lenin (sec.
3, art. 1-2-Sc).1 Restrictions (sees. 0, 7, and 8) -1

The Mundt-Nixon bill states that, "The system of government known as totali-
tarian dictatorship is characterized by the existence of a single political party,
organized on a dictatorial rather than a democratic basis," However, we find
that this bill gives the Attorney General dictatorial powers over the existence
of several political groups.

This bill is unconstitutional because the Attorney General must prove only
that certain organizations are Communist and nor that they are particularly
acting to overthrow the Government of the United States. The Mundt-Nixon
bill merely assumes that all Communist and Communist-front organizations are
subversive. On the other hand if these organizations are subversive, or can be
proved so, then their actions can be prosecuted under the Voorhis Act, the Mc-
Cormack Act of 1938, or the Alien Registration Act of 1940. We believe that the
Mundt-Nixon bill has some hidden motive and may be used to give certain parties
political advantage over others.

The House Un-American Activities Committee expressed the wish to bring the
Communists into the open and not outlaw them, and it may be effectively argued
that the Nixon bill does not technically outlaw the Communist Party ; however,
William Foster, official head of the Communist Party, has said that the Com-
munist cannot comply with the bill and still remain a politically active party.
So, even though the party is not technically outlawed the same condition re-
sults— the Communists are driven underground.

Believing in the containment of communism, we believe that present legisla-
tion is sufficient and that the term "communism" is not clearly defined in section
3 of the Mundt-Nixon bill. This "too broad" definition of "communism" may
easily result in unfair discrimination.

Carl H. O'Brien, Chairman.

Testimony Before Senate Judiciary Committee re Mundt Bill By James
Lamar Barfoot, Gubernatorial Candidate, People's Progressive Party of
Georgia

Gentlemen, my name is James Lamar Barfoot. My people have lived and
worked in the South for generations. My parents are school teachers and it was
only natural that I, too, should have become concerned about the educational needs
of the southern people. I am now professor of education at the University of
Georgia.

A fellow southerner, Huey P. Long, said at least one truth : "If fascism ever
comes to America it will come in the name of democracy."

Consequently, the Mundt bill which is brought to us in the name of preserving
our democracy, is actually a bill which would destroy the hard-won liberties of
our people. This bill would institute the complete brutal domination of America's
political and economic life by the big corporations. This is fascism.

Such champions of white supremacy as Rankin and Wood are anxious to see
this bill passed. They fear the growing liberalism in the South. They fear such
things as the strong opposition by the Southwide Convention of Baptists to

1 Subversive Activities Control Act, 1948.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 413

universal military training and the draft. They were alarmed by the alertness
of the citizens of Georgia in thwarting Herman Talmadge's forcible seizure of
the office of Governor in our State in i;>4t>. They think of the demonstration of
1,00(1 Oklahoma University students for the admission of Mrs. Fisher — a Negro —
to the law school as being a Red plot.

The passage of the Mundt bill would enable them to prevent Mrs. Fisher's
entry to Oklahoma University and to jail the white students as Communists.
The Talmadges, the Rankins. the Woods are petrified with fear when an edi-
torial in the University of Georgia student paper calls for admission of Negro
students to the university where I teach — and so they clamor for the Mundt
bill.

For the first time in many years large numbers of white working people,
small farmers, arc beginning to realize that only by making common cause with
The Negro in his struggle for the rights guaranteed him by our Constitution, can
they themselves advance.

The nomination of Mr. Marshall, Negro publisher of Macon, for United States
Senator has been denounced as communistic by his Democratic Party opponents.
The un-American gentlemen pushing this bill would solve Mr. Marshall's candi-
dacy by 10 years in jail and a $10,000 fine — or a gas chamber or a lynch rope
under the Mundt bill.

The main aim of the Mundt bill is to destroy the most advanced expression of
the progressive movement in the South — the new party.

Every progressive act during my lifetime in the South has been called com-
munistic and possibly has involved Communists. For example: the historic
Scottsboro case, the struggle to save the life of Mrs. Ingram and her two sons,
the anti-poll-tax fight, the struggle to organize the unorganized workers of the
South, and the movement to end the wage differential. The passage of the Mundt
bill would not only negate hard-won advances but would turn the Southland
into a concentration camp.

Hitler outlawed the Communists. Within a few years the oppressed people
under his power were led to the gas chambers. Is it difficult to picture the Ku
Klux Klan and the FBI in the South rounding up the Negro people and the non-
Klan whites for similar anti-Communist treatment? One of your own colleagues,
the Honorable Senator Glen Taylor was given a sample of what we are to expect
under the Mundt bill. He entered a house of the Lord through an entrance
which the police had desecrated with a segregation sign and was arrested and
manhandled for upholding the Bill of Rights.

I come from a section of our country which has the lowest standard of living
in the United States. WTe suffer from poor schools, poor health, and a low
per capita income. Surely it is not too much to ask that the United States
Senate enact such legislation as the Taft-Ellender- Wagner bill, the Wagner-
Murray-Dingell bill, and the civil-rights program instead of this Hitlerlike
measure.

I urge you. gentlemen, as Americans responsible to all of us, to preserve the
liberties of our country- The Mundt bill must not become law.

Memorandum of the Teachers' Union, Local 555, UPW-CIO, Urging Defeat
of the Muxdt-Nixon Bill (H. R. 5S52), Submitted to the Senate Judiciary
Committee May 28, 1948

This bill is the fruit of a mounting hysteria and threatens the keystone of
our democracy — the Bill of Rights. Under the pretext of fighting an alleged
conspiracy for a world Communist dictatorship, the proposed law would be even
more drastic in destroying the freedom of unions to protect the wages and work-
ing conditions of their members than the Taft-Hartley law. Nor is union
economic action the only freedom destroyed by the Mundt bill. Support for
Federal aid to education, free school lunches, low-cost public housing, or public
health insurance are a few of the many things which might be declared "sub-
versive'' and send people to jail if Congress enacts this bill. Thus it is a
dangerous effort to stop any popular movement to win more democracy and a
better life for the children as well as adult Americans.

This bill permits the Attorney General to determine at will that almost any
liberal organization, including the various W'allaee clubs, and a great many
labor unions, are Communist fronts, and the finding need only be a "reason-
able." not actual, conclusion. Although the Attorney General's findings can be
appealed within 00 days by the organization to the court of appeals for the

414 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

District of Columbia, the review on such an appeal is without benefit of a jury
and is on the record compiled by the Attorney General, requiring only to be
supported by "substantial evidence." Thus, a presumption of guilt prevails once
the administrative finding has been made by the Attorney General. Moreover,
the restrictions on organizations are, of course, restrictions on the individuals
who make up the organizations or contribute to them or receive their literature.

We wish to quote from the statement of Mayor William O'Dwyer, of the city
of New York :

"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.

"It empowers a Government official to interpret and censor people's thoughts
and opinions and permits him to determine the subversiveness or disloyalty of
any political, civic, or religious organization. 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. It would thus
establish the undemocratic and dangerous principle of guilt by mere association,
without proof of actual guilt and without the safeguard of a jury trial * * *."

We commend to the careful attention of the members of the Senate Judiciary
Committee the detailed analysis of H. R. 5852 made by the Congress of Industrial
Organization, the National Lawyers Guild, the group of outstanding Harvard
University educators, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other authoritative
organizations and individuals.

We urge that this bill, which would launch a police-state terror in the name
of "fighting communism," be completely and unequivocally rejected in order to
maintain our American Bill of Rights and to safeguard and advance here at
home the freedoms we defend in the United Nations.

Senator Ferguson. I will have to recess at this time without date
because the clerk tells me that no date has been set.

(Thereupon, at 4:50 p. m., the committee recessed subject to the
call of the Chair.)

APPENDIXES

Hughes, Hubbard & Ewing,

New York 5, June 8, 1948.

Hon. AXEXANDEB Wll.EY,

Chairman, United States Senate Committee on the Judiciary,
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

My Deab Mb. Chairman : In response to the committee's request for my
opinion on the constitutionality of the so-called Mundt-Nixon bill (H. St. 5852), I
beg to advise as follows.

I understand that the question submitted does not call for any expression of
opinion on the public policy or wisdom of legislation of this type.

The bill, in section 2, contains legislative declarations, based on evidence
adduced before committees of the Congress, intended to indicate the necessity of
legislation of the character proposed. It describes some of the characteristics of
the "system of government known as totalitarian dictatorship." and recites that
the effect of the establishment in any country of such a system is the denial of
fundamental rights and liberties characteristic of a representative form of
government. It states that there exists a wTorld Communist movement con-
trolled by the Communist dictatorship of a foreign country, whose purpose is,
by treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups, espionage, sabotage, terrorism,
and other means, to establish a Communist totalitarian dictatorship in all coun-
tries of the world, to which end political organizations are established in various
countries as constituent elements of the world Communist movement for the
purpose of setting up dictatorships subservient to the "most powerful existing
Communist totalitarian dictatorship"; that such organizations operate on a
secret, conspiratorial basis, and to a substantial extent through Communist
fronts which by concealing their true character, obtain financial and other
support which otherwise would be denied them. Finally it recites that in the
United States those individuals who knowlingly and willfully participate in the
world Communist movement in effect repudiate their allegiance to the United
Slates and transfer it to "the foreign country in which is vested the direction
and control of the world Communist movement" : and that the recent successes
of Communist methods in other countries and the nature and control of the
world Communist movement present "a clear and present danger to the security
of the United States and to the existence of free American institutions."

The principal substantive provisions of the bill will be dealt with in the
course of the ensuing discussion. A summary outline of them will suffice for
introdu :tory purposes.

Section 4 makes it crime, punishable by fine up to $10,000 or imprisonment
up to 10 years, or both, for any person to attempt in any manner to establish
in the United States a totalitarian dictatorship under the domination or control
of any foreign government, foreign organization or foreign individual, or to do
or attempt anything with the intent to facilitate that end ; also actively to
participate in the management, direction, or supervision of any movement to
establish, or facilitate the establishment of. such a dictatorship, or to conspire
to do any of these acts. Under section 5 one convicted of that crime automatically
forfeits United States citizenship.

The remaining sections deal with Communist political organizations and
Communist-front organizations (both denned in sec. 3) and with their members.
Section 8 requires both types of organization (with heavy penalties for non-
compliance under sec. 15) to file with the Attorney General registration state-
ments and annual reports containing the information prescribed, including the
names and addresses of officers and, in the case of Communist political organiza-
tions, also of members. By section 13 the Attorney General is given the duty,
under specified circumstances, to investigate and determine whether an organiza-
tion is of either category, and there is provision in section 14 for judicial review

415

416 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

of his determination. Sections 6 and 7 respectvely in effect deny to any member
of a Communist political organization (but not of a Communist-front organiza-
tion) any right to employment in the Federal service or to a United States
passport. And section 11 makes it unlawful for a registered organization of
either type to use the mails or any instrumentality of interstate or foreign com-
merce for the dissemination of any kind of publication, or to broadcast any
matter by radio, unless such publication or broadcast is accompanied by a state-
ment that it is presented by a Communist organization.

The question of the validity of this bill turns principally on that of its com-
patibility with the first and fifth amendments to the Constitution.

Enactment of statutes abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or the
right of people peaceably to assemble is forbidden to the Congress by the first
amendment, as it is to the States by the fourteenth amendment. Such laws can
be constitutionally justified only if the utterance, publication or assembly sought
to be suppressed threatens "clear and present danger that they will bring about
the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent" (Schenek v. United
States, 249 U. S. 47, 52 (1919)). Cases applying this principle to State legisla-
tion include Thomas v. Collins (323 U. S. 51G (1945) ) ; Bridges v. California (314
U. S. 252, 260-263 (1941) ) ; De Jonge v. Oregon (299 U. S. 353, 365 (1937) ) ; con-
curring opinion of Mr. Justice Brandeis, .ioined by Mr. Justice Holmes, in Whitney
v. California (274 U. S. 357, 375-377 (1927)).

The standard of due process of law, enjoined upon the Congress by the fifth
amendment and upon the States by the fourteenth, forbids a statute winch defines
a crime in terms so vague or ambiguous that the individual has not fair notice
of what conduct may entail punishment (Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507
(1948) ; Musser v. Utah, 333 U. S. 95 (194S) ; United States v. Cohen Groecnj Co.,
255 U. S. 81 (1921)).

In my opinion, section 4 of the bill offends both of these principles. That section
would make it a crime to attempt "in any manner" to establish in the United
States a totalitarian dictatorship under the control of "any" foreign organization
or to perform or attempt "any act" with intent to facilitate or aid that purpose.
Manifestly, this would include attempts to bring about such result by expression
of opinions through speech of publication, or by participation in peaceable assem-
blies, designed to bring about changes in the Government through orderly pro-
cesses of amendment of the Constitution. Statutes which spread as wide a net
as that violate the first amendment. (Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359
(1931) ; Herndon v. Lowrij, 301 U. S. 242, 249-250, 255, 260-261 (1937). See
Schneidermcm v. United States, 320 U. S. 118, 137-138 (1943) ).

In addition, section 4 fails to meet the test of due process which requires that
the definition of a crime must be sufficiently definite to be a dependable guide to
the conduct of the individual and to the court and jury which passes upon
his guilt or innocence. This is true of the critical terms "totalitarian dictator-
ship." "vested in, or exercised by or under the domination or control of. any
foreign government, foreign organization, or foreign individual," and "any move-
ment." Interpretation of these phrases receives only the slightest aid from the
legislative declarations in section 2, because the latter relate to a particular "Com-
munist totalitarian dictatorship" and to a "world Communist movement." where-
as section 4 denounces attempts to establish any totalitarian dictatorship con-
trolled by "any" foreign organization and "any" movement so long as it aims at
that end. Especially in such a context the terms "attempt," "facilitate or aid,"
and "actively to participate" are too vague and indefinite for a criminal statute.

Some of the decisions of the Supreme Court holding statutes of this general
character unconstitutional are grounded on their repugnance both to the first
amendment and, by reason of indefiniteness, to the fifth amendment. ( E. g.. Hern-
don v. lowry, 301 U. S. 242, 261-264 (1937, supra ; Winters v. Sew York, 333 U. S.
507 (1948), supra.) In the Winters case the Court said (p. 51S) :

"The present case as to a vague statute abridging free speech involves the cir-
culation of only vulgar magazines. The next may call for decision as to free ex-
pression of political views in the light of a statute intended to punish subversive
activities."

I believe both grounds also apply equally to section 4, though either one is
enough to condemn it.

The imposition by section 5 of the extremely grave penalty of loss of citizen-
ship upon conviction of a violation of section 4 raises an additional constitutional
question. It applies to natural-born citizens and naturalized citizens as well.
The Supreme Court in the Schneiderman case, supra (230 U. S., p. 122) spoke of
the "priceless" benefits that derive from United States citizenship and of the ser-

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 417

iousness of the consequences of Its loss. It would seem that a statute carrying
such a penalty should be more definite in its provisions even than the ordinary
criminal statute.

The same s<um of considerations as those above discussed apply to the question
of the constitutionality of sections 6, 7. and 8 of the bill. Each of those sections,
when read with section 15, include criminal provisions. Section ti makes it •'un-
lawful" for a member of a Communist political organization, "knowing" that the
organization is such, to seek any office or employment under the United Slates
without revealing that he is such a member or to hold any oonelective office or
employment after 30 days subsequent to the enactment of the hill. Section 7 simi-
larly makes it "unlawful" for any such member with such knowledge to make
application for a passport or to use a passport after 60 days subsequent to the
enactment of the hill. Section 15 (c) subjects a person violating these provisions
to fine or imprisonment or both. Section S requires registration and annual
reports from Communist organizations, and section 15 (a) imposes punishment
upon organizations and their officers failing to tile them.

In my judgment, the definitions in section 3 of the organizations against
which, or against the members of which, the above sections are directed, are
permeated with even greater vagueness and ambiguity than are those of
section 1.

The term "Communist political organization" is defined to mean any organi-
zation having "some, but not necessarily all' of the "ordinary and usual char-
acteristics of a political party," with respect to which, "having regard to" 10
described considerations, it is "reasonable to conclude" that it is under the
control of "such foreign government or foreign governmental or political organi-
zation"— this last reference being to "the foreign government or foreign govern-
mental or political organization in which is vested, or under the domination
or control of which is exercised, the direction and control of the world Com-
munist movement referred to in section 2." How many and which ones of the
"ordinary and usual characteristics of a political party" are enough, under the
"some but not necessarily all" phrase, to satisfy the first requisite of the defini-
tion? With respect to the subsequently stated 10 considerations, again only
"some" of them need be regarded. They include (A) "the extent and nature
of its activities, including the expression of views and policies" ; (C) "the extent
to which its views and policies are the same as those of such foreign govern-
ment or foreign organization" ; (D) "the extent to which it supports or advocates
the basic principles and tactics of communism as expounded by Marx and Lenin" ;
(I) the extent to which it resorts to secrecy regarding its membership, records,
and meetings; 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." What kinds of activities and what kinds
of views and policies are to be given controlling weight under (A) ? Which
of the "views and policies" of the foreign government are to be determinative
of the correspondence of views and policies of the organization in question?
Which of the "principles and tactics of communism as expounded by Marx and
Lenin" are to be regarded as "basic"? And what proportion of the members
of the questioned organization must subordinate their allegiance to the foreign
organization to call for the classification of the organization as Communist?

A "Communist front organization" is defined as meaning one other than a
Communist political organization and other than an organization having "sub-
stantially all" the ordinary and usual characteristics of a political party, with
respect to which, having regard to "some or all" of four enumerated considera-
tions, it is reasonable to conclude either that (i) it is under the control of a
Communist political organization, or (ii) primarily operated for the purpose
of giving aid and support to such an organization or to a Communist foreign
government or the world Communist movement, or (iii) that its views and
policies ai-e in general adopted and advanced "because" they are those of such
organization, government, or movement. In addition to the difficulties intro-
duced by the word "because," there are included among the considerations
which may control classification (A) "the identity of the persons who are active
in its management, direction, or supervision, whether or not holding office
therein"; and (D) "the position taken or advanced by it from time to time
on matters of policy." What is the test of being "active" in the case of persons
who are members but not officers? On what subjects are positions "taken or
advanced" to be deemed significant? And what are "matters of policy"? It
is no answer to say that these uncertainties are resolved by reference to (i),
(ii), and (iii), above referred to, because these refer to control by, aid, and

418 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

support to, and views or policies of a "Communist political organization," and
we are thus brought back to the vagueness of the definition of that term, which
has already been discussed.

It is true that section 13 of the bill provides for investigation and determina-
tion by the Attorney General of the question whether an organization is a
"Communist political organization" or a "Communist-front organization" ; and
there are provisions for the conduct of such investigation, including public hear-
ings, and, in section 14, for judicial review of the determination. But the obliga-
tion of the organization, and of its officers, to file registration statements and
annual reports is not limited to those organizations found by the Attorney
General, after such investigation, to be of the defined types. The duty of the
Attorney General to investigate and determine arises in only two instances: (1)
When he has reason to believe that an organization which has not registered
is one which should do so or is requested by resolution of either House of
Congress to make such an investigation; and (2) when he receives from an
organization, which has registered, an application that he make a finding that
it is not of the defined type and to relieve it of the requirement of making further
annual reports. The obligation to register would attach immediately upon the
enactment of the bill. An organization which believed itself not to be of either
type defined, and which hesitated to incur the obloquy of registration, would
act at its peril in failing to do so. Moreover, even if an organization does
register, and immediately files an application to be relieved, the Attorney Gen-
eral is not obliged to entertain such application unless the organization presents
evidence which, "in the opinion of the Attorney General," makes a prima facie
showing that it is not an organization which is obliged to register. There appears
to be no provision for judicial review if the Attorney General's opinion is that
the organization has not made such a prima facie case.

Similarly, under sections 6 and 7, members of organizations which might or
might not be classified as "Communist political organizations" under the vague
tests of section 3 would act at their peril if they either sought or continued to
hold positions in the Federal service or applied for or used passports. Penalties
Tinder these sections might be incurred, regardless of whether or not the Attorney
General had determined the classification of the organization. In addition, a
mere member of an organization would presumably have no power either to
bring about registration of the organization or an application to the Attorney
General to cancel such registration.

In sections 6, 7, and 8, and also in section 10, which makes it unlawful for
anyone to become or remain a member of an organization which the Attorney
General has ordered to register and which has not done so, the meaning of the
word "member" becames important. What persons are to be deemed "members"
of a "Communist political organization"? The first element in the definition of
such an organization is that it has some at least of the characteristics of a
political party. What tests, for example, would lie applied to determine whether
a person is a "member" of the Republican or Democratic Party? If it were
characteristic of political parties generally to maintain a system of applications
for membership, accompanied by statements of adherence to the party's tenets,
and to evidence membership by a card -or other symbol, the determination might
be simple. But such a practice is not characteristic of the traditional political
parties. And if a questioned organization had no such machinery, or having
had abandoned it upon the passage of this bill, it would be most difficult to
determine what would constitute membership, and no assistance is provided by
the bill. The Supreme Court in Bridges v. Wi.ron (326 U. S. 135, 143-144 (1045) )
distinguished between "membership" in, "affiliation" with, and adherence of
lesser degree to the Communist Party. But the statute there involved con-
tained an express definition of "affiliation" which by necessary implication
narrowed the scope of the concept of membership. No such guide is contained
in this bill. It might well be held that regularly voting the Communist Party
ticket, making speeches in favor of its candidates, or even more or less con-
tinuous attendance at Communist meetings, would be a sufficient indication of
"membership."

If so, the bill would encounter additional constitutional difficulties under the
first amendment. The Supreme Court has recognized that participation of
that kind in affairs of the Communist Party does not necessarily indicate ad-
herence to any purpose to overthrow the Government of the United States by
force and violence or any subservience to the policies of a foreign government.
Schneiderman v. United States (320 U. S. IIS (1043), supra), where the Court
said (p. 130) that "under our traditions beliefs are personal and not a matter of

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 419

mere association," and that "men in adhering to a political party or other organ-
ization notoriously do not subscribe unqualifiedly t<> all of its platforms or
asserted principles"; Bridges v. Wixon (326 D. S. 135 (1945) supra), where
the Court found the evidence to show only "cooperation witii Communist groups
for the attainment of wholly lawful objectives," there the advancement of trade-
unionism tp. 14.~>) ; Serndon v. Lowry (301 U. S. 242 (1937), supra), where
the Court held invalid the conviction of a Negro organizer of the Communist
Party who was apparently using it as a vehicle to advance the interests of
members of his race — and this despite the fact that membership blanks in the
petitioner's possession described the party as, among other things, "basing
itself upon the revolutionary theory of Marxism."

For the reasons above stated, I am of the opinion that the requirement of
registration in section S and the provisions of sections G, 7, and 10, coupled
with the penalties prescribed in section 15, are unconstitutional.

It should also be observed as to the Attorney General's determination, and
the judicial review thereof, that while section 13 states the question as being
whether the organization in question is "in fact" a "Communist political or-
ganization" or a "Communist-front organization," the inquiry actually comes
back to the definitions of those two terms, which require only that it be "rea-
sonable to conclude" that the organization has certain described characteristics.
The limited character of such a determination, and hence of the judicial review,
is illustrated by the language of the Supreme Court in Schneiderman v. United
States (320 U. S. 118 (1943), supra), where, in holding that cancellation of
the naturalization of a member of the Communist Party as "illegally pro-
cured" required "clear, unequivocal, and convincing evidence," the Court ob-
served (pp. 153-154) : "We are not concerned with the question whether a
reasonable man might so conclude, nor with the narrow issue whether admin-
istrative findings to that effect are so lacking in evidentiary support as to
amount to a denial of due process."

There is a separate constitutional question as to whether section 11 of the
bill is an abridgment of freedom of speech and of the press in violation of
the first amendment. That section, as above stated, makes it unlawful (thus
involving criminal penalties under section 15 (c) ) for an organization which
is registered under section 8, as either a Communist political organization or a
Communist-front organization, or for any person acting for or on its behalf,
to use the mails or any instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce for
the dissemination of any kind of publication, or to broadcast any matter by
radio, unless the publication or broadcast is accompanied by a statement naming
the organization and describing it as "a Communist organization."

There is no question of vagueness or indefiniteness here, because the section
applies only to an organization which is registered or as to which there is
in effect a final order of the Attorney General requiring it to register. But
there may well be a question whether under Thomas v. Collins (323 U. S. 516
(1945), supra) such a requirement is not an undue abridgment, because not
supported by any clear necessity. The publications and broadcasts which are
thus required to be identified as Communist-inspired may be on any subject,
however far removed from any international Communist objective or even
any domestic Communist program. The language of many of the decisions
of the Supreme Court supports the view that the concept of free speech con-
templates that ideas and opinions should be judged solely on their merits.
In the Thomas case, Mr. Justice Jackson, in his concurring opinion, said (p. 545)
that while the state is entitled to protect the public, through licensing, from
those who seek for one purpose or another to obtain its money, "it cannot be
the duty, because it is not the right, of the state to protect the public against
false doctrine." With respect to "Communist-front organizations," which
might, within the definition, exist chiefly for relief or other humanitarian
purposes, the obligation to label themselves as "Communist organizations"
appears particularly onerous.

But I find no need to ex] tress an opinion on the question above suggested,
because, if I am correct with respect to the invalidity of the other sections of
the bill which I have discussed, the question regarding section 11 becomes
academic.

For similar reasons, I find no necessity for passing upon the validity of the
provisions of section 12 denying exemption under the Federal income-tax laws
to organizations which are registered under section 8 or with respect to which
there is a final order of the Attorney General requiring such registration, and

420 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

denying to those making contributions to such organizations the right to deduct
the amount of such contributions for income-tax purposes.
Very respectfully yours,

Charles E. Hughes, Jr.

Davis, Polk, Wardell. Sunderland & Kiendl,

New York, N. Y., June 7, 1948.
Hon. Alexander Wiley,

Senate Judiciary Committee,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

Dear Me. Chairman ; I am advised that your committee requests from me
an opinion on the constitutionality of H. R. 5852 which is now before you.
I understand that you are not seeking any comment from me on the policy or
the purposes of the bill or on the need for this or similar legislation.

Without pausing to consider such constitutional questions as are raised by
the general frame of the bill or others Which might appear in the course of its
attempted enforcement, I am constrained to think that because of its indefinite-
ness and uncertainty the bill fails to meet the constitutional requirement of due
process. It is a highly penal statute of a character concerning which the
Supreme Court has but recently said: "The standards of certainty in statutes
punishing for offenses is higher than in those depending primarily upon civil
sanction for enforcement. The crime 'must be defined with appropriate definite-
ness.' " Winters v. Neiv York, decided March 29, 1948 (338 U. S. 507, 515) .

In this opinion the Court goes on to say (pp. 515-516) : "There must be
ascertainable standards of guilt. Men of common intelligence cannot be required
to guess at the meaning of the enactment. The vagueness may be from un-
certainty in regard to persons within the scope of the act, * * * or in regard
to the applicable tests to ascertain guilt."

These principles are, I believe, of universal acceptance in all American courts.

Let me point out some portions of the bill which seem to me plainly inadequate
to meet this test. Section 3 purports to deline the persons and organizations
at which the bill is aimed. These definitions are the pivots of the bill. It is
built around them, with the exception perhaps of sections 4 and 5 to which I
shall later allude. It would seem to be clear that if the definitions are them-
selves vague and uncertain, that uncertainty must vitiate the act throughout.
Paragraph (3) of section 3 defines the term "Communist political organization"
as meaning "any organization" in the United States having some, but not neces-
sarily all, of the ordinary and usual characteristics of a political party, witb
respect to which, having regard to some or all of the following considera-
tions * * * it is reasonable to conclude that it is under the control of such
foreign government or foreign governmental or political organization." There
is nothing here or later to indicate what are the "ordinary and usual char-
acteristics of a political party" or which of the "considerations" are included
within the language "some, but not necessarily all,".

In a praiseworthy effort, however, to attain greater certainty in this regard
the paragraph goes on to state certain considerations (A) to (J), some or all
of which are to be regarded. Obviously it is not contemplated that all of these
considerations must coincide. Any one of them is apparently to have equal
weight with any other and standing alone or in conjunction with any other is
to furnish sufficient "reason to conclude" that the organization under inquiry
is of the objectionable character. Do these several criteria furnish sufficient
standards for such a decision? It may be said that among them those lettered
(B), (E), (G), (H), and (J) have some relation to an ultimate conclusion
that the organization is under foreign control. But what is there in (C) "the
extent to which its views and policies are the same as those of such foreign
government or foreign organization," or (D) "the extent to which it supports
or advocates the basic principles and tactics of communism as expounded by
Marx and Lenin (which basic principles and taciics are to be gathered, one
may suppose, only by an exhaustive study of the writings of those persons), or
(I), the extent to which it resorts to secrecy as to its membership, records,
meetings, etc., — what is there, it may be asked, in any of these criteria forming
per se a legal basis for the conclusion of foreign control?

Or take the introductory phrase itself as used throughout — "the extent to
which, etc." — what are the limits which these words envisage? To how great
an extent, how customary a practice, how definite, pervasive, or continuous a

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 421

policy? There would seem to he no room here for the application of any doctrine
of de minimis. But assume, if you will, that the organization contains some
members, or even some "leaders" who (as under clause (ID) recognize the
"disciplinary power of such foreign government" or (as under clause (J*)) "con-
sider the allegiance they owe to the United States as subordinate to their Obliga-
tions to such foreign government or foreign organization," how many or what
proportion of such individuals are to he held sufficient to color the ent ire organiza-
tion? What is to he the status of a dissenting niemher, a minority of members or
even a majority who do not hold such views? Are they and the organization to
he condemned on the principle of aoscitur a sociis. i. e., guilt by association?

When under paragraph (4) of section 3 the effort is made to define a Com-
munist front organization a similar format is adopted hut attains, it seems to
in.', no greater certainty in the final result. Regard is to be had to "(A) the
identity of the persons who are active in its management, direction, or super-
vision. whether or not holding office therein." The question at once arises what
degree of activity or what number of identifiable persons are necessary to stamp
the organization. Passing (B) and (C) we come to (D) "the position taken
or advanced by it from time to time on matters of policy." This general language
seems to add nothing to the attempted definition. 1 repeat, that unless these
definitions have an ascertainable legal content their use throughout the re-
mainder of the act must render it unenforceable.

Section 4, dealing with certain prohibited acts, is of a different character but
is open to not dissimilar objections. It is made a crime, punishable by fine and
imprisonment and loss of citizenship, to commit any one of five offenses. It is
forbidden (1) "to attempt in any manner to establish in the United States a
totalitarian dictatorship" * * * under foreign control; (2) "to perform
or attempt to perform any act with intent to facilitate or aid in bringing about
the establishment," etc. The difference in language between these paragraphs (1)
and (2) seems to create more confusion than it removes. Under paragraph (1)
it is forbidden to "attempt in any manner to establish," etc. In paragraph (2) it
is forbidden to "perform or attempt to perform any act with intent to facilitate
or aid in bringing about the establishment." The effort here no doubt is to
draw the distinction between one who "attempts" and one who merely aids and
abets. But it is not at all clear what acts are contemplated in the second
paragraph beyond those embraced in the first. If, for instance, the advocacy of
a constitutional amendment changing the form of government would be such an
act as paragraph (2) envisages, it is at once apparent that constitutional ques-
tions based on the first amendment would be presented.

But this section 4 goes on to forbid any person "actively to participate in the
management, direction, or supervision of any movement to facilitate or aid in
bringing about the establishment," etc. The word "movement" so far as I can
see is not anywhere defined in the act although in the preamble the existence of
a "world Communist movement" is repeatedly referred to. It might well he asked
when do two or more people cease to be a discussion group and become a
"movement"?

I am not trying to be hypercritical about the language of the bill or to split
hairs concerning its terminology. Neither are the illustrations I have chosen
intended to exhaust all the criticism to which the bill lends itself. Phrases used
in popular discussion, however, must be given some exact content when embodied
in a penal statute. It may well be that some or all of the evils with which the
bill purports to deal are not susceptible of more precise description. But that
which cannot be defined cannot be criminally punished under our conception of
law. Quoting again the language of the Supreme Court in Musser v. Utah, decided
February 9, 1948 (333 V. S. 95, 97) : "This led to the inquiry as to whether the
statute attempts t<> cover so much that it effectively covers nothing. Statutes
defining crimes may fail of their purpose if they do not provide some reasonable
standards of guilt. * * * Legislation may run afoul of the due process clause
because it fails to give adequate guidance to those who would be law-abiding,
to advise defendants of the nature of the offense with which they are charged,
or to guide courts in trying those who ai-e accused."

I am aware of the danger in being dogmatic on this question of indefiniteness
and lack of certainty. This is well illustrated by the case of Winters v. Neiv York
to which I have above alluded where the case was argued and twice reargued
before the Supreme Court with resulting opinion against the statute involved by
six judges from whom three dissented. Nevertheless. I cannot withhold the
opinion which I have above expressed, namely, that H. R. 5S52 is violative of the

422 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Constitution and if enacted by the Congress will not prove to be susceptible of
legal enforcement.
I am,

Very respectfully yours,

John W. Davis.

Office of the Attorney General,

Washington, D. C.
Hon. Alexander Wiley,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

My Dear Senator . This is in response to your request for the views of this
Department relative to a bill (H. R. 5852) to protect the United States against
un-American and subversive activities.

Section 1 of tbe bill would provide that the measure may be cited as the Sub-
versive Activities Control Act, 1948.

Section 2 would set forth the findings of various congressional committees to
the effect that the world Communist movement, under the direction and control
of the Communist dictatorship of a foreign country, is a world-wide revolutionary
political movement whose purpose is, by subversive or any other means, to estab-
lish a Communist totalitarian dictatorship through the medium of a single world-
wide Communist political organization. The findings would also declare that
the recent successes of Communist methods in other countries, and the nature of
the world Communist movement itself, present a clear and present danger to the
security of the United States, making it necessary for the enactment of appropriate
legislation to prevent the world-wide conspiracy from accomplishing its purpose
in the United States.

Section 3 would provide definitions of the various terms as used in the bill
and criteria for determining whether a "'Communist political organization" or a
"Communist-front organization" comes within the definitions of those terms.

Section 4 would declare that it shall be unlawful, punishable by a maximum
fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for 10 years, for any person to participate in any
movement to establish a foreign-controlled totalitarian dictatorship in the United
States.

Section 5 would provide for the loss of nationality by any person convicted of
violating section 4.

Section 6 would provide that it shall be unlawful for any member of a Com-
munist political organization to be employed by the United States.

Section 7 would provide that it shall he unlawful to issue a passport to any
member of a Communist political organization.

Section 8 would require every Communist political organization and every
Communist-front organization to register with the Attorney General within speci-
fied times, and to disclose organizational information at the time of such regis-
tration as well as at specified times thereafter. In addition to information which
would be required of both organizations in common, a Communist political organi-
zation would be obliged to disclose the names and addresses of its members in its
registration statement. However, both types of organizations would be required
to maintain accurate records of the names and addresses of their members. In
case of the failure of any organization to register in accordance with the measure,
it would be the duty of the executive officer and the secretary of such organization
to register in behalf of tbe organization.

Section 9 would provide for the maintenance in the Department of Justice of a
"Register of Communist Organizations," which would contain a listing of the
organizations registered under the bill and be open for public inspection. The sec-
tion would also require the Attorney General to submit to the President and to
the Congress annually, or when requested by either House by resolution, a report
with respect to the execution of the provisions of the measure and related data.

Section 10 would provide that it shall be unlawful for any person to become
or remain a member of any organization if (1) there is a final order of the
Attorney Genera] requiring such organization to register under section S as a
Communist political organization, (2i more than 120 days have elapsed since
such order became final, and (3 I sue!) organization is not registered under sec-
tion 8 as a Communist political organization.

Section 11 would provide that it shall be unlawful for any organization regis-
tered under section 8, or with respect to which there is a final order of the
Attorney General requiring it so to register, to transmit in the mails or interstate

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 423

commerce any publication Intended f<> be disseminated among two <>r more per-
sons, unless such publication and its container are labeled as disseminated by a

Communist organization: or to broadcast any matter over the radio unless pre-
ceded by a statement that it is sponsored by a Communist organization. In each
instance the name of the organization would precede its identification as a
Communist organization.

Section 12 would deny Federal income-tax deductions for contributions to or
tor the use of any organization registered, or required by order to register,
under section 8; and would deny such organization exemption from Federal
Income tax.

Section 13 would provide that whenever (1) the Attorney General has reason
to believe that au unregistered organization is a Communist political organiza-
tion or a Communist-front organization (or he is requested by resolution of either
House of Congress to investigate whether an unregistered organization is within
either of those classifications) ; or (21 he receives from any registered organiza-
tion an application to be relieved from its classification as such, accompanied
by evidence which makes a prima facie showing that the organization is neither
a Communist political organization nor a Communst-front organization, it shall
be the duty of the Attorney General to institute a full investigation to determine
whether the organization is in fact a Communist political organization or a
Communist-front organization. The section would provide further, however, that
the Attorney General shall not make such a determination without first affording
the organization an opportunity for a public hearing. The section would also
provide for the attendance of witnesses and production of evidence at the place
of hearing.

Should the Attorney General determine that the unregistered organization is
within one of the designated classifications, he would make a written report
containing his findings, and issue an order requiring the organization to register
in accordance with section 8. Should he determine that a registered organiza-
tion is not within one of the designated classifications, he would make a written
report containing his findings, and cancel the registration of such organization.

Section 14 would provide for judicial review of an order issued by the Attorney
General pursuant to section 13. Findings of the Attorney General would be
conclusive if supported by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 15 would provide the following penalties : A fine of not less than $2,000
nor more than 5.000 for failure to register or file an annual report as required
by section 8, except when such failure is on the part of an officer of the oi'ganiza-
tion, in which case it would be not less than $2,000 nor more than 5,000 and/or
imprisonment for not less than 2 years nor more than 5 years (each day of failure
to register in response to an order would constitute a separate offense in either
instance) ; a fine of not less than $2,000 nor more than $5,000 and/or imprison-
ment for not less than 2 years nor more than 5 years for making any false state-
ment, or omitting any statement which is required or necessary to make informa-
tion not misleading, with respect to a registration statement or annual report
filed under section 8; a fine of not more than $5,000 and/or imprisonment for
not more than 2 years for a violation of any provision of the bill for which no
penalty is otherwise provided for in section 4 or 15.

Section 16 would provide that nothing in the bill shall be construed to make
the Administrative Procedure Act inapplicable to the exercise of functions or the
conduct of proceedings under the bill, except to the extent that the bill affords
additional procedural safeguards for organizations and individuals.

Section IT would provide a separability clause with respect to the validity of
bill and its application.

The bill represents two distinct statutory efforts — one directed to the prohi-
bition and punishment of subversive activities as such, and the other a registra-
tion statute calculated to effect disclosure of the identity and propaganda of
individual Communists and Communist organizations. Within this framework
there have also been incorporated certain other regulatory provisions relating to
the general problem. The subversive activities and registration sections of the
bill cannot, from a legal standpoint, be separate, but must be judged as a whole.
A failure to register under section 8 subjects the organization and certain of
its agents to severe penalties. On the other hand, any organization registering as
a Communist organization pursuant to section 8 would admit that it is under
the control of a foreign-controlled totalitarian dictatorship. Such an admis-
sion may render ir and its members immediately liable to the penalties of
section 4.

Therefore, the measure might be held (notwithstanding the legislative finding
of clear and present danger) to deny freedom of speech, of the press, and of

424 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

assembly, and even to compel self-incrimination. Cf. United States v. White
(322 U. S. C!)4). Discussing these constitutional guaranties, the Supreme Court
has said in West Virginia State Board of Education et al. v. Barnette et al. (319
U. S. 624, 642) :

"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, nation-
alism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word
or act their faith therein."

From the language of the bill, it appears uncertain whether mere membership
in a Communist organization, as defined in section 3, would constitute a viola-
tion of section 4. The principle that a criminal statute must be definite and
certain in its meaning and application is well established; a principle which
may not be satisfied by the definitions and criteria of the bill. Connolly v.
General Construction Company (269 U. S. 385) ; Lanzetta v. New Jersey (306
U. S. 451).

It is also doubtful whether or not this proposal will meet the requirements of
due process under the fifth amendment. 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. Money v. State of Georgia (279
U. S. 1 (1929)).

The foregoing should not be construed as disapproval of the principle of regis-
tration. Application of the principle to some areas of activity is sound and
wholesome. Cf. Bryant v. Zimmerman (278 U. S. 63). On the basis of past
experience with the groups affected by the measure, however, the Department is
inclined to believe there would not be any voluntary registrations under the
measure. Should a Communist organization fail to register, the burden to pro-
ceed would shift to the Attorney General who would then be called upon to em-
ploy the administrative provisions of the bill to prove that the organization is
required to register. Under the act, the Attorney General's action, if successful,
would result in the issuance of an order requiring the organization to register.
Thereafter, in the event of its registration, activity in its behalf would appear
to be proscribed under section 4. Should the organization still refuse to register,
membership in it would constitute a crime under section 10 as well as possibly
section 4. In summary, the effect of the bill would be to require Communists
either to avoid its application altogether, i. e., by refraining or professing to
refrain from any activity forbidden by the bill, or be outlawed and subject to
prosecution. It can be assumed that no organization would confess guilt by
registration and all would deny any activity condemned by the bill.

Outlawing of the Communist Party appears to this Department to be unwise,
even if doubts as to the constitutionality of such a step were removed. Out-
lawing would materially increase the Department's problem of law enforcement.
Whereas the Communist Party, to some extent, now operates on the surface, if
this bill becomes law it will be forced underground where surveillance of its
activities will become increasingly difficult. Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. Director of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation of this department, in his testimony before
the House Un-American Activities Committee in .March 1947, admonished that he
"would hate to see a group that does not deserve to be in the category of martyrs
have the self-pity that they would at once invoke if they were made martyrs by
some restrictive legislation that might later be declared unconstitutional."

The Department deems it also advisable to point out that the public hearing
and additional investigative features of the bill, aside from requiring a tre-
mendous expenditure of manpower and funds of doubtful return, would very
likely afford Communist organizations an excellent sounding board at the tax-
payers' expense.

In ley testimony before the Subcommittee on Legislation of the House Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities on February 5, 194S, I suggested eight steps
whereby the objective of isolating subversive movements in the United States
from effective interference with the body politic might he achieved, and made
some suggestions to strengthen existing legislation to assist in carrying out
those steps (pp. 22-24, hearings before the subcommittee, February ."», 1948).
I adhere to those suggestions. At the same time, I do not believe that sweeping
new legislation of this type is required.

Whether the bill should be enacted in the light of the foregoing considera-
tions presents a question of legislative policy. However, the Department of
Justice, for the reasons stated, is unable to recommend its enactment.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 425

The director of the Bureau of the Budget has advised thai there is no

objection to the submission of this report.
Sincerely yours,

Tom C. Clark, Attorney General.

Memorandum of Federal Law Section, Legislative Reference Service, Library
of Congress, ('oxstltiiioxality of H. R. 5852, Eightieth Congress, Second
Session ( Mundt-Nixon Bill)

This memorandum deals with various legal propositions raised in the Senate
hearings on the Mundt-Nixon bill and generally not considered in the earlier
memorandum on this bill placed in the record by Representative Nixon. Other
questions, not dealt with here, are believed covered fully by the earlier
memorandum.

It was contended that H. R. 5S52 convicts by legislative flat If this were
true, the measure would be unconstitutional. Maril&y v. Georgia ( (1929) 279 U.
S. 1). But the bill, after setting forth a declaration of the situation with which
Congress is confronted, fixes certain ascertainable standards which the Attorney
General and the courts must apply in determining whether or not organizations
shall register. To confide this original determination in the hands of an ad-
ministrative agency is not invalid. Tagg Bros. & Moorlicad v. U. S. ((1930)
280 U. S. 421). In Yakiis v. U. S. ( (1944) 321 U. S. 414), it was said that "These
[constitutional] essentials are preserved when Congress has specified the basic
conditions of fact upon whose existence or occurrence,, ascertained from relevant
data by a designated administrative agency, it directs that its statutory com-
mand shall be effective. It is no objection that the determination of facts and
the inferences to be drawn from them in the light of the statutory standards
and declaration of policy call for the exercise of judgment, and for the formula-
tion of subsidiary administrative poliev within the prescribed statutory frame-
work."

Moreover, the various offenses defined in the bill require some act or failure to
act on the part of the individual affected, and require conviction by judicial
process. The various provisions also seem to meet the test that there must be
a rational connection between what is to be proved and what is to be inferred.
Manley v. Georgia, supra. Hence, there appears to.be no basis for the claim
that H. R. 5852 convicts by legislative fiat.

The point was raised that there is no power in the United States to control
political activity of the sort regulated by H. R. 5852. As pointed out in the
earlier memorandum (p. 4), quoting from U. 8. v. Josephson ( (C. C. A. 2d, 1947)
165 F. (2d) 82, cert. den. (1948) 16 LW 3253, matters which affect the very
survival of the Government, whether from within or without, are within the
inherent sovereign power of the United States, overriding the purely personal
concerns of individuals. In Mackenzie v. Hare ((1915) 239 U. S. 299, 311),
an expatriation case, the Supreme Court conceded that the Federal Government
was one of delegated powers. The Court then declared :

"But there may be powers implied, necessary, or incidental to the expressed
powers. As a Government, the United States is invested with all the attributes
of sovereignty. As it has the character of nationality it has the powers of na-
tionality, especially those which concern its relations and intercourse with other
countries. We should hesitate long before limiting or embarrassing such powers."

In Missouri v. Holland ( (1920) 252 U. S. 416), involving a question of Federal
power, Mr. Justice Holmes stated that "The case before us must be considered in
the light of our whole experience and not merely in that of what was said a
hundred years ago." He pointed out that when a national interest of the "first
magnitude" was involved, the only question was "whether the United States is
forbidden to act," and that the Government was not compelled "to sit by" while
a national interest was imperiled by lack of national action. Further, in Gitlow
v. People of New York ((1925) 268 U. S. 652), the Supreme Court said:

"And, for yet more imperative reasons, a State may punish utterances endan-
gering the foundations of organized government and threatening its overthrow

426 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

by unlawful means. These imperil its own existence as a constitutional State
Freedom of speech and press, said Story (supra) does not protect disturbances
to the public peace or the attempt to subvert the Government It does not pro-
tect publications or teachings which tend to subvert or imperil the Government
or to impede or hinder it in the performance of its governmental duties. State
v. Holm, supra (p. 275). It does not protect publications prompting the over-
throw of government by force; the punishment of those who publish articles
which tend to destroy organized society being essential to the security of freedom
and the stability of the State. People v. Most, supra (pp. 431, 432). *And a State
may penalize utterances which openly advocate the overthrow of the representa-
tive and constitutional form of Government of the United States and the several
States, by violence or other unlawful means. People v. Lloyd (304 111. 23, 34).
See also State v. Tachin (92 N. J. L. 269, 274) ; and People v. Steelik (187 Cal. 361,
375). In short this freedom does not deprive a State of the primary and essen-
tial right of self preservation ; which, so long as human governments endure, they
cannot be denied. Turner v. Williams (194 U. S. 279, 294)."

In this case, Justices Holmes and Brandeis dissented, but on the ground that
the "left-wing" writings in question presented no "clear and present danger" to
the State.

Ill

The contention was made that U. S. v. Schneiderman ( (1943) 320 U. S. 118),
prohibits a conviction of guilt by association. But that decision held merely that
statements and writings of the Communist Party and its leaders could not be
imputed to Schneiderman to show that he did not have the statutory requisite
of attachment to the Constitution for the purposes of naturalization, where it
was not proved that he himself had supported or adopted these statements. Mr.
Justice Douglas, in. a concurring opinion, pointed out, however, that had Con-
gress provided that membership in the party made a man ineligible for citizen-
ship, then a different question would have been presented, and whether a person
was not a Communist would have been a fact to be proved, upon which the grant
of citizenship was predicated. And Mr. Justice Stone, dissenting with Justices
Roberts and Frankfurter, remarked that "A man can be known by the ideas he
spreads as well as by the company he keeps."

Contrasted with the Schneiderman case is Knaiter v. U. S. ((1946) 328 U. S.
654), involving the denaturalization of a Nazi. Mr. Justice Douglas, speaking
for the Court, declared :

"And as we stated in Schneiderman v. United States, supra (p. 139) : 'What-
ever attitude we may individually hold toward persons and organizations that
believe in or advocate extensive changes in our existing order, it should be our
desire and concern at all times to uphold the right of free discussion and free
thinking to which we as a people claim primary attachment.'

"But we have here much more than political utterances, much more than a
crusade for the protection of minorities. This record portrays a program of
action to further Hitler's cause in this Nation — a program of infiltration which
conforms to the pattern adopted by the Nazis in country after country. The ties
with the German Reich were too intimate, the pattern of conduct too consistent,
the overt acts too plain for us to conclude that Knauer was merely exercising his
right of free speech either to spread tolerance in this country or to advocate
changes here."

H. R. 5852 requires the showing of overt acts before an individual can be con-
victed. The activity Congress is attempting to regulate fulfills the description
set forth in the Knauer case, supra.

It was argued that the process set up by H. R. 5852 deprives individuals of their
constitutional right of jury trial for conviction of crime. But the tact that the
initial determination is to be made by the Attorney General, subject to court
review, does not deprive anyone of this right. Such a contention was set at rest
in Yakus v. V. S. ((1944) 321 U. S. 414), involving a conviction for disobeying
price regulations fixed by administrative action. The Court said :

"Nor has there been any denial in the present criminal proceeding of the right,
guaranteed by the sixth amendment, to a trial by a jury of the State and district
where the crime was committed. Subject to the requirements of due process,
which are here satisfied, Congress could make criminal the violation of a juice
regulation. The indictment charged a violation of the regulation in the district
of trial, and the question whether petitioners had committed the crime thus

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 427

charged in the Indictment and defined by Congress, namely, whether they had
violated the statute by willful disobedience of a price regulation promulgated by
the Administrator, was properly submitted to the Jury."

The righl to a jury trial means only that the ultimate determination of issues
of fact, if any. is to be by tlu> jury under the proper guidance and direction of the
court. Baltimore d Carolina Line, Inc. \. Redman i 1 1935) 295 U. S. 654). Where

issues of law Only, and not issues of fact, are presented, there is no right of trial

ii.\ jury. Interstate commerce Commission v. Brimson ((1894) 154 U. S. 447).
And a directed verdict does not deprive one of the right to jury trial. Galloway v.
T. N. ( <1!>43) 319 U. S. 372).

It was stated that H. R. 5852 amounts to a hill of attainder or an ex post facto
law. prohibited by article I, section IP. clause 1 of the Constitution. "A bill of
attainder is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial."
Cummings v. State of Missouri, ((1867) 71 U. S. 227 323). To the same effect,
see U. S. v. Lovett ( (1946) 328 U. S. 303). An ex post facto law is "one which
imposes a punishment for an act which was not punishable at the time it was
committed, or a punishment in addition to that then prescribed." Burr/ess v.
Salmon I (1878) !>7 U. S. 3S1, 384). Reading II. R. 5852 in light of these defini-
tions, no provision is revealed which prescribes punishment without conviction
through judicial proceedings, or which punishes for acts already committed.

It was argued that H. R. 5852 unconstitutionally prohibits the right of free
assembly. In DcJonge v. Oregon ( (1937) 299 U. S. 353), the Supreme Court held
that mere attendance at a public meeting called by the Communist Party could
not b? made a crime. The Court stated 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 proscrib?d. 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 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 utter-
ances transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which the Constitution
protects."

There is nothing in H. R. 5852 which prohibits or deals with peaceful assembly
as above defined.

VII

It was contended that H. R. 5852 denies the constitutional privilege against
self-incrimination under the fifth amendment. Nowhere does the bill restrict or
impair this privilege. Upon a prosecution under the terms of the proposed statute
the defendant or any witness could claim his constitutional privilege to refuse
any testimony tending to incriminate him. ' Proof would have to be adduced from
other sources. It has been held, moreover, that a witness cannot refuse to give
testimony which will simply degrade or humiliate him ; the clause will not be
construed "to protect witnesses against every possible detriment which might
happen to them from their testimony, nor to unduly impede, hinder, or obstruct
the administration of criminal justice." Brown v. Walker ( (1896) 161 U. S. 591) .

VIII

The point has been made that the Attorney General's subpena power is un-
checked. But such power is always subject to the fourth amendment, to be
applied in particular cases (see p. 8, pt. IX, of the earlier memorandum). So
long as the exercise of the subpena power by an administrative agency is sub-
ject in each case to determination by a judicial tribunal concerning constitutional
questions, as it is in H. R. 5852, the constitutional prerequisities have been met.
See Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson ((1894) 154 U. S. 447). The
only limitation upon the scope of the administrative subpena is that the records
or documents demanded "be reasonably relevant to the matter in issue." Det-
weiler Bros. v. Walling ( (C. C. A. 9th, 1946) 157 F. (d) 841). "Necessarily," as
has been said by the Supreme Court, "this cannot be reduced to formula; for
relevancy and adequacy or excess in the breadth of the subpena are matters vari-
able in relation to the nature, purposes, and scope of the inquiry." Oklahoma

78257 — 48 28

428 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Press Publishing Co. v. Walling ( (1946) 327 U. S. 186, 209). See also Davis, the
Administrative Power of Investigation ( (1947) 56 Yale L. J. 1111).

Many of the witnesses contended that H. R. 5852 was unconstitutional as
affording no "ascertainable standards of guilt" and as being so vague that the
crimes involved were not defined "with appropriate definiteness," referring to
Winters v. New York ((1948) 333 U. S. 507). This case is merely the latest
of a long line of decisions upholding this general proposition. See page 1 of
the earlier memorandum, part I. But in the Winters case the Court conceded
that "The entire text of the statute or the subjects dealt with may furnish
an adequate standard." In Screws v. United States ((1945) 325 U. S. 91), up-
holding a criminal statute against the charge of uncertainty, the Court paid
that the constitutional requirement of due process of law demands only that
a statute give a person acting with reference to it "fair warning that his con-
duct is within its prohibition." And in U. 8. v. Wurzbach ((1930) 280 U. S.
396), Mr. Justice Holmes declared:

"Whenever the law draws a line there will be cases very near each other
on opposite sides. The precise course of the line may be uncertain, but no one
can come near it without knowing that he does so, if he thinks, and if he does
so it is familiar to the criminal law to make him take the risk." [Italic supplied.]

It was urged that section 6 of the bill, dealing with public employment of
members of Communist political organizations, was unconstitutional. This
contention was dealt with in the earlier memorandum, part IV, page 5. Ad-
ditional note, however, may be made that Congress has the general power to
impose qualifications for office holding (Myers v. U. 8. (1926) 272 U. S. 52, 128),
and even assuming for the purposes of argument that there is some activity
beyond the reach of congressional control, "the power of Congress over the
conduct of officers and employees of the Government no more depends upon
authority over the ultimate purposes of that conduct than its power to punish
a use of the mails for a fraudulent purpose is limited by its inability to punish
the intended fraud." Mr. Justice Holmes in U. S. v. Wurzbach ((1930) 280
U. S. 396, 398).

Memorandum of the American Civil Liberties Union, New York, N. Y., With
Reoard to H. R. 5852 as Passed by tite 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. 1844) indicates that many of the
revisions were made to avoid constitutional attacks. In our view, the bill re-
mains 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 de-
tail, we wish to point to two underlying aspects which in our opinion render
most of its provisions unconstitutional: (1) 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"
l 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 or-
ganization comes within either category if "it is reasonable to conclude" that
if 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 "principal" instrumentality used by the "world Communist movement."
Either criteria can he determined on the basis of a series of considerations, many

1 The amendments made on the floor of the House do not materially alter the hill.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 429

Of them wholly unrelated ami entirely unlawful. Among these mentioned are
support Of the principles of Marx and Lenin and the extent to .winch the or-
ganization resists the efforts to obtain information with regard to its member-
ship. Included are also matters metre directly connected with control by a
foreign government

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 he 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
certainty 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
Government may he able to avoid offering proof before a judge and jury that the
suspected organization conies within the category of the law. For the bill in its
registration provisions (sec. S) 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. 1U). Use
of tlie 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 (c) ) .

Since it is contemplated that the Attorney General will determine which organ-
izations 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 submit
is in violation of the provisions of the sixth amendment which guarantees trial
by jury and a right of confrontation of witnesses. Kirby 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 organization
of a "totalitarian dictatorship" is punished by a possible fine of $10,000 or im-
prisonment 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 direction
and is not limited to acts of violence and to overt acts at all. For it expressly
punishes participation in any movement "to facilitate or aid" the establishment
of such a dictatorship. The last clause of this section contains the unusual pro-
vision 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 "totalitarian
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 indefinite, in
form and as interpreted as to permit within the scope of its language the punish-
ment of incidents fairly within the protection of the guarantee of free speech is
void on its face."

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 act
with intent to facilitate or aid in bringing about the establishment of a 'totali-
tarian dictatorship' "? What is covered by participation in the "supervision" of
such a movement or the facilitation or assistance in bringing about such a system
of government? As stated in the Winters case, supra, "where a statute is so vague
as to make criminal an innocent act, a conviction under it cannot be sustained.
Hemdon v. Lowery (301 U. S. 242, 259)." See also Stromberg v. California
(2*3U. S. 351). 360).

Finally, tins section would even outlaw a proposal to amend the Constitution
to establish a "totalitarian dictatorship."

4. Section 6 prohibits employment in the service of the United States, excepting
oidy for elective offices, of any person who is a member of a Communist political

430 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

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 wouldbe
binding.

We have consistently opposed the blanket proscription of persons from Govern-
ment service merely because of their affiliations. We find no justice in the broad
scope of tins 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.

6. The registration requirements of section 8 require the annual listing of officers
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 Attorney
General is required to notify any individual listed as a member. The bill, however,
requires the front organizations to keep records of members.

Section 1) 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 provi-
sion 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 Rutledge's
statement in Thomas v. Collins (323 U. S. fil6), 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 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.

8. Permeating the bill are two concepts, the unconstitutionality of which cannot
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 attempts to impose guilt by association. Prof. Zechariah
Chafee, Jr., in his Free Speech in the United States (1941), poignantly illus-
trates the dangers and absurdities of the doctrine (pp. 470-484).

Under section 10, a member of a Communist political organization may go to
jail for 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
member 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. 8., 323, U. S. 214). Section 10 is
therefore unconstitutional. See Mr. Justice Murphy in Bridge v. Wilson (326
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 (Cumminffs v. Ho., 4 Wall. 277). The present bill con-
st itutes a congressional determination that in effect all members of a Communist
political organization are automatically subjected to certain penalties merely by

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 431

the fact of membership. The bill by the registration provisions removes the
right of privacy from them. They may not obtain or seek privileges, such as
passports or Federal jobs, to which other persons .-ire eligible, it is hard to see
a distinction between a statute prescribing certain oat lis as a condition to prac-
tice' law in the Federal courts and a statute such as the one under consideration.
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 {Cwnmmgs v. Mo., supra; Ex parte Garland,
4 Wall. 333. and see as particularly in point, United states v. Lovett, 328 U. S.
303. 3ir,. 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 the1
definition. The definition of a "Communist political organization" is an ill-
disguised 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, that apply to named
individuals or to easilg ascertainable manlier* of a group. * * are bills

of attainder {United States v. Lovett, supra, 315). [Italics added.]

Supplement to Memorandum on 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 Lib-
erties 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 hooks to combat any "clear and present danger" from com-
munism. Among these are the Espionage Act, operative only in time of war
(50 U. S. C. A. 33), the Peacetime Sedition Act (18 U. S. C. A., sees. 9 to 13), the
Subversive Organizations Registration Act (18 U. S. C. A., sees. 14 to 17), and the
Foreign Agents Registration Act (22 U. S. C. A., sees. 611 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 legis-
lation 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
penalties? 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
ultimate 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" (DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 365).
These words have apt application to the present problem. If it be true, as
H. 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 wrell to recall
Mr. Justice Jackson's observation 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 heart of the
existing order" (Board of Education v. Burnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642).

3. We have some further comments on the bill itself :

(a) We think that it has been sufficiently demonstrated that registration of an
organization found by the Attorney General to be a Communist political organiza-

432 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

tion 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 indication of the
dangers inherent in the bill. This conclusion is reached by the following analysis :

I nder section 8, Communist political organizations are required to register
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. U. S., 328 U. S. 750. )

(ft) 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
because 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 sub-
ject 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 Dc Jongc v. Oregon, supra, Taylor v. Mississippi. 31S U. S.
583.) Registration which is akin to licensing would similarly seem to fall within
the constitutional 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. These is, thus, a double violation of
the rule against prior restraints. (Cf. the Collins case, mentioned on p. 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. Rut 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.

Statement and Rrief of Louis Waldman, Member of the New York Par, on
H. R. 5852, Ax Act to Protect the United States Against Un-American
Activities, Commonly Referred to as the Mtwdt-Nixon Rill, Submitted to
the Judiciary Committee of the Senate

Let me say at the outset, that I am in entire accord with the principal objec-
tives of the Mundt-Nixon bill and that I believe legislation to protect the people
of the United States from Communist fraud and deceit by exposure, and to pro-
tect the Nation from Communist fifth-column tactics, is of critical importance.

On the basis of my experience with, and knowledge of, the Communist move-
ment and Communist-front organizations, it is clear to me that they constitute
a clear and present danger to the welfare of the United States, and that legis-
lation to meet and overcome this danger is necessary.

I can understand why Communists and their fellow travelers should b;> opposed
to such legislation, and should be so bitterly opposed to the Mundt-Nixon bill,
but I am convinced, by the same token, that those of us who oppose communism
and Communist penetration, regardless of our party affiliations, should not beat
a hasty retreat from our position when we are confronted with legislation which
is designed to meet this menace to our country.

It is generally conceded that the Communist Party numbers from 80,000 to
100,000 members. That is indeed a small number. Rut let us be under no illusions

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 433

concerning Communist strength. In my opinion the Communists have so Ear
penetrated the industrial, cultural, and political life of our country, that if a
poll were taken, many, many times 100,000 of our citizens would vote for Com-
munists and the Communist program.

Despite their relatively small number, the Communists have the power, through
their pentration of key unions operating in sensitive spots in our highly com-
plex and interdependent economy, to cripple our national defenses in case of
war. it' that should serve the interests of the Soviet Union. Through their pos-
session of these key positions, they can also sow dissension in our Nation and
use chaos and confusion as a means of advancing their ends.

(»n the basis of years of study of the Communist movement and philosophy,
it is clear to me that the Communist Party is organized along military, or secret
police, lines. If has cells or secret units in governmental agencies, bureaus,
departments, unions, schools, colleges, church organizations, and fraternal bodies
and is organized along geographical lines in blocks or other areas.

These cells or units are spread throughout the country and aggregate in the
United Stales an admitted membership numbering between SO.OiJO and ltKl.OOf).

These units or cells are secret organizations. The identity of their members
is unknown to the rest of the community, and to the groups and organizations
within which they function as cells.

The members of these cells are indoctrinated and trained to discipline obedience
to the orders of their superiors.

The basic lines and policies laid down by these superiors to he carried out by
these cells, are decided not on the basis of any exchange of opinion, discussion,
or judgment arrived at by the members of the cells themselves, but by an inter-
national body which is an organ of the Soviet Government, which has its seat
in the Kremlin, and which determines its policies in accordance with the inter-
ests and needs of Soviet Russia.

Clearly then, the strength of the Communists, and their power to injure the
United States, cannot he judged in terms of their party memberships alone.

The power that the Communists wield is used to wage war against American
civilization as a part of their program of world revolution. All their activities
are merely tactical steps toward world power.

Communists plan for chaos and confusion. To hasten the break-down of
capitalism and to hasten the downfall of non-Communist countries, the Com-
munist movement fosters civil strife, sabotage, and industrial unrest. It is a
cardinal doctrine of Communist teaching that capitalism must go through periodic
crises and wars, and that in every country it is the duty of Communists to turn
these crises into the raw material of revolution, and these wars into civil wars
in which they can seize power. And as a first step, they consider it their duty
to turn every grievance that arises under our system, and every weakness in our
system, into a potential crisis: and every potential crisis into an actual crisis.

To accomplish these ends they have skillfully built up a huge network of fellow
travelers and Communist-front organizations. And the plain fact is that fellow
travelers and fellow-traveling organizations are mere tools, willing or unwilling,
of the Communist Party.

Taking into account the tightness of their discipline, the large numbers of their
followers, and their penetration of the key spots of our economy, it is obvious,
as I have already said, that the Communist movement constitutes a clear and
present danger.

The broad objectives of the Mundt-Nixon bill are to meet and overcome that
danger.

Favoring, as I do. the objectives of the Mundt-Nixon bill I am. nevertheless,
convinced that as it now stands it would probably not survive the test of con-
stitutionality— particularly insofar as section 4 of the bill is concerned, and
probably in the creation of a criminal sanction against those who do not volun-
tarily register, where there has been no prior legal determination that the organi-
zations of which they are members are Communist organizations.

I should therefore like to urge certain specific amendments to make the bill
more practicable and realistic, to eliminate certain aspects of the bill which are
not in accord with our tradition of civil liberty, and to render it less vulnerable
to attack on constitutional grounds.

1. Communist political or front organizations should he required to register
only after they have been found to be such either by the courts, or by a special
administrative hoard, with quasi-judicial powers to he known as the National
Freedom and Security Board. Otherwise, it seems to me. the crime of failure
to register is too vague and indefinite. As the bill is now drawn, section 15
makes it a crime to fail to register as required by section 8, but section 8

434 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

places the burden of reaching a correct conclusion as to the nature of a Com-
munist organization on the individual citizen or officer. If he guesses wrong in
his evaluation of the criteria set forth in the bill for determining whether an
organization is a Communist organization, he becomes liable to punishment. Thus
from the viewpoint of constitutionality, the question arises whether the sub-
stantive crime is defined with sufficient clarity and definiteness. From the
viewpoint of fairness, the question arises whether the individual citizen should
be required, on the basis of criteria which of necessity are difficult to evaluate,
to make a correct evaluatou, on pain of fine or imprisonment should his evalua-
tion prove to be incorrect.

Not only should the crime of failure to register come into existence only after
there had been a finding that an organization is a Communist organization, but,
to protect the innocent, as well as to assure exposure of the guilty, determina-
tion of what organizations are in fact Communist organizations should be made
by the courts or the board after a full trial.

It is the essence of freedom to be entitled to a fair trial, on accusations made
known to you, with a full opportunity to confront the accuser, to cross examine,
and to offer evidence in defense. Fair play is the heart of due process. Whether
an organization is Communist or not, is a question of fact in each case. That
issue must not be prejudged, and cannot justly be determined ex parte.

The statute therefore should provide that the determination as to whether or
not an organization is a Communist organization and therefore required to
register, shall lie with the courts of the United States, or the board, upon notice
to the organization after full trial, with the right of confrontation and cross
examination, and the opportunity to present a full defense. By following such
a procedure, there is insui'ed to every organization its full civil rights.

It is my belief that the findings should be made in the first instance by the
courts. If, however, this honorable committee feels that too great delay might
thereby be occasioned, they should not in any event be made by the Attorney
General, but should be made by the National Freedom and Security Board,
consisting of from three to five public spirited citizens, of which I have already
spoken.

There are today numerous Federal penal statutes under which Communists
might be prosecuted criminally, and the duty to do so is laid on the Attorney
General. Moreover, in this very bill, under section 4 criminal prosecutions against
Communists would necessarily have to be conducted by the Attorney General.
At the same time this bill invests the Attorney General with quasi-judicial powers
in determining whether an organization is, or is not a Communist organization.
The functions of prosecutor and judge should never, it seems to me. be vested in
the same public officer. To do so is neither good government nor good law, and
runs counter to the spirit of our institutions.

The independent board which I suggest should be given the power to try and
determine the issue of whether an organization charged with being a Communist
political or front organization is such in fact, and in the trial before it. there
should be afforded the same safeguards as are afforded in such administrative
agencies as. say, the National Labor Relations Board. The findings of this board
should, of course, be subject to review by the courts. The failure to register after
an appropriate finding by the board as embodied in a court decree should be
treated as a civil and criminal contempt, as well as a criminal offense under
the statute.

2. The duty of initating proceedings under the act, whether before the court
or before the board, should be laid upon the Attorney General as the Nation's
chief law enforcement officer, in the first instance. But any citizen or organiza-
tion should have the right to bring a similar action, in which the Attorney General
should have the right to intervene.

3. Section 4 of the bill, which seeks to make it a crime under heavy penalty,
to attempt in any manner to establish in the United States a totalitarian dic-
tatorship 'under' the direction and control of any foreign government, foreign
organization, or foreign individual," should be totally eliminated. This section
weakens rather than strengthens the program embodied in the rest of thebil'.

First, this section does not cure the evil which it is sought to reach — the
existence of a conspiracy between American adherents of communism and a
foreign totalitarian dictatorship, with the objective of undermining or destroying
our Government, and establishing a Communist dictatorship. It is not neces-
sarily a part of the Communist creed that a Communist dictatorship, once estab-
lished, need be under the domination of a foreign power. Thus, the fifth-column

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 435

activity which is today being carried on under the control of a foreign power is
left completely untouched by this section.

If. however, section 4 is retained, it seems to me that the bill should be amended
in at least two respects. First, there should be a definition of "totalitarian dic-
tatorship" which is made the basis of a crime in section 4, but is nowhere defined.
True, reference is made to it in the findings, but not in the definitions. Were this
section to survive constitutional obstacles on other grounds, it would, in my
opinion, nevertheless fail on this one, because without definition the crime here
SOUgfit to be created is too vague and indefinite.

Second, section 4 (c) should be eliminated because there is no reason why
prosecution under section 4 should lie without any time limit. Statutes of limi-
tations are rooted deeply in the philosophy of the administration of justice. It
would be manifestly unfair that some act committed by a person today should 20
or 30 years later be invoked by a prosecutor having personal or political motives
to hound such a citizen even if he has long since ceased the activities condemned
by section 4.

4. Section 5 of the bill should be eliminated. Of course, if section 4 is elimi-
nated, section 5 will of necessity drop. But if section 4 is not eliminated, then,
in my opinion, section 5 should in any event be eliminated since, taken together
with section 4 (b), it provides for punishment so severe that juries will hesitate
to convict. Section 4 (b) itself provides for a sufficiently severe penalty. More-
over, as with many other penal statutes, section 4 (b) provides for a flexible
penalty and permits the exercise of some degree of discretion by the court in
fixing punishment upon conviction. Section 5, on the other hand, makes forfei-
ture of citizenship mandatory in addition to the other punishments provided.

Experience has shown that where the prescribed punishment is too great and
there is no discretion in the court to mitigate the degree of punishment juries
simply will not convict. In other words, excessive punishment, aside from being
unwise and inhuman, is also impracticable since it defeats the very purpose of
the act.

5. The Mundt-Nixon bill should be amended to provide that a candidate for
Federal public office who is endorsed or nominated by an organization found to
be a Communist political or front organization, shall be required to file either

(a) a written declination and rejection of such endorsement or nomination, or

(b) a written statement under oath that he accepts the principles and policies of
such organization.

This provision is aimed at those persons who, in order to win election to public
office, are willing to accept the nomination of totalitarian parties, or organiza-
tions, or of parties having affiliations with or being in sympathy with totalitarian
parties or organizations, although the candidates themselves are not sympathetic
to totalitarianism. Here is a case where congressional restraint must be provided
where self-restraint is not enough to cause candidates for public office to refrain
from giving aid and comfort to Communists. For the effpct of accepting endorse-
ment of a political party which is totalitarian in its nature by a candidate who
is known to the public not to be a Communist is, at the very least, to delude the
public into the belief that such a party is within the American tradition because
it has endorsed a candidate who is within the American tradition. Moreover it
would have the effect of preventing the trading of promises of political preferment
for adherents of the Communist organization as the price of endorsement by such
an organization.

The past decade has witnessed the tragic consequences of the political popular
front in the United States and other countries. The popular front, like the united
front, is a well-known technique of the Communist Party and the Comintern,
with the Trojan-horse policy as one of its major aspects. With all their fraud
and deception, the Communists of the United States could never have achieved
their present dangerous position of power in our industrial, cultural, and fra-
ternal life, as well as in the Government services, were it not for the willingness
of parties and candidates for public office who are not Communists to enter into
a popular front with the Communists.

The foregoing amendments are urged upon your committee and on the Senate
because of my profound conviction that legislation of this kind, if it is truly to
operate in the public interest, must he fair and just and in the spirit of American
institutions. It should not contain features which may have the effect of inciting
sympathy for the Communists instead of that antipathy which they so richly
deserve.

436 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

[Telegram]

New York, N. Y., May 27, 1948.
Senator Alexander Wiley,

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,

Washington, D. C.

My Dear Senator: Flattered at your request for information to be specific;
I think it highly important that some legislation be enacted to prevent corruption
of the market place of thought by stealthy underground movements. The dis-
closure principles of the Mundt bill go in the right direction. As I testified at
length before the ouse committee, I believe that the worthy aims of the Mundt
bill could be constitutionally, easily, and fully accomplished by providing general
disclosure legislation of the type endorsed by the President's Committee on Civil
Rights, on which representatives of capital and labor and minority groups were
fully represented. I doubt the practicability and constitutionality of the Mundt
bill solely because it singles out one group and because the treatment is of such
a nature as to drive underground rather-than aboveboard. Many of the objections
made to the Mundt bill are Communist-inspired and are, in my opinion, thor-
oughly invalid. I am convinced, however, that the Mundt bill is an honest but
ineffective effort to approach a problem of national danger.

However, you cannot beat a horse with no horse. Hence, please take a look
at the testimony which I put into the record at the time of the hearings before
the Thomas committee. This proposal of mine was presented to the New York
City Bar Association and received endorsement in general terms by that asso-
ciation. Since my testimony before the House committee I have simplified the
approach. I am convinced that a simple bill calling for disclosure of all groups
going in mass fashion to the minds of the American people would operate without
constitutional restraints so that anonymous literature and the use of undisclosed
funds could no longer exist. In such a climate neither William Z. Foster nor the
Ku Klux Klan could operate. I am not concerned about the overt acts in the
American scene. They are known and disclosed. The corruption comes from
our inability to locate the persons for whom they are acting and who finance
their efforts. Do examine Treasury regulations for filing tax returns by all
organizations claiming exemptions. This will be your springboard for undis-
puted constitutional action for disclosure.

I analogize my program to the SEC disclosure features, the lobbying funds
legislation, the political fund disclosure legislation, and the disclosure of
all periodicals and newspapers under second-class mailings in order to know
who is back of each paper. I suggest you look at my testimony before the House
committee for more details and let me know if I can be of any help. It is my
best judgment that the House committee should accept in conference a straight
disclosure bill which could be drafted so as to relieve unnecessary bother of
hospitals, educational institutions, etc., presently licensed by States and as
to which disclosure is presently made. Honest people have no fears. Writings
under nightshirts have no place in our democracy. You might have someone see
a brief statement I made in the May 15, 194S. issue of the New Leader. I trust
that Congress will not at this crucial time fail to come to grips with the problem.
We cannot defend the Bill of Rights in a market place of thought open for
stealth and concealment. Truth can only win out in the clash of public opinion
if all cards are on the table. Don't hesitate to let me know if I can help you
further.

Morris L. Ernst.

Statement of Lee Pressman, General Counsel for International Fttr and
Leather Workers Union and International Mine. Mill, and Smelteb
Workers Union. The Mundt Control Bill (H. R. 5S52), a Law to Legalize
Fascism and Destroy American Democracy

Never in our history has there been leveled as serious a threat to American
democracy as the Mundt bill. This vicious proposed legislation is of the same
stripe as the early laws and decrees of Hitler.

Its purpose is clear: to destroy labor unions and progressive organizations
and to silence every voice of protest or criticism against the blackest reactionary
policies which those in power may seek to enact.

Basic to the preservation of American democracy is the peoples' protection con-
tained in the first amendment to the Constitution. This guarantees that no
law can be enacted which will curb or limit the exercise of the freedom of speech,

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 437

press, and assembly. These rights have received special treatment from the
United states Supreme Court. Where Congress or State legislatures have en-
deavored to pass laws Infringing upon t hese rights, t lie < !ouri lias said :

"This Court has characterized the freedom Of speech and that of the press as
fundamental personal rights and liberties. The phrase is not an empty one and
was not lightly used, it reflects the belief of the framers of the Constitution
that exercise of the rights lies at the foundation of the free government by free
men. It stresses, as do many opinions of this Court, the importance of preventing
the restriction of enjoyment of these liberties.

"In every case, therefore, where legislative abridgment of the rights is asserted,
the courts should he astute to examine the effects of the challenged legislation.
Mere legislative preferences or beliefs respecting matters of public convenience
may well support regulation directed at other personal activities but be insufficient
to justify such as diminishes the exercise of rights so vital to the maintenance
of democratic institutions."

Equally important to the protection of the people against the tyranny of
Government officials is the preservation of the principles that no individual
may be held guilty for acts of others in the absence of a conspiracy, that guilt may
he based only upon acts and not upon beliefs or thoughts, and that no person
may be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Finally, the American Constitution specially forbids and abolishes slavery.

The Fascist Mundt bill coldly and arrogantly sets aside the Constitution and
all the basic democratic principles of our Nation.

Freedom of speech, press, and assembly under this bill could only be exercised
by those whose thoughts and beliefs are approved by Parnell, Thomas, and Rankin.

If this bill wrere to become law, individuals or groups could be punished or
criminally proscribed for entertaining beliefs or thoughts which might be offensive
to Wall Street or the military brass.

This could even be done not for their personal beliefs but merely because certain
individuals are members of an organization wdiich has been condemned.

Trade-unions, under this bill, may be condemned and their members criminally
prosecuted for engaging in a strike to seek an improvement in wages or their
living conditions. Thus economic slavery may be reimposed.

No clearer subversive act has ever been performed than the introduction of this
vile atrocity known as the Mundt bill. It truly reflects the scorn entertained by
the members of the Thomas "Un-American Committee" toward American
democracy.

THE HOUSE ANTI-AMERICANS

This bill is the poisonous product of secret sessions of the House Committee on
Un-American Activities and the climax of its 10 years of ruthless and unbridled
warfare against everything progressive and decent in this country.

NAM'S REPRESENTATIVES ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS

That this bill could have been introduced demonstrates the boldness of re-
action's representatives in the Government and the fruition of plans made years
ago by the National Association of Manufacturers, the Du Ponts, the Pews, and
the McCormicks to promote their representatives from the Washington hotel
lobbies into the seats of Congress itself. Their spokesman and representatives
no longer exercise their pernicious influence behind the scenes. They exercise
the authority of Government themselves.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMPLAINT ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION

Last February. Attorney Genera] Clark testified before the committee that his
drive against trade-unions and progressive leaders was hampered by the Consti-
tution of the United States and the decisions of the Supreme Court which prevent
prosecutions for mere political associations and beliefs. He testified that the
Government had been unable to prove in any case that the Communist Party is
an organization which advocated the overthrow of the Government by force and
violence. Under the decisions of the Supreme Court, Congress could not, by
mere legislative fiat, without a trial, proscribe specific organizations. The Con-
stitution forbids "bills of attainder" and requires "due process of law." There
must be afforded in court an opportunity for the unlawful character of the
organization to be proved or disproved ; guilt must be proved individually and
not by association.

438 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS ERASED

This bill is the committee's arrogant answer to the constitutional protections
of the people of which the Attorney General complained. It erases those pro-
tections.

It abolishes trial by court and jury and instead of due process of law substitutes
administrative hearings, in which the Attorney General is prosecutor, judge,
and jury ; it permits fishing expeditions and searches and seizures by the Attorney
General ; it limits the freedom of speech, press, and assembly, not only of Com-
munists but of every American and particularly of union members; it imposes
thought control in the exact pattern of the Nazis and Japanese.

In the name of anticommunism, and under the pretext of "regulation," it
proposes to proscribe the literature we may read, the speeches we may hear,
the movies and plays we may see, the organizations we may join, the meetings
we may attend, the ideas we may hold, and the causes we may espouse — all
under penalty of imprisonment, loss of citizenship, and loss of the right to earn
a livelihood. It would, by repressive fear and terror, stifle any voice of opposi-
tion in order to assure the grip of monopoly and the drive into international
conflict.

THE PLOT TO JAM IT THROUGH

Introduced into the House on April 28, the Munch; bill was rushed to the floor
without public hearings and with a limit on debate, for early vote in the present
hysterical drive to fascism and war, amidst a conspiracy of silence and falsi-
fication in which the press and radio participated.

This bill is represented as a proposal to require the registration of Com-
munists, to bring their activities "into the open" — and nothing more. This
is a complete and deliberate falsification. In the guise of "regulating" Com-
munists, this bill would impose an iron censorship and rigorous black-out enforced
by fine, imprisonment, loss of citizenship, and of all other rights upon labor
unions, progressive and liberal civic, social, religious, and minority politcal
organizations, without exception.

THE HITLER LIE PATTERN

This bill is not only completely unconstitutional, it is violently anticon-
stitutional. It is founded on the premise of the big Hitler lie — the same "world
( 'ommunist conspiracy" lie that launched the Axis against the world.

Just as did Hitler.the committee proposes to use this lie as the springboard
for the obliteration of all "dangerous," "disloyal," or "un-American" ideas; to
sweep the country with thought control and reactionary censorship of any social,
political, or economic dissent and particularly to launch an unlimited offensive
against the labor movement.

By dressing up and drumming away at this Axis lie with the unprecedented
barrage of propaganda, its perpetrators seek to paralyze the people against the
defense of their freedom.

"COMMUNIST IDEAS AND VIEWS"

The fight for a living wage and for job security becomes, under this bill, part
of the Communist plan for the "disruption of trade and commerce" and therefore
cannot lie tolerated by Mundt and his coconspirators.

The fight for repeal of the poll tax, to eliminate discrimination, and against
Jim Crow becomes, under this bill, part of the Communist plan "to incite economic,
social, and racial strife, and conflict" and must be destroyed.

The fight against monopoly, for price and rent controls, for housing and educa-
tion, becomes, under this bill, part of the Communist "dissemination of propa-
ganda calculated to undermine established Government and institutions" and
must be suppressed.

The insistence upon tlie equal right of all to employment and resistance to
reactionary administration of the Government becomes, under this bill, part
of the Communist plan to "corrupt'' the Government, which must be eliminated.

Everything progressive and liberal becomes a Communist idea which must be
destroyed.

Acceptance of this lie, which, propagated by Hitler, rendered the world well-
nigh powerless to resist the Fascist assault and brought it to the brink of destruc-
tion. Millions of lives were lost from belief in this lie. Only by recognizing
its falsity in time, were we ourselves saved from annihilation.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 439

This bill resurrects this lie in the exact pattern of the Nazis and attempts
thereby to reproduce the same results; the black-out of all progressive ideas,
individuals, and organizations with the same anti-Oommunist formula.

The same Slogan which Hitler used to imprison the minds of men so that he
might conquer the world is, within ." years alter his death, refined and marketed
again, bj monied monopoly seeking to becloud the thinking of the Nation so
that they may accomplish what he failed to accomplish — the enslavement of

the people.

This bill makes it potentially criminal to belong to any organization to improve
conditions, provide housing and schools, fighl inflation, eliminate discrimination,
provide medical and social care, fight militarization, support the United Nations,
support the third party, and it will he particularly dangerous to belong to a labor
union and to engage in a strike. These proscriptions are directed not only to
members of organizations but to nonmembers as well: to all individuals who
might dare to criticize any policy which the ruling clique through the Attorney
General might sponsor.

"communist" organizations

Ostensibly the bill is directed against Communist "political" and "front"
organizations. Actually, any individual and any "group of persons, whether
or not incorporated, permanently or temporarily associated together for action
on. or advancement of views on, any subject or subjects" are affected (sec. 3

(1) (2)).

No one is exempt from this dragnet legislation. Every individual, every ex-
pression, is subject to censorship. Every conversation, every meeting, every
gathering, even of neighbors, which oppose any significant plank in monopoly's
program to gouge and oppress the people and to achieve world control is poten-
tially suspect and subject to FBI inquisition, to spying, to snooping, and to
frame-up.

To accomplish this, the committee has closely paralled the early decrees of
Hitler. The purpose is, under the cry of fighting communism, to render the
people powerless to defend their liberty, their freedom, and their lives; to label
the right for peace, for labor's rights, for democracy, for international co-
operation, as Communist slogans which cannot be tolerated and must be
eliminated.

POWER VESTED IN ATTORNEY GENERAL

This bill assigns to one man, the Attorney General, the functions formerly
performed by the ministry of information and propaganda under Herr Goebbels.
He is given the power to decide whether an organization is a Communist
"political" or "front" organization. This determination is not to be based
upon a finding that the organization seeks to overthrow our Government by
force and violence or that it is engaged in the commission of any criminal acts.
On the contrary, the determination is to be made on the basis of the views,
ideas, and policies expressed by the organization. And, moreover, he is not
even required to "find" that the organization is a Communist "political" or
"front" organization. It is enough if he "reasonably concludes" that it is.
on the basis of "some but not necessarily all" of the characteristics of such
organizations described in the bill. These characteristics include the "extent and
nature of the activities of an organization, including the expression of views
and policies," "the extent to which its policies are formulated, carried out, and
its activities performed * * * to effectuate the policies of a foreign govern-
ment or organization"; the "extent to which its views and policies are the same
as those of such foreign government or foreign organization" ; the extent to
which it refuses to disclose its membership.

If under these general and catch-all "characteristics" the Attorney General,
after a hearing initiated and conducted by him, "reasonably concludes" it is
"under the control" of a foreign government or political organization or "one
of the principal instrumentalities" of the world "Communist movement," he
may proscribe it.

No jury ever passes on this question. The Attorney General is not bound
by the rules of evidence which prevail in a court of law. No matter how pre-
ponderant or overwhelming the evidence may be against his finding, the courts
must sustain it if there is substantial evidence to support his conclusion. This
power is not unlike the power vested in the Nazi courts by the 1935 Hitler laws
(section 276-a, Reichgezetzblatt I. 839. June 28, 1935) as follows:

"Sec. 2C>7-a. If it appears at the trial that the accused has committed an act
which deserves punishment according to sound popular feeling, but which is

440

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

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 isTequired in the interest of justice."

The American people have already seen examples of Attorney General Clark's
and J. Edgar Hoover's concepts of Communist-front organizations: an organ-
ization to aid Franco's victims, a worker's school, a Washington book shop,
the International Workers' Order, have already been proscribed.

This legislation is more embracing, its scope wider, its tentacles more grasping,
even than the loyalty order. Is there any progressive organization in the
country, a group anywhere dedicated to the cause of peace or security, or
democracy, or to the improvement of living standards that would be safe from
the persecution of Clark or Hoover under this bill? Is the third party safe?
An Assistant Secretary of State and the Chief of Intelligence have already stated
before congressional committees that the Wallace Party is merely Communist
propaganda. How long would it take Mr. Clark, fortified by tins monstrous
legislation, to outlaw the third party?

For example, using the tests supplied by the Mnndt bill, here is how it could
be used against CIO-PAC :

CHARACTERISTICS OF "COMMUNIST ORGAN-
IZATIONS," LISTED IN SECTION 3 OP
MUNDT BILL

(1) "The extent to which its views
and policies are the same as those of
such foreign organization or foreign
government."

(2) "The identity of the persons who
are active in its management, direction,
or supervision, whether or not holding
office."

(3) "The extent to which it fails
to disclose * * * its membership
* * * or the records other than mem-
bership lists."

"CERTAIN PROHIBITED ACTS" IN SECTION
4 OF MUNDT BILL

"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 facilitate
or aid in bringing about the establish-
ment in the United States of such a
totalitarian dictatorship.

Section 1. "Necessity for legislation"
— "to carry out the objectives of the

UN-AMERICAN COMMITTEE REPORT OF 1944
ON CIO-PAC (MARCH 20, 1944) HOUSE
REPORT NO. 1311, SEVENTY-EIGHTH CON-
GRESS

"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).

"AVe find that immediately prior to
the setting up of the CIO Political Ac-
tion Committee the leaders of the Com-
munist Party were agitating for the
establishment of just such an agency"
(P. 3).

"A majority (21) of the interna-
tional unions affiliated with the CIO
have an entrenched Communist leader-
ship" (p. 4).

"One of the most seditious organi-
zations * * * was the American
Peace Mobilization instrument of the
Communist Party line prior to Hitler's
attack on Russia. We cite * * *
79 leaders of the APM, most of whom are
now active in the work of the CIO-
PAC. This single fact is sufficient to
put the brand of communism on the
PAC" (pp. 5, 6).

"Sidney Hillman announced * * *
that lie would refuse 'to submit the
books or records of the CIO Political
Action Committee to Mr. Martin Dies
for investigation'" (p. 1).

"We believe, however, that these 34
cases by themselves establish the fact
that the CIO Political Action Com-
mittee represents in its main outlines a
subversive Communist campaign to
subvert the Congress of the United
States to its totalitarian program"
(P- 7).

"The Communists * * * will at-
tempt by stealth and subterfuge to do

CONTROL OF SIHYKKSIYE ACTIVITIES 441

"CERTAIN PROHIBITED ACTS-- IN SECTION UN-AMERICAN COMMITTEE BEPOET OF 1944

, op mundt l-.i 1 1. continued on cio-pac (makch 2». ism iioitke

REPORT NO. l.'i 1 1. SEVENTY-EUlHTH con-
gress— continued

world Communisl movement * * * through the PAC what they have failed

anion- the methods commonly used are to do when functioning as a political

* * * corrupting officials of the Gov- party under their own oame, i. e., to

ernment and securing the appointment gain political leadership over millions

of their agents and sympathizers to of- of voters" (p. 5).
flees and positions in the Government."

The Attorney General has the same tyrannical power "reasonably to conclude"
that an organization is a "front" organization on the basis of some or all of the
following considerations: First, the identity of the persons active in its manage-
ment ; second, the sources of its funds; third, the use made of its resources and
personnel: and fourth, the position taken or advanced by it from time to time
on matters of policy.

Thus, any and every organization which opposes the bipartisan foreign policy,
opposes militarization of the Nation, demands an end to American support of the
P'ascist regime in Greece and particularly any labor organization which engages
in a strike in time of preparation for war and certainly in time of war. or which
permits Communists in its membership, faces a charge of being a front organiza-
tion. Every trade union which refuses to expose its members to blacklist by
disclosing its membership, is guilty of one of the characteristics of a Communist
organization on the basis of which the Attorney General is given power to con-
demn it.

No organization, unless it is dedicated to the program of monopoly and war
expressed by the National Association of Manufacturers, is exempt from the un-
limited scope of the tyrannical power vested in the Attorney General.

Although this buckshot legislation is directed at nil civic, social, political, and
even religions organizations which might question monopoly's authority, it is par-
ticularly aimed at the labor movement.

The intent of the bill as revealed in its first draft recited, as tests of proscribed
organizations those which use the method of "disruption of trade and commerce,"
"inciting of economic, social, and racial strife and conflict" and the like. These
demagogic expressions are familiar to workers as weapons in the arsenal of
employers and their allies during any organizing drive and during any strike for
improved conditions. Labor knows bow the exercise of its fundamental rights,
an ordinary strike for wages or security, is transformed into the bogeyman of
subversion of the Government itself.

How easy will it be for the Attorney General who sought and obtained oppres-
sive injunctions against the miners, the railroad workers and others, who began
a deportation drive against militant trade unionists and who asserted the right to
bold aliens without bail, to find that a strike is disrupting trade and commerce?
Or for the FBI Director, who has been unable to apprehend a single lyncher
because of his preoccupation with the persecution of progressive labor leaders, to
find that agitation for repeal of the poll tax is incitement to racial strife?

No organization which is concerned with the improvement of conditions and
which is sensitive to the dominion of monopoly, which believes in world peace
and cooperation, which is concerned with progress and decency, is safe from
condemnation as a Communist front under the limitless powers conferred upon
an Attorney General compliant with the desires of reaction.

This bill does much more than outlaw the Communist Party. It outlaws all
those who refuse to fit into the pattern of monopoly thinking. Its prototype is
found in a Nazi law enacted in 1933 (Reich Gezetsblatt I, 339) :

"Conduct violating the duty to loyalty against the Reich and people will be
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 Govern-
ment."

PROVISIONS RESPECTING PROSCRIBED ORGANIZATIONS

This law requires every organization, at the peril of imprisonment of its
members and loss of their citizenship, to decide whether it is a Communist
political or front organization and to register with the Attorney General, to file
annual reports of its activities and if it is a Communist political organization, of
its membership.

If it fails to register, it and its officers are subject to a 5-year prison sentence
and .$5,000 fine, and each of its members is subject to a similar fine and 2 years'

442 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

imprisonment. If it fails to register, after a finding by the Attorney General that
it should do so, each day's failure to register constitutes a separate and complete
offense.

In addition, members of such organizations are forbidden to apply for pass-
ports or to leave the United States, cannot obtain employment with the Govern-
ment or at Government work.

Such organizations are denied any tax exemption. This means that everj
trade union which comes within the meaning of a "front" organization will be
required to pay prohibitive income taxes. Such organizations must label any
material which they send by mail as being disseminated by a "Communist
organization."

PROVISIONS FOR INDIVIDUALS

This bill, as noted, begins with the Communist Party and extends to all
groups and organizations which do not conform to the ugly image of the
House "Un-Americans." But it does not end there.

Section 4 makes it a crime punishable by 10 years' imprisonment and $10,000
line "for any person to attempt in any manner" to establish a totalitarian dicta-
torship in the United States or "to perform any act with intent to facilitate the
establishment of any such dictatorship." Persons convicted under this section,
lose their citizenship, whether natural born or naturalized.

This provision is blandly and falsely described as one to stimulate prosecu-
tions of officials of the Communist Party. But this false distortion is apparent
from a mere reading of the bill ; it applies to "any person acting in any manner."

This provision is the sword placed at the throat of any person who may
decline to take his social, economic, or political orientation from the National
Association of Manufacturers. It is a proposal to substitute government by
tyrants instead of by law.

It too is modeled after Nazi law. Reichgesetzblatt I, 839, June 28, 1935,
provided :

The purpose of this law is to require not only organizational, but individual
conformity to the Fascist thinking of its perpetrators.

Under the provisions of this bill, it is a crime for a person to become or remain
a member of a proscribed organization if he has "reasonable grounds" for
knowing or believing it is a Communist "political" organization. Tbe effect
of this proposal is not only to provide for governmental snooping, but private
inquisition as well. Neighbors will have to spy upon neighbors, worker upon
worker, to be certain that the other is not so tainted with "communism" that
association with him is dangerous.

In the face of the careful judicial trials accorded by the Americans to the
Nazis, this bill proposes a form of Nazi justice for Americans.

If the Attorney General should find that a labor union is "controlled" by
Communists because some of its members are or are alleged to be Communists
or because its policies in some respects are those of the Communist Party with
respect, for exmaple, to price control, Palestine, the draft, aid to the present
Greek Government, social security, all of the members of that organization
may be in jeopardy on the ground that they had "reasonable grounds" for know-
ing the character of the organization ; that is, they should have known even
if they did not.

The real purpose of these laws is apparent when it is recalled that adequate
laws are in existence to protect the security of our Government. The Smith
Act makes it a crime to advocate the overthrow of our Government by force
and violence. The McOormack Act and Voorhis Act require registration of
agents anil of organizations acting as agents of foreign principals and govern-
ments. If violations of these laws occur, the Government can prosecute in
court and in accordance with due process of law.

This bill revives the discredited Nazi hostage theory of guilt by association.
This same theory led to the conclusion early in American history that inemher-
ship in a union was a criminal conspiracy to raise wages. Tins lull revives
and extends that theory to every social, religious, and political organization
which attempts to raise living and democratic standards.

This hill subjects every individual to thought control. The conduct of his
home, his reading matter, his so, ial relationships, his attendance at meetings, his
political activities are the proper subject of FBI inquiry under tbe vague and
general standards of this legislation.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 443

The arrogance of reaction lias reached a high-water mark by the introduction
of Hiis proposal. That it could have been introduced demonstrates the need for
the immediate undertaking of a real offensive against the enemies <>f freedom,
the vilifiers of the ('(institution both in and out of the Government, an offensive to
expand the area of civil rights, ro outlaw discrimination, promote labor organiza-
tion, protect the foreign born, to curb monopoly, and, above all, to halt the Wall
Street military drive to war.

Our Constitution was written to throw off despot ism and tyranny. The attempt
by til' Federalist Party to use the "foreign agent" smear against Jefferson to
nullify i he Bill Of Rights by the alien and sedition laws resulted in the destruction
of that party. The shameful period of the Palmer raids would be as nothing if
these anti-American proposals were adopted.

No American is safe under this bill. "Communism, force and violence,-' overt
acts, are all beside the point, "views' and "policies" are determinative and deter-
mined by one man — the Attorney General — without trial, without a jury. Anti-
Communists are equally exposed unless they conform to the pattern. Dissent
and disagreement are verboten.

Lincoln said: "Familiarize yourselves with the chains of bondage, and you
prepare* your own bonds to wear them. Accustomed to trample upon the rights
of others, you have lost the genius of your own independence and become the fit
subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises among you."

Memorandum of Seth W. Richardson, Member of the District of Columbia

Bar

Congress has both the right and the duty to investigate any and all conditions
of whatever character which may, in its opinion, constitute a menace to the coun-
try or its institutions. Having made such an investigation, it may report to the
Congress its findings and conclusions and request the Congress to pass appropriate
legislation in the public interest. I agree with the committee — "that the Con-
stitution does not deny to the Congress the power to enact laws which will defend
the Nation from those who would use liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, to
destroy it."

I think that all of the so-called constitutional guaranties to the citizen are
based upon and limited by the vital interests of the Government itself. I deny
the right of any person, or of any group of persons, to lawfully seek constitution-
ally to effectuate a danger to the Government under, through, by means of, or
under the protection of, asserted constitutional guaranties. I think that it should
be assumed, conclusively, that inseparable from every constitutional guaranty
to the citizen is the superior right of the Government to protect itself against
injury or destruction.

The Congress has determined that international communism is a menace to
peace and safety throughout the world and that such international Communist
movement may be represented i'j the United States by two forms of communistic
activity identified as "Communist political organizations" and "Communist-front
organizations."

It is indicated that much of the evil against which the Congress is seeking to
legislate, grows out of the existence and activity of the two forms of organizations
thus referred to.

Consequently, the Congress as a protection to the country has attempted to
effectuate two legislative purposes:

1. The Congress has sought to make it a crime to establish, aid, or participate
in the formation of. a totalitarian dictatorship under foreign control.

2. The Congress has attempted to identify and establish the existence of the
two forms of activity above noted, to wit. Communist political organizations
and Communist-front organizations, in order to enact controlling laws.

With reference to the provisions of section 4 concerning the establishment of
a totalitarian dictatorship, my objection to this portion of the act is that it is
doubtful whether the act contains a sufficiently definite description of the mean-
ing of the term "totalitarian dictatorship." Such definition as there is appears
in section 2 of the act. Subdivisions 2, ."., 4, 5, 6, and 7 show the accompanying
abuses connected with the establishment of such dictatorships in other coun-
tries and these subdivisions contain a clear recital of the objectionable means
used in the accomplishment of such purposes there. However, in section t,
78257 — 48—29

444 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

without direct reference to section 2, it is made a crime to attempt to establish in
the United States a totalitarian dictatorship under foreign control. I take it
that the people of the United States would have the right, after suitable and law-
ful deliberation, to live under any kind of a government they might decide to
establish. In other words, a totalitarian dictatorship under foreign control
is an actual existent type of government which has already been adopted by
various other nations elsewhere and I assume that the nations so adopting it
are prepared to contend in its support and favor. I think our people have the
right to do likewise, if they so will. I think it is at least doubtful whether section
4 implies that the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in the United
States is necessarily to be accomplished in any other way than by and through
the will of the people. Section 4 does not even assert that the prohibited efforts
are to be accompanied by force and violence or by unlawful and unconstitu-
tional means. Passing the question whether the Congress has the power under
the Constitution to forbid the citizen to seek for the United States any form of
government he deems best, even if such ultimate will of the people should be
expressed by and through the destruction of constitutional government and the
voiding of laws created thereunder, I am inclined to the view that before section
4 of the act can be deemed a proper exercise of the power of the Congress to
protect the country against threatened danger, the bill should provide that efforts
to establish a totalitarian dictatorship must be accompanied by force and vio-
lence and by unconstitutional procedures.

The second proposition in the bill is to identify the two organizations in the
United States whose activity is asserted to represent the purposes and objectives
of the international communistic organization.

It will be noted that neither of these organizations is outlawed by the Con-
gress. On the contrary, the committee report indicates an affirmative inten-
tion not to outlaw them. But instead of attempting to outlaw them and making
their existence and activity a crime, the bill apparently seeks to avoid tbe neces-
sity of making proof as to the fact by setting forth tests upon winch the existence
of the particular organization may be considered as established.

It seems necessary at this point to note that once the existence of the organi-
zation is established under these tests, various punishments are thereupon visited
upon the organization and its members. It seems clear that citizens have a right
to form and create organizations and are entitled, in carrying on such organi-
zations, to the same general legal and constitutional rights as may be possessed
by other citizens in the establishment and operation of other organizations — at
least insofar as general rights of citizens are concerned.

Therefore, it seems to me that the method followed in the bill to establish
the existence of such organization, is improper, unless and until it shall have
been duly established in a proper proceeding that the particular organization not
only is a Communist political organization but that it is engaged, directly or in-
directly, in invidious and illegal activities, which activities, in the opinion of the
Congress, warrant proper repression and punishment.

Ordinarily, it would be expected that such demonstration of illegality would
be dependent upon proper proof offered in a suitable proceeding in a court
passessing proper jurisdiction over the parties. But the bill apparntly seeks to
avoid the necessity for such a judicial proceeding by setting fourth 10 asserted
activities in section 3, subdivision 3, connection with some of which activities is
asserted may make it reasonable to conclude that the organization is under
foreign control. It should be noted that such activities appear to be directed
toward the question whether the particular organization is under foreign control,
and not whether the organization is seeking to overthrow constitutional govern-
ment by force or violence or even to violate any existing law of the United States.
I am not prepared to agree that a Communist political organization, as referred
to in the act, is necessarily illegal solely because it is under foreign control.
There are a number of perfectly lawful and respectable organizations in the
United States today which might be fairly said to he more or less under foreign
control, hut toward which no charge of illegality can he pointed. Consequently,
since, as I have pointed out, various penalties flow upon the establishment of the
existence of a Communist political organization as well a- a Communist-front
organization, so-called, the act would seem to he deficient in respect to first re-
quiring the establishment of such violations of law on the part of such organiza-
tions as would warrant repression and punishment.

In addition to the criticisms just offered, I think it is doubtful whether the
legal standard adopted hy the act upon which the conclusion that a Commu-
nist political organization or a < lommunist-front organization exists, is sufficiently
definite to authorize or support the penalties ultimately imposed. In determin-

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 445

ing whether a Communist political organization exists, and in relation to the

test activities recited in the statute, the act offers the measure of its conclusion
by the phrase "it is reasonable to conclude" that foreign control exists. 1 am
not at all satisfied that the phrase "it is reasonable to conclude" is of sufficient
deliniteness or precision to warrant its use in determining a question upon the
determination of which severe penalties are to be imposed. It is not impossible
to conceive that upon a given state of facts it might be reasonable to conclude
in the affirmative and at the same time equally reasonable to conclude in the
negative. The hill proposes to deprive citizens of important legal rights and I
am very doubtful whether it is either wise. just, or legal to do so upon proof
Of facts only to the extent of establishing a reasonable conclusion relating to
such facts.

A further basis for criticism with respect to this all important point of the
establishment of the existence of a Communist political organization or a Com-
munist-front organization, is that the act is not entirely clear in determining
how and by whom such reasonable conclusion shall be reached. The phrase
"having regard to some or all of the following considerations," followed by the
recital of 10 activities identified in the act, leaves the measure of the envelop-
ment of the particular organization in any of the activities noted, to depend
largely upon the particular cast of mind of whatever person the bill proposes,
shall reach the conclusion.

A further criticism is that although the purpose of the 10 activities recited in
the lull seems to be to establish foreign control, I thing it is doubtful whether
activities (a), (c), (d) .and (i) are necessarily relevant in the establishment
of such conclusion. In other words, on their face these four activities do not
necessarily have relevance to the question of foreign control, yet, according to
the bill, these may be the activities from which the final conclusion is to be
drawn.

As I have pointed out, once the existence of these organizations shall have been
established in the manner proposed in the act and despite the fact that the
organizations are not outlawed or their continued existence or activity prohibited
under repressive penalties, yet the hill proposes to then visit upon such organiza-
tions and their members, severe penalties, such as loss of Federal employment,
passport rights, free use of mails and radio, as well as tax deductions and exemp-
tion rights. Membership is itself made unlawful if the organization is unregis-
tered, and the organization is subjected to possible daily punishment for failing
to register or for any false statement or omission under the exceedingly indefl
nite provision relating to the omission of facts which may be thought necessary
to make the statements made or information given, not misleading. In view of
the not infrequent obscurity and ambiguity of carefully prepared legal docu-
ments, I am inclined to doubt the wisdom of providing severe punishment because
the facts disclosed were or were not misleading.

It will, therefore, lie observed that under the procedure proposed in the bill,
conclusions are contemplated, the effect of which is to deprive citizens of various
of their existing rights and to impose upon them severe punishments, without
any trial in a duly constituted court having jurisdiction of the parties, without
any proof in court as to guilt, and all this solely upon a reasonable presumption
as defined in the bill. This comment leads to the provisions of the bill relating to
registration. As I have said above, the Congress has the right to investigate and
decide concerning the existence of dangers to the Government and the repressive
or punitive measures necessary to counteract such danger. If the Congress be-
lieves that the existence of certain organizations in the United States presents
a danger to the country, and if it concludes that it is reasonably necessary to
require registration of such organizations and their members in order to properly
protect the Government, and to guide the Congress in connection with such future
legislation as it may from time to time deem necessary, I see no constitutional
objection to a registration requirement and I agree that such registration can
be made a- detailed and specific as the Congress thinks is necessary to facilitate
Congressional knowledge and supervision. Consequently, I think the Congress
has full power to direct and empower tie Attorney General to conduct a regis-
tration of all groups and organizations in the United States, including the mem-
bers thereof, which groups and organizations the Congress shall have fairly con-
cluded may in their activities project a substantial danger against the Govern-
ment, and I think the Congress may also empower the Attorney General, as the
bill does, to promulgate all necessary regulations to effectuate the registration
thus imposed.

But the bill Koes much further in the powers it proposes to grant to the Attorney
General. The Attorney General is one of the chief executive officers of the

446 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Government, its chief prosecutor, and is required to represent the United States as
its chief legal officer. He is not the judge of a court, he cannot conduct a court,
and proceedings before him could not properly he denominated judicial pro-
ceedings. As I have pointed out, the penalties imposed upon Communist political
organizations and Communist-front organizations are severe and substantial, and
I have very grave doubt whether the Congress should impose such penalties solely
upon the conclusions reached by the Attorney General, regardless of how care-
fully, how extensively, or how impartially the Attorney General may seek to
gather, interpret, weight, and adjudge the facts. I think it is doubtful whether
such conclusion and tinal order of the Attorney General is, in its essence, due
process of law under the Constitution. I do not think that citizens should be
placed in jeopardy of their rights and liberty upon the finding of an executive
officer, himself the public prosecutor. Possibly the committee in including in the
bill the right of appeal to, and review by. a court of appeals, recognized the objec-
tion which I have asserted, but felt that the insufficiency, in law, of the final
order of the Attorney General as an adjudication of, in effect, the guilt of the
associations and their members, might'be cured by the rigid of appeal given to the
courts. I am reluctant to agree with this conclusion. The trial in a proper court,
in the first instance, of the question of the guilt of the citizen, under whatever
form the accusation may be made, is too important a step in the application of a
penal statute to the citizen to be curtailed even by the allowance of full appeal
rights. An appeal is not the same thing as the original trial, nor does it protect
the rights of a defendant in an equal degree, particularly where the findings of
the public prosecutor as to the facts might weigh heavily with the appellate
court, since "preponderance of the evidence" is always an indefinite term and
depends largely upon the view, or possibly the indolence, of an appellate court.

In summary, therefore, I think (1) the provisions of section 2 and section 4
in respect to the definition of the meaning of the phrase "totalitarian dictator-
ship" should be made more specific, definite, and certain in relation to the matter
of illegality and constitutional observances; (2) that the existence of a Com-
munist political organization, as well as a Communist-front organization, in the
light of the activities charged against such organizations, should be required to
be established by a proper court proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction ;
and (3) that the duties of the Attorney General shou'd be confined to the matter
of registration, investigation, and prosecution, and that questions as to whether
a particular organization is of such a character or activity as to justify registra-
tion should depend upon the judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction under
a proper proceedings brought in such court by the Attorney General for such
purpose.

It is possible that, in the place of a determination by the Attorney Ceneral,
the Congress might lawfully establish an administrative body to pass upon
these mooted questions, in the first instance, since I agree it has been held that
due process does not necessarily mean "judicial process." But I venture the
thought that even if the procedure proposed is lawful, a court, rather than an
administrative body, would better meet the larger public interests involved.

In the same spirit, I venture to point out, in considering the several questions
I have raised in relation to the establishment of the activities and existence of
the organizations in question, that even if it should be concluded that the pres-
ence of constitutional power as projected in the bill exists, still that it might be
wiser, again in the light of the same larger public interests, to commit the im-
portant questions thus involved to the courts with proper directions for priority
of consideration and prompt decision, than to approve the debatable procedure
proposed in the bill.

Finally, I am hesitant in thus presenting my views, first, because my own
ideas have not fully crystallized, even to my own satisfaction: and. second, be-
cause I am sharply conscious that the conclusions of an able committee, made
after painstaking efforts in the public interests, ought not to be lightly dismissed.
My own much b>ss carefully made conclusions here presented are ventured only
because I felt that it was my duty to respond to the request made of me by your
committee.

Respectfully,

Seth W. Richardson.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 447

American Bab Association,
Special Con mittee on Bill of Rights,

Jacksonville, Fla., June 7, 19Ji8.
1 1 in. Alexander Wiley,

I'nih i! States Si note, Washington, I). C.

Dear Senator Wiley: Respecting the Mundt-Nixon bill now before you, con-
cerning which there lias been so much public furore the last few days:

I am in favor of the bill. So is the special committee on bill of rights for
the American Bar Association, oi' which I am chairman. In February the bouse
of delegates of the American Bar Association passed a resolution approving cer-
tain principles that in pari closely parallel those of the Mundt-Nixon bill. Copy
Of thai resolution is hereto attached.

Most of the objection I have here urged is that the bill if enacted might be
oppressively enforced. That is true of any such law. We must trust to tbe
good sense of the enforcing authorities and the judges to prevent such abuses.
It is not usual in enacting criminal laws to specify safeguard for the innocent.
Those safeguards are embodied in the common law and in the whole structure of
our law and are available to the innocent at any time and in any tribunal.

Permit me to reiterate that I am very much in favor of the bill and strongly
of the opinion that it is neither oppressive nor unconstitutional.

Faithfully,

Robt. R. Milam.

Resolution of Special Committee on Bill of Rights Adopted by House oh
Deli::. atks of American Bab Association, Chicago, February 24, 1948

Whereas communism as it actually operates is an international conspiracy
teaching loyalty to Russia and treachery to this Nation ; its purpose is to disrupt,
disable, and finally destroy the American way of life; it operates as an agency
of a foreign power actively seeking to weaken and then destroy democratic gov-
ernment everywhere; it infiltrates its members into labor unions and key in-
dustries so that in time of peace they can foment strife and industrial disloca-
tion and in time of war they can sabotage, disrupt, and spread confusion, all in
the interest and at the direction of a foreign power ; and

Whereas the individual Communist has no loyalty to this Nation but yields his
allegiance to an alien group whose bidding he does without question, and whose
aim is to eventually establish an implacable dictatorship in all countries ; and

Whereas in those countries where communism has gained control, civil rights,
as we know them, have ceased to exist, and those who defended such rights have
been imprisoned or liquidated ; and communistic activity in the United States
threatens the civil rights of all citizens: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the American Bar Association records itself as vigorously op-
posed to the spread of communism in the United States and advocates the fullest
publicity on its aims and activities, and prosecution for offenses committed: Be
it further

Revolved, That, while insisting —

( a ) That the full protection of the Bill of Rights be accorded to the members of
any minority group, including Communists ; and

(fc) That neither prejudice nor well-founded indignation can justify the in-
fringement of any right secured by the Constitution ; and

(c) That the right to advocate improvements and changes in our form of
Government by legal and peaceful means should not be impaired ;

Nevertheless, subversive and treasonable tactics must be effectively met, and
to that end it is recommended at this time —

(1) That all subversive and seditious acts as defined by law should be relent-
lessly prosecuted ;

(2) That Communists and Communist organizations should be compelled to
register, giving complete information as to their activity, purposes, financing,
source of funds, officers, affiliations, membership and like matters;

(3) That such information should be available to the public and to the press
for publicizing ;

448 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

(4) That offenders should be prosecuted if they fail to register or register
falsely ;

(5) That Communists and those practicing its teachings should be barred from
all Government service, State, and Federal ;

(6) That education on this threat is an effective safeguard against it and an
informed public opinion is the best assurance against any assault on our form
of government, and for that reason, that powers of the Federal and State gov-
ernments should be directed to uncovering the activities of Communists and
similar organizations in order that merciless publicity may be given their activi-
ties and that the public may become fully informed.

(7) That further action for the association by the House of Delegates or the
Board of Governors as to other remedial measures that may be found to be
needed to implement the foregoing be deferred until definite legislation is formu-
lated in the Congress of the United States or in the legislatures of the several
States.

(8) That the aid of the appropriate committees of the American Bar Associa-
tion be tendered to the Committee on Un-American Activities of the House of
Representatives in the development of appropriate legislation to accomplish tbe
foregoing purposes.

May 28, 1948.

To the members of the Judiciary Committer. Senate of the United States:

We wish to go on record as favoring passage of the Mundt-Nixon bill. We
believe that the bill is soundly conceived and well adapted to aid in the curbing
of Communist and pro-Communist activity without in the slightest degree in-
fringing upon the inalienable liberties guaranteed in our Constitution.

Organized communism in the United States is a treasonable conspiracy be-
tween citizens of this country, citizens of other countries, the Governments of
Soviet Russia and other Communist-dominated nations, and tbe international
Communist organization. It is no infringement of liberty, but rather a protec-
tion to the liberties of all Americans, to require that all those who voluntarily
take part in this conspiracy shall be required by law to make the fact known.

This, and other provisions of the bill, will not '"drive the Communists under-
ground," as has been said by opponents. The Communist conspiracy is already
deeply underground. The effect of this bill will be to penalize those who engage
in the conspiracy but will not admit it, so that the conspirators will be unable to
have the advantage of deceiving the American people as to who they are and
what they are doing. Communists cannot be considered as a bona fide political
party, since their aims and methods do not come within the framework of
reference contemplated in the Constitution of the United States.

Meewin K. Hart.
President, National Economic Council, Inc.

WlXTHROP, STIMSOX, PUTNAM & RORERTS.

Nciv York 5, N. T., May 28, 19^8.
Hon. Alexaxder Wiley.

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee.

Senate Office Build iny, Washington, D. C.

Dear Sir : I have just telegraphed you as follows :

"When I was chairman of the Bill of Rights committee of the Association of
the Bar of the City of New York on tbe recommendation of that committee at
a meeting of the association the following resolution was passed :

" 'Resolved, That the Association of the Bar of the City of Now York is in favor
of legislation by Congress requiring adequate disclosure of ih^ originators, offi-
cers, financial records, and other pertinent facts of organizations engaged in the
public dissemination by the press, radio, or printed materials of ideas, which are
intended to influence public opinion; Provided, That such legislation expressly
reaffirm the constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and of the press and
expressly preserve the present civil remedies and criminal laws regarding libel
and slander.'

"The disclosure provisions of the Mundt bill are in accord with the principles
of the above resolution but under these principles such disclosure requirements
should be made of all groups which indul.se in mass anonymous literature. The
people of this country are entitled to know who is behind and who puts up the

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 449

money for the propaganda of all pressure groups. The quotation 'Whal you are
speaks so loud I cannot hoar what you say' summarizes the argument.

*'I think it would be ;i tragedy If Congress adjourrfed withoul taking some
affirmative action against the evils which arc so admirably outlined in the pre-
ambles to the Mundt bill. A simple general bill outlawing anonymous propa-
ganda of all organized propaganda groups might provide a sufficient answer."

I have read the telegram or Morris Ernsl to you on this subject ami I heartily
agree with everything he says except I do not wish to express any opinion as to
the constitutionality of the Mundt hill. I have no doubt whatsoever as to the
constitutionality of a hill along the lines recommended by Mr. Ernst in his
telegram.

Your very truly.

George Roiserts.

Statement of Michigan American Youth for Democracy ox the Muxdt-Nixon

Bill, H. R. 5852

To : Senator Alexander Wiley, Senate Judiciary Committee.

The 600 members of Michigan American Youth for Democracy are unalterably
opposed to the Mundt-Nixon bill. H. R. 5852, for the following reasons :

This bill in every provision, lays the basis for a Fascist "thought-control" state
in our Nation. It forces every single citizen, either organized or unorganized,
into illegal activities if they believe in lighting for the elemental rights of other
citizens. For the youth of our country, it means that any student organization
which fights to improve our educational system, with such proposals as free col-
leges, increased subsistence for educational institutions, higher wages for our
Teachers, etc.. would be engaged in subversive activities since that is what is also
in the program of the Communist Party of America and that is what students and
youth tight for all over the world. It means that to tight for the rights of the
young Negro citizens of America would lie in violation of this bill as Jim Crowism
and segregation laws are written into the books of several parts of our country
and to disagree with these laws is to attempt to change the system of government.
Then, too, the Communist Party of America fights Jim Crow in America and
people of the world fight against discrimination in whatever form it takes, in
those nations. It means for young trade-unionists as well as adults, that to
demand higher wages and to strike for them if necessary, the violation of the
provision, "disrupting trade and commerce." This obviously takes away the
right to strike for higher wages or anything else. It means that any organiza-
tion or individual who believes in any part of a program similar to that of the
Communist Party of America or of any organization of any part of the world,
would be in violation of this law, subject only to the opinions of the Attorney
General or the Un-American Activities Committee.

We of the AYD know this bill to be the culmination of the warmongering, hys-
terical screaming of the imperialists of our country which has gone on since
the end of the war. We know it is a direct result of the mad greed for more
profits. It comes as a necessity to these imperialists to strike down all people's
movements everywhere in the world. These imperialists must have an enslaved
world to carry out their drive to control the world resources. We say that this
bill must stop dirtying the floors of our Congress and must be thrown in the ash
can where it belongs. We say that Congress must spend its valuable time in
considering the problems and the voice of the people by such bills as the anti-
lyncb bills, the FEPC. repeal of the Taft-Hartley law, etc. We say that Congress
must listen to the voice of the people who elected them and not the voice of the
imperialists who buy them.

The Mundt-Nixon bill can no more stop the development of the people's move-
ment than the bills passed in the legislature of Nazi Germany. This has been
proved time and time again all over the world. The thing this bill will accom-
plish i< to force underground those people who will continue to fight no matter
what the odds and to spread more bloodshed throughout the world. People's
governments are an inevitable development. The world refuses to labor under
the yoke of oppression any longer and insists on the right to build its own peace-
ful forms of government. We in America insist on this right also. We demand
the right to form any political party we can see the need for and we demand
the right to allow that party or organization to develop peacefully, based on the
needs of the people. This bill will not erase the danger of "overthrow of the
Government by force and violence." On the contrary, it will increase that
danger. The people who fight for a democratic government never engage in

450 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

violence of their own accord. It is the passage of hills like this that cause the
violence. It gives heart and legal ground for the goons and mobs who attack
the picket lines of peaceful striking workers, or of peaceful meetings. It also
makes it legal for the law enforcement bodies of our Nation to repress any
movement of the people contrary to that of the existing regime. The people of
our country and of the world will fight for their rights no matter what repressive
measures the imperialists take against them. It is their birthright. No law
can or should take this right away from them. The people of the Soviet Union
picked their course through long and bloody battle. No government and no
people can or should take this away from them. It is only by allowing the
natural course of democratic processes to develop, that is by allowing the people
to peacefully pick their own form of government, that peace and prosperity will
reign on this earth. But if the imperialists continue their Fascist drive, the
fight of the people for democratic peaceful nations will have to take the form
of violence.

This is why the 600 members of the Michigan ATD are opposed to the Mundt-
Nixon bill. We do not want violence". We ask only the right to present our
views of the world today without restriction of our Nation's press, radio, or
other means of public education. We demand the right to distribute our litera-
ture on the street corner or anywhere else we want to without fear of arrest or
violence. We demand this same right for all the American people organized
or unorganized. This is the only road to peaceful settlement of the world's

misery.

W. R. Thomas, Representative.

Statement of Mrs. Margaret Hopkins Worrell, President General, Wheel
of Progress. Testimony Before Senate Judiciary Committee

My name is Mrs. Margaret Hopkins Worrell, and I reside at apartment 515,
East Clifton Terrace, Washington 9, D. C. I am a native of Ohio and vote in
that State. I am president general of The Wheel of Progress, a nonsectarian,
nonpartisan, educational patriotic organization whose sole existence is dedicated
to defend the Constitution of the United States and battle for representative
government by inducing every voter to use the elective franchise. I am also a
past national junior vice president, patriotic instructor, executive secretary.
National Shrine Commission, and for 6 years national legislative chairman of the
Ladies of the GAR. We have thousands of members all over the United States
and at many past national conventions our members have desired a strong curb
on the Communists in this country.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is earnestly hoped that you
gentlemen be not deceived by the pressure being brought to bear by those whom
the Mundt-Nixon bill would" curb, nor by the lies of the Communists that they
are not under the domination of Moscow, but are only following the doctrine
of Marx and Lenin. In view of the fact that Foster, the Negro Robeson, and
all subversive organizations are using all their power to defeat the Mundt-Nixon
bill certainly proves that it is a splendid American bill — a good bill — a bill that
will curb their activities to destroy our system of government by force and
violence — their testimony to the contrary notwithstanding.

The policy of these termites has been, and always will be, to destroy capitalism
and our republican form of government. They are smart, they are clever, they
are indefatigable workers — they are internationalists, eating away at the foun-
dations of our Government — determined to destroy us, if possible, through lies,
deceit and confusion of our people, but if not successful then we are to be de-
stroyed by a "bloody revolution," that is their goal and they cannot be stopped by
appeasement.

We must cut down this poison tree and destroy it by root and branch. Let us
not emulate ancient Greece and be destroyed by the Trojans from within our
gates. We have two legitimate political parties in this country, the Republican
Party and the Democratic Party; and one becomes a member by casting their
ballot for the candidate of his choice, but the Communist Party is not a party,
because its members must be recruited like soldiers and schooled in their
atheistic doctrines before he can become a member without liberty of bis own
voice, but a slave to bis superiors. The Communist (so-called) Party is not a
party — it is a revolutionary army within our borders, masked as a political
organization — it is a conspiracy, promoted by a foreign country, for the over-
throw of our Government. The line of reasoning, that to outlaw the movement

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 451

would drive it underground, is defective because it already operates as an under-
ground organization as well as in the open.

Members of this committee, the patriotic Amei'icans whose destiny lies in tlie
hands of their elected representatives of the United Stales Congress, beg you to
report out and immediately pass the Mundt-Nixon bill — it is our defense.

Thank you.

Brief of the Communist Party of the United States in Opposition to the

Mtjndt Bill (H. R. 5852)

The Mnndt bill has been condemned after careful study by bar associations
and distinguished lawyers. They have submitted briefs, memoranda, and
analyses criticizing the bill in its various provisions and as a whole, as violative
of numerous sections of the Constitution of the United States. The Mundt bill
has thus been condemned as a bill of attainder in violation of article I, section 9,
as abridging freedom of speech, press, and assembly in violation of the first
amendment, as denying due process and violating the protection against self-
incrimination in violation of the fifth amendment, and as infringing upon the
rights of the people guaranteed by the tenth amendment.

With all of these criticisms we fully agree. In submitting this brief we wish
to indicate one other respect in which the Mundt bill is to be condemned: Its
attempt to interfere with and destroy political parties and to prevent them from
compering with the Republican and Democratic Parties, which are today
dominant.

It need not be argued at great length that that is the purpose of the bill in
relation to the Communist Party. The report of the Committee on Un-American
Activities accompanying the bill states as much. Report No. 1844, dated April
30, 194S, states that Communist political organizations are defined "in such
manner as to include the Communist Party of the United States. * * * "
And further: "The need for legislation to control Communist activities in the
Tinted States cannot be questioned."

We deal here, therefore, with a bill, the aim of which in its entirey is to
interfere with and, should its provisions go into effect, would effectively deny
the Communist Party the right to function as a political party, to submit its
program to the American people for their acceptance or rejection, to compete
with the Democratic or Republican Parties for control of Government.

It is obvious that this question is one of fundamental importance not alone to
the Communist Parry and its members but to all other American citizens. For
if the thesis of the Mundt bill is accepted, it means that the Government, con-
trolled as it is by the two major political parties, the Republican and the Demo-
cratic Parties, has the power to extinguish political opposition. Clearly such a
concept would change the American constitutional democratic system, which by its
very nature is based upon the free functioning of political parties, which are
the organized association of American citizens exercising their democratic right
of government.

The Communist Party submits this brief because it believes that over and
above all of the numerous grave violations of the Constitution and Bill of Rights
committed by the Mundt bill stands this fundamental abrogation of our demo-
cratic system of government, the cornerstone of which is the right of the
people to associate in political parties of their free choice.

"The most natural privilege of man, next to the right of acting for himself,
is that of combining his exertions with those of his fellow creatures and of
acting in common with them. The right of association therefore appears to me
almosts as inalienable in its nature as the right of personal liberty. No legis-
lator e;m attack it without impairing the foundations of society." (de Tocque-
ville, Alexis. Democracy in America (New York 1946) vol. I, p. 196.)

THE MUNDT BILL VIOLATES THE FUNDAMENTAL AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS OF THE
COMMUNIST PARTY TO EXIST AND FUNCTION AS A POLITICAL PARTY UPON THE SAME
TI RMS AS OTHER POLITICAL PARTIES

In a republican form of government political parties are necessary to its
very existence as a democratic society. The parties result from the voluntary
association of electors and do not exist by operation of law. Other than through
political parties, a body of voters has no way of expressing and advocating their
common political views or of bringing about the election to office of candidates
representing such views.

452 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

"Active political parties, parties in opposition to the dominant political party,
are, as has been said, essential to the very existence of our Government. The
right of any number of men holding common political beliefs of governmental
principles to advocate their views through party organization cannot be denied."
(Britton v. Board of Election Commissioners, 129 Cal. 337, 346, 61 P. 1115, 51
LRA 115. )

Any law, therefore, which would interfere with or prevent the active func-
tioning of all or any political party strikes at the heart of democratic govern-
ment and violates the spirit of our institutions and the fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Mundt bill is such a law for it would violate this fundamental principle
by denying to the Communist Party its right to exist and to function as a
political party, on the same terms as all other political parties. The bill does
this by compelling the Communist Party to stigmatize itself by registration with
the Government, and to furnish it the names of its officers and members, as
well as a financial statement of its receipts and expenditures. Furthermore, it
would compel the Communist Party arid it alone to identify its publications and
its radio programs.

The bill casts an additional burden upon the Communist Party not borne
by the Republican or Democratic Parties. By the very act of registering itself
and its members, the Communist Party and its members would be subjected to
the charge that it is a subversive organization which aims to establish a
totalitarian dictatorship in the United States under foreign domination — a crim-
inal conspiracy under the Mundt bill punishable by imprisonment up to 10 years.
The bill further denies to members of the Communist Party the right to Gov-
ernment employment or to passports to travel abroad and it would even deprive
of their citizenship native Americans who may be members thereof,

The effect of this bill, therefore, is to legislate the Communist Party out of
existence, for no political party can function under such burdens. No political
party can hope successfully to grow, to advance its program, and to challenge
the dominance of its rivals under such handicaps. It would therefore be doomed
to extinction. No political party can be expected to submit to its destruction
by Government fiat.

The question is : Can Congress legislate a political party out of existence by
the devices used in the Mundt bill or by any legislation whatsoever? The an-
swer is : Congress has no power under the Constitution to legislate for or against
any political party. It is wholly outside the power of government to burden a
political party in such a manner as to prevent the citizens from joining it and to
interfere with its very functioning as a political party.

Where the Government has heretofore acted in relation to political parties,
it has been in furtherance of insuring honest elections and the fullest possible
participation of the voters themselves in party management and equality of
opportunity for all competing political parties — and this is the only area in which
it may lawfully act. To that end limitations have been placed upon the ex-
penditure of funds in the conduct of elections, in the extension of democratic
participation in nomination through primaries, and the voiding of restrictions
by State governments and political parties on the rights of Negro citizens to
equal membership and participation in primaries.

The fundamental purpose of all political parties is to contest with their rivals
for the support of the people so as to win control of government. To this end
political parties bring their programs to the people. The Republican and Demo-
cratic Parties have so functioned without Government hindrance for many years.
They have adopted platforms upon which their candidates have campaigned,
without Government interference either of approval or disapproval. And in fact,
alternately during the past 100 years the Democratic and Republican Parties
have won the control of government and have thereafter sought to put into effect
the views and policies of their parties.

The Communist Party has likewise functioned in the same manner as a political
party for the past 30 years. It too has adopted platforms and programs, peri-
odically presented its views and policies to the people in the person of its candi-
dates. Its right to have done so was fundamental. It did not come from the
Government but from the people themselves who chose to create it. It is they
and they alone who have the right to determine its program and it is outside the
power of government to approve or disapprove.

The Mundt bill constitutes for the first time such interference by government
with the free existence of political parties. It would place burdens upon the
Communist Party, which are not required to be borne by the Democratic or Re-

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 453

publican Part it's, it would therefore deny to the Communist Party and its
members the right to come before the people with its program and platform and
to seek popular support on an equal foot ins; with its rival parlies.

The Mundt bill docs this :

1. By compelling the Communist Tarty to register with the Government (con-
trolled by the Republican and Democratic Parties) as a political party which
seeks to establish a totalitarian dictatorship ;is the agent of a foreign power;

_'. p... compelling the Communist Party, but not the Republican and Democratic
Parties, to tile a list of its members with the Government ;

3. By denying members of the Communist Party, but not members of the Re-
publican and Democratic Parties, the right to Government employment ;

4. By denying passports to members of the Communist Party, but not members
of the Republican and Democratic Parties;

5. By depriving of their citizenship members of the Communist Party, but not
the Republican and Democratic Parties;

(i. By declaring the Communist Party and its members, but not the Republican
or Democratic Parties, guilty of a criminal conspiracy.

"Party government and democratic government are for practical purposes
synonymous. When any particular party or parties enjoy a privileged position
bcause of discriminatory legal restraints imposed upon their rivals or potential
rivals, especially through limitations upon the rights of association and expres-
sion, democracy soon dies in dictatorship." (Odegard and Helms, "American
Politics", p. 779.)

These are the substantive provisions of the Mundt bill. Standing alone, not
a single provision could find constitutional support. Each violates one or another
article of the Constitution. In their totality they are nothing more nor less than
an attempt to deprive American citizens of their right to speak up and function
as a political party and to punish them by fine and imprisonment if they insist
upon exercising that right.

In an effort to disguise the true character of the Mundt bill, the Committee on
rjn-American Activities, which sponsored the bill, has set forth a series of legis-
lative findings entitled "Necessity for Legislation" (sec. 2, H. R. 5852). But
legislative findings cannot make constitutional legislation which is inherently
unconstitutional. No legislative findings, however artfully drawn, can be the
basis for any legislation which denies to a political party the right to exist and to
function without governmental interference.

"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 flat."
i Statement by Attorney General Tom C. Clark before Committee on Un-American
Activities, Feb. 5, 1948. )

"Extraordinary conditions do not create or enlarge constitutional power. * * *
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
Corp. v. I nihil States. 295 U. S. 495, 528— by Hughes, C. J.)

These so-called legislative findings may be summarized as follows:

i a ) That there exists a system of government known as "totalitarian dictator-
ship" characterized by "the existence of a single political party" and by the
identity of such party with government, which results "in the ruthless suppression
of all opposition to the party in power" and "the denial of fundamental rights
and liberties" ;

! b i That there exists "a world Communist movement" under the direction and
control of an unnamed "foreign country" which "utilizes in various countries
political organizations" to establish "totalitarian dictatorships" in those
countries ;

(c) That these political organizations are organized on a "secret conspiratorial
basis" and utilize 'Communist fronts," that its members travel from country to
country, and in effect owe allegiance to a world Communist movement."

From the foregoing the findings conclude that "the recent successes of Com-
munist 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 worldwide conspiracy and designed to prevent it from accomplishing its
purpose in the United States."

It is clear that, whatever else they be. these are not legislative findings. They
reveal clearly the political prejudice of Democratic and Republican Congressmen
against the Communist Party. They are political diatribes against foreign gov-

454 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

ernments. They are slanders againsf independent organizations and their mem-
bers. They are the oft repeated, unproven, reckless, irresponsible views of the
Committee on Un-American Activities. Their character is not altered by being
embodied in legislative findings. Nor are they the basis for any legislation.

It is true that the Communist Party has repeatedly been accused by the mem-
bers of the Committee on Un-American Activities, which sponsors the Mundt bill,
of seeking to establish totalitarian dictatorship, of being a part of some world
Communist movement and of secret conspiratorial designs to overthrow the
Government by force and violence.

But in all the years during which these accusations have been bandied about,
no shred of proof has been submitted to support them. In fact, various laws have
been passed patently aimed at the Communist Party prohibiting and punishing
such practices, yet in all the years during which such legislation has been on the
statute books, not a single action has been brought against the Communist Party,
let alone successfully prosecuted.

If the proof has never been presented, it is not for lack of trying by its rivals.
The Government of the United States, the FBI, spies, stool pigeons, big business,
frame-ups. have all been enlisted to convict the Communist Party of being a
foreign agent, of seeking to establish a totalitarian dictatorship, of force and
violence, of sabotage, of secret conspiracy, of every crime in the calendar. If the
efforts have failed it is because the Communist Party is not a foreign agent: the
Communist Party does not seek to establish a totalitarian dictatorship, the Com-
munist Party does not advocate force or violence or sabotage ; the Communist
Party is not a secret conspiracy. And no legislative finding can make facts of
what are not facts. Lies do not become truth merely because they are inserted
in a bill.

This is conclusive proof that the political attacks now taking the form of legis-
lative findings are without foundation.

In any event, they bear no relation to the substantive provisions of the Mundt
bill. In fact, the substantive provisions of the bill contain the very characteris-
tics which are condemned in the legislative findings. "Totalitarian dictator-
ship" is described as a system of government limiting political parties and re-
sulting in the "ruthless suppression of all opposition to the party in power." The
registration provision of the Mundt bill and its allied sections, by threatening
the existence of the Communist Party, would be the essence of totalitarian dic-
tatorship and would constitute the "ruthless suppression of all opposition to tire
party in power" — in this instance, the ruthless suppression of the opposition of
the Communist Party to the Democratic and Republican Parties, which are in
power.

In only one section of the bill does it legislate concerning "totalitarian dicta-
torship." Section 4 makes it unlawful "to attempt in any manner to establish
in the United States a totalitarian dictatorship * * *."

We need not discuss here the clear violation of the first and fifth amendments
in this loose and general language. What is significant is the fact that this sec-
tion is linked up with section 3, legislative findings, and section 3, definitions, to
make the normal, lawful, political activities of the Communist Party subject to
punishment thereunder.

If further proof be needed that the aim of the bill is not to prevent totalitarian
dictatorship but to destroy political opposition, that is made self-evident by the
clause which follows the words "totalitarian dictatorship," to wit, "the direc-
tion 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
individual" (sec. 4 (a) (1)). By this qualifying phrase the sponsors of the
Mundt bill carefully insure that their political parties shall escape the penalties
of this provision, "for under it native totalitarian dictatorship, brought into
being, are exempt. Clearly it is not totalitarian dictatorship which disturbs the
sponsors of the Mundt bill, but only totalitarian dictatorship not of their own
making.

Tii" existence of a world Communist movement bears no relation to the legis-
lation directed against the Communist Party. If th^se findings are intended to
describe the Communist Party of the United States as a foreign agent of a for-
eign country, the substantive provisions of the bill do not say so. The hill
carefully refrains from describing the Communist Party as a foreign agent, al-
though the legislative findings reek with the theme of foreign agent. In truth,
the committee itself has admitted that the existing Foreign Agents Registration
Act is not applicable to the Communist Party, and in fact, since the adoption of
thai act, not a single case has been brought thereunder against the Communist
Party and its members.

CONTROL OF SFBYKHSIYE ACTIVITIES 455

If the findings are intended to establish that the Communisl Party is engaged
in a criminal conspiracy to overthrow the Government of the United states, again
the bill is silent on this score. There is no provision in tlie bill dealing witb the
overthrow of the Government. In fact, legislation directed against those who
advocate the overthrow of the Government by force and violence already exists,
vet during the entire period that it has been on the statute books not a single
prosecution has been instituted against the Communist Party or its members
thereunder.

[f by world Communist movement is meant that foreign political parties in
I heir respective countries have adopted programs and platforms of communism
in those countries, there is nothing in such activity which constitutes improper,
unlawful, or criminal conduct on the part of the Communist Party of the United
Slates.

A world Communist movement is not a subject for legislation by the Congress
of the United States. The conduct of political parties iu other soverign countries
is no more the concern of this Congress than would be the conduct of the Repub-
lican and Democratic Parties by a foreign parliament.

The Communist Party of the United States has the right to advocate the pro-
gram of communism in the United States. It is wholly outside the power of
government to dictate to any political party what its program shall or shall
not be. The Mundt bill would be aqually unconstitutional if it were to describe
the Republican Party as part of a world capitalist movement and thereupon to-
subject that party to legal restraint in the advocacy of its views and policies.

Finally, if the declaration concerning clear and present danger has any mean-
ing in law, it must be that the Communist Party of the United States is commit-
ting criminal acts in violation of law, which acts constitute a clear and present
danger. But the bill expressly negatives this. The committee report admits
that the Communist Party is not committing any criminal acts. Therefore
there can be do question of clear and present danger of any kind.

It may be true that if the Communist Party program is accepted by the people
it will mean the ouster from control of government of the Democratic and
Republican Parties. But that is not a danger nor a subject for legislation. No
branch of government has the power to deprive the people of the right to choose
the Communist Party as their governing party, to place its candidates in every
office from President down.

It may be true that "the success of Communist methods" in the United States
may replace the prevailing capitalist government with a Communist government,
but that too is not a danger nor the subject of legislation, since it constitutes
no criminal conduct.

The Mundt bill again does not suggest that the Communist methods of the
Communist Party of the United States are criminal methods. In fact, the bill
is wholly silent as to methods or acts. It seeks to penalize the lawful activities
of the Communist Party, admittedly because the Communist Party is not com-
mitting criminal acts.

From the foregoing it is evident that the Mundt bill is directed not at any
illegal acts of the Communist Party or its members. It follows, therefore, that
the bill aims at the lawful activities of the Communist Party, and in truth, the
committee report so states: "The present line of the party, in order to evade
existing legislation, is to avoid wherever possible the open advocacy of force and
violence." (Committee report, 1844, dated April 30, 1948, p. 5.)

It would normally be assumed that in the absence of a finding of illegal activity
the committee would have reported that no legislation is required. But it's
avowed purpose, "to control Communist activities in the United States." has
brought forth legislation dealing with wholly lawful activities of a political
party with the obvious purpose of eliminating it from the political scene.

This conclusion is fortified not only by an analysis of the bill but also bythe
known facts. The Communist Party has carried on the normal activities' of a
political party for 30 years. It has appealed to American citizens for support
on the basis of its political program, which is a matter of public record. Its
political purposes are frankly stated in the preamble to its constitution as
follows :

"The Communist Party of the United States is the political party of the
American working class, basing itself upon the principles of scientific socialism,
Marxism-Leninism. It champions the immediate and fundamental interests of
the workers, farmers, and all who labor by hand and brain, against capitalist
exploitation and oppression. As the advanced party of the working class, it
stands in the forefront of this struggle.

456 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

"The Communist Party upholds the achievements of American democracy and
defends the United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights against its reaction-
ary enemies who would destroy democracy and popular liberties. It uncom-
promisingly fights against imperialism and colonial oppression, against racial,
national and religious discrimination, against Jim Crowism, anti-Semitism, and
all forms of chauvinism.

"The Communist Party struggles for the complete destruction of Fas ism
and for a durable peace. It seeks to safeguard the welfare of the people and
the Nation, recognizing that the working class, through its trade-unions and
by its independent political action, is the most consistent fighter for democracy,
national freedom, and social progress.

"The Communist Party holds as a basic principle that there is an identity of
interest which serves as a common bond uniting the workers of all lands. It
recognizes further that the true national interests of our country and the cause
of peace and progress require the solidarity of all freedom-loving peoples and
the continued and ever closer cooperation of the United Nations.

"The Communist Party recognizes that the final abolition of exploitation and
oppression, of economic crises and unemployment, of reaction and war. will be
achieved only by the socialist reorganization of society — by the common owner-
ship and operation of the national economy under a government of the people led
by the working class.

"The Communist Party, therefore, educates the working class, in the course of
its day-to-day struggles, for its historic mission, the establishment of socialism.
Socialism, the highest form of democracy, will guarantee the full realization of
the right to 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and will turn the
achievements of labor, science, and culture to the use and enjoyment of all men
and women.

"Purposes

"The purposes of this organization are to promote the best interests and wel-
fare of the working class and the people of the United States, to defend and
extend the democracy of our country, to prevent the rise of fascism, and to
advance the cause of progress and peace with the ultimate aim of ridding our
country of the scourge of economic crises, unemployment, insecurity, poverty,
and war, through the realization of the historic aim of the working class — the
establishment of socialism by the free choice of the majority of the American
people."

Its political program has been widely publicized through speech, press, and
assembly in the various States of the Union. Its representatives have appeared
before commitees of Congress on various matters of legislation dealing with all
aspects of domestic and foreign affairs. Its candidates have appeared on the
ballot openly espousing its program and calling on the voters for their support.

It has openly challenged, criticized, and opposed the program of the Republican
and Democratic Parties, as well as their candidates. It has avowedly stated
its purpose to gain control of the Government of the United States and to
establish a Socialist government based upon a socialist economic system.

The Mundt bill would deny to the Communist Part and its members their
fundamental right to carry on the foregoing activities. More, it would deny to
the American people the right to appraise the program of the Communist Parly,
to weigh and evaluate it against the programs of the Republican and Democratic
Parties, and thereupon to accept or reiect it. as they see fit.

Thereby the Mundt bill would nullify the democratic process, it would perpetu-
ate control of government by the Democratic and Republican Parties, who
chance presently to possess power. It would deny the people the opportunity
to displace these parties whenever they should so will it. It would prevent any
new political party from coming into being to challenge the control of the Demo-
cratic and Republic Parties. It would transform a democratic government into
a totalitarian dictatorship.

It is not to the credit of the Government or the domiant political parties which
control it that it is necessary for the Communist Party to remind them of the
true character of representative government.

But the introduction of the Mundt bill makes clear that the Government of
the United States and the forces which dominate it are set on a course which,
if not checked by the people of the United States, will lead to the abolition of
democracy and the end of representative government. The Mundt bill is the
essence of totalitarian dictatorship, which spells fascism.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 457

The aims and purposes of the Mundt bill arc condemned by all Americans,
living and dead, to whom democracy, the ride of the people, is a way Of life never
to be surrendered.

"Should there happen, then, as is extremely probable in relation to some one
or other of the branches of the Government, to be competition between tliose
who are. and those who are not, members of the Government, what will be the
situation of the competitors? Not equal; because the characters of the former
will be covered by the Sedition Acl from animadversions exposing them to
disrepute among the people; whilst the latter may be exposed to the contempt
and hatred of the people, without a violation of the act. What will be the
situation of the people? Not free: because they will be compelled to make their
election between competitors, whose pretensions they are not permitted by the
act equally to examine, to discuss, and to ascertain. And from both these sit-
uations will not those in power derive an undue advantage for continuing
themselves in it: which by impairing the right of election; endangers the bles-
sings (if the Government founded on it." (Madison's report on the Virginia
resolutions, appearing in Elliot's Debates, vol. IV, p. 376.)

••The very idea of a government, republican in form, implies a right on the
part of its citizens to meet peaceably for consultation in respect to public af-
fairs and to petition for a redress of grievances'' (United States v. Cruikshank,
92 V. S. 542, 552).

"It follows from these considerations that, consistently with the Federal
Constitution, 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 crim-
inals <m that score. The question, if the rights of free speech and peaceable
assembly are t<> be preserved, is not as to the auspices under which the meet-
ins: is held but as to its purpose; not as to the relation of the speakers, but
whether their utterances transcend the bounds of the freedom of speech which
the Constitution protects'' (DeJonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 365. by Hughes,
C. J.).

"Freedom in voting is guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to vote car-
ries with it tl e right to nominate candidates to be voted for so that voting
may become effective through cooperation. Any statute which restrains free-
dom in nominating candidates * * * restrains freedom in voting for can-
didates at the regular elections * * *. Such is the situation created by
the provision in question, which we regard as an unreasonable restriction upon
freedom in voting and. according to the principles established by our decisions,
a violation of the fundamental law" (Hopper v. Britt, 204 N. Y. 524, 531, 532).

"* * * it is essential to the security of the community and to the main-
tenance of law ami order that the peaceful means of political expression through
the ballot box and representatives in legislative assemblies should not be de-
nied or constituencies disfranchised bet ause of political opinion * * *. We
deem it important that this vital issue, the proper decision of which is essen-
tial 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 the members accused
with personal and guilty participation in illegal acts." (Statement of special
committee appointed by Association of Bar of City of New York (in connection
with i uster of live Socialist assemblymen), reports, vol. 21, 1920, signed by
Charles E. Hughes, Morgan J. O Brien, Louis Marshall, Joseph M. Proskauer,
and < >gden L. Mills.)

'•The system of ballot voting rests upon the idea that every elector is to be
entirely at liberty to vote for whom lie pleases and with what party he pleases
and that no one is to have the right, or be in position, to question his inde-
pendent action, either then or at any subsequent time. * * * Public opinion
requires that the veil of secrecy should be impenetrable, unless the voter himself
voluntarily determines to lift it, his ballot is absolutely privileged; and to allow
evidence of its contents * * * would in effect establish this remark. ible
anomaly, that while the law from notions of public policy establishes the secret
ballot with a view to conceal the elector's action, it at the same time encourages
a system of espionage, by means of which the veil of secrecy may be penetrated
and the voter's action disclosed to the public." (Cooley, Constitutional Limita-
tions, 8th ed., 1927, vol. II, p. 1376.)

458 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

"The constitutional fathers, fresh from a revolution, did not forge a political
strait-jacket 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 (253 U. S. ."MO).) This provision and the many important and far-reaching
changes made in the Constitution since 1787 refute the idea that attachment
to any particular provision or provisions is essential, or that one who advocates
radical changes is necessarily not attached to the Constitution." (Schneiderman
v. United States (320 U. S. 118, 137).)

"If in the long run the heliefs expressed in proletarian dictatorship are
destined to be accepted by the dominant forces of the community, the only
meaning of free sp; ech is that they should be given their chance and have their
way.'' (Holmes, J. (dissenting) in Gitlow v. N<ic York (208 I". S. 652, 673).)

CONCLUSION

If the Committee on Un-American Activities hopes by the Mundt bill to seal
off the ideas and principles of communism, it is doomed to failure. Intolerance
and force kill human beings but they can never exterminate ideas. Americans
have the rigid to explore everywhere in the realm of new ideas; to propagate
their discoveries, however radical: to advocate social change, however revolu-
tionary. Those who resist such freedom of inquiry are enemies of the people,
for they doom our country to endless cycles of economic crises and poverty, of
war and annihilation, of bigotry and spiritual deprivation. And they must fail,
as enemies of progress have failed throughout our history.

For the foregoing reasons the Mundt bill (H. R. 5852) should not become law.

Respectfully submitted.

Unger, Fbeedman & Fleischer,

Counselors at Laic.

May 26, 1948.
Hon. Alexander Wiley,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.
Dear Senator Wiley: In my capacity as chairman of the security committee
of the American Coalition of Patriotic, Civic, and Fraternal Societies (composed
of 84 national societies), I consider it my duty to submit the enclosed state-
ment relative to the proposed legislation, dealing with the Communist menace,
now under consideration by your committee.

Inasmuch as the hearings have been set so suddenly, I will be unable, because
of illness in my family which may make it necessary to leave the city on short
notice, to appear in person in support of such legislation, as I did before the
House committee.

We are wondering if you will favor us by either having the enclosed statement
read into the hearings or inserted therein. We will deeply appreciate your
complying with our wishes in this respect.
Sincerely yours,

Walter S. Steele.

Washington, D. C, Way 27, 19%8.
Committee ox the Judiciary,

United Stales Senate, Washington, I). C.

Gentlemen : At the national convention of the American Coalition of Patriotic,
(Mvic and Fraternal Societies, composed of 84 national organization-, held at
the Hotel Mayflower, Washington, IX C, January 24. 1948, a resolution was
adopted endorsing II. R. 4482. The resolution read as follows:

"Whereas it is demonstrable that the doctrines of Marxian socialism, which
constitute the creed of the Communist Party, contemplate the creation of a dicta-
torship by violence if necessary: and

"Whereas dictatorship under any form or under any name is utterly repugnant
to the ideals of the American people, be it therefore

"Resolved, That the American coalition, in annual convention assembled.
endorse II. R. 4482, a bill entitled 'To bar un-American parties from the elec-
tion ballot', introduced by Mr. Cole of Missouri, or any other measure having
a similar purpose, which may be favorably reported to the Congress for action."

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 459

As national chairman of the American Coalition's National Security Commit-
tee, 1 am registering, In its behalf, approval of the Mundt-Nixon bill ( II. It. 5852) ,
which was passed by the House of Representatives in .May 1948, and now under
consideration by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary.

It is our opinion thai the resolution under consideration is a step in the righl
direction, and it therefore has our endorsement. At the .January convention
of the American coalition, however, we called for even more definil i action, that
of outlawing the Communist Party (American section). It is understood that
the opposition to such action is based on the supposition thai the Communist
Party would go into hiding and would operate underground. The fact is thai
the majority of the party's real activities have always been conducted under-
ground. Tlie party heads have recently announced that, in the evenl II. R. 5852,
now under consideration by the Senate ( Jommittee on the Judiciary, is enacted, the
party will go further underground.

We have in our possession a complete and official Communist plan of under-
ground and public organization. This provides for legal and illegal apparatus
at all times. This is also required in the officially published conditions of
admission to the Communist international (section 3). Similar apparatus is
emphasized for use in America. We quote:

"II is their duty to create everywhere a parallel illegal organization machine
which at the decisive moment will be helpful to the party in fulfilling its duty to
the revolution. In all countries where the Communists, because of a state of
siege and because of exceptional laws directed against them, are unable to carry
on their whole work legally, it is absolutely necessary to combine legal with
illegal activities."

Article 30 of the constitution of the Communist Internationa] provides:

"The Communist parties must be prepared for transition to illegal conditions.
The executive committee of the Communist International must render the parties
concerned assistance in their preparation for transitions to illegal conditions."

This section also provides for like transitions of the so-called fronts, which are
more definitely named Communist fractions in the official document of the
organization.

In our opinion, II. R. 5852 will drive the real Communist Party machine com-
pletely underground, and it will legalize, not illegalize, the Communist move-
ment as a whole. Those few who will register under it will serve as the legal
apparatus. Those who do not will constitute the illegal apparatus.

To outlaw the patty and its fractional organizations, better known as fronts,
all organizations and members thereof must be declared unlawful, and not just
a part of it as provided for under H. R..5852. It is not our opinion alone that
to outlaw the Communist movement would be the death blow to it in the United
States. It is also the opinion of the high-ups in the Communist Party itself.
This would cut off the party completely from the public.

If all such activities are made unlawful, it will make possible the arrest and
conviction of all leaders and members. To make it legal to promote the Red
menace by registration does not in our estimation completely solve the problem.
We urge outlawing the party by Congress, but if Congress does not acquiesce
in this view, the passage of H. R. 5852 will be a step in the right direction.

Respectfully submitted.

American Coalition of Patriotic, Civic and Fraternal Societies,
Walter S. Steele. Chairman. National Security Committee.

Societies Cooperatixg With the American Coalition

Americanism Defense League.

American League for Good Government, Inc.

American Vigilant Intelligence Federation.

American War Mothers.

American Women's Legion.

Associated chapters, Order of DeMolay of Pennsylvania.

Associated Farmers of California, Inc.

< Jalifornia Society, Order of the Founders and Patriots of America.

Colonial Order of the Acorn, New York Chapter.

Congress of States Societies.

Connecticut Daughters of the American Colonists.

Dames of the Loyal Legion of the United States.

78257 — 48 30

460 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Daughters of America, National Council.

Daughters of America, District of Columbia Council.

District of Columbia Commandery, Naval and Military Order of the Spanish-
American War.

District of Columbia Society, Order Founders and Patriots of America.

Eugenics Society of Northern California.

First Motor Corps Unit No. 12, Massachusetts State Guard Veterans.

Fraternal Patriotic Americas, State of Pennsylvania, Inc.

General Court. Order of the Founders and Patriots of America.

General Pershing Chapter, American War Mothers.

General Society of the War of 1812.

Illinois Society of War of 1812.

Junior Order United American Mechanics, New Jersey.

Junior Order United American Mechanics, New York, Inc.

Junior Order United American Mechanics, Pennsylvania.

Ladies of the Grand Army of the Republic.

Massachusetts Society, Order of the Founders and Patriots of America.
.Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, Commandery in Chief.

New York Society. United States Daughters of 1812.

Order of Colonial Lords of Manors in America.

Order of Independent Americans, Inc., State Council of Pennsylvania.

Order of Three Crusades 1092-1192, Inc.

Pennsylvania Society, Order of the Founders and Patriots of America.

Philadelphia Protestant Federation.

Regular Veterans Association.

Rhode Island Association of Patriots.

Rhode Island Daughters of the American Colonists.

Rhode Island Society, Order of the Founders and Patriots of America.

Society of Colonial Wars in the District of Columbia.

Society of Colonial Wars in the State of New York.

Society of New York State Women.

Society of Old Plymouth Colony Descendants.

Society of the Daughters of the United States Army.

Society of the Sons of the Revolution in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War.

Southern Vigilant Intelligence Association, Inc.

State Council (District of Columbia), Sons and Daughters of Liberty.

State Council (Massachusetts), Sons and Daughters of Liberty.

Tax Evils Committee of Council Bluffs, Iowa.

The Federation of Huguenot Societies in America.

The Wheel of Progress.

Veterans of Foreign Wars of United States. Department of Delaware.

Veterans of Foreign Wars of United States, Morley S. Oates Auxiliary, No. 701.

Westchester Security League.

Wisconsin Chapter, Daughters of Founders and Patriots.

Women's National Defense Committee of Philadelphia.

Women of Army and Navy Legion of Valor, U. S. A.

Military Order* of the Loyal Legion of the United States, Commandery of the
District of Columbia.

Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, Commandery of the
State Of New York.

Military Order of the Loyal Legion of the United States, Commandery of the
S'tate of Pennsylvania.

Military Order of the World Wars.

National Camp, Patriotic Order Sons of America.

National Commandery, Naval and Military Order of the Spanish-American War.

National Constitution Day Committee.

National Council, Sous and Daughters of Liberty.

National Society, Daughters of the Revolution.

National Society, Daughters of the Union, 1861-1865.

National Society for Constitutional Security.

National Society for Constitutional Security, Chapter I.

National Society of New England Women.

National Society, Patriotic Women of America. Inc.

National Society, Service Star Legion.

National Society. Sons and Daughters of the Pilgrims.

National Society. Sons of the American Revolution.

National Society, Sons of the American Revolution in California.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 461

National Society, United States Daughters of L812.

National Society, United States Daughters of L812, State of New York.

National Society, Women Descendants of the Ancient and Eonorable Artillery

Company.
National Woman's Relief Corps.

New Jersey Si ciety, ( >rder of the Pounders and Patriots of America.
New Jersey state Society, Daughters of the Revolution.
New York City Colony. National Society of the New England Women.

Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States,

Brooklyn Council, Kings County,

Brooklyn 2, X. ¥., May 29, IU',8.
The Honorable Alexander Wiley,

Chairman, senate Judiciary committee,

Washington, J). C.
Dear Sik: Your committee hearing as of May 28 involving the opinions and
activities of one William Z. Foster, so-called top Communist in the Nation, has
only served to prove that our country has been foolhardy in nurturing these
unnatural citizens of the world with our own peculiar back-breaking brand of
tolerance. Their very answers to civil questions by a duly authorized committee
smacks of an alien influence.

The United States has once again brought the world out of a catastrophic mess,
and loyal Americans, having returned home, find their land being subjected to
the most vicious and lying propaganda imaginable. Imperialistic, indeed! It is
more than evident, Senator Wiley, that the hour has arrived calling for resolute
action by our more able statesmen, in ridding our country of this pseudo liberal
dross that, with more than intimations, threatens to sabotage any necessary war
efforts by our people.

Senator, let the politicians make use of delaying actions; let them seek sensa-
tionalism in the headlines: let them ally themselves with political and social
abnormalities. In your own heart and mind you know the course that must be
run. Recommend that this bill, the Subversive Activities Control Act, be taken
out of committee for tbe Senate vote. Please do not continue to be the instru-
ment by which the Communists in our land gain undeserved attention, through
all the publicity their malicious natures desire and the Senate Judiciary Com-
mittee affords them.

I shall appreciate any advice or information you may have to offer that will
aid tiie speedy passage of this bill and that will enable those Congressmen and
Senators noted for their fence-straddling to realize tbe power of their own true
convictions.

Sincerely,

Hugh J. 0*Donnell,
Chairman, Americanism Committee.

Statkmknt of Harry See, National Legislative Representative, Brotherhood of
Railroad Trainmen, Before Senate Judiciary Committee, Re H. R. 5852

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Harry See, and I am
national legislative representative of the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen,
with offices at 130 Third Street SB., Washington, D. C Our headquarters are
located at Cleveland, Ohio.

The Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen has no sympathies with the activities
of Communists and is very much opposed to communism. However, we are fear-
ful that the discretionary powers given the Attorney Ceneral in this bill, in
determining whether any organization is a Communist organization, are so broad
that it would be possihle for that official to label and smear any organization.

As I understand the bill under consideration, there is no provision which
would give any organization the right to a fair and impartial court trial, because
an organization could he branded communistic by evidence brought out at a
hearing by the Attorney Ceneral, where he served as prosecutor, judge, and jury.

Many prominent citizens, including President A. F. Whitney, of the brother-
hood, addressed a telegram to the chairman of this committee, under date of
May 23, in which it was stated :

462 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE activities

"We believe the Senate Judiciary Committee should take no action on this
bill without full opportunity for public examination of its constitutionality, its
tendency in practice to drive Communists underground and make martyrs of them,
its dangers to free expression by non-Communist groups representing minority
views, and the adequacy of existing legislation to protect the United States
against overt acts that threaten national security * * *."

Having in mind the statement made by Governor Dewey, of New York, that
there are already L'T laws on the statute books that outlaw "every conceivable
form of subversion," we urge that your committee take no action on this bill
until a thorough investigation has been made of the laws mentioned by Governor
Dewey and the constitutionality of the proposed legislation.

National Council of Jewish Women, Inc..

Ni ir York, N. Y.. May 26, 19',8.
The Honorable Alexander Whey,

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Commiltee,

Washington, D. C.

Sir: On May 14 the National Council of Jewish Women took the following
stand on the Mundt-Nixon bill. We forward it to you tor inclusion in the record
of the hearing* :

The National Council of Jewish Women, at its last triennial convention, "re-
affirmed its abiding faith in the processes of democracy and its unalterable
opposition to all forms of totalitarianism and dictatorship." As an organization
that has steadily opposed communism, as well as all forms of totalitarianism, we
nonetheless must express our strong opposition to the Mundt hill, now before
the House of Representatives, which proposes to "control" subversive activities
in this country.

We wish to dissociate ourselves emphatically from those opponents of the
bill, Communist or otherwise, who are themselves practitioners of antidemocratic
methods of infiltration, misrepresentation, and domination. We do not sanction
the activities of groups and individuals who. under the protection of our demo-
cratic Government, utilize the avenues of free speech and free association to
pervert democracy itself for totalitarian objectives.

We do believe, however, that our democracy must be protected and strengthened
by democratic means. The Mundt bill proposes to "control" dangers to democracy
by totalitarian methods; and thus it allies itself with the spirit of the very forces
it purports to expose.

The very real danger inherent in the legislation is the fact that it would
sacrifice the sacred rights guaranteed to American citizens by the Constitution.
It empowers the Attorney General to be both "judge" and "prosecutor"; it de-
fines guilt by "association" rather than by proof of personal treasonable action;
and, in essence, abridges freedom of speech and publication. Both by its specific
encroachments on the rights of citizens and by its failure to define its objectives
precisely, the proposed legislation is an infringement on the Bill of Rights.

The Mundt bill is potentially more dangerous than the actual evil it purports
to correct. We therefore urge the defeat of this legislation.
Respect fully yours,

Mrs. Joseph M. Welt,

National President.

Statement ok the Congress of Industrial Organizations in Opposition to the
Mundt Bill (H. R. 5852), Sui'mitted by Nathan e. Cow an, (TO Legislative

Dikkctok

PREI-IM I NARY STATE M I X :

The Congress of Industrial Organizations is strongly opposed to the Mundt
bill, both because it seriously threatens the existence of bona fide labor unions

and because it substantially curtails civil rights guaranteed to every American
by the ( 'oust itution.

We object to the Mundt bill because it violates the very freedom of speech,

pr< ss, and essembly which it purports to safeguard. Under this bill, organiza-
tions and individuals are punished, restrained, and regimented solely on the
basis of political opinions rather than on the basis of overt acts of disloyalty.

The threat to labor organizations and the principles which protect labor
which is posed by this bill cannot be overstated. Labor has learned through

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 463

years of latter experience thai Liberty is indivisible and thai repression is con-
tagious. The hysteria, the intolerance, and the repression which followed the
First World War initially singled out and victimized isolated minorities, but
overnight these forces of repression made a shambles of the rights of labor and
the liberties or' its loaders. The Palmer raids and the flowering of antilabor
injunctions in the twenties were a product of the same forces in our national
life. Strike-breaking, labor espionage, persecution of Labor Leaders were an
integral part of the same pattern winch produced the orgy of witch hunting
and repression or' which all good Americans are ashamed today.

ANALYSIS

I. Natun and purpose of the Mundt bill

The .Mundt bill, designated as the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1SJ48,
imposes a number of requirements, disabilities, and punishments upon certain
types of organizations and their members. The impact of the legislation upon
these organizations is to repress seriously the rights of freedom of speech, press,
and assembly. This purpose is not incidental. It is deliberate.

It is important to stress this simple fact about the bill. This is a piece of
legislation passed not in wartime but in peacetime which has as its purpose polic-
ing, regulating, and repressing not acts and conduct but thought and expression.
'! he sponsors of the hill deny that the purpose of the hill is to legislate political
conformity and to eliminate political dissent. They seek to justify this claim on
the ground that the bill proceeds only against organizations and does not prevent
individuals from maintaining abstract views concerning the subjects dealt with
in the hill. No one can he persuaded by this defense of the hill. If the right to
freedom of thought or freedom of speech has any meaning, it must necessarily
include the right to form organizations for the purpose of giving fullest effect to
the basic rights of freedom of thought and freedom of speech. What the sponsors
have in effect said is that our people can enjoy the rights of freedom of speecli
and thought only in the privacy of their homes ; that they may not form organi-
zations through the exercise of the right of freedom of assembly in order to give
a realistic form to their civil rights. The Constitution would he a feeble shield
if it failed to protect the rights of our people to enter organizations for the
purpose of more effectively enjoying the rights of freedom of speech, press, or
assembly.

The alleged necessity for legislation, as described in the bill, is tLie existence of
a so-called system of totalitarian dictatorship which, the bill claims, threatens our
country as a result of the activity of the "world Communist movement."

The CIO is familiar with the indiscriminate use of this terminology by the
House Committee on Un-American Activities. Both CIO and CIO-PAC have been
repeatedly and wrongfully denounced as "Communist*', "Communist front" and
"totalitarian" organizations. In its 1944 report, the House Un-American Com-
mittee denounced CIO-PAC as representing "a suhversive Communist campaign
to subvert the Congress of the United States by its totalitarian program."

The bill is not just another law. This bill is in fundamental conflict with out
constitutional form of government and with the premises of a democratic society.

II. Organizations affected by the bill

The hill deals with two types of organizations — "Communist political organiza-
tions" and "Communist front organizations." A "Communist political organi-
zation" is defined as having "some, but not necessarily all, of the usual and or-
dinary characteristics of a political party." The hill lists certain considerations
which lead to the "reasonable" conclusion that such an organization is under
rhe control of a foreign government. This "reasonable" conclusion is hased upon
•some or all" of certain enumerated considerations. These include the nature
and the extent of an organization's activities, including the expression of views
and policies; the extent to which the organization's policies are formulated to
effectuate the policies of a foreign government or are the same as those of a
foreign government; the extent to which if supports or advocates the basic prin-
ciples of communism as expounded by Marx and Lenin ; the extent to which it
fails to disclose or resist efforts to obtain lists as to its membership or records
other than membership lists.

When these and other enumerated considerations are present, the Attorney
General is authorized to find that the organization involved is an illegal "Com-
munist political organization."

It seems apparent from the definition of a "Communist political organization"
that an organization and its members may be condemned solely on the basis of

464 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

ideas and opinions rather than on the basis of illegal acts. The finding in the
bill that resistance to efforts to obtain membership lists is an indication of an
illegal purpose is particularly objectionable to labor organizations which have
learned through long experience that the submission of such lists is the first steo
to a blacklist through which an organization may be completely destroyed.

A "Communist front organization" is defined as one which it is "reasonable"'
to conclude is either under the control of a Communist political organization,
or is primarily operated for the purpose of giving aid and support to a Com-
munist political organization, or 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 Com-
munist movement."

The considerations enumerated in the lull "which will reasonably lead to
the conclusion" that the organization is illegal include the following: The
identity of the persons active in the management of the organization "whether
or not holding office therein"; the sources of its funds; the use made of its
funds and "the position taken or advanced by the organization from time to
time on matters of policy."

Thus, under this bill, if a few Communists are active in connection with a
labor organization, even though they do not hold office, that fact alone could
furnish the basis for a finding of the Attorney General that the organization
is a "Communist front" organization. We must bear in mind that all that
the law requires is a "reasonable" conclusion that the organization is an illegal
one.

The proposed bill could very easily condemn an organization as illegal solely
because its policies happen to coincide with those of the Communist Party.
Thus, support of a labor organization of objectives also supported by the Com-
munists, such as the abolition of the poll tax, enactment of an adequate housing
program, the protection of civil rights, and opposition to issues which coincide
with the opposition of the Communist Party, such as opposition to the Taft-
Hartley Act, could, under the standards proposed by the bill, furnish the basis
for the conclusion that the organization is a "Communist front."

Under these provisions, not only labor organizations but other progressive
organizations could be branded as subversive and destroyed by a hostile Attorney
General.

///. Disabilities, punishments, and penalties

The bill requires "Communist political organizations" and '•Communist front
organizations" to register as such and file certain information with the Attorney
General. The bill requires both types of organizations to file full financial
statements of receipts and expenditures. In addition, "Communist political
organizations" are required to submit a full list of all members and officers.
"Communist front organizations" are required merely to submit the names
and addresses of their officers. All of this data is to be available for public
inspection. Both "Communist political organizations" and "Communist front
organizations" are required by the bill to label all mail indicated for more

than one person with a designation : "Disseminated by , a Communist

organization." They are also required to initiate all radio broadcasts which
they sponsor with this announcement: "The following program is sponsored
by , a Communist organization."

An additional disability which is imposed upon "Communist political organi-
zations" and "Communist front organizations" is the loss of tax exemptions
which other organizations enjoy.

Where an organization is required to file and register and fails to do so, a
fine from $2,000 to $5,000 may be imposed. Where the failure is due to the
decision of a particular executive officer the prescribed punishment for such
an officer is a fine or from $2,000 to $5,000 or imprisonment from 2 to 5 years,
or both. If there is a final order in effect under which the Attorney General
requires an organization to register, each day of failure to register constitutes
a separate offense.

The sponsors of this bill claim that it is a mild measure because it does not
outlaw either the "Communist political organizations" or "Communist front
organizations." This claim is completely misleading. There can be no question
that the requirements for registration and filing substantially amount to the
destruction of both types of organizations. This is so for the obvious reason
that filing organizations are subject by legislative fiat to the stigma of disloyalty.
The very fact of filing means the acceptance of the judgment which is written
into the bill, that the organization is an unpatriotic organization which no right

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 465

thinking American would join or support. The claim of the sponsors of this
bill that they have nol destroyed or outlawed these organizations then merely
reduces itself to the assertion thai the bill compels the organizations which may
be brought within its scope to commit suicide rather than destroys them outright.

Of course, it is obvious thai i t these organizations enjoy a righl under the
Const it ut ion to exist and carry on their activities through the exercise of civil
rights, then that right may not be impaired even by a registration requirement —
not to speak of the mail and tax disabilities which are likewise written into
the bill.

In a case brought to the Supreme Court by the CIO, Thomas v. Collms (323
U. S. r>16>. the Court said: "As a matter of principle, a requirement of registra-
tion iu order to make a public speech would seem generally incompatible with
the exercise of free speech and free assembly."

The blacklist which such a registration requirement would create would in
itself be sufficient to destroy the organization. The bill's sponsors boast that
no such blacklist is possible in the case of a so-called ••Communist front organ-
ization" since such an organization is not required to submit membership lists.
However, these organizations are required to indicate the source of their funds
in statements submitted to the Attorney General, and it is obvious that such
information could readily serve the purpose of identifying the contributors to
the organization.

The bill strikes not only against organizations as such but individuals as well.
Any attack upon the rights of organizations, as labor unions have repeatedly in-
sisted, is to the same extent an attack upon the rights of the membership. This
bill, however, carries certain additional penalties specifically directed against
members of the condemned organizations.

Thus, under this bill, it is unlawful for any member of a "Communist political
organization" to hold any nonelective office or employment with the Federal Gov-
ernment or apply for a passport. Any Government official who appoints or employs
any such individual, or who issues a passport to such an individual, is likewise
guilty of a violation of the law. Penalties for violation of these provisions are
a fine of not more than $5,000, or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, or both.

The principle of guilt by association, repeatedly condemned by the Supreme
Court, is made a rule of law by the bill. Individuals are branded as criminals
wholly on the basis of their associations or affiliations and not on the basis of
personal gilt.

There are two additional provisions of the bill which strike directly at indi-
viduals. One provision makes it illegal for any individual to become or remain
a member of an unregistered "Communist political organization" for a period of
more than 120 days after an order of the Attorney General requiring the organi-
zation to register has become final. Punishment for violation of this provision
is a fine of not more than $.">,000 or imprisonment of not more than 2 years, or both.
Here again we see further application of the principle of guilt by association.
Moreover, under this provision of the bill harsh criminal punishment may be
applied to an individual if he erroneously construes the extremely vague language
of the law not to apply to the particular organization of which he is a member.

Section 4 of the bill appears to apply both to organizations and individuals.
This section of the bill makes it illegal for any "person," defined elsewhere as
either an individual or organization, "to attempt in any manner" to establish in
this country a totalitarian dictatorship under foreign control, or attempt to
perform any act to facilitate or bring about such a dictatorship, or actively par-
ticipate in the management or direction of a movement to facilitate or aid in
bringing about the establishment in the United States of such a dictatorship, or
conspire with others to bring about any of the above objectives.

The term "totalitarian dictatorship ' is not defined in the bill but is broadly
described as "a system characterized by the existence of a single political party,
organized on a dictatorial rather than a democratic basis, and by an identity
between such 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." A
violation of this section may be punished by fines up to $10,000, imprisonment up
to 10 years, or both, as well as loss of citizenship on the part of not only naturalized
individuals but also natural-born as well. Offenses puunishable under this pro-
vision may be prosecuted at any time without any regard to any statutory
limitation.

It seems clear from this section that mere advocacy, argument, or persuasion
may be punished as a crime even though no overt illegal acts are committed.

466 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that such advocacy of ideas, however
odious, cannot, under our Constitution, be restrained or punished.

It should be noted that the registration and filing requirements bear an im-
portant relationship to the provisions of the bill dealing with totalitarian dictator-
ships. There is a strong basis for the view that the very act of registration by
an organization will lay the foundation for a charge against the officers and
members of such organization that they are in violation of the provision dealing
with totalitarian dictatorships. Thus, the statute seeks to attribute to certain
organizations an unpatriotic stigma and requires them to register. If the officers
of the organization construe its vague terms as inapplicable to their particular
organization, they may subject themselves to criminal charges. If, under this
compulsion, they do file, they subject themselves and their members to additional
criminal charges of violating the extremely broad provisions of the section of the
law dealing with totalitarian dictatorships. Such a statute plainly violates the
constitutional protections against self-incrimination.

IV. The bill's procedures

One would expect that a bill which imposes such drastic penalties upon organi-
zations and individuals would scrupulously adhere to the time-honored procedural
protections which are the boasts of the Anglo-American legal and constitutional
systems. This would include provision for fair trial on the issues before a judge
and jury and the application of the usual rule that a defendant in a criminal
case is presumed innocent until proved guilty and he must be convicted upon
evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.

This bill disregards these and other important safeguards. In the first place,
under this bill, certain types of organizations are condemned as illegal by con-
gressional flat instead of by judicial trial. Instead of laying down a rule of conduct
and leaving it to the courts to determine whether a particular defendant falls
within that rule, Congress has defined the crime, made findings with respect to
who is guilty of the crime and provided penalties for such guilt. Such procedure
has been repeatedly condemned by the Supreme Court as a bill of attainder
in violation of constitutional guaranties.

Congress, in this bill, has said, in effect, "There is no longer a need to prove
that certain organizations are illegal in a court of law ; we hereby declare them
to be illegal."

Where an organization refuses to accept the brand or stigma which the bill
would stamp upon it, certain procedural requirements are laid down to permit
the Attorney General, not through a criminal proceeding, but through an admin-
istrative proceeding, to impose the bill's brand on them. Under these adminis-
trative procedures the Attorney General is authorized to make an administrative
finding, after a hearing, that the organization involved is a '•Communist political
organization" or a "Communist-front organization."

The Attorney General's hearing, like all administrative hearings, is without
jury and wholly lacking in those protections to the defendant which would obtain
in a criminal trial. The hearing itself is not before a judge but before an
administrative official or examiner, presumably subject to the jurisdiction of the
Attorney General and an employee of the Department of Justice.

It should also be borne in mind that the Attorney General does not merely
prosecute the accused organization, he likewise is charged with the task of
investigating the organization. In so doing, he is authorized by the law to sub-
pena the books and records of the organization and to compel testimony. Such
a provision would, of course, permit the Attorney General a virtually unlimited
power of search over the internal affairs and membership lists of such organiza-
tions as labor unions.

The bill provides that the Attorney General's findings that an organization
is illegal, within the meaning of the bill, may be appealed to a higher court
within CO days. After the issuance of the Attorney General's determination,
judicial review, even if successful, could hardly serve any meaningful purpose.
An administrative finding that an organization is subversive within the meaning
of the act would unquestionably be fatal to its continued existence. Moreover,
judicial review of the Attorney General's determination would present to the
reviewing courl only the extremely narrow issues which are typically presented
in the case of a judicial review of administrative findings.

The legislative findings upon which the statute rests, the trial procedure and
the review procedure make mockery of our constitutional guaranties which
have been developed for the protection of defendants in criminal cases.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 467

CONCLUSION

The Mundt bill is a serious threat to <»ur most cherished constitutional
safeguards.

It imposes penalties upon association and opinion rather than upon overt

act ions.

I* consistently invokes the principle of guilt by association in disregard of Hie
most fundamental principles of our jurisprudence and imputes all of the tenets
of a group to each member of that group. Penalties and disabilities are imposed
upon individuals, net as a result of unlawful activities but merely upon the
basis of affiliation or association. Moreover, the operation of various provisions
would permit the creation of a blacklist, so obnoxious to our traditions.

Tbe bill wipes out the fundamental protections for defendants in criminal
cases. It substitutes administrative procedure for due process of law. It em-
bodies the unconstitutional principle of a bill of attainder and violates the con-
stitutional safeguards against self-incrimination.

The definitions of the bill would make it possible for the Attorney General
to proceed against labor organizations, and tbe vague character of the bill's
standards would make possible a tremendous expansion of its scope.

As the Supreme Court has repeatedly pointed out, vagueness in a statute in-
volving civil rights lays the basis for discriminatory and unfair application.
Such discrimination is easily directed against minority groups, who, more than
other groups, need the shield of constitutional protection.

At best, the vagueness of the bill affords no security to the fair use of the
opportunity for free political discussion. The bill is strewn with terms which
have no precise legal meaning and which will force reasonable men to act at their
peril. In Stromberff v. California (283 U. S. 359, 369), the Supreme Court
stated :

"The maintenance of the opportunity for free political discussion to the end
that government may be responsive to tbe 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 guarantee of liberty contained in the fourteenth amendment."

More recently, in Winters v. New York (68 S. Ct. 665), the Supreme Court
held:

"A failure of a statute limiting freedom of expression to give fair notice of
what acts will be punished and such statute's inclusion of prohibitions against
expressions, protected by the principles of the first amendment, violates an
accused's rights under procedural due process and freedom of speech or press."

The vagueness of this bill places in the hands of the Attorney General, a politi-
cal appointee, broad and arbitrary powers to persecute progressive organiza-
tions. As the Supreme Court said in Board of Education v. Barnette (319 TJ. S.
624. 642) :

"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-
emption, they do not now occur to us."

The bill borrows the totalitarian thinking against which it claims to be
directed. It is the purpose of our democratic system and the function of our
Constitution, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly held, to protect unpopular
minorities against the very type of totalitarian repression which this bill would
impose.

Statement by Clifford T. McAvoy, Labor Dtrector of the Progressive Party

of Massachusetts

I come from' Boston, the cradle of liberty, the birthplace of those freedoms
which we prize so highly and which are incorporated in that most perfect of all
democratic documents, tbe Bill of Rights. My ancestors on one side of the family
came to New England in 1680; on the other side, they fled from British tyranny
in Ireland in 1848, the year in which many other so-called aliens fled their
European homelands because of the impossibility of living as free men.

468 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Massachusetts is the home of revolutions against tyranny, oppression, and
the denial of human liberty. It is the very heart and soul of our American form
of government. New Englanders have never allowed despots of whatever
religion or political party to impose dictatorship on them. They are a^ain
awakening to the threat of another and more insidious form of dictatorship
than they have ever faced — the dictatorship of American fascism.

Whether the inspiration for this attempted dictatorship came from Adolf
Hitler or Carl Ernst Mundt, or a combination of un-American betrayers of our
American form of government, New Englanders will fight just as they fought
in the days of Paul Revere, Sam Adams, and Wendell Phillips to preserve our
American form of government under the Bill of Rights.

The Mundt bill follows a well-known technique first used successfully by
Benito Mussolini in Italy in 1922 and later by Adolf Hitler in Germany in 1933.
This technique consists in promulgating the deliberate lie that the Communist
movement is a "clear and present danger" to the security of a country, and then
to outlaw the democratic guaranties of freedom of speech, press, and assembly
on the basis of this spurious danger. ,By this method, Mussolini was able to
overthrow the old Italian democratic constitution and Hitler was able to crash
the liberties of the German people under their Weimar constitution.

The only group in the United States today that threatens the establishment
of a totalitarian dictatorship is the group led by Congressmen Mundt, Nixon,
and their allies who favor their police state bill. No sane person, no unbiased
and objective analyst of the American political scene could honestly state today
that there is the slightest danger from the Communist Party or any group allied
with the Communist Party to the existence of free American institutions.

There is manifestly "a clear and present danger" to the security of the United
States and to the existence of free American institutions from the objectives
and methods of the Un-American Activities Committee and those who support
its insidious undermining of our American Constitution and our democratic
liberties.

By asserting the fantastic lie that the "world Communist movement" presents
"a clear and present danger" to the security of the United States and by assert-
ing that the world Communist movement "establishes or causes the establish-
ment of and utilizes in various countries political organizations which are
acknowledged by such Communist dictatorship as being constituent elements of
the world Communist movement," the Mundt-Nixon bill attempts to outlaw
every type of liberal organization which is now carrying on activity in the United
States.

The objective of the bill is disingenuous. The authors of this bill are per-
fectly well aware that neither the world Communist movement nor the Com-
munist Party of the United States constitute a clear and present danger to the
security of the United States. They are perfectly well aware that despite the
bald assertion of Attorney General Clark, there exists no evidence that has ever
been proved in the court of law, that the Communist Party of the United States
advocates the overthrow of our Government by force and violence. The very
idea is ludicrous. What sane person, who does not indulge in childhood fancies
or believes in hobgoblins really expects that the Communist Party or any of
its sympathizers are in a position to, or have indicated the slightest intention
of, attempting the overthrow of our Government by force and violence?

What then is the real objective of the Mundt-Nixon bill? The real objective
of the bill is to create a climate and atmosphere which is so unfavorable to the
advocacy of any form of liberal legislation or liberal thought that no one will
dare to join an existing organization, make public speeches, or issue printed
material which is not based upon the most conservative, not to say reactionary,
economic and social principles. Under the Mundt-Nixon bill Sam Adams, Thomas
Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin D. Roosevelt could
be denounced as sympathizers with "Commnnist-front organizations," be indicted,
jailed for 10 years and fined for $10,000.

The legislative record in the House makes clear the real motives and objectives
of those who support the Mnndt-Nixon bill.

Congressman Judd, of Minnesota, said on May 18 "The Mundt bill does not
outlaw the Communist Party by name * * * but it does outlaw the party in
fact because it outlaws the kind of activities in which it is engaged * * *
it thereby will in effect, properly outlaw the Communist Party."

Congressman Nixon, of California, stated that "The definition of a Communist
organization as it is written applies only to the Communist Party of the United
States as it operates today."

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 469

Congressman MacKinnon, of Minnesota, stated "We are here protecting the
fundamental human rights that every individual born in the world is entitled
to have * * * thai is the broad moral basis for this proposal. Such moral
law is over and above the Constitution of the United States."

This is exactly what .Mussolini said proclaiming the Fascist state of Italy, ami
what Hitler asserted in establishing national socialism in Germany.

Congressman Miller, of Connecticut, who opposed the Mundt-Nixon hill in the
House said that he had asked another Member of the House whether or not the
Mundt hill was unconstitutional. This Member told Congressman Miller "the
bill is as unconstitutional as the hot place, but I am going to vote for it anyway
because I want to drive the teeth down the throats of the damn Communists."

Congressman Judd, id' Minnesota, in answer to the charge that the Mundt hill
would substitute Legislative determination of guilt for the American system of
judicial determination, said "We must in some degree change that procedure
because nation after nation has gone down through trusting judicial procedure."

Mr. Judd in supporting the Mundt-Nixon bill is obviously attempting to amend
the Constitution by indirection.

Congressman Frederick Coudert, of New York, long an enemy of communism,
pointed out that section 4 of the Mundt bill prohibits facilitating or aiding a
totalitarian dictatorship "in any manner." Mr. Coudert said that this "includes
legitimate constitutional methods of operation, so that a constitutional amend.
ment is a in any manner act.' "

Congressman MacKinnon when asked whether an organization of people dedh
cated to the repeal of the Mundt-Nixon bill, provided it became law, could be
held to be a Communist -front organization, replied "To a certain extent that is
the most vital part of the bill because the Communists claim that for every actual
member of the party there are 10 persons who are what have become to he known
as fellow travelers and who are ready to further Communist aims."

Congressman Wint Smith, Kansas, perhaps gave the clearest interpretation of
the real motives of the authors of the bill when he said "Do not believe the Com-
munists are out in the open. They are covered up by the pinkish bark of a fringe
organization. They call themselves liberals but if you look carefully into the
hackground of these so-called liberals, you will find they are generally those that
want to take away some of your property and give it to someone else. Much
of the propaganda that is flooding America in the churches, schools, labor unions,
and the so-called 'do good' front organizations, all use this liberal doctrine."

Congressman Rankin, another member of the Un-American Activities Commit-
tee, during the debate in the House attacked a bill introduced by Congressman
Kline, of New York, to prohibit the segregation of students in the public schools
of the District of Columbia. This bill merely tries to carry out in our Nation's
Capital the American system of equality of educational opportunity which pre-
vails in Boston, New York, Cleveland, Chicago, and most of our great cities in
the North. East, and West. Yet Congressman Rankin declared "That is a com-
munistic bill which was introduced here by the Member from New York and
which the Communists continue to push in order to stir up race trouble."

My party, the Progressive Party of Massachusetts, is a new party organized to
carry out the glorious traditions of those real Americans who fought for the
establishment of freedom of speech, press, and assembly here in America. We
believe, as did Wendell Willkie and Franklin D. Roosevelt, in one world, united
with all other nations in peaceful cooperation and trade. We believe in equality
of opportunity for all people regardless of race, color, creed, or political opinion.
We believe that the United States should call a halt to the cold war and effect a
final settlement of outstanding issues with the Soviet Union. We believe in a
higher living standard for the industrial workers, dirt farmers, and small busi-
nessmen of America. We are opposed to the domination of our economic and
political life by the great corporations which have seized control of our Federal
Government. Unquestionably, all of these beliefs would come under the prohibi-
tion of the Mundt-Nixon hill. Without doubt the Communist Party, although it
believes in the eventual establishment of socialism in the United States, agrees
with us in these objectives, as do tens of millions of other Americans.

The American people have shown no inclination to favor the program or ob-
jectives of the Communist Party. Even if they did, there would be no reason to
pass legislation to prevent them from doing so, providing, of course, that the
Communist Party carried out its program within the confines of the American
Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Any political party or organization which
violates the laws relating to treason, subversive activities, or overthrow of the
Government by force and violence can now he fully prosecuted under existing

470 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

statutes. According to Gov. Thomas E. Dewey, of New York, there are 27 such
laws now on the Federal statute books. Whatever person or organization vio-
lates these laws should, of course, be indicted, brought to trial, and judged by a
jury of peers, according to the American judicial system.

We urge the Judicial Committee to defeat this bill here and now, to erase this
blot on the honor of the Congress and the United States Government and to serve
notice on all those who would subvert our Constitution and our Bill of Rights
that the American people still believe in the blessings of liberty and the
American way of life.

United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary.

[Inserted by Senator Alexander Wiley in Congressional Record, Monday, June 7, 1948]

An Open Letter to the Editors of the" Daily Worker re Your Partt, Your

Paper, and Its Tactics

Dear Sirs : I am presenting below some comments regarding the recent ac-
tivities of the Communist Party and of your publication, the Daily Worker, in
particular, in connection with the Mundt bill. Ordinarily I would not even
consider writing to you or making these comments. Your sheet has, however,
undoubtedly relied upon the fact that very rarely do public officials even bother
to honor it by commenting upon its nefarious activities. I do, however, feel that
your publication and your party have been so vicious in your entire approach to
the Mundt bill that I would not be fulfilling my duty if I did not call public
attention to your debased approach.

I am not presenting any specific comments on the Mundt bill as such, because
I have arrived at no final conclusion on it. Contrary to all that the Daily AVorker
has said and implied, the Senate Judiciary Committee has conscientiously ap-
proached the Mundt bill with a fair and open mind, seeking real "light" on the
subject. We are in the position of judges, we do not decide "cases" until all the
evidence is in. We are about to proceed on an intensive and cautious line-by-
line, clause-by-clause analysis of the bill, in order to determine its necessity or
advisability, its legality, its possible constitutionality, any possible violation of
civil liberties, etc. We will give due and earnest consideration to all the state-
ments we have received, both pro and eon, and we will make all changes in the
bill that are deemed necessary.

Completely irrespective of the bill, therefore, I should like to make the
following points :

COMMUNIST CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS

(1) The Communist Party stands accused, on the basis of its record, of
insolence and insult to the American people and, in particular, to the United
States Senate before whose committee Communist witnesses behaved in a most
evasive and outrageous manner. We extended to your representatives the priv-
ilege of testimony in fair public hearings in a truly American manner. We bent
over backward to give the opposition to the Mundt bill the overwhelming propor-
tion of available time. You acknowledged our courtesy by contempt of all of the
processes of republican government. Not only did your witnesses (and I refer
to your front outfits, too) not shed any "light" on the subject, but you sought to
capitalize on the public forum possibilities of the committee hearings by issuing
long, windy, and useless statements of generalities actually unrelated to the
Mundt bill and merely echoing the Communist Party line on all phases of foreign
and domestic affairs. You sought, moreover, to sabotage the bill by extending
hearings indefinitely, but we would not tolerate your stalling tactics.

DEVIOUS RED PROPAGANDA

(2) In its propaganda campaign against the Mundt bill, the Communist Tarty
stands accused before the American people of utilizing every shady trick in its
dishonorable repertoire in order to inflame public opinion and emotion against a
measure without actually presenting any facts about that measure — in order to
encourage synthetic thinking and rash actions. You sought to dupe liberals,
progressives, and all other individuals who are not personally Communists into
believing that the United States Congress was secretly attempting to foist some
type of totalitarian regime upon our country. You ruthlessly utilized every

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 471

Hitlerian propagandistic device, and in particular, wholesale name calling, de-
nouncing every member of the committee who even dared to ask yon or your
representatives a question as ''Fascists," "warmongers," and every other poison
name you could muster.

EXPLOITATION OF MINORITY FEELINGS

(3) Your party stands accused on its record oL' seeking to inflame minority
groups against the Congress and against our American way of life, seeking to
exploit grievances — real or imagined — of some minorities so as to aline these
minorities with your revolutionary program rather than actually to achieve any
constructive solutions to minority problems. For years you have relied upon the
gullibility of some elements in certain minorities and have sought to pose as
their champions and defenders, when actually you have ouly been interested in
utilizing them, as you utilize everyone, for your own secret revolutionary ends.

PROVOCATION OF INCIDENTS

(4) The Communist Party stands accused on its record of seeking to provoke
mob "incidents" for publicity value in connection with the Mundt bill even to the
point pet haps of leading to some bloodshed, so as to continue your sham pose as
••martyrs" and as the "victims of capitalist political persecution." We have,
however, been careful to prevent your provocation of such incidents.

LOW COMMUNIST JOURNALISM

(5) The Daily Worker, in particular, stands accused on the record of its alleged
news reporting and its editorial comment of the cheapest, foulest sort of gutter
journalism. You who have so long criticized the American press (which is the
freest and the finest in the world) are guilty of the worst sins of any press in
the world.

NAME CALLING AGAINST OPPONENTS OF REDS

(6) The Communist Party stands accused on its record of hurling unjustified
charges at all those who recognize its menace — hurling the very charges of which
you yourselves are guilty. You have called the enemies of communism "war-
mongers" although you yourselves are the greatest contributing factors to ill will
between the American and the Russian peoples and therefore a contributing factor
toward the terrible possibility of a horrible third World War. You yourselves
are guilty of the very charge of seeking dictatorship and totalitarianism which
you tried to pin on your opponents. You yourselves are guilty of the very charge
of stymying the forces of progress, because you seek not constructive solutions to
America's problems at home and abroad, but rather chaos and confusion — the
conditions in which you believe you can best operate and rise to power.

(7) The Communist Party stands accused on its record of seeking to convert
individuals with humanitarian impulses to your antihumanitarian creed, seeking
to make them "chumps for communism" or "suckers for Stalin."

THE MENACE OF COMMUNISM

I cannot predict the outcome of the Mundt bill in the United States Senate,
particularly because of the short amount of time left for us for conscientious
consideration of this controversial bill. But I can predict that the Communist
Party's behavior during these last few weeks will constitute forever a case history,
a prime example, so to speak, of the very worst sins against our Nation of which
you have so long been guilty. You yourselves have torn off the mask which
hides your vicious aims. You, yourselves, have shown to the American people
the danger of communism in our midst, the danger of a fanatic, atheistic "re-
ligion" whose objectives are the objectives of a foreign nation, whose processes
are the alien procedures of a foreign way of life, whose approach is a dogmatic
approach in which reason and logic have no place, whose tactics are based \ipon
provocation of violence and bloodshed.

FAIR PROCEDURE OF JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Even though we of the committee despise your philosophy, we will not allow
emotion to sway us. There will he no hysteria in committee action, no Red-
baiting, no witch-hunting — as you have tried to accuse us. We have sworn to

472 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

protect and defend the Constitution — and we will do so, preserving the civil
liberties of all our people — yes, even of despicable Communists.

Sincerely,

Alexander Wiley.

Don't Be Dlped by the Communist

(Article bv J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, in Red Book

magazine)

Hitler borrowed "the big lie" from the Communists. This is the strategy of
telling a big-enough lie often enough to entice followers and hoodwink truth.
Hitlerisni is dead, but "the big lie" lives and flourishes wherever the Communists
can get a foothold. And once the Communist gets a foothold he usually dupes
innocents into following him, because he believes in his way of life and works at
it with frenzy and fanaticism.

The first lesson every Communist must learn is the simple one which also
holds the key to his undoing, because the essence of communism is deceit.
If every good American could learn this one fundamental lesson of communism,
our security would be greatly enhanced.

The great god of communism is Lenin, the leader of the Russian Revolution.
Early in his career he taught that "* * * revolutionaries who are unable
to combine illegal forms of struggle with every form of legal struggle are very
poor revolutionaries." A Communist, though openly claiming that the Com-
munist Party is a legal organization, will rarely admit his party membership.
He hides behind fictitious names, innocent-looking fronts, stealthily masquerad-
ing his activities. As the American public's distaste for communism mounts,
party leaders become increasingly reluctant to meet openly or to keep records
of party membership.

In fact, the party, for all practical purposes, went underground for a short
period last November. Someone erroneously informed party headquarters that
the Federal Government was about to declare the party illegal and that a
series of mass raids was in the offing.

For the next 30 days pandemonium reigned in party circles. Party records
were either destroyed or removed and hidden. Party leaders went into hiding.
Huge stocks of printing supplies were quickly assembled and hidden. Various
Communist Party clubs stocked up with mimeograph machines. Secret print-
ing plants were set up, so that propaganda work could continue.

New edicts decreed that names of party members would not appear on member-
ship cards. Only club membership secretaries were to know the true identities
of party members, and then the records were to be kept in code.

The 1948 party registration was interrupted to the extent that many records
were destroyed. Some clubs continued the registration by having the comrades
report to parked cars in out-of-the-way places.

The 'much ado about nothing" soon subsided, but not until the Red Fascists,
their fellow travelers and even a few misguided but so-called liberals shouted
from platforms from coast to coast about the forthcoming "witch hunt" which
never came. This cloak-and-dagger hokum of the Communists and their stooges
is quite revealing. It indicates the state of the comrades' nerves and the quality
of their intellect.

Characteristically, Communist leaders immediately sought to turn their
comedy of errors into profit for themselves. They ridiculed the notion that
there btad been any hysteria among them, claiming that the action of the func-
tionaries in hiding was just a "fire drill" to test the effectiveness of the party's
plans to go underground if a real emergency arose. They gravely announced
thai the "lire drill" had demonstrated the necessity of a huge "defense fund."
Thus, another Communist money-raising campaign was launched. Party mem-
bers were urged to spend no money unnecessarily, as it would be needed for
the defense of Communists when the raids did come. The party set its "defense
funds" goal at $1,000,000 and demanded thai each member contribute the equiva-
lent of L' weeks' pay — in addition, of course, to his regular contributions.

One parly leader in a secret meeting lamented, "They have squeezed us out in
the loyalty check of the Federal Government, and they are preparing the
groundwork to have every Communist Party member register as a foreign agent."
Another party leader, deploring the rising tide of public opinion, observed,
"Until the party is built up we can't make our demands directly, but after we
have increased the strength of our party as they have over there (in Europe)

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 473

we can make our mass demonstrations to gel what we want, and if necessary to
use guns."

The hypocritical gyrations of party members holding offices in labor unions
is typical of Communist technique. The Taft-Hartley labor law contains a
provision requiring officers in labor unions to sign a non-Communisl affidavit.
Communist leaders secretly recommend two ways to circumvenl this require-
ment. They advise the party members either to withdraw from the party Jong
enough to sign the affidavit and then rejoin, or to withdraw from the party and
continue all Communist activities without rejoining. In those cases where
the union officer is also an officer in a Communist club the party recommends
that he resign his union office and continue his Communist activities as a rank
and tile union member. These are the party's general instructions for avoiding
the anti-Communist provisions of the Taft-Hartley law.

Tin real menace of communism does not come from the party's open activities.
Our Constitution provides for orderly change when the majority wills it. This
provision does not satisfy the Communists, however, because they know that a
great majority of Americans have no conscience for communism. Hence, the
real work of the party is conducted by stealth. The Communists are so thor-
oughly schooled in the technique of "the big lie" that hypocricy has become a
mental habit with them. The reason, of course, is obvious. They know that
the patriotic citizens want no part of their program, which is based upon hate
and the eventual overthrow of our constitutional Republic. They realize that
to secure recruits they must first deceive them into believing that the Communist
program holds something in store for them. Long ago in America they adopted
the line that they were the party of our early patriots. They contend publicly
that they are the party of Jefferson, Paine, and Lincoln.

The American Communists are interested in only one thing — the establishment
of a Soviet United States of America. They have never deviated from the line
laid down in Moscow. They have always geared their entire underground
program to the achievement of Moscow's purpose. The record of American
Communists' attempts to weaken America is long and unbroken.

The Communists are continuously trying to worm themselves into the good
graces of sincere liberals and progressives, because the Communists know that
without using liberal and progressive forces they can get nowhere in this country.
They a No realize that their most deadly foes are honest liberals and progressives
who learn their ways.

The basic ingredient in all Communist -front organizations is deceit. These
fronts serve many purposes for the Communists. Some of them, by effecting
mergers with other groups, give the Communists a secure foothold in legitimate,
progressive organizations. Others are formed for the sole purpose of providing
high-sounding names for use in propaganda leaflets and pressure letters.

A teacher lecturing a party school in Los Angeles behind closed doors revealed
the real Communist approach when he said, "An individual Communist is like a
chameleon; he filters into every movement, and carries on his life work: some-
times we may seem to be backing up a lot, but this is just to consolidate our
gains, so that we can surge forth to new goals."

A well-disciplined Communist can lie with a straight face and have no
scruples of conscience in employing his confidence swindles. They are past
masters of treachery.

When Communists talk about being independent of foreign domination they
deceive no one — not even themselves. Even foreign Communist leaders visiting
the United States as official delegates to international conferences frequently
contact A\merican Communist functionaries and address secret Communist
meetings.

In some instances the party has specifically assigned members 1<» tasks to
secure information for the party. During the war it was decided to place a
secretary in the office of a high Government official. A party leader was ap-
proached for a suitable candidate, who was readily furnished. In a few days
- • was at work in the designated office and surreptitiously copied certain
documents, which were delivered to the party contact.

I frequently hear the question, "How can Americans lie such dupes?" First
of all. the American Communists are not real Americans. They are hybrids
who have become fantastic converts to communism and have sold their birthright
for a mess of pottage. Communism's greatest appeal is to some of the foreign-
born and their offspring, although their propaganda does not flourish among the
great majority of foreign-born who come to America seeking freedom and
opportunity. We recently reviewed the origins of 5,395 of the leading members

474 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

of the Communist Party. The results were most interesting. Only 411 were
Negroes, but of the remaining 4,984, 4,555, or 91.4 percent, were either of foreign
birth, married to persons of foreign birth, or born (if foreign parents, while
56.5 percent of the 4,984 traced their origins either from Russia or her satellite
countries. The fact that only 411 Negroes were found in this select group is
strong evidence that the American Negro is not being hoodwinked by these false
Messiahs.

Once Amercans realize that a Communist does not mean what he says when
he talks for public consumption, we are well on our way to protecting our coun-
try from further Communist infiltration. Little Czechoslovakia, long a cradle
of liberalism and progress, now has learned this lesson, but it is too late. They
tolerated and permitted the Communists to gain a foothold, and once they gained
control, liberty and freedom were blocked out. The Communists are masters
in the use of high-sounding words extolling the virtues of liberty. They want
even more liberty than they have today to carry on their program of subtle
education and undermining faith and confidence in our American institutiona

One of the reasons why Communists -have made advances in this country is
the simple fact that too many Americans have failed to recognize communism for
what it is — a criminal conspiracy designed to rob America of its freedoms.

Events that developed in World War II provided the opportunity to scrutinize
carefully the activities of the Communists. In those anxious months that fol-
lowed the Berlin-Moscow incestuous wedding, American Communists did all
that they could to weaken our drive to prepare for the defense of America.
Overnight, the party line changed with the Nazi invasion of Russia, but our
vigilance has never relaxed. What the FBI is doing is a matter that cannot be
discussed, but in the public interest I can recall that we followed this same
policy during the days when bn.ndsmen were goosestepping and speaking their
doctrine of hate. But when the time came to act, the FBI knew whom to arrest,
where they were, and their real designs. World War II witnessed this Nation
sabotage-free. What the next emergency will bring, should it occur, is a matter
that will have to await development. But this I can say — the FBI, to the fullest
limits of its ability and energy, will spare no effort to continue to protect the
internal security of our land.

Our success or failure in the future, however. I am certain, will be directly
in proportion to the aid we receive from every patriotic citizen.

If I could have a heart-to-heart talk with every American, I would tell them
that truth is the best defense against communism. I would urge citizens to
learn all they could about Communists and their ways, anil finally I would tell
them that if they went to church and gave serious attention to the preaching of
their minister as often as the Communist goes to the meetings of his cells, the
first round of the battle in America would be won. Finally, I would tell them
that the Communist way of life is alien to the American way of life, and the
final line of defense is to make our democracy so strong and so workable that
(he Communists can never compete with its reality.

The American Legion,
Nation \l Legislative Commission.

Washington 5. D. G. June 11, 19i8.
Hon. Alexander Wiley,

Chairman, Senate Judiciary Committee,

S< mate Office Building, Washington, D. C.
My Dear Senator Wiley: On behalf of the American Legion, I respectfully
request that you actively support and vote for the immediate favorable report
of the so-called Mundt bill, H. R. H852. now pending before your committee.

Since its inception, the American Legion has been cognizant of the dangers
to our country "i' nil subversive elements and un-American activities. R peated'y
during the past years representatives of the Legion have appeared before con-
gressional committees, particularly the House Un-American Activities Com-
mittee, urging that such legislation as that contained in the Mundt bill be
enacted into law. Such legislation is in line with the program of our organiza-
tion dealing with communism. At the meeting of our national executive com-
mittee, held at Indianapolis May 3 to 5, 1948, full consideration was given to
the Mundt bill, and a strong resolution was unanimously adopted, urging prompt
enactment by Congress.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 475

We are aware that a vigorous campaign is being carried on by Communist
organizations ami Communist fronts in which many misstatements have been
made relative to the contents of H. R. 5S52. The fad that they are so violent
in their attacks on the bill indicates that they appreciate what Congress now
intends so far as Communists and their organizations are concerned. The Mundt
bill does not outlaw the Communist Party and its numerous front organizations,
but provides certain registrations and restrictions which are absolutely essential
to our national security.

William Z. Foster and Eugene Dennis, chairman and secretary of the National
Communist Party, have made the bold threat that they will not comply with the
Mundt bill should the bill become a law. The American Legion and the American
Legion Auxiliary, together with the overwhelming majority of the citizens of
our country, feel that the provisions of the Mundt bill should be placed on our
statute books.

The American Legion believes that the Congress will not permit itself to be
intimidated by the Communist threat, but will promptly report H. R. 5852 and
pass it.

Sincerely yours,

John Thomas Taylor,

Director.

[From the Milwaukee Journal, May 20, 1948]
The Communists Lose a Round

The House of Representatives smashed all attempts to weaken or shelve
the Mundt bill, directed at the Russian-directed Communist movement in this
country. The bill was passed and sent on to the Senate by a good 319 to 58 vote.
It is to be hoped that the Senate will act favorably on this measure and pass
it on to the President before this session of Congress ends.

The Mundt bill is a new kind of legislation in the United States, demanded
by the changing conditions of the times. It would outlaw subversive activities
of Communists against this country, would force the Communist Party to sever
its Moscow ties, and would require registration of party members and members
of Red-front organizations. It would not outlaw the Communist Party, but
would tear off its mask. It is in line with the belief that "constant exposure"
is the best way to deal with the conspiratorial Communist movement.

Loudest opposition to the Mundt bill has come, naturally, from the Communists,
who realize how much it will hurt them. They can't operate successfully in
the open where all can see. There has also been opposition from some liberal
and civil rights groups who fear that the measure may be too sweeping and
may jeopardize the traditional freedoms of the American people. Some of
these contend the bill is unconstitutional.

The agency to decide on the constitutionality of legislation is the Supreme
Court, not groups of citizens or even the Houses of Congress. And the way to
find out what the high court thinks is to enact the measure and then take it
into the courts. The sooner there is a final decision on this matter the better
for this Nation.

If the Mundt bill is unconstitutional, then Congress will have to get to work
on another measure that will pass the constitutional test. Some way must be
found to meet the boring of the Russian-directed Communist Party into the
American system. This Nation cannot permit a conspiratorial group, directed by
a hostile foreign power, to chop away without restraint at the foundations of
our Government.

It would be a sign of inexcusable weakness for a people to stand helplessly
by while a minority in their midst worked their destruction.

[From the Milwaukee Journal, June 10, 1948]

Reds Write To Congress

Thousands upon thousands of letters and petitions are flooding the Senate
Judiciary Committee. They voice opposition to the Mundt-Nixon bill to control
communism in this country. This bill has already passed the House.
78257 — 48 31

476 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

The character of the messages, plus the similarity of many of thein, indicates
that this barrage of mail is the result of a Communist Party campaign. Past
experience has shown that the Communists are able to bring such a mail deluge
upon Congressmen merely by calling upon their members, fellow travelers, and
sympathetic pinkos. It is another well recognized propaganda trick of Comrade
Foster and associates.

The members of the Judiciary Committee and of the whole Senate can well
ignore that kind of campaign. It is a phony thing, in no way representative
of the feelings of the American people.

As for the Mundt-Nixon bill — it offers a way to meet the conspiratorial tactics
of the American Communists. No one has yet promised a better way. The
Mundt-Nixon bill should be enacted into law, even though the Senate post office
bulges at the seams.

[From the Milwaukee Sentinel, May 26, 1948]
Make It ' 1,000 to 1

The vote — 319 to 58 — by which the Mundt-Nixon Communist-control bill passed
the House of Representatives was reminiscent of the overwhelming majorities
by which the old Dies committee was sustained year after year in Congress
whenever the Communists and so-called liberals sought to have it abolished.

People who understand representative government should have no difficulty
in perceiving the meaning of the long record.

It means that the American people have not been deluded by subversive
propaganda, including senseless claims that the Un-American Activities Com-
mittees have been merely Red-baiting groups endangering civil liberties.

It means that the American people have come to understand the nature of
communism, which is essentially a criminal enterprise.

It means that the public believes that our national defense, which is costing
us literally billions of dollars, must protect our industries and institutions as
well as our strategic frontiers.

It means that the House of Representatives has again responded to the public
will ; and it therefore means that the United States Senate may let itself in for
a good deal of trouble with the people if it fails to concur in the action taken.

According to Washington dispatches, the Mundt-Nixon bill may encounter
delay, or even defeat, in the Senate.

The left-wing strategy is to impound the proposed measure, because of the
pressure of other business, until the Congress adjourns or recesses for the
political conventions.

The remaining days of the session will meanwhile be utilized to incite op-
position.

That this is the Communist intention is disclosed by the Daily Worker, which
on its front page of May 20 exhorted the Communists and Communist following
to "send wires, delegations to your Senators at once."

But this is a tactic which others may also employ.

For every Communist in the United States there are at least a thousand
patriots.

Let them send telegrams, letters, or delegations to their Senators.

For since when have United States Senators, elected as Republicans or Dem-
ocrats to represent their sovereign States, become in any way responsible or
responsive to the Communist Party or to the Politburo at Moscow?

[From the Atlanta Journal, June 2, 1948]

Communist Advertisement Is Full of Lies About Mundt-Nixon Subversive

Control Bill

Elsewhere in today's issue of the Atlanta Journal appears an advertisement of
the Communist Party opposing the Mundt-Nixon subversive activities control bill,
now before ( fongress.

This advertisement was submitted personally by Homer B. Chase, state organ-
izer of the Communist Party, who paid in currency for the display space it
occupies.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 477

The Journal accepted the advertisement only after thoughtful consideration of
the issues involved. Our first inclination was to refuse publication, as we would
have been well within our private and, we think, public rights in doing.

A newspaper has a public obligation to keep its columns open as a forum for
every shade of opinion that seeks to exert itself through lawful means. A news-
paper has no right to reject legitimate political advertising because it disagrees
with the opinions expressed therein.

There is sound basis to believe, however, that statements of the Communist
Tarry on affairs of the United States are not legitimate expressions of American
opinion.

Everyone with eyes to see and oars to hear knows that the line of the Communist
Party is not determined by its American members, but is dictated from Moscow
and is changed at will to suit the purposes of the Kremlin.

Communists scream more loudly than anyone else about freedom of speech in
countries that preserve such liberties, but the historical record shows that freedom
of speech ceases to exist in countries where Communists seize control.

Communists use freedom of speech for themselves in a never-ceasing struggle to
destroy the freedoms of others.

Democracies need to realize these facts and to guard against the dangers they
represent. Some method must be found within the framework of our constitu-
tional liberties to protect the Republic against those who would destroy it.

Bearing all these considerations in mind, the Journal decided it would be a
public service to publish the Communist Party advertisement and to expose its
fallacies.

Publication of the advertisement demonstrates clearly the source and nature
of much of the opposition to the Mundt-Nixon bill. It brings Communist opinion
on this measure into the open, where it can be answered forthrightly.

The Communist advertisement has the audacity to use the word "lie" about the
opinions of others when that advertisement itself is full of lies.

The first paragraph says: "The Mundt-Nixon bill, now in the United States
Senate, uses the big lie that American Communists are foreign agents."

That statement itself is a lie.

Section 2 of the bill recognizes the existence of "a world Communist move-
ment," directed and controlled "by the Communist dictatorship of a foreign
country." The bill declares this movement "a clear and present danger to the
security of the United States and to the existence of free American institutions."

Those statements in the bill are true.

The Communist Party advertisement says :

"The Mundt bill means :

"If you're a union member and strike for better wages ;

"If you're for antilynch and anti-poll-tax legislation ;

"If you're against the Taft-Hartley law, against the draft;

"It you're for the partition of Palestine, for public housing ;

"If you're for peace, you will be called Communist.

"Under the Mundt bill, if it becomes law, you would be in danger of 10 years in
jail and $10,000 fine."

Those statements are lies.

The Mundt-Nixon bill concerns none of the subjects alluded to and can have no
effect upon them.

Ill

Up to now the Journal has neither endorsed nor opposed the Mundt-Nixon bill.
The Journal does not now endorse the measure in all its details.

The Journal does endorse the objectives of the bill and expresses the opinion
that most of its provisions are reasonable and temperate, as well as urgently
necessary.

The Journal does urge upon Congress the necessity for positive action, after
every effort has been made to perfect the bill by remedying whatever defects it
may have.

By no means all opposition to the Mundt-Nixon bill comes from the same sources
as the Communist Party advertisement.

478 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

Many intelligent, sincere, and patriotic Americans contend that the bill would
endanger the liberties of all citizens, while striving to control subversive activities
of the few.

Such opposition, when it conies from reputable citizens, as much of it does,
merits the careful study of Congress. It should be utilized, not as an excuse to
block action, but to test each section and each sentence of the bill in the light
of how it would affect the people of the United States and their freedom.

At the same time it should be recognized that much of the opposition from
well-meaning people is based on misinformation about the bill, deliberately fos-
tered by Communists and their sympathizers.

The bill does not seek to outlaw the Communist party or any other organization.

The bill does provide for the registration of Communist and Communist-front
organizations.

It requires the clear labeling of Communist publications and radio broad-
casts— just as the Communist Party advertisement is clearly labeled in today's
Journal.

The bill denies Federal employment to members of Communist political or-
ganizations.

The bill makes it a crime, punishable by $10,000 fine or not more than 10 years'
imprisonment, or both, "to attempt in any manner to establish in the United
States a totalitarian dictatorship to be under the direction and control of any
foreign government, foreign organization, or foreign individual."

The section of the bill most open to legitimate question is that which places in
the hands of the Attorney General the power and the duty of determining what or-
ganizations are Communist and what organizations are Communist fronts.

This is a great responsibility for any public official. It is this phase of the bill
which leads to charges of "thought control."

It probably would be better if the determination of what organizations are
Communist and Communist-front were placed in the hands of an independent
board.

Wherever the power is placed, it is — and must be under our Constitution —
subject to review by the courts. So long as we have our system of judicial review
there is little danger that any provision of the bill could be used to destroy liberty
instead of protecting it.

The bill specifically provides that any organization may appeal from the finding
of the Attorney General to the United States Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia.

Beyond that the entire machinery of the courts is open to any individual or or-
ganization who believes that he is falsely accused.

Some of the opposition to the Mundt-Nixon bill cannot be considered in the
same light as that discussed above.

Some of the opposition comes from individuals and organizations concerned, not
with protecting American rights, but with fostering a dictatorship in which they
would hope to belong to the ruling oligarchy.

Opposition from the Communist Party of Georgia, as expressed in today's ad-
vertisement, and from the Communist Party of the United States, as expressed
to a Senate committee last week, constitutes to most citizens an argument in
behalf of the bill.

William Z. Foster, chairman of the Communist Party of the United States, told
the Senate Judiciary Committee last week that members of the party would not
support the United States in any conceivable war with the Soviet Union.

In other words, their first loyalty is not to this country but to another.

Air. Foster said his party would not obey the Mundt-Nixon law, even if the
Supreme Court told it to do so.

Such defiance would deserve whatever punishment it might receive from the
courts of the United States.

VII

The world had a fresh demonstration last week of how Communist dictatorships
treat democratic institutions.

Czechoslovakia held what it called an election.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 479

Until a few months ago Czeeholovakia was a self-governing republic. It was
the one country of central Europe which had ever understood and practiced
democracy in the western sense.

Then the Communists took charge. There was one slate of candidates in the
election ; the Communist ticket. There was only one way to vote. Opposition
had been silenced, murdered, or exiled.

That is how Communists treat the most fundamental of liherties when they
come into power.

VIII

The Mundt-Nixon bill has been passed by the House of Representatives. It is
now before the Senate, where committee hearings are in progress.

This newspaper believes, with The New York Times, that:

"The country does not want, nor would the Constitution sanction, a law which
attempted to control the political beliefs of American citizens. But the country
can properly seek, and the Constitution surely would not deny, proper and adequate
safeguards against intervention in American politics by agents of a foreign
power."

The Communist Party advertisement suggests writing to Senator Alexander
Wiley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

It would be well for citizens who oppose communism to adopt that suggestion,
writing their own views to Senator Wiley and to the Senators who represent their
State.

[From the New York Herald Tribune, May 3, 1948]
To Control Conspiracy

Representative Richard M. Nixon, the California Republican who played a
major part in preparing the new Mundt anti-Communist bill (formally reported
on Saturday by the House Un-American Activities Committee), predicts that it
will pass the House by 4 to 1. Most Washington observers are inclined to agree
with him and to doubt whether, in the present congressional atmospheres, it will
suffer Senate modification — unless, perhaps, in the direction of greater severity.
To adopt the words of the report, Congress seems resolved to "strike a body
blow." not at theoretical communism or the preaching of it, but "at the American
cadre <>f the foreign-directed Communist conspiracy."

Not unnaturally, the leading American voices of that conspiracy are shrieking
to heaven against the measure as a "police state" bill. Is it? That it has nothing
in common with the actual police states which communism has established in
Europe, it is hardly necessary to observe. The quite definite and explicit purpose
which it announces is, however, a rather novel one in our affairs, and some novel
principles have been adopted. The committee explains why it has refrained from
attempting to outlaw the Communist Party or communism as such :

"We believe that if its criminal activities are prosecuted, its false fronts
exposed and its foreign assistance and direction cut away, the movement in the
United States, standing alone for what it is, will be overwhelmingly defeated."

To that end two things are necessary. The first is clearly to define what
activities are criminal ; and the bill makes it a crime, subject to heavy penalty, to
attempt to establish in the United States a totalitarian dictatorship under foreign
domination. This is the essence of the conspiracy aimed at, and surely may
properly be brought within the purview of democratic criminal law. But the
real effectiveness of the bill lies in its requirements as to registration of "Com-
munist political organizations" and "Communist front organizations,'' for their
disclosure of officers, membership, source and use of funds, for denying their
members passports and public office.

The success of these requirements, both in law aud in practice, would seem
to rest upon the adequacy with which the bill defines the type of organizations
affected. The bill defines a "Communist political organization" as one of which
it is "reasonable to conclude" — considering its activities, views, policies, the
extent to which its policies coincide with those of a foreign (Russian) government
or are formulated by foreign directives, the extent to which its funds come from
a foreign government, the extent to which it sends members abroad for Com-
munist training and some other similar factors — that it is under the control of
this foreign government or "is one of the principal instrumentalities used by the
world Communist movement."

480 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

The definition is narrow. It is based not on beliefs (like the famous and hated
Test acts) but on conclusions as to facts. Obviously, it would be for the courts
to say whether the criteria are sufficiently specific to be admissible in law and
the facts sufficiently ascertainable to be applicable in practice. There is room
for argument. But there is no basis for crying "police state" against a measure
which seeks to meet a recognized danger to democracy by as precise an application
of democratic law and method as this.

[From the New York Herald Tribune, May IS, 1948]
The Anti-Communist Bill

As the House resumes today its debate on the Mundt anti-Communist bill, it
has before it many conflicting views. It has the Dewey-Stassen interchange over
the "outlawry" of communism. It has the shrill outcries of the Communists and
their sympathizers, as well as the hardly less vociferous opinions of those who
want simply to root out communism, regardless of the cost. It has the con-
sidered judgment of those who, with Mr. John Foster Dulles, believe the bill
to be "a praiseworthy attempt to deal honestly and in the American tradition
with a very difficult and confused situation." And it has the equally sincere
convictions of those who, with Mayor O'Dwyer, still feel that the bill is a
dangerous short-cut to thought control and police-state regulation.

To this newspaper it seems that neither the opponents nor many of the pro-
ponents of the bill have looked closely enough at the bill itself. It is not a
police-state or a thought-control bill ; as a matter of fact, it is very carefully
safeguarded, in a number of interesting ways, against just those dangers. The
safeguards may or may not be sufficient; but at least, the bill should be ex-
amined for what it actually seeks to do rather than for what it is accused of
doing.

The Mundt bill is a singularly intelligent attempt to control the universally
recognized dangers of Communist infiltration without violation of the principles
of democratic due process. Many "reactionaries" have been willing to say that
due process does not matter; the Communists should be extirpated by any con-
venient method. Many "liberals" have thrown up their hands, saying that
communism cannot be controlled without resort to the "police state" and therefore
should not be controlled at all. The Mundt bill denies both of these counsels
of despair and makes a real effort to bring the peculiar problem which Com-
munist conspiracy has presented to western democratic society within the legal
and social controls which that society has developed.

It does so in two ways : First, by making it a crime subject to heavy penalty to
attempt to subvert the Government to a totalitarian dictatorship under Russian
control ; second, by requiring Communist and Communist-front organizations
( declared to be such by the Attorney General, under a specified process and after
opportunity for court review) to register, declare their membership, sources and
uses of funds. No one here can be declared "guilty by association." He is guilty
if he can be personally convicted before a court of attempting to subvert the
Government to a Russian-dominated dictatorship (a charge under which con-
victions are at most likely to be very few) ; but if he is simply a member of a
Communist or fellow-traveler organization he is, in general, subject to nothing-
more than publicity.

There are exceptions to the latter statement. A member of a Communist or-
ganization is denied any employment by the Federal Government and denied a
passport; both provisions seem to this newspaper extreme. The first might well
be modified by making it apply only to Federal positions in "sensitive" areas;
the second is dubious on many grounds, and represents a punitive restriction
which ought not to be imposed merely for membership or association. Neither
affects the basic principle of the act, which deliberately attempts to single out
and define pro-Russian Communist allegiances, which compels publicity for
those who accept such allegiance and which makes it a crime to pursue the ends
of Communist subversion. The bill would throw a very heavy burden on the
courts, and its ultimate effectiveness is questionable. It does, however, sincerely
try to do, within the frame of our society, what great numbers of Americans
want done. This newspaper feels that it deserves trial.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 481

[From the New York Times, May 21, 1048]
The Mundt Bill

It would be difficult to quarrel with the premises which are stated in the open-
ing paragraphs of the Mundt bill, which has jusl been passed by the House of
Representatives with the support of a large majority of the members of both
parties. Certainly the evidence is overwhelming that, as the bill states, "there
exists a world Communist movement which, in its origins, its development and
its present practice, is a world-wide revolutionary political movement whose
purpose it is, by treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups, espionage, sabo-
tage, terrorism, and any other means deemed ne :essary, to establish a Communist
totalitarian dictatorship in all the countries of the world through the medium of a
single world-wide Communist organization." This, we believe, is undeniable;
and it is equally true, as these paragraphs go on to say, that a movement of this
kind and with this purpose "presents a clear and present danger to the security
of the United States and to the existence of free American institutions."

Precisely what the Mundt bill does to meet this danger is a question on which
supporters of the bill themselves do not agree (nor do Mr. Stassen and Mr.
Dewey). Some think, and others do not, that it would "outlaw" the Communist
Party, and the language of the bill itself is not precise enough to settle the point
definitively. If the bill becomes a law in its present form, a very considerable
burden of interpretation would in fact be thrown upon the courts.

Whether because of this, or for other reasons, we are now told in the Wash-
ington dispatches that the Senate is likely to pigeonhole the House bill and let
it quietly expire. This, we believe, would be a grave mistake. The very size
of the House majority — a majority of more than five to one — calls for serious
consideration of this issue by the other branch of Congress; and the issue itself,
the issue created by an increasingly aggressive international Communist con-
spiracy, is one which does not warrant either indifference or delay. We believe,
therefore, that prompt hearings should be held on the House bill by the appro-
priate committee of the Senate, for the purpose of clarifying both the problem
with which the measure deals and the remedies which it provides. The country
does not want, nor would the Constitution sanction, a law which attempted to
control the political beliefs of American citizens. But the country can properly
seek, and the Constitution surely would not deny, proper and adequate safe-
guards against intervention in American politics by agents of a foreign power.

[From the Brooklyn Eagle. Mav 16, 1948]
ANALYSIS OF MUNDT BILL SHOWS CRITICS DON'T KNOW ITS CONTENTS

The Mundt bill is a must. It hits the Communists, their dupes and stooges
where it hurts most — namely, in their allegiance to a foreign power.

There is not one word in the bill that prevents any one from professing
communism, shouting his belief from the housetops, and urging others to do the
same. It has nothing to do with the Taft-Hartley Act, housing, health insurance,
or any of the other issues that progressive citizens may wish to promote singly
or by united action.

Henry Wallace is one of the many self-styled liberals who are making false
statements about the bill — and thus helping the Reds. To say that it would
outlaw the Communist Party is untrue and ridiculous. It actually brings the
party right out in the open where honest men should have no fear.

The sponsors of the bill have analyzed what makes the Communist Party click.
They have found, as any honest stulent of the subject should know by this time,
that the Communist Party is a partner in the international conspiracy which
would impose a totalitarian government upon democratic nations. It is linked
up and directed by agents of a foreign totalitarian power.

It depends for success upon concealing its real identity and seducing innocent
citizens into supporting its cause by establishing false fronts. It keeps its
world organization in unity by training its officers in foreign lands by means of
schools of revolutionary tactics and techniques.

482 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

By no stretch of the imagination can it be called American in any sense. Its
whole aim and purpose is to destroy the traditional democratic institutions in
this and every other country.

These are not merely guesses and hearsay conclusions. It is all down in black
and white in the Communist records and the actuality is spelled out in red—
in the red blood of its victims — wherever it has been allowed to go on unchecked.

We have yet to read a worthwhile criticism of the Mundt bill. We do not see
how it can be opposed by any except those who are either ignorant of the
Communist movement or have secret sympathies for that way of life. No one
who understands the meaning of government, civil rights, real democracy,
treason can offer an intelligent argument against it as a whole.

There is room for suggestions for change. But to join the Communists in a
blanket denunciation of it is to give way to the hysteria which its opponents
attach to its sponsors.

The bill is carefully written and the protection of American citizens who have
not voluntarily relinquished their claim to civil rights by joining such an organi-
zation is assured. To say that the bill does not allow for due process and appeal
to the courts is a barefaced lie.

The Attorney General will have the power to designate which organizations
are considered subversive. The evidence upon which he will act will rest on the
accumulation of those actions which, taken together, point the finger of guilt
at the organization as a Soviet instrument. Circumstantial evidence is a legiti-
mate beginning for such a procedure. The accused, however, can fight the charge
right up to the Supreme Court. A Nation has a right to defend itself against
the organized intrigue of saboteurs. More than tbat, it has the duty to do so.

Socialists, liberals, progressives, laborites, citizens of any other political or
economic hue, except the Stalinists, need have no fear of this bill. It is a
protection to them because it clearly distinguishes them from the organized
conspiracy which is the Communist Party. They should go along with it and
refuse to be misled by the muddleheaded and the malicious.

The Stalinists have already deluged Congress with a barrage of protests.
Those citizens who love America should engulf their Representatives with a
cloudburst of supporting messages. We hope that all nine of Brooklyn's Repre-
sentatives will have the good judgment to vote for the Mundt bill. It is a must.

The Dewey-Stassen Debate and the Mundt-Nixon Bill

(Text of broadcast by Samuel B. Pettemjill over ABC network, Sunday, May 23,

1048)

The Lincoln-Douglas debates. 00 years ago, helped to make clear the great
issue of that time. They were free speech at its best. There ought to be many
more such debates.

Governor Dewey and Mr. Stassen rendered a public service last week. In
their limited time, however, it was necessary for them to leave unsaid much that
is important. This is especially true because 8 days later the House of Repre-
sentatives passed the Mundt-Nixon bill by the overwhelming vote of 319 to 58.
It now goes to the Senate.

Today, I give you tbe high lights of that bill. One can be for it, or against it,
on its merits. But to simply be against it in ignorance of what it really seeks
to do, gives aid and comfort to the agents of an international conspiracy against
America. No one of you wants to be in that position.

Mr. Dewey and Mr. Stassen dealt with two questions : First, Should the Com-
munist Party be outlawed? And second, Does the Mundt-Nixon bill do so?

should "reds" he outlawed?

To outlaw the Communist Party, it would be necessary to make it illegal for
that party to have a place on the ticket in an election ; to prevent it from holding
political meetings; or to publish its literature, newspapers, and magazines.
Now a great many people think that is exactly what Congress or State legislatures
should do. I will discuss that point later.

But it is plain that the Mundt-Nixon bill does none of these things. If it be-
comes law, the Communist Party can still argue its case to the people, and
campaign to elect its candidates, provided it registers with the Attorney General

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 483

of the United States. Therefore, it is clear that Mr. Stassen was wrong and
Governor Dewey was right on this point.

On tlit- other hand, it is perfectly plain that if the bill passes the Senate and
is signed by the President it will make the going tougher for the Communist
Parly in the way in which it has been operating.

MAKING THE LABEL HONEST

What is the purpose of the bill? Years ago we passed a very useful piece of
legislation — the Pure Food and Drug Act. This law requires not only that food
he wholesome, and drugs be pure, hid that they be honestly labeled.

The Mundt-Nixon bill is a Pure Food and Drug Act in the field of political
action.

Every candidate for Congress and the Senate this fall is requned to file a
sworn public report showing who his financial backers are and for what purposes
he spends their contributions.

The Mundt-Nixon bill does just that to the Communist Party, and its fifth-
column or front organizations.

MUST OPKRATE IN THE OPEN

Do you believe any organization in the field of American politics — whether
it is the Communist Party, or the Ku Klux Klan, or the Anarchists, or the Mafia,
«>r Japanese Black Dragon Society has or should have the constitutional right to
operate in the dark and not in the light?

The Mundt-Nixon bill attempts to bring the activities of the Communist Party
out into the open. It requires the Communist Party, and its front organiza-
tions, to register with the Attorney General of the United States; to give the
names and addresses of its officers; to make an accounting of its receipts and
disbursements; to label the literature it sends through the United States mails
so the public will know what it is, and who sent it ; and in the case of a radio
speech, to announce that the speech is in behalf of a Communist organization.

What is wrong about that? Should the sacred right of free speech and a free
press in the field of political action protect secret activities? The Corrupt
Practices Act. passed years ago, answers that question — No. So does the law
requiring newspapers to tell who their owners are.

COMMUNISTS NOT LOTAL TO UNITED STATES

The Mundt-Nixon bill says that the Communist Party must either register
with t!ie Attorney General, or cut its connection with Soviet Russia. One or
the other.

As I said last Sunday, the Communist Party is not an American party. Its
loyalty is not to this country or its Constitution.

It follows the party line laid down by a world conspiracy centering in Moscow,
and is loyal to Soviet Russia as the base of a world-wide revolutionary move-
ment.

As the present chairman of the Communist Party in the United States of
America. William Z. Foster, says in his book, "Toward a Soviet America," "The
Communist Party of the United States * * * is the American section of
the Communist International. * * * The Communist International is a dis-
ciplined world party."

If you get that point clearly in your mind, you will no longer "see as through
a glass, darkly" on this matter. A so-called political party which is in truth and
fact a section of an international world party cannot be loyal to this country, or
its free institutions.

The Mundt-Xixon bill makes it a crime to carry on activities looking toward
the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in the United States under
foreign control— under foreign control. It says that American Communists shall
not have passports to attend meetings of this world party — or conspiracy — in
foreign lands; to be there schooled to sabotage American industry; to blow up
our factories ; to prevent the movement of our ships and railroads ; and to organ-
ize other subversive activities in this country.

WOULD BAR INTERNATIONAL CONSPIRACY

The bill thus attempts to cut the threads of this world-wide network ; to quar-
antine the Communists here from their associates abroad.

484 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

To this extent, the bill does attempt to outlaw or prevent some of the more
direct activities of the Communist Party.

You are familiar, of course, with the fact that members of the Communist
Party have been convicted and serve time for going abroad on forged passports
so the fact that they visited Moscow would not be known.

Does any American have the constitutional right to belong to and travel abroad
in the interests of a foreign political party committed to the overthrow of our
Government ?

On this point, consider the ease of every one of the millions of immigrants
who have come to this country and applied for American citizenship. What are
they required to do? They are required to swear and swear honestly "that I
absolutely and entirely renounce * * * all allegiance to any foreign prince,
potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or of which I have heretofore been a
subject ; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United
States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true
faith and allegiance to the same."

WHY NOT RESPECT THIS OATH?

Now if we can require that oath and that loyalty from the humblest immigrant
who has ever come to this country, why can we not require it of native-born
American Communists, and take steps to make them live up to it? Must the
Constitution protect those who propose to destroy it?

We would conscript every able-bodied man we have to prevent Russian soldiers
from crossing our frontiers to take possession of this country. Those soldiers
would be the agents of a foreign power.

If we can lawfully and constitutionally stop the military agents of a foreign
power from attempting to take over this country, why can't we stop their spies,
saboteurs, and political agents?

BANS TAX-FREE SUPPORT

Another thing the Mundt-Nixon bill does is to deny income-tax deduction for
contributions to the support of Communist Party front organizations. This will
tend to dry up some of their funds.

To permit Communist-front organizations to continue to get tax-free financial
support simply means that the United States Treasury and every one of you are
forced to help underwrite organizations whose purpose it is to overthrow or
undermine our Government based on free elections and the private-property
system. AVe have a right to stop that. I have described this bill in some detail
because a hue and cry has gone up that it invades the legitimate civil rights of
Americans. This bill affects no man or group of men unless he or they are domi-
nated by and follow the party line of a foreign power or foreign political
organization.

Even the Communist Party can carry on if it registers with the Attorney Gen-
eral and operates in the open. It can carry on without registering if it cuts all
connections with the international Communist organization.

doesn't enjoin free speech

Every innocent dupe of a Communist-front organization will have full oppor-
tunity to resign without publicity.

Every American, loyal to America, can freely speak, write, or organize for any
economic, social, or political reform whatever except the overthrow of our Gov-
ernment by force and violence. This bill does not affect him. He can agitate
for public housing, socialized medicine. Government ownership, the closed shop,
IG to 1, or anything else. The purpose of the bill is to make sure that the Com-
munist Party shall never destroy those very rights in America as it has clone in
Czechoslovakia and elsewhere.

HOOVER'S SENSIBLE WARNING

Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, of the FBI, is our best authority on that point. It is his
view that it would be a mistake to attempt to outlaw the party. He thinks that
the more Communist activities we can keep in the open, above ground, the better.

Whatever may be said for, or against, the Mundt-Nixon bill, its passage by the
House of Representatives by a vote of 319 to 58, and by a majority of both the
Republican and Democratic Members, is proof that Congress and our people have
stopped being suckers.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 485

A DOted labor lawyer. Louis Waldman, says thai all talk about this bill being
antilabor Is just so much nonsense.

Some people think the bill is urn needed. They point to (he L'T Federal statutes
already on the books dealing with sedition, mutiny, insurrection, treason, sabotage,
espionage, etc.

They say that vigOBOUS enforcement of the laws we already have is more
important than passing another law. There i< merit in that, but there are some
loopholes in existing legislation — such as failure to cut the connection between
the Communist Party here and its world-wide network.

On the other hand, some are dissatisfied with the bill because it does not
completely outlaw the Communist Party. But, as Governor Dewey pointed out,
outlawing has not worked well where tried.

This awakening is in or 15 years late. You will P m u ' :r how persons in high
office attempted to degrade and discredit the House Committee oh Un-American
Activities when it was headed by Congres -man Dies, and was then trying to expose
the danger we now see so clearly.

Harassed as he was, Mr. Dies made some mistakes of method and procedure,
but on the over-all picture, he and his committee and the Congress which sup-
ported his committee were much nearer right than those in the executive branch.
Otherwise, how do you explain President Truman's request for $25,000,000 to
scre.n ou( Communists and fellow travelers and Trojan horses who got into
Government offices under the administration of his predecessor? And what
about billions of dollars to stop Communist aggression — in Europe?

President Truman and Congress deserve credit for facing the revolutionary
realities of the tough postwar world in which we now find ourselves, largely
because of our own blind folly in the past.

When we have a fifth column to deal with, we have got to be both wise and
on the alert !

[From the Christian Science Monitor, June 1. 194S]

State of thf. Nation — American Communists Show Their Colors

l By Roscoe Drummond. chief, Washington bureau, the Christian

Science Monitor )

Washington. — The Senate hearings on the Mundt-Nixon Communist-control
bill are serving two useful purposes.

They are bringing into the open some significant disclosures of Communist
purposes.

They are giving the country some needed time to think through whether it
approves this particular method of dealing with communism.

Senator Alexander Wiley (Republican ) of Wisconsin, chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, is promising to give both sides of tiie measure a full airing, and it is
evident that the Senate itself is not going to act hastily or casually. This is all
to the good.

The willingness of Senator Wiley to bring the bill's bitterest opponents before
his committee and to give them full rein to make their case 1ms been valuable.
Two such witness were William Z. Foster, chairman of the Communist Party in
the United States, and Henry A. Wallace, third-party candidate for the Presi-
dency. Each took about the same line of argument.

The Communist leader. Mr. Foster, was a revealing witness, although from the
way he tried to fight off giving direct answers to direct questions, it is clear he
didn't intend to be. But the cross-examination was perceptive, and if there
remains any non-Communist American who fails to see that communism is an
aggressive, subversive conspiracy run from Moscow, it is well that Mr. Foster now
has publicly, if unwillingly, testified:

That American Communists would not support the United States if it were
attacked by the Soviet Union.

That American Communists would not in any circumstances obey any of the
proposed legislation restricting Communist activities.

That American Communists would seek to end any war in which the United
States and the Soviet Union might become engaged— on Soviet terms.

That, if drafted into the Army, American Communists have not yet decided
whether they would obey or disobey military orders.

This is a tidy bil of testimony. It is carefully and faithfully extracted from
the record. Communist policy is made abundantly clear. The single, central,

486 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

burning, all-vital fact is that the Communist Party is a Soviet Government agency
within the United States, loy;il only to the Soviet Union and its obedient instru-
ment. Mr. Foster made that evident enough, and we can thank him for that, if
for nothing else.

Another revealing and confirmatory Communist fact came to light this week
end when the national committee of the Communist Party boasted openly that
it started the Wallace third party. The committee released to its members a
statement proclaiming that it was "first to grasp the reactionary, imperialist
essence of the Marshall plan" — indeed, it had almost a monopoly on this — and
was first to proclaim the need of "a new people's party."

The statement affirmed that the American Communists were ordered to help
start and develop the Wallace-led third party as "their central, immediate task,"
but the Communists were warned that they must act to transform it into a counter-
part of the Communist Party.

In starting the third party, the Communists had as their first objective opposi-
tion to the Marshall plan, and from the record it is clear that they have not mis-
placed their confidence in Mr. Wallace, -whose own opposition to the Marshall
plan began almost as soon as Moscow started its criticism.

These are useful disclosures, but they do not prove that the Mundt-Nixon bill,
which would require Communist registration, is either a wise or a needed
measure. In the first place, everything the Communists oppose isn't necessarily
something that ought to be done. Such a line of reasoning would put non-Com-
munists under the control of Communist thinking. Furthermore, it is important
to perceive that the real danger to American institutions is not the Communist
advocate, but the Communist agent.

The Communist advocate isn't made more visible by registration and the Com-
munist agent already is an undercover, underground conspirator who wouldn't
register anyway.

[From the Congressional Record, June 4, 1945]

Knights of Columbus Periodical, Columbia, Supports the Mundt-Nixon Bill

extension of remarks, hon. charles j. kersten, of wisconsin, in the house
of representatives, friday, june 4, 1948

Mr. Kersten of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, the June 1948 number of Columbia,
a magazine published by the Knights of Columbus, supports the Mundt-Nixon
bill. The article is as follows :

"WHY YOU SHOULD SUPPORT H. R. 5852

"In dealing with the Communist conspiracy against our Government and our
people, there is the danger of falling into a state of mind in which we (1) auto-
matically support anything the Commies oppose or, (2) automatically oppose
anything they support. Such a habit of judgment, obviously, can lead us into
absurd and untenable positions. The architects of the 'party line' might con-
ceivably, in a moment of savage hatred toward their own kind, denounce the man-
eating shark : we could hardly endoser the monster on that account. Nor could
we hold that it is good for the poor to starve simply because the Communists cry
that the poor should have bread. Still, when the comrades give out with ex-
ceptionally loud cries of anguish, it is the part of prudence to look into what ails
them and it is natural to entertain the hope that the affliction may be fatal, or
thereabouts, to their plans for our future. What ails them at the moment is the
Subversive Activities Control Act, 1948, which is also known as the Mundt-Nixon
bill.

"The purpose of the bill is to control the activities of the American Communist
Party and its subsidiary organizations ; the bill is based upon the conviction that
our country can be better protected against the Communist conspirators in our
midst by exposing them rather than by attempting to repress them. The prin-
cipal provisions of the bill, which has, of course, been recklessly misrepresented
by the Communist press, are as follows :

"1. It makes unlawful, and punishable by heavy fine or imprisonment, or both,
activities (including conspiracies) to establish, or looking toward the establish-
ment of, a totalitarian dictatorship in the United States to be under foreign
control.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 487

"2. It provides for loss of citizenship upon conviction for the offenses men-
tioned above.

••:;. It denies Federal employment and passports to members of Communist
political organizations, which term it defines so as to include the Communisl Party
of the United states, or any other organization, existing or hereafter established,
having essentially the same characteristics.

'•!. It requires registration with the Attorney General of Communist political
organizations and Communist-front organizations. Such registration is to be
accompanied by a statement, and annual reports thereafter, giving names and
addresses of oiiieers of the organizations; an accounting of receipts and expendi-
tures ; and, in the case of a Communist political organization (but not in the case
of a Communist-front organization), names and addresses of members.

".">. It makes it unlawful for any individual to become or remain a member of
a Communist political organization if the organization is not registered within
the time prescribed.

"6. It denies to any organization which is registered, or which has been ordered
by the Attorney General to register, the use of the mails for circulating publica-
tions unless marked with the name of the organization and the fact that it is a
Communist organization ; it also denies to such organizations the privilege of
broadcasting any matter over any broadcasting station unless it is preceded by
a statement giving the name of the organization and the fact that it is a Com-
munist organization.

"7. It removes the so-called charitable-contributions deduction for Federal
income-tax purposes, of coutribntions to, or for the use of, an organization which
at the time of making the contribution is registered or has been ordered by the
Attorney General to register ; it takes away the Federal income-tax exemption of
such organizations.

"Reporting, from the Committee on Un-American Activities, on the need for
legislation to control Communist activities in the United States, Congressman
Mundt has this to say :

" 'Ten years of investigation by the Committee on Un-American Activities, and
by its predecessors, have established (1) that the Communist movement in the
United States is foreign-controlled ; (2) that its ultimate objective with respect to
the United States is to overthrow our free American institutions in favor of a
Communist totalitarian dictatorship to be controlled from abroad; (3) that its
activities are carried on by secret and conspiratorial methods; and (4) that its
activities, both because of the alarming march of Communist forces abi-oad and
because of the scope and nature of Communist activities here in the United
States, constitute an immediate and powerful threat to the security of the United
States and to the American way of life.

" 'The conclusion that the Communist movement constitutes a threat to the
security of the United States and to the American way of life is not the cry of
alarmists.

" 'The Communist program of conquest through treachery, deceit, infiltration,
espionage, sabotage, corruption, and terrorism has been carried out in country
after country and is an evergrowing threat in other countries. There is ample
evidence that one of the primary objectives of the world Communist movement,
directed from within the most powerful existing Communist totalitarian dictator-
ship, is to repeat this pattern in the United States.

" 'There is incontrovertible evidence of the fact that the Communist Party of the
United States is dominated by such totalitarian dictatorship and that it is one
of the principal instrumentalities used by the world Communist movement, di-
rected from within that totalitarian dictatorship, in its ruthless and tireless
endeavor to advance the world march of communism.

" 'Concern over this threat is not limited to the legislative branch of our Gov-
ernment. On March 17, 1948, the President asked the Congress to appropriate
several billions of dollars to build up American defenses against the potential
threat of the world Communist conspiracy, of which the Communist movement in
the United States is a constituent element. Previously, on February 5 the At-
torney General, in testifying before the Legislative Subcommittee of the Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities, had stated that present laws were inadequate
to deal with the subversive activities of the Communist threat in the United
States. To resist Communist aggression abroad and ignore it at home would be
an utterly inconceivable pattern of procedure.

" 'Concern over the Communist threat is not limited to the United States.
It is mounting throughout that part of the world which still remains free. For

488 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

confirmation we have only to look at the recent unprecedented steps taken by
the leading nations of western Europe toward banding together in a union, po-
litical as well as economic, which will be powerful enough to resist the Com-
munist onslaught. In this hemisphere the nations assembled at Bogota, on
April 22, 1948, unanimously adopted a resolution declaring that the "present
world situation demands urgent measures to safeguard peace and defend mu-
tlal respect among States'' and recommending that each participating nation
•adopt within their respective territories, and in accord with their constitutional
precepts, necessary measures to prevent and uproot activities directed, assisted,
or instigated by foreign governments, organizations, or individuals."

" 'The Congress of the United States, by adopting the legislation here pro-
posed, can set the pattern for controlling in each country the foreign-directed
Communist conspiratorial activities which threaten the existence of free insti-
tutions, not only here, but throughout the world.'

"As expected, the Communists and their sympathizers and stooges are yelling
bloody murder about the measures proposed in the Mundt-Nixon bill, officially
known as H. R. 5S52. Hating the light of day as the devil hates holy water,
they are flooding Senators and Congressmen with their protests. It violates,
they say, their tender democratic sensibilities; what they really fear is that
it will force them out from under their rock.

"Competent students of the legal angles involved concede that the proposed
legislation departs from the traditional requirement that criminal guilt be per-
sonal and that it establishes the precedent of dividing our citizens into groups,
more favored or less favored before the law because of their political associa-
tions. Some are of the opinion that some of the language of the bill should
be tightened and clarified. But they are agreed that it is necessary legislation
and that it is unobjectionable under our existing legal concepts.

"That the framers of the bill were conscious of the delicacy of their task is clear
from the remarks of Congressman Mundt : 'The committee approached the prob-
lem with care and restraint because it is believed essential that any legislation
recommended be strictly in accordance with our constitutional traditions. How
to protect freedom from those who would destroy it without infringing upon
the freedom of all our people presents a question fraught with constitutional and
practical difficulties. We must not mortally wound our democratic framework in
attempting to protect it from those who threaten to destroy it.'

"The Subversive Activities Control Act, 1948, (H. R. 5S52) is poison to the
Communist conspirators against the people of the United States. Citizens should
be prompted by their own self-interest, if by no other consideration, to let their
Senators and Representatives know that they want this long-needed medicine
compounded and administered. — J. D."

[Excerpt from Congressional Record of June 19, 1948]
The Muxot-Nixon Bill

Mr. Wiley. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the
Record a statement I have prepared concerning the so-called Mundt-Nixon bill
and a copy of the bill as proposed to be revamped.

There being no objection, the statement and the bill were ordered to be printed
in the Record, as follows :

"The Judiciary Committee received the Mundt-Nixon bill on the 21st day of
May. The committee held hearings, assigning to the proponents about one-fifth of
the time allotted and to the opponents about four-filths.

"Because the bill raised two questions — (1) of law, whether the bill is con-
stitutionally written, (2) of policy — the committee called for opinions from dis-
tinguished counsel in New York and Washington and received a number of
opinions from counsel representing various groups.

"The committee also asked the Attorney General of the United States for an
opinion. The opinions reflected generally the conclusion that there were con-
stitutional objections to the bill. Thereafter, the chairman consulted with the
subcommittee and with counsel, including Donald Riehberg. in relation to the bill
and, as a result, the objections that were raised were, in large measure, met by
a revamped hill, hut in view of the time element, it was found that the bill could
not lie broughl to the calendar and action taken thereon in the Senate unless there
should he a special session.

"1 ask thai the revamped bill be printed in the Record so that it can have further
study by not only the committee members, but by anyone interested in the
subject.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 489

"At this time there is no need t<> dwell upon the amounts of unhelpful opposi-
tion, amounting in sonic instances to hysteria and emotional unbalance, and in
some instances almost threats. The chairman of the committee feels that the
subjecl of the penetration of communism is one thai merits the consideration of
every thinking American. He realizes that no legislation is an adequate cure
for any crime — thai il needs helpful cooperation of the citizenry, the officials ami,
in many instances, a tremendous lol of education. Thai is particularly true in
this case where so much loose thinking has been found, etc.

"Mr. President, I stated, when we originally received the Mundt-Nixon hill,
thai we would not act with rash haste on it, but would seek to make sure that
the civil liberties of every American were protected, even the civil liberties of
Communists.

"Because we undertook to conscientiously consider all phases of the hill, we
have been subjected to criticism by those who would have preferred for the
Senate Judiciary Committee to simply rubber stamp the House hill and send it to
the Senate floor.

"1 have condemned rubber stamping of administration measures, and ! am
completely opposed to rubber-stamp measures which are opposed by the admin-
istration, or for that matter, any rubber-stamp measure which is presented to
any committee of which I am a member.

"Let it therefore stand on the record, that the fact that the Mundt-Nixon hid
did not reach the Senate floor was not in any way due to dilatory tactics by the
members of the Judiciary Committee. Exactly to the contrary. We worked
night and clay on this bill. We used every available second and minute to
analyze it. We met for many hours at a time, skipping luncheon periods,
abandoning all other work, however pressing, in order to be adequate to our
responsibility on this bill.

'We have no apologies. We have no excuses. We do want this description of
our effort, however, to stand in the Record.

'•We did not allow Communist and Communist-minded individuals to sabotage
our consideration by extending the hearings indefinitely, nor did we allow those
who wanted us to simply rubber stamp the bill to sabotage the congressional
process by simply having us approve the bill without any consideration.

"It is my earnest hope that the Senate Judiciary Committee and the entire
Senate will have the opportunity to further explore this important subject of
Communist infiltration in America. At the same time, in order to defeat the
menace of communism, we will never resort to the tactics of fascism or any
totalitarian method. We will act, as I humbly believe we have acted, in a truly
American, fair, and democratic manner.

"In summary may I say that the Mundt-Nixon hill arrived too late in the
Senate. Let there be no recrimations, no accusations, because, unfortunately,
time was not available to consider it in committee and the full Senate, with all
the time and all the detail that its importance justifies.

"Let not the Communists, however, take heart and crow about the fact that
the Senate did not act on his bill. Let them not attempt to imply that they had
anything to do with killing the bill. On the contrary, we emerged from com-
mittee meetings with a firmer conviction than ever before that the Communist
threat must be met and will be met. The lack of action on the Mundt-Nixon bill
is not, therefore, a victory for the Communists. It is merely due to the lack of
time that was available. However much we despise communism, we love more
our constitutional processes of congressional government, and we will not fore-
sake them even to meet the Communist threat."

[H. K. 5852]

AN ACT To protect the United States against un-American and subversive activities

SHORT TITLE

Be it enacted, etc. —

Section 1. This act may be cited as the "Subversive Activities 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 iiy the existence of a singie political party, organized on a dictotarial
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

490 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

so close that the party and the government itself are for all practical purposes
indistinguishable.

(2) The establishment of a totalitrian distatorship 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 wor-
ship, 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
movement whose purpose it is, by treachery, deceit, infiltration into other groups
(governmental and otherwise), espionage, sabotage, terrorism, and any other
means deemed necessary, to establish a Communist totalitarian dictotorship 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.

(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
totalitarian 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 purposes
and their membership. One result of this method of operation is that such
political organizations are able to obtain financial and other support from per-
sons who would not extend such support if their 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 al-
legiance 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 Com-
munist 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 accoi'dance 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.

ill ) 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, in order
to provide for the common defense, to preserve the sovereignty of the United

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 491

States as an independent nation, and to guarantee to each State a republican
form of government, enact appropriate legislation recognizing the existence of
such world-wide conspiracy and designed to prevent it from accomplishing its
purpose in the United States.

DEFINITIONS

Sec. .'!. For the purposes of this act —

i l i The term "person" means an individual or an organization.

(2) The term "organization" means an organization, corporation, 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 of subje< 'ts.

(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, which (A) is substantially dominated
or controlled by the foreign government or foreign governmental or political
organization controlling the world Communist movement referred to in section 2,
and (I?) operates primarily to advance the political objectives of such world
Communist movement.

(4) The term "Communist-front organization" means any organization in
the United States (other than a Communist political organization and other
than a lawfully organized political party which is not a Communist political
organization) which (A) is under the control of a Communist political organ-
ization, or (B) is operated primarily 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.

(5) The term "Communist organization" means a Communist political or-
ganization or a Communist-front organization.

(6) The term "publication" means any- circular, newspaper, periodical,
pamphlet, book, letter, post card, leaflet, or other publication. 0

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

(S) 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 Dis-
trict of Columbia.

(90 The term "Board" means the Subversive Activities Board established
by section 12 of this act.

(10) The term "final order of the Board" means an order issued by the
Board under section 13 of this act. which has become final as provided in sec-
tion 14 of this act, requiring an organization to register under section 7 of
this act as a Communist political organization or a Communist-front organization.

CERTAIN PROHIBITED ACTS

Sec. 4. (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to combine or conspire with
any other person to perform any act which w7ould substantially assist in the
establishment within the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship the di-
rection 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, with intent to assist in the establishment within the United
States of such totalitarian dictatorship. For purposes of this subsection, the
term "totalitarian dictatorship" means a form of government, not representa-
tive in form, characterized by (1) the dominance of a single political party
to such an extent that such party and its policies are indistinguishable for
all practical purposes from the government only and governmental policies of
tlie country in which such party exists, (2) the suppression of opposition to
such party, and (?,) the denial of those fundamental rights and liberties of
individuals which are characteristic of a representative form of government,
such a freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, and of religious worship.

(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall, upon con-
viction thereof, he punished by a fine of not more than $10,000, or imprisonment
for not more than 10 years, or by both such fine and such imprisonment, and

78257 — 48 32

492 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

shall, moreover, be thereafter ineligible to hold any office, or place of honor,
profit, or trust created by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Sec. 5. (a) When there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring an
organization to register as a Communist political organization, it shall be un-
lawful for any member of such organization, with knowledge that such order
has become final —

(1) in seeking or accepting any office or employment under the United
States, to conceal the fact that he is a member of such organization ; or

(2) to hold any nonselective office or employment under the United States,
(b) When there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring an organi-
zation to register as a Communist political organization, it shall be unlawful
for any officer or employee of the United States to appoint or employ and in-
dividual as an officer or employee of the United States, knowing that such
individual is a member of such an organization.

DENIAL OF PASSPORTS TO MEMBERS OF COMMUNIST POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 6. (a) When there is in effect "a final order of the Board requiring an
organization to register as a Communist political organization, it shall be un-
lawful for any member of such organization, with knowledge that such order
has become final-
CD 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) to use or attempt to use any such passport,
(b) When there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring an organi-
zation to register as a Communist political organization, it shal 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
such organization.

REGISTRATION AND ANNUAL REPORTS OF COMMUNIST ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 7. (a) Each Communist political organization (including any organi-
zation required, by a final order of the Board, to register as a Communist
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 Board, to register as a Communist-front 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-
front organization.

(1) in the case of an organization which is a Communist political organiza-
tion or a Communist-front organization on the date of the enactment of this
act, wilhin 30 days after such date ;

(2) in the case of an organization becoming a Communist political organ-
ization or a Communist-front organization after the date of the enactment
of this act, within 30 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 Board is
required to register, within 30 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 12 full calendar months preceding the filing of such
statement, an officer of the organization, with the designation or title of the office
s<« 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 12 full calendar months preceding the filing of such statement.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 493

(4) in the case of a Communist polil leal organization, the name and last-known
address of each individual who was a member of the organization at any time
during the period of 12 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
annualy 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 he included in a registration statement, except that
the information required with respect to the 12-month period referred to in para-
graph (2), (8), or (4) of such subsection shall, in such annual report, be given
with respect to the calendar year preceding February 1 on or before which
such annual report must be filed.

(f) (1) 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, accurate records and accounts of moneys received and expended (in-
cluding the sources from which received and purpose for which expended) by
such organization.

(2) It shall he the duty of each Communist political organization registered
under this section to keep, in such manner and form as the Attorney General shall
by regulations prescribe, accurate records of the names and addresses of the mem-
bers of such organization and of persons who actively participate in the activities
of 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 or as an officer of the organization in respect of which such registration
statement or annual report wras filed, a notification in writing that such individual
is'so 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 performing 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.

i i ) If there is in effect with respect to an organization a final order of the
Board requiring it to register under this section —

(1) such organization shall, upon conviction of failure to register, to file
any registration statement or annual report, or to keep records, as required
by this section, be punished for each such offense, by a fine of not less than
$2,000 and not more than $5,000; and

(2) each individual having a duty under subsection (h) of this section to
register or to file any registration statement or annual report on behalf of
such organization, shall, upon conviction of failure to so register or to file any
such registration statement or annual report, he punished for each such
offense by a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than $5,000, or imprison-
ment for not less than 2 years and not more than 5 years, or by both such
fine and imprisonment.

For the purposes of this subsection, each day of failure to register, whether on
the part of the organization or any individual, shall constitute a separate offense.

(j) Any individual who, in a registration statement or annual report filed under
this section, 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 pun-
ished for each such offense by a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more than
$5,000, or by imprisonment for not less than 2 years and not more than 5 years,
or by both such fine and imprisonment.

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

Sec. 8. (a) The Attorney General shall keep and maintain in the Department
of Justice a register of all organizations which are registered under section 7,
and such register shall be known as the "Register of Communist Organizations."
Communist political organizations and Communist-front organizations shall be
listed separately in such register.

■ . I

494 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

(b) Such register, together with the registration statements and annual reports
filed under section 7, 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 7.

MEMBERSHIP IN CERTAIN COMMUNIST POLITICAL ORGANIZATIONS

Sec. 9. It shall be unlawful for any individual to become or remain a member
of any organization if he knows that (1) there is in effect a final order of the
Board requiring such organization to register under section 7 of this act as a
Communist political organization, (2) more than MO days have elapsed since such
order became final, and (3) such organization is not registered under section 7
of this act as a Communist political organization.

USE OF THE MAILS AND INSTRUMENTALITIES OF INTERSTATE OR FOREIGN COMMERCE

Sec 10. It shall be unlawful for any organization which is registered under
section 7, or for any organization with respect to which there is in effect a final
order of the Board requiring it to register under section 7, 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 publica-
tion which is intended to be, 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 follow-
ing program is sponsored by , a Communist organization."

DENIAL OF TAX DEDUCTIONS AND EXEMPTION

Sec. 11. (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 contri-
bution (1) such organization is registered under section 7, or (2) there is in
effect a final order of the Board requiring such organization to register under
section 7.

(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
7, or (2) there is in effect a final order of the Board requiring such organization
to register under section 7.

SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES BOARD

Sec. 12. (a) There is hereby established a Board, to be known as the Sub-
versive Activities Board, which shall be composed of three members, who
shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate. One of the original members shall be appointed for a term of 1 year,
one for a term of 2 years, and one for a term of 3 years, but their successors
shall be appointed for terms of 3 years each, except that any individual chosen
to fill a vacancy shall be appointed only for the unexpired term of the member
whom lie shall succeed. The President shall designate one member to serve
as Chairman of the Board. Any member of the Board may be removed by the
Pit sident, upon notice and hearing, for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office,
but for no other cause.

(b) A vacancy in the Board shall not impair the right of the remaining
members to exercise all the powers of the Board, and two members of the Board

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 495

shall, :it all times, constitute a quorum. The Board shall have an official seal
which shall be judicially noticed.

(c) The Hoard shall at the dose of each fiscal year make a report in writing
t<> tlie Congress and to the President stating in detail the cases it has heard,
the decisions it has rendered, the names, salaries, and duties of all employees of
the Hoard, and an account of all moneys it has disbursed.

i d i Each member of the Board shall receive a salary of $ a year, shall be

eligible for reappointment, and shall not engage in any other business, vocation,
or employment.

(e) Upon application made by the Attorney General under subsection (a) of
section 13 of this act or by any organization under subsection (b) of section 13
of this act. the Board shall determine whether any organization is a "Communist
political organization" within the meaning of paragraph (3) of section 3 of this
act. or a "Communist-front organization" within the meaning of paragraph (4)
of section :; of this act, as the case may be.

(f) Subject to the civil-service laws and the Classification Act of 1923, as
amended, the Board may appoint and fix the compensation of a clerk and such
examiners and other personnel as may be necessary for the performance of its
functions.

(g) All of the expenses of the Board, including all necessary traveling and
subsistence expenses outside the District of Columbia incurred by the members
or employees of the Board under its orders, shall be allowed and paid on the
presentation of itemized vouchers therefor approved by the Board or by any
individual designated by it for that purpose.

i h ) The principal office of the Board shall be in the District of Columbia,
but it may meet and exercise any or all of its powers at any other place.

(i) The Board shall have authority from time to time to make, amend, and
rescind such rules and regulations as may be necessary for the performance of
its functions.

(j) There are hereby authorized to be appropriated to the Board such sums
as may be necessary for the performance of its functions.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE BOARD

Sec. 13. (a) Whenever the Attorney General shall have reason to believe that
any organization which has not registered under subsection (a) or subsection
(b) of section 7 of this act is in fact an organization of a kind required to be
registered under such subsection, he shall file with the Board and serve upon
such organization a petition for an order requiring such organization to register
pursuant to such subsection.

(b) Any organization registered under subsection (a) or subsection (b) of
section 7 of this act may, not oftener than once in each calendar year, make
application to the Attorney General for the cancellation of its registration and
for relief from obligation to make further annual reports. Within 60 days
after the denial of any such application by the Attorney General, the organi-
zation concerned may file with the Board and serve upon the Attorney General
a petition for an order requiring the cancellation of such registration and reliev-
ing such organization of obligation to make further annual reports.

(c) Upon the filing of any petition pursuant to subsection (a) or subsection
(b) of this section, the Board (or any member thereof or any examiner desig-
nated thereby) may hold hearings, administer oaths and affirmations, mav
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 any member of the Board or any duly authorized examiner. Subpenas shall
be issued on behalf of the organization which is a party to the proceeding 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 Board 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

496 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

person, issue an order requiring such person to appear (and to produce docu-
mentary 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.

(d) All hearings conducted under this section shall be public. Each party to
such proceeding shall have the right to present its case by oral or documentary
evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence, and to conduct such cross-examination
as may be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. The testimony
in any hearing conducted under this section shall be reduced to writing and
filed in the office of the Board.

(e) In determining whether any organization is a "Communist political organi-
zation," there shall be taken into consideration —

(1) the extent to which its policies are formulated and carried out and its
activities 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 control of the world Communist movement referred to in section 2 of this
act;

(2) the extent to which its views and policies do not deviate from those of
such foreign government or foreign organization ;

(3) the extent to which it receives financial or other aid, directly or indi-
rectly, from or at the direction of such foreign government or foreign
organization ;

(4) 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 ;

(5) the extent to which it reports to such foreign government or foreign
organization or to its representatives ;

(6) the extent to which its principal leaders or a substantial number of its
members are subject to or recognize the disciplinary power of such foreign
government or foreign organization or its representatives ;

(7) the extent to which in order to conceal its foreign connections (it it fails
to disclose, or resists efforts to obtain information as to, its membership (by
keeping membership lists in code, by instructing members to refuse to acknowl-
edge membership, or by any other method) : (ii) its members refuse to acknowl-
edge 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

(8) the extent to which its principal leaders or a substantial number of its
members consider the allegiance they owe to the United States as subordinate
to their obligations to such foreign government or foreign organization.

(f ) In determining whether any organization is a "Communist-front organiza-
tion," there shall be taken into consideration —

(1) the relationship of persons who are active in its management, direction,
or supervision, whether or not holding office therein, to any Communist political
organization, Communist foreign government, or the world Communist movement
referred to in section 2 ;

(2) the extent to which its support, financial or otherwise, is derived from
any communist political organization, communist foreign government, or the
world communist movement referred to in section 2 ;

(3) the extent to which its funds, resources, or personnel are used to further
or promote the political objectives of any communist political organization, com-
munist foreign government, or the world communist movement referred to in
section 2; and

(4) the extent to which the positions taken or advanced by it from time to
time on matters of policy do not deviate from those of any communist political
organization, communist foreign government, or the world Communist move-
ment referred to in section 2.

(g) If, after hearing upon a petition filed under subsection (a) of this section,
the Board determines that the organization is a communist political organization
or a communist-front organization, as the case may be, it shall make a report
in writing in which it shall state its findings as to the facts and shall issue and
cause to be served on such organization an order requiring such organization
to register as such under section 7 of this act.

CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES 497

(h) If, after hearing upon a petition filed under subsection (a) of this section,
the Board determines that the organization is not a communist political organi-
zation or a communist-front organization, as the case may ho. it shall make
a report in writing in which it shall state its findings as to the facts and shall
issue and cause to be served upon the Attorney General an order denying his
petition for an order requiring such organization to register as such under section
7 of this act. A copy of such order shall be sent to such organization.

(i) If, after hearing upon a petition tiled under subsection (b) of this sectiou,
the Board determines that the organization is not a Communist political organi-
zation or a communist-front organization, as the case may be, it shall make a
report in writing in which it shall state its findings as to the facts and shall issue
and ranso to be served upon the Attorney General an order requiring him to
cancel the registration of such organization and relieve it from the require-
ment of further annual reports. A copy of such order shall be sent to such or-
ganization.

(j) If, after hearing upon a petition tiled under subsection (b) of this section,
the Board determines that the organization is a Communist political organiza-
tion of a Communist-front organization, as the case may be, it shall make a
report in writing in which it shall state its 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 requirement of
further annual reports.

JUniCIAL REVIEW

Sec. 14. (a) The party aggrieved by any order entered by the Board under
subsection (g), (h), (i), or (j) of section 13 may obtain a review of such order
in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia by filing in the
court, within 60 days from the date of service upon it of such order, a written
petition praying that the order of the Board be set aside. A copy of such petition
shall be forthwith served upon the Board, and thereupon the Board 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 Board. Thereupon the court
shall have jurisdiction to review the proceedings of the Board. In such review,
the court shall review the evidence contained in the record so certified, make its
findings of fact and conclusions of law thereon, and enter an order affirming or
setting aside the order of the Board. If the court sets aside an order issued
under subsection (j) of section 13 it may enter a judgment canceling the regis-
tration of the organization and relieving it from the requirement of further
annual reports. The judgement 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 ed., title
28, sec. 347).

(b) Any order of the Board issued under 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 certiorari,
if the order of the Board 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 Board 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 10 days from the date of issuance of the mandate
of the Supreme Court, if such Court directs that the order of the Board be
affirmed or that the petition for review be dismissed.

PENALTIES

Sec. 15. Any organization which violates any provision of section 10 of this
act shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished for each such violation by a fine
of not less than $2,000 and not more than $5,000. Any individual who violates any
provision of section 5, 6, 9, or 10 of this act shall, upon conviction thereof, be
punished for each such violation by a fine of not less than $2,000 and not more
than $5,000, or by imprisonment for not less than 2 years and not more than 5
years, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

498 CONTROL OF SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES

APPLICABILITY OP ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT

Sec. 16. Nothing in this act 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 additional
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.

BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY

3 9999 05445 4994

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

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

See other formats